Good evening. This is a meeting of the township committee January 20th, 2026. The notice requirements provided for in the open public meetings act have been satisfied. Notice of this meeting was properly given by transmission to the Asbury Park Press the two times and by posting at the Middletown Township Municipal Building and filing with the
township clerk all on January 12th, 2026. Committeeman Clark, Committee Katz >> here, >> Committeeman Senino here, >> Deputy Mayor Hibell, Mayor Perry >> here. >> Please rise for the 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. At this time, I'd like to ask for a moment of silence to honor the troops
serving worldwide, defending our constitutions, freedoms, and way of life. Thank you. Our first item on tonight's agenda, we just have a listing of proclamations for the record. We have proclamation recognizing January 25th-31,
2026 as Catholic Schools Week in the Township of Middletown. We have a proclamation recognizing January 26 through 30th, 2026 as the great kindness challenge of the township in the township of Middletown. Then we have the proclamation recognizing February 2026
as Black History Month in the township of Middletown. and also a proclamation recognizing February 26th as Children's Dental Health Month in the Township of Middletown. >> At this time, I'd ask I'd like to ask the township committee to approve
minutes for December 15, 2025 regular meeting. >> All right. Motion to approve minutes. >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call vote, ladies. >> Committee Kratz, >> yes. >> Committeeman Sbrino, >> yes. >> Mayor Perry, >> yes. >> Motion carries to approve minutes.
At this time, we have public hearing on proposed ordinances. Our first ordinance, 2026-3491, an ordinance amending chapter 540 of the code of the township of Middletown governing the development standards for block 1045, lots 2, 3, and 4 on the
township's official tax maps. >> Okay. Uh, I'm going to open up for public comment. Uh, before I do, uh, first of all, good evening everybody. Good good to see some some of many of you, all of you. Good to see some of you again. I'm going to ask uh our township
attorney, Mr. Nelson, um to just give a preview of this ordinance before uh I open up for public comment. Mr. Nelson. >> Thank you, Mayor. So, by way of background, this matter arose in 2022
when a developer approached the township under threat of litigation seeking to develop two properties totaling 478 rental units um on Red Hill Road. Does that work? >> Yeah, we just >> for the first property on Red Hill Road,
they proposed 70 apartments in one structure with a density of approximately 24 units per acre. Um on Nut Swamp they proposed 408 apartment units and a large uh in six large structures containing 68 apartments each
also at a density of approximately 24 units per acre under the proposed settlement that would be effectuated through this ordinance. This the Red Hill Road property would be donated to the township as and preserved as open space at no cost to the township. And then the Nut Swamp property would be
developed with a maximum of 136 town home units with a density of approximately 7.5 units per acre, which is less than many of the town home communities in the township. Um, but back to the the beginning of all this, in April of 2023, the developer filed
suit because the township rejected its proposals for 478 apartment units. The township then in June of 2023 adopted ordinance number 2023-3371 which authorized the purchase or condemnation of the both properties. We
sought to purchase the Red Hill Road property from the owner at that time who was already under contract with the developer but the developer closed with that uh seller. Uh the developer had already purchased the Nut Swamp property. So they already currently own both properties. They are not contract
purchasers. the developer and other developers who we're currently still in litigation with filed interlock filed um for preliminary injunctions to prevent the township from condemning the properties for open space purposes. We
we the court enjoined us from that condemnation action. The township appealed that to the appellet division and eventually to the Supreme Court. All the courts held that the township cannot condemn the properties when they're subject to a builder's remedy.
the township. And so while this was going on and being litigated, in March 20th of 2024, Governor Murphy signed significant amendments to the Fair Housing Act that were adopted by the legislature with further increase the township's affordable housing obligations and expanded the powerful
powers of developers against municipalities. All legal challenges to that legislation signed by the governor in March of 2024 have failed. In 20 in 2024, the court appointed a special master or actually they appointed the special master in 2023 and
the special master in 2024 determined that Middletown has a remaining obligation of 602 more affordable units for the third housing round and then another 400 346 units for the fourth housing round that and that consists of the 602 units
is of a total obligation for the third round of 1,026 units we were credited for some units that have already been built. Um, during the course of what ended up being multiple lawsuits over the last three years, the township hired engineers, planners, environmental
scientists seeking to find any way that it could stop the development of the site and utilize these reports to influence the special adjudicator's findings. We even had to file two motions and a lawsuit just to gain entry to the property for our experts to be
able to do their analysis and evaluation of the conditions on the property. We inventoried every tree and shrub in the site, conducted a study of the wetlands, repairing open waters areas and wetlands buffers, conducted a study and surveys of the steep slopes, conducted an
assessment of threatened and endangered species. Everything that you could possibly think of, the township hired experts to try to address and try to determine and mitigate what could be developed on the site. In May of 2025, the court appointed the
the courtapp appointed special adjudicator issued a report determining that the sites are suitable for the development of 138 units, largely relying upon the arguments made by the township's professionals to reduce that
from 478 to 138 units. Um, while while this was going on, we were still litigating our appeals over the condemnation. But as I mentioned in June 27th of 2025, the appellet division ruled against the township's ability to condemn properties while a builder's
remedy is pending. We filed a petition to the New Jersey Supreme Court which denied our certification in September 16th, 2025. The court mandated settlement conferences and mediation sessions with the special adjudicator, resulting in a settlement allowing for a maximum of 136
units solely on the Nut Swamp property with the Red Hill site being donated to the township as open space. These negotiations further rendered extremely restrictive and detailed zoning standards provided for in the ordinance before the township committee tonight.
The settlement was viewed as so favorable to the township that last week the Fair Share Housing Center actually filed a a motion to oppose our settlement because they believe that over 400 units should be built on the site.
Um there's no there's no there's no site plan application at this time. The sole issue and matter before the governing body tonight is an ordinance which is required under the court entered settlement agreement between the parties that will still require a application
full and complete application be made before the planning board at some future date which will be noticed in accordance with law for all property owners within 200 ft of the property. Um, so this is this is solely on the ordinance that would allow for a maximum of 136 town
home units to be built only on the nut swamp site. Um, and and nothing further. This is not a the the time at which the um, you know, traffic studies are conducted and so forth. Although we did do our own studies already as part of the litigation uh, and arguing over
sight suitability of the site. Um but all those issues and specific details uh will have to be addressed at the planning board when and if a site plan application is filed at a future date. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. And and as as uh Brian had mentioned,
obviously many of you were there when when this governing body voted unanimously to try and acquire this property through the use of eminent domain. Um and as as Brian mentioned, uh the court prevented us from doing that. um uh which is obviously incredibly
disappointing to this governing body but to all of you at the at the same time. I I I've had the fortune of of sitting down with many of you um to discuss this matter both onsite and over the phone. Um and uh while the you know this
township committee I is uh has this question before us um this this is something that I have been railing against since 2019 that the Mount Laurel doctrine which was then further enhanced by the governor uh
through the legislature only put a further burden on this. This is not something that this governing body uh likes. We've been pushing back on this for quite some time to try and stop the Mount Laurel doctrine. In fact, um the
uh it's being heard in federal court as we speak. The Mount Laurel doctrine in and of itself is being questioned in federal court. Um, this is one of those unfunded mandates and unfair burdens that is placed on municipalities through
this Mount Laurel doctrine. So, um, I I'll open it up for public comment. I'm going to call on you one at a time. This this body will not be able to answer any of the questions with regard to site plans because there is no site plan.
There is no current application before the township currently on a site plan for this site. So in you you may have seen maps and things of that nature. Um those are not part of an application.
All questions regard you know that our professionals will have to look at. They will issue engineering reports. The township will require traffic engineers to go out and and evaluate, civil engineers to understand the impact of the coververts that are on that
property. All of these things have to be examined. So, this township committee is unable to answer those questions. I don't like the fact that the township has to uh address this question today. I think the planning board should have
that ability first and foremost, but New Jersey law does not allow that to occur. The township committee has to deal with this matter through the uh court order uh within a certain number of days. U that timeline is going up. And as you
heard Mr. Nelson say fair share housing which those of you who do not know what fair share housing is. Uh back in the 70s when Mount Laurel was created the Mount Laurel doctrine was created and all municipalities were required to deal with the affordable housing uh numbers.
Fair share housing is a nonprofit organization. Okay? And I'll let you do your own research on them. I've spoken out plenty about this process. I've opeds, conversations, meetings, all that I have
to to get this out there. Petitions, and me, I hope many of you, if not all of you, had signed the petition that went out two years ago when the governor and this question was posed before the legislature to oppose it because it can't just be when it's in your
backyard. It's all or nothing. It's all or nothing. So we we can't like it when we want and not like it when it suits us. Um so th all those things occurred, all those things happen. And here's where we are at this point where this
court has decided through its uh special special adjudicator that 138 units is is what is allowed to to go there. The planning board process will allow you as residents of this town and I encourage
every single one of you to attend those meetings that that right here in this room they will have to they will have to deal with when it comes to all the questions, all the concerns. You you go back there and it's it's special. You
see these trees that date back. We're celebrating the 250th birthday of America this year and there's trees that are three and four times that age that are back there. It there's no there's no doubt about it. So tonight, if you have questions about traffic, if you have
questions about engineering, if you have questions, the fire department's going to have to review. As I mentioned, TNM, who is the appointed planning board engineer, will provide their report and all of those are made available through the application process that this that
this developer if and when they submit an application. All that will be answered at those times where you'll have the ability to look at those professionals, ask them questions, demand things. I'm not a traffic engineer. I'm not an an environmental uh
engineer. I don't know those answers. What I can tell you tonight is that this township committee has fair share housing opposing this project because they do not believe that there are enough homes being put on this property.
You're going to shake your head and think that that's out outrageous. Yep. Mary, I see you shaking your head. Yes. My point being is that if this governing body does not come in and and and move forward,
we are going to be out of compliance with that court order. And they can go back and they can choose the legal remedy that they would like to decide, well, Middletown's not in compliance, so guess what? Now we're going to sue. And what happens then with fair share saying
that they're opposed to this process? That's a that's a gamble. It's a big gamble. So, uh, with that, I'll open up for public comment. Any member of the public wishing to make a public comment may do so. We just ask that you state your name for the record. Roy, come on
up. >> With all our guys, >> Roy Jennings. >> Roy Jennings. >> There you go. >> Westnut swamp rub. with with all our players, the fire marshal, the engineering department, say they do come up and say there's no way you got to do
this, you got to do that. Will that be enforced or can a don come back and say no, no, no, no. Or the judge say no, no, no, no. If what you guys say has to be, is that how it will be? >> The the so the our engineer >> Yeah.
>> through TNM that that's who handles our planning board applications. They will do an engineering report. Our own planner will do her own report. The township will require traffic engineers that we hire, not that they hire, but that they pay for. I want to be clear
about that. They will have to pay in escrow. The taxpayers of Middletown are not on the hook for that. They will have to pay for that, but we get to choose who they are. They will all file reports. They will all provide all the members of the planning board with
reports about their findings that the planning board their experts and the planning board will be here to hear that testimony. Once that is done, the members of the planning board then get the ability to ask their questions of the professionals and and how they would
address certain issues. The public gets to then come up, okay, and provide questions and comments on the professionals. And again, as I mentioned, I encourage every single one of you and more to be here to ask their professionals how they will handle the
situations and issues that you all see with this project. But as I mentioned, there is no application. So, so we here tonight cannot make comment on that. But all those engineers will have and and professionals will have to create reports that will be available to you
and available to the public and available to the applicant so that they will have to answer to the concerns and questions and feedback that all of our professionals give. >> Okay. I only have two more questions. >> Yes, sir. >> Is Homeell allowed to be a part of this
because the traffic's going to engage them also. >> I I'll have Brian answer that question. So good good question. So Homedale has sought to intervene in this matter two times with the court and took it all the way to the appellet division and left
and lost on all those occasions. Um the court would not allow uh Homedale to intervene. Homedale has filed another motion to intervene again last week. >> Um uh so maybe the fourth time will be a charm. Um but but the court determined
that they don't have but at the point at which there's an actual site plan application they would have an opportunity as would anybody else to address concerns regarding the site plan application those particulars at that time but the court held that during the dependency of the builder's remedy
litigation they did not have the right to intervene however and it should be pointed out that the fair share housing center has an automatic Supreme Court imposed order right to intervene. So, the Fair Share Housing Center is an intervenor by Supreme Court order, just
so everybody understands the the the how the scales are are are are placed against the municipalities here. >> Um, and it should also just be pointed out that the the the legal standard so that the township committee's obligation is to create under the law what's known
as a realistic opportunity for the development of these affordable units. That doesn't mean they necessarily get built or not. That's up to the developer. Um, but for example, we had a a a litigation matter going back number of years ago for the town homes that are
being built behind the circus clown site now. Um, they were we had a zone that under court order for up to 400 units, they ended up only developing 320 once it was fully engineered because they realized they couldn't address storm water issues and other things of that
nature. So the the the developer here when they present a site plan application, it's a different standard than when they present they file a builder's remedy lawsuit. for the builder's remedy lawsuit. All they have to do is provide conceptual plans um and
cursory information quite frankly um which we fought them on in the site suitability aspect of this case which we used our engineers and our planners and our environmental scientists to push back on and say look you haven't thought about all these issues and that frankly
greatly influenced the special adjudicator that's appointed by the court which is why we got the reduction down to the number of units that we got from what they were proposing initially. um because they didn't obviously want to spend all that money. But I'll tell you what, the township committee here spent that money
>> to to push this number down um to eliminate one site entirely and then to push this number down to where it is on on this the remaining site. >> So So Red Hill Road project is kind of the sacrificial lamb, you know, let's give it to Middletown, they'll be happy
and we can get our 136 or 139. Um it it's it's I wouldn't refer to we were able to push back on there principally because of the steep slopes. Yeah. >> Um there were there were shockingly were zero wetlands on that property, believe it or not. Um but the steep slopes were
significant. And so on the basis of our analysis and our surveys of the steep slopes on that site, we were able to con convince the special adjudicator that they could only build a handful of units on that site. And so they basically said, "Hey, what if we, you know, if we reduce the number?" Because they could
have, the special adjudicator said they could have done 138. We knocked them down. They could have done a dozen or so on that site as well, but we said like we're not, you know, going to go for anything there. You donate that to us to open space and then we can talk about the other site and reduce these numbers more if you agree to these restrictive
zoning standards. If you look at this ordinance, it is more detailed than probably any zoning ordinance you've ever seen because we put a lot of restrictions on there and increased setbacks and other rules and to how long how large retaining walls could be to
keep them out of the steep slopes and a whole bunch a whole plethora of of standards in there that you don't typically find such detail on. >> So So you will have environmentalists on your end really involved. I mean wildlife uh endangered species. Yes.
>> You know, it won't be like two days. I didn't see the bird. >> No. >> Okay. >> They will be out there. >> Yeah. And and we had to get a court order to get our experts on the property to do all those observations and to do their own measurements of the wetlands to do they took an an inventories of
every tree on the property. We have an inventory of every single tree over a certain diameter on the property and and and so I mean we have very detailed analysis >> because I mean that property has a lot of history. So, I'm sure when they start digging, they're going to dig up a lot
of things they wish they didn't dig up. >> At least you didn't say bodies. Roy, >> you never know. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Thanks, Roy. >> Yes, sir. Cut. >> Joseph Sclary, 134 Willow Grove Drive, Linkraftoft. Um, I had a I had prepared
a whole bunch of stuff, but Mr. Nelson answered quite a bit of that already, but you did say rental units. Are those apartments going to be strictly rental or are they for purchase? >> No, these are for purchase. These are town homes. Their initial proposal was
for rental units. These are town homes. Okay. >> These are not rental units. They they proposed initially their 478 unit proposal on the two properties was all rentals initially. >> All right. is also is the school system going to be taken into account when we
uh talk about this? >> Well, that's an issue but that would be considered before the the the planning board. It's something that can be raised at that time, but legally through the builder's remedy process. That's not a legal consideration under the builder's remedy under the Mount Laurel doctrine.
>> Is it also possible now that we're no longer in litigation? I think >> current >> on this site we are we are not currently in well the fair share well now we have motions from fair share housing center and homeale get filed last week but so
>> we could be headed back we're going to be back in court with with them on the site but we don't currently I'll say it's state if you will would be the right way to to um >> refer >> refer to it with respect to the adonies >> can the township then publish the
findings that you have found so are on the property or at least make them available online so that we can read them. >> Yes, we can we can provide those reports. >> Okay. When >> we any anytime >> when the planning board application is
made all those reports will be available on >> No, but we want to see something the preliminary reports that have already been done up. >> Oh, the ones Yeah, you can. >> Yeah, the reports the reports that we were filed with the court are all public record. >> All right. How do we go about >> we can we can work with our
communications team to make sure that they get posted. >> Okay. >> If it was filed with the court, um it's public. It can be public. >> All right. Um Okay. Thank you. >> Y >> Yes, ma'am. >> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Alexis El Gazarowski of the offices of Gazaroxi, excuse me, Gazarowski and Hall of Um, I'm appearing today on behalf of um, the Jennings. We just heard from Mr. Jennings and uh, possibly a group of other objectors who are challenging this
ordinance. And I just have two quick questions. Um, I'm not sure if it was Mr. Nelson or Mr. Perry or Mayor Perry who indicated that um, this ordinance came came to fruition. Now, because you're under a court order,
you have a time frame. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Specific time frame. Um, >> I'm sorry. Are you're representing or are you speaking as a member of the public? >> I'm an objector attorney asking a question. >> I'm just I just I didn't I didn't hear you. So So I just wanted to make
>> I want to make sure to restate it for the record. >> Correct. Correct. We had to we had to do this within a certain time period. Correct. >> Okay. Because I also heard you mentioned that uh there is now the federal court case pending challenging Mount Laurel. >> Correct. >> In its entirety. So my question is at
any point did the township uh either ask the court for an extension or did this matter be stayed pending the decision of that federal court case? >> The that federal court case was in court following uh this >> Go ahead.
>> This that matter has been pending for a long time. I mean we've asked the court for every extension, every delay. We've filed I mean dozens of motions. We filed suits. I mean there's there were I mean you could look up the dockets here attorney. There's multiple dockets of dozens of motions. I mean there were
dozens and dozens of motions. Um the court will not be giving us any more time. This was a 20 thou this is a third round case. Most of the cases now are fourth round cases not third round cases. Um that was filed this was filed in 2023.
Um, so the the court's definitely not giving us more time and that that that litigation matter has been filed for since 2024 since the law was signed by Governor Murphy in the beginning of in March of 2024 and um it's gone no
nowhere thus far but it's still pending. Um, and that's an that that challenge is more specific to it's an equal protection argument relating more to urban municipalities and their fair share and whether they should have an obligation versus suburban
municipalities. So even if that case were to prevail, the only impact would be it wouldn't impact this specific case. It could impact our overall obligations to some extent. maybe, you know, most optimistically 75 to 100 unit
change in our obligations. So that's not going to have an impact in this immediate litigation. I >> I guess my first question is just to be clear, so it's fair to state that that despite this case pending, the township has not made an application to stay uh the this the township's obligations to
go through with this order and this ordinance pending the resolution of the pend the current Mount Laurel case in federal, which is yesterday. This case is stayed right now anyway. So pending the outcome of this. So >> I'm saying staying staying the the township obligation. The court's not
going to allow us to stay it because of some case that is completely speculative in federal court. That's not happen. >> I understand Mr. Nelson. I'm just asking for a simple yes. So the answer is no. No such application request made of the court. >> Not specific to that case. No. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and I also
appreciate the board attorney and mayor's detailed explanation of this these underlying litigations and the tremendous efforts made um, apparently by the township. Um, I'm wondering while we understand that court records or or public records, not everyone has access to e courts. It's limited if you're
member of the public. But in addition to the um, to be clear, the the prior findings and the expert the preliminary reports were not published through the uh, the website of the township available to the public. Is that correct? >> I'm not I'm not sure. Are they on our planning websites?
>> Okay. >> Okay. And I know the township said they would do that. >> You did you did just ask for that and that's what we said we would publish. Yeah. >> Right. Just to be clear. But um also at any point was this was on the public record was the town was were the public made aware of this pending litigation
and advised that they could have uh accessibility to the non-privileged litigation file. >> Right. Well, the public was definitely aware of it because we adopted an ordinance to condemn the property and that ordinance in 2023 and another ordinance that passed in 2024
specifically cited this uh litigation and certain members of the public that are here tonight actually came out and advocated for that or those ordinances uh and when the township adopted them. But anybody can file an Oprah request for any public records. But if we spent
all day publishing every single potentially public record that we we'd be be able to do nothing else. >> Yes. And the simple answer could have been no. Okay. But so that was not. So is the township now going to give the public accessibility to that litigation file? >> That's what I just said too.
>> No. What you said was the preliminary reports. So the litigation file because we've been given many reasons for why this ordinance must go through based on Mr. Nelson's opinion and an explanation of what happened in the in the court below. So my question is as to the non-p privileged documents in that file in
case the public has any further inquiry to to read into you know Mr. Nelson has said will those be made available to the public? Brian, are those able to >> if any if anybody files an OPA request for the records, we'll provide them and we'll I think we'll put those report. They have I mean we've we've responded
to dozens upon dozens of Oprah requests and they've been provided and they're on the township's portal, right, Heidi? The the some of Okay, they're just for the requesters that have requested them. Okay. Yeah. >> Great. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you.
any any Okay, I'm going to I'm going to go all the way to the back here and then I'm going to come over to you, Frank, and then I'll come right here. Okay, so one, one, two, three. What? Okay, four and five.
>> How are you today? >> Bloom, Cypress Neck Road, Linraftoft. When we're talking about the Red Hill property, are we talking about the property that's adjacent to Sloan Ketering? >> Yes. Yes, ma'am. where that where that old >> was it a a condem that >> we torn down
>> and a and a deep >> yes >> ravine >> yes ma'am >> so that was a sacrifice on their part to us to give us that property back as opposed to build on the flat lands >> they they had >> of it >> well they they owned that property um so
they wanted to build and what the township had been approached um was for 70 apartments on that property Um, we didn't need the fire department and EMS service to tell us that that was a really incredibly
unsafe idea because the preliminary drawings of that had in the event of an incident because they had a pool in the back of the property. Um, and to have to have a fire department not be able to stage in the back of a of a building
like that because of the steep cliff. um or an EMS service to have to run into a building upstairs across a lobby downstairs to get to the back of a pool to get a drowning uh victim in potentially hypothetically that was
a non-starter from the beginning. >> Okay. So that's I mean that's a safety issue but for >> absolutely >> but what at some point people tell us what they think they may be able to do with that. the the the fire department has a review committee that evaluates uh
all applications. So for turn radius for um for access points all those they will have to review and make comments and submit those which are publicly available um to not only the planning board members but to the public as well of the safety concerns that the fire
department uh would have on on all applications including this one. >> I appreciate that. Thank you very much, ma'am. Frank. >> Good evening everyone. Uh my name is Frank Gerard Glosski. I live at 72 Cranberry Court in Redbank, actually
Middletown. Uh and thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak about this issue. It's very important for me about affordable housing and all of that. I um I wanted to ask, you know, I've been fighting for the Highlands
development in West Orange for years and it's just so dangerous. I I applaud you. You've done an excellent job. I've read everything about it. There's the big fear of the developers remedy. So, there's really nothing that
you can do in the fight. But I wanted to ask you, um, I've had success with, um, the soil coalition. The D doesn't want to help the municipalities because they know all about the lawsuit. The soil coalition could come in, if you
invite them, do an overview. They have the power over certain things. So that was the only luck that I had. And also regarding the affordable housing, I mean, I'm a member of the AAACP.
I'm a historian for the Afroamerican History and Genealogical Society, and I believe that affordable housing is um it doesn't help, you know, what's in place with Mount Laurel does not help people
that are in need. It's modern-day redlinining. It's taking the people who need who are in most need, getting rid of them from, you know, a nice piece of property, but then they they get housing
all over New Jersey. So, you're taking possibly an 80-year-old grandmother, giving her affordable housing. You're plucking her out of Montlair and putting her on the next thing available, and that may be in Somerset County. You're
taking people away from their loved ones, their social fabric. Anyone who can help them. So, if you do have a committee to fight this, I would like to uh serve. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Uh yes, sir. In the right here. Yep. How are you today? >> How you doing? How are you? Um, Jack Liry, uh, 452 Everett Road, right on the corner of Westnut Swamp and Everett. Uh, I have a protest petition to just
submit. >> You can just you can just give give it right to Shannon after you're done making your comments or now. >> Understand. I appreciate the clarity. Um, just to confirm kind of what
happened, the court ordered the special adjudicator to settle the case out of court and find a conclusion and the special adjudicator said 136 units. >> The so the the court hires a special
adjudicator. They select one. Um, the most affordable housing Mount Laurel cases go before a single judge. They're they're normally that's what they do is they handle these situations. So the special adjudicator is brought in um rather than constantly going into court
and case management and all those legal terms that Brian was going through. Um the special adjudicator is is normally a retired or licensed planner in some way, shape or form or other profession like that. Um they are responsible for
bringing both parties together um by court order. uh by the order of the judge to work out uh between the two entities what it is that can go there. um the special adjudicator uh because
they are of that background. Um they look at all the reports that the municipality has, all the reports that the um that the applicant um or or plaintiff um w would have and uh they
force both parties to come together. >> So you >> they're a glorified mediator. >> Got it. Okay. It was a helpful overview from the uh town's attorney, but just to kind of level set the town, it made it sound like the town exhausted all
appeals and kind of legal options to block any development in this property. That's fair to say. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Um, as a property owner within 200 feet of the direct impact to these lots,
>> um, I don't appreciate the kind of lack of transparency to date. Um, relied on some vigilant neighbors to kind of keep me informed, but um, going forward um, I'd like to second the, you know, request for all the information you guys
have learned to date. Um, but I'd also like to better understand how you're gonna keep us informed. Um, you know, I have two toddlers that are running down this road every day >> and you know, >> you you're the applicant will be
required by law to provide any neighbor within 200 feet of this property. >> So, that's the Donnie, >> correct? We will we supply them with a list. Um, they will request that list. Our tax assessor, I believe, supplies them with that list. The tax then Adoni,
Adonni, whatever. Um, they have to then prove to the township that they uh sent that notice out within a certain number of days of the of the planning board meeting. >> And that's like by mail, >> correct? Certified mail. >> Okay.
Um the planning board meetings seem like the principal venue for us to come correct understand the findings of these experts that have to sign off on these reports. >> Um is this the same planning board that met
a week or two ago that was not open to public comment or is there >> it's the same it's the same board. What the the difference is the when you do a master plan um uh consistency review um the there's no public comment on that
because they are weighing in on an ordinance that the township committee is required to pass and hold a public hearing on. So that that's what is happening right now. the planning board will when when an application comes in
when it is reviewed it's deemed complete and and goes through that entire process which is incredibly lengthy um we we make certain requirements as as I've mentioned in the past of certain professionals all those things will
happen and the when the meeting is scheduled uh that is when neighbors are notified within 200 feet of the of the property. Got it. Okay. Understood. >> So there's no there's no public hearing component to a consistency review.
>> Got it. So there was the plan was first the original master plan was signed off. >> Mhm. >> The settlement went into effect. In order to comply with the settlement, you needed to amend the master plan which was done at the last planning board. >> Correct. >> And at this meeting,
>> they just did a consistency review. >> Sorry. It was deemed consistent with >> the master plan. >> The plan that you the court ordered or that you signed off on. >> Correct. >> That wasn't a which one? >> The the the the court ordered the settlement.
>> Okay. >> Okay. So, the master plan consistency review which is held by the planning board. It comes in sequence. So, the township committee introduces an ordinance at the next planning board meeting. The planning board then discusses amongst its members is it
consistent or not with the master plan. The planning board then determines yes or no. If it's a yes, it comes back to the township committee, which is where we are today, where the township committee um chooses to uh uh yes or no on that cons on that uh ordinance, but
it has to go before the planning board. What the the the next step to that is because again, there is no application currently for this property. So the the to to Mr. Nelson's point, the
preliminary plans that are submitted are is what is required of a builder's remedy suit. Okay. And that is the the basics of what they have to do. The the the all all they have to do pretty much other than file a lawsuit against us.
So, um the planning board, uh if and when this moves forward tonight, um because no vote has obviously been taken because we are we have to have a public hearing on that, that then moves to uh a
pending site plan application which will then have to come in be reviewed by our professionals. um all all the professionals that we require will have to weigh in on that and then notice goes out to the residents. >> Has has there been any dialogue with
Adonni about a potential site plan in the near future or any like timelines that >> we are not aware of of any timeline on applications? They can file it at any any time. Um, last question is how can we I guess
stalk the town's website, but how can we be informed and stay up to date on the planning board sessions when these experts will be visiting the exact property? Um, specific concerns I have are my well, my driveways, um, and this
traffic study. Um, I just want to, you know, >> well, I would say this, um, just like I don't comment on and no member of the township committee comments on pending planning board applications, um, or or potential applications, I
should say. Um the I I'm I'm I would caution any type of um discussions with professionals while they're on site just because there you
will absolutely I if if and when there is a lawsuit pending the uh decision of the planning board um there there could be reason that you or or any member of the public would um be called in for u
some type of deposition potentially. Um the what you want to wait for is for when that application comes in um and you are noticed that is when the expert reports will be provided and and shown to the public.
>> At what point is that when we get called in >> at the site plan hearing that all happens in the public? >> Okay. in the public domain >> and those meetings would be announced on the >> you you yourself will will receive a certified letter letting you know that that when when and what time that
meeting is taking place >> thank you for the transparency and um appreciate >> thank you sir um hold on Roy before I come back to anyone else uh these two ladies I know wanted to to come up so I'll just you can both come up but just
um just speak one at a time. Just say your name and and uh and just speak one at a time so we can kind of have that differential in the record. Okay. >> Um Sophia Rasiopi. >> Olivia Rasiopi. Um we both live on Westnot Swamp Road, a
place that has been our homes for majority of our lives. We grew up on the street and our family built our home here with the intention of creating a safe, meaningful, and lasting place for my siblings and I to grow up. This was not a random choice of location, and we
choose this area carefully. Drawn not only to the beautiful homes in the neighborhood, but also to the natural scenery, open land, and sense of peace that makes this part of town so special. Because of this deep personal connection, I am extremely upset and
concerned about the proposed plan to develop this land. The nature that surrounds our street is not just empty space. It is one of the last remaining pieces of natural environment in our town. Destroying it would permanently change the character of the neighborhood
and take away something that cannot be replaced once it is gone. >> And just state your name again. Okay. >> Olivia Rosi. >> Go ahead. This land provides more than visual beauty. It contributes to the quality of life for residents. It supports local wildlife and it offers a
sense of calm and community that development cannot replicate. I strongly believe that preserving what little nature we have left is vital for both current residents and future generations. I urge you guys to reconsider these plans and to take into account the voices of those who live here and have built their lives around
this environment. Protecting this land means more than protecting means protecting the heart and identity of our town. >> We don't >> we don't >> Hang on. They're not done yet. >> No, no, we don't necessarily have any
questions. We kind of just wanted to speak on behalf of >> Well, first of all, I I just want to say this. I'm not going to ask you how old you are, but uh because that's just rude. Um but what I want to say is uh excellent job number one. uh you both
deserve a lot of credit for getting up. It's not easy to speak in front of a crowd of people, but I just want to give you absolute kudos for uh being uh brave enough and and passionate enough to get up and and speak. And I thank you for your ve your your your very very well-d
delivered comments. So, thank you so much. >> Uh I'm gonna go I'm gonna go Yep. Yep. Uh no, no. I'm gonna I'm gonna go right here. Yep. Come come forward. How are you? >> Good. How are you? >> Good. Just right at you. I'm gonna go
right here and then right in the back. Okay. >> Hi, my name is Sean McGrath. I live on 460 Everett Road. Um I guess my I mean my biggest disappointment is that none of us knew like I didn't even know they were condos. Like I the settlement I I
read the 57page settlement agreement and it says apartments. These are condos now. when when they come with an application, we will know exactly what they are. >> So, they could still be apartments. >> They're they're town homes. These are town homes. These are not >> rentals or am I or am I to live there? Am I rental?
>> For for sale town homes. >> All right. I mean, but so I guess my my listen I I've lived here for 25 years. I always kind of knew that was going to be developed back there. I mean, I was hoping it wouldn't be and you know, I applaud you guys doing pre like the eminent domain, but you know, we were
left in the dark. And I you just said something that if someone talked to one of the the u the traffic study engineers, they could be deposed. So, I'm not saying I did that, but >> I know this. >> Not on the record. >> No, not on the record. I didn't. But I I am under the under I'm running on the
assumption that this 138 uh development plan has was in effect I'm going to say at least 8 to 10 months before you guys all signed the settlement. >> No, >> it had to be >> well >> I mean I I mean and I'm not saying again
I'm not saying that I saw from the someone showed me something on a tablet that proposed it. I'm not saying that. But >> well, let let me just say this number one that is not correct. That is that is but you you you can sit there and you >> So hang on hang on. There was there was
some lead in time, right? The 138. So when can you tell me when you learned of the 138 proposal? Not when you signed it, but when you learned of it. Like so they they said you they came to you guys and said, "You know what? We're thinking about doing >> Okay. Going back to what Mr. Nelson was saying,
>> right? >> Okay. because he he said it pretty well and explained it pretty well, >> right? >> The the there there is not a I'm going to come to you and tell you this is what we will do. This is this is a courtappointed special adjudicator.
That that is who handles this. >> No, no, that's fine. So when when did when did the court the special court adjudicator >> send you guys the plan for 138? At the beginning of this meeting in May of 2025, this special adjudicator issued
their report stating stating that the site was suitable for the development of 138 units which by the way our report our ordinance doesn't allow for that many and they would have also the adjudicator would have also allowed for um development on the other site too.
So, and we were in active litigation through September until our petition for certification got denied by the Supreme Court in September 16th of 2025, but the court requires you to sit down and and I think I think I want to make an important point because this is a lot of questions have come up about special
adjudicators. Well, because of political correctness, these used to be called special masters, but they changed it to adjudicator because of political correctness. But in reality, the word master is much more applicable because the powers of this individual, they're acting basically for the judge and not
basically they are acting on behalf of the court. They were appointed they were an appointed master by the court. So the court is not the judge is not a professional planner. The special adjudicator is a professional planner that's appointed by the court to provide
the judge guidance as to where things should be headed. And then the what happens is the adjudicator issues their report to everybody including the fair share housing center. Then you know a month or two later the court calls everybody in and says okay what are we doing everybody? Are you going to trial?
Are you going to you know take take a shot on this or are you going to talk and try to figure something out? Okay. >> And so that's what happens and that process the adjudicators report wasn't even issued until May. >> All right. So let's let's say May. >> So >> let's say May. >> Yeah. So you guys had known about the
138 units from this adjudicator, right, from the special master in May. >> That's what the special master's findings were. Yeah. >> So my problem is, >> but but no and I understand. Listen. No, no, no. >> And that's not public at that point. >> No, no, no. But >> instead of us learning about So I live
on this property. I try I I go out and I, you know, I try to stay involved and understand what's going on with it. And they've tried to develop this several times over. I mean, I I'm not saying it was official sold, but there's engineers running through there for the past 25 years like crazy. There was maybe a 13 house development, but that's not the point. The point is at some point prior
to you guys signing the settlement, how about talk to the people, and I understand you might not be able to change a thing, but how about come and talk to the people who are most affected by this? My house will be passed by hundreds of cars. No, no, no. No one knew any court.
>> Settlement discussions are confidential. I would lose my law license if we talked about we can't when we're in settlement negotiations with the public >> the actual settlement have us in and say let's do a workshop let's figure out what can and can't be done and you could do something official but get our input
this was this signed and we a month later we all learned about it >> first first of all Mr. Mr. Nelson just explained that he would lose his law license over settlement discussions being disclosed to the public. That is not allowed. >> So you can't get input. So let me just this process doesn't allow input from
people. >> Sir, >> this is a this can be a conversation. It doesn't Okay. >> Okay. >> Second of all, I had conversations with several residents that are sitting here several a after this occurred. Okay. After this occurred >> before you signed the settlement.
>> No. >> Well, yeah. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. We defin we definitely spoke before before we before anything happened. There's there's no doubt in my mind thinking going going back several conversations including a an elaboration about how the process goes. Number
number two, you you're you're saying have a workshop meeting and discuss what is what settlement terms are going to be. If there if there if if I could ask for a a count of hands. If somebody wanted >> not what I'm asking >> if somebody wanted to put 50 units, how many people would say that that's okay?
>> No. And it's not that. No, no, no. >> Because you're not going to get a sing. I'm saying you're doing the proposal is to put parking on the south side of and listen, I'm not we're just upset because we got no input. So like when we came to this planning board meeting and people were ch, you know, like saying because
that's the first we've heard of any of this. I mean, I hadn't even seen the settlement till I walked in here and people were showing it to me. I mean, so I'm not saying how about when the settlement was done, then we get a notice or something like that or you put it on your website. Mary had to do a she had a request for information. None of
us had seen it prior to the to the planning board meeting. None of us. And so conversations happen. You guys just knew this before signing it. And I understand that there was limited information you could give us, but be transparent. That's what everybody upset is upset about here. And I have no faith
going forward that it's going to be transparent. And I get it. It has to be developed. You guys fought it. I applaud that. What we're asking for is just as much transparency as this impacts all of us. And I understand that we may not be able Hold on. We may not be able to change anything.
>> But at least get our input so we feel like we're part of this, right? >> And and and >> because I've had no input. >> Okay. And I understand that. So allow me to respond. >> Okay. >> That's what the planning board process is for. >> It's already baked in the cake. Okay. >> You can you can you can say that and that and that that's a quick nice line.
Excuse me. Excuse me. I of Yeah, I did. Yeah, I know you did. >> You're absolutely correct. I did. And but what I would say is the the public comment process has to happen when there is an application >> that what are you commenting on. You're
not you can't comment today. I can't comment on a single thing that is going to happen there because I don't know what is going to happen there. You don't know what's going >> There's a 57page document that you signed that lays out exactly what Dony's going to do. I would encourage you I would encourage you to go to a planning
board meeting then sir because site plan processes are extremely extremely complicated as a former member of the planning board. They are way more complicated than you are giving them credit for because there are dozens and dozens and dozens of reports that will
have to be done that it is improper and ill- advised to make comments on something that you have had not one professional provide you with information. I would love to see a traffic report. I'd love to see one. I can't wait to see it. There's a 57page
document that you signed. I promise you, as long as Adoni stays to the to pretty much the hue of this document, nothing changes. >> That's not true. >> Well, I'm just I'm just going to transparency. Again, I'm not I know it's not going to be stopped. And I'm not
saying it should >> What I'm saying is what you're saying is is an opinion. It's not facts. And you're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to the facts of how a process works. And what I'm trying to be clear about is you're saying that you want to make comments and give feedback.
That's exactly what the planning board process is for. >> It's too late and you know it. >> But you know what? It's >> I just to be clear to all the residents, I do not know that and I do not agree with that comment at all. You absolutely have the right to go to a planning board meeting and give it and you can disagree
with that sir, but I am saying it is factually inaccurate. It is not the way the way it works. I would encourage all of you to go to a planning board meeting for another application and see how the process works because I've sat in planning board meetings for hours and hours and hours on end hearing different
different experts provide testimony as to why something works and something doesn't work. So to sit there and say that that this is this is done factually inaccurate because nothing can be done when you don't have an application. You can disagree with me sir. It's just not
the way the process works. Thank you very much for your comments, sir. >> Correct. You cannot have So the the application will come in. The township, I believe, has 45 days to determine its completeness. It's a
completeness review. The township will then determine what experts are required for them to post an escrow for. The township will then have their their experts evaluate all the documentation that's provided, do their own research on the property, and then at that time
when they can do that, then it can go before a planning board meeting. But until that point, >> we get the notice as the application is submitted to the planning board. >> You you do not get a notice when the application Yeah. Come up to the microphone just just for the record here. Just real quick,
>> just want to be crystal clear. Just just state your name again. >> Jack Liry Loft notices to the neighbors go out 10 days at least 10 days prior to the meeting. >> So you'll get a notice a week to 10 days in advance of their their hearing date.
>> Okay. So application submitted. You guys set a planning date. >> We determine it's complete. They go through >> which could take 45 days. >> Yeah, you probably will in in something this big. Um once they get a letter saying your application is now complete, they will and then we let them know the
next available hearing date. Then they'll get you they'll send out a notice prior to that hearing date. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> I look forward to hearing from you 10 days after >> you'll be hearing from the planning board >> 10 days be 10 days before >> before we call the next resident mayor.
What I want to make sure that we point out is the settlement is a maximum number of units. So we would encourage you to come to the planning board because the number of units that that uh the planning board can may whatever that vote is approved uh can be less than that number but it can't be more and
we've um and there's been prior developments where the the actual developable number of units has been less >> and that is and so we encourage you to go to those hearings. We encourage you to go and cross-examine all the professionals to try to tamp down that
number based as as much as you can. That's a maximum number. And if and when that comes to the planning board, we need your input. We need your uh we need your representation. >> Yeah. Uh I'm going right here and then I'm coming to you, sir.
>> You have to come to the microphone, please. >> You want me to go to somebody else? >> Okay. >> Okay. Yeah. All all comments just about this ordinance. Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir. >> How are you tonight?
>> Well, uh, Greg Blonsky, I live on Willow Grove. I have a question. If I ask and I go home and I I don't have an answer, I'm probably going to get lit up about it. Um, the 138 town homes, that's obviously seems to be the agreed upon path forward. >> 136. >> 136. Sorry, I can't believe I messed
that up already. Um, there was a mention, again, maybe I misheard this, that there's a fair share of housing that's opposed to the agreed upon number of homes that are currently being built on this property. >> Correct. They want more. >> They want more. Does that pull from the 136 or does that potentially increase
the number that is potentially >> increases the total number, which increases the number of affordables? >> So, when do we find out about that or like what's the process of that? So, we have a the the hearing date is scheduled for the 30th of this month, I believe,
for that motion. So, they filed a motion to try to reopen the case and to get more units on the site. They do not believe that the proposed settlement is providing the fair share of affordable housing on the site. They believe that
the original proposal for 478 units would more adequately provide a fair share of housing on the site. So, and and I caution everybody, you know, and we have objectors council in here. The reason why we have a builder's remedy suit at the circus liquor site right now
is because people came out and objected to the commercial development that was proposed there and that delayed that project into COVID and the commercial redeveloper pulled out. So, now we have another lawsuit there where a developer wants to build a thousand homes. And so,
you know, be careful what you wish for sometimes when you object to these things. when we get a settlement that is in, you know, is as good as you could probably get. Um, and that's why fair share is opposing it. Um, and then you
can end up with significantly more if you prevail on an objection. So, I always say be careful what you wish for. That's not that you shouldn't. You should certainly come out and and cross-examine um the professionals that present at the planning board hearings. And there's ample opportunity to do that
at those hearings um where they have to pres they have to engineer fully engineered plans. Like I said before, the standard for filing a builder's remedy is much lower than the standard. And when we bring professionals in for depositions in builder's remedy cases, they always say, "Oh, we'll we'll
address that at site plan. Oh, we'll address that at site plan. Oh, we'll address that at site plan." That's their answer 90% of the time when we're deposing professionals in builder's remedy cases. um because that's the forum where those questions get addressed. We try to get as much of
those details out up in front before the township has to make a determination as to what is realistic um zoning for the development of affordable housing, which the township is obligated under Supreme Court precedent and multiple statutes
under the Fair Housing Act principally um to provide that fair share which requires the township to zone for enough to create the realistic opport opportunity. Fair Share is saying that well 7 and 12 units per acre does
not create a realistic opportunity. We're saying it does. They, you know, they're going to want to go back and have 24 units per acre. And they'll say, well, that creates enough financial incentive for the developer to build a sufficient number of affordable housing units, not 7 and a half units per acre.
So, that is the debate that, you know, they're going to have. They're going to present to the court. they're going to try to reopen the litigation um to try to get more units. Um and the um you know and so so that that is you know that that's the risk there. Uh I
>> if permissible by council at the next township committee meeting that following a decision by the court on fair shares I'll if if he is legally allowed to to do so um I I'll ask him to provide an update um on that. Thank you.
Uh, yes. Uh, yes sir. Yes, sir. I didn't I'm just trying to keep track in my own head of who I said uh could come up. Yes, sir. >> How are you? >> Good. How are you? >> Good. Thank you. >> Rich Bonner, Cypress Neck Road. So, of the 136, we don't know how many are
going to be Mount Laurel or are all 13? >> 20% of them. >> 20%. >> Yeah. And you're saying this is going to be a townhouse development. >> Yes, sir. >> So, there'll be a a homeowners association. What cost to the township are those low
income when those people start defaulting on that property and can they afford the HO? >> Tone, you want to take that? >> Well, that's like a loaded question. the the um the the law is very funny in this
area that um that the the state requires that the homeowners association fees be the same for affordable housing occupants as they are for the market unit o occupants which makes no sense but that's the way it works. So, they have to set the um homeowners association.
>> It joins a club of other not making sense rules. But go ahead. >> Totally nonsense. Um they they have to set those association rates low enough so that those affordable housing unit occupants can still afford their their mortgage. The problem with that is that there's no rule about how often and how
by how much those fees can be increased. So, it usually works out great for year one, maybe even year two. When you get into year three and four and the association starts jacking up their rates, suddenly the occupants of the affordable units can't pay it anymore. Uh, and they start defaulting. And we've
had it happen. Um, we haven't had a ton of it, but we've had it happen in Laurel Green, which is the development on Laurel Avenue. You've probably driven past. We've had several units in there. I know our neighboring town of Tinton Falls have had huge problems with that. So, it does become an issue for those occupants of those affordable units over
time. when they default, does it have to then another Mount Laurel person goes into that property? >> Yeah, it doesn't get >> upscaled. There's a deed restriction that it has to remain affordable for 30 years. But that that's not the biggest issue. The biggest issue is what happens
in between. >> Uh if they are forced out of their unit, it gets foreclosed on, then you have to hope another buyer comes along. We've actually had cases where the township has gone in and bought the unit back and we held on to We had to pay the association fees for a couple months
until we found a buyer for it. >> So there is a cost to the town. >> There is a cost to the township. Yes. >> Something to consider. >> Absolutely. No, it's a good question. >> If you decide not to accept this ordinance tonight, we automatically are in default
>> with the lawsuit. >> I I'll I'll allow Brian. Yes. The township would be in default and I'm sure the judge would be calling us in Monday morning. But we still have fair housing coming after us to try and increase this number. >> Yeah, they're still out. They're still floating out there.
>> And what fight do we have in us to stop them? >> Well, I mean, we're Yeah, we are opposing their motion. Um, for sure. I mean, it's it's it's ironic that they are taking actions to secure more units, but at the
same time potentially delaying, you know, the development of units. Um, so you know, I don't want to, you know, I don't want to reveal, you know, show the whole hand because they're probably watching the video tonight. Um, so we'll we'll address that when we're before the court. So,
>> so our best defense is to go to this planning board meeting and get the planning board to tell them you can't build 136. >> Yeah. You your your your the best advice I can give you is all the questions, comments, concerns, feedback that you
have. Absolutely. At the time of the planning board meeting is your time to tell them what what what issues you have. >> Uh before I go to to any repeat, is there any member of the public that has not spoken that would like to speak?
>> Yes, ma'am. Come forward. >> Good evening. Rome Pelican Road. Uh with the affordable housing, does the township require to have bus service for the people that cannot afford to
live in these properties to go to grocery stores, go to schools? >> No. >> And affordable housing, you don't have to have bus service in that area. >> No. It's one of the reasons we never we never wanted this site to be developed this way because we felt it was a
terrible location to put people correctly people who don't have a big income. Uh you're putting the strain on them to get to work, to get to jobs, to get to school, to get almost anywhere. So that's one of the reasons we think this is a really lousy property to do this. But the court didn't agree with us.
>> And now also with the situation at Middletown with them deciding to close three schools where you're going to haveundred 63 units and they have children and they have to go to school. How are they g if we're maxed out in Nutswam Thompson in
South how are you going to provide an education for these children? >> That that's a question for the planning board hearing. >> Well, and it's a question for the board of education as well because they have the ability to change their districts. So this this property could be they're
not all crowded. The the school is not crowded. The school has lost thousands of kids in the last few years. But the point is is that some schools are crowded, some schools are very underpopulated. Uh but the problem is the district boundaries have to be adjusted at some point. So, but because
this property will be bust no matter where they go to school, they're going to be bust, right? Um we can talk to the district about d uh districtricting them towards a school that can accommodate the kids as opposed to one that's crowded. We've done that before with other developments. >> But now what about the people in affordable housing that have to get
groceries and they don't have cars? >> Yeah, look, we agree that that's pounds to provide service for them. >> No. >> And and and and part part of the affordable housing the the issues that we had as as Tony mentioned and as Brian
mentioned the you're supposed to look for sites that have accessibility to areas that people can get to stores, can get to public transportation. That was part of our argument and uh the the courts did not see fit to uh to utilize
that argument as a reason that this property should not be targeted for it. >> Is the developer, Mr. Adani, is he representing any type of organizations that want to live in this particular area? >> I don't I I don't know.
>> I don't I don't know that answer. >> All right. I don't I I I have I've only met this applicant one time and that was the first time that they presented. >> No, I I just find it very odd that with the resistance of our township and you guys working a great job >> trying to put keep things in order and
how they're so persistent that they have to have this particular property. >> I find that very strange. >> Well, thank you so much. >> Thank you. Let me just ask one more time. Okay. Any other member of the public that hasn't spoken yet that would like to make a public comment.
>> Okay. Yeah. Joseph, >> just come up to the microphone. >> The Fair Housing Authority, is that a governmental agency? >> No, it is a nonprofit organization. >> And I understand that it's supported by all of the big builders in the state of
New Jersey. So, they obviously have their hand in the Fair Housing Authority, if you want to call it that. Okay. Um, how do I approach this? Uh, with the truth. Well, I I I don't I
don't know who donates to them. >> Uh, I'm sure it's big builders. >> I I I would probably say you're right, but I don't have any evidence. >> So, isn't that a conflict of interest then? If if and we all know where this
property came from and who it went to and how it got sold. Everybody knows that already. >> Okay. Uh so this fair housing authority, >> it's not an authority because it's not a government agency. It's a nonprofit. >> Nonprofit. This this agency or whatever you want to call it y
>> found opened up bidding or went went public with it. Yep. From what I understand opened up an auction and Adoni >> No, no, no. Fair fair share doesn't doesn't handle any of like the real estate transaction. >> No, but they found people to buy it.
>> That is incredibly possible. >> They did. >> Um, sure. >> Okay. So, to me, that's a conflict of interest. >> Mhm. >> Uh, what can be done about that? Probably nothing. >> The municipalities have raised this argument many times. I said it in an
op-ed in 2019. Uh, I think that that is part of the of the issue here. I think that we have a a nonprofit organization that has never once walked through uh the township of Middletown. They probably couldn't even point to Middletown on a map and yet they get to
decide and dictate to the state of New Jersey what they think and by what number and what sites are are are should be and and need to be targeted for development. Um, this township committee, as as many of you know, has
made it a priority in last year being our single biggest year in terms of open space acquisitions. Um, including the attempt to try and purchase this one for the preservation of open space. Um it it is incredibly disheartening the fact
that the state supreme court u not only denied our uh appeal to them um but the fact that we continue to go down this rabbit hole that no municipality is ever going to be able to fight their way out
of while preserving the character uh of of the township. It's unfair. And I am so freaking sick and tired of someone that has never come to this town to tell us what we should be doing. I am so
goddamn tired of people constantly dictating to this township and to every all 564 municipalities what it is they should be doing. There is no input from us. There is no conference calls. There is not a damn thing that they do and
say, "Hey, can we talk about affordable housing and where it works in Middletown?" No, they don't do that. They come out there and they say, "Here's your number. Go find it." And you know what? 444 municipalities in the last round came out and Fair Share
Housing comes out and says, "Wow, look at this. 444 of the 5654 municipalities have submitted a housing plan. Wow, this must be really working. Couple months goes by, fair share filed
a lawsuit against 444 municipalities saying they aren't doing enough. You are never going to satisfy them. every 10 years the goalpost is going to be moved and moved and moved and despite what varsity kicker you have
on your team, you are never going to get that extra point because you're never going to satisfy them. And I am I have dealt with this for nine years now. And I am so damn tired of dealing with this for people who get to pick and choose
where they want to put it. Because I can guarantee you one thing, it's not where the people that are advocating this live. It's where they don't want it to go where the people that are signing bills and passing this legislation. It's not going by their house.
>> No. But it's also an imbey thing, too. Nobody wants it in their backyard. >> It is. But you know what? It's about damn time that the state of New Jersey gets its act together and starts doing something to preserve this. We're already the most get rid of liberal judges. We're already the most densely
populated state in the nation. And it's only going to get worse because we constantly sit here and every single governor legislator passes the buck and and shoves a new piece of legislation right up our ours. And I have one more question, but >> I'll try and keep it PG for our two
young ladies that were speaking. >> If you want to talk to me afterwards, I'll give you a whole lot more. >> The question I have pertains sort of to the construction, not of the actual parcel of land, >> but how do they get the heavy equipment down that little street?
>> How you going to get it across three culverts that go across the road? That was I mean you're looking at couple hundred thousand pounds of equipment traveling over those tiny little >> It's not it's not even the the the the trucks the as they're empty coming down the road. It's the trucks when they're
full of dirt. That's a question bulldozer down. >> That's a question that the planning board's going to have to >> Okay. All right. Roy, did you want to come back up? >> I know you raised your hand a couple times. >> You know, I guess Roy Jennings, I guess at the end of the day, it's the judges.
>> Mhm. Right. The judges don't listen to you guys. They basically tell you to go to hell. >> I'm not going to comment on the judges. Uh >> well, how well how do we the people get to the judges? They can come and look at
the property. >> I'm going to tell I'm going to tell I'm going to give this real simple. >> Every four years you get the opportunity to vote for a governor. You get the every two years you get an opportunity to vote for members of the assembly. every four years, four years, two years, you get to vote for the for the state
senate. Start demanding that they address affordable housing in the state of New Jersey. You can't you they they love to sit there and talk about how they're making the state more affordable. Yeah, tell me how. Tell me how. Stop passing every single piece of
legislation that comes down and says, "You got to measure this tree. You got to measure that. You got to I need to know how much water comes onto the leaves." The leaves that we collect. All of you probably don't know this. They they passed a a a piece of legislation a couple years back. They wanted us to
measure how much rainwater >> after we pick up your leaves. They and and people come to me, "Oh, I'd love for an additional leaf pickup." Okay, that's great. We now have to pay to measure and calculate when we collect your leaves
and we we hold them, right? Because at the old uh airport out at Port Belelffort, that's where all your leaves go at the composting site. Okay? And we take your leaves, we cut them, we we cultivate them, we turn them into the um
into the um compost that you all can pick up uh at K's Lane uh anytime, right, Dad? >> All right. So, we take that. They wanted us to measure how much rainwater dropped onto these leaves
for what is my question. Who cares? Who cares? Why can't we do a second leaf pickup? Because we're spending money calculating how much rainwater drops on them. >> Who's mandating that?
>> Trenton. The people under the big gold dome. So I and and by the way they only they they work at two o'clock in the afternoon. Yeah. Okay. They don't they don't hold all of you are working when they're when they're operating. So
what's my message? My message is this. >> Every four years you can't go away and think that someone else's vote your vote matters. >> Yeah. But we can't vote the judges in. Right. The judges can pick. >> Judges But judges are appointed. Judges
are appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. >> Yeah. And and it's, you know, it's Democrat. I mean, what chance? We don't have a chance. >> We don't have a chance. >> Because four years ago, 50,000 people sat at home and didn't vote. And that
was the difference in an election. >> Not on my behalf. >> I I'm not I'm not saying I did the right thing. I'm not saying you, Roy, but what I'm saying is if you're sick and tired of this, if you're sick and tired of this, >> realize it. And on election day, get out
there and vote. Get out there and vote. >> Get out there and vote. >> So, it's going to be a bad next four years. >> Well, today's day one. Let's see how day two goes. >> Mikey's not the, you know, the sharpest tool in the shed. >> Yeah. Well, I got I got to I got I went
off the ordinance, so I'm sorry, Heidi. I'm I went on a I stood on my soap box. Any other members of the Are you Is that it, Roy? All right. Yes, sir. Come on up. >> Uh Jack Liry again. Is Is the county involved at all? I know Ever Road is a
county high. >> We'll have to weigh in. >> Um so that would be like the >> county engineer. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Yeah. It's it's not a ton, but but they will an exit onto there. >> Were they involved at all in the lawsuit
or the settlement? >> No, cuz counties aren't aren't subject to builder's remedy. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Any other me? The the Okay. Roy Roy Jennings, Westnut Swamp just made that comment.
>> The the county will have will will have a a part to play, but they will not it it really doesn't fall under their hands. They can provide comments though. Any other member of the public? You have to come up to the mic, Frank. Uh, thank you very much.
>> Just state your name, Frank. >> Uh, Frank Gerard Glosski. Do you have any idea of a scenario of what will happen? Because I don't it's hard to explain to the public too and give us an idea. Do you have any idea what would happen if the developers won
a de developer remedy lawsuit for that site? I mean it could be a nightmare. They could build highrises. >> They did. >> They did. That's what they >> They did. That's why we're here. >> I mean it's ridiculous what they can get away with. They can build a whole town
with a with a if they win the developers remedy lawsuit. >> That's what we just went through. >> That that's the whole that that's the I'm not even I'm not even going to look at my CFO right now. >> But the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in
legal fees professionals it will when I say hundreds of thousands, >> I'm not even scratching the surface. So when when when people ask what what are we fighting for? I I I'm I'm I'll I'll take the fight all day. I'm okay
spending hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting these ridiculous developments. I'm okay I'm okay with that. But but at the end of the day, there's there's only there's hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars that there's not enough money to to
bleed these people dry. >> No, I know they're billionaires. the ones that are the developers. That's what happened West Orange. But um do you have instances or any records of the developers wiggling out of their
affordable housing percentage because it happens all the time. >> It's not it's not developers. It's it's Oh, you mean like on on nonaffordable? >> Yeah. >> Oh, I I don't know that that number, Brian, because >> they're not allowed to >> They have to do 20%. They have to
whatever's in the agreement and where whatever's in our ordinance is in this case is 20%. They they really can't get out of that >> in a builder's remedy >> in your mis I mean in middle town because it happens a lot >> just not building the affordable units.
>> Yeah. They wiggle out of the percentage. >> I would say that's very very rare. And do you have any kind of program that for example repurposing uh slowing apart houses in neighborhoods? >> We we we do that quite a bit. We use
utilize our affordable housing trust fund um to make upgrades to income eligible individuals that need uh upgrades. Oftent times if a house comes on the market, we will partner with Habitat for Humanity and we will
foreclose on a unit perhaps and then we donate it to Habitat uh they just finished a house uh Habitat for Humanity just finished a house in um Ideal Beach in North Middletown. Um they just did that. We love that. We we we doing we
love that mechanism. Um partnering with Community Options um for uh those with developmental disabilities. we will partner with them to take a single family house and you can put three and four um beds because if you do it for um an individual with um developmental
disabilities you get a credit for every bed rather than every unit. So those are uh options that we've taken um full advantage of um to be able to get to the try and get closer to these numbers that the state requires. >> I think that's the best way to do
affordable housing. I think that uh the area in need of redevelopment legislation, you shouldn't. I mean, that's such a joke. It leads to this ridiculous affordable housing requirement that
doesn't help people in need. >> It just helps the developer. >> Well, it depends on how you do your redevelopment plan. We we've used it to our advantage to get affordable housing built. >> So, there's ways to do it. You do it right. It can be beneficial. Well, I've only seen like nothing I've seen here.
There's nothing out of place. I mean, it looks really good, but uh also I think that uh just when I see like the people that actually live in affordable housing units, you really don't tell the difference between the other people.
Like people shouldn't be afraid. They should be afraid of the legislation and the developers and not the people. >> Absolutely. >> Any other member of the public wish to make a public comment? I I don't I don't >> not even close. >> I mean, the two and three and four
bedrooms. >> I I either You're going to have to come up to the microphone, but but the the answer to your question is is no. >> Correct me if I'm wrong. >> State your name again. >> Joseclary. >> All right. >> Okay. >> The fourth time.
>> Third. Well, one from >> No, the fourth time you'll get it right. Uh, do we have any idea of what the marketable price will be on the two, three, and four bedroomedroom units? >> We So, there are regulations governing what the prices are. They will be
restricted prices, >> but we won't it won't be possible for us to know that until if until they're developed, >> but the restricted prices should only be on the affordable. >> Only on the affordable. >> They're only one-bedroom units. >> Well, they have to No, they have to have a split. So the law requires that there
be a split of ones, twos, and so you can only do a certain number. Roughly a third have to be three bedrooms. Roughly a third have affordable. >> Yes, for afford that. This is only for the afford. The restrictions are on the affordable setting. The >> you have to aortion them
>> for certain number certain number have to be available at certain income levels and certain number of bedrooms. >> Okay. um the and the pricing it it's all going to be determined what we don't know one if they'll actually get developed you know they have to get through the site plan process and then
if they get through that then it's a probably a couple more years of permitting and things so you know if they came in tomorrow with the site plan hypothetically it would still be a number of years before those units would be on the market and then the pricing would be set there the the DCA puts out
ranges of pricing for based on the region that they're in and then that will be the restricted price. Um but that will be determined at the time they're on the market because obviously that changes over time and the along with the income levels for the people
that apply. Um the larger family units, you know, the incomes can actually be in the six figure range and the larger family units. Um but then some of the lower the the lower income units, you know, will have lower, you know, lower incomes. Um um but they obviously have
to be people that in this instance can qualify for a mortgage um and and and so forth. So they typically have you know but they still have to fit within those income ranges. >> But I thought the affordables were rentals. >> No, they're not all these units are >> everything the whole entire place would
be. >> Correct. They would be they' be and they're designed these are inclusionary units. So they're intermixed within the the development. So they're not you're not going to be able to distinguish unless you're really, you know, looking carefully the affordable units from the regular market units
>> have a garage. >> So that that'll be the the only real distinguishing factor. Yeah. >> Any other member of the public? >> Okay. See no other member of the public stepping forward. >> Um I I just before I make my the motion
to approve, I just want to thank all of you. I I think this was a very good conversation and I appreciate that. Um I I hope all of you will show up to the planning board meetings to uh v voice uh those uh questions, comments and
feedback. Um you know, as I mentioned because there's no application. Um you know, I can't even uh have seen um this uh this proposed full sight plan. Um, but the the risk that you run at uh not
being in compliance with this I think is far greater. So I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Committ Kratz. >> Yes. >> Committeeman SMO. >> Yes. >> Mayor Perry. >> Yes. >> Motion carries to pass this ordinance on second and final reading.
>> At this time we have introduction of proposed ordinances. Our first ordinance 2026-3492, an ordinance of the township of Middletown, County of Mammoth, state of New Jersey, authorizing purchase of block 67, lot 7.01 from the Middletown
First Aid Squad for $224,000. >> Yeah. Uh mo motion to introduce, and I just want to say before we get a second, that this this is exactly what what we were just talking about. This is a property that we're donating to Habitat for Humanity. This is the exact thing that
we should should be doing. Motion to introduce. >> Second. >> Seconded by Committeeman Senino. >> Committ Kratz. >> Yes. >> Committ Senbrino. >> Yes. >> Mayor Perry. >> Yes. >> Motion carries to pass this ordinance on first reading with a public hearing to
be held February 2nd, 2026. At this time, we have ordinance 2026-3493, an ordinance authorizing acceptance of deed of utilities easement upon a portion of block 805, lot 72 at the address of 1264 Highway 35.
>> Motion to introduce. Second. >> Committeewoman Kratz. >> Yes. >> Committed. >> Yes. >> Mayor Perry, >> yes. >> Motion carries to pass this ordinance on first reading with a public hearing to be held February 2nd, 2026. At this time, we have ordinance for
introduction 2026-3494, a bond ordinance providing an appropriation of $775,000 for the acquisition of easements for the Port Mammoth Flood Control Project by and for the Township of Middletown in the county of Mammoth, New Jersey, and
authorizing the issuance of $736,250 of bonds in bonds or notes of the township for financing part of the appropriation. >> Motion to introduce. Second >> committee woman Kratz. >> Yes. >> Committeeman Sedbrino. >> Yes. >> Mayor Perry. >> Yes.
>> Motion carries pass this ordinance on first reading with a public hearing to be held February 2nd, 2026. At this time, I'd like to ask the township committee to adopt a consent agenda, which would include resolutions 26-56 through 26-68 and include firefighter
application. >> Just want to make sure 67 got on there, Ted. Right. for the rock salt. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Because there's this giant storm that's coming. So, I just want to make make sure.
>> No. No, it's not. Okay. Knock on wood. >> Motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. >> Committ Kratz. >> Yes. >> Committed. >> Yes. >> Mayor Perry, >> yes. >> Motion carries to stop the storm.
Um, at this time we have uh township committee comments. >> All right. Committeeman Senino. >> No comments this evening. Mayor, thank you. >> All right. Committee woman. >> I'm going to hold my comments. Mayor, thank you. >> Okay. Uh, once again, I just want to thank all the residents that came out here. I think this was a great discussion. Um, and I I appreciate the
fact that so many uh folks understand and know uh the issue at hand. and I I just want to thank them for the folks that I've talked to uh on site on the phone. Um I think it was a a very good conversation and I want to thank them
for that. Um uh with that I'll open up for public comment. Any member of the public wishing to make a public comment may do so. We ask that you state your name and uh keep your comments to five minutes at four minutes. Heidi will let you know that you have one minute remaining because she doesn't trust me anymore. N
>> All right. Yes, sir. Good evening. My name is Martin Dunu. Uh 152 Heights Terrace. Uh I'm on the environmental commission. >> I I think you know um we've been looking at some um development in Homeell,
>> the uh Vonnage site. And one of the things uh we're kind of looking at that's giving us concern is um they're talking about restarting a wastewater treatment plant and that >> discharges into a stream that goes to
the reservoir. All right. >> So um I'm looking to support the um Homeell Environmental Commission Citizens for Informed Land Use and everything. So, I
just wanted to kind of make that statement. And uh again, uh right now, I don't know exactly where we're going with it. Uh we've communicated a little bit with the NJD
uh case man uh case person for the uh pollution uh for the Nypsies permit. But uh just letting you know and again and I don't know if this impacts
>> Homeell they being an intervenor in this case or whatever is the relationship between Homeell and Middletown pretty good about fighting some of these things or or um you know I I don't want to
>> I I've I've spoken to to Mayor and Prevadutoo um about this now twice. Um, >> excellent. You're aware. Okay. >> So, so I'm well aware. Um, uh, spoke to the mayor, had a very good conversation. Um, we'll continue that dialogue as we go through the process.
>> Okay. Because we, uh, yeah, I I just did a walk. They had a the their planning board. >> And again, everything you say about the planning board and all this stuff. Yes, we all >> every citizen has to get more involved.
You're 100% correct with that. But, uh, yeah, I just took a walk at the site, uh, last Saturday and, uh, it's concerning. There there there may be solutions, but, uh, I'm just a little, uh, we're trying
to figure out the right path forward. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> And, Marty, thanks for everything you do on the environmental commission. Appreciate it. >> Uh, >> I'm retired now, so I may have more work, a little more time. So, we got you
fulltime at zero dollars a year. Uh, all right. Any other member of the public wish to make it public? Sure. You can come on up. >> Excited and upset about >> and I can't keep my mouth shut. Uh, but
anyway, thank you very much for letting me state your name again. Oh. Uh, Frank Gerard Glosski, 72 Cranberry Court at Shady Oaks. And, uh, thank you very much for, uh, for allowing me to speak with you and for reviewing my proposal for the Grant
Stevenson House. Thank you very much. >> No problem. >> Thank you. >> And thank you. >> We just got it confirmed today that February uh, 3 at noon is going to be the site visit with the D. >> Oh, you're wonderful. Thank you.
>> Wow. >> I was going to I'm getting welcome to attend. >> Thank you. >> No, they they specifically wanted you to be there. So, >> thank you so much. >> Told them I'd invite you. >> I can't believe how how nice it is here. Thank you. >> I I knew.
>> Any other member of the public wish to make a public comment? Chiefs? Nothing. All right. All right. Seeing no other member of the public stepping forward, move to close public portion and adjourn. >> Second. >> Seconded by Committee Senator Bino. Committeewoman Kratz. >> Yes. >> Committeeman Seno. Yes. Mayor Perry.
>> Yes. Have a great night everybody. Thank you all.