I don't know that I have been It's 7:30 everywhere. All right. Welcome everybody to the Milbourne Township Planning Board meeting. In accordance with section 5 of the Open Public Meetings Act, chapter 231, Public Law 1975. Be advised that this notice
that the notice of this meeting was made by posting on the bolton board at town hall and serving the officially designated newspapers a list of the meeting dates annually indicating that this meeting would be would take place at Milbourne Board of Education Education Center building at 7:30 p.m.
on June 18th. Roll call, please. Corey Biller here. Allison Canfield here. Michael Cohen here. Frank Sakamandi here. Jorge Mastro Pietro here. Deborah Neas here. Michael Zion here. Jonathan Baxter here. Sergey
Systove here. Serini VJ here. Gaston Hardert here. All right, we have a full agenda this evening. Before we get started with anything, hopefully everybody has met Sarah Oxby.
She's been trained by Eileen and she is now taking taking over for Eileen. Um I think the minutes that have been coming through have been written by Sarah. Is that correct? Correct. So that's to attest to her skills and qualifications
for the job. Um I think she's been handling all the communications equipment as well. I don't see any reason why she's not going to be a great asset to the Milbourne Township Planning Board. Uh, I make a motion to appoint Sarah Oxby as Milbour Planning Board
Secretary. Do I have a second? Second. And we actually uh I'm sorry, we do have a formal resolution uh providing as such. Uh and uh so if we can have I believe it might have been 11th hour
distributed today to the board members. Uh it says just in case uh Sarah Oxabby is hereby appointed secretary of the planning board of the Township of Melbourne with a term ending on December 31, 2025. Compensation to be paid for services rendered to the board in accordance with the salary ordinance of
the township of Melbourne. Resolution shall take effect upon adoption. and a certified copy of the resolution shall be forwarded by the township clerk so that the board is fully aware of the resolution so we can actually uh adopt the resolution to formalize that
appointment. Uh I'll take it that I can assume the motion and the second was to that effect. Uh so then we could have a roll call vote with the chair's permission. Roll call, please. Cory Biller, yes. Allison Campfield, yes.
Michael Cohen, yes. Frank Sakamandi, yes. Jorge Mastro, yes. Deborah Nez, yes. Michael Zion, yes. Jonathan Baxter, yes. Sergey Sis Civ, yes. Sereni VJ, yes. Gaston Hubbert, yes. Motion passes.
Thank you. It's great to be here with you all. Did you draft the resolution yourself? Well, might have been a conflict there. We uh No, Eileen and I took care of that. I All right. Uh ne next order of business
is the approval of m the minutes from May 7th, 2025. They have been circulated. Does anybody have any comments? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from May 7th, 2025. Do I have a second? Second.
Uh the voice vote is fine for that. And and as Sarah knows, abstensions for any who are absent. Okay. All in favor? I all opposed. Motion passes unanimously. All righty. We uh like I said before, we
have a very uh loaded schedule tonight. Our agenda tonight, we have a capital review project. We have the housing element and fair share plan um hearing and adoption, possible adoption. And we also have the ordinance 270825
to handle this evening. So, uh let's get started. And yes, Mr. Goldstein, do you happen to have a presentation for us tonight on the town hall
renovation? I do. Thank you. Thank you. So, last month we appeared before you. I hope you don't mind if I sit as I'm talking. We appeared before you and there were a number of comments and questions and we've spent much of the
last month um revised and designed to address the comments and questions that were asked of us. So, I think it's probably best if I start by showing you u the redesign
and then I know that um the township administrator has a few things to say and um my colleagues here will also be helping as I go through the slides. So, if that's okay with you, that's the way we'll see. Absolutely. And and uh just
out of an abundance of caution, while it is a courtesy review, uh if uh if all of whoever speaking could just raise their right hand and I'll swear everybody in. Uh do you swear to God or affirm testimony you're about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you. And and again, for
context, it's a courtesy review under section 31. We do have a memo from our planner, uh Mr. Pedto, as well. Alo at the appropriate time. Uh I think he should also weigh in with respect to his memo as master plan consistency is a part of the process for capital review
but I apologize for holding us up. That's fine. Thank you. All right. So I is it okay if we turn the lights down? It might be easier to see. All right. So last month we showed uh these floor plans and one of the
questions that was asked of us um during our presentation was whether it was possible to relocate the courtroom um to uh one of the questions specifically was to to switch it to the right upper
right corner from the upper left and and also there were some comments about the size of the courtyard and as we and I should And this was the three-dimensional view that went along with those plans. So following the meeting, we tried a various alternative
arrangements of the pieces on the site and concluded that by rotating the courtroom uh 90 degrees and moving it to the north end of the site that we could uh make the courtyard much bigger. So
basically um uh this is the this is the latest plan and um as you'll see when we get to the site plan um this moves the north end of the building up into the area that's currently occupied by the
that little dog leg street that comes off Essex Street. So I'm going to ask Rick Adlesen, our site engineer now to walk you through the site plan. And actually before he does, my apologies again, but uh Mr. Goldstein, if you could just name an address on the
record for us. Eli Goldstein from the Goldstein Partnership and I believe I'm sorry. Go ahead. Street address you want. Uh that's fine. The the business address is on the documentation, correct? And you
remain an architect in good standing, licensed in the state of New Jersey as far as I know. Okay. So I I take it the the chair will continue to accept you as an expert in that regard. Thank you. So Richard Adlesen with the firm of
Frank Hair LHR Associates 101 South Harrison Street, East Orange, New Jersey. My license is in good standing as well. Okay. Thank you. And I proceed. the chair will continue to accept you as an expert in such. So, we're we're looking
at this site of the municipal building. North is up. Essex Street is along the top of the page. Milav on the bottom. Town Hall Plaza to the left. Lot five parking lot to the right. Bottom half of the build half of the site, you see the existing municipal building. You see the
upper half of the site um is the new building addition Mr. Goldstein was just talking about. believe we zoom in a little bit and you see actually before we do that can I point
I can't point um one thing the one one thing you'll notice with the overall plan is we are eliminating what was the old um Essex Street um alignment with the dog leg um as part of this plan because the
building actually extends up to the intersection where Essex Street turns north. So, in order to do that, we'll have to we'll remove Essex Street. We'll provide driveways for the adjacent residents um and provide additional on street parking along Essex Street subject to
county approval. You'll notice that along the west side of the building, the left side of the building on the plaza side, you have an amphitheater circular staircase to create a public space. You also have a relatively large plaza along the front
of the building. again to give the building some outside area along with the um obviously the use of the building itself to tie it into the plaza. Um there's landscaping proposed on the plaza level that still needs to be
worked out in detail along with landscaping along the roadway. Just a little bit tighter view. You'll notice that there are a couple areas where we have grade changes. The building floor starts about a foot above the existing town hall floor at 134 and
a half. The courtroom is about 135 and a half. So there's a ramp up one foot to the courtroom level. And then the judge's platform in the back is another foot higher. So the sidewalk around ramps up to connect to the building. And
in pretty straightforward in that regard. Um seems to work with the site pretty well. Gradew wise. There will be a little retaining wall along the side as Mr. Goldstein will show you in in renderings. Um, but it all ties together very nicely.
Thank you, Rick. So, now I'd like to show you in three dimensions uh what we're talking about. So in the upper image, this is sort of an aerial view with the existing building
uh on the right that's the west elevation and then on the left is the uh courtroom uh we'll call it the courtroom wing and in between the glass link there uh contains some shared facilities such
as the bathrooms on both floors that serve both wings of the building. in the background. In the background, the the white roofs you see though are the roofs of the adjacent houses behind lot five.
Then in the lower view, which is essentially a west elevation of the complex, uh you can see that through the glass of the link, we're keeping the facade of the existing building, the portion of the existing building that
sticks beyond um the uh western half. And um and the stairs that are in there access the second floor of both wings. Here's a close-up view of the of the glass
link. And in the middle there, you can see basically you can see right through the building between the two parts in the middle bay of the curtain wall. You'll be able to see right through the building between the existing building where it ends on the right and where the
new building begins on the left. Here's an aerial view from the northwest. gives you a little better sense of the relationship to the existing bell tower or I should say hose tower on the on the existing building and the amphitheater
and a shot from the southwest. And if you look in the roof uh of the courtroom addition, that's where we would propose to put the future solar array. Uh essentially underneath that is a an
area where where all the rooftop air conditioning equipment will be concealed from view from ground level. So this is now looking from Essex Street uh looking south along the west side of the building.
And then as we move around sort of clockwise, this is now the upper view shows the view from the northeast as if it would look if the houses were not there. So that you can just see the entire length of it. But the lower view shows the current what the actual
condition will be like with the houses um in in that location. If you were driving on Essex Street going west from the intersection with Old Short Hills Road, as you approach where the road bears slightly to the
right, you'll be looking, this would be the view you see from Essex Street. And that's the Violation Sparrow in that essentially that piece on the right. And then this is the view from Essex Street looking between the existing
houses and the facade of the uh extended complex. And then continuing around further, this is the view from lot five looking across lot five where we've put a a piece of curtain wall between the again between
the existing building on the left and the courtroom addition on the right just behind the houses. And then here's just a compilation of the four elevations we've got. On the middle right there is
the existing south elevation with new windows as we discussed during our last presentation. On the middle left is the north elevation. That's the view directly from Essex Street. And then the upper view is from
the parking lot number five on the east side. And the lower view is the view from municipal plaza on the west. So that's the end of our formal presentation. Uh we're open to
questions. I have I have two questions. Uh number one, you touched on it. I just want to make clear the homeowner that the houses that are exist sort of on that Essex Street. How do they there's a road that they get to their house like how do they get to their their homes now if we're
eliminating that? Now now they they currently have access from that small road which is um only some of them actually have parking. I think only two of the four buildings there have driveways. Um there is some parking on the street. I believe they also have assigned parking or um designated
parking in lot five if I'm not mistated parking already um as well. So we'll provide access to the driveways and act parking on the street similar to what they have now. So they'll be assigned I guess in lot six and the two driveways the road will
I guess end at the driveways the road the driveways will extend out probably out to Oh okay probably have to extend the Okay. And the other question is um the you were able to hide the machinery on
the roof on the new building. Um and I know that there's the the tower on the old building. Is is there any way to hide the machinery that's near that tower or is so in one of these excuse me
it so I unfortunately we can't put everything in the well of the new building because it's serving the old building as well. So in this view you can see uh all the way on the right behind the hose tower is where that unit
for serving the old building would sit. And when you see it from the street view as we move forward that the hose tower actually ends up screening it. It'll it'll be and from the other roof it's set so far back you won't be you cannot see right there. You can't you're going to be blocked from seeing it because
it's in the model. Um so it gets hidden behind the hose tower but it's still in proximity to the older building. What about the view from if you're coming if you're driving into town on on Mil coming sort of past. So you have a unit there right now. How did you know that?
Do you ever see it? No, but you know, now I will. Now it's the only thing you're looking at. It will be very similar to what's there. So next time you drive down, you know, you can take a look and and it'll be very parallel situation. Okay.
On that note, in the old building, will will there be any type of noise screening from the west? for for the rooftop units right on the old building. So actually we we will have an acoustical consultant look at everything. The other concern too is the
well where the other two units are being housed are over the courtroom. So we will be needing to do things acoustically in order to make all this work. Okay. Thank you. Does the uh solar array support the whole building both buildings?
So um the answer to that question is it may at times but on average over the span of a year it won't. That is in the middle of the day in the summertime it probably
will serve most of the electrical needs of the building or the equivalent of that. But there'll be times like in the winter and at night when there's no power being generated when it obviously on a moment by moment basis won't be producing enough power to offset the use
in the building. How does the square footage of the new courtroom compare to the square footage of the existing courtroom? Uh I actually haven't gone back to check but the space is distributed very
differently because uh the old courtroom doesn't meet the requirements of the ADA in terms of access to the judge's bench or to the to the deis which is elevated which will also become the judge's bench
in this new facility because it'll be doubling as a courtroom. So there's a lot more circulation in the new courtroom in order to comply with all the requirements for accessibility. Do you know how many cases are in there
in a year? I mean is this facility really is is it used? What is the utilization of the facility? I don't have those statistics. I can get them for you. The town hall meetings, planning board meetings. Oh, it's that's the that's the Oh, I guess the court. Okay,
it's going to be both the courtroom. It's a multi-purpose room, right? Um, how do you think traffic on Essex Street will be affected by extending the driveways to Essex and also um, making a
left out of the parking lot onto Essex Street, having those driveways there. I'm just wondering what the impact is going to be. Basically, you already have parking along Essex along much of that length. I think we're only adding three parking spaces on Essex and closing that
road. Maybe four parking spaces on Essex. I meant um the cars pulling in and out of the driveways. You you have that activity along Essex in a lot of places. There are a lot of driveways on both sides of Essex. Right. I guess I'm
just um it it shouldn't be a significant number of movements. There are I believe the driveways only can accommodate three cars total. Okay. So, it's not a lot of movements. Um I I don't think it's a significant obviously the county will look at that and we'll discuss that with the county
as well. Okay. And how much is the building being extended that far going to impact those houses that are right next door in terms of light and noise and that kind of thing? Let's see. How do I go back?
So the building does extend past it, but the geometry of the building here is actually further set back from the house that's closest further set back from where it was on the previous version. So it was actually opened that up even
more. I think you pick up an extra roughly maybe 15 ft between the two buildings there that more than you had previously. Um, the original version of this had the sidewalk in roughly the same place and the building was just about right up
against that sidewalk. So, in that regard, I think it's a better alignment for that. Um, again, we shouldn't have significant noise or anything like that along that side. We can control light in our designs. Shouldn't have it's going to be it's going to be a building. It's going
to change shadows and things like that, but should be as good as we're going to do utilizing the site. We one of the things we will need to do on the top right corner of this drawing, the northeast corner of the plan, you'll
see that there is a utility pole there. We are working with JCPNL. Initial conversations have been made to get that pole moved for multiple reasons. First, it's too close to the building for power and second ease of construction. So those will both be
addressed. So right place the old one. Yeah, there's a quarter now. So the courtroom doesn't go up against the courtroom is on the left side of this drawing. So there are windows there. Now
there's a lobby on that side. Direct side to the judge. I thought we had said last time you couldn't have window. No, if you pull up the the top down floor plan, you can see what we did. Hold on a second. So you
see the courtroom with all the seats up at the top. What we did is surround the courtroom with other things. So you have a lobby on the left. You have the violations bureau to the north. That's how we get all the window. So that so there's offices to the outside and that courtroom. Terri.
I have a question. Can you explain Flo how say u incarcerated people are brought into now the courtroom because there was a back door for that. So can you just explain the flow on that now?
So um traditionally when there were court proceedings the defendants would be brought in to the courtroom. But in the last 10 or 15 years, most municipalities in New Jersey
have moved to what's called video arraignment where the judge has a computer screen either on in front of them in on the desk or on a screen next door and the
defendant is in a uh detention facility somewhere. In this case, it might be just across the street to the police department and the arraignment takes place over video. Along those lines, could you also please explain, you know, I see a security screening area there? So, how would a
flow work in terms of somebody entering the building? Yes. And then taking a right to the security area and then coming back to the courtroom, right? So, let me explain how that works. We didn't show the details here, but but um you know how when you're at the airport and you
need to go through security screening, there's a a line with stansions. Yes. So on court days, what will happen here is that the court officers will set up stansions so that anyone coming from the
west side, that'll be the main entrance, will be directed down into that lower left corner. And there'll be two officers. One who will check everybody's carry along bags and purses and so on. And another and then another will watch
as they as the person goes through a magnetometer. And if they pass the test, they'll be allowed to go into the courtroom. If they aren't, if they're any reason, they'll be directed to go back outside. If you come to that area from elsewhere in the building, you'll also have to be
screened. Everybody who enters the courtroom, whether they're an employee or a visitor, regardless of whether they're coming from the outside or from elsewhere in the building, has to be screened before they go into the courtroom. And that'll all happen in that lower left corner. And that's what
that area is designated for on court days. On other days, all those stans be put somewhere else, and you can put furniture there, and people can just sit there. Uh just one question about the adjacent buildings. Right now there's a restaurant I think Saigon Cafe and I'm
only bringing this up because I understand the normal egress from driveways but I know that at least certain times of the day they get a lot of traffic there in and out. I've picked stuff up there and I park on that little road that you're going to get rid of. So
the one I'm not the one. I'm the one of many. Sang Cafe is what four or five buildings down. Yeah. To the east on there that I mean that there's no changes to there's no change to that layer. Okay. Because they still have part of that front that section of of
Essex Street doesn't change. Okay. Um there's a cross-hatched area kind of right next to it. So as I was driving through there today, somebody decided they were going to park on the crosshatches. Terrible thing. There's no parking lot. Um
but basically that is not part of the area that's getting changed. Okay. Thanks. So, do you have a site plan to show that that area of the SEX? So, we don't actually have survey that goes that far yet. No survey. No, but how the driveway is going to be.
We will, but we don't have Okay. Mean unfortunately, all we have is the tax map and and a projected version of the road without any detail. So, so you are thinking to have that's a part that I I didn't understand. You're going to have a driveway there where you show a tree
next to the tree or how is probably the intent would be to have we need would be to provide access to those two two existing driveways through that grass through that green what would be green space. It would be a longer driveway. So you probably couldn't have those parking
spots on Essex because you can't which is why if you notice there are the three spots across across from the word street were added and I believe one spot just to the right um of the drive of what will be what would
be the houses was added. The rest of those were existing back there four the four dark spots the five dark spots are are new. All the rest of the spots are existing. It It's very similar to what it is. The road is wide enough there.
You have parking along that way along there already. So, it should be functional. But, but I guess his point if if there's a tree there and three spots there where I don't physically see where the driveway again, I don't have the detail to show that to you. Um the
drive the areas where we're showing So if you see there are dog leg lines that are kind of coming starting perpendicular to Essex Street and heading down. The one closest on the starting on the west side is roughly a
is a drive roughly location of driveway. The one in the middle is open space and the double wide one that's the next one over would roughly align with the existing driveway on the next house. So I'm looking too far left. You're
Yeah. Yeah. The So the two houses closest to the building don't have garage don't have. Can you talk about the uh the amphitheater area and is that an active road that's right in front of it? And so
right now it's set up with a tent, a series of tents and tables. Um so I gather municipal pause gets closed and is a relatively low traffic road overall. How big is the space there under there?
It's a 45th diameter circle. So it's not large, but it's not small. Big bigger than your day is the much bigger. I mean, the inside
radius is the inside bottom radius is probably still bigger than your day. There has also been contemplation and discussion of potentially closing that town hall plaza road all year round. Um, that would be a really bad idea. Just for the record, just saying that's
there's been discussion, but in the summer right now it's closed and the amphitheater will add very nicely to that community space and enhance the type of events and stuff that we can have. Um, question. Um, in front of the building, between the front of the
building and Essex Street, there's uh area there. Is that going to be landscapes? Is that going to be turned into like a parklike area? Right now, we're showing a sidewalk that goes around the building that connect the front to the back. We have we're showing a low retaining wall. Once we get all the rest of the survey, we'll refine
that. Whether that wall disappears or whether that wall stays as a low seating wall or something in between is yet to be determined. The area beyond that would be landscaped and presumably enhanced if the wishes of this valid.
So, uh, no, I I think based on this, uh, layout and the one that you brought last time, I think it's a much nicer layout for the town because one of our biggest concern was how
this interact with the public space. And now having that or whatever I don't know maybe it's not yet designed but at least we have that open space that makes people to invite people and that was I think was our biggest complaint last
time. H we talk about the the the pla the park the plaza there on top and we said that maybe we should get I know that it's not part of the scope of your work so maybe we can get a little competition with people here not here but young students or whatever to design
the plaza I think that would be a great thing to incorporate people from the town to to design a public space. So I appreciate that we work together with you work with with us with the planning board. H you make the changes very quickly. It was a month, right? I don't
remember how many weeks. So I really appreciate that. So I I don't have any comments. So I just want to say thank you for the work that you were doing. I'd also like to echo those sentiments. Um, you know, we had a subcommittee uh
that had members of the planning board, the architect from the historic preservation uh commission uh on that as well. We had number of meetings and iterated through a number of different designs. And I think what we ended up with here is going to serve the town um
much much better well into the future. community space. Um the fact that it doesn't look like a giant monolithic, you know, warehouse or prison or you whatever that you would call what it looked like before. Um looks like a normal normal building. So I think
that's a vast improvement. Um I would like one suggestion h I don't know if that's if there is any chance that we can keep working together for during the next phase for I don't know Alex if you agree with that but maybe we can have a few meetings to just to
finalize the the final design. I know there is a little more work to do like the the site plan and all of that. Maybe I don't know. I think was a nice work together. So maybe we can keep doing that for a few more for the next phase. Could I also just add, you know, as I
thank you. I agree with the work that's been done and uh from historic preservation uh certainly um has taken a turn and the improvements are amazing. Um if I could encourage whoever sits on this committee and I will also with
Barton is that each space should move into the next space. And so the retaining wall, whether it's two feet or three feet or five feet, maybe incorporating the that into steps that reach then to Essex Street and then, you
know what I mean? As as it continues, think about what could happen around it. Um, how you could move from one building to the other building or the space. So again, these are things that you never go back and change and it's always
better to do it when you're building some of these retaining walls and especially in the very back there closest to Essex if that's a park or green space and you have Essex Street there. make it inviting for all who walk
in and can come down those steps or and again that's part of the community and that's what we're trying to do here is make this a community space and not just its own building. So thank you and thank you for all the work that you've done.
Um just to further on just to further on some of the the comments, Alex McDonald, business administrator for the township of Milbour. Um I think that yes, one of the goals and objectives of this should be to make sure it's inviting from every
angle. Um you know, Essex Street, uh being an important uh part of that because this will play into connectivity to other parts of of the town that aren't necessarily as connected or visible. um as ma as maybe Milbourne Avenue is. Um so this this will play
into that um as it relates to uh Mr. M Priestro's question. I think there is value in in continuing um particularly on the site plan and as we figure out uh what to do with uh this Essex Street dog leg um because we've had you know there
are there were some versions of this that we were able to keep a little bit of that dog leg to make sure there's access. uh you know there's also uh the possibility of putting those driveways out through the current uh triangle that you know houses currently houses banners uh at this point. Um but I think there
would be value in that. Obviously one of the um things that we need to be cognizant of moving forward is that we continue to move forward and that we continue to um get um uh move the project, you know, as it relates to uh construction costs and different things
like that. So, uh, but I think that would be that would be more than reasonable. Um, I did just want to speak to, uh, two particular items, I think, as it relates to the board's previous determination about the product project and its consistency or inconsistency with the master plan. Um, and hope that
we can satisfy those elements. Uh, tonight here as well, uh, in in conjunction with the revised design. Uh one of the items uh was that the perhaps the town hall renovation addition project should be in connection or conjunction with some other
redevelopment or thought of redevelopment uh in the area. Um at last night's township committee meeting, the township committee passed resolution 25-170 to um enter uh to go out and solicit RFPs for a redevelopment plan in
particular. And I I'm gonna say the block and lots, but it's not going to mean a whole lot, and I'll explain what they are. But block uh 1212, lots 4, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27. Essentially, what that is is lot 19, there's a there's a lot next to lot 19. Then
there's the Palm Salon lot. There's lot, which is directly south of and toward Milbourne Avenue of Palm Salon. And then there is um lot five. uh all of that was concluded in this um this resolution and
what would be studied by um partic you know a respondent to that RFP. So I just wanted to provide that information to the board. In addition, I think there was a question or concern whether the relocation of this uh facility or this
town hall was considered. I just want to let the board know that that was considered. um that uh this this subject matter was brought up in March of 2024 in which we explored the possibility of moving Town Hall uh to lot 19 in
potentially making it a dual use between the police department and and town hall. Uh we explored that um felt that that wasn't a feasible solution. I think there's also um some difficulty in finding other locations in town and I
think that will also come up later in in your evening. But the fact is is that um you know lot several several areas are already encumbered or or have thoughts of other things and um and there is not
a lot of space to look for uh putting a new town hall particularly without necessarily purchasing a new piece of property. um or um you know tearing something else down. I think also the movement of this particular building
somewhat comes in conflict with other provisions of you know the the master plan in that you know we are preserving a historic building here that we are preserving the original building the original town hall. Um so but I just want the board to know that that was considered and that was looked at um uh
back in uh March of 2024. Um, in addition, I think the obviously the courtyard was another concern, uh, or the public space was another concern and that's been addressed in the revision of the plans. I'll take any questions, comments or concerns. Alex, I'm not sure if you want
to address it or maybe Mr. Goldstein. Yeah. Yeah. If if you wouldn't mind touch on uh some of the other sustainability. Yes. So, I think some of the sustainability actions that can be taken by this. Obviously, this building, you know, we are we are uh looking to achieve lead silver certification with
this building. As you saw, there's a solar array uh projected to be in this well uh that will house mechanical equipment. Uh we are discussing and I think it's very feasible and easy uh to add EV charging stations in and around the building. you know, I wouldn't say I
can't say specifically what spot that would be at this point in time, but likely to be in lot five, but I think that also comes into play with an overall, you know, redevelopment uh study and look at the area um where those EV charging stations can come into
play. Um in addition, um and I'll let Eli speak to it a little bit more as it relates to construction waste um and construction um materials. uh but you know we are required to also have a dedicated uh recycling uh in the
building. We are required to pick pick one of I think a few different types of recycling. I think we chose electronic recycling uh to be housed in that building as well um as it relates to lead certification. So there are going to be um and we haven't developed a site
plan far enough yet, but I'm sure there will be opportunity when it comes to storm water management and things like that as well. But I'll let Eli speak a little bit more towards that. Okay. Thank you, Alex. So um with respect to construction waste management
uh at least in a as we're currently envisioning the distribution of points for lead silver we're expecting to pursue two credits for construction and demolition waste management which I believe means that something like 50% of
the or at least 50% of the construction waste will be diverted from landfills. In addition, there's going to be uh significant commitment to um sourcing of raw materials from nearby and uh using
sustainable materials for the construction. Also, uh the building is going to have a a significant commissioning component to make sure that the HVAC equipment is performing optimally.
And uh there are also a number of site related credits that are going to be pursued but the specifics of those haven't been finalized yet because um it's going to take some time before all the implications of the enlargement of the site can be worked through this
to determine whether we can whether we're eligible for any additional site related credits that we were not eligible for previously. Did that answer the question? We will do storm we are definitely doing storm water management. No question. Um,
at the moment I envision utilizing area underneath the plaza most likely. Um, that looks like it works geographically well um, relative to the building and probably gives me just enough space to make that work. Um, so that that's where
we expect that it's going to wind up probably in a silver cell or something like that. Um, which will, you know, provide for water for the plants and any vegetation that we're growing up on the plaza. No, probably not. Although just topographically the site slopes up to
Essex and as we get up that far getting water up there will get more and more difficult. So while we can manage water up there is probably not handling itself. Yes. So, um this is going to be an all electric building. There will be no
fossil fuels um with the exception of the fuel for the generator. Um and uh it's a it's a VRF system. Yeah. So, it's um highly efficient. Um all three of the
rooftop units And uh we had under the prior design it had been calculated that we were going to get four credits for the energy optimization with the HVAC units. All
the energy modeling has to be redone now because of the change to the design. So it's too early to say whether we're going to get as many credits as we had before. Yes, the building is going to be very heavily insulated with very high performance class.
[Laughter] Right. Absolutely. It'll turn itself the uh uh if there's at least for the time being no further questions or comments from the board, I think again as I mentioned earlier, it'd be appropriate to have Mr. Pedto weigh in
on the planning aspects of this for consistency with master plan so the board can finish its obligation with respect to this courtesy review. Uh good evening uh chair members of the planning board. Uh Graham Pedo here this evening as board planner. Um I did prepare an updated consistency review
memo or courtesy review memo for your consideration this evening. Um I'm happy to walk through it this evening. Um it is updated uh with respect to um the revised plans that were provided for the benefit of my review. Um, and I will also kind of update it based on comments we've heard this evening that have further informed some of the the points
that I'm going to raise. June June 17th, correct? June 17th is the date of the me. That's correct. Um, so I'm going to skip over the project proposal sections because obviously we just heard about that. Um, and jump right to section four on page two of my memo, which talks about the relationship to the master plan re-examination and update. Um so
point number one uh the master plan um in its issues identified in the community outreach process um it was noted by community members uh with respect to community facilities schools and open space that several issues related to community facilities were raised as part of the community outreach process. Stakeholders revealed that in
addition to the municipal building being considered obsolete for its purposes and not up to current building and barrierfree access standards, one or two of the fire stations dates back to the 1950s and cannot accommodate lengths of stage trucks. Um so my note in response to that is that the proposed plan will add uh accessible compliant restrooms,
elevators, and building entrances as well as the courtroom as was indicated uh by uh the architect this evening and that the proposed improvements are consistent with the master plan in this regard as they will address the issues identified during the community outreach process um to update those facilities. Uh number two, uh with respect to the
goals and objectives identified in the 2018 master plan, goal number one to encourage appropriate land uses that promote the character of the township as a small suburb of the highest quality. Um objective 1.02 uh to promote the appropriate mix of development in downtown and other commercial areas. Um my response is that the project proposes
renovating expanding the existing town hall building in the current downtown location and the retention and expansion of town hall maintains and promotes a key institutional use um in the area to enhance the mix with other commercial and residential development within the downtown area providing residents with convenient access to municipal services
within the downtown core. Uh goal number five uh states that um the township should recognize and encourage the preservation of areas, structures, and sites of historic interest. Objective 5.01 specifically encourages the preservation and restoration of structures of historic and/or architectural interest. Um and section
6.1.2 of the 2023 historic preservation element of the township master plan identifies a town hall building at 375 Milbourne Avenue as within a potential historic district that should be considered for local designation. As such, the rent, retention, and restoration of the town hall building under the proposed project plan is encouraging the preservation of this
potentially historic building. Uh, goal number six, develop and implement strategies to address townwide sustainability, resiliency, and to adapt to global climate change. Um, specifically, objective 6.03, evaluate and improve township's infrastructure as appropriate. Um, the project proposes filling the town hall basement to
fortify the facility from flood inundation as the building is partially located within the 500year flood plane. Storage previously maintained within the basement level of the building will be relocated to the second floor. Such an effort will improve the township's infrastructure and create a more resilient facility uh with respect to
global climate change. Objective 6.12 uh reduce fossil fuel energy consumption by encouraging the use of alternative energy sources sources such as solar panel. As we heard this evening, uh the project proposes a solar array on the rear edition to the town hall building. Addition of such a feature is consistent
with the subjective of the master plan by encouraging the use of alternative energy sources such as solar panels as proposed. Um item number three, the 2018 master plan matrix matrix of recommendations on pages M1 through M11. Um my first point letter A, leverage
municipally owned properties like municipal building and DPW site as part of a larger redevelopment or reuse scheme for the for the downtown area. um updating this kind of based on uh the comments that we just heard from the business administrator with respect to issuance of an RFP for potential redevelopment uh of the block uh
immediately adjacent to the town hall uh building. Um so with with this regard given that the township is pursuing a redevelopment approach in the immediate area of this of the building um I would say that this is certainly a part of a larger redevelopment uh scheme uh within the downtown area. Um item number B,
consider relocating this building as part of an overall downtown revision redevelopment strategy. As was just uh indicated uh on the record by the business administrator as well that alternative sites were evaluated uh as part of this process. Um it was helpful to hear that commentary that uh that that was at least considered uh an
option to relocate and they have elected to pursue the location in its current location. Um item C promote incorporation of public spaces when considering new construction of civic buildings. The proposed addition to the rear of the existing town hall does include this new public courtyard. Now with the proposed amphitheater at the
proposed public entrance to the expanded building at town hall plaza. In accordance with this recommendation, the proposed project will incorporate this new public space in construction of the civic building. And I will further note that there is an opportunity for an additional public space on the north side of the building um in that triangular kind of area and that's certainly an option as well um you know
as as the site plan is further developed. Um, with respect to the relationship to the historic preservation element of the master plan, uh, historic preservation goals on page 77, goal number one is to advance the preservation of community character through the identification, designation, and stewardship of its historically and/or architecturally significant
resources. As I indicated earlier in my comment, section 6.1.2 two of the uh historic preservation element um identifies the town hall building at 375 Milurn Avenue as a potential historic district as uh within a potential historic district uh that should be considered for local designation as such
retention and restoration of this building under the post project plan will maintain this potential historic building for future identification designation and stewardship of uh the historical andor architectural significant significance in a potential downtown historic district. Um, and the last item, goal number four of the
historic preservation element, is to revitalize commercial Milbourne's commercial districts by encouraging the maintenance, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of older structures and promoting high contextual design standards for new buildings and streetscape improvements. Um, the retention and renovation of the potentially historic building, the town
hall building on the site is consistent with this goal as it will maintain, rehabilitate, and adaptively reuse the existing older structure within the downtown commercial district. Um, so that's the summary of my findings. Um, and certainly happy to answer any questions if there are any with respect
to the project's relationship to the master plan. Could you briefly go over were there any inconsistencies that you found that still hold? Uh I think that the I in my report I had identified two potential inconsistencies with respect to the redevelopment. Um and also the um and
the second one was was the redevelopment and oh the relocation and whether the the relocation of the building was considered as part of the strategy. I think that both of those comments have been addressed this evening based on testimony. Thank you. If there's nothing further from the
board, Mr. chairman, as this is not technically a public hearing. It's it's a courtesy review. The the um and we've had heard from all the uh presenters including our planner. Um I can tee up for the board its obligation as uh as it
was a few weeks ago or so uh when we did this uh with the 1.0 iteration. Uh the uh New Jersey municipal land use law section 31A provides that before taking act uh the governing body uh as well as other public agencies here the governing
body uh before taking action necessitating the expenditure of public funds in incidental to the location character or extent of a land development project shall refer the action involving such specific project to the planning board for review and
recommendation in conjunction with the master plan and and the planning board's authority under section 31A is uh recommendatory. Uh we uh uh the primary consideration of course being the consistency or lack
thereof with the master plan. You heard from all the appropriate witnesses as well as our planner with respect to same. Um I would just remind the board that generally with respect to master plan consistency as the board is aware uh it is not uh generally required that
it be complete 100% absolute consistency with every objective in the master plan but it's a substantial consistency uh is sufficient for uh to be consistent uh uh any proposal to be consistent with the
master plan. Um, and of course, uh, the board has the authority to make recommendations regardless of whether the board finds it to be consistent or inconsistent with the master plan. So that's essentially the, for lack of a better term, charge to the board. So at the appropriate
time, the board can deliberate, move, and vote accordingly. I would like to make a motion uh that the capital review project the town hall renovation as presented tonight um and
in accordance with our planners opinion that it is not inconsistent with the master plan and I would like to make the recommendation that our township continue to work with our internal bodies the historic preservation committee environmental commission and
the planning board to complete the Do I have a second? Second. Roll call vote, please. And I think it's it should be just since we're all here tonight. Just nine. Yes. First. Well, all regular me. Nine
regular members. No alternates for this. Cory Biller. Yes. Allison Canfield. Yes. Michael Cohen. Yes. Jorge Master Pro. Yes. Deborah Nevice, yes. Frank Sakamandi, yes. Michael Zion, yes.
Sereni VJ, yes. Gaston Hopper, yes. Thank you everybody. Really appreciate that. All righty. On to our next order of business. Um, the housing element and fair share plan of Milurn Township
Master Plan. Uh, before we start, I do want to thank everybody. this. It's been a big effort to get this together. We've had a big time constraint and we're still able even up to the last minute able to get something out to be approved hopefully this evening. I want to thank
the citizens affordable housing yes citizens affordable housing committee for their work in it. I want to thank the uh housing element and the fair share plan subcommittee and also Graham and his team at topology. Uh, thank you very much. And Graham, are you
ready for your presentation of the element? I I am. We're just working on a projector. Okay. So, projector that was just used was the team was here. There are some predicates I could tee it up and whatnot before we even get to
Graham's agenda, but we could wait to make sure it's worth your call. Go ahead. Yeah, it is day and night. It looks like it looks like a modern building with perfect. Yeah. So, just bear with me one second.
I'll just There wasn't a huge welcoming big difference. Yeah. Well, if if and when you think it's settled enough, if you want to hammer us back in. Okay. Graham, if if you don't mind, uh
our council would like to speak before it might buy you a little extra time to get everything set up as well. ample opportunity. Um the the uh before we begin this uh as the board knows this is a public hearing uh for the adoption
of the housing element fair share plan uh for the uh fourth round of the affordable housing constitutional obligation for our municipality like most um the master the housing element fair share plan like all elements of the master
plan and the master plan itself uh are adopted by the planning board. We are the as Steve often says the gatekeepers of the master plan. The um uh it is a public hearing. Uh my understanding is uh that the chair will have the
presentation as always from our planner to speak uh to the uh h both ele well they're combined element housing element fair share plan. uh and then there will be an opportunity uh for questions and comments uh from members of the public
with respect to same uh the public comment period for the hearing on the housing element and fair share plan is solely for the housing element and the fair share plan. Uh so if anyone is here to make public
comment beyond the housing element in the fair share plan uh just wanted to make sure everybody's clear about that. That's all we're addressing uh in this hearing. Um, also, uh, just to give it a little bit of context, and I anticipate,
uh, Graham may be speaking to this as well, uh, and as may be common knowledge at this point because it seems as if we're all becoming experts on affordable housing. uh as of late uh the um there uh the uh fair housing act was amended
back uh in March of 2024 provides for statutory time frames for certain obligations to be satisfied by virtually all municipalities in the state of New Jersey. uh there are uh re regulations and rules that relate to it and there is
an administrative office of the court's directive that relates to the entire process. I won't bore everyone too much hopefully with the process. Um but just to succinctly say that uh now that our
uh number so to speak our perspective need obligation for the fourth round from July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2035 uh when I'm likely to be much more than 10 years older by then. uh the uh that
uh uh uh uh the the prospective need obligation has been established as I understand it. I am not the affordable housing council. I am the uh planning board attorney but I do serve in the affordable housing council role elsewhere. Um now uh the focus is on the
adoption of a housing element fair share plan. Uh the fair share plan will address the intended satisfaction of that prospective need obligation over the next 10-year period as we'll be
hearing from Mr. Pedo. uh there uh the statute requires that in order for municipalities to maintain uh immunities from builders remedy lawsuits uh to the extent that they have
them. uh they must under the uh statute and the directive from the administrative office of the courts file uh excuse me adopt the housing element and fair share plan by June 30 uh and
must file that with the affordable housing dispute resolution program which is under the opaces of the superior court. Uh and if I understand correctly, there is a pending action for uh as for this township as there is for most
municipalities. Uh and they must file that within 48 hours of the adoption of the housing element fair share plan all by June 30. Uh and there is also uh an expectation that the governing body uh
would subsequently endorse uh by resolution uh the adop that adoption. These things have not yet taken place, but that is the purpose of the hearing this evening for the planning board to consider adoption of a housing element fair share plan
in recognition of those statutory obligations and those statutory deadlines. Um, so unless there's any questions with regard to that context,
uh, I probably have brought a bought, excuse me, Mr. Ped sufficient time to get his technology working. I one would hope. Unfortunately, it's not. Uh, oh, okay. I'm gonna Is there a cable?
It's a good thing the lights were on while I was speaking. because that would have encouraged an even deeper sleep, I think. But All righty. I apologize. Let me get that. Okay.
Very good. Okay. Very good. Okay. Thank you everybody. Sorry about apologies about the technology but thanks for bearing with me. Um so this evening first of all I want to thank everybody um that has participated in this process um both the affordable
housing uh Yes. Oh sorry. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. And please just introduce yourself again. Sure. Graham Pedo uh licensed professional planner here this evening uh as affordable housing planner and also board planner
um a principle of the firm topology and we've prepared the uh fourth round affordable housing element and fair share plan for the township of Milbour. Okay. Um so before I begin I just want to thank um you know as was indicated earlier by in remarks by uh the chair um members of the citizen advisory
committee on affordable housing uh also other other members of the governing body and planning board that participated in advising on affordable housing process as well. Um this has been a very uh long process. Um and I also just want to extend appreciation to the board uh for uh the consideration of the postponement. Um in advance of this
evening's meeting, I did issue a memo which I believe you all received and is available here for anyone in the public if they'd like to uh get benefit of that. Um but we did receive a correspondence very late in the process just before um the public hearing was scheduled earlier this month um of a property owner within the township
seeking uh inclusion within the plan. and per statutory requirements, we needed to make consideration of that project. Um, and I have a fixed uh attachments as well of those letters. If I may, Mr. Chair, Mr. Pedto, it's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, it's actually a a statutory obligation
to address any requests for uh consideration by potential developers of potential sites. And I take it that was uh the principle, if not entire reason why we were delayed two weeks. Correct. That is correct. Yes. And just for reference uh for the benefit of
everybody, it's NJSA um 527D-310F um which indicates that the township is required to include in the housing element and fair share plan a consideration of lands of developers who have expressed a commitment to provide low and moderate income housing. And as we received that correspondence, we had to make that make such consideration and
sure that we were fully compliant um with the plan process. Statutory requirement in my opinion a good reason. Thank you. Thank you. Um so without further ado, I will get into this evening's presentation so that we can um have a a good overview of the process that we've uh undertaken.
Um so first I just want to um kind of take a little bit of a step back and just highlight the overall fourth round compliance process um and where we are within the larger timeline with respect to uh the new requirements of the Fair Housing Act. Um so um just by way of background and some just general
information um the uh initial deadline and I apologize it should be January 31st 2025 um required that municipal governing bodies adopt present and perspective need obligation numbers by resolution um and you know could make any adjustments from those numbers that were issued by the department of community affairs in their advisory
report um by the end of February 20 uh 2025 that was a deadline um for any interested party to file an objection or challenge to the obligation number that was adopted by a municipality. Um challenges were then reviewed and adjudicated uh in the affordable housing dispute resolution program um
essentially during the month of month of March. Um it was a very interesting process to be a part of. Um and uh you know the the township of Milbourne um just like another I think it was 140 municipalities received challenges from the New Jersey Builders Association uh challenging the adoption of the
number um that the that the township adopted. Um as I'll explain on the next screen, I'll I'll indicate the outcome of that process. Um June 30th is the next statutory deadline that we are now facing. Uh that is the deadline for the adoption of all housing elements and fair share plans by planning boards. Um and subsequent endorsement by the
governing body as well. Um the township committee here in Milbourne is scheduled to uh endorse this pro this plan should the planning board act uh and adopt it this evening. Uh the township committee will do an endorsement um at a special meeting next week. Um then following uh the June 30th deadline, there will be
another challenge period uh the months of July and August. Um interested parties may challenge uh housing and fair share plans um and may specifically uh challenge components of the plan that they feel may not be effectuated or may not be achievable um to demonstrate compliance. Um as we move then into the
fall beginning September 1st um the affordable housing dispute resolution program again will re reactivate um and essentially hold mediation sessions between municipalities and challenging parties um to come to terms and kind of identify um strategies to mediate between uh uh the challenging um
parties. Um and then the final deadline that we have is by March 15th of 2026. Um that is the final deadline for adoption of all implementation mechanisms of the housing element fair share plan. Um essentially that's uh all adopting ordinances, overlays um any other mechanisms that are required um that are
identified within the plan need to be adopted and effectuated by that date. If I could just in inquire uh for confirmation just to clarify the period of time September to December to resolve the challenges through the mediation process and the affordable housing
dispute resolution program. Uh the program provides that if mediation does not resolve it, there is a what they refer to as a session and expedited litigation method for there to be a determination or and a recommendation by
the program judge who's a former Mount Laurel judge. Uh and then ultimately to take that recommendation and convert it by the current uh Mount Laurel judge for the visage into an order. So it's
mediation if it works, it's litigation if it doesn't. So ultimately there will be a resolution of any challenges if there are any challenges. Correct. That's correct. Um and just to in furtherance to your point, there is also a special adjudicator that participates in this process. Um essentially a
special master from the prior round kind of functioning in the same role. Um technically a professional planner that advises the judge in this process to help kind of facilitate and review the challenging Is the is the uh on the challenge period is
that just is that the developers or is it developers plus the fair share? We don't really yet know at this point. Um you know it the the defined term is interested party. Um so you know it needs to be someone withstanding that can entertain into the process. But you
know if Mr. Warner has any additional insight happy to hear. No no that's correct. There's there's interested parties is a definition and if and when there is a challenge certainly the first issue will be to determine whether or not that challenger or intervenor had standing correct
I have a question just procedurally so we don't there's obviously a short time and there's going to be a special meeting to adopt the to endorse to to endorse by the what happens if there are elements of the the
plan that this board does not agree with it. We don't It just seems like we don't have enough time. Usually there's comments, it might go back, it might get tweaked, and then it comes back to us and then we vote on it again. There's clearly not time for that. So, what happens if we miss that June 30th deadline?
your microphone's off. The as previously mentioned uh the way the statute works if the planning board of any municipality uh that is uh in the process as we are uh if the
planning board does not adopt and eile within 48 hours the adopted housing element fair share plan uh and the uh at a minimum uh then uh once July 1 comes
by uh once we come to July 1, uh then uh if the municipality had an immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits, uh the municipality will no longer have that immunity. And uh potentially developers can come, develop to a large extent what
they want, where they want, at the densities they want, at the heights they want. Um I what I might opine would be the antithesis uh and the di diametric opposite of home rule and the fact that municipalities
are solely responsible uh and have sole jurisdiction and authority uh to uh govern development within their municipality. So the short answer is it might not be good. So, and can I assume that from April 1 to
now, um, the township committee has been putting together the housing fair share plan. I I I am not the affordable housing attorney. However, I can tell you that
uh it's uniformly and universally recognized that uh even in the judiciary that the statutory time frames were incredibly compressed and most municipalities did not even have
their number, their prospective need obligation, which is the primary number to try to satisfy uh at least until April if not May of this year. So, um I'm certain the township has been doing
anything and everything that it can do under the circumstances uh the circumstances that were the result of a statute with incredibly compressed time frames for all involved were what they were and are what they
are. Uh just to add as a member of the township committee I can confirm the township committee has been working on this housing element and fair share plan and there were there was a subcommittee uh of members of this planning board um that was also involved in crafting the
housing element and fair share plan. Additionally, our town went above and beyond and um we formulated a advisory committee, the citizens affordable housing advisory committee and that had members of the public uh involved. We had many public sessions where we had uh
both our township planner uh and our uh affordable housing council um so there were multiple sessions. We were able to hear uh input from the public as we were formulating the plan. Um so this has been going on for a while.
All right. Um, so with respect to the the legal status and that we have here within the township of Melbourne, just kind of to revisit um the process that we have gone through thus far and you know certainly the the two committees referenced by um committee member um are certainly part of this process. Um, so
back on January 21st of 2025, the township committee adopted the perspective obligation number um by resolution 25-048 adjusting the DCA's number from 555 down to 522. Um, Milbour in due course uh then filed a declaratory judgment action uh
ESX-587-25 um certifying that number with the administrative office of the courts who facilitates and stewards um the affordable housing dispute resolution program. Um there was a challenge filed as I mentioned by the New Jersey Builders Association of the township's modified number. Um and a settlement
conference was held on March 27th, 2025 with Judge Menddees um and the intervenor of the New Jersey Builders Association. Um at that settlement conference, the township entered into a settlement um at a number of 533 uh rather than the 555 DCA number uh
that was the settled term of 533. Um and then uh back on June 6th um you know just two days after the June 4th the previously scheduled public hearing date um we did issue the revised housing plan um in due course 10 you know minimum 10 days prior to this meeting
this evening um June 18th obviously we are here at the planning board hearing uh to uh you know adopt uh the housing element fair share plan and then as I've indicated the last date here June 26 2025 the township committee um will adopt the endorsing resolution or scheduled to adopt an endorsing resolution should the board act to adopt
the plan this evening. Um I do just want to further note that the endorsing resolution is not explicitly stated as a requirement within the h the um fourth fair housing act. Um but it's a good measure that we're that we're incorporating into the process just to uh demonstrate that the township is working to comply with the fair housing
act requirements. Could I just ask what what was the basis of the additional 11 in the settlement conference? Um I'm just curious. is like such a small amount. It was a very very interesting process I must say. Uh the
builders association um you know uh I don't want to I don't want to speak too careful. We are in the public record and you know I don't want to invite anything. Um that's a good that's a good point. If it wasn't clear before under the opices of the court filing of a
declaratory judgment complaint declaratory judgment action all these things do mean that this is a pending litigation. Um that said of course the housing element fair share plan must be adopted uh in a
public open public hearing by the board. Uh and also there's an interplay uh more so perhaps than the usual quote unquote circumstance with an adoption of an element of a master plan, an interplay with the governing body because while
the planning board adopts the housing element fair share plan as it does with all elements of the master plan I apologize I'm sitting with my back trying to avoid the light. Um but uh but uh the township as a whole uh through
the governing body the township committee is responsible for satisfying that constitutional affordable housing obligation. I understand really my question is very simple just where did the extra 11 come from? I I can tell you so the builders associ so when DCA came
out with the number the process was you had the right if you could prove it to lower that number. We did that. Graham had put together a bunch of analysis to to justify that. Nonetheless, the um the builders association sued everyone who lowered their number even though that
was perfect. No, no, I understand that. And I was at the meeting where Graeme explained it. That's why I'm asking because it seemed very logical where to get to the 522. So, where did the other 11 have to get back? It was a compromise. It was so it was a shakeddown. I mean, yes. you can describe it as the township committee uh
felt that increasing it by the 11 units um that so we basically split the difference um and we found that it didn't actually uh change our RDP in any sort of meaningful way so in essence the settlement really
had no impact um but nonetheless uh we had to go through it okay understood thank you I think Numerically you did better than the builders. You came out closer to your number than theirs. No, I'm seeing that we we got one third two/3s but
okay. Um so kind of just an overview of um my presentation for this evening just in kind of talking about the key contents of the housing element fair share plan. So first is uh we address adjusting the obligation. Second is really what are the components for the compliance process and then I just want to highlight what some of the additional required items um as part of the
document are. Um so first you know what is the prospective need obligation that is a term that's been thrown around a lot and I wanted to just include the statutory definition um uh you know pursuant to the administrative code 593-1.3 which is uh the perspective need obligation is defined as a projection of
low and moderate housing needs based on development and growth which is reasonably likely to occur in a region or municipality. Um that is you know what the the defined number of uh 533 is uh for the township of Milbourne is essentially the projection of low and
moderate housing need uh within the township. Um as part of the process uh the legislation um and uh you know in prior rounds and again in this round allows for what's called a VA or a vacant land adjustment process. Uh at the highest
level, this is an analysis that is completed to identify those lands within the township that are vacant and available for development or could be affectuated for development um and that could yield uh because they are of sufficient size or lacking constraints
yield uh production of affordable housing um at uh assigned or presumptive densities. Um, so the township uh of Milbourne must provide enough credits to satisfy its adjusted obligation of realistic development potential, which is essentially the output of the vacant land adjustment. Um, so here I have the
the definition of what the RDP is. It's the sum of potential affordable housing unit yields from all vacant unconstrained developable land at a minimum presumptive density of six dwelling units an acre and a 20% set aside. Um, I have a a table that will detail kind of the the calculation of
those lots that we've identified that are truly vacant. um and what the yields are and that that uh realistic development potential number. Essentially, it's how many affordable housing units could the township build on land that is open and available for development. Um I want to just caveat that and note that just because those
sites are vacant uh in the township does not mean that those sites have to be used uh to satisfy the RDP obligation. Uh we have built-in programming to satisfy those requirements on other sites elsewhere. Um and then the second component here, this is a new provision that was added to the fourth round
legislation and all subsequent round legislations. Um and this was really um uh you know from a policy perspective um it was forecasted that many communities would have very low realistic development potential numbers. You know a lot of New Jersey communities as we
all know are largely built out. There is not a lot of vacant land. Um so in uh trying to ensure that municipalities addressed some of the remaining perspective need um after the RDP number was calculated um this language was added to the legislation which says that
any municipality that re receives an adjustment which is referencing a a vacant land adjustment of its perspective need obligations shall identify sufficient parcels likely to redevelop during the current round of obligations to address at least 25% of
that remaining perspective need obligation that has been adjusted. and to adopt realistic zoning to allow those sites to be developed. Essentially, the the charge under this section is take a look around your community and identify parcels that are likely to be repurposed or are under
improved or will redevelop over the next 10-year period. Um, and uh identify a sufficient number of those to accommodate 25% of the remaining number. So, we have 533 less the RDP and then that 25% of that remaining figure. Um,
so really our municipal adjusted fourth round obligation becomes the realistic development potential number and then this 25% likely to redevelop as I've listed at the bottom line here. And I have a slide that will talk through um the summation of these numbers. But I just want to pause here and make sure folks understand there's kind of two
buckets of obligation that we have going on. Any questions? Okay. Okay. Um, so addressing the adjusted obligation. So, a reasonable likelihood that the affordable housing and municipal in a municipality's housing element fair share plan will actually be
constructed or provided during the 10-year period of certification based upon a careful analysis of the elements in a municipality's ma plan including the financial feasibility of each proposed mechanism and suitability of specific sites as set forth in the administrative code. This is essentially
saying what is the requirement for RDP. So, these need to be realistic housing units. The these can't just be speculative. You can't just place an overlay zone and say, "Yeah, maybe it'll happen someday." Um, these need to be true, real likely units to be yielded.
Um, and how can we satisfy these? What what does this look like? Um, there some communities are leveraging surplus credits or additional development that happened in prior rounds to carry forward. Um, some communities have applications that are kind of in the pipeline or pending. Um, you can do zoning ordinances or redevelopment plans
sight specific to allow that. Some municipalities are allocating land or funds to facilitate development of housing directly. Um and also the opportunity for bonus credits. Um in the new legislation, we have a much uh expanded opportunity for bonus credits. In prior rounds, we had a very small
bucket of uh bonus credits, really just limited to rental bonus credits. Um but now here in the fourth round and moving forward in all subsequent rounds we have a slew of bonus credits available and we're leveraging those in all of our compliance mechanism strategies here within the township of Milbourne thanks to our analysis and careful sight
selection. So in looking at bonus credits um and what we have available to us um I wanted to just prepare this slide so everybody can see what what the bonus credits look like. Um, so essentially you have a unit of housing counts as one. Um, and a unit of lower
moderate income housing counts as one and then you can apply a bonus credit or a half bonus credit on top of that unit. So essentially if you create a special needs housing unit, that's one housing unit for a lower moderate income tenant. Um, but because it's special needs that really counts as two. So you're creating
one unit but it really counts as two credits towards your 533 obligation or your adjusted obligation. Uh same thing for market to affordable conversions. Um same thing for municipal contributions to 100% affordable development. So if you um you know our municipality is sponsoring a 100% project um each of
those units that's generated as part of that project counts as two. Um there's also a series of half bonus credit opportunities. Um so if uh a site is developed in partnership with a nonprofit developer, those can count as 1.5 for each unit. Transit oriented development. So those sites uh approximate within a half mile of rail
service or New Jersey transit bus service which is helpful um uh can be availed 1.5 uh per one unit of housing. Age restricted housing redevelopment of commercial sites. Uh extension of existing affordability controls can also be uh uh receive a half bonus credit.
And then also if excess very low-income units are developed or excess three-bedroom units are developed. And I assume these aren't stackable. They are not stackable. Okay, that's correct. 25% cap total, but also Yeah, you can't
double up on on particulars sites or Okay, so the housing element fair share plan. What is this document? Um, the document is defined again as I mentioned in 527D-310. Uh, the housing element is a summary of municipal characteristics like housing conditions, demographic conditions,
employment data. Um, as you all may have seen, we've done extensive analysis and prepared a series of tables that summarize uh the township's um, you know, demographic information and employment information. And then the fair share plan is really the municipality's approach to meeting its affordable housing obligation and how it will satisfy compliance with the fourth
round uh, perspective need obligation. Um, and then I just wanted to note this additional requirement section. Um, this there was an administrative directive issued. It's administrative directive 14-24. um right uh early on in this process after the legislation came out um that
detailed additional requirements to be included within uh the housing element and fair share plan drafts. Um the one issue that we we are seeing right now is that um we're kind of flying the plane without all the rules of the road or driving the car without all the rules of the road I guess I should say. Um we do
not have updated spending plan rules for example at this point. Um but a draft spending plan is required. So um we're kind of uh doing taking kind of a hybrid approach here. Um this is what we're doing in in most in all the municipalities that we are supporting. Um so for example the spending plan is
we are attaching the current spending plan that the township has that that the township adopted under the third round and indicating that we will update it in due course once the new rules are ready. We have a spending plan. We did it the last time. We will do it again once we know what the requirements are for that spending plan. Um municipality already
has municipal housing leazison. We already have an administrative agent retained. Um so we are just affixing those resolutions. uh you know demonstrating that we are in compliance now and will maintain compliance into the fourth round as well. Same thing with the affirmative marketing plan. Um and then ordinances and resolutions required to implement the plan. Um you
know that's that's kind of a question as far as you know how detailed that those zoning ordinances will be. Um some towns are just doing placeholder ordinances that just say this will be the density that's kind of it. Um other towns are kind of taking more wait and see approach um unsure if they'll effectuate a redevelopment strategy or a reszoning
strategy. So, it's a little bit of a a mixed bag, I'll say, uh, as far as these additional requirements go. And I just want to, you know, underscore that these are additional requirements that are outside of statute and just part of this administrative directive. So, it's a little bit of a a an interesting approach to how these are required. Go
ahead, Stephen, if you want. And if I could just add with the chair's permission that uh the ordinances and resolutions to implement the plan uh those clear clearly are only to be in draft form. So by taking the approach
that uh our planner has taken uh not only is it an appropriate approach it's really all you can do uh particularly in light of the fact that until the entire process that was shown on the timeline is played out you don't know for a fact whether the housing element fair share
plan itself that may be adopted this evening is still the same exact plan uh after any potential challenges in the process. That's right. Thank you. Okay. Um so moving into Milbourne
specifically our compliance strategy and framework that we have here. Um so first identifying the the globally the vacant land adjustment process. Um so we conducted a very detailed and thorough analysis uh analyzing all class one uh using uh tax parcel data. um all class
one properties which is vacant uh listed class class one assignment is uh assigned by the taxor to all vacant properties and also 15 C properties which are uh uh publicly owned properties that uh do not have any improvements on it. We have screened all of those properties against a series of
environmental constraints which is shown on the image on the right um including wetlands buffers um you know uh waterways regulatory flood planes um and then also areas of steep slope which we interpolated through um some detailed GIS analysis
uh just kind of showing an example uh smallcale examples um of how this manifests itself on the ground um these are two vacant lots adjacent to one another um that's also also a requirement of VA is to look at assemblages of property. So if you have two vacant parcels next to each other, those should be considered in tandem
because it it creates one larger site for effectuating some development or yields of development. Um so these two adjacent lots at 122 Hartzswhorn um and 32 High View Drive. Um you know encompass a total area of about 1.37 acres. Um however they are constrained by steep slopes about a halfacre of
steep slopes. Um so we've adjusted that and then uh you know demonstrated uh the adjusted yield uh that this property generates. Um so in summary the output um of our vacant land adjustment analysis is uh provided here on the screen. Um so we
identified these uh five groupings five parcels or groupings of parcels um that are presently vacant uh within the township um and that you know uh meet the definition of vacant land um and should need to be quantified for their provision of affordable housing. Um we've identified the unconstrained
acres. So we did this detailed analysis uh with partial intersection select um to you know screen out the constrained areas and leave us with the resulting developable acreage of the property um and then uh the estimated unit yield is if that property were to be developed at six units per acre um how many units
that could yield um and then what would be a 20% value for the estimated uh low moderate income set aside for each of these lots as well. Um, now you'll notice that I have a series of decimal point um, numbers here as far as 9.18 units, 9.45 units. Um, this is
consistent with the way that Fairshare Housing Center has been interpreting this in prior rounds. So, in order to kind of fortify the township in, you know, any methodological challenge or questioning, uh, we modeled this exactly the same way. So, you summarize based on those uh, smaller decimal point values.
Um, and then we round it up to the realistic development potential value of seven. Um so the township's realistic development potential or the yield from the vacant land uh adjustment process is seven units or credits. Um and then so we take that seven subtract that from
533. Multiply that remaining number of 526 by 25% and that's 132 credits that must be accommodated on parcels likely to redevelop during the current round of obligations to address at least 25% of the prospective obligation that has been adjusted. I have a slide, my next slide
kind of talks through those requirements as well. Um, so here, um, I have presented a table that kind of summarizes our fourth round obligations. Um, first I do just want to touch on the present need obligation because this was a question that I did receive from a board member. Um, just for
clarification. Um, present need, um, is defined as those existing, uh, housing units within the municipality that are occupied by lower moderate income tenants that have housing deficiencies and lack one of four features, and those are, uh, plumbing, uh, heating, uh, or
if they're overcrowded. Um, and I forget the fourth one off the top of my head, but there there are four different metrics. Um that analysis was completed by DCA um to estimate and it's an estimate based on um PAUM's data. It's a series of uh census analyses um to
estimate the number of those housing units that exist within each town. Um and present need obligations require rehabilitation or strategies by the municipality to address those deficient housing units that are occupied by low and moderate income tenants and how those they're to be improved or you know
rehabbed over the the forthcoming period. As such, none have been identified within the town of Milbourne. So there is no obligation for us to address the present need uh units. So we are solely focused here in this case on the total perspective need obligation which as I indicated as an outcome of
the settlement process is 533 units or credits. Um as I just noted through the vacant land adjustment process, our realistic development potential yield is seven units or credits. um thus leaving us uh with a likely to be redeveloped percentage of 132 units or credits. So
if we summarize our adjusted total obligation inclusive of RDP and those areas likely to redevelop, that's 139 credits or units uh that we need to address. Um and then it's also important to note the last line is our maximum bonus credit uh opportunity. Uh the legislation is um I think very clear in
this regard. it it speaks that it is 25% of the total prospective need obligation, not any adjusted or modified obligation. Um, so that that avails the township to 133 potential bonus credits to layer on top of our uh defined strategies.
Any questions on the the number summary? Okay, so it's it's important to note it's 139 credits. Um, so that it's that can be inclusive of bonus credits. Um, and it is uh as far as a planning horizon, yes, over the forthcoming 10-year period that
we'll be planning for. So, if I'm to understand the maximum bonus credits permitted, I mean, I think it's impossible, right? We can't, but technically we can have 133 of the 139 being bonus. Is that what that means? I mean, we can't do it, but it's
physically impossible, right? I know it's impossible, but that's that's what that means, right? Like, if that other number was big enough, then it might make sense. It doesn't make sense in this case. Yeah. So, you know, obviously we will never get to 130. We're not going to hit that cap. No. If we could stack, we might be able to hit the cap.
That's that's true. Okay. Um All right. So, the next slide. Um so, uh the affordable housing committee and you know, the citizens advisory committee on affordable housing. Um we've facilitated uh strategy development that was guided by the administrative code uh to determine site suitability. Um and this is an
important slide because I these are really key tenants of how we need to evaluate sites and identify sites um and talk about them. So um there's four components here. So the first is that approvable. So a site that may be developed for low or moderate income housing in a manner consistent with the
rules and regulations of all agencies and jurisdictions over the site. A site may be approvable although not currently zoned for low and moderate income housing. The second uh key tenant oop apologies is uh that the site needs to be available. So it needs to be a site that's with clear title free of
incumbrances which preclude development for low and moderate income housing. So there can't be any deed restrictions. It can't be open space or dedicated open space or you know can't have an easement or any other uh type of uh mechanism that encumbers the property from uh development. Uh the site needs to be developable. So, and with respect to
developable, what that means per the statute per the statute section is that the site has to have access to appropriate water and sewer infrastructure. And I have this highlighted because it does not speak to any other infrastructure requirements. It doesn't talk about schools. It doesn't talk about um specifically, you
know, traffic or other things. Um, it's really speaking specifically within the statutory requirement just with respect to water and sewer infrastructure and is consistent with the applicable areawide water quality management plan including the wastewater management plan or is included in an amendment to the area water quality management plan submitted
to and under review by the D. Um, this is more applicable to communities that do not yet have provisions for water and sewer infrastructure and are pending amendments moving through the process with D for extensions to those areas to be served. um not necessarily applicable here within Milbourne as we are largely built out and everybody's already uh has
service provision. Um and finally suitable a site that is adjacent to compatible land uses um has access to appropriate streets and is consistent with the environmental policies delineated in NJC 593-4. Um and I just I included that note on
developable considerations per statute is only with respect to water and sewer infrastructure. other infrastructure are not permitted considerations um as to whether we determine whether a site is developable or not. Any questions on the framework approach for the sites? I just want to make a comment that
basically with towns like ours where everything's already built out, we just take 25% of prospective need, right? That that's what that comes down to at the end of the day, their obligation within plus or minus a few. Right. Certainly. Yeah. Okay.
All right. Um and then uh just wanted to make note of these other things. However, in light of the complian the you know the the committee um and you know members of the working group that advised this process we did um you know make some general consideration of the community itself as this is a planning
exercise um you know and considered the following insight selection intensity assignment. We did take a look at, you know, some traffic considerations as far as locations of sites. Um whether his sites sites were historic or not or located within historic areas, whether there were environmentally sensitive areas, including flood regulations. Um
you know, there are new inland flood rules that are applicable in this process. Um and some of the sites that we may have selected may um have, you know, concerns with respect to flood regulations. However, we don't necessarily know information at this point. You know, uh flood regulations require detailed elevation certificates
um for individual sites. So that's something that um maybe need to be considered. We did consider schools uh just you know generally as far as school locations. Um and then we did also and and this is an important point that I wanted to raise. We did review adjacent area existing or recently approved
multif family densities um to ensure that uh selected sites and the densities that we've assigned to these selected sites were consistent with the neighborhood context of other developments that were located within that general area. Um so we didn't want to have ex bar exceeding densities um
over uh certain areas or not. Um and then finally we did as in accordance with statute 310F uh consider developer inquiries or expressions of interest. Uh we received uh four sites that were subject to this uh the property at 150 JFK Parkway uh 356- 358 Milbert Avenue,
55-59 Main Street, and 16 Bleecker Street indicated uh that they would like to be considered as part of this process. Um so the next slide um is kind of our high level um summary of the prospective need obligation and how we have uh
structured the plan to address it. Um I will say um you know a couple things and and first we'll talk through kind of how we're accomplishing this. So fir the first two projects um are satisfying the RDP as I mentioned earlier in defining what RDP means. Um those are sites that
need to yield affordable housing in the most uh efficient means possible. So we have to generate those units um and it is required that those units you know come online and and provide affordable housing um you know most quickly. Um so what we've done is we've identified um
there is uh an Essex County Arc uh group home located on Willow Street here within the township um that that has four residents located within that unit. The affordability controls on that property expired in 2024. Um and we were uh the township will work to facilitate renewal of those affordability controls.
Um and those four supportive housing units will uh re-up essentially for the fourthcoming fourth round period. Um and so that as they are supportive housing units, they are available one full bonus credit per unit. Um so that is four units uh in group home settings. One bed
counts as one unit essentially because there are four individuals that reside in that property. Um so four units total, four bonus credits layered on top that yields a total of eight credits. Uh second property that we have is the uh Jewish service for developmentally disabled. uh maintains a property on
Undercliff Road. Um that property has five tenants. Um however, in the third round plan, it was only identified with one tenant. Um I spoke I reached out to the Jewish Services for Development Disabled directly and spoke with them and they indicated that there are actually four more additional tenants
that we did not uh capture in the prior round. So that's four additional um credits that were able units that were able to carry into this round. Um and again, those are supportive housing as again. So that is another eight credits that we're able to um add into the RDP compliance strategy. Um so as I
mentioned earlier uh our RDP requirement is seven. Um and we are satisfying that with 16 RDP credits. Um and it's always good to have some extra just to kind of build into the process and show that you know we're really doing this well. Um and again these are existing units so
these are already uh have residents in them. So these are you know delivered and realistic. They are they're actually already tenanted. So um the the realistic development potential is there for these units. Uh any questions on those two compliance strategies?
Mr. Chairman, if I could ask one clarification question uh uh with respect to the concept of having more uh RDP than you need uh uh uh more credits for RDP than you than than the RDP
number itself. uh when a vacant land adjustment is taken in a municipality, there is at least the possibility, is there not that realistic development potential over the 10-year period could change and potentially could be argued
to be uh and potentially successfully argued to be increased. Would that be accurate? That is c and that is certainly something that may happen uh as we move into the challenge period as well. You know, certainly we don't know if an inter an interested party may challenge the vacant land adjustment
analysis that we have done um and indicate that they may find that there's additional vacant properties or something um which would increase the RDP. So by having a 16 compliance approach, we can fortify ourselves against any increase on that process as well. But speaks of the prudence of
having a an RDP allocation credit greater than the RDP calculated. Correct. That's correct. Okay. Well, presumably one benefit too is that if it's sufficiently high like it is here, double, then that also deters somebody
from coming in because even if they push really hard, they're not even necessarily going to get us to increase. It's correct. Mhm. Okay. And then moving down into the balance of the table, these um the remaining five sites listed here are our strategies on parcels likely to
redevelop over the forthcoming period. Um, as I indicated in my comments earlier, um, 356-358 Milbourne Avenue did submit correspondence to the township seeking to develop their site. Um, we have, uh, conducted an analysis of their proposal, um, and also looked at other
developments within the downtown area, um, and assigned an appropriate density consistent with other, uh, recent developments that we have experienced within downtown. Um, and we anticipate that that property can yield four affordable units. Um and given the proximity of this uh site to both uh the
moburn train station and also New Jerseys transit bus service within the area um there is the opportunity for to bonus credits of those units. Uh so two total bonus credits yielding a total of six credits for that site. Uh the second site listed is 55-59 Main Street. Again
another site that was um the property owner uh sought inclusion um at a at a different density than we assigned. again by going through a thorough analysis and taking a look at other uh recently approved uh developments within the downtown within the downtown particularly the hearth at 35 units an
acre. Um we assigned the same density um and that that site could yield three affordable units and again with the to um uh bonus credit opportunity that would yield four and a half total credits. Um the property at 150 JFK Parkway um which was um adjacent to the
Upton site that was proposed to um previously uh contain a hotel um the owner of that site is now interested in uh developing a multif family residential rather than the hotel um and has indicated as such. Um and we have included that site as well with the 20%
set aside yielding 23 affordable units. And again there is bus service um within a half mile of that site at the Short Hills Mall. So that can yield a to bonus credit of 11.5 uh for a total of 34.5 credits. Um the next strategy is um
51-55 JFK Parkway which is the Hilton site. Um that was uh previously included in the third round plan at a set number of units and we've increased the density allowance to be consistent with other developments within the area at 24 units per acre. Um and uh previously was lower
um for the third round but now we're consistent at 24 units an acre which is consistent with the Woodmont site as well. um that will that that strategy given the size of the site would yield an additional 66 affordable units. Um 33 bonus credits for TOD, a total of 99 credits just on that site alone. Um and
then finally uh is 16 Bleecker Street which is obviously the most recent submission. Um that site um you know we did some analysis as well. uh the uh interested party um sought uh one number uh of units and we took a look at area context what the CMO zone uh permits
presently at 18 units an acre and other developments within the area and we assigned a density of 25 units an acre um which would yield 28 acres on that 5 and a half acre site 28 units affordable units on that 5 and a half acre site 14 bonus credits for TOD given proximity to New Jersey Transit bus service on Main
Street for a total of 42 uh total credits um and I just In summary before we kind of talk through and answer any questions on these strategies, um you know the other tenant that I did not explicitly site was uh on the previous slide with the affordable housing committee that we discussed was we wanted to make sure that we had a
diversity of strategies that uh encumbered a number of areas of the township. We didn't want to solely focus all development in one location. Um, we wanted to make sure that there were strategies uh in other areas of the township that we presented a diversity of options um and uh you know demonstrated that the township was
looking at this holistically um in in their approach. Happy to answer any questions. Um just just to note the um proposed development that's going to go in front of the Upton, the developer has indicated that that would be an age restricted um I think we're at 115 uh
age restricted units. Um, there's a bonus credit opportunity for that as well, which is a half credit, which is, I guess, is the same as the bonus credit we would get if it was next to transit. So, yes, that's why you went with that one. That's right. But either could apply. Certainly. Mhm.
And the multiplier we should be using on the affordable units is the same, I guess, not with the RDPs, but with all the other ones to get to the total number of units in these developments or is it or isn't it? Is it 15% or 20% every time or? So we so we Yeah. So that
that's a great great question. Um some of the interested party letters uh indicated that they would provide 15% set aside. Um all of the strategies here that we have done is a 20% set aside which is more consistent with the requirements in the fourth round. Okay. So multiply them by five and that's the
total units developed. Okay. So 5 155 the Hilton. So that's a large development. Just out of curiosity, that's the Hilton's going to be raised or it's going to be converted. What what's happening there? No, nothing.
So the developer that expressed interest, I believe, um was interested in developing the area where the tennis courts are. Oh, he says additional to the Hilton. That was my understanding at the time. Again, you know, that could have changed, but based on the latest
information that we had, that's And is it the same? Is the developer the owner of the Hilton property or not? Do we know? Um I I I I believe in order for us to consider it, it needed to be okay. Uh submitted by the owner of the property.
So I I do believe they it was the owner of the property. Does that mean there are alternative plans for the Hilton itself at this point? This is going off topic, so we can get back on. I I don't I don't know. Okay. All right,
Graham. Going back to the percentage, are we able to negotiate higher than 20%, or are we pretty much stuck there? I I think that one of the one of the issues that we, you know, we want to express reservation on is if we were to pursue or impose a higher percentage
threshold. I think that that could open us up to potential challenge opportunities where whereby the interested parties or developers or of these sites may say this is not feasible. Uh the these developments can't happen at a 25% yield. Um so you know I think in order to just be consistent with uh the the framework
approach that we've set forward and you know kind of carrying forward um with what is laid out within the fourth round um you know sticking with the 20% at this point um is certainly what I would recommend uh that we kind of model going going forward into this round. I think it's certainly something that we can take a look at you know as far as you
know how we want to effectuate things in the future. Um but you know I think at this point and given where we are in this process I think it's best to to maintain the 20%. Um and and and furtherance to that point you know some of these developers are coming at 15%. Um so pulling them up to 20 is really an
important piece. And the the the the percentage is that mandated anywhere or that's completely negotiable between the applicant and townships or municipalities. Graham answer that with with a yes
to both. But Well, why aren't you Yes, it is. It is mandated. No, it's not. Okay. Well, it it it correct me if I'm wrong. I believe it's it's it's recognized as presumptive and and and it's uh the 20% is at least for
the fourth round. um when one is in a correct me if I'm wrong in a particular negotiation there's no prohibition to uh negotiating a higher than 20% set aside but it's usually in conjunction with
other uh uh uh issues that are you know concessions that are made etc correct but suffice to say u it may be generally recognized that the approach taken by our planner
is the reasonable prudent approach. Graham, do we I I believe as part of the last round, we had to pass an ordinance mandating a 20% set aside. Um so 20% is something that's codified in our township ordinance um and is I think the
prevailing standard throughout the state. We do have an opportunity to work with developers to get them to provide more affordable units in exchange for something like a pilot. Um, if we were to do that, I believe we would have extra credits. Uh, and Graham, maybe you
could explain the value of having extra credits. Uh, especially considering that there's going to be a five-year check-in period and and you know how that plays into into Yeah, great points. Um, yeah. So, first of all, um you know, with respect to having additional credits or
extra credits, I think that it's a it's a recommended approach that we're we're suggesting most communities take. Um right now, you know, and I'll I'll kind of walk through the the crediting process and the bonus the additional credits that we have here. Um so, right now at 202 credit compliance, um you
know, we are about 70 credits over uh the minimum compliance uh threshold. Um, meaning that any interested party that we have not already listed here, say there's another property owner seeking to come in would need to disqualify one of our strategies in order to replace with their own strategy. So, by
fortifying us, you know, at such a high threshold, they would have to disqualify at least 70 units of 70 credits of compliance in order to enter into this process. So, I think that that's a really key benefit to this process. Um in addition to that there will be a
5-year midpoint check-in um at which time you know the strategies will be reviewed to make sure that we are progressing. Um again the five strategies that we have uh you know outlined as far as the likely to redevelop. Um the township's requirement is really to put the policy framework in place to allow the private market to do
that. Um hopefully some can move forward to at least get us towards some compliance. Um and that is an opportunity where as you're you know discussing a redevelopment strategy could further incentivize or create additional opportunities um to you know so if only a few of these are moving
forward we could use that as leverage to get some additional credits to make sure that we're progressing um strongly towards the five-year uh check-in point. I hope that makes sense. So just sorry no just clarification. So none of these
properties can challenge you said some of them came at 15%. None of them can challenge that during the challenge period. I want to choose my words carefully. Um as you will see in the appendices which
I've included the correspondence from each of these um folks. You'll see that the numbers may be different. um there may be a position by some of them to challenge because it is not what they had proposed. So, but I don't know exactly how they will handle that. What
I can say is that our analysis looks at each of these sites with respect to the neighborhood character and context and has assigned what we believe is appropriate density for both the township and the immediate area surrounding these sites. So I guess what would happen so with the
last sorry what would happen with the Bleecker Street one which they proposed something much much larger as you said so based on this what if they say you know what forget it we're not interested anymore what is that I mean I know we have a cushion but what is that what you know that's another reason I guess to
have a cushion because they could just during the challenge period drop out potentially so once DCC is approved today or whatever then there will be an ordinance saying
that in this lot the density will be this and you have to set aside 20%. That's it. So the developer if they want to do higher density they will have to go through the suning board for a
variance or for a deviation whatever is that that's correct. So the process will be to have an ordinance to set all of these for each block for each zone I don't know whatever. So so I just I want
to just take one step back in the process just to kind of outline and this kind of alludes to Miss Canfield's question as well. So you know the you know should the should the planning board move forward this document would be adopted. This document then goes on file with the administrative office of
the courts. Um, and then interested parties such as these property owners may entertain challenges to the compliance strategy as we've outlined it here. It would be during that phase that uh an interested party could push back on the way we've characterized the
strategy. Um and then we would move into a settlement process, the affordable housing dispute resolution program in the fall uh with the judge and the special adjudicator as we talked about earlier to mediate uh that process and come to some resolution following that concluding period and when a decision is
made either through settlement or by issuance of an order by the judge through a session. Um then that will provide direction to the township as to what that ordinance looks like and what that ordinance yields. Um and really it would be a two-step process. one to amend and finalize this plan to change
it to based on the outcome of that order and two then to effectuate an ordinance. So is that oh sorry for timing wise that's why all your microphone's off just that's why all that is required at this time from
the township uh as a whole are draft implementation ordinances uh and that is why there won't be actual implementation ordinances adopted until the final housing element fair share
plan is in place be it this one or something different if and when there's a challenge but that that that ordinance is going to be done once there is a negotiation between the developer and the township or it can be done because I
see in many towns that there are so many ordinance already in place and the developer has to go there and follow that or so apply for a variance I I think it really depends on what will happen in the months of July and August honestly so okay there is no challenge then we can move forward and start the
DC can start working you can start that in September if there is no challenge if if there is then that those things would have to go but so I guess what happens if you know that they you know given the housing market and uh you know the potential over supply of market rate
housing whatever else because we're we've um we've changed what they've asked for if they walk away and we fall below our requirement What happens then? It's a good question. I think it's something that we'll have to revisit at the midyear at the five-year midpoint.
Check. And I don't know if Steve, if you want to take No, no. I I think correct me if I'm wrong, Graham, but I believe uh the the terminology is the municipality's obligation is to provide a realistic opportunity. It is not a guarantee of development.
um because uh everyone at least recognizes even the legislature that the municipality does not have complete control over what gets developed where it there are other people involved like developers for example. So that's what I understand. But I guess but I guess you're saying at the five-year checkpoint I my question was really what
if they walk away during the challenge period and say you know what I'm I'm not you know whatever based on the the the outcome of the challenge they're not happy with it and say you know what I'm not doing it. Well, I I think I I I want to just make sure that I characterize this correctly, you know, and I don't
know and and also all these folks may be watching us this evening, so just, you know, in reference to that. Um, but, you know, I don't think anyone if if one of the um, uh, developer site owners uh, were to not be um, how should I say
this? No one is going to advise us that they're walking away is what I guess what I should say. Um, you know, I think that if uh one of these developer site owners finds that it's not, you know, in their best interest that to move forward, uh, you know, I think that they may retain that on their site because it
it adds value to their site and maybe in a in a transfer to a new owner entity. Um, that may be of value to to someone else. My concern was that if we fell below, it would open us up to builder's remedy suits. No. And I and and I concur with Mr. Warner's characterization that you know the the legislation as as I
referenced really is that the municipality's responsibility is to effectuate realistic zoning and to put land the the land use policy framework in place to effectuate that development. Um you know the municipality is not required to pick up a shovel and start building these projects. It is you know incumbent upon the private market to do
so. We are just putting in place that framework to do so. And it seems to me there's a lot of room here because we've met our obligation and then some purely out of expressions of interest from developers without going any step further and identifying tracks of land to encourage people to develop or
anything like that. So I mean so I guess my one question I do have is with these you know expressions of interest or whatever what stage are the negotiations simply like well we'd like to do this and we've come back and said well we'd rather you do this that's it or are there some that are much more like
further down the road where the developer said yes we buy in. Um then pretty much once this is all adopted they're very likely to you know start digging. I I think just in furtherance and in caution of talking about this given kind of the pending legal
strategy. I think what I guess we don't have to talk about any individual one. I'm just curious across the board whether it's like the former case. How I will characterize this is that we have received the expressions of interest and per the statutory requirement we have considered them um and evaluated them
and you know chosen to do as we feel is best and most consistent with the township uh planning policy goals and master plan objectives that we have. Okay. And explain in the have explained in the plan reasons for inclusion andor
exclusion which is this obligation. Yes. How does our strategy compare to other nearby townships? How we consider that? Are we consistent or better? Um, I can tell you that um, you know, as my my sample size
is just that the other towns that I'm supporting through this process. Um, you know, I think that, um, you know, the compliance approach that we have here within the township of Milburn of Milbour has probably one of the higher cushions. Um, and I think that that's really a strong position to be in um to
have such a strong cushion. As I mentioned earlier, um, anyone that, uh, did not submit an interest letter, you know, would have to disqualify, um, you know, a significant number of our strategies in order to, you know, say that none, you know, three of these are
not feasible, so you need to consider me instead. um by having us with such a strong position over over the minimum compliance um it really fortifies the township's position in that standing in that regard I would say. Okay. Thank you. You know we have 99 at the that's the
Hilton right the 51 155. I mean that's that's a big I don't think they're going to walk away or anything like that but that's the one that if something like fell apart there we would fall below. That was why I was asking that question. But it's not in the developers. The
developer would make a challenge. It wouldn't be in their interest to just pull out entirely because if they went into the challenge, they would presumably try to get a higher density. But given that we have a cushion, uh I think the thought was that the bar for
that challenge would be higher because we have such a realistic plan uh that that has a bit of cushion. Um, and I think the idea behind that cushion when it was developed was so that we had that buffer to protect our town because we've learned a lot in in in the past. Uh, and
we wanted to make sure we're as well protected for ground four as possible. If they pull out, is there some kind of um like fall back on let's say innovation or assignment process? Well, as as I mentioned, you know, I think it's important to note is the the
municipality's responsibility is to put the the zoning and the land use policy in in place. And so, you know, once this process concludes, you know, say there's no challenges and we, you know, adopt the implementing ordinances in March of 2026, um, you know, that's going to
change the valuation of that of these sites. I mean, these sites now are approved for, you know, residential development. So uh you know if the current owner of the site or the current developer of the site is not interested in pursuing that strategy uh a subsequent owner certainly could do so
and the land use policy framework will remain the zoning permission will remain uh for that site and that may make it more marketable in their transaction uh to somebody who may affectuate that strategy. So um I want to make sure that everybody's understands that we're not throughout this process we are not
assigning zoning to the developer owner entity we are assigning it to the property. um zoning goes with the land. It doesn't go with the person who owns the property. So um you know I think that's an important kind of distinction to make in this process. So theoretically if no developers had
come to us uh expressing an interest in developing we still could have identified these parcels of land increased the zoning for these parcels of land uh and said you know these are likely to redevelop for X Y and Z reasons. uh and that you know in some
cases may have been sufficient. Correct. Yeah. And and I can tell you that you know I'm working in another community very similar um that uh essentially had that this same situation kind of happened in reverse whereby the municipality identified the sites and now following adoption of the plan the
developers are coming forward and saying oh we're in your plan you know let's talk and now they're coming kind of coming to the table. So I think just in this case here in Melbourne we had you know developers reach out to us first. um in some places it's kind of happening after the fact after the municipalities did their analysis and listed those
sites. So um I would like to add that the sites that were identified here um are in conformance with the ideas that were discussed by the citizens affordable housing um committee. Um
and I think that's that's very important uh to note that um you know residents did have input in this process. unlike in prior rounds. Um, and fortunately the developers happened to come forward in the right areas uh that we were looking
at targeting from the get-go or at least most of them. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Um, so my last slide just talks about kind of the next steps. Um so again tonight uh June 18th 2025 this is the planning board hearing uh to consider
adoption of the housing element fair share plan. Um should the plan be adopted by the board this evening uh the resolution and the accompanying uh housing element fair share plan uh must be filed with uh DCA within 48 hours. Um and then uh as I mentioned earlier uh
June 26th is a scheduled um special meeting of the township committee to consider um endorsement uh an endorsement resolution of the adopted housing element and fair share plan. Um again the final deadline is June 30th. Um and then the challenge period begins July 1st and runs through August 31st.
And that's my last slide. Thank you. There any more uh comments or questions from the board? Cory, just Graham, thank you. That was a great presentation. Oh, thank you. Thank you. And thanks to everybody, the all the members of the advisory groups for their help and stewardship in this
process. I'd like to open it up to the members of the public if you have any comments or questions for Mr. Pedo. And if I may, if I understand the chair correctly, we're going to do comments and questions combined. So to be
prudent, I'll swear everyone in. If you end up just having questions, no harm done. Uh if you end up making comments as well or in lie of questions, uh then it's a good thing that we swear you in because it's a public hearing. So if you can just give your name and address and then I'll swear you in.
Yeah, that'd be great. Can you please uh this is on? Yeah. Uh Jerry Kung, 17 Lee Terrace in Short Hills. And please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God affirm testimony you're about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Um I was just going to ask a question. Uh there's a challenge going through the courts on the validity of the round four housing law. Um, if there are changes made to that law as a
result of that court case, do we reserve the right to modify the housing element um, you know, as we see fit to conform with whatever changes are made in that law.
If the chair wishes uh and if Graham does not know offhand, I apologize that I have to tell you again I am not the affordable housing uh council for the township. Um but I
believe uh that the uh resolution that was adopted by the township uh uh provides for explicitly such reservation of rights. Um and uh I also believe and opine
uh uh not on behalf of the township as the affordable housing council but just my own opinion is that uh such reservation of rights would be uh uh available even if it were not explicitly uh reserved but as an attorney I would
always advise to explicitly reserve those rights. Why take the chance? So short answer is I think the township will be able to avail itself of any legal changes should there be any legal changes. As of yet, there haven't been.
Although the consortium did get some clarifications recently with respect to the affordable housing declaratory, excuse me, the administrative office of courts directive 14 that indeed uh the ordinances to be done by June 30th for
each municipality need only be draft not adopted. Uh which was the understanding. It's good to have the court confirm and clarify that. That was my only question. Thank you. Any other members of the public?
Nope. Okay. Um, one more thing. I don't know if we should go over it or not, but there were some questions that did come in to you and you sent around a memo today. Do you want to address those? Yeah, if I could just um and I don't know, Mr. Warner, if I need to read all of the summary of edits into the record
or just by reference. Um well I think you you incorporated by reference the memo and sure yeah I can inorate that a lot of sort of typos and things typos and technical yeah um so just by reference uh to your to your point uh chair um I did prepare an advisory memo
addressed to the board uh dated today June 18th um that first summarizes the revisions of the plan and the and the need for the postponement of the June 4th public hearing um and then subsection two lists all of the summary of pending edits uh that I received um both uh from members of the planning board members of the governing body and
attorneys um in their review of the document. Um there are a total of 18 uh kind of typographical um I'll say um edits uh that will be incorporated into the final version of the plan. Um so I guess the adoption of the document this evening would be you know uh in you know
with incorporation of all the edits that I've outlined in this memo document and I think if I could there's one last item that I did not reference in my presentation but just um at at your request um the chair u just for the benefit of the members of the board here and the members of the public that are
watching uh the chair did request that I provide a copy of the plan to uh the school district uh to the superintendent and the president and vice president of the school board. Um so I did provide a correspondence copy to them um just so that the school district is aware of the housing element fair share plan as I
mentioned in my presentation. It is not a statutory requirement to consider uh infrastructure such as schools but just for the sense of awareness. Um I did advise them that this public hearing was happening this evening should they ever want to provide any commentary. Thank you. Sure.
Um, yeah. So, we've uh we're concluded with the public portion of the hearing with respect to any and all questions and any and all comments and the board's uh questions have been answered and we've had the under uh under oath
testimony of our planner with respect to the plan. Um I did provide uh a resolution uh of memorialization of uh the adoption of the plan assuming the board uh majority of the board votes
to adopt the plan this evening. Um and uh without uh going through all the where's uh the uh resolved portions of that resolution provide that the planning board hereby adopts the fourth round housing element
and fair share plan and recommends that the mayor and township committee endorse same and implement same uh that the resolution and the plan be filed with the superior court within 48 hours of adoption by the planning board, but not
later than June 30th, which would be consistent with the statutory obligation. Uh, and that a copy of the resolution be sent to the office of planning advocacy uh of the state and to the Essex County Planning Board together
with a copy of the adopted fourth round housing element fair share plan within 30 days of the date of adoption. uh which is consistent with the municipal land use law with respect to any uh uh uh uh master plan element. Uh so uh that
would be uh if it is the board's pleasure to uh adopt the master plan element the housing element and fair share plan you can im immediately proceed to the uh adoption of the resolution so it's formalized and it can
be submitted within the 48 hour time frame by affordable housing council. Okay. I will make a motion then to adopt the housing element and fair share plan that was laid out for us tonight and in the
document that has been circulated and sent to the public and the resolution adopting and also the resolution for the adoption of the housing element and fair share plan. Do I have a second? Second.
Roll call, please. Roll call vote two. Cory Biller, yes. Allison Canfield, yes. Michael Cohen, yes. Jorge Master Petro, yes. Deborah Neas, yes. Frank Sakamandi, yes. Michael
Zion, yes. Sereni VJ, yes. Gossen Hopper, yes. Thank you very much. Okay, it looks like we have some time left for tonight's meeting. And the last item on our agenda is ordinance 270825
uh for a master plan consistency review. Um, this is a uh an ordinance that uh modifies our buffer buffer DRZ 3017.5
um article six um for houses of worship and public and private schools and also DRZ 606.2D article 6 um zoning provisions for buffers and DRZ 609.3. Anything else I need to add? No, the
board is very familiar that this is a not a public hearing but a master plan consistency review in between the uh in the interim between the introduction of the land development ordinance and the uh potential adoption on second read after public hearing by the governing
body. The public hearing takes place before the governing body uh on second read the township committee at a later date. We do also have a resolution for this as well uh as we have in the past. Um, but before we get there, it's once
again the M. Graham Pedto show uh our planner uh to weigh in on uh uh uh uh the whether or not this in his opinion this ordinance is consistent or not inconsistent with the master plan and then you can proceed accordingly. So
I'll swear you in again. Uh do you swear to God testimony you're about to give us a truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed with the chair's permission. Good evening, uh, chair, members of the planning board. Again, Graham Pedle here this evening as board planner to advise on the consistency of um, pending ordinance
2708-25, um, which, uh, as indicated uh, in opening remarks um, contains a series of amendments to um, both the definitional terms uh, section of the DRZ as well as uh, zoning provisions under 606.2 um,
and supplementary regulations under 609.3. Um, I don't necessarily know if you want me to go through all the changes to the ordinance. I know everybody has a copy of that, but I can instead focus my remarks specifically on the relationship to the master plan. Um, you know, as this is that is the the
board's jurisdiction this evening is to evaluate the ordinance with respect to its consistency in relationship consistency or inconsistency uh with the township master plan. Um so as I highlight in subsection three uh speaking to the relationship uh to the master plan uh the draft ordinance
before you this evening advances the following objectives and recommendations of the master plan re-examination and update. Um and the first is goal one objective 1.01 uh to protect the character of established residential neighborhoods and encourage land use and development at an appropriate scale and density. That's contained on page 43 of
the township master plan. Um and the second recommendation on page uh M1 um in indicates that the uh ordinance should promote clear, user-friendly and transparent application review and public hearing processes for development proposals and applications so as to ensure an effective and well publicized
mechanism for residents to report quality of life issues and code uh violations. Um and then my statement is the ordinance revises and adds definitions to enhance conditional use standards and to promote clear and purposeful functioning of DRZ requirements and definitions. More specifically, amendments relating to
conditional use standards provide greater clarity uh to applicants and help to mitigate against any potential detrimental impacts to surrounding residential uses and properties. Um and the planning board, as Mr. Warner indicated this evening, uh shall make and transmit recommendations to the township committee. Um identifying any
provisions in the ordinance that are inconsistent with master plan um and uh and any other recommendations as they may see fit. They answer any of the questions that the board may have. Any questions, Jonathan? I don't have a
question. I just have one comment. Uh the final whereas now that we've collapsed uh schools and houses of worship together because they had identical conditional use requirements, but the final whereas says it is further unclear what uses are permitted as part of a house of worship. I'm just
wondering whether we should just say that as part of a house of worship or school just to clarify that given what's going on. that that I take it that would be a recommendation to the governing body for consideration
uh post uh not not a requirement for us to pass it just a recommendation to pass on that maybe that makes it completely consistent right and just a clarification please correct me if I'm wrong but the act schools and houses of worship had to have the same
requirements is that correct or we just chose to have them in this the the draft ordinance um combines the requirements into one section. So they are now co-mingled together the Okay. There there's not some type of statute that says that we have to have them the same. No. Okay. We we had them they were
this effectively the same previously but because of changes they were still in two separate sections and then it looks like we just collapsed them into one now because they were identical. Right. I'm just saying that then to make it consistent let's just make it clear in the final whereas that it applies to both houses of worships. Right. Understood.
the I just had I'm sorry there are other qu I want to be the last question. Yeah. board members. First just wanted to ask on letter J, does the word buffer need to be capitalized subsection section
one? Should it be because it's not currently? Yeah, we do, I believe, specifically call out the buffer section 6093. the 6093. So that could be another recommendation,
but I think the effect would be the same. The reason you capitalize it is because it's a defined term and I think that's defined in 609. Well, so here here's a here's one of the comments I have and it sort of gets to that which you know the whole idea is of
this was to make it more clear and I think to some extent some of these changes actually make it more confusing because you have now the intent is in the definition section of article 3 is the definition section and so you have the definition of a term buffer.
The problem is that we also have a definition in article 6093 of buffer. Now, originally that actually made sense because 6093 applied to specific zones only. But we're taking
that out of the definition of 6093. So now arguably 6093 applies to any zone, but then so does 30175. So now I feel like it's more confusing because we have two definitions of
buffer and they both seemingly apply to the same like you you now now you have two two I don't know it just it seems like if we're going to define buffer in article 3 that's fine but then why do we need the additional reference in 6093
I think 6093 adds greater specificity does it not maybe Mr. How do you comment on that? Yeah, if I can. I mean, a definitional section is often required of a municipal ordinance to create um standard as to what terms mean. Um so, you know, the 301 reference to the term
buffer is really just indicating what does buffer mean, the term uh the word and usage of the word, what does that mean? Um 609.3 is really setting forth the standards as to how a buffer is applied or used um within the ordinance and what the standards associated with
it are. Um so that's really kind of the distinction is that we're in 301 defining what the term means. What is uh what does buffer mean? Um and then really 609.3 is how is that term effectuated through policy and the ordinance and what are the standards associated with the buffer. I view that
as as one and the same is what does it mean and what does it require are one and the same. So you're just causing more confusion. So it would be my recommendation to if you wanted to have a more uh clear definition just put it all into 30175.
So the issue is that 301 is a definitional section and 609 is the zoning section. So uh zoning the the there's no it's not a variance if you deviate from 301 is what I'm saying. that's that doesn't rise to the level of a deviation or a variance relief would
be required in that section. 6093 is where zoning standards are created in in section 600 of the DRZ. Well, then in that case, I would just eliminate I don't think there's a need for 30175 because you're you're defining what a buffer is in 6093
sufficiently then you wouldn't need 30175. So, I mean that's one of my recommendations. Um or you could say the meeting is well are there other examples
but are there other examples of this kind of separation I guess because 301 has a huge number of definitions in them and are there specific sections elsewhere and then if it's if it's like those I think it's less confusing I think we're looking at it in isolation here. Yeah. Yeah. I I think every soning
code that I see they have definitions and they have that part of son. It's always I don't know if that's it's a standard. I don't know why but it is what it is. So I don't know if we can change that right. I I I agree. So you define
setback but then you have different setbacks for all these things. So we could have different buffers for multiple you know zones. That's the issue. Which that's my point is that we don't have different definitions of of buffers. But it's still okay. That's the way that's the format for everything
else. So it should conform. Are you sure we don't? Because you know, hunting for buffer in the code turned out to be a really difficult exercise. Yeah. We only found those two those two instances of buffer. But let's hope there aren't any other ones buried there, right? Because if we make 609.3
the definition in 301 then it's a little Easter egg because if there's a innocuous buffer design defined somewhere else that really doesn't need all of 609.3 then it's going to suddenly get it right. I think that's a great recommendation to make sure that we don't have any other instances of
buffer. I think that's a good one. So the the other question I have is in in article 61J uh the second sentence. No site improvements nor structures including storm water control features and off
street parking shall be permitted within the buffer area except for fences which are required with with uh required for compliance with the buffer standards. Should we maybe consider putting that in 6093?
So you have J unless unless I suppose that is just for the houses of worship is meaning there's going to be a separate standard. It is required under subsection A of 6093. It's a last sentence.
So is it duplicative? Should we then just delete it from J if it's already in 6093? saying, but it's not not doesn't say I don't think 6093A excludes explicitly, right? Well, it says shall erect the sixoot
high stockade. No, no. I think what Corey is referring to is the unless I get I'm wrong about it. Cory's referring to the explicit no side improvements nor structures including storm water. Maybe that should be part of 6093A or some other letter. Whatever.
Whatever. Yeah. Or or ABCD, you know, just you see because we don't refer to structures, storm water, off streetet parking, etc. in 6093. That would clarify then it would just be that 609.3 is the thing that applies, right? There's no extra definition
required. Yeah. Certainly be a recommendation to the Can I get that recommendation again? It might be. So, so the the sentence that's in the last sentence of subsection J, correct? He relocated to 6093. Yeah.
609 subj [Music] 6.2d. Yes. Yes. Uh one J 1 J. Okay.
Next my comment is uh article 6 1 M. the addition of building coverage shall not exceed the maximum established for underlying residential district. Could you help me with that from a
practical perspective? My concern is that it effectively would eliminate houses of worship schools or uh public or private schools from being constructed. My concern is that mathematically, you know, it has to be,
you know, more than three acre site. I don't know what the maximum established. Obviously, it's in the regulations underlying residential districts are. But if you have a building coverage shall not exceed the maximum established, practically speaking, would that mean
that we that there couldn't be houses of worship or public or private schools because you're not going to have parcels of land big enough to actually accommodate those buildings based on that restriction? I I I don't know off the top of my head.
No, it would just mean it would just mean that the size and scale of the conditional use structure would need to be something that fits in with the neighborhood. It doesn't preclude you from having one of those, you know,
houses of worship or school. It just controls the size of it, right? Yeah. No, no, I understand the intent. My concern is the effect that you can't really have a house of worship or a school that's of a minimal size and so
in effect you are outlawing houses of worship in residential. I don't think that's but you have here already saying that the minimum lot size has to be three acres. So that's already required. Yeah. Well and that's why I'm saying that I don't know the mathematical part
of it. So maybe with 3 acre sites the mathematical building coverage would be fine. Like I don't know. I'm just posing. I mean I can tell you I think the smallest permitted um building coverage within the residential
districts I believe is 13%. Um which I I just quick math that would be 17,000 square feet. And that's for that's for the footprint. Correct. Building coverage is footprint, not doesn't count.
No. So, this is just building and that's the lowest. I would say big enough. Big. Well, actually, that's half the lot coverage, which is now 25%. So, you would have half as the building, which seems like well big enough. Yeah, more than enough. I mean, it's going to
be the lot coverage part that's going to hit you. So, okay. Uh next for the building design in N it says all fac uh facade containing loading or service entries to the building shall be oriented away from the adjoining
residential zones or uses. Is it generally known what a loading and service entries are? I just don't want there to be confusion about somebody saying oh well you know loading entry is where the kids walk into the school or something. Is that a loading entry or is
that just a normal entry or This is where definitions are important because there may be a term defining voting should be there's also Mosquitz's that's true yes treatise on definitions for yes and usage of terms correct terms
and as well as other sources not to give Mr. Mosquit's preference, but his is generally recognized. Loading space is defined in off streetet birth on the same lot with a building or group of buildings for temporary parking of a vehicle while loading or unloading.
So that would eliminate the case. But you know, I think to your point, Mr. Biller, if you feel that some additional clarifying language would be helpful, that's a recommendation to make back to the body. Yeah. Again, the whole point of this is to be more clear. So, I just
want to make sure that while we're engaging in the exercise, if there's a better way to help define the intent because I would I I know the intent there. The intent is you you don't want, you know, shipping, cargo, disruptive things next to a
residential zone. But, you know, I don't know if if like you're dropping off kids at school, whether that's sort of the same type of disturbance uh that you're talking about. So, Maybe it is and maybe that should happen in back of the structure.
Depends how you route the driveway. Right. Right. And that that's one thing that we considered when we were looking at it is how can you be creative and still not disturb the residents yet make it safe for children or whoever you know pedestrians and that's going to need to
come out. But I think there does need to be some type of constraint to try and marry those two concepts, right? So you're not disturbing the neighborhood and everybody's okay up front, right? Or your main entrance. And I don't know if we can define it perfectly. And you
know, if a school for instance came before, they could always request a variance from that. You know, it was reasonable. Yeah. Actually I think this is confusing because if you cannot have a loading
area if this is a corner lot and you cannot have exactly what I was thinking. Yeah. So if you you are going to have in the front which is maybe it's even worse. So if I have to read this and I have to design a building like here I said okay I cannot put it here because residential
residential. So the only way for me to do it is along the facade which can be even worse. That's very and people sometimes you don't want to go through a variance through the son board because that's
complicated and we need a loading space because it's important to have inside a loading space. But it would have to be so it would have to be effectively screened. Yes. Yes. That can you imagine a way to do it? If
you can imagine a way to do it, but you can you say here you cannot do it facing a residential neighbor, right? The only way to do it is in the facade on the facade, which is even worse. I just Well, so if you put it next to the
residential neighbor, you have to say it have to be a screen and then it just becomes a debate over what is effectively screened. Look, you're never going to have a zoning ordinance that checks every single conceivable box of any condition
that could could come. Right. I think the the idea here is that this is an improvement and a clarification over what was there before. And the the board tonight has to decide whether it is consistent or not or I'm sorry
inconsistent or not inconsistent with the master plan. Of course you could pass along recommendations but at the end of the day I think this is consistent with the master not inconsistent with the master plan but I think it's inconsistent. I do agree N1
I actually interpreted it differently. I thought it was just to do with loading unloading garbage things like that. Now, it seems like the intent was actually we're going to include all kinds of loading and unloading and then I think the whole corner lot issue is real, right? Then you're forcing all of that to happen on the front facade. So, if
that was the intent, I read it as a different intent. So, the fact that happened against the residential neighbors, right? Well, maybe you do, maybe you don't. I think it's arguable, right? So, well, and that's where if but but let me just back up a second. That's not what I'm arguing about. What I'm arguing about is the fact that I actually interpreted it differently. So,
it's not clear is the point. I mean, or I'm stupid. one of the two. But I think it's No, that was I think my original point. If if our intent is to make this more clear, that to me was not. So if we added an exception for corner
lots, would it make it more clear? No, I think it makes worse. I think we need to revamp that. I don't I think it's a bit of a mess. Once you get clause after cause after clause in there does does if I may does the board if if there's a recommendation in this regard does the board wish to
recommend to the governing body to consider uh whether or not it uh it can be clarified in light of what the intent of the governing body is with respect to the phrase loading or
uh services. Yes. and and I'm not suggesting that's what should be done, but that might be an appropriate recommendation without trying to guess which way the what the intent was. I I think the problem is it's not clear. So,
yeah, if that can be clarified, we can make it clearer. Yeah, I I agree with Cy. I'd also like to just mention that uh historic properties on corner properties always get sent to zoning because it's
very difficult to corner properties are very difficult to manage what you need to do whether it's an addition or visual from the road or whatever. So a lot of our corner lots in historic preservation end up going in front of zoning for
those definitions per se or permissions to do additional that's what you might want here because each corner lot might have a unique set of circumstances and that's something that I think is better looked at by the zoning board. Um, so I
think there's an advantage to, you know, not having it carved out. Suggestion, it's not necessarily for corner lot. Just suggest corner lot is any lot. Yeah. Just look at how to better potentially articulate the loading or
service entries potentially. Um because it obviously we we have you know differing perspectives on what that could mean and it does meaning it doesn't give the potential land owner a clear understanding of how to design a
building if we have different understandings of what it meant actually a requirement like it's meant to be they have so just take take a look and see if that could be uh I have a question just technically um it says in O all site
lighting sh will have full cut offs with house side shields installed. Is that a technical term? Full cut offs with house side shield. Yes, that's correct. Yeah. Um, with respect to O2, it says
freestanding polemounted lighting shall have a maximum height of 12 feet and shall be located at least 50 feet from any adjoining residential use or zone. The 50 feet distance I understand the intent. I think the
intent is a good one. Um, is that practical to have lighting that's that's that far? Let's say if you have a 3acre, like we've been talking about, 3 acre to have lighting that's 50 feet off of a residential. To me, 50 feet seems like a lot because
you're going to have to have a large parking lot. That means that you might have an unlit section of the parking lot, which doesn't seem safe. So, is that practical or again, I I'm just concerned that I don't want to have an ordinance that effectively precludes No, sorry. But you have the 50 buffer, so
you cannot have a parking. You already have the 50 ft. You can't have lighting in there either. Well, yeah. Sorry. Other than fences. Yeah, that's Jay. Right. And you're and we're changing the minimum parking set back again to to 50 ft.
I guess as a whole as you read all of this, what I'm coming to is I have some concern that these revisions are effectively eliminating houses of worships and schools because of it just it seems like in totem the requirements
might be so ownorous that it that people can't meet them. I don't think that's the case. Okay. And then for three, all site lighting shall be reduced to provide minimum security lighting during n operating hours.
Is that a good idea? Do we in this day and age, do we really want to I understand again the intent, but to turn off security lighting during non that's when crimes most likely will happen. It's saying it's not saying to turn off security lighting saying provide minimum
security. Yeah. Right. So you can provide security lighting. So all site learning shall be reduced to provide minimal security. That's the threat threshold I guess we want in our community. Minimal. I mean because ever we always complain that we
complain that just one sec. We complain that that that's different. Minimal and Christmas tree are are different ends of the spectrum. But we complain that there's crime is increasing in our neighborhoods. We know with respect to houses of worship, crime is increasing
exponentially. And do we want an ordinance that says we're going to have minimal security lighting? Again, I just have a concern with that. And whether this is is actually consistent with the master plan that talks about character of the
neighborhood and safety and things like that, I I have a concern. The character the character of the neighborhood would be affected if you have a structure that's lit up very brightly. U I agree. I completely agree, but that's not what I don't know that you can quantify in
terms uh can I what about minimal effective security lighting? Sure. I mean to get around the problem that if it's minimal maybe it's ineffective. Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. Or just security lighting.
Would that work to provide security lighting? Well, right. So that's the point is you want enough lighting but not to light up. Yeah, I think that would work. Yeah, I think the idea here is not to keep the light of the parking on all night. Mhm. Right. No, I think that No, that's a good suggestion
because the point is for security but not to light up the whole neighborhood. Mr. Chair, may I ask a quick question of G of Mr. Po with respect to this issue? is is a term of art that's often used
security level lighting. Is that in your experience? Uh that that could be a term to be used, security level lighting. Are there other terms in your experience that might also be utilized that would have a broad application and general understanding in
the planning and zoning community for this purpose to help the board? I I think with the recommendation I think the recommendation to just strike the term minimal. think um it would be clarifying and I think perhaps also um you know in furtherance to the the comments that I've heard I think if the
if it was revised to say all site lighting shall be reduced to provide security lighting only during non-operating hours may be sufficient. Was there any consideration given to a control on the size of signage? Um
the sign ordinance is contained within a different section. Um the so there are regulations related to signage that are separate part separate and apart from standards of protection control for a residential for a facility and a res correct. It's in the street graphic se street
graphic section. That's all I got. That's it. I was thinking about doing a fence of seven foot instead of six, but like there's no more causes anyway. So, sorry. I just want to go back to the recommendation for the loading because
somebody can came here with the loading in front on the facade and it's as it's okay. We it's the code said that they can do it. So, it can be even worse. So just a recommendation for to look at
that because once they put a loading in the front the code allows that doesn't say anywhere that they cannot right but what if somebody comes up with you know a creative way to disguise either loading or way yeah you should
yeah right that's right now they said they cannot put it next to the neighbors right residential neighbors right the only way to do it is in the and somebody will come here with an application with the loading in the facade in front and we can't say
anything that complies with the code. So we try we need to avoid those situations. You have to have some area that they can load. Yes. So if they're surrounded by residential properties on
all sides except for the front, then the front is where they have to do their loading practically speaking. I mean it's just the way it is. Or they could go for a variance to put it in the back. It has to be screened. Screen that from the front is, you know, but we should say that at least a screen has to be
screened. No, no, from the front. It doesn't say that. At least I can't read that. It says at the beginning all No, that's the buffer. That's the buffer. Where is that? Sorry. No, it's just a recommendation. I don't know
to avoid future burnouts. Well, and it also I guess depends on what is doing the unloading, right? If you're going to have a loading dock, I know Wyoming doesn't have a loading dock. Hartford may have a loading dock. I don't think Deerfield has a loading dock. Um, a lot
of the churches and synagogues I don't believe have loading docks. So, it's just a matter of of the space. And I don't know, maybe that was was that the intent is to make sure that we don't have a driveway in the back just for larger vehicles or I think that's the
question is what's loading and or service entries? Because, you know, there are some of us who interpreted loading and service entries as loading of children in and some of us were interpreting as loading of machinery and Right. But I mean loading areas is defined, right? We had loading spaces
spaces. Okay. Yeah. It doesn't have to be a loading dog, right? This is cool. Well, does that include garbage? That's what it's supposed to be potentially. I I I think I think Mr. Billy's recommendation for some clarification I
think would be good. All right. Then we'll table it. Sounds good. Would you mind going over all those? Right. the the uh if the board is concluded with uh then uh uh again the primary
responsibility is to uh based upon the recommendation and opinions of our planner uh decide if you concur and that if you find this uh ordinance to be not inconsistent with the master plan that is the resolution template that I've uh
provided customized for this ordinance Um, so, uh, I think what I'm going to do is, unless I'm told otherwise, I'm going, uh, I assume I'm going to assume, well, you'll clarify for me that the motion is to find this not inconsistent with the
master plan, if that's my correct guess. And then uh the recommendations that I've heard are to uh add and public and private schools to the last to the end of the last
whereas clause uh to capitalize buffer in section 2J. uh uh to no other delete the last sentence in in two or
well that I have yes 60 bear with me I'm sorry make sure no other something of buffer make sure no other something of buffer I cannot read no other references to buffer no other references that's what that is to buffer that's right That was a Thank you. Uh
the uh 606.2 DJ J I'm sorry 1 subj last sentence uh relocate to 609.3. Uh clarify
uh what is meant by loading or service entries based upon the governing body's intent with respect to that term. uh and uh modify the security lighting
provision to read uh to delete minimal and add only after lighting. So it reads provide security lighting only during nonoperating hours. Those were the potential six recommendations. I'd like to make another one uh kind of going
back to what Cory was mentioning. Maybe a higher fence at 7 ft minimum was 7 to 8 ft. Re the recommendation was to go from seven to 8 ft on the fence.
It is six now. Oh, I'm sorry. I And which pro? Which paragraph? I didn't draft this. What paragraph is that? The uh where's that? Oh, isn't that in 609? It's in the buffer. That's in the buffer, which is
not being modified. So, it's not even in the It is amended yet. Oh, I'm sorry. Um, it's in a the applicant shall erect six foot stock or other wood fence in a dense evergreen planting within the buffer area.
So, it's the last sentence. Oh, there it is. I'm looking for the number and it's written out as a letter. I'm sorry. The applicant shall erect Uh, and I'm sorry, what was the proposal? But at the risk of
raising another issue, a 7 foot high fence. I think the problem had that came up before was not that the was that any height fence depending on where it was wasn't going to be sufficient. Um so it's almost like we need to it really in the context of C in the remaining buffer
area solid and contiguous landscape screen shall be planted blah blah blah eliminate glare of automobile light automobile lights conceal the parking area etc. It seems that we should consider saying the fence should and the plantings should be such that this happens because right now we just say
the fence has to be a minimum of 5 ft within the property line but otherwise does not have to be located to assist with what we want to happen in 6093C. Right? It's up to the plantings to do all that elimination of glare and everything else.
So I I'm just proposing that a possibility rather than it like we could raise it to seven feet but there could be proposals that come in with the same problem that even 7T 5T inside the property line is not high enough to eliminate glare and it's not really possible to plant so that you eliminate glare. Um we would give ourselves more
room to maneuver if we said we can specify the fence be located within the buffer area such that it assists with the minimum you know elimination of glare which means you could move it close to the parking lot for example. so that the lights don't come over the top of the
fence on the property boundary. It's a good idea. It's a possibility. I'm just saying that rather than because I mean I can whatever fixed height you come up with there will be circumstances under which it's insufficient. That's what I'm trying to say. And if I may just in furtherance to the 7 foot point
just from a permitting perspective um sixoot fences do not require substantive footings that trigger the need for a construction permit. 7 foot fences require a deeper footing which requires construction permitting. So you're kind of changing permitting threshold jurisdiction by moving from six to seven
feet. That's just a just wanted to put that on on record. Also visually six feet is kind of the limit and once it gets higher it becomes becomes a prison wall or something. want it higher. You might want to say, you know, that the
fence needs to the fence or the plantings need to provide screening from the headlights, right? That's what your intent is. That's my intent. My intent is that we leave ourselves the flexibility of not just requiring that to happen with the plantings, which is what we're doing at the moment. 609 3C
makes it the responsibility of the plantings to solve all of that list of problems in 6093 C. It doesn't allow the fence to be moved elsewhere in the buffer. You could just make another requirement separate and apart from that that
adequate screening be provided including a second fence. The use of the plants plantins and more fence. Well, right now the plantings can take care of it. That's one of the reasons for the buffer, right? To to reduce all these nuisances, noise and light and
whatever else causing the pollution for matter. Um, so I mean it should be it should go across for everything, not just fence. It should be the plants as well. No, no, that's what I'm saying. But right now the 6093C is the only
part of 6093 that specifies what the plantings in the buffer. It says literally in the remaining buffer area, i.e. between the fence and the 50ft line, right? A solid and continuous landscape screen shall be planted and properly maintained to conceal the
parking area. Eliminate like we're putting all of the load on those plantings to do that job. We could give ourselves some flexibility and say there's nothing to prevent them from moving the fence closer in order to do that. But I guess so sometimes I see in some codes
that they said the applicant has to demonstrate that there will be no anything. What I'm saying is we don't have to be prescriptive, right? We can be they have to be a screen. That's it. You can add that as another condition here that says
and the applicant must uh prove that the headlight glare is not going to upon neighboring residential properties. Yeah. Because it's very complicated to be so specific for every solution. So we need to have something like they have to demonstrate that. I
mean that's arguably they do because it says shall be planted and properly maintained to conceal the parking area eliminate layer of autom. So by saying shall it is a requirement. No, no, it is a requirement. I get it. But it's putting all it's a bit weird, right?
We've got a fence requirement that doesn't have to serve any of those purposes and then we have a plantings requirement that does have to service those. That's all I'm saying. Like why are we restricting ourselves? Well, the shell the shell means they may need to use another mechanism to achieve that. It
doesn't preclude the use of another mechanism. No, it says a solid and continuous landscape screen shall be planted. Right. That's it. Right. And then you want to say andor fence I mean I would just say fences fence and
planting in the buff area must be such that you know these list of things that we want to not happen don't happen. Right. I would just leave it at that. chain of bands that provides that can demonstrate sufficient screening screening. Yeah. So basically
the list of requirements there and it's just solid and continuous landscape screen and fence but then you don't require them to put a second fence in the buff area. That's what I'm saying. This is already a requirement there to be one not more than 5T. I mean, I think the the intent of the is to say, hey, you have to put up a fence
5t from the property line and then conceal the fence from the residential people by putting plantings between the fence and the property line. It's at least 5T. So, it could be closer into the property and bringing it closer into the property would provide better screening potential, right? But currently, they're not required to do
that with the fence. They're only required to plant in order for that to happen. That's all. You know, you can't let perfect be the enemy of good in some of these. Perfect be the enemy of good. I'm trying to resolve an issue that came up previously. So, so, but my point is that
B is saying that you have to put a fence up at least 5 ft from the property line and then essentially shield the fence from the residents by using shrubs. C is really talking about minimizing glare and parking and all that. So, so I
think Jonathan has a good point is that it's the combination of and the landscaping on the on the worship or school side that has to that has to effectively eliminate the
glare lights. What if you recommended saying in C in the remaining buffer area a solid and continuous landscape screen together
with the aforementioned fence or fencing or well the problem is the aforementioned fence is at can be 45 ft away right because the buffer's 50 ft wide as long as a combination of the fence and
the landscaping provides the requisite screening. Isn't that what's being presumably being No, I I agree with you. That's the intent that I have. I'm just not sure what but the best wording is to make it clear that that's what's required. That's all.
Landscape screen in conjunction with this property. You can put the plantings here in here's the parking lot. You can put the fence closer in and as long as it meets condition. solid continuous landscape that shields then you're fine. I understand
properly maintained. I said together with construction is good. I think it's important to have both but also we uh on the board will be able to see whether or not that's appropriate screening, right? They have to prove,
right? What we always think about is the fact that plantings can die. So we can't hold them to maintaining them. So that's why the fence is really important to separate the residential and commercial use building. So
So perhaps the seventh recommendation is to add a 609.3C after landscape screen in conjunction with the fence. That's a recommendation. I'm not sure that it's enough. I'm not sure we need
to hold up. I mean, we may need to make a motion to extend because I think we uh changed our Did we by 10:30? All right. Uh making a motion to extend another 15 minutes till how about till
11:00? Hopefully we finish before then. Do I have a second? Second. Sure. Thank you. All in favor? All opposed? Motion passes to extend till 11 or less or less earlier.
10:00 is 10:30 witnesses. But I I think it sounds fine what you're suggesting actually now that I reread B in conjunction with C. I think that seems enough. I'm going to give credit to board member Bill.
Yeah. Um, I just want to go back to the security lighting for for a second. Security lighting has a definition. There are specific things that are required to in
order to meet the standard of security lighting. So, an entity couldn't say, well, we consider this to be security lighting, but it might not be up to a certain standard. It's a good question. Um, I I don't know
offhand to answer your question. Um, I think that it it does have a little bit of subjectivity which I think may be a little bit problematic for the situation of this language within the conditional use standards um because that can be
difficult to achieve uh and you know could present jurisdictional issues if you know who who's determining if there's compliance or not. So that's actually a really good point. Um, as far as what is is there an adopted standard with respect to what that security
lighting uh is. Um, I think that should be a recommendation back to ascertain if there is a minimum standard requirement. Ascertain a a a standard that is sufficiently measurable, definite. Yeah. Definite and
that certain. Yes. Definitess and certainty. Correct. for a conditional use. Correct. So that's the modification to number six recommendation. I think we well we have as many as seven
potential recommendations. I'm going to leave it to the board to uh decide whether or not it's a motion to find the ordinance not inconsistent with the master plan. and also whether or not
to include any one or more of the seven recommendations. You find it not inconsistent and include all the recommendations, it'll go back to the TC and they'll decide whether they want to include the recommendations up front or if they want to pass it and
then do an amended um you know amend it further after that uh if more time is needed. But I don't think that changes could be made without without renoticing it. Right. So the well it'll it'll be for the governing body to decide what to do with
the recommendations and based on what they decide then the governing body through their council will decide whether or not it is a a substantial enough change if there is a change to the ordinance to require reintroduction or not. In other words, all to be determined.
But so I'd say make the recommendations and the TC can work with Graham to make changes if need be. Just asking a question I think I know the answer to, but if if the ordinance isn't sufficiently clear for an applicant to understand its intent, is that
inconsistent with the master plan? It's a good question. Um yeah I mean the one section let me just put that section by um yeah I mean it is uh recommendation
M1 on page M1 and just for your edification and your interpretation but it states promote clear user friendly and transparent application review and public hearing processes for development proposals and applications so as to adjourn efficient and well publicized mechanisms for residents to quality of life issues. using code violations,
right? Master plan languages. But so, but that I think is is a possible conclusion with respect to one item in the ordinance. And again, the standard is not inconsistent. If the ordinance as a whole is substantially consistent with
the master plan, um the the law and the case law is clear that it does not require absolute right consistency. That just to sort of to with some def uh definitiveness and certainty, but not a
whole heck of a lot. Define the threshold for you uh on deciding whether or not it's uh not inconsistent, whether it's substantially consistent. um if that helps. So I don't did Did we get a motion not inconsistent all seven
recommendations? Correct. Uh so there's there is now a second. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. You got it. Keep going. Feel free to stop. Uh uh so so there is a second and it's a
roll call. Roll call vote, please. Cory Biller, no. Allison Canfield, yes. Michael Cohen, yes. Jorge Master Petro, yes. Deborah Neas, yes. Frank Sakamandi, yes. Michael
Zion, uh, yes. Sereni VJ, yes. Gaston Hopper, yes. Okay. And so I will modify uh the resolution accordingly and and uh the communication will be made to the
governing body as the report uh by way of recommendation from this board and the governing body will proceed accordingly. Motion to adjurnn. All right. I make a motion to adjurnn. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor?
Motion passes. Have a good evening. as far as Oh, uh Sarah Sarah. Um yeah, so this is this one is good. Very important. Yeah. Uh, Eileen is still on this one. Okay. Oh, shoot. Is Is there going to be a problem
getting you? You You can sign it and cross her name out if there's a problem. I need it tomorrow morning. If you can get Eileen to sign it and and email it to me tomorrow morning, fine. Oh, I thought you're closed Friday because of the holiday.
You're closed both and you're not closed on Friday, but the court is closed on Friday. Um, I would ask that you uh this is the one that has to be filed. Um,
and she's not the planning board secretary. Just cross her name out, handwrite yours in and sign.