Six. Uh, the meeting is being held in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act and adequate notice of this meeting is provided as required by law. Specifically, notice of this meeting was emailed to the daily record in Morris Newsby on January 13, 2026 and posted on
the Township of Morris website. The agenda and resolutions for the meeting are available on ww.morristownship.com under agenda center. Certain portions of this meeting may be closed to the public for the purpose of personnel or other matters as outlined in the sunshine law. Notice to members of the planning board
and township staff. Any use of electronic devices during this meeting shall be used solely for the purposes of township business and any communications are subject to the open public uh records act. Thank you. Could you please rise and join me in this pledge? Yes. Pledge of >> allegiance. >> To the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Okay. The uh first order of business is our or the roll call, right? The roll call R.
>> Mr. Alleso >> here. >> Mander >> here. >> Mr. Flower >> here. >> Mr. Rabbits >> here. >> Murphy >> here. >> Mr. Benois >> here. >> Mr. Quillin >> here. >> Miss Corigglia >> here. >> And Mr. B >> Yes. here.
>> Okay. Uh first order of business after that then would be the consideration of approval for the of the minutes for our meeting of February 2nd. Uh I would note that the uh there is an error in the statement of adequate notice for that
meeting. I called it I issued the following statement not Paul Woodford. So any other comments or corrections on those for the minutes? >> The attempted quote was thwarted. Oh, it's going to be that kind of
meeting. Is it? >> Okay. I will entertain a motion to accept the minutes. >> So moved. Yeah. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I abstain. Show. >> Okay. Oops.
>> Okay. um a res uh resolution um PB1625 for the Morris Sheriff's Department that we did. Mr. You want to tee that up for us? >> Happy to do so, Mr. Chairman. Uh yes, the Marsh County Sheriff's Department.
That was the review of the capital project to construct the K9 facility with associated dog runs, parking areas, and the like in the OSGU open space and government use zone at 540 West Hano Hanover Avenue. board heard that on
February 2nd public hearing uh found unanimously 90 that uh the project was consistent or not inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the master plan and did not need to make any recommendations
uh to the project. So we have a resolution memorializing same and as always I hope it's accurate. >> Any comments questions? >> I have a comment. Yes, Mr. Cohen. >> Um, at the bottom of page one on item number four, it says Warren County
Planning Department. Is that >> should be Somerset County. Uh, >> is that right? >> Yeah. I don't know why. And excuse me, Mars County. >> Thank you. >> You had me going there for a second. Meeting. >> We covered three out of the 20. But and
I have a couple of incredibly picky and little um typographical errors to tell tell you about. Um page four, the uh item 10 like line one, two, three, four, five, six.
The first word is from but it says form. >> Yeah. Thank you. And then the next page, item 12, uh, little Roman numeral three. It should say have a floor area. >> Yep. >> I think.
>> Yeah. The, uh, yeah, >> I'm not quite sure. >> No, that's great. There's a space in between. >> Oh, it's just a space. Extra space. Okay, >> that's it. Thank you. We'll
get a clean. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> On. >> We uh is on. Is on. >> Yeah, we caught the uh Thank you for pointing out those typographical errors and we'll get a clean copy uh to Ryan
after presumably uh the resolution will be adopted as amended. Oh, so I move we adopt the resolution. Is there a second? >> I'll second. We call the role. >> Mr. Lassa,
>> I abstain. I was not the hearing. >> Miss Van order? >> Yes. >> Mr. Flowers? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rabbits? >> Yes. >> Miss Murphy? >> Yes. >> Mr. Benois? >> Yes. >> Mr. Quillin? >> Yes. >> Miglia? >> Yes.
>> And Mr. Yes, >> I just know uh just something occurred to me. My apologies, but I'm just going to double check to make sure that it was the Mars County Planning Department. Um because since it's a Mars County project, I'm just wondering if Warren
County covered the review. So, but assuming that it's uh >> the uh I'll confirm that it's accurate that it is Mars and not Warren before we uh make that final change, but I'll assume the motion second and roll call vote gives me that leeway.
>> Yeah, I'm Sounds good. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Their presentation didn't include a uh approval by the Morris County Planning. >> It was Mar. Okay. And >> I don't remember one from Warren County, but I distinctly remember that they did
a typo. >> Okay. >> But still check. >> We we will double check. >> Okay. >> Okay. Moving on to our public hearings. We have a public hearing on the adoption of our amended fourth round housing
element and fair share plan. Mr. Chairman, while that's happening, >> happy to uh give it the legal tea up if you'd like. >> Yes, please do. >> Sure. Now, as the board is aware, uh and we just did this uh seems like a lot longer than uh eight months ago about,
but it was June of 2025. Uh we adopt all elements of the master plan, including the housing element fair share plan. uh that was adopted back in June and there's uh very modest changes to it as we'll hear from our planner uh for this public hearing to adopt the amended
housing element fair share plan for the fourth round. Uh it is a public hearing. I'll be swearing in uh Miss Laney our planner and uh anyone who wishes to make comment uh andor question uh uh this evening with respect to the adoption of
the housing element fair share plan. All the requisite notices were provided. Notice of the hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least at least 10 days prior to this evening. In fact, it was the Mars Town Daily Record and the Star
Ledger both uh on February 20th. Uh copies of the draft amended housing element and fair share plan were sent to the state office of planning advocacy, the Mars County Planning Board uh and
all adjoin the clerks of all adjoining uh municipalities adjoining our the perimeter of our municipality uh on February 19th. All of that was sent in accordance with the municipal land use law uh by certified mail. Um
and uh therefore all the procedural requisites uh have been satisfied for us to have this public public hearing this evening. Um I do also have a resolution uh uh that can be utilized to facilitate the adoption of the amended housing
element and fair share plan uh at the conclusion of the hearing if that is the uh desire of the board uh to do so. And that's been distributed in advance of today. Although an a revised version was sent this morning just for the board members uh uh with a couple of typos
that I caught. Hopefully I caught them all. Uh as well as some supplemental information because we have since um since the adoption of our housing element fair share plan for the fourth round in June. Uh we have had a uh
mediations with the affordable housing dispute resolution program and we have recently received uh I'm pleased to say as the board knows a recommendation from the program judge as well as now on February 5th as well as now on February
24th an order of the Mount Laurel judge all approving our housing element and fair share plan for the fourth round uh and uh notwithstanding challenges to uh have been having been successfully addressed. And the board will recall
that back in June uh we were able to report that our fourth round prospective need obligation, our number uh which was originally set by the state department of community affairs at a number of 571
affordable units for the 10-year period for the fourth round. uh what we were able to reduce that number to 375 units almost a 200 unit reduction and since we adopted the plan and now we're in a
position to with a very minor change adopt an amended plan so as usual I'm talking more than enough uh and I'm the opening act our main attraction is seated to my right so with your permission Mr. chairman. Uh I can swear in our planner, Liz Laney, uh and she
can make the presentation uh with respect to the amended h fourth round housing element fair share plan. >> Uh before we do that, I just a little note on procedure. We're going to turn it over to Miss Laney who will be the giving us the presentation on the on the fair share and we will we can ask the
board to ask questions and discuss the and following that we will open it up for public comment or public questions and comment and we will combine those tonight because they tend to bleed together often anyways. So just sake of expediency public any questions or
comment for the about this will be made after the board um has a chance to ask some questions. >> That's a very very very reasonable approach. I find that it uh helps members of the public not having to worry about it asking a question versus making a comment. I could swear everyone
in and they're free to ask questions comments and mix them together and we'll attempt to do our best to answer all the questions. >> Okay. So with that, I'll swear in Miss Laney, 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. >> Thank you. And I'm not gonna wad. >> All right. Thank you, Steve. So I I'm just going to actually step back because I think something that is important to know about this fourth round housing element uh process and it's something
that has just become an issue in every single town is the absolutely accelerated pace and deadlines that we have been required to meet as part of the amended fair housing act. So just to you know certain things that maybe in the past we if if every all things being
equal if we could spend months and and and gather more input and not etc have more presentations I think that's all preferable. Um but we are in the law um mandated to meet these certain deadlines and it's been that way since um you know
the amended fair housing act was adopted in March 2024. Um, our numbers came out October 20th, 2024, and it's been a mad dash, you know, ever since. Um, so I just want to point out that we didn't
get, as Steve said, we did very well with our numbers that we had 571, which was, you know, obviously not something we could live with. That's what the state had initially assigned us. And we had um, you know, that was in October 2024. we had till the end of January to
counter that and then there was a month uh lag for uh objectors to come forward which they did. Um so they that was you know essentially as of March 1st 2025. In March 2025 we spent a time haggling
in front of the program judges as to what our number was. We finally by April 1st got our number down. then we were required to adopt a housing plan um and fair housing element and fair share plan
by June 30th 2025. And while that seems like oh you had three months well you don't because you have to figure out what your plan is based on what your number is figure out your approach and then you have to prepare the plan and then it has to get noticed and then you
know the notice then obviously it comes before the board. So in essence we had uh a you know a busy April and May figuring out how we were going to address our plan. We then we came before this board with our plan um which I will
just I hope yeah you can see this on the screen. So essentially one thing that we were able to do which I think Steve mentioned which is that we to the extent possible tried to maximize our two
things. One is extensions of affordability controls which of course is extending just extending how long um you know the existing affordable housing units in Morris continue to be affordable for another 30 or 40 years.
I'm camp now. Can't remember what I think it's just 30. But um so obviously those are not new units. It's not new construction. So to the extent that we could avail ourselves of those extensions, we did. Um the other thing
that we tried to do was to maximize our bonuses. So you know, under the Fair Housing Act, you're allowed to for certain types of development seek bonus credits, which of course are not actual units as well. Um so you know we had in
a few of our um projects that we have in our plan it has to do with the fact that they're redevelopment areas or that they you know the the redevelopment of existing commercial sites or they're close to transit and so that allowed us
to get some bonus credits. We also had one group home which of course is done by the bedroom the unit count so it's not an actual unit. Um, so all that said, when we presented the plan that was adopted by this board in June, we
had 121 extensions of affordability controls. We had 94 bonuses, which is the maximum bonuses we could have because you're maxed out at 25% of your obligation. So 25% of 375. And that got us to 387. And
so we had to only get to 375. So we thought, well, that's a kind of healthy 12 unit surplus that we can carry forward to the next round. As Steve mentioned, you know, we received objections from um several parties on the plan and wound up in
front of the the program uh judge throughout the fall. And one thing that they we sort of agreed to eventually was that we were being a little aggressive with our bonus credits with the extensions of affordability controls.
And one of that was that you really are can only take those if there are rental projects and most of the extensions are actually ownership. So we conceded that point. But in order to make up the units, let me just say this. There were,
I would like to say, 170 some odd units that were eligible to have extensions of affordability controls. And Aaron Wilson um did a tremendous job because when we came into the plan, we thought we were being aggressive with 121 or 100. Yeah.
121 and initially and we thought, okay, that's, you know, that's pretty good. We wound up getting almost 170. So, we were had these extra extensions that we were able to draw from and borrow from. Uh, so when we were lost those bonus
credits, we were able to draw from uh more extensions. You're going to ask, well, why didn't you use all the extensions? And partly that was because we I think were discouraged from that by the program
judge. um that that was sort of not meeting maybe the and Steve you can back me up you know the the Mount Laurel doctrine intent by not creating uh you know relying too much on extensions however it's my my uh firm belief that
we will be able to take those extensions in the in the next round which will have began in 2035 and for sure there will be a next round um the change between the June 2025 plan and what you have before
you now is simply that change. It's getting rid of those 25 bonus credits and adding, as I said, there was a a 12 unit surplus. So, we had to, if you can follow the math, we had to make up 13 units. So, we added
13 additional extensions of controls and now we're at the 375. Um and so we don't have we're not taking any you know bonus or extra credits into the next round. We don't show that on the table but we do know that we have these additional
extensions of control which hopefully and I think we will be able to use in the next round. So that is really uh I think in essence the change from what was adopted in June. If I can yeah ask uh
miscellaneous some questions and maybe some clarifying question. All first of all the benefit for everyone's benefit uh the extensions of affordability controls are existing affordable units that have 30-year deed restrictions meaning they cannot they must remain
affordable for 30 years. those 30-year periods had or were about to expire and therefore we were able to get one unit credit for extending each and every one
of those another 30 years without having to construct any further affordable units for those credits. Uh and we were so aggressive. There was an argument that you could take some bonus credits, but uh uh uh Liz is correct uh that
indeed um that's true for rentals, but not necessarily for owner occupied. And these units were owner occupied. So we did have to back off that aggressive position. We uh and take 25 of our extensions of affordability controls and
trade them for 12 uh excuse me, take uh uh take um 25 of our bonus credits uh and trade trade them for uh 13 additional extensions of of controls. Uh other than that, this is the plan that was adopted
back in June. the and and am I correct, Miss Laney, that by this plan, out of the 375 units, 134 are extensions of affordability controls and 69 are covered by bonus credits. Uh
134 + 69 I'm going to do the hard math, the hard the oldfashioned way here. I believe that is is that uh 203 units of the 375 units are actually not requiring additional construction.
>> That's correct. >> Okay. And in fact, some of the uh units themselves are not units, but they are bedrooms. For example, the bedrooms uh in the supportive housing for four old turnpike road. Correct. >> Correct. Correct.
And the uh so we have one, two, three, four, I guess five actual developments uh that uh would comprise the portion of the fourth round that is going to
involve either inclusionary housing or supportive housing. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And that's in the chart that we're looking at now. Uh this is the updated version. Uh the only difference from the fourth round being the additional
extensions of affordability controls and less bonus credit affordability controls. Correct. >> That's right. And is it your professional opinion uh excuse is your opinion as a an expert professional planner uh that indeed
pursuant to this housing element and fair share plan uh same will guide the use of lands in the township in a manner which protects public health and safety and promotes the general welfare in accordance with section 28 of the municipal land use law.
>> Yes. And is it your professional opinion as a professional planner uh that this plan is designed to achieve access to affordable housing to meet the township's fourth round Mount Laurel constitutional affordable housing obligation and it considers the lands
that are most appropriate for the construction of low and moderate income housing in accordance with section 310 of the amended fair housing act. >> Yes. And that is all I have. If you have anything further,
>> no, I'm I'm happy to take questions from the board. Thank you. >> Any questions, Mr. >> Yes. Um, thank you. This is really complicated and um I don't know how you
manage doing this. So, uh, just to reiterate so I can be sure I understand, you got almost 170 of the eligible for extension owners to agree
to that >> compensation paid. >> I understand that. Yeah. Yeah. I'm aware. Um, and uh, which is great. That's phenomenal. And so you used of those approximately 170 134 in your revised. Correct.
>> Okay. So, you have a 36 bank for future, >> right? >> Okay. >> And um that just was essentially a trading of what had been bonus credits are now these >> extensions. >> Extensions. So, there isn't really any
change to the development numbers. >> That is 100% accurate. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. The only thing I would ask the clarifying caveat is um we're not saying we have another 36 or 37 banked um but there are some banked.
>> Yes. Up to or whatever. >> Any other questions? >> Mr. I have a question. So the the the judge was uncomfortable allowing all the bonus credits that the township had asked for, but perhaps the law specified
that he should have he or she should have allowed. No, no. I I think the idea was um >> there was some debate as to whether you could take bonus credits for extensions on ownership units or if it could had
only to be rental. And I think that we were aggressive because there were there was some debate about it. >> It's a new law. It's >> arguably subject to interpretation. >> Okay. Um but I think when push came to shove and we had objectors who said no
you know the letter of the law you can't do this and so at that point we said all right you know we have these additional extensions we can use those in place of the 25. >> Nevertheless am I correct that we still maxed out so
to speak on the uh credits that we took? We certainly did on so whatever we were eligible for we took it. >> So in 10 years time if the law doesn't change which I know is a big assumption there would be additional credits that
we would have available to use in the next round. >> I think so. Yes. Absolutely. Yes. I mean we have these extensions and they they should be counted. Yes. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Do we have any more affordable units that will be
losing their controls in the next 10 years? >> That's a question. >> Not tremendously relevant to this discussion. >> The vast majority as I recall um came
about uh roughly 30 years ago in in the 80s or so. 80s and 90s. >> 30 years ago is the '9s. Yeah, I know. It's I was It was wishful thinking on >> it was the late 90s.
>> Yeah, Mr. Alleso. >> So, just so I can understand the magnitude of this, you basically were able to negotiate down over 170 units. Is that my math right? >> Uh uh from the original
>> 134. The original number was uh from 571 to 375. So our number was actually was four shy of 200, right? 196. >> Yes, we were able to get it down to 196. >> So we're at So we have to theoretically build over the next 10 years 375
affordable units. >> We have uh 375 credits because affordable housing is done in credits. So 375 is our was our prospective need obligation. our number for all intents and purposes for from
2020 July 2025 to June 30 2035 uh and that 375 as you see on the chart uh of credits is made up of and I can't see that far but uh of 134 extensions of
affordability controls uh 69 bonus credits which I did the math before I have to do it again it's just over 200 right 203 three or something. Uh uh that are credits that do not require additional construction in our township.
Um and the balance which is less than half of the 375, right? Uh 172 if I recall correctly, uh is uh is thankfully the memory still works even though the eyes don't.
72 uh are would be actual units or bedrooms to be created uh to cover the 10-year period obligation. And I would say again to remind everyone uh that is without a vacant land adjustment meaning that
this plan uh as you'll recall from June this housing element and fair share plan uh is such that all the entire prospective need obligation for the next 10 years is satisfied. Uh so that no one
can come in and say well wait a minute you have a vacant land adjustment. uh there's more room. There's what we used to call an unmet need. They still do. We don't have to worry about that. Uh and I want to build x number of units here and you have to let me.
>> So that that that cannot happen under this mechanism if it's adopted as such and the ordinances are adopted. >> So we have to build 172 units build among these seven projects. What happens
if for some reason one of these projects I mean it sounds like these are locked in in that the owners of the land have agreed at some day to I guess what I'm getting at is if like the project just picking one there's that tea shop I
think it's eight units what happens if the tea shop decides they don't want to move forward >> I I can answer in two ways >> I mean do they have to move forward I mean I'm trying to understand >> we our obligation as a municipality ity is to provide a realistic opportunity
for low and moderate income housing. We can't force people to build things. Um uh what was that movie with the baseball movie with if you build it they will come. Well, this is sort of the that if you provide the realistic opportunity, you have satisfied your obligation. >> Okay.
>> Uh there's a reasonable expectation they will come and build it. Um but uh if they don't, there is auditing procedures uh uh whereby there's a 5-year midpoint review. Those of us who before the third round, there was a a midpoint review as
well where we check in and see and provide information to see where we are along in the process. Um but uh uh for now, we are able to maintain our immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits.
people forcing us in our township to build things at in locations of their choosing, not ours, in densities and heights of their choosing, not ours. We are protected from that and that that's a critical component of this process. Um
so with this plan uh and I want to be clear uh in the program judge who was the former Mount Laurel judge for this visage uh approved it and recommended it and the Mount Laurel judge ordered it
approved it and ordered this plan recognizing and specifically stating in the in the order uh that we will continue to have our immunity from builder's remedy suits presumably
for the next 10 years so long as we adopt this housing element and fair share plan and ultimately the governing body adopts the ordinances implementing uh uh uh these mechanisms that you're seeing on the chart uh for providing
that realistic opportunity for that affordable housing. >> So I just have one more question maybe it's for Mr. Chairman. So, our role here tonight is to I I've been asleep. I guess I've missed a couple of meetings because of conflicts. So, I just I just want to understand again what our
>> our role on this is to approve the amendment to the the amended plan that we originally approved last June. >> Okay. >> Good. Thank you. Sorry. >> Yeah, Mr. Rabbits. >> I just have a quick comment. I I just want to underscore what our attorney has said about
builder's remedy. Um he spoke eloquently about it. I just want to underscore the fact that the township retains control over the projects. Uh the ball is in our court as opposed to having it in some builder's court to telling us where
they're going to build, how they're going to build, and what you know and the township having very little say in it. So, this plan really is is in the township's favor to continue to move forward with. And I want to thank all
the professionals for all their diligent work on this to keep the township from uh being subject to builder's remedy. >> Well, and I would add to that, too. It's not just that the township wouldn't have very much say, but the township would be spending money, >> right, in in court going against what we
didn't have a lot of say. >> Good point on too. So, uh, there's more than that. >> And I would say, if I may, the these projects, developers, many developers came looking to build many units in our
township. Proof's in the pudding that we're doing a good job when everyone wants to be here, built here. Uh, but so many uh that there were developers who did not get to be in the plan. There were developers who challenged and fought
to the bitter end to be in the plan that did not get in the plan. And every developer that is in this plan sought more units >> than they got in this plan. >> Uh and so there was negotiation, there
was litigation within the affordable housing dispute resolution program which is part of the court. Uh there was many litigation if you will uh that took place. uh this was the product uh uh of
all of that with the understanding that the loss of our uh immunity from builder's remedy uh was always uh hanging over our head like the sword of damages. Uh so uh we uh the sweat has
not fallen and we've all been >> uh in the administrative changes that we'll be looking at later um including the state law um developer who comes before us now are
they required and I can't remember what is over a certain size they are required to include affordable housing >> that's right and >> but That is all under our current zoning, whatever it else. They we we don't have to modify anything to allow
that. They have to modify their plans to fit the affordable housing into whatever they want to do in the existing zoning and plan, whatever we say. >> That's right. That was a condition of the third round settlement agreement uh with you know with Fair Share Housing
Center before the court that we had to have what's called a mandatory set aside that five or more new units um >> sort of then the affordability requirement was kick you know kicked in and we that is maintained in what you
have before you tonight. Um it's part of again it's really state law in many in many respects. >> Yeah. I don't know that there's many, if any, municipalities at this point that don't have that townshipwide mandatory set aside ordinance. And in fact, some
in the fourth round had to increase uh their set aides associated with those third round township mandatory set aside ordinances. We did not. >> Any other questions? >> Yes.
>> Yes, Mr. Flowers. So, the 172 actual units that are going to get built, uh, the majority of those are going to be owner occupied. Correct? >> Yes, that that is the expectation at this time. That's what we have in our
plan. One thing to just I'm sorry I'm cutting you off your question, but but one thing to note is when it comes to zoning, you can't require rentals or ownership. And so, we have it, right? It's it's it's sort of a you can't do
it. Um so this is our expectation based on what we um anticipate. >> Um but we can't put anything in the zoning say you have to do ownership or you have to do rentals. >> That's helpful. Okay. So this is kind of
based on what the developers have indicated what what they would do. >> Correct. >> Okay. and uh any idea the breakdown between uh sales and rentals? What's anticipated for the development at 60 Columbia Road?
>> Yes. So, of of the 84 units, one thing I should note is that there's a requirement that um at least 25% of your obligation has to be met through family no through rentals. And then at 50% of
that has to be family rentals. Okay. And so we um had the five uh bedrooms at Old Turnpike. So that was sorry, we had to reach the number of 76 because that was 25% of 375. >> Okay.
>> And so we had the five at um Old Turnpike, but those are special needs, so they're not family units. And um so in the end, we wound up uh doing a little bit of trading. Um, and of the 84
units at 60 Colombia, let me just get it right. Okay. 72 72 are family rentals and the remaining are uh ownership. >> Just 12. Okay. >> Yes. Yeah. And and honestly, that was so
that we could meet our our 76 unit requirement. >> Okay. Thank you. And that on that um development, will the balance of the market rates all be ownership or will they have will it be mixed as well or is
that an unknown? >> I'm not sure. I is it? I don't know. I'm not sure honestly. I'm not sure. I think that probably the town homes generally are more likely to be ownership and and multif family apartments generally are
more likely to be rental, but I I can't promise either way. Now, as I recall, all of these well all other than old turnpike road um they're all 20% set aside except for Columbia, which is 22%.
>> That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. So, you manage. Okay. >> Any other questions? >> I have a couple of questions. So, I'm confused about the um the distinction between rental and ownership and what we can specify because you said that in the
zoning we can't say what the we can't specify that there's a certain minimum or maximum for rental versus ownership, but we do specify town houses versus multif family.
Um, and there's some kind of belief that there'll be a correspondence there. >> I'm saying that just based on experience that often, it's not a hard and fast rule. You can have town homes that are for rent and you certainly can have apartments that are ownership, but
that's just what we've seen typically is that apartments tend to be more rental oriented and town homes tend to be more ownership, >> which makes sense to me. >> Yeah. But but the township has an obligation to have a certain percentage of the affordable housing be rentals.
>> Yes. And and >> but we have no way of enforcing that. >> I see what you're saying or >> Well, that's true. Actually, that's a good point. It's not in the ordinance, but I think that it's in this this plan and I believe it would be in a redevelopers agreement because we've gotten a certain representation from
that prospective developer that they would do this certain amount of rentals. Would that come before the planning board when the final plans are being submitted? >> Yes, it Yeah, it would come before this board. You would see that. >> Okay. So, at the time the planning board reviews the plan, we could enforce a requirement.
>> Yes. Yes. Yes. >> Okay. And if I may that that's an excellent point uh committee man rabbits that >> what >> I neglected to mention and that is uh that as this board knows uh this is the
housing element fair share plan phase so to speak ultimately there'll be ordinances that are adopted by the governing body then things that are aspirational so to speak and and and and only as detailed as an
ordinance is once adopted will ultimately become plans, site plans. And that's when our role as a planning board continues in the context of applications for development and the details come
into play uh and and elevations and renderings and site plans etc. and we hear those we have public hearings again on those applications uh down the road. So we shouldn't lose
sight of where we are in the context of the process. >> I have a couple of questions. I don't know if this is the right time for these questions, but I have a couple of questions about the resolution that we would pass approving the
the um housing element at fair share plan. Uh in the in the draft resolution, uh there's there's some interesting history, you know, new history that went into the most recent draft of this. So,
I was glad to read this. Uh, at the bottom of page three and continuing on to page four, it says um the Mount Laurel judge um entered an order on February 24th, 2026.
And then uh it mentions uh as you continue on to the next page that thereafter the court shall schedule a fairness andor compliance hearing to consider approval of the amended fourth round housing element and fair share plan. So I was confused as to what that
is. Excellent, excellent question and uh uh and and kudos for picking that picking up that uh uh the finetuning of that wording because that it came out of the order and while we're
while the process is new because it's an amended fair housing act and it's a new process that's been established. Um really what's what's anticipated is a fairness slash or compliance hearing to at that point for
the court to make sure that we did everything we were supposed to do between the time of the recommendation and the order and getting our certification of compliance which is the document that memorializes the fact that
we continue to have our sacred immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits. Uh and uh for example uh what's anticipated is has the planning board adopted the housing
element fair share plan? Has the governing body adopted the implementation ordinances? Has the governing body adopted the resolutions associated with the administrative functions such as the spending plan, the administr the affirmative marketing plan etc etc.
So, uh, each each step of the way, even with the court's order that just came out only a week or so ago, uh, is it's, uh, part of a continuum with and contingent on continued compliance. Uh,
so that's what's anticipated. Um it is not anticipated uh that uh the same judge who approved and ordered us to do all this would turn around and decide something different.
Um it's not anticipated but uh one never counts one's chickens until they've hatched and maybe walked around a little bit. That's helpful. and and this is not a doorway for objectors to come in in in in the process. It's just a check to see
that we've that the township has taken the steps that it's required to take. >> That's absolutely the position I would take as your affordable housing council. Yes. >> All right. Thank you. I have one more question here uh which is um maybe not a very intelligent question. Um the
planning board hereby adopts the amended fourth round AG FSD. So when we adopt it, does that mean it's part of the master plan? It's it's it's it's a section of the master plan. Correct. >> It is. >> So then the next thing we do is we turn around and we decide whether the
ordinances are in accordance with the master plan. And it's this that Okay. Yes. >> I just wanted to make sure I understood that right. >> Yes. But I what I will talk about at that time is also the earlier documents
um that were done on a more townshipwide basis, the re-examination master plan that it it it's sort of a continuum. But yes, it is. And just by virtue of the timing and the deadlines and the way that affordable housing works on these
10-year schedules, it is an element of the master plan, but it almost never becomes part of a general master plan. I mean just logistically it it it almost I mean in most times when I have done general master plans we say when it
comes to the housing element this is provided under separate cover because it just it it it's the timing never seems to to work. >> In our case the timing might be a little better. >> Right. >> However it's we don't need to
incorporate this whole thing in the in the master. Chairman, I have one I have one question. >> Yes. >> Along those lines, and I want to commend you on the fair share plan. I just think that you guys did a fabulous job and and I think we all agree with that, but I
haven't I don't know whether I've said that. Um, but you all know that I have some concerns about the planning portion, the m the master planning portion. And um I feel like perhaps we could have been we could have
done more. I'm not really sure. And Liz, I guess to what you just said where it's kind of disconnected >> because I guess my question is if we
begin to do a revised master plan now and let's pick something stupid out for arguments purposes. Let's just say our in our new housing element, all homes have to resemble um you know revolutionary war facades to
to represent to to 250 year anniversary of the that requirement would not apply to these projects that we're preparing now. Right. >> That's right. Because the ordinances are going into place now. um what you
probably saw in the ordinances we'll talk about next references to the design guidelines in in the code that are existing. So there is an expectation that they will have to meet those design guidelines that exist as of today. But
anything that let's say gets incorporated into the code in a year, two years, no I mean unless I not it would be hard to do that unless there was some reason that they came back to the board for something and we said, "Oh, while you're here, we're
going to, you know, request that you do this or require it even." So then the architectural design standards they would have to be incorporated into these projects. >> They are incorporated by reference. Yes, they will have to address it and they
wanted to be clear on that and they all the prospective developers are all very well aware of that. >> Okay. All right. So, our chance to input planning ideas as a planning board
for these projects really don't come to play until we have site plan proposals. And we're limited by what we can require based upon our existing master plan.
>> Yeah. And your >> plus the zoning. >> And your existing zoning. Really? Yes. >> Right. Now, the zones in here, like I noticed the one on Madison Avenue has a 20 foot 20 foot frontage on Madison Avenue. Am I wrong about that? I mean, how was that decided? And how does that
fit to the into the planning board master plan portion of what we're talking about? >> Do you want >> because it seems to be a 20 foot on off of Madison Avenue three and a half story building is a lot is is not much. two things and and and
and Miss Lane, please correct me if one I'm wrong. The the first we're probably morphing into the master plan consistency review and ultimately the adoption uh with uh of specific
ordinances. But but notwithstanding that um our professional planners, our township's professional planners were intimately involved in the process of
addressing the ordinance adoption. uh the ordinance drafting obviously uh which uh was a combination of developer requests and ultimately
determinations made by our professional planners who were steadfast in their positions. I know that firsthand having observed it. Um so uh planning has taken place even in the
context of the bulk standards that have been and obviously site uh context site surroundings etc. Um but I'm I'm actually morphing from lawyer's role to
planners role and I'm starting to use terms that I I didn't learn in law school. So, I'm going to turn it back over to to to this lady to correct me where I'm wrong and maybe supplement. >> I I think one thing that we have to keep in mind or you have to keep in mind as a
board that the law requires that you create a realistic opportunity. And if we said we had design st or not even design standards, setbacks, heights, whatever limitations that the
developer could never meet. And we said, well, that's what that's what we're comfortable with, you know, but that they wouldn't they would object and they would probably object to um this plan and they would probably object to whatever ordinance we um tried to adopt.
And I think the courts generally would side with them. >> You don't get away with that. >> Yeah. Um so, so I think this may not be solace to you, but perhaps it is, which is, you know, these
are not zonewide changes. This isn't everything on Madison Avenue is now going to be 20 ft, right? you know, and and so this it is sort of very specific and the law, the affordable housing law and the state constitution is very much
on the side of is this realistic? Is it going to happen? >> It's going to be a big change. I mean, right now it's three and a half stories and it's 100 feet back. >> Yeah. >> Now it's going to be on the road. So >> people people are going to notice. I
guess my concern is and I think a lot of people on the board have a similar concern but we know what to do about it is what have we done to prevent another Colgate type development? >> I'm sorry. Another way what >> Colgate >> Colgate type development. It's hard to
go go past there and think that I'm really proud of that development. >> Well, I mean and you look at Honeywell, you know, you're going you're going toward Morristown on Columbia Turnpike. turning left and you see that hill which could have been really really nice and
it's it is what it is. So my concern is what's been done here or what can we do in the future to be sure that these projects are something we can be proud of and we can say yeah we were on the board
at the time and we were happy to approve these projects and and happy for what they look like in our township and they're going to really be an asset to our town. And I don't see where Colgate in particular, but I even for me personally, the Honeywell project
development are what they could have been. And I'd like to know what we've done so far, what we can do in the near future on these projects to be sure that we can be proud of those developments
when they're done. I mean, I haven't. >> All right. What what I would say is this is really when your review at site plan comes into u play because I think we can only do so much through zoning. We have um you know we have the design
guidelines, we have standards that we think will work for these sites. But I think when it comes to what will this actually look like? What is the landscaping around it? What materials are being used? what is the architectural treatments that's that's
before you and so I think that that is where your determination and your uh involvement will be critical. >> Well, that's great because I was thinking if we had that sort of language in the housing
element, then they would go into the project knowing we're looking for that and that it's required. It is in the ordinances and what we made clear again if this is any consolation to you which is that that that we would
make them do similar to what we've done with other developers which is you have to go through all of our design guidelines and if you can't meet something you have to explain it you know what why >> I would like to do more I would like to see renderings
of what they're proposing in advance so that we can a comment early on. I mean, what have you done? Show us. Let me go to your development over there and see what you've done. Tell us what you've done over there. I want to go over and look at that and and get an idea of what it is you're proposing so that we don't
have to wait until there's a plan in front of us and it's almost like too late. >> Well, is that even possible? I've been told we can't do that. >> Well, a couple things. Number one, there will be a site plan application process and the ability to do quite a bit
including see what developers have done elsewhere and weigh in to a degree. Number one. Number two though, and this is the harsh reality. That's life gives us plenty of harsh reality,
right? the the the the the mandate constitutionally and from our legislature in the amended fair housing act has a fair amount of restrictions on municipalities. The that other sort of damocles hanging
over our head the flip side half empty half full is the builder's remedy lawsuit. If you don't do what you might not want to do candidly, you're going to get something you want even less or that's even worse. uh and appropo of
what Miss Laney was saying before also uh things not only must be realistic uh providing a realistic opportunity for low and moderate income housing but also things may be viewed as cost generative
or difficult or expensive and that is something that municipalities are prevented prohibited from imposing upon developers of affordable housing including inclusionary housing meaning you know roughly 15 affordable four fifths uh uh
or less uh uh so no one wants to hear that I don't want to hear that um but but and and and we all have the right to speak to our legislators if we don't like it but uh um but it is what it is and we
have to as a municipality work within those restrictions because if we don't the alternative is worse. Uh so >> look I'm sure there are many things that we cannot do
but what I think we should do is focus on things that we can do. Well, I mean I think I think we have to take advantage of this window of not having threat of builder's remedy overhead, >> right? >> As we move into the master plan is
looking taking a hard look at the master plan to make sure that we can do put what we want in that to prevent to to guide the kind of development we want for the other areas that are likely to be developed in the in the coming future in the in the near future in the
>> right. So, I'm making a distinction between that, which I can't I can't disagree anymore. >> Can't agree anymore. >> Um, but I'm I'm looking at what the possibilities are for these projects. >> And, you know, it it concerns me because
I feel like we we stepped in too late. Maybe we should have done mass plan revisions two years ago and we would have perhaps more more um
more vision and um goals, municipal objectives and um forwardinking ideas on development for future development which would have included these
But they don't >> if it's Emmy Solace respectfully, I don't believe it would have changed things. >> Okay. >> Uh so if >> is that a reflection on Liz or us or is that a reflection
>> Oh my god. >> No, I fighting words. No, I I I I tend to agree with Steve in this sense. These sites are all unique and individual in their own way. And and three of them are redevelopments of
office buildings that I think if had we been doing a master plan, we may not have anticipated that these sites were going to be before us, you know, and so it's hard to anticipate what what what is going to come, you know, who's going to come to you and
say, I have a site and I want to redevelop it. And and that's a good >> and I think you'd also have to plan on that based on some idea of the numbers of affordable housing you were going to have to generate and your plan that you would come up with if it turned out to be something like 571 would be
significantly different than this. >> Absolutely. And and and and that and Liz raises another good point that redevelopment of of office buildings. We're talking about structures that presently exist. This is not all vacant
land. Uh so not only do you have the inherent benefit in my opinion uh of developing land that's already developed albeit in a different way. It's a adaptive reuse as they like to say. Um
and it's that's true. uh but also such redevelopment small R not big R sometimes big R too but but just redevelopment of or adaptive reuse of of structures for different purpose here multif family or other housing uh you
actually get more bonus credits for those types of projects which again we availed ourselves of the maximum we could in that sort of credit matrix the matrices of of hitting the maximums, the
minimums, and maximizing all the bonuses you can get. Uh, so it's a good plan. >> Again, I mean, you've done a great job with the fair share plans. Nothing said about I just want to just kind of restate something I thought I
heard earlier that when there were meetings that were taking place with the developers who ultimately submitted you know uh desires to build that some of these standards have already been discussed with them and they're aware of
many of them. >> They're they're aware of all of them that are in the ordinance in the draft ordinance. >> So to to your point Mr. been um some of it's not like they're totally you know >> um oblivious to what township is looking
for >> and that you know ultimately what comes before this board uh we will decide you know what is conforming and what is not and what we'll approve and what we won't but in the meantime do they have a good idea of what they think is going to get
approved. Yeah, just one final just thing is that the the law also changed in March of 2024 and significantly and so even again had we started the master plan process earlier
it's possible the rug could have been pulled out from under us in terms of what we were contemplating. >> There are a lot of really nice developments out there. >> I agree. >> I hope that we get some of them. >> I think we will. >> Okay. Any other comments? questions.
>> I noticed that she said one final thing, so I think she was trying to wrap it up. >> Well, except Okay. Okay. Seeing seeing nothing else from here, I guess we will now open it up to public questions and comment. Does anyone in the public have any questions or comments on this on the
>> adoption of the amended fourth fourth round housing element? Yeah. Whatever it is, >> a couple of mouths. >> Yeah. H Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I guess seeing none, I guess we will close the the public comment period
then and I would entertain a Mr. >> Chairman just a question. Yes. >> Are we moving forward with looking at the agenda? The agenda has other matters master plan consistent review and they list a whole bunch of ordinances.
>> Yes. >> So are we going to go through these individually or can we make a motion to approve them all at once? We have to do the approvals one by one. >> Liz will be discussing them in block but we have we do have to go through one by one on the approvals. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. >> So, are you looking for a motion? >> Yes, I am looking for a motion. >> I move that we approve the amended March 2026 fourth round plan. >> Okay. And would that would I be correct that that would include adopting the
resolution doing so >> and adopting the associated resolution. Thank you. >> I'll second that motion. Joseph Alleso. >> I have one change to suggest for the resolution which is to change how Ryan Kerbot's last name is spelled at the
>> res. You don't miss anything do you? >> Very good school teacher. At least at least he didn't spell it for a bad reputation. >> Okay. Uh could you call a roll call, please? >> Mr. Allessa? >> Yes.
>> Miss Vener? >> Yes. >> Mr. Flowers? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rabbits? >> Yes. >> Miss Murphy? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ben? >> Yes. >> Mr. Quill? >> Yes. >> Miss Gregia? >> Yes. >> Mr. B? >> Yes. Motion carried. Thank you. Okay,
moving on to our other matters which are called the master plan consistency review of the and of the zoning and land development ordinances which are associated with this. Uh now this these are not public hearing. This is so this is just amongst ourselves a
review and uh a review of their consistency with the master plan much of which we just approved. So Mr. Warner which you going to kick this off to for us. >> Very quick opening act. >> Oh sure
quick being a relative term Mr. agenda but the uh uh yes this is as we have done many the master plan consistency review on referral from the governing body on February 7 oh I'm sorry was it February 18th February 18th uh we
introduced uh the governing body did uh these eight ordinances which are are affordable housing implementation ordinances uh one of them is a somewhat administrative ordinance based on a model affordable housing uh uh ordinance
and development fee ordinance. Uh the others relate to the various projects. Um we are going to hear uh from Miss Laney as to whether they are consistent with the master plan. In fact, in anticipation of them being affirmatively
consistent with our master plan, uh we did away this time with the dreaded double negative uh and went right with the affirmative consistent. Uh it's aspirational. We'll see what happens. Um but she will pro provide the opinion as
to the consistency of the eight ordinances in bank as I understand it. Uh but then I will as always ruin the fund and ask that you uh move second and roll call vote uh with the resolutions provided for each uh as to whether each
ordinance is consistent with the master plan. So we'll have eight votes but one presentation and it's time for the presentation. Thank you, Steve. So, I think some of the um the ordinances related to the the projects uh are somewhat
self-explanatory in terms of what they are. The two that may or may not be um as self-explanatory are the affordable housing ordinance and I believe that includes the development fee ordinance, right? >> Yes. And those are um they you probably
have heard of the UHACK or the uniform housing affordability controls which is the state law that regulates housing affordable housing in the state and just in every everything came together all at once and you know this within we were settling the state plan was adopted for
the first time in 25 years and uh was amended in December 2025. Everything kind of came together and amongst the things that are part of our settlement agreement is that we had to update existing ordinances that we had which we have an affordable housing ordinance. We
have a development fee ordinance but we had to update them to reflect this new law which is similar but different enough to be annoying that you had to really redo these ordinances. The ordinance is to sort of save time. Um
the affordable housing professionals of New Jersey put out a model ordinance and we just adapted or adop or adapted that to Morris Township uh because it was our understanding that Fairshare Housing Center had signed off on it. So, we
anticipate that when this does go uh and gets filed with the court that it will be accepted because it's just the model that we adapted. Um then again, you know, the rest of them really are all the ordinances for
the fourth round sites. One that you may be wondering what is it is um the Mount Kimell Avenue redevelopment plan. So, this is the old or former Atlantic Health um hospital, Atlantic Health Hospital, Atlantic Hospital, whatever.
Um that's on >> what is it called? >> All all souls 95 Mount Kimell. Um this was in the third round plan and there was a redevelopment plan done at that time. Uh there was a developer at the time who
wanted to redevelop it. The plan was written for that developer. Um, and if that didn't work out, that was almost 10 years ago, a new developer has come forward. Uh, they have their own specifications of what they need in
terms of bulk and height, but the important thing to know is that they are still providing the same number of affordable housing units as they were in the third round. So in terms of the development yield of affordable housing units, it is um exactly as it was in the
third round, which was critical because one of the first things we had to do as part of the fourth round was to see what hadn't been built yet in the third round and address that in some capacity. So the fact that a new developer had come forward and was willing to do the same
number of affordable housing units was actually very beneficial to us. Um but you'll see that um that again that was a red a redevelopment area done it wasn't done by our firm but it was done about 10 years ago and then the redevelopment
plan was done about 10 years ago. So these are amendments to that to reflect the sort of change in conditions and new sort of requirements of the new developer prospective developer >> with if I may negotiated obviously no
one got what they everything they wanted or anywhere close for that matter but uh uh who who was seeking to develop in our township but they got enough. Um but I think honestly so in terms of consistency so obviously it's sort of I
think u odd to sort of have a master plan element that has these required ordinances in it and then say okay are these ordinances consistent with this element of the master plan. So yes, they are consistent with that. But I wanted to just draw your attention to and I
understand that the master plans, you know, going back to 1973 um talks about, you know, preserving the low density residential character of Morris Township with um allowing for increased multifamily density in
selected areas. And that was something that was in 1973. It was carried through 1994, the last comprehensive plan, and it was again echoed in the 2017 uh master plan re-exam. And we really
actually took that to heart. Um that these sites were selected. uh there were different contestants, you know, people who wanted to be in the plan, but that these sites we thought best embodied the appropriate locations for this these
types of multif family uh projects. And so, um the ordinances reflect our settlement agreement which reflects the amended housing element uh and fair share plan. And as I said, we believe
that actually it goes back through the years uh of the township's master plan that this is consistent with the idea that there and I will say even this in 1994 there was um
some language saying that we understand we have an affordable housing obligation. We're going to address it through as much basically as as much as we can without having to build new units. It doesn't quite say it that way, but it does uh essentially say that
using the available laws that that we can and I think we also have taken that um to to the extent that we can. So, as we talked about earlier, so my recommendation is that um the board can
find these ordinances consistent with the master plan, but I I'm willing to take questions. If I could just confirm one thing real quick. So, uh, Miss Lennox, the, uh, it's your professional opinion that each and every one of these
eight ordinances is consistent with the township's master plan, including but not limited to the goals and objectives that have been set forth in both our 1973
master plan, as well as our 1994 master plan, as well as our most recent 2017 master plan re-examination report. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Any questions? Thank you.
>> I have one question. >> Yes, chairman. So, each of each of these ordinances uh is written um property specific and each of the ordinances has an associated resolution. As we move forward, are we approving the ordinance
and then approving the resolution or can we approve the ordinance and associated resolution at the same time? We're not approving the ordinance, >> right? >> That's that's that's these folks job next Monday. >> Oh, that's we are just finding that the ordinance as written is cons consistent
or not. >> So, we're really only approving the resolutions then. >> Yes, we're approving the resolution. Just wanted to make sure. >> No, we do not uh uh step into the legislative function uh of the governing body uh that and only the governing body
our cha committee adopts ordinances. >> Okay. Um the reason the ordinances of course are provided is because this is specifically what you are determining is or is not consistent with the master plan uh pursuant to the resolution. And
as was mentioned, there were specific uh there was specific dialogue on each site with each associated developer um to uh keep it as close as possible to
what is in our current master plan and also what was necessary to make it viable for uh meeting the affordable housing practice. to the extent practical. Yes. I mean, we we and like I said, certain
things we are kicking back to the existing ordinance, specifically the design guidelines. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> I have a question. Yeah, Mr. I have a question about the Mount Kemell redevelopment plan. I'm a little
confused and I think I may have missed something. So, are we uh as part of this meeting tonight, are we opining that this redevelopment plan is consistent with the master plan? >> Yeah. And I you know, but it didn't change the housing plan at all because
in the third round it was 23 units and it's and it's still 23 units. And so there were no changes to the housing plan related to this site. What did change is that the developer needed just different some different standards
setbacks height etc. And so this has to be changed uh sorry the redevelopment plan had to be sort of amended but in with regard to our housing plan it is the same number of units and so it is
yes you are being asked to see if it's consistent but that I didn't talk about it earlier because it hadn't changed. I felt like I had missed something happened previously. >> That's my fault for not mentioning it, but it it nothing had changed with regard to that. So, I just didn't talk
about it in in the housing plan >> and and correct. Yeah, it was a third round that was modified. But also I neglected to mention that uh uh that for that particular one it's the same
exact function master plan consistency review um but the language comes from the local redevelopment and housing law as opposed to the municipal land use law. I think the phrase is imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
uh the legislature and the local uh redevelopment and housing law literally cut and pasted the language from the municipal land use law for master plan consistency review. If I recall correctly, they may have changed the
time frame a little bit or maybe not. Maybe it's the same 35 days. But in any event, it's the same function under a different statute for that one. Probably interesting if to anybody, only lawyers who do this. Uh, and even then, I'm
probably stretching it. Probably not interesting to most. >> Okay. Okay. And I see that the the draft resolution does say that we're finding >> inconsistent >> uh we're finding the ordinance not inconsistent with the master plan, but do we need to also find the
redevelopment plan to be consistent with the master plan? >> Another excellent question. The ordinance actually is the redevelopment plan. They're they're in in combination. Uh uh basically it's the redevelopment plan is part of the ordinance.
It has sort of a preamble if you will and then uh which I think is 10-26. Uh and then the plan uh is the amended Mount Kebell Avenue redevelopment plan that is uh referenced in that preamble.
I should Okay. >> Yes. Any other questions? >> Can we begin? >> Yes. I'll I will entertain a motion to approve a resolution uh finding
ordinance where we start with uh >> 4-20 4-26 consistent with the master plan. >> I'll second. >> No, I need to I need a motion. I'd like to make a motion that we find ordinance 4-26 consistent with the master plan.
>> Is there a second >> or not inconsistent? >> Consistent. >> No money. >> Money the waters. Okay. >> Yeah. >> I second. >> Could you call the role? >> Mr. Alles. >> Yes. >> Miss Van order.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Flowers. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rabbit. >> Yes. >> Miss Murphy. >> Yes. >> Mr. Benois. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fum. >> Yes. Miss Grigia. >> Yes. >> Mr. B. >> Yes. So carried. >> I'd like to make a motion that we find ordinance 5-26 consistent with the
master plan. >> Second. >> Second. >> Everybody should second. >> Mr. Le, >> yes. >> Miss Van, >> yes. >> Mr. Flowers, >> yes. >> Mr. Rabbits, >> yes. >> Miss Murphy, >> yes. >> Mr. Benois, >> yes. >> Mr. Quillin, >> yes. >> Miss Criglia, >> yes. >> Mr. B,
>> yes. >> Moving on to 626. I'd like to make a motion that we find ordinance 6-26 consistent with the master plan. >> Second roll. >> Mr. Lasso,
>> yes. Miss Vaner, >> yes. >> Mr. Flower, >> yes. >> Mr. Rabbit, >> yes. >> Miss Murphy, >> yes. >> Mr. Benois, >> yes. >> Mr. Quillin, >> yes. Miss Griia, >> yes. >> Mr. B, >> yes. >> I'd like to make a motion that we find ordinance 7-26 consistent with the
master plan. >> I'll second. Yes, Mr. W. Mr. Leo. >> Yes. Van start. >> Mr. Flowers. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rabbits.
>> Yes. >> Miss Murphy. >> Yes. >> Mr. Benois. >> Yes. >> Mr. Quillin. >> Yes. >> Miss Grigley. >> Yes. >> Mr. V. >> Yes. >> I make a motion we find ordinance 8-26 consistent with the master plan. >> I'll second that one. >> Mr. Allessa.
>> Yes. Miss Vanwater, >> yes. >> Mr. Flowers, >> yes. >> Mr. Rabbits, >> yes. >> Miss Murphy, >> yes. >> Mr. Benois, >> yes. >> Mr. Quillum, >> yes. >> Miss Kriia, >> yes. >> Mr. B, >> yes. >> I make a motion we find ordinance 9-26 consistent with the master plan.
>> I'll second. >> Mr. Lasso, >> yes. Miss Van order, >> yes. >> Mr. Flowers, >> yes. >> Mr. Rabbits, >> yes. >> Miss Murphy, >> yes. >> Mr. Benois, >> yes. >> Mr. Quilton, >> yes. >> Miss Grigia, >> yes. >> Mr. by >> Yes.
>> I make a motion we find ordinance 10-26 consistent with the master plan. >> I'll second that. >> Mr. L. >> I I still could we have a little discussion here because I am still confused. I may have to abstain. I because I still really do not understand.
>> Um >> so so we are Is this okay that I'm sorry Mr. Chairman? >> No, go ahead. Um, so the ordinance contains
the redevelopment plan, Mr. Warner, that's what you >> the development plan. Yes. >> Yes. So where does where does it say that? >> Where the >> Yes. As always, there's a lot of wherees, but when you get the uh uh
section two, the amended Mount Kemell Avenue redevelopment plan prepared by Philips Price, etc., a copy of which is the next year part of this ordinance is hereby adopted by the well ultimately by the township committee in accordance with section 7 of the local
redevelopment housing. >> Okay. And and if I look at the at the at the prior whereas the last whereas in the list of whereases it says the planning board transmitted to the township committee a report containing the master plan finding that the amended redevelopment plan is not inconsistent
with the master plan. So that happened that should have happened before this ordinance. >> No that's a that's a an expectation. In other words, the way the ordinance has to be drafted is as if it's coming up to
the governing body for adoption. So, it has to in essence presume that you found it to be not inconsistent or affirmatively consistent um in the body of the ordinance uh in order for
the governing body for the township committee to be able to have what it needs to adopt. So you kind of have to think a little in the future so >> and that's what our resolution
but our resolution is on the ordinance. Okay, I'm satisfied. >> Again, we roll call. >> Roll call. Yes, we have >> We did get the motion. >> We got the motion on the second. Yes. >> Yes. >> Miss Fer. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Flowers. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rabbits. Yes, >> Miss Murphy. >> Yes, >> Mr. Benis. >> Yes, >> Mr. Quillum. >> Yes, >> Miss Grigley. >> Yes, >> Mr. B. >> Yes. >> I'd like to make a motion that we find ordinance 11-26 consistent with the
master plan. >> Second. >> Second. >> Mr. Miss Vanwater. >> Yes. >> Mr. Flowers. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rabbit. >> Yes. >> Miss Murphy. >> Yes. >> Mr. Vanois. >> Yes. >> Mr. Quillum. >> Yes. >> Miss Gulia. >> Yes. >> Mr. B. Yes.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Concludes that. Do we uh have anything from the legislative committee? >> Yes. Yeah. Real quick, we did have u as I had mentioned at the last planning board meeting, I think it was the last one, we did have two uh applications uh
for a cannabis business. Um and we did bring two uh both applicants in for uh presentation and uh we did we did have both and uh three members up here on this planning board are part of the
cannabis advisory committee and uh we will be make talking about this in u amongst the township committee uh before our next township committee meeting um updates if there are any after that. >> Yep. But I'm sorry, I missed the first
part. The applicants were for what? >> Cannabis. Cannabis. >> Cannabis. We have >> Oh. >> Oh, >> we had two applications. >> Oh, >> for good tail. >> We only got two applications. We had put it out there. Thought we might get more, but we got two. >> So, they came in. We've listened to them. Okay.
>> But we're in the middle of relaying that to the other Township committee members >> and then we'll see what happens. >> We'll either we'll either approve zero or one most likely. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Good luck.
>> Okay. Uh, any comments from the public? >> Yes, please. >> All right. >> You've been very patient. >> So, >> went by faster than I thought it was going. So, >> your name and address, please. >> Uh, Julie Winter, 210 Mount Kimble A. I just have a a comment more on the lines
while you were talking about what can we do to um affect the aesthetics of of all the development. I'm not opposed to affordable housing. I do feel that we need it. Um, but I'd like to make a comment about our neighbor, Harding
Township, how shrewd they are. They passed an ordinance that they couldn't extend Blackwell rail AB, thereby um, landlocking the property that's being built right now, forcing us to use our land. Can't say that I don't disagree
with it. That's the least amount of affecting a person's home, but it was shed on their part. Um they changed the uh speed limit on Stand Spring Road to 25, forcing them everybody to go down harder road. That I do object to. But
one thing that they're they're doing as far as affordable housing, they're building them themselves and they're getting 100% credit. Have we thought about doing that? I mean, that's huge. I think I I read an article that they were supposed to build 216 and they only have
to build 75. And I are you guys not aware aware of that? >> I thought they were building 96. >> Well, I'm not personally aware of exactly what every municipality
including Harding Township is doing. Uh however uh the uh if it's 100% affordable housing >> uh then you do not uh unlike inclusionary housing for example we have
a 100% affordable housing project uh on catch road that's part of the third round >> uh settlement uh uh uh >> well I think they're doing accommodation they are doing some like the farm that's 100%
um affordable housing on um Kitchell and Woodland and they're cute and they had a lot of control over the aesthetics. Why couldn't we do something like that? >> Well, the the the the fact of the matter is 100 uh most municipalities
>> decide not to be in the business of affordable housing, >> right? >> Uh and they may or may not be aware of of the downsides for them as a municipality. That's that's their issue. Um, but as far as 100% affordable housing, uh, we avail ourselves of that
when we can, uh, so as to get one for one as opposed to five for one, so to speak. >> Um, but otherwise, we really can't speak to what they're doing in in other townships. >> Well, I I'm just bringing that as example. Have we looked into it? Have we
done our due diligence? I mean, I think it's a great idea. Well, al also some of the money that's in the the funds that might support development like that was used for the extension of affordability, >> which serves kind of the same purpose is you you don't you're not you know
whatever you're spending you're not having to build five units to get one. You're getting that one unit. So, >> you know, it's it's another way to use that some of the funding that might go to if we're building ourselves. But I'll let >> No, no, that's an excellent point. Uh
Mr. Mr. Chairman, the extension of affordability control is better than one unit, one credit for one unit. It's one credit for no units. Uh because it's one credit for extending >> the good >> affordability of an existing unit for
another period of time. Um maybe it's that's an odd idea that Harding should learn. Uh but but uh with all due respect to our neighboring municipality and I mean that um but also it it it may be and I'm not certain of this. I don't
have personal knowledge >> maybe we should all check it out >> but it may be that their plan uh that they proposed is being challenged and it may be uh that their plan uh did not survive judicial scrutiny. So, we may
all want to double check that. Okay. Because >> Yeah, I think it it was that they were getting pushed back. The latest I heard it was >> we read things in in in in places and sometimes they're even true. Um but sometimes they're only true for a period of time
>> and sometimes things change and they become >> no longer true. Uh so it may be that their plan may not have withtood judicial scrutiny already. Well, and and I understand that, you know, some of the builders
like Toll Brothers, they were pushing back. Of course, they have a lot to lose, right? >> But Harding has a lot to gain by keeping the rural rural nature of their community, which is I think most of Mars Township would like to keep it that way,
too. And I don't know >> how hard we're trying to keep that. >> Our our township's plan was approved by the court. It wasn't reversed. >> Well, okay. That's all I have to say about
that. >> Thank Thank you. Uh, we have uh I will I guess seeing no other members of the public, we'll close the public session. Um, we have no need for close session. I don't do not believe. So, I will enter.
>> I make the motion we adjourn. >> Oh, Joe, we missed you. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. Thank you very much.