i call to order the meeting of the planning board of the township of Morris for April 7th the regular meeting of April 7th 2025 um I the legal notice required in accordance with the open public meetings act has been satisfied and a statement certifying same will be
executed please join me in the pledge of allegiance i pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all
uh Sonia could you call the role please here mr here Mr rabbit here m here mr barrett here mr quen here mr here
Lady here mr warner here mr hans here okay thank you um I guess we can move right on uh our first order of business we have one application here from public hearing you want to introduce that for us yes Mr
chair this is PBO3-25 Morristown Motors Inc on amended site plan variant waiver block 104 lot 67 169 Richdale Avenue in the I21 zone applicant proposal to create an existing
compacted gravel meal parking area and may install the sidewalk and curb which would connect with a previously approved stairwell to the Subaru service center on lot 13 lighting fixtures underground electrical lines and underground storm
water management facility will also be installed thank you Mr warner thank you Mr chairman i did have an opportunity to review the notice found the content to be sufficient found it to be timely served certified mail on March 26 published on March 27th both at least 10
days prior to this evening so the board does have jurisdiction to hear and decide the application this evening and I'm happy to swear in the witnesses when appropriate after applicants council provides his Okay thank you good evening Mr chair board members board professionals Peter Wolson of the firm
of Dave Pittney here on behalf of the applicant may be seated yes please thanks very much so the property is shown as lots six and seven block 104 on your tax map with a street address of
169171 Richdale Avenue contains approximately 265,080 square ft located in the I21 industrial zone where car dealerships are a permitted use as you heard in Sonia's comments the
property currently contains a Toyota car dealership a car wash for use by the car dealership only a parking lot and related site improvements those improvements were the subject of previous approvals from this board including most recently pursuant
to your resolution PB207 adopted on October 20 2014 as part of the initial approvals for the property when it was first developed in 2011 2012 the applicant
received a variance to permit up to 84.5% impervious coverage on the property as part of the amended approval in 2014 the applicant then reduced the impervious coverage on the property to
79.4% which continues to be the existing coverage amount today the applicant now seeks amended approval to reconfigure a portion of the parking lot and walkways and to add site lighting specifically the applicant seeks to pave an existing gravel portion
of the parking lot install a sidewalk and curb which will connect to the previously approved stairwell connecting the property to the adjacent Subaru service center located on adjacent lot 13 the lighting fixtures underground electrical lines and underground storm
water management facilities the applicant is proposing a total of 34,159 square feet of disturbance the remainder of the site will remain unchanged there's one variance in connection with the application before
you and that has to do with impervious coverage on the site as I said it's currently 79.4 75% is permitted under the ordinance we seek permission to go to 82.9 from
794 it's interesting to note that uh the previous variance granted for this property permitted up to at that point a proposal that would have had 84.5% impervious coverage or more than we seek tonight in addition to that
single variance we seek two design waiverss from your ordinance there's a requirement that the parking areas be suitably landscaped and the applicant does not propose any landscaping in conjunction with the proposal there currently is the condition on site there is no
landscaping the second requires parking stalls driveways and aisles to be marked and again the applicant does not propose to change the current configuration uh which is unmarked it's important to note that in conjunction with this parking field that's proposed to be paved that
all parking is done by employees there are no customers that park cars there so it's strictly for storage by the dealership the application was deemed complete pursuant to correspondence dated March 12 2025 in addition to that
completeness memorandum we're also in receipt of a memorandum of review from the environmental commission dated March 31 2025 i have two witnesses with me tonight uh John Brower who's a principal the applicant is here if there are any
questions of him but I have two witnesses john Hansen who's both a professional engineer and a professional planner uh John has a long history of the development of this site and he'll provide a little background on that as well as discuss existing conditions uh
he also is a planner and will talk in support of the single variance and the two waiverss and then James Kaiser is our project engineer and he'll discuss the modifications proposed from an engineering perspective so if there are no questions of me I would call my first witness mr
mr warner you want to swear i'll swear them both in as well as our board professionals our engineer Mr hansen our planner Miss Lanny if you'll all raise your right hand to all of 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 thank
you all back to you Mr chairman okay we'll call John Hansen first is this the best talk for the presentation everybody be able to see it here or would you like me to set it up somewhere else it's a little far would that be better
yeah we don't have any public i don't think so probably do the old fashioned way here it's going to be easiest for everybody we can stay here and talk to [Laughter] um Sonia is anybody do we know is
anybody watching at home i don't see no more okay participants is zero okay it should it says right on the screen right there on the screen it says it on the screen yeah see the far left on the
bottom in the middle the furthest icon it participants is there a zero or two two two that's two well then shouldn't the board be in view of a camera
they can see it or not they they probably can okay that's okay good that's what I thought okay good then then this then this is then this is much better our IT person is stacking it for the
Neielson rating post it up there hey John can you please provide us with brief background of your educational professional background including lensure in the areas of planning and engineering absolutely so just for the
record it's John Hansen les H so um uh I've got a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from Virginia Tech back in 1992 i've been doing this type of work since then i've been before this board a
number of times over the last 20 25 years testified in thousands of cases uh in that time and I've been intimately involved with the Brower family properties for probably the last 20 years or so worked on the Toyota Marstown property and neighboring Subaru
site so I'm intimately familiar with these properties and on and my licenses are both in good stand and that's both as to engineering and planning is in good standing correct correct any relation to Mr hansen okay
now for quite a while okay then then I certainly will accept your credentials and please proceed thank you very much oops get close or may not have to interrupt okay so um why don't we mark this this was not part of the package i marked
this 41 with today's date it's an aerial photo of the property and the surrounding area it's entitled proposed site conditions rendering and it's dated March 31st of this year prepared by my firm so I thought this would be good to
at least kind of lay out the property for the record the surrounding uh features and then um we can get into just the existing conditions and then my associate can talk about the proposed improvements so what you see in the be
in the middle of this is the subject project area uh RGale Avenue would be along the bottom of the exhibit east Hanover Avenue is on the left side and so the north is really the bottom left hand corner uh of the of the page here
and so just to lay out the the area of the surroundings you have the Subaru showroom in this location here to the bottom of the page um to the left of the page is what you see is this aerial is an older aerial so it shows the storage
units the U-lock storage units that are now the Subaru Service Center under construction and by the way that project's going very well um to the top of the page is the Peach Smart Shelf storage facility uh and then to the right is the Toyota Mars down the
service center showroom building and then to the bottom of the project site is the hardware store so you can see the the area that we're talking about surrounded by commercial development it's kind of the
last what I call the last piece that we really wanted to improve now that we've done all of this work around it and the sites are really uh working very well functioning very well uh the idea is to take you know this last piece it's a gravel parking lot to clean it up make
it a little safer have a little more well lit so it can be a little more functional and safer um so the things uh uh some things to note here are if you've been out to the property you've seen that there's some some grade around this area those slopes uh although the
slopes are regulated by your ordinance they're all man-made so there's no you know uh pristine steep slopes there's no freshwater wetlands there's no flood planes there's no environmental constraints here and as you look in this area too one thing to note is that um we
really never had designed any significant landscaping back there all the slopes are stable there's all soil or vegetation growing on them but because it was out of the view the general public and really have an area that's only for c for employees and
really only to be used for that we never really focused on doing much back there um but it but it it does function well um over the years too we've um just to kind of set up myself talk about the drains but right now this
area kind of has one drain in the middle of it and it collects from the gravel surface all into the one drain and then it's piped out we connected it through our Subaru uh system there and eventually goes out the east um that's
important because over the years you know for all these properties that were developed many many years ago the water kind of flowed in different directions and now it's really flowing the way it needs to flow there's no impacts to neighboring properties and it was by design we eventually got to that point
over all these years and so you'll hear from my associates with final cing and paving and stuff that we're doing here kind of the last piece of the puzzle to really perfect the drainage and make this thing work well soils out here everybody probably knows you have the
John Crimmy site off the page right here it's a sand and gravel concrete mix area so this whole area is very very sandy soils so they're very good for infiltration of storm water which we're going to propose to do here and um works very well with what we're set up on on
the project um I think that's really probably a good spot for me to stop i can certainly answer any questions on my testimony so far and if there's no questions I could turn it over to James i have a question Mr chairman yes
what's the landscape requirement receiving a waiver from it the landscape requirement is basically it's kind of broad but it's parking areas to be suitably landscaped and so I was going to testify to this and I still will but you know
this is a vehicle storage lot so whether it's really a parking lot per se uh you know is somewhat of up the debate I guess but also you know my my understanding of the landscaping requirement was really so that you have parking areas where you have customers
coming to make it more visually appealing and you know make it uh make it work a little bit better from that standpoint so I I get the idea that it's a car dealership and trees are probably difficult what trees could do to cars
but from the same perspective none of that area has any vegetation yeah there's no trees there at all so would would you be able to offer us some trees somewhere else on your properties to maybe pick up for the fact that there's not going to be any trees on the parking
lot where I agree with you you don't need them and you don't want them but the fact that there's no trees at all you know looking at saying from a global look is there a way to get some some trees or some vegetation so we can
get some oxygen carbon dioxide i I think we have a couple of places that if the board if it becomes a a thing that the board really wants us to focus on that we could look at couple of areas here on the property to put some vegetation in couple of maybe hearty uh shrubs and
maybe you know something to that to have a little bit more landscaping back there but the reason the reason that we did is for all the reason that you said um you know it's just that when you are when you have an area like that that you want to maintain and the public's not going to see it
generally genally ask for we'd certainly be uh able to work with your professionals to try to identify some spots to get some green I don't know how the rest of the board feels but I I I think that's a good idea try to get some Yeah I just wanted to piggyback off what you said because I do think that that's
an excellent stipulation um that area is you know not the trees customers are going to see your trees but to to put trees someplace else on the property where it could be more useful um as an exchange for all the you know for the variance I think is
something that the board probably could get behind the other option is uh or the other possibility or addition to that perhaps would be I know the environmental commission's report i mean you have in the plan there's various turf grasses on those those slopes um uh
the one on the back on the east side now is particular is eroding quite a bit but there's recent rain i'm not sure the turf grass itself would be sufficient for that so some some of the the native grasses and sedges and things in there and shrubs i don't know if you really
want to plant a tree on that steep slope or not quite as steep between the uh the lot and the new the dealership there but that but those both would be places where something more than just grass would be would be helpful
okay so Mr chairman may I yes um I I am a little ambivalent about requiring trees but if you have some kind of ornamental shrubbery that's on our plant list or things like that and then taking care of
any potential erosion issues I think would satisfy the kind of the desire that I'm hearing here a tree isn't necessarily the right solution but having some kind of vegetation might be helpful mr chair yes right now there's no curbing along the back of that parking
lot that's true any excess water is going down the slope in the curbing to catch the water right so the erosion may be mitigated in part by this right and some deep rooted grasses or something
like that may be the way to go right it's it's a not a steep slope it's a very steep slope so it should have something deep rooted like they use along uh 287 or or uh 80 that maintains
its a good growth and a good route but it doesn't need to be maintained right yes you don't want to Yeah right it is steep yeah right you just described the um topography here a little in a little more detail
how strongly does that unpaved area slope does it slope toward uh toward Hover Avenue or No so what I Let me lay it out this way so behind the uh hardware store so I'm pointing to the east of the hardware
store this is the paid parking area uh of that's adjacent to the car wash area so this is I would say you know for all intents and purposes relatively gradual slate it's not sweet school um as you get off of that and get into the gravel here you know it's a little bit more of
a undulating slope you know and partly that's typical of a gravel parking area you get puddles and so forth and you plow the snow it moves the gravel uh but then as you move towards Hanover Avenue from this point here it steeply drops
off towards the proposed super service line construction so we've had this you know um planted with typical grasses and then we also have it stabilized with a retaining wall that's under construction right now at the bottom of that so my
first question was about the unpaved parking lot so um are you saying that it's approximately level on average but you described a drain that's sort of in the center or so the water pitches to the northwest this direction
here has a drain that's right as we call it in the north western northeastern quadrant of this existing gravel parking area so what we did here is since you don't have have any curb we created a low spot this is years ago and put the
the drain in there and so the water goes in there and it goes out goes into the collection system in the Subaru so it's a it works but it's not a great situation because under typical engineering plan would like to do is have a consistent grade across the
parking lot and then have the water collect along the curb that way you reduce icing in the parking lot you reduce erosion during the parking lot and that's our proposal so um we think when this all comes together by the board you know it'll it'll enhance the
drainage and the safety and correct the erosion and then how steep is the steep slope that's between that parking lot and the u and the new construction that's to the left yeah so so to this slope here this is about a 3 to one between two to one
and 3 to one slope here um that's relatively stable slope and then you have a a steep slope between the subject parking lot or vehicle storage lot and keeps lot okay and where's the property line
oh the property on between you and the and the storage area yeah follow my cursor here i'm pointing for the record about halfway between the gray area of the existing ground parking lot and keep
Okay all right thank you any other questions uh I would ask for questions from the public but we have no public yes yeah professionals right your answer will you be coming back uh uh to do your planning testimony after your colleague
speaks yes as to storm water and other engineering okay uh and then I take it at that point you all hit on the uh reports that or to the extent he doesn't hit on the reports i guess it was environmental commission and really the planners report uh dark sky compliance
was the one and only that's on the environmentals as well my colleague testifies as to the lighting okay so we'll leave it for him then okay thank you all right thank you thank you thanks John james can you share your educational and
professional background with us i graduated from or received my bachelor of science okay i received my bachelor of science from Jackson University in 2018 and I have I am
Hello maybe you just had to think about it i received my bachelor of science from Jxel University in 2018 i am a professional engineer or I am a licensed professional engineer in good standing and I have six plus years of experience
working in as a design engineer on site plans subdivisions uh land development grading drainage utilities so erosion z control and storm water design and you're familiar with the site you visited the site yes I visited the
site and I uh performed the and I've been a project engineer on the site I may ask one quick one yes have you been accepted as an expert finding land use for in the state of New Jersey prior to the Yes I have testified at Princeton Municipality
okay that was my question also thank you i thought you thought you were about Thank you uh and your licenses are in good standing yep and they are currently in good standing okay uh thank you you can you can proceed all right i'm just gonna put that there so the applan is
proposing to pave the existing uh gravel area parking area in the rear of the subject property a 6-in vertical concrete curb is proposed around the perimeter of the parking area and a 6 foot wide sidewalk is prop is proposed
to connect the landing of the previously approved uh staircase and the previously approved curb ramp uh this will allow safe pedestrian access from the Subaru service center to the Subaru showroom a steel guide rail is proposed
around the the perimeter for additional safety um additional lighting is proposed in the parking areas uh the proposed lighting fixtures are dark side compliant and LEDs and they are consistent with what is uh
currently on the property uh the proposed height and spacing of the light fixtures is also consistent with what is currently uh existing on the subject property for the storm water management um it has been designed as a minor storm
water development for the proposed increase of impervious coverage and has been submitted for review to the township engineer uh minor grading is proposed in the parking areas to provide a consistent slope and to direct storm water runoff
along the curbs to the proposed inlet and the corner of the uh parking areas the proposed inlet will direct the will capture and direct the storm water runoff into the underground infiltration uh basin the proposed underground infiltration basin has been designed to
discharge into the existing inlet maintaining the existing uh drainage patterns on the site and in connection with the proposed project two design waiverss and one variance is requested per
95-546A1 the parking areas are required to be suitably landscaped and uh there's no landscaping proposed therefore a design waiver is requested uh per 95-546C the parking stalls and drive
aisles are to be marked and no markings are proposed in the drive aisles or the parking areas therefore a design waiver is requested for that as well and per 95-32 a maximum lock coverage allowed is 75% uh the existing lock coverage is
79.4% 4% and as a result of the uh improvements the impervious law coverage is 82.9% uh therefore a variance is requested for that as well and Mr hansen will provide further explanation on
the design waiverss and variances requested i if I may just again to confirm the profer we made of working with your professionals to try to uh identify some locations on site to add some shrubbery and other greenery and that is all I have for the
engineering portion mr rob just a quick question on on the on the lighting granted you need you know lighting for all the times it's dark um is the lighting on any part of the dealership
or or what's on proposed going to be dimmed at all for the for you know like after 10 p.m or something like that yes i forget the exact time but it will be dimmed for security purposes that I don't remember the exact timeline on it but I have it on i
noticed you specified these are smart lights yeah that that well that they're easily controllable through an apparently I guess um so I I'm I'm advised that obviously it's somewhat seasonal dependent but 9:00 is a safe
time to assume that they would be dimmed dimmed to what percent we have to come up with that um yeah we could work with your professional to come up with what what number that is
yeah it works for me okay oh may I ask a quick question um being smart lights I hate things with that are smarter than me but um your other comment was that it's seasonal so in the summertime they might be dimmed
uh at a different time than during the winter when assumed right so so I don't know that setting a particular time is a good idea uh because there is a safety issue back there i I just I'm just asking I mean
I'm commenting but I'm really asking the question should there be some variability seasonally yeah I feel they will be dimmed to reasonable levels at to provide uh security to the site and safety but
not uh overwhelming light do you know what the what what's the current practice on the lights that are in other part of pavement yeah we on our lighting plan we have the I'm advised that 9:00 is a safe kind of
metric if you're looking for a something objective right so then the other question was and I think it's this up for discussion is what percentage are are you getting 50% security for security and you know safety purpose we we we certainly
understand the question and the goal I think behind it and towards that end if the board's comfortable we can work with your professionals to achieve the goal of uh dimming to the greatest degree possible while having a reasonable level of of light for safety back there okay
thank you um a quick question perhaps I should have asked Mr hansen the picture there is the picture itself shows it as it was a while ago before any of the new construction it also was a time when there was a lot more grass on the east
side um I assume I'm I wasn't aware of this but I assume that that portion has been leveled built up and leveled and added gravel expanded under the the 2014 resolution is that correct the subject
area that we're talking about yeah was was part of the 2014 okay so that so the additional area which is inside The current un unpaved portion at one point was slope and that was filled in and
backed up under that 2014 application okay thank you any other questions no Mr cole do you think it's sufficient to have only one storm inlet in the corner where you indicated seems like a pretty big parking lot for only
one drain that could use yeah the uh there's one existing one now but with the uh the inlet in the corner it'll all drain to it and the pipe is sized adequately to convey the storm water from the corner into the storm water
basin so it should handle it with no issues as long as it doesn't clog up right correct yes as it will be maintained the um environmental uh report says that Mr hansen
uh indicates that achieves a reduction to less or equal of superitions correct yes any other questions okay bring Mr hansen back I guess thank you
okay so we'll talk about the planning testimony about first just talk about the two design waiverss we already made it very clear that we're going to work with the board on the landscape so that's off the table but as far as striping the parking lot just a couple
words on that you know for a a parking lot that is going to be used by customers and patients of the facility it certainly would be necessary to stripe it in that case this is not the case this is a parking lot the vehicle storage area you'd want to let the
employees position the cars depending upon what size they are when they come in as to what's most appropriate most efficient so that's why we're asking striping um so the variance really is is pretty straightforward um we're asking
for impervious coverage variance it's a C type variance and so the board has heard many times types of C varianes you have what they call either a C1 varian which is a hardship type case or you have a C2 case
which is called a flexible C um so this doesn't fit into a hardship case this fits into a C2 case and for a C2 case there's positive and negative criteria in many variance case and in the positive criteria you basically show and
the board needs to find that at least one purpose in the midst of land use law 405D2 is advanced if projects approved and in the negative criteria it's a three-prong approach so we're supposed
to show the course to find that there's no substantial detriment to the zoning plan the zoning ordinance or the public good but there can be a minor detriment but it has to show it's not rising to a substantial detriment so I think this one is is pretty straightforward and
based on all the testimony that we've had tonight and the condition of the parking area by these by putting in these improvements which do require an increase in impervious coverage we're going to really add to the safety of this which is purpose A of the municipal
land and it's generally held to be the purpose that's stronger of purpose amplifies special reasons in different cases um so here with the extra lighting with the improved drainage with the curbing and all of that that goes with
it including the pedestrian walkway that's going to make that physical connection between the showroom and the service um all these things in my opinion really do make this a safer site so I think positive criteria is met and if we look to the negative criterion the zone plan and the zoning
ordinance um you know these are just minor detriments to the zone plan the zoning ordinance i don't believe that it would rise to a substantial impact when you look at the public good you know when you look at things like visual impact from the roads you look at
drainage impacts to the neighbors um number one visual impact you know this is held behind the different businesses and surrounded by commercial businesses so there's really no u in public that's going to see this and when you look at drainage as I testified to and James
testified to we're installing an underground infiltration system we've been continually addressing drainage as the years have gone on here and this is really a very suitable plan in my opinion and there'll be no impact to the neighboring properties and then lastly from a lighting standpoint I think the
lighting is consistent it's been designed to uh be dark sky compliant there's no residential properties that are going to look at this um so I think there's no impacts and um we would consent also which is a normal thing but
if there becomes um after construction one of the lights is needs adjustment or needs a shield we usually work with Mr hans's group on that and whoever is the right individual and we would shield that and um and address that so with all those things I think this is a very
straightforward case i find that it meets the positive eliminating criteria i hope you do too i think it's possible that it does and that it's really appropriate for Does the the slight increase in pvious
coverage compared to what's there now is that primarily due to the sidewalk it's not just the sidewalk i mean what what's happened with the gravel area and this is another benefit I think of the application is that you know the gravel that tends to migrate over time you know you plow it you do the best you can to
kind of reel it back in but it just it moves around so um you know it's combination of what was there and then things move over time you know so now if we're approved with the variance we'll have curving we'll have everything it'll be locked in and it'll be set
no pun intended any questions one question sorry oh yes yes please i would um see uh I couldn't really see but with if you are to um add the grass that the uh board was requesting would that actually decrease
the degree of impervious coverage the percentage of impervious coverage um it wouldn't because the areas that we're planning on vegetating and included in our previous calculations were going to be vegetated oh okay yeah so we're
noticing but if we put a couple of extra shrubs or trees in there I think we could practically it'll be a small decrease in the runoff because you have a little bit more of a vegetated area okay all right thank you if no board members have questions I I
did also have one of it might have been Mr kaiser but uh the lighting was consistent with what previously existed do we know how many additional poles and fixtures are being added and also what the heights are yes
so the existing heights are 22.5 from the Luminere to the finished grade so we're matching that and so what we're proposing which is shown on A1 is two standalone lights with double
fixtures double luminires in generally the center of the project area and then we'll have one two three individual single luminires around the periphery of it and so we think that gives a really
nice coverage of light so four um I'm sorry five additional posts there'll be five additional at the 22.5 yes thank you any other questions okay um I guess we have still have no one no one from the
public to question this witness or comment so you want to I time my closing this afternoon it's no longer than 25 minutes no uh that's at least according to Mr alleso that's at least 5 minutes too long
no we appreciate your time and consideration of the application uh we consider it to be improvement uh to the site in all the ways that have been testified to and respectfully request uh your approval
chairman yes i make a motion that we grant approval with the variances being sought and the one design waver being sought having two designs two design two design w the striping and the landscaping the
landscaping I guess maybe is not as significant a deviation as it previously was and some may be added but it's still technically and I take it that's with all the stipulated two conditions yes okay which I've got
and they'll be in the resolution uh uh postconstruction operation shielding of fixtures if the necessary by our engineer 900 p.m or thereabouts dimmed lighting at a certain percentage uh that to be determined by our engineer and uh
a couple of areas of vegetation arty shrubs maybe ornamentals deep rooted grasses uh subject to review and approval of our board planner and and our engineer I think since had so many suggestions for the landscape so uh that's what I have as the three
stipulations and uh the impur coverage variance and the two waiverss on the landscaping for the no landscaping for the parking lot or very little uh and no marking on the parking stalls okay so that was that was the motion do we have
a second second oh go ahead go ahead Don i think we did it at the exact same time tanya rock paper scissors sonia gets to decide she's ready uh any discussion
anything okay Sonia I guess you can call the role mr alleso yes miss Van Order yes mr flowers yes mr rabbit yes and good luck miss Murphy yes mr barrett yes
mr quin yes mr yes mr yes thank you very much thank you appreciate it thank you thanks who am I rooting for so close for the over very good i'll for Okay thank you um what happened to Mr
warren oh there he is he just turned around okay the next item on our agenda is the uh recent resolution that by the township committee dealing with the uh affordable housing block off of catch road mr warner you want to uh very
quickly I promise the uh but I think as everyone's aware and if you're not I'll make you aware of it but the the um couple of things semi-related and it's just a plug the mayor's time the other evening at
the governing body uh we did resolve our affordable housing obligation uh number for the fourth round uh our prospective need number was uh settled at a 375 affordable unit obligation
uh which the DCA had previously calculated our obligation at 571 units if I recall correctly and fair share housing center had uh set it at about 360 I'm losing the number uh 30 and I'm sorry 562
uh so it was roughly 200 units uh below what it was set at And that was by a resolution through the affordable housing dispute resolution program appreciation to program chair and judge uh uh Miller and special adjudicator
Kendra Lily and also special appreciation to the mayor the governing body uh Liz Laney Paul Phillips Aaron Wilson Tim Quinn onward and onward and I played a small role in this in the process as well hardly a small role thank you mayor
quite a big one there that's going on the record the uh the uh and so that's related at least uh to uh the fact that in our ongoing obl meeting our obligations uh again fair share not our
unfair share but our fair share uh the the um as the board will recall uh we have a a catch road project a 100 50 unit 100% affordable mult multif family development project uh that has
been slated for uh a catch road near the county well it's actually on county owned property currently at least owned by the county that was part of our settlement agreement that went back to the Red Bulls Arena litigation that we had with Fair Share Housing Center uh and we were able as that settlement
agreement back in 2017 I think it was 2018 um uh the township and the Red Bulls were permitted to proceed unhindered uh with the construction of the athletic training facility uh at 101 103 Columbia Road uh in return for the
resolution of that litigation which provided for this 50-unit 100% affordable housing project on Catch Road um uh there are a number of resolutions adopted by the governing body the other evening in conjunction with same uh one of which provides uh for and authorizes
and directs our board uh to conduct an area in need of redevelopment study for that uh uh site um not excuse me non-condemnation uh redevelopment area to make that determination whether or not that uh
portion of two lots actually uh constitutes an area in need of redevelopment non- condemnation uh so that uh that govern that resolution 100-25 directs the board more specifically Mr phillips Miss Laney and their firm uh to do that area needed
redevelopment study uh the board some of the board members will recall the process very quickly uh once that study is done we will conduct a full public hearing on uh notice as required by the local redevelopment and housing law i recall correctly two notices 10 days
apart uh the second at least seven days prior to the uh evening of the hearing so generally 17 days and seven days uh uh I'm sorry one week apart 10 days prior 17 days and 10 days prior to to that hearing uh it'll be a full public
hearing uh and if the board uh then determines uh that indeed uh it meets one or more of the criteria the site does for uh uh designating it an area in need of redevelopment non- conddemnation uh then presumably the board will make such a recommendation to the governing
body and the governing body will consider consider that recommendation and act accordingly and if indeed it is uh designated as such uh it does also provide for m the board and this lady Mr phelps firm uh to then prepare a
redevelopment plan all again in conjunction with that project which is uh affordable housing uh and uh part of the settlement agreement back I sometimes refer to it as round 3.5 sort of in between the third round and the
fourth round uh that particular uh matter so hopefully that gives everybody a good understanding any questions i'm here i I didn't catch the actual numbers could you repeat those i'm sorry the the numbers that where we started and where we Oh are our You were speaking sure i'm
sorry i was trying to be too quick uh the the um the uh Department of Community Affairs that was uh obligated to come up with the original non-binding thankfully calculations of our fourth round prospective need came
up with a number of 571 uh we then um argued in in our binding on us at least resolution uh for a 308 number uh and we had a
ar methods and arguments uh for for that determination it wasn't just selected out of whole cloth um and uh um then fair share objected to our 308 uh with a and said that the appropriate obligation
for the fourth round would be 562 units only nine units below the 571 that PCA established um and then as a result of a negotiation process um we were able to convince fair share as well as the
builders uh and uh that indeed uh the uh right number at least for negotiation and and determination purposes was 375 units obviously much closer to 308 than
571 uh almost almost 200 units lower uh and I would respectfully submit but I don't get an opinion um but doesn't stop me from rendering them they don't even slow me down sometimes uh but that uh
you know I think that would be more uh appropriate and closer to what would be our fair share obligation than certainly the 571 unit obligation thank you sure Mr chairman yes may I make a motion that
we uh approve the resolution to have the planner conduct an anoir on this property we the it's not quite on on the uh agenda for adoption of a resolution although you know what there's nothing wrong with a motion second and
recommending voice vote uh to accept the governing body's authorization and and to uh and to uh pass it along to the Philips Price for the area in need of redevelopment studies so motion made yes
second okay all in favor i have that motion again i know second okay thank you how much carries over from the prior round i'm sorry one more
time i'm sorry my voice is gone how much carries forward from the prior round that we still need to nine well well we have um uh the uh separated apart from our round 3.5 obligation the the the 100
50 unit 100% affordable um we are fully compliant with our third round obligation um and uh I believe uh there may be a couple of dozen or so uh units that have not yet come to fruition that
does not impact on the fact does not change the fact I should say uh at all doesn't uh that uh we remain fully compliant with our third round obligation and our round 3.5 obligation I would say as well so okay so fully compliant round three and now
3.54 we're we're adding 375 uh well yeah we're fully fully compliant with our 3.5 round as I call it the catch road obligation because we're moving forward with that diligently and now our fourth round obligation technically the the
fourth round does not start till July 1 uh but we uh have now uh come to an agreement and it's now been recorded uh uh uh in in our declaratory judgment action as all talents just about we're required to do uh that what our fourth
round number is our prospective need number is the um I want to mistate 375 units I believe next step is the adoption of a housing element fair share plan uh to be done by the statutory deadline in the federal fair housing uh
excuse me the state fair housing act which is uh the deadline is June 30 so certainly we'll be uh now that the numbers are are done uh we'll be seeing a plan uh no doubt from the folks price firm along with an area in need of redevelopment study uh in the next month
or two I would imagine correct so so that's the busy so that's the plan for how we're going to meet the 370 exactly how we're going to satisfy that obligation and that's by the end of June and that is later in the year than than the appropriate or I don't know when is
the deadline for actually passing change you know zoning ordinances whatever that part of that that might be part of that plan yeah the the and in fact what we have to do by June 30 per the statute is not only have adopted our housing element fair share plan which is subject
to subsequent challenge uh certainly not inviting any um But it's potential um but we have to adopt that and we have to have draft implementation ordinances by the ready if you will uh to be
ultimately adopted by the governing body um uh uh and then the ultimate adoption I believe is is March of 2026 still i think we should be all done by then yeah i think theoretically you're supposed to adopt by
well well at the draft the ordinances no we're gonna have the board professionals are going to have a discuss the the um but suffice to say particularly if there's no challenge to the housing element fair share plan um I one would expect we could adopt those or
the governing body can adopt those implementation ordinances relatively soon after June 30th what would be the challenge they can't challenge the number they could challenge whether the plans are appropriate to meet that number because that would be the nature of any I'm not inviting any or giving anybody any ideas
certainly but but the uh but but no the the I mean certainly someone can say that uh uh you know they would wish to have a site over here as opposed to or what have you or maybe someone would challenge how we calculate the
bonus credits that were afforded or what have you i mean I you know there's certain a lot of things I guess that are conceivable but more than likely uh if it's a if it's a valid plan and fair share you know is not you know
recognizes as such then absent maybe a developer you know just disgruntled that they weren't in the plan perhaps i see you know that that would probably be all that there would be and people have until August 31st oh I'm sorry i didn't give you most likely the ordinances we
would probably wait wait sure sure well yeah and that's why I think they set it up to have it as in a draft form by June 30 so that people didn't adopt it and then have to go make changes um but yeah so that would and and challengers now have two months where they only had one
month to challenge the numbers and and we and the judiciary had only one month to resolve all those disputes um but as is public knowledge now uh we didn't we statewide
didn't get the job done uh in in one month so those in some towns those uh disputes are continuing and the program was afforded an opportunity to continue its work to try to resolve those disputes we we we finished in the month
of March and I think in a in a uh in a positive way is is there any uh you may or may not know is there any um thing to report from that lawsuit that's going on against this statewide they I went to the uh the
optive they lost at the optive they petitioned for cert I've lost track I have you know frankly the fact that I haven't heard anything now that you mentioned it uh been busy for the last month but uh one would think one would yeah I haven't heard they have quite a number of
municipalities signed on to that lawsuit well there about three dozen ballpark uh it didn't work at the trial and appellet level um get anywhere so and and again I I uh I would submit that uh um our
efforts were very effective um and uh hopefully the the cost reasonable worth it again I just want to comment Mr warner you're being very humble here and just want this board to know as well that um
the work of Liz and Paul and Steve and um Tim Quinn was involved and Aaron our tax assessor um honestly was like the best in the state they did an incredible job and they did the endless amount of time you've already put in what you're
going to continue to put in i'm just I'm saying we the township committee are incredibly proud of the work they did to get us to the number we're at and feel really confident as we go forward that we're in really good hands so thank you thank you and kind of piggybacking what
on what the mayor just said I know Steve mentioned this you know when he when he first entered the room but no other town no other municipality in the state got the kind of reduction that our negotiating team fought for and fought really hard for so you know kudos to
Mars Township for you know coming just about 200 units under where no other municipality came close you know maybe they got a handful so kudos to to you all thank you both good news so Mr mr chair I just want to give a
clarification so we've been talking about the fourth round obligation at 375 and that's what the Phillips firm is going to look into and I guess publish a set of recommendations by the end of 10 years for the next 10 years but back to and maybe I missed it and I apologize if
I did back to the catch road project the 50 units the 3.5 obligation what are we to do because sounds like that's separate from what the Phillips firm is doing is the board tasked with doing something and if so what is the timing and what are we to be
doing sure we're we're Yeah that it is separate as I say round 3.5 it was a separate settlement for a separate discrete issue in site um that the settlement agreement there requires the 50 units 100% affordable uh to go on that site or if necessary some
other site but that site uh uh is moving forward and our sole role is that once we uh once Liz and Paul's firm put together an area in need of redevelopment study and recommend to you
either to designate that area a non- condemnation area in need of redevelopment or not because they find that it meets one or more of the statutory criteria for such a designation or not um that we will have a hearing on that recommendation full
public hearing uh extra notice if you will for the local redevelopment housing law that's probably a couple of months or so away I'm guessing um and uh uh and then you will make
a recommendation a finding and recommendation to the governing body and the governing body makes the ultimate call if you will as to whether the site gets designated area need of redevelopment non- condemnation or not okay and that's all related to catch
road project okay i got it so the Phillips farm is taking a lead we will get the results of what they do and then we'll take it from there yeah and they will testify and render those opinions at that hearing so you'll not only get it in writing but you'll also get it verbally perfect
thank you um Okay uh moving on is there anything from the legislative committee be other than what we've just been talking about no just no okay uh we have
no again there doesn't seem to be public here so don't have any need for public comment and I don't think we need a close session at this time so Mr alleso quick quick question yes are we meeting on the 21st no oh April 21st thank you
the whole day we're canceling right this year is only going to have 364 days sunday yes so good with that said I'd like to make a motion we close second all in favor
thank you number two