ing of the township of Mars Planning Board for June 16, 2025. The legal notice required in accordance with the open public meetings act has been satisfied and a statement certifying same will be executed. Would you please rise and join me in the
pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Sonia, could you call a roll, please? I know. I know. Hold on. Just a minute. Okay. Mr. Flowers here. Mr. N here. Mr. Rabbit here. Murphy here. Mr. Here. Mr. Quin here. Miglia here. Miss Laney here.
Mr. Phillips here. Mr. Here. Mr. B here. Mr. B. Mr. B. I here. Never forget the chair. Okay. Um, first order of business is the resolution for Morristown Motors.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's uh board will recall that was an amended preliminary and final major site plan approval with bulk variances and design waiverss, lot coverage ratio, landscaping and uh delineation of parking stalls. It was a
unanimous approval as I recall and as I confirm 90 uh with several conditions of approval including installation of shielding on the proposed light fixtures uh lighting shut off uh or I should say dimming uh for nighttime uh by 900 p.m.
installation of landscaping and vegetation and the like. Hopefully that uh and all relating to improvements uh to 169 171 Ridgedale Avenue, primarily existing gravel parking area being paved, construction of sidewalk and
curving and installation of sight lighting and storm water management facilities. Hopefully, it's an accurate memorialization of the board's decision to unanimously grant that approval with conditions. Uh and if it is, we'll find out. We have entertain a motion to accept the
resol. I'll make a motion we accept the resolution as drafted. Second. Second. Any comments? Notation. Okay. Would you call the role, sir? Mr. Alleso? Yes. Mr. Flower? Yes. Mr. Rabbit? Yes. Murphy?
Yes. Mr. Quin? Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. B? Yes. Okay. Um, fine. Moving on, I guess to our the next item on agenda. We'll start the open the public hearings. I had considered moving the agenda around, but
I think we'll stick to the way it is printed. So, next on is a public hearing on an application um PBO525. Sony, you want to introduce that for us? Yes, Mr. S. This is CBO5-25 mark best
for minor subdivision block 2702 lot 649 Success Avenue in the R15 applicant proposes the mining subdivision to create one additional lot I may I did have an opportunity to review the notice found the content to be sufficient found it to be timely
served certified mail on May 28th published on May 15th uh well more then uh but it's certainly at least 10 days prior to this evening. So the board does have jurisdiction to hear and decide the application tonight.
Back to you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Is the applicant ready to proceed? Yeah. Yes, chairman. Thank you very much. My name is Craig Bassong. I'm with the law firm Florio Peruchi Steinhart Capelli Tipton and and Typton. I'm filling in for Larry Cali from Larry Cali Law
Group. Uh he is on vacation. So uh I've uh volunteered to step in this evening. Uh as your council said, notice your jurisdiction notice has been uh provided. The application tonight is for a minor subdivision of an oversized lot.
This is a completely conforming subdivision. So what that means is once the two lots are subdivided if the board is so uh kind to grant their approval, both lots will be conforming in regards to all the setbacks, all the bulk variances and everything that's required
under your code. I only have one witness tonight, uh Harrison Brammy from who's the engineer who designed the subdivision. So unless there's any questions for me, I'll turn the floor over to him and call my first witness. And Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'll swear him in as well as our board
professionals. If all of you will raise your right hand, do 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? I do. Thank you all. Back to you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Summarize your qualifications. Sure.
Yes. Said, "My name is Harrison Barney, last name B as in bravo. A r y. I have my bachelor's of science from Ruckers University in civil engineering. Um I am licensed in the state of New Jersey uh in the profession of professional
engineer. My license is current and in good standing. Uh I have testified before this board before. Actually my very first board was this board and uh I've testified before numerous other boards in New Jersey um Planefield Newark uh city of Summit um Short Hills
Milbour among many others. But they all pair in pale in comparison to Mars Town. You never forget your first. No. Isn't that correct? I save I saved the recording, you know. Okay. I will accept the qualification.
So, please proceed. Okay. Um so, as as mentioned, um we are talking about um the the plans actually the plans before you today I have are dated April 4th, 2025 just for reference. provision B um
is labeled as a minor subdivision and preliminary and final lock grading plan. Mr. Just just for clar these plans are every have been pre provided to the board. There's been no changes from what was been provided previously. Okay. No. Yeah. These are nothing's been
changed. We don't need to mark them as an exhibit as the board knows. Just please when you're referring to different pages, different sheets, uh please just identify which one you're referring to. Absolutely. Sure. You can continue. Okay. Um, so the subject
property identified as block 2702 lot 6. Uh, mind our drawings. The numbers got flipped around for the block number, but it should be 2702 lot 6 is located on the corner of Sussex a Sussex Avenue, which is a county road 617 and Gaston
Road. The existing lot uh has an area of 48,445 square ft or just over an acre of land. We are located in the RA15 uh single family detached residential zone. Um and what we're proposing is are
both permitted uses to single family homes. Um the existing home uh in size on the current lot is a little over 2,000 square feet in size. Has a driveway coming off of Sussex Avenue. um
on the um the northwestern portion of the site, the the portion of the site bordering Gaston Road, it's mainly a wooded wooded area. Uh a little bit of a dense ve vegetation, some dead trees there. Um a shed and a fence uh related
to the subject property. And um basically I would like to flip to figure two, which is the existing conditions plan. just gives you a better picture of what exists there today. As you can see, a number of trees on site. And what we're proposing to do is looking to
subdivide the lot into two conforming lots. Um, and proposing uh conceptual building on the new lot just to show you that it's conforming uh what it would look like, where the driveway is going to be, that we're meeting setbacks, um,
and how we've designated our lot lines as well. Um, if I may, since I am talking about the subdivision, I would like to flip to um, this is the proposed subdivision plan. I believe that was submitted. What page is
that? Page three. Figure three. This is sheet called sheet S1 by the surveyor of my company. Check the board of It's not sure. No, I don't I don't
believe S1 was submitted. Okay. So, uh S1 becomes A1. Okay. Okay. Just to make it Yeah, this is the the preliminary subdivision plan that would be submitted to the county, you know, after designation of lot tax lot numbers. This
just gives a better representation of where the lot lines uh break would be. Just for clarification when you say preliminary though of course this is a minor site plan so you're in essence seeking final preliminary this evening correct correct be a preliminary and final with a small fee
perhaps correct yes thank you okay um so the way the lot was subdivided um we tried to keep um both lot areas similar in size uh we noticed that um the existing lot has a paved driveway so we tried to keep as much of that driveway
separated as possible. Although there is a portion that would belong to the new lot. So, we propose a small easement uh for that little portion of the driveway and the existing existing central property. Um with the the area where the new home is going, um you know, we've
removed a number of trees, the shed, um and uh you know, obviously regrade that area slightly to to conform with the lock grading plan. Um and then just to go over areas and um changes from
existing coverage to proposed coverage, existing lot areas to proposed lot areas. Um the existing lot will be reduced in size from that 48,445 ft to 25,915 ft which is 0.59 acres. So a little over
half an acre. And the new lot, which will become the new quarter lot, um, which we identify as 6.01, uh, will be 22,530 square feet, or again over half an acre in size. So, they're both over half an acre in size, a good good size lot on
each. Um now in the the ordinance uh for lot for lot creation um it states that for a corner lot um the owner developer is allowed to decide which of the two frontages on the street are designated
as the frontage of the in determining side and rear yards essentially. So um what we did was we ident we identify we have two frontages on Gaston Road and on Sussex Avenue. Um, but we're identifying Sussex Avenue as our our front frontage
and I'm determining a rear yard and a sideyard. So, our sideyard becomes the subdivided line for the new the new lot and the rear yard becomes the lot adjacent to lot four lot five. Um, and then the existing lot with the subdivided line, you know, now has a
front lot along Sussex Avenue, two side yard, two side lots lot lines and a rear yard as well in the back. So that is how we've designated our um lot designation lines for each new new lot. Um and in
doing so um the depth of the lot and the width of the lot has changed as well but they are conforming to what's required uh in the bulk table. Um so lot area, lot depth, lot width um are all conforming with both lots. Um
can we show them the uh the plan that was submitted the uh I think it's figure 3B which shows like the proposed layout of the new now I'm referring to figure three of our
our proposed plan with grading plan details it's called and again this just identifies the subdividing line through the middle of the site which shows Um, we have our setback lines provided, a front yard again along Sussex Avenue, a
front yard along Gaston Road, and then our rear yard and sideyards. Um, and as you can see, we meet all the setback requirements uh with the conceptual home that's placed there. Um, again, referring to the proposed plans, you can see we have our driveway coming off of
Gaston Road. The ordinance specifies that you have to be 50 ft away from an intersection, which we are. And we felt that Gaston Road was um a better pick, you could say, for a driveway coming off rather than being on a county road, a more busy road. So, we were
acknowledging that as well. Um and as you can see, uh we are proposing drywalls. We're we're showing conceptually that drywalls will fit in that area. And um should this plan be approved, the following set of plans, whoever may develop the site or build
the house, um you know, the drywall design can conform to what we're proposing with the increased impervious coverage. Um and in the ordinance, it states that for every thousand square feet of extra or additional impervious coverage, you have to provide 250 cubic
feet of storage. It's equivalent to a 3 inches of rainfall. Um that's required for a lot grading plan. So we're showing where the drywall would go, drywall system, and that would be capturing, you know, all the roof runoff and potentially driveway runoff of that site. So it would be handled, all the storm water management would be handled
in that sense. Um, I would like to go back to figure two that I had here. That's the existing conditions plan as well. And this plan, as I said before, identifies a number of trees on site.
And due to the construction of the new home and the driveway, you know, number of trees would be proposed to be removed. And right now we're showing a um a total of 43 trees to be removed. The table here identifies all the trees within our limit of disturbance. The
ones identified in red are the ones that are to be removed. And um per the ordinance for tree replacement which um requires tree replacement based on number of trees 8 in in diameter or caliber or greater in size as well as um
the size of the tree um such as like a 24 in to 30inch tree may require five trees for every one that's to be removed. So there's two basically two different requirements for tree replacement. and um and identifying the trees that are were being removed um
with respect to health if they're a dead tree or not invasive species or meet that caliber size. Um we are required to plant plant 26 new trees on our site. Um and we ident are doing that. Um if I may
skip now to page figure four which is a landscaping plan. You can see uh we proposed a number of arbor vites uh the Serbian spruce juniper trees and um we did have a a
meeting a TCC meeting and one of the comments that was brought up was that with the replanting of the trees we may disperse them on both lots um not just one single lot so that you know we're not concentrating them on one area. So we are doing that on these plans. Um,
again, these are conceptual, so when the plan comes around, the location may may alter slightly, but as you can see, there are still a great number of trees that are remaining on site. A good buffer from the street and the neighbors and the locations that we've chosen also
additional buffering to not only the new lot we're proposing, but to the neighbor to the to the south. So, the buffering there will increase um provide a nice screening there. Um, and I just I'd like to point out again
that we're not proposing any variances. We're meeting all setbacks, building coverage, lot improved lot coverage, um, building height. Um again, we're conforming to the lot sizes, setback requirements,
uh lot depth, lot width, and um for I just want there's something else I wanted to to point out as it it's regards to the existing site. And I'm going to flip back apologize to two.
Um this was also discussed at the TCC meeting we had. Um, currently on our site there's four monitoring wells that we were discovered during a survey. Um, and they're they're hard to see, but they're highlighted in yellow here. One,
two, three, four. Basically here, um, we did some investigation and why those are there. And basically, uh, there's the gas station located across the street. And in 1999 they had a uh slight spill surficial spill with in which some of the um gasoline traveled into the
groundwater and there's been an ongoing uh remedial investigation since we've been in touch trying to get in touch with the LSRP who's been assigned to that case for the benefit of the board members of the public license uh LSRP is licensed site remediation professional
so essentially like a PE for environmental sites. um we reached out to them in that company who had done the work. We didn't receive a response and um to our knowledge the gentleman who was in charge never got back to us nor I believe is his license valid anymore.
It's um no longer in good standing or current. So, um, to our knowledge, we reached out to the company. A new LSRP is being designated for that that site and, uh, we're going to be in constant touch with them just to decommission the wells. Um, make sure nothing else is
there. Um, but I did have a chance to look at the report that that company had prepared. Um, and as long as none of the wells on our site are sentinel wells, which are wells between u, they're kind of like a control well between the contamination and an off-site source. as
long as they're not sent S sentinel wells. Um we we basically have the right to decommission our own wells um after doing some further investigation. But uh again, we want to make sure we want to talk with the LSRP and the company doing the work, make sure there's no further investigation
required and that they're properly decommissioned and closed out. So, I just wanted to make the board known that that is u a scenario that's happening, but shouldn't withhold anything. with I apologize out of order, but with the chair's permission to put me back in in
order. Uh the uh the um would the applicant have any uh objection as a stipulated to condition of approval. Should there be an approval uh to providing our engineer uh with a copy of the report that was referred to and any
follow-up communications uh so as to monitor, no pun intended, the the uh anticipated decommissioning of the wells? We have no we have no objection to that. Thank you. Yeah. And just so so just historically these these types of
wells used to be handled by the D. the D turn that over to where the property owners need to hire their own LSRPs and write all these reports and everything to take off the uh the responsibility of the D and they provide everything. So where you would used to have like a no further action letter
responsibility the LSRP so we will track them track them down trying to be responsible take care of that and get these wells decommissioned as long as they're they're not the sent wells. Um, and that's that summarizes the the
monitoring really. Um, I'd also like to point out that we did receive county approval um for being located on county road. So, we do have that letter in hand that they have no objection to what we're proposing as well. Um, and again, we did receive a letter the TCC report
uh dated April 3rd, 2025, sorry, dated April 16th, 2025 from our meeting. And we have no objections to uh making any of the additional uh changes. I know we've made a bunch of them already and maybe there's one or two additional that we have to do. Um and I
just wanted to ask one question actually for clar just for clarification purposes as uh in regards to number one which is that uh an easement was required for the driveway enroaching into the the roadway. I just wanted to verify that
that is the new driveway into Gaston Road. Is that what you're referring to? Okay. It's not the existing driveway on the existing lot. Right. So, um the board can see that the driveways goes into the sort of off the
property line and so that was the the nature of the comment to get uh easement or some sort of official permission to do that. Okay, that's that's fine. I just wanted clarification on that. We have no problem with the uh making that a condition of approval because that's something we'd have to go to the mayor
and council to uh to get permission for. And uh and with that that that um concludes my testimony. Okay. Questions. Just for my clarification in cases like this. So we're basically
asked to approve the subdivision and you're showing that it is possibly you know the dimensions there is possible to build on that with no variances and you have proposed and shown that you know a landscape plan and a grading plan and all the stuff that
goes along with it. But none of that is actually done at this point. But it it can be done and any land owner that would take it in so the house would be required to demonstrate that they are building within those limits or or if
not they would have to come to this board or the zoning board the zoning board approve. Okay. But so the land so you will not be cutting down trees and putting the new landscaping in. That's correct. Okay. And you won't be doing the grading either. Correct. We did show just preliminary grading and contouring
but nothing final. Just showing what okay that it's possible to do all of this in the in the way that okay in order yeah in order so that we can represent to this board forming subdivision can be can be conducted. Yes. So the the the
home to be constructed at a later date will receive a zoning permit approval and a lock rating. Okay. From my office. Okay. It's the or if variances are identified, the tree planning again and we've gone over this before. I just want to make
sure is that once this becomes a single family lot, then it technically was is subject to different um conditions than the tree ordinance for subdivisions and all that, right?
I mean the new tree planting ordinance is for you know legacy plant houses is you know the no more the next number of trees in five years or whatever. Correct. And without the replacement necessarily. So a question is if this is subdivided in a new lot does this fall
into that or does it fall under as is represented here meeting the uh the requirements of the of the you know the standing ordinance for a minor site plan. I think we we'd refer to
the tree replacement requirements of this approval, right? And then any additional would be treated as a new building law. So if the the the application to construct the new home for zoning and and lot grading triggers additional disturbances and that's shown
here. Okay. Those will be supplemented in addressed separately. Mr. Chairman, yes. Um I have a question for Steve. Um, shouldn't there be some kind of uh specific condition that when the whoever buys this lot and decides they want to
build has to follow what is approved or else they have to come back. Uh, and and I'm really concerned about the tree situation and the grading. You've already spent the time and effort to lay that out in a thoughtful way that shows
it can be done within the within the two lots. uh we don't want that work to get lost. So, is there some way that we can put a condition that says the new owner has to follow what was approved in this
subdivision agreement? I'm asking the question. No, I seem to recall we did that on the recent application to subdivide the lot up on the Eggbert. No, not Eggbert. on the the one up uh
where was it? Jones. Jones. I'm hearing Jones. Yeah, Jones. Yeah. I I think to the extent what perhaps part of what would be appropriate is any tree removal that's going to be for the purpose of citing the new home.
Uhhuh. Um should first supplement the screening to the adjacent properties as this applicant is showing. And perhaps that's part of the condition is the the tree replacement on the lock rating permit that comes later should first
supplement the adjacent the the subdivision line and the neighbors on Gaston as was shown in their exhibit right to bolster that to both because the intent here is to provide that screening specifically to those
neighbors that are being impacted by the subdivision by the creation of the home I just got a follow-up question on that because it it does raise a point in my mind. According to what we heard in testimony was that we did the the newly
created lot that's going to be built on doesn't have to put all 26 trees on their lot. It can be dispersed. So, how is that going to be managed? I mean, so you have the original lot, right, that's going to now have
some number of new trees on it. How's how's that going to work? You know, in the past, we've made made it the province of our planner uh subject to previously his now her uh reasonable
discretion. But either I or Joe could certainly look it over. But I I know that in the past they have allowed in instances like this because rather than have to provide all of the trees on your lot which perhaps will impact what then
you can build on the lot that it can be distributed as part of the subdivision. So, going back to the original lot, the original existing home, at some point down the road, months, years, whatever it is, that lot will accept new trees um
and without a fight. In other words, they're they they're here tonight stipulating that they will. Okay. Yeah. I just want to make sure they are the applicant tonight. So they they understand that they are offering to accept some of some of the trees and not
all of those trees, right? Whether they choose to specify that to be only those that shown on this exhibit here tonight, right? Whether five, seven, whatever that is of the total number or if they're more agreeable to
that number changing. Okay. So my question remains, how do we assure we're approving this subdivision with some conditions? How do we assure that the new owner once there is a new owner
uh follows the conditions that were approved for the subdivision? That's my question. Well, one one way you can do that is uh to get a stipulation from the applicant or impose it since it would be reasonable in my opinion if you didn't get the stipulation uh that either the
resolution or the operable conditions uh the applicable conditions be uh recorded in a deed restriction so that they're in the county clerk's office and uh any subsequent purchaser is on actual not
just constructive notice of what those conditions are. So that's how they can be you can ensure they're made aware of. So the new owner would be made aware of what's already been approved and if they don't agree to do that
within the chain of title I would assume they can't get a uh a lot grading permit. Correct. So we get permits or something. Okay. Okay. Right. I mean, one one of those I think one of those parts of this approval
being the designation of the front the the front yards and the rear and sidey yards to create the building envelope that we're approving, right? Because if you were if if the next if the next purchaser decides to orient the property
differently, they may be able to come for a zoning permit with um a different configuration that doesn't trigger a variance but does trigger a disconnect from this approval. Okay. And and likewise they could it could change the
number of trees that are being removed. Exactly. Change that whole population. So like this is all just a conceptual layout in order to show that it's a can be done as a conforming subdivision. You might have a future owner that decides they want to go outside that and come
before for you know a variance which could change the whole calculation. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that they were that the new lot would be subject to the tree replacement ordinance, this one, and not the somewhat more
relaxed one that, you know, second one that's been just recently adopted for for legacy single single family lots. I'd hate to think that we could subdivide and make a a single family lot, subdivide, create a new lot, and then have it not subject to the to the
tree removal ordinance. I wouldn't think that. So that's, you know, yeah, and whatever that cuz because it could be a different number of trees, different location and all that. So it's not actually this exact number, but that it's subject to this that that ordinance and not the uh not the separate one
recently enacted discussing the single family homes. And I'd just like to add that the plans that we prepared, you know, the location and number of trees that are to be removed. Should whoever buy the property and develop it, remove additional trees, we don't want that to be like a burden on the existing lot
six. You know, since we are sharing number of trees, we don't want, you know, I'm going to cut down four more trees. Well, then now I have to put more on your property. So, we don't want that to be a condition like as well. They're going to follow the plan. That's what they're going to do. the applicant would stipulate to the deed restriction with
respect to the conditions of approval. Absolutely. Yes. Okay. And uh whether or not this would constitute a legacy lot for purposes of the replacement ordinance, we could spell out clearly that it does not. Right. So that it's not subject to misinterpretation of the
ordinance. Right. That would work. Yes. I I still am confused. So, so if the plan that you submitted shows that some of the replacement trees will be placed on the first lot on the lot that's um has frontage along Sussex Avenue driveway
and Sussex, how will that be enforced in the future when the grading and tree removal starts on the second lot if there are separate owners and they might be completely different owners, right? the current
owners of the current lot might be might have sold that lot. You might have completely different owners involved. How would you enforce that plan against the owners of the original lot? So that that's what we're saying become a deed restriction. And what would happen is I
would presume there's also going to be a restriction that unless you have resolution compliance there would not be issued for the construction of the new house. You need a deed restriction on the first lot also. Then that would have to be something that
would then they would be forced to work something out between the two owners whether it's the current owner and the new owner of the new lot or two completely new owners because of it being a deed. Yeah. and the the enforcement will be through my my desk through my office and the the
recordation of the conditions within the deed restriction would relate to both lots run with both lots of course irrespective of owners. Okay. Thank you. Sure. So to the extent that the applicant wishes to
identify an upper limit to the replacement that they'll participate in. I think that would be based on the current plan. It was 246 26 26 to you planted, right? Um and this
plan would then as you're showing propose, do you have how many are on the parent lot, the remaining parent lot? Now there's 12 12 of the 26. Yeah. So consent to no more than that. consent to
12 of the 26 and if less then proportionally yeah proportionally that sounds good would protect the current applicant and the future buyer of the existing dwelling lot. Yeah. Yeah. And the and the whole premise behind this is
the new proposed lot already has like quite a the number of trees already. So we didn't want to you know put all of 26 trees on this lot and create a forest around this this house. So thought it was best idea to spread it out nicely, create a buffer for both lots between each lot. And that's that's why the
comment came up and why we did it this way. Okay. We're finished with I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, just to clarify, and no offense to Miss Laney, but we're going to make it subject to the review and approval of our engineer since our
engineer will be in the compliance process. It might be easier. I have a comment unrelated to trees, but Oh, go ahead then. Oh, you guys are Mr. I I'm with George on this. I'm concerned that
the applicant sells their after the subdivision, the applicant sells their lot and the new owner and the owner of the house that's being built are not friends and there is a conflict on not letting you plant your trees. I would
feel more comfortable uh having during resolution compliance making a stronger decision on what's going to happen to 26 trees. I don't really need to see them now. I feel very comfortable that our engineer could decide that during resolution compliance
that the 26 trees are going to be divided however and we may make that a clear mark in the sand. So there is no dispute. There's no danger for us down the road. The the only problem is we're saying 26 trees now that change. Well, but that'll be on the lot, right? So, if
26 trees are what the approval is going to give you, that you're forced to 26 trees and you say we're going to do 13 and 13. If there's more trees or less trees, it'll just be taken away from the 13 that are on the new lot. I don't want to see a situation where
we don't get the trees that you're promising us because the new homeowner says you're not planting any trees on my lot. You're right now you got 12. They'll be obligated by DD restriction to provide at least 12. The new owner of
existing dwellings lot like you're going to force them to take trees by deed restriction. Okay. By this condition they have. Yeah. At what point and they'd be on notice when they make that purchase. That's fine. Of that. Yeah. I was gonna say at what point do they find out about that deed
restriction? Attorney. So after they So they don't find out till they till they get the title work, right? So when they're making the offer, they don't know. When they're attorney reviewed, they don't know. They're doing their home inspection. They still don't know. Their attorney may find it if their attorney
they don't find it till they get the title work back. Is that right? It's like any condition on a property that you're purchasing, you have no you have no idea what's in the title. Yeah. Until you start doing your due diligence. I mean, unfortunately, the the weird new
lot, that's where all of the trees are. We're not really taking new any trees off the existing uh the new existing lot, right? So, okay, that's how it is. That's okay. Okay, I'm good. I just have a a quick question, not
about trees. Uh, the Sentinel Wells, I just I'm curious because I didn't see much in the documentation. How old are these wells and and what did the last acknowledged report indicate about these wells? They were they were
um so the gas station across the street uh the spill occurred in 1999. Um the last report which was our medial investigation report that was conducted by the company that was hired was in 2017 and they had done sampling of the wells. The wells that were placed on our
property uh were just to identify if any groundwater migration of the contaminants had had gone towards our property and had it. Um I didn't I didn't see anything. I I can't say. Um I what I did see is that um certain
wells were sampled more than others and those being on the subject property across the street were sampled uh more often than the ones on our property, but I can't speak to um like the contaminant level or how often they were sampled. I don't It was very extensive report. I
would so so to our attorney, can we stipulate that some kind of new report, updated report be done to make sure that those wells can be closed, you know, without um there being a problem down the road?
Well, that that was what I was getting at with requiring said they were doing the report and all subsequent communications to run through uh Joe. I I don't know if Joe can necessarily ensure clean land for subsequent owners,
but he certainly can uh well before capping and ensure that it could be decommissioned. If the wells can be decommissioned, I assume they're getting it's not a no further action. It's a um what do they call it now? Well, an RAO is what's usually issued after the project's been done. The issue with the
timing is that the spill occurred in the late 90s. That was before the creation of the LSRP program. So this was originally in D's prior hands and then it transitioned with the creation of the LSRP program to a remediation
professional that was the responsible party for the gas station. Um so cleaning it up, cleaning up the paperwork is not a D decision. It it now follows the SRP programming. If it if it can be
decommissioned, they would recommend it would be and then then it can be removed. I would think it would have to be tested before they can give you the green light to decommission. So, at some point there's going to be a new test, right? And at this at this point there would be
annual or bianual reporting that's done on the wells perhaps and then in that reporting mechanism they can identify the criticality of those wells to be able to remove those wells and replace them as necessary. Okay. In another location.
You said they needed an LSRP first. They don't even have one yet. Right. They to my knowledge they had just reassigned somebody recently and we we had sent them a letter or my company um asking about the decommissioning of the wells on our site. So we're expecting a response hopefully.
Okay, that was my question. Any other question? Yes, I have a question about the easement for the driveway on the uh parent lot and why um it was decided to draw the lot line so that that easement was necessary. Um so the location basically the
location of the lot line um moving it over um it would have taken I don't I can't say how much square footage but um it was taken into consideration that way and I believe uh moving it over the the 10 ft the 8 ft that it is um it would
make the lots we tried to make them as even as possible essentially. So in doing so, the new law would be much shorter. Um it might um affect, you know, where envelope would be for our home. So, we felt that it was uh something that um as well too as you see
the location uh of the paved area, we felt that taking that small piece of the paved area away, they still there still is ample room um for someone to to maneuver in the paved area, you know, and you know, shouldn't for for some reason the future um they want to remove
that piece of asphalt or paved area, there's still ample room for a car to maneuver in that in that area. So um yeah it was really to keep a good balance between the sites. Um we didn't want to have a curved line. We want to make you know perpendicular line to the
lot lines. So um in doing so we felt that was a necessary spot and it's also taking into account like landscaping too. So number of trees on each lot. If we had moved the lot over you know now there's more trees on one lot than another. And so there was numerous
factors, but um yeah, I understand the question is a good question, but um we didn't feel is really like an impeding um burden on the on the property if that was an easement that was made. I kind of wonder whether it would affect
the saleability of the lot more than moving the lot line would. Yeah, maybe along similar lines, I was going to ask if there would still be a sufficient sideyard setback. I think that Oh, no. That's a rear yard now,
isn't it? That's a rear yard. Sideyard. Okay. Would would there still be a sufficient setback if there was a a jut out or jog or what have you that that uh so that that pavement was on the parent
lot uh rather than on the so it would be encroaching on the proposed new line. Right. So eliminating that that easement and moving it uh it would generate a 30 foot sideyard setback essentially from the the side of
the house. Right now it's 38. So taking away 8 ft be 30 ft 25. I'm sorry. What's the uh requirement? Minimum requirement. It's it's 20 50 for combined. So it would only be one sideyard 20 ft.
I mean certainly, you know, not a perfectly configured lot and I'll defer to planners on that. If you were to offset the the proposed boundary line to run
tangent to the the pavement, does that create a substandard lot area on the proposed lot? So that I'm not I'm not sure. I have to about what is that? It's like 8 ft by probably because this is an these are
15,000 square foot minimum lots, right? So, I don't think we'd be anywhere close. Yeah, they're over they're over the 15,000 square feet, Mr. Chairman. Yes. I I don't think that that small easement for the corner of the driveway is going to be a determining factor in
someone purchasing that property. and doesn't look like it really, you know, it's going to be it's going to be visible to whomever the buyer is and they're going to know that the easement is there, right? It's like we have easements on our properties all the time for drainage and driveways and whatever.
So, to me, it's just like a no big deal. Yeah. Yeah. This is they clearly considered different alternatives and decided that this was the best from their point of view and I don't see that it's terrible. Yeah. They want the cure to be
worse than the disease. I much prefer to see a straight line. Yes. And I do, you know, I like that, you know, you know, they have more or less the equal size lots. I think makes sense. And down the road, if it became an impediment to sale, they could remove the driveway and take the take the deed restriction,
reveate. That's true. And if if I may, the proposed lot, if we were to move it, the lot line 8t in, they're now losing 8t more of like a potential backyard space. So that right now it already is a narrow space that they can use for kids or doing something. If we were to move
that lot closer, they would lose 8 ft of that available space. That's another reason. Okay. Any other question? Oh yeah, Mr. I have one for Mr. Warner. Uh this could be in material. I'm just going through the application. The first page of the
application is the owner's consent. Looks like the attorney signed for the owner. And wouldn't that normally be required to have a letter from the owner letting us know that the I guess an authorized representative can make all signatures. In the other pages
of the application, he signs as an authorized representative. I don't know that's a big deal. I just hate to see somebody feel this down the road because of something silly like somebody signed something the wrong way. I mean, I've seen attorneys sign as authorized, you know, 100% agree, but usually not on the
owner's consent. Uh, unless it says so that he's signing as the authorized representative. Well, we we have a substitute attorney here, so he can represent on the maybe he can represent on behalf of Mr. Cali that Mr. Cali was authorized to do so on
behalf of the owner. Is the owner here? The owner is here. The owner, there you go. Let him sign it. I just want to see it fixed so that somebody doesn't come and feel this. The the we can we can submit a new owner's author. You can swear them in
swear whatever you want to do. Sign it. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God to affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Please come up. And your name for the record? Mark Best. And and uh also
uh someone's with you. Can you raise your right hand? Do you swear to God and affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. And your name is Suzanne Best. Okay. And uh can you both testify sequentially uh that Mr. Cali was authorized to consent
to the application and moreover that you actually directly consent to the application and and would adhere to all the conditions of approval. Uh should the uh board approve the application. And we got a yes and affirmative from
both on the record. Thank you both. Thank you. Just don't want to see them losing an appeal. Any other questions? Any questions from the public for for this witness? I guess not. Any comments from the
public for this w about this application from the public? No. Seeing none, I guess you want to summarize things for us. Sure. Sure. It's a fully conforming subdivision application, minor subdivision, one lot to two. Uh, and you
heard numerous conditions of approval. Um, many are set forth in the TCC memo prepared by Miss Laney, April 16. Um, Chief Nun had no uh, uh, comments with respect to the fire department report
and same with respect to the site review report. site review site inspection committee uh report. Um, and the additional uh I'll assume if if it's an approval, it's with all the conditions that were stipulated to this evening, including but not limited to the uh
second easement for the uh driveway on Gaston Road and the uh provision of the report that was referenced with respect to the uh LSRP's
uh uh the four monitoring wells as well as subsequent uh communications. uh so that our engineer can again monitor, no pun intended, uh the efforts to uh decommission those wells. Uh the tree
removal will be uh dispersed as between the two lots as testified to again subject to the review and approval of our engineer. There'll be a deed restriction for all conditions of approval as well as the designation of
the front, rear, and sideyard lots for the respective lots. That deed restriction will apply to both lots um and will be recorded in the county clerk's office uh subject to my review and approval prior there too.
Uh the uh we will spell out that the uh neither lot that excuse me the proposed new lot is not a legacy lot for purposes of interpreting our tree replacement ordinance. Uh there. Let's see.
I think that's about it. We'll have an upper Well, we we No, we won't. We didn't agree. We didn't go there. Never mind. I think that's everything. Do you agree? Agree. Okay. Well, it'll it'll be uh better worded in the actual
resolution approval. I promise. So, we'll be the judge of that. I don't know that it could be much worse. No more self-deprecation at least for the time being. I'll entertain a motion on this application. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve this
application with the conditions set forth in uh by our attorney. Right. I'll second. Yeah, I did do public comment. I'll second. Second. Would you call the role, please? Mr. Alleso. Yes. Mr. Flower. Yes. Mr. N.
Yes. Mr. Rabbit. Yes. Miss Murphy. Yes. Mr. Ben. Yes. Mr. Quillin. Yes. Mr. Yes. Yes. Thank you very much for the uh the exhibit that we marked before we leave
it here. Yes. Thank you. Okay, moving on to the next door of business, the public hearing concerning the adoption of the housing element and fair share plan. Um, Mr. Warner, do you want set that up for us?
It's it's it's off. Do it again. Hearing myself once is enough. The uh the the um yes, I'd be happy to tee it up, Mr. Chairman. Uh this is a public hearing for the adoption of the housing element fair share plan. As our board knows very
well, we are the gatekeepers of the master plan, as I like to say. and uh uh all elements of the master plan are required pursuant to the municipal land use law to be adopted by the planning board. Uh this is a public hearing. Uh
Miss Laney, our planner, will be providing the testimony uh with respect to the housing element and fair share plan uh and at the conclusion uh after any questions or comments by any members of the public. Uh and if I understand correctly, Mr. Chairman, it was your
desire to uh await Miss Laney finishing the presentation and then inviting members of the public uh to either ask questions and or make comments. I can swear members of the public in in the event they wish to uh make comment in
addition to or in lie of questioning um at once at the end of the uh uh presentation. Um this is uh not only a master plan element uh but it is also a part of our municipalities fourth round
uh fair share plan and our ongoing Mount Laurel affordable housing obligations just very quickly I promise um the uh we our township has always been fully
voluntarily compliant ient with our constitutional Mount Laurel affordable housing obligations through the first, second, and now third. The third round is still ongoing. We have about two weeks left uh to uh to uh through June
30th. Uh when the fourth round will start, uh this housing element fair share plan is focused on the fourth round obligation. Uh we are continuing to operate under a third round housing element fair share plan that was adopted by the board and a final judgment of
compliance and repose in 2018 uh confirming our continued compliance as a township with our affordable housing obligation through the third round. We remain immune from builders remedy lawsuits uh because of that
voluntary compliance. Um, we uh did also have in 2022 uh Fair Share Housing Center filed a declaratory judgment action that ultimately was resolved with a settlement providing for a 100% affordable housing project on Catch Road
uh which is also part of our third round obligation uh and is referenced in the plan. And uh we did have an amendment to our fair housing act back in March of 2024. Uh I will not go through all that took
place since then. Uh but in a general sense, we did have a an obligation that was initially set forth. Our proposed, excuse me, our prospect of need obligation initially set forth by the Department of Community Affairs was at
571 units. uh we proposed a prospect of need obligation much less of 308 units for our fourth round. Fourth round being the 10 years from July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2035.
Um pleased to remind everyone that uh through a negotiation process before the affordable housing dispute resolution program uh we resulted in a prospective need obligation for the fourth round of
375 units almost 200 units below that which was initially set by the department of community affairs. uh that was uh that 375 unit prospective need obligation was set forth in an order entered by the
court on May 2nd, 2025. Seems like a lot more than roughly 5 weeks ago or so. Um but and that besp speaks of something that I think everyone's aware of which was this the amended fair housing act provided an extremely compressed time
frame uh for everyone uh all municipalities involved uh to address their fourth round obligation uh through among other things a detailed housing element fair share plan. I'm pleased to say that uh because of the great work of our planners seated to my right and one
might be behind me. Uh we have a fourth round housing element fair share plan uh that was extensively uh uh uh worked on and put together. Uh and I will let uh Miss Laney explain that. Um uh but I think uh out of an abundance of caution
since it is a public hearing I should swear Miss Laney in. So she'll raise her right hand. 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 very much. And with the chair's permission, uh, if you can explain the
fourth round and continue to move the micro, please get the hook. Uh, thank you, Steve. Um, so I will do my best to explain everything that I can. Um, but just, you know, I'm going to go through some
things that are, um, maybe old hat to some board members, but just for the the sake of the record and this presentation, um, that we are in our fourth round. There were three previous rounds. We call them rounds because that's what COA called them, the Council on Affordable Housing, which no longer
exists, but we continue to use that nomenclature. So, this is we're dealing with our 2025 to 2035 obligation, which as Steve indicated is subject to the amended Fair Housing Act. Um, this is the first round uh subject to the new
rules. So again, as Steve said, I'm not going to really go through this very very um extensively, but there was in the actual act strict deadlines by date. You know, October 20th, 2024, this X has to
happen. Uh and it's a a fairly extensive and regimented um time frame that has nine steps and we are nearing step six. So, we're we're um doing okay. We're
we're making our way. Um but just to go through a little bit is that on October 20th, DCA um the Department of Community Affairs was required to issue a report of whatever municipality's nonbinding
obligation was for the fourth round. They uh indicated that Morris Township had an obligation of 571 because it was nine non-binding. Um the municipality was required by January
31st, 2025 to adopt a resolution indicating what the township thought its obligation was. Um this we the your professionals um undertook a pretty extensive review particularly of the developable land um that DCA had used
and argued that uh the numbers DCA had used for the acreage of developable land was significantly higher than uh what actually existed. Uh and we came in I I got this wrong. I get I realize the slide says 307 units. As Steve just said
it's 308 units. Um so we we you know count they said 571 we counted with 308. Um there was a month for uh people to challenge that number and you know just in time by the February 28th deadline we
were got a challenge from Fair Share Housing Center and the New Jersey Builders Association. We spent most of March uh in multiple mediation sessions with Fairshair Housing Center um and the special adjudicator, which is a court-appointed planner who aids the
judge in um resolving these disputes. Uh and so then by April 1st, um we had our settlement agreement with Fair Share Housing Center reducing our obligation from 571 to 375. um and the builders association
essentially acquiesced to whatever our um settlement was with fair share housing center. So here we are uh right before June 30th. That's the deadline for municipalities to adopt uh and endorse their housing element and fair share
plan. Municipalities that fail to do so run the risk of losing your immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits. um you have or people objectors or interveners have between June 30th and August 31st to file any objections to
our plan. We have from August 31st to December 31st to settle any of those um challenges and then we have until May 15, 2026 to amend the plan and adopt any
implementing ordinances. Um, and it's always everybody has felt like this has been a very aggressive and tight time frame, but we have not been let off the hook yet on any of the deadlines. So, we can, you know,
I think safely assume that we are going to be held to these deadlines because that is um, as I said, for the first six of the nine steps, we have been held to the deadlines. Um so again I'm just going to go through we argue you know we settled with fair
share housing center that we had an obligation a prospective need within the next 10 years uh to provide 375 affordable units. This was down 196 units from the DCA number. So right off the top you know we we got almost a 200
unit reduction which was really great. Um and we contemplated two potential options. Option A was to seek a vacant land adjustment, which is what we had done in the third round, which was to essentially maintain that we didn't have
enough developable land um to provide our, you know, to meet our obligation that and we would argue that, you know, there was not enough vacant land to accommodate um our obligation. And option B was that we would actually try
to or attempt to meet that 375 unit uh obligation. And after consideration of of various um arguments, you know, pro and con option A and option option B, the professionals
came to the conclusion to go with option B to address uh your entire 375 unit obligation. And this goes through very quickly why. Um the first most importantly probably
is that it was an achievable number. You know it wasn't I think what was it in the third round? It was 700 plus. You know that it's not as crazy. Sorry I shouldn't say crazy but it's not as as uh challenging as that number was. um we'd already gotten almost 200 units off
the top and um you know the 375 was already less you know after doing a vacant land adjustment in the third round our realistic development potential was 400 so we're already lower than what we had argued down in the
third round. Um another issue is that we had greater protection against in uh intravenor lawsuits. Um the township is large and there's a lot of developer interest and um you know you're always going to have people we think knocking
at your door and we felt that if you meet your obligation you have better ability to control the development that you want and you can decide you know who you want to include in your plan who you want to negotiate
with. Um the other issue and this is more in the weeds but when you are you know dealing with um you know developers who want to redevelop a site let's say an office park for example that is not vacant. It
wouldn't have been included in our vacant land adjustment but as soon as they sort of come forward and say hey we can provide this many units here your vacant land adjustment number goes up correspondingly. So if somebody came in and said, "Hey, we can provide 84
affordable housing units." Your vacant land adjustment number, your realistic develop development potential number will increase by 84 units. And it's a a very sort of what is the in ancient Greek, the guy who the puts the boulder up and it keeps falling back down. It
you can never catch up. You know, you're always sort of being at your VA keeps going up higher and higher. And one issue that I think we came to the conclusion is that you're actually going to wind up getting close to the 375 even doing a vacant land adjustment. And then
the final um argument in favor of not doing a VA was that you have a greater amount of bonus credits to choose from. Meaning well I'll just go to the next slide. you are permitted, any municipality is
permitted to meet 25% of its obligation through bonus credits. Um, and obviously if you have a lower number, that 25% number goes down. And if you have a larger number, that 25% number goes up. And these are some of the um credits
that are available. Bonus credits. Special needs housing um gets a one for one. You also could get half a bonus credit for things that um we'll talk about in a little bit, but redevelopment of commercial sites, sites within a half
mile of transit, um extensions of affordability controls. So, we also felt like the projects that we could, you know, effectuate in Morris Township would allow us to maximize the potential
bonus credits. So, just to do the math, so we start with the 375 and we realized we could maximize the number of bonus credits. Um, and so the 25% of 375 is 94. So, you
know, doing the math and simply doing this as as an exercise, you do 375 minus 94, you have the 281. So, we have to come up with 281 actual units. So, um, the township, um, through the
tax assessor's office and and the administrator's office has been working on an extension of affordability controls program, uh, with existing affordable housing developments in the township. Over 170 letters were sent out. Um and this is basically requesting
there's an incentive a small monetary incentive to um sort of incentivize the homeowners of existing affordable housing units whose deed restriction is going to expire during the course of
this round, you know, by 2035 to um extend that lease so that the units remain affordable housing units. they remain in the township's inventory of affordable housing units. So, as I said, 170 letters were sent out so far.
And it's this this number is probably outdated. It was 121 as of uh you know, two or three weeks ago, but there um the participation has been uh really fantastic so far, and we anticipate that there will probably be even greater uh
participation. And each of those 121 is eligible for half a bonus credit because of um the extension of affordability controls is one of the bonuses. So you know you get the 375, you get the
down 94 down 121. We have 160 remaining. So, as Steve said, um, you know, we sort of got the 375 number finalized April 1st. Let's just say for for argument sake it was May
final final final final May 2nd. But, you know, we kind of knew where we're going where we were going in the beginning of April. And um, we I should just go back. We had certain projects that we knew about, certain people who
had already approached the township with ideas with um with really uh site plan, conceptual site plans, some um sense of how they wanted to develop a parcel. And so we started with those first really
and among them was 291 James Street. And I know it's kind of hard to read um that this would a small site uh but this is something that I think the property owner had approached the township in sometime in 2023 or even or certainly by
2024. Um and I think there was a consensus even at the township committee level that this was perhaps a good site to reszone for townhouse development. And certainly it would be 13 units of town homes at a 20% set aside. That
would be three affordable units. And I have to apologize if if when you were reading the plan, you wondered why the none of the uh images were were pointing north. It was because um
when we uh when Steve goes to file the plan, you could only do excuse me, portrait 8 and 1 half by 11. And so it it I must say it it I I've tried to account for that in this
um in this presentation just to show this shows north being up the um but in the plan it's it's a little different. So again, this is on James Street. Uh, okay. The next is Community Hope. Um, and this is a township property that
Community Hope is seeking to develop a special needs um I think it's Oh, that's not right. It's u it's five. I have three, but it's five affordable housing units. Um, a five- bedroomedroom group home. And so that would be again that's
a one for one because um special needs housing gets a one for one credit bonus credit bonus credits are sorry. So again this is with north being up. Okay the next is um 300 Madison. This is
the JCPNL site. uh the potential developer had approached the township about doing town homes and stacked flats uh at this location. Um and you know the professionals
thought that the town home option was a preferable option given the neighboring properties that there are town home developments across the road and across the railroad tracks. um and that this would be more in keeping with that existing development uh that exist, you
know, the existing projects that exist. Uh the applicant is proposing 118 units or the proposed development 118 units with a 20% set aside. That's 24 affordable housing units.
There we go. That's with north being up. The next is 100 Southgate Parkway. I should say JCPNL it would be a redevelopment of an office building. So that's a half credit. It also it double qualifies. You can't take as many you
know credit unlimited credits on one project. But in addition to it being a redevelopment of an office building, it's also within a half mile of transit which also makes it eligible for um bonus credits. Next is 100 South Great
Parkway. Um this is an office building. Uh this the proposed developer is looking to do 104 town homes uh with a 20 um% set aside. It would be 21 affordable units. This would all be town
or you know town houses. The site is very restrict um constrained if you can see with floodways and uh the regulatory floodway goes through it. But I think the professionals liked the idea that it
was town homes because of the neighboring properties are more lowdensity residential and were town homes. Um so that seemed like an appropriate um you know building type.
Okay. The next is 60 Columbia Road. Let's see. Yeah. Um this is north going up. And so this again is an office building. Um and this is the most dense project that we are uh including in our
plan and the reasons why uh is because it has several mitigating uh factors or you know qualities or characteristics that make it uniquely suited to accommodate
greater density. uh among them is that it has frontage and access on two major arterials at Columbia Road and Whippony Road. Um the other is that it it does not have very many its neighbors or its
abuing neighbors are not residential really. Uh it it's up against an office building to its west. It's um Holy Road Cemetery is to sort of its north and northeast. And then the Morris Museum is
to its east and then across further uh north on Whippony Road is the arboritum. So that was some those are some of the characteristics. The other characteristic is that the topography is
such that the site u sort of declines or decreases in uh elevation by about 20 feet between the front of the property and the rear of the property. So, we thought that, you know, there could there's a potential for some greater
density that would be less visually impactful than uh it, you know, may may it may have a greater impact on another type of site or in another location, but we thought here it actually was okay for all of these different reasons that I'm
uh discussing. So of the units that um the proposed developer is proposing um 84 would be affordable units. Okay. Next is uh Rabbitical College campus. Um
and this is on Sussex Avenue and there is about I guess it's 21 acre site as it turns out. Um that the rabbitical college would like to uh develop. It's it's open space. It's unimproved. It's it's natural right now.
they would like to redevelop it or or not redevelop it, develop it for a town home development that would provide 35 affordable housing units. This also had some sort of extra qualities that I think the was uh appealing to the
township. Among them was a trail system that they are proposing that would uh connect this development. Um let's see, let me just show you the next slide. Yes, to Patri to Patriots Path. Thank you, Steve. Um, but that this would um
sort of expand the township's already extensive uh trails program or trails system. Uh Rabbitical College there would do again all town homes and that would be 35 affordable units.
So to sum up, we have the community hope which is uh five units. It's five bedroomedroom group home. Bonus credits are five. Total is 10. 100 Southgate Parkway. Again, all town homes that'd be
sales. 21 units. Um they would be eligible for 10 bonus credits because of the redevelopment of an office building. 300 Madison. Um again, town homes 24 units
bonus credits. uh 12 be uh and again that's for the redevelopment of an office and or uh within a half mile of transit. Uh 291 James Street would be three town homes. 60 Colombia would be
84 units. It's a mix of um town homes and some multi- multi- uh family a multif family building. And we should note that of all the projects that we are proposing this is the only multif family building. everything else are
town homes. Um, so which which was an attractive uh thing to I think to the professionals. Uh, and we could get 42 potential bonus credits there because that would be redevelopment of an office building. And then there's 227 Sussex
Avenue. That's the rabbitical college and that would be 35 affordable units. And then the extensions of control um, as of you know a couple weeks ago 121. the potential for more. We anticipate there will be more uh with 25 bonus
credits and it's capped at 25. We certainly could get up to 60, but it's because, as I said, um at the start, we are limited to 25% of the 375. So, we can't go above 94. So for the sake of
the plan, for the sake of this chart, rather than saying 60 bonus credits for extension of affordability controls said 25 just because then we we met our 94 unit or uh bonus credit cap. Um so
that's it. You have more to say. Just I may if I with the chair's permission I may have a question or two to ask Miss Laney. Yes, please. the the M lady, is it also true that as part of the obligation with respect to the housing element fair share plan for the fourth round, particularly as set forth in the
AOC directive, uh we're to address any potential deficiency from the third round? Yes. And uh have we determined in your report uh and in the plan at page 24 uh that there uh uh while the vast majority of
our third round obligation uh uh RDP realistic development potential sites have already been approved and most completed. Uh we have one project, a seven-unit project that we anticipate uh may be no longer viable
and hence those seven units of deficiency uh may uh need to be accounted for in the calculation you just went through. Yes, thank you for reminding me. So the the amended fair housing act says you have to look back
and see how you've done um based on your other plans. And we've actually done very well um with the exception of this one project that was a seven unit and what's the mount? It's Mount Kimell. What's the Okay. 375 375 to 403. Mount Kimell Avenue. And so right now, as you
can see, we're looking at a 12 unit surplus. Um and so that certainly making up for those seven credits from the third round can be accommodated in the in that surplus. Um, as I said, we fully expect the extension affordability
controls to go even higher. So, um, we probably will have a different final surplus number, but we can make up for that seven unit deficiency from the third round, uh, with what we have. And if I may to follow up in your
professional opinion as a professional planner licensed in the state of New Jersey uh and uh and the planner that this board is privileged to have in my opinion uh and I'm sure others share that. Uh the the uh uh is it your opinion that the fourth round housing
element fair share plan as proposed 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 it's your professional opinion as a
professional planner that uh the fourth round housing element fair share plan as proposed is designed to achieve access to affordable housing to meet the township's fourth round Mount Laurel constitutional affordable housing obligation and considers the lands that
are most appropriate for construction of low and moderate income housing in accordance with the amended fair housing act. Yes. And am I correct uh that uh the uh
as previously mentioned uh June 30th is a deadline for the planning board to adopt a housing element fair share plan uh which includes as this one does a spending plan and certain draft implementation ordinances. Yes. And uh
if it's adopted by this board, uh this is not a question. I will as affordable housing council within 48 hours, uh uh uh file it, eile it with the affordable housing dispute resolution program. And it's anticipated that the township committee uh then uh at its next
meeting, which I believe may be this Wednesday, uh would have a resolution considering endorsing that plan. Um, also am I well actually I'll strike then is it uh did you have anything else you wanted to say with respect to the housing and unfair share plan as drafted
and proposed for consideration by the planning board. Not at this time. Thank you Miss Lane. We're being asked to approve this right? Yes. That's right. Yes. and
recommend its endorsement by the governing body. Yes, I I do have a resolution which should should have been circulated and if it is the pleasure ultimately at the conclusion of this hearing that of the board to do so to adopt it, it uh provides that uh not only is it adopted but it's a
recommendation to the mayor and Tasha committee to endorse it. Uh it directs me to file it with the court within 48 hours of adoption uh and no later than June 30th. uh and that would it be the resolution is uh be sent to the office
of planning advocacy at the state and the county planning board together with a copy of the plan itself within 30 days of adoption. So that would be the process uh assuming that is the pleasure of the board once the public hearing is concluded.
I do have one question regarding credits, bonus credits. We're not able to take as many bonus credits as we actually That's That's correct. Are we able to carry those forward?
Not exactly. I think sometimes you can you can play with the numbers a little bit to sort of help you, but you can't you you can really only carry units forward. Um, so you can I don't want to say no exactly,
but um you can uh potentially I should say the units. The units. Yeah. But not bonus credits. Units. It would have to be units. Yeah. Thank you. It just feels like we're not getting as much credit as we deserve. Right. Right.
May I ask a related question? So the bonus credits for the extension of affordability controls, are they subject to a cap as well? because they seem like real additions to the affordable housing stock of the township. And so it seems odd that they are not considered to be
if they are not if they're subject to a cap that would seem peculiar to me. No. So we you can get as many extension of affordability controls actual units as as we do. So you know if we do 121 if we
do 170 you get that credit at least 121 or at least 170 where we are capped is how many overall in our entire plan how many bonus credits we can take. So um the you know if 375 is our number it is
our number 25% is 94. So we we are capped at 94 and so where we take those from is a little um what's the right word? Flexible. Yeah, it's flexible. I mean, we don't let's
say I don't know what, but let's just say we could, for example, like I said, we could take 60 in the bonus credit column for extension of affordability controls, but then we would have to take fewer bonus credits at the other projects because we have that 94 unit
cap, 94 bonus credit cap. It does that make sense? I guess what I'm what I'm saying is it seems to me extending an affordability control is not it's not exactly something that it's like a bonus on top of
on top of um it's an actual affordable unit that you're creating that was that was not going to be there. book, but we still get credit for the 121 or whatever it will be units themselves. Just like we would if we built new ones,
right? Okay. So, it would be 100. Let's say let's say we would be 121 plus 60. Yeah. All right. There's there's clearly an incentivization in the amended fair housing act for certain types of uh
development and certain mechanisms to be utilized in the context of the fourth round and they're listed as as you saw on that chart and they're weighted we g uh by virtue of whether uh the
legislature gave municipalities a half credit bonus on top or a full credit bonus on top. But there is this overall 25% cap, 25% of the overall number uh uh that you could take as a bonus
regardless of where it's allocated. Would it that be accurate? Yes. On top is the part that I was missing. I'm sorry. Yes, that's right. I have a question. If for whatever reason some of these projects Is your mic on the next
Is your mic on? Isn't it now? Sorry about that. If for whatever reason some of these develops or one of these develops don't occur within the next 10 years, we will still then have enough bonus credits and units to meet the 37 387. Yes,
possibly. Yes. Yes, that is. This is the plan, but there may end up being fewer builds, but we still meet the requirements. Just just like from the third round, that seven unit project didn't happen. and we're we're at least coming we're fessing up, you know,
didn't it's not going to happen. We I'm sure in 10 years we'll have to do a similar exercise. Um and hopefully we won't have to make up anything. Hopefully what we uh have are proposing will happen. So yeah, maybe we'll have something in our pocket for next time.
You never know. That's 10 years from now. Yeah. If I may, there's also a midpoint review for the fourth round as there was for the third round. So, uh, see everybody again in five years, uh, 2030 when that midpoint review comes
around. We'll be making those, uh, uh, reporting obligations and along with other reporting obligations, I'm sure, annually, Mr. Flowers, on the extension of affordability control. So, as of a few weeks ago, 121
people had said, "Sure, thank you." So, there's what, 49 outstanding. I don't I was for a long time saying it was 177 and 177. Okay. No, Aaron Wilson corrected me and he said it's not that many but it it's I cannot remember the actual number but it's it's there's
several dozen outstanding. Correct. So as more of those roll in do our, you know, obligations decrease elsewhere? I mean we don't need to build as many in these other developments. the rentals still need to be built, but that's true.
I I think that at this time you want to just get as many as you can because you just we don't know cuz some won't happen. It's there's a possibility that something won't happen that you know we we and we thought initially we you know
we wanted to be a little conservative with the extension affordability controls because we weren't quite sure would people do it or not, right? You know so yeah. Okay. All right, Mr. Chairman, I have a question. This belongs to Mr. Warner, I believe. Um, so
two weeks ago, we had a closed session for the planning board, right? So, does this hearing which is expressing what occurred? Does that then satisfy the need for closing out the close session two weeks
ago? we uh the affordable housing process again this fourth round like the third round even though the legislation was intended perhaps in at least in part to avoid litigation uh uh was designated
to play out through the litigation process. an affordable housing declaratory judgment complaint being filed and and and and administered and monitored through the courts uh through a hybrid of mediation and litigation. Uh hence uh all municipalities
uh participating uh had the right to have uh executive sessions uh to discuss a plan in its uh uh developmental stages in the context of litigation uh litigation privilege uh uh
communications uh being one of the uh statutory exceptions in the open public meeting act uh allowing for closed and executive sessions. uh we like just about every other if not every other municipality participating did did that
in the process. This is the open public hearing pursuant to the municipal land use law. Uh so uh this is the natural evolution if you will at least in my opinion uh to that process um and is as
statutoily required hence momentarily open for anybody and everybody to ask questions andor make comments from the public. So in other words, the the lawsuits haven't settled yet. We are just still in the process of
doing what we need to do. Well, I would I would that's not an respectfully an accurate characterization. The uh the process is through the judicial system. So all municipalities somewhat similar to like the third round were required in
order to participate in the process to file a complaint in court. Uh the uh we did that and it was sort of a two-phase system if you will and I'm paraphrasing and speaking colloquially but uh the
first phase was resolve the number for the fourth round primarily the prospective need and we discussed that. The second phase, for lack of a better term, uh is to uh uh resolve the plan, what is the housing on fair share plan.
So, uh it's not so much of a a settlement issue. Once we, as Miss Laney explained under oath, uh, as our planner, once we adopt the housing element and fair share plan within the third, uh, uh, within the time frames
required under the statute and the AOC directive, uh, and presumably it's endors endorsed by the township committee. Then there's a 60-day period. If someone wishes to challenge it, they can. If they do, we proceed with trying
to resolve that challenge via mediation in under the opaces of the court uh or in the alternative through litigation uh uh uh in that same affordable housing dispute resolution program setting. Um,
if not, if it's not challenged, we do still have to uh uh get a uh an approval from the program and ultimately the court um to uh because it's not just
simply an unchallenged automatic uh uh approval and comp uh and certification of compliance. I believe we're still calling it uh compliance certification. I have to double check that. The fourth round's a little different than the third round was. Um, but that will give
us our in essence what we used to call a final judgment of compliance or oppose. So there's nothing to settle yet. Uh, if it's adopted and endorsed uh, and proceeds, if it's challenged, then the challenge would have to be resolved,
settled or or litigated and and approved by the court. Um, if it's not challenged, again, there's nothing to settle. So, it's I think I understand. Yeah. I didn't want it to sound as if we're in some sort of active litigation right now. No one's challenging anything. Uh, and we
were successful in the resolution of our number. I hope that clarifies it. It does. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. I I have um a couple of kind of picky and um proofreader comments that I'm becoming
famous for. So, you might want to um accept some of them um so I can go through them and then I have a couple of substantive comments and I don't know when the right time to to talk about them is but no. Well, okay. Or or maybe I was going to
say maybe uh the the at the conclusion at the conclusion your specific proof reading type comments on the on the text with me now. Yes. Yes. Talk about those now. Okay. So um if you look at page
eight of the report um the next page after page eight um uh well if you look at page six the next page after page six is page seven and then
there's page eight and uh let's see the page I'm trying to get at the fact that the page numbering is off. So there's a place where there's a page eight followed by a page six. Um so this section section three housing elements fair share plan requirements is labeled
page six but it follows page eight. So the page numbers go one through is it just ours? Mine doesn't. Mine doesn't. Okay. Mine is sequential earlier. I see what you're saying. I see it. All right.
And then my next comment is on page eight. Um the um it's a short page with um with one full paragraph that says this housing element and fair share plan pursuant to applicable law and regulations. I think you mean to say has
been created pursuant to and then um it's probably page eight and yours housing stock and demographic analysis. Um maybe you've changed this. The first line says in 2023 there were 4,000 8,442
housing units. Mhm. But I think you mean to say 8,616. Yes, you're correct. Yep. And then Oh, good point. On page 32,
the first line says the township plans to resone the five privately owned properties. I think you just mean to say five privately owned properties, so delete the word the. Okay. I'm sorry. What page is that? It's on page 32. Inclusionary projects. Oh, okay.
It's just suggesting strike the word the I'm sorry. Yep. You want to go on and ask some questions or Rick? So, I do have a couple of questions. Should he ask us questions?
Okay. Um, one of them has to do with there was a change in zoning required by one of the settlements with fair share housing center.
Um, had to do with the density and my question is about how density is expressed there. There is like double reference. Sorry, I'm having trouble finding the page. Is this a third round site or? Yeah. Yes. Would this be the overlay zone
changes per the third round? The the property at the end of Lindsley Drive. Um Okay. And so is is the question 12-15 that? Yes. Yeah. So it's expressed like 12 and then 15% and then another number
and a different percentage. What does that mean? Okay. So I you know what it was unusual. Um uh so but what it means is if they're allowed to do 12 units per acre uh with a 15% set aside but they could do a
greater density up to 15 dwelling units per acre but if they do that greater density the set aside is greater it's the set aside is 20%. So it's 12-15 meaning and then 15-20.
I it's it is a little bit uh it's a higher density permitted with a greater proportion of affordable housing units provided per per acre. So, uh, it's a recognition that if you want a a little
bit higher density, you got to provide an even greater proportion of affordable units to market rate units in your inclusionary project. And either would meet the zoning requirement. You just have to pick which one you are asking for. Exactly. Okay.
Um, I wanted to ask about Um on page 44 um section 5.6 Six, there's a um there's a section that um this describes how the tangent will comply with
requirements for very low income obligation and low income obligation. And I didn't really understand how that gets that that compliance gets allocated to individual.
So, you know, it's a good question and so essentially all what we have in our zoning in the draft zoning and then also this is true in any of our uh redevelopment plans or zoning for affordable projects. We require that they conform um comply
with the uniform housing affordability controls which is a state right. So uh hack uh hack and as amended I guess now um it it requires that of all these in all new inclusionary developments or
actually in all new affordable housing projects that get built 13% have to be very low income. So, I think what I why I kept it sort of general in this uh plan is that we're going to require everybody to do it. It's going to be um
you know all of the projects that we have outlined as being in our plan with the exception of extensions of it controls because that's a little those units exist and they're people living in them. But anything that's new and they were created before this reg um before
2008 which is when this regulation went into effect but everything since then we have required that 13% has to be for very low income and 13% multiplied by some integer like five you know if you got five units it's
a little hard to know well how you apply 13% to that I there is the U-Hack was revised um at the end of last year and it's still kind of in the process I think of being revised. My understanding is I think it it
reconciles those issues. I mean we typically say you know if it's 13% and it it gets you know the number is 5.2 we usually say you have to do six. Yeah. you know, um, but I think actually the new, and I apologize for not being more
wellversed in the new U-Hack, but I think they actually specify in there how to handle those types of situations. Okay. All right. So, either it's specified in state regulations or the township has the power to round up when it needs to. Yes. Okay.
Um, I wanted to make a comment about the the um property on old turnpike road uh because uh I'm a little troubled by the proposed
use. Um, when I read the description, it says, uh, I mean, this is a obviously a worthy clause, but it says, um,
that the, um, that community hope is going to provide, um, five permanent supportive housing beds for individuals with disabilities. And then it says um uh that these are uh people uh
individuals discharged from nursing facilities um with mental illness leaving a nursing home after an episode of care. So, these are people with mental illness. And I just am a little worried about the neighborhood,
which is um the bordering properties are three homes, a daycare center, and then right across Old Turnpike Road there's the railroad tracks, which I've been worried about for years. the fact that anybody who's walking along Old Turnpike
Road can easily just if they're a toddler, they can toddle into the onto the railroad tracks or if they are feeling suicidal, they can walk onto the railroad tracks. And so I I just have some difficulty with that one.
I wanted to say that the one I I I hear you. Um, the one thing I would note is that by New Jersey law, these types of residents are actually permitted as of right in all residential zones. And so,
um, this actually is, um, in some ways, you know, you could get it in a single family residential neighborhood. This is not that. And so in some ways if you were going to choose this would be I think less impactful on
single family residences as maybe uh the law permits. Um so I I I I think I understand what you're what you're saying but I think you also community hope is a is a very wellestablished you know reputable organization and I think
uh which the township has has partnered with before. So, I think that you also have to take into consideration that they know what they're doing, you know, and um will have presumably have safeguards in place for for what you're saying. And if I may, I mean, any
operational issue, uh these projects ultimately will, I believe they will all, correct me if I'm wrong, uh require site plan review and approval by this board. Um, I don't think the special
needs Yeah. is exempt, excuse me, the special needs housing is exempt from that. So, so those might be pertinent questions for a later date, I guess, is what I'm saying. Okay. Okay. With that, I'm going
to open up things to public questions and comments. As Mr. Warner said, um, if we would open up questions and comments at the same time. So, if you would come up um give your name and address and uh raise and be sworn in by Mr. Warner here
or there. Uh either one. Well, I'm standing right here. So, that's sounds good to me. All right. Terrific. Uh good evening everyone. My name is John Witches Scala. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Englecino Taylor. I'm here tonight uh on behalf of Dan Gro Properties. Actually, if I may, just to
make clear because the chair said to swear you in, but I'm going to let everyone know that no need to swear in counsel. He's uh here as an officer of the court making representations on behalf of a client. Thank you. So again, good evening. Could you raise the
microphone? I'm not quite sure. Thank you. Okay. Can you hear me? All right. All right. Terrific. Once again, John Wescala on behalf of Dan Bro Properties. Uh, I'm actually filling in for my partner, Derek Orth, uh, who's had some communications with this board
in the past. I'm joined tonight by Kevin Cody, who is, uh, the principal of of Damro. Uh, we refer to him as well as DB Properties. Um, my client is the contract purchaser of, uh, three, uh, individual lots. Uh they're located at
71,73 and 75 Whippony Road. Uh it's an assemblage of properties. They're identified as block 9805 lots 2, three, and four. Uh and the property as a whole uh is just about 7 and 3/4 acres in size. Uh my client uh
has proposed a uh townhouse community development on this property. uh had uh submitted a request uh that this property and its proposal uh be considered uh as part of your fourth round. Uh we submitted an initial
concept plan that actually provided for 172 uh town homes uh with a breakdown of 138 market rate units uh and it would have generated uh 34 uh affordable housing units uh if included within your
plan. Um after making that initial submitt uh we actually came back with a a reduced uh size plan in terms of size and scope. Uh reduced it uh to a total of 135 units. Uh that would be 108 market rate units and 27 units that
would go towards the town uh the township's um you know overall number. Brought down the height of the building, added in additional recreational space and some pedest pedestrian connectivity. Uh it is a project uh that we think hits
on on the four ables if you will of of the fourth round. Uh and what do I mean by the ables? Uh it's a project that is suitable for development. Uh it is a property and project uh that is available for development. Uh it is a
project that is developable and one that is also approvable. Um we've got sewer and water service here. We've got terrific accessibility uh to both local roads as well as the regional road network here. Uh we were
disappointed to learn uh that uh that this proposed project was not included in the uh in the fourth round uh in your fourth round plan as currently drafted and what you heard tonight. I by the way I don't have any questions for Miss Laney. Uh I'm really here just to to
speak to uh to our project. Uh but what I want this board to know is uh that we do remain committed to working with the township uh on this proposal and we do hope that the township will reconsider uh the inclusion of this project into
its fourth round housing plan. Thank you. Thank you. Um, do we know anything about that project in relation? Did you care to comment somebody on that? No, there were uh uh that was a
project that uh was received. It may have been uh somewhat uh on the belated end of of the compressed time frame. Uh and uh but certainly uh it's a a project that uh I can't speak for anyone other
than myself. Um, but I suspect that the township appreciates uh the proposal uh and uh certainly will take it into consideration and uh uh it's not in the plan as proposed. Um but uh as people mentioned earlier uh over the course of
the next 10 years or so and you know things do evolve who knows what the future brings. Um, so I again I I suspect it's appreciated and I suspect it will be continued to be considered. Yeah. And I would say as the chairman of
the planning board, I know we within the township, we have a number of proponents of affordable housing and you know, this is the fourth plan by statute. We required to do something. We have enough numbers to meet that. Um, but that doesn't mean we're not going to allow anything more. And and as Mr. Warner
said I'd be happy to work with additional developers on on developments that make sense. So, and where is that in relation to the one on Colombia and Whipin? Between the firehouse and Silven Road. Oh, right. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Questions or comments? Uh hearing none, I'll close the public comments session. And Mr. Chairman, I do have, as mentioned, uh a resolution that was distributed uh in anticipation
uh uh the uh of the potential adoption of the housing element fair share plan as proposed and testified to by Miss Laney. Um and uh the board members are more than capable of reading it as well, if not much better than on it. Um but the operative paragraphs uh uh the
resolution or resolved paragraphs uh if it is the board's pleasure by majority vote uh uh read now therefore be it resolved on the 16th day of June 2025 the planning board hereby adopts the fourth round housing element fair share
plan uh and recommends that the mayor and township committee endorse same uh endorse and implement same be it further resolved uh that the res this resolution in the fourth round plan be filed with the superior court within 48 hours of adoption by the planning board, but no
later than June 30, 2025. And be it further resolved that a copy of the resolution shall be sent to the office of planning advocacy and to the Mars County Planning Board together with a copy of said adopted fourth round housing element fair share plan within
30 days of the date of adoption of this resolution. Uh so that would be uh the motion presumably to be considered uh move seconded and a roll call vote would be to adopt that resolution.
I'll entertain a motion to adopt the resolution to adopt the housing plan and recommend its endorsement to the township committee. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to I'd go away. affirm the uh the fourth brown housing element and fair share
plan as prepared by our professionals and pass the resolution that Miss Santiago sent to us a day or so. Yeah. Is there a second? I'll second it. Sonia, can you call a roll? Yes, Mr.
Chair. Mr. Alleso. Yes. Mr. Flowers. Yes. Mr. Nut. Yes. Mr. Rabbit, it's an excellent plan. Yes, Miss Murphy. Yes, Mr. Ben. Yes, Mr. Quillin. Yes. Missia, yes. Mr. Yes.
Okay. Uh, are there any other matters? Do we have anything from the legislative committee at this time? Not at this time. Um, Joe, I think you had something you wanted to bring up. Question. I just wanted to make everybody aware of the
fact that we approved or the board approved. We didn't approve. The board approved uh a generator to be put in front of 291 Madison Avenue. I don't know if anybody's driven down Madison Avenue, but I can't think of a worse I saw. It's terrible. Uh big generator.
It's green. The building's different color. There's a tractor trailer next to it. And I thought that there were other um requirements that were part of that site plan application approval. I'm disappointed to see that none of the landscaping has been installed. I'm not sure who's supposed to be the gatekeeper on that. I'm assuming Joe, I'm not going
to pick on you personally, but the feature department. Uh secondly, the screening that was supposed to be around the HVAC units. Um they started the screening about 10 ft too high in my opinion because I can see the HVAC units, but I can't see the I guess steam
that comes off the HVAC unit because that's blocked. So, this is bad in my opinion. I mean, it's not a negative on the board. though I don't think we should have approved it. Um, but we did, but we're not getting the compliance. And I guess I'm just bringing this up
because it bothers me there because I see it all the time. As I I've mentioned, the Provident Bank of Signs at 3:00 in the morning are nice and bright. I don't know that anything else has gotten compliance. I haven't gone back to check all of the things that we've approved. So, I'm concerned. And I think that we as planning board should feel
comfortable that when things go through resolution compliant and things get built that there developers that whether whether it's a developer or an applicant that is got is given approval that we're watching to make sure that that approval is uh being carried through. So I'm
specifically looking at that and I'm bringing it up so that the other plan board members can be aware and maybe in the areas where you guys live something that we've approved we could just check on and see if if the compliance is there. Yeah, that that screening is especially egregious. I mean, it's it's like the the equipment up there is
supposed to be like wearing a dress, right? You can't see what but but it's like instead of a dress, it's like a short skirt, you know, and everything's hanging out. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. That's
I think it's 291 Madison Avenue. It's right across from 250. It's across from the Providence Bank. It used to be the Kelsey Edwards building. They're doing all the lab work hospital lab. Yeah. Joe, it seems to me the problem is more the tractor trailer truck than the
generator itself. Well, generator tractor trail is your problem, but you've got a gigantic generator sitting in front of commercial office building that's 50 ft off of Madison Avenue. I can't think of a worse. I'm pretty sure we specified landscaping screening around and there's no landscape. George, you
probably walked by there. There's no landscaping. Yeah. So, yeah. And the tractor trailer, I don't understand why it's still there. Maybe I think that's the generator. I maybe the new one's not even working yet because there's those huge electric cords coming out of the full
at the same time behind JCPNL. We approved the generator. I did vote for that one. Yeah, we approved the generator and they've built it inside a white building that matches the color. I mean, you couldn't ask for it to be done better. I mean, obviously they're going to be ripping that down soon because it's going to become townous, but
Anyway, I just think that we need to be a little more cognizant of when we have an approval that it gets built properly. Thank you. I'm sorry to make a big deal about it, but Oh, that's followup is good. It bothers me more than the Providence sign. So, Oh, then yeah.
Okay. Okay. Um, I guess we could open it up for public comments not related to the agenda tonight, but guess not. Um, no need for a close session. So, I'll entertain a
motion to adjourn. Oh, wait a minute. No, I just want to say again just before you adjourn, um, just wanted to wait till we were at the end of the meeting. But again, I think um, definitely on my part and I know Bud too sitting on the township committee and the people who have listened to this, you know, when I
was listening again, I'm like, "Wow, I'm really getting to remember a lot of this." but cannot thank all of you enough for the effort that was put into this redevelopment plan. I know there were many late nights, two and three o'clock in the morning. You all were working incredibly hard under such a
tight deadline and it's pretty amazing that you put the puzzle together with all the bonus credits and everything else. So, just really applaud everybody for all with potential for extra And uh we we may uh be anticipating
a special meeting perhaps if I'm not mistaken. Yes. I I thought I' I' I'd get the good news over first before you before it might be retracted actually.
they um and maybe that's something that the emails can be sent around to to to to double check availability, etc. Okay. Um can I take availability now for July 7th? It's a What is the meeting about?
I'm not available. I'm not available. What is the meeting about? It's um it it's anticipated I referenced earlier uh a project relating to our on catch road relating to our ongoing third
round obligation. Yeah. Uh and it's anticipated uh that in the near future uh there'll be a the introduction of a redevelopment plan with respect to same uh if that is the case then as this board knows we as
the gatekeepers of the master plan as I said at the beginning of the meeting uh would have our opportunity to review that ordinance uh adopting that redevelopment plan uh for master plan consistency in the interim before a second reading public hearing adoption
down the road and I think the schedule is such that that particularly with we only have I think one meeting in July normally that the meetings just didn't work uh so I think that was the anticipation it would be limited to this
topic yes I I well if we if we squeeze a resolution or two to adopt if you don't mind that may have just missed the cut off tonight maybe we can do that as I'm not available, but those are actions we could if if a
quorum is needed, we can do those remotely if they don't involve an application, right? I believe uh well, we have uh the two resolutions and the mesh plan consistency review is not technically a public hearing. Um but
all we need is a a quarum, five board members. If we have five board members here, that's fine. but also we may be able to accommodate board members remotely for that uh particular because none of those items are an a hearing on
an application for development and the MLU has long even before co provided for uh remote for board members under certain circumstances particularly when we're dealing with items other than hearings on applications for
development. So yes, the Monday after the just send out a notice. Yeah, I'm here because that that would be in the interim of before our next regularly scheduled meeting. If the chairman is not here and Mr. Alleso is
not here, then we will have to Well, we may be able to have one one or both remotely. Uh otherwise, we can always have an election for a chair prom. It have to be on the 7th. It's a Monday. It's a Monday. That's just It doesn't have to be on the 7th. That's just a Monday. No, but I
understand. But it's a holiday weekend. So, anybody that's probably taking off for the holiday weekend is probably not returning until Monday or Tuesday. I don't know if anybody else is going to be around for the I don't just want to make sure everybody realize Independence Day is the 4th. That's a Friday, Saturday, Sunday,
Monday. The original no May May maybe it would be most efficient to do it via email and then that can be Can you just send it? I I can be available so I can do whatever in person
or Yeah. I mean I'll I'll be here. I'll be here. I have to. Bud, will you be here? I'll be here but my wife says I'm not all there. So we might have five of us and then just somebody else. I think it looks like we're going to have a quarum in person, let alone including
remote. I won't be here, but I could be able to come in remotely. Yes. Russell up a motion without you. Okay. Okay. You should see the end of the hearing. I propose that we adjourn.
Whoa. You You're out of order. Is there a second? Oh my god. All in favor?