I call to order the regular meeting of the Township of Morris Planning Board for June 2nd, 2025. A legal notice required in accordance with the open public meetings act has been satisfied and a statement certifying same will be executed. If you all please rise and join me in the pledge of 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. Oops.
Every time too. Every time. Okay. Ah, okay. Could you call red down here? So, it looks very confusing. Could you call a roll, Sonia? Yes. Mr. Alleso here. Mr. Here, Mr. Nun here. Mr. Flowers here.
Mr. Here, Miss Murphy here. Mr. Ben here. Mr. Quillin here. M here. Mr. Laney here. Mr. Warner here. Mr. Bush here. Mr. Barry here. And I Santiago
here. Okay. So, moving on. We have a couple of public hearings today. Uh we've talked about a little bit before, but you uh wanted to introduce the first one. Uh Sonia. Yes. First application in PBO625
Low. This is block alpha minor subdivision. This is block 3105 lot 66 6 earth avenue in the RA25 zone. Applicant proposes minor subdivision to create one additional lot.
I did have an opportunity to review the notice. Found the content to be sufficient. Found it to be timely served. Certified mail on day 20. Published on May 18. Both at least 10 days prior to this evening. Uh, so the board does have jurisdiction to hear and decide the application.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Warner. Good evening, folks. Simone Cali, Cali Law LLC on behalf of the applicants Lynn and Howard Forawitz. Okay. As Miss Sonia um just recited, we are here tonight seeking minor subdivision approval and
bulk variance relief. We have a pretty vanilla application that we're going to present to you guys this evening. And unless you have any preliminary questions for me because I know you have some other matters on the agenda, we can jump right into it. I have two witnesses tonight, our project engineer and our
planner. And I will call our project engineer to take you through the proposal. Okay. You want to swear everyone and uh I'll swear all four witness both witnesses as well as our two board professionals. If you'll all 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. First, uh Josh, can you please state your name and spell it for the record? Good evening everybody. My name is Joshua Weary, last name W I R Y.
Can you please provide the board with your qualifications and experience? Sure. So, I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. I graduated from New Jersey Institute of Technology with a Bachelor of Science and Civil Engineering. I'm a principal at Dynamic Engineering located in Chester, New Jersey. Uh, and I testified
before various boards throughout the years as well. And your license is in good standing. That's correct, sir. I'll accept your qualifications. Go ahead. Thank you. Did you or somebody under your supervision prepare the plans that were submitted as part of this application? Yes, that's correct. Great. Would you take the board through uh the
existing conditions and the proposal, please? Can you see the wall? Okay. Test test test. Maybe you see other Oh, it's on. Now it is. And now it's on. Just had to put it back. Yep. Test.
Test. Okay. Perfect. Sorry about that. Okay. So, I'd like to start off by describing the site and then we'll get into the proposal tonight. Um, our first exhibit, our own exhibit tonight is entitled uh minor subdivision plan. It was prepared by Dynamic Survey LLC. It
was included in our application package to the board. That's last revised March 13th. Yes, that is correct. You don't have to march exhibit, you could just reference it since it was more than 10 days in advance. Perfect. Okay. And for the record, um the exhibits at a scale
of 1 in equals 20 ft and north is the top of the page. So, um the property is located at 6 Eggbert Avenue is further identified as block 3105 lot 6. And as as you can see, the property is what's known as a through lot as it has uh two
access points. one access along Eggert Avenue to the west, another access along Conklin Avenue to the east. The entire property is approximately 0.98 acres and contains two residential dwellings. We can refer to the main dwelling uh to
the west which has access on Egret Avenue and then the secondary dwelling to the east has access along Conklin Avenue. This secondary dwelling is a pre-existing non-conforming structure that encroaches within the Conklin
Avenue right ofway. And for reference, the structure was built in approximately 1890, which predates Conklin Avenue. Um, so our proposal tonight is to subdivide the existing lot 6 into two parcels.
Starting with proposed lot 6.01 to the left. This is the larger property to the west consisting of 0.725 acres or approximately uh uh 31,57
ft and includes the main dwelling along the mic that test. Okay. So, maybe just let me repeat that uh proposed lot 6.01 is on the left or the uh main dwelling on the west of
the property includes 0.725 acres or 31,557 ft and includes the main dwelling. Next is the proposed lot 6.02 to the right. Um this is the smaller property to the east containing 0.258 acres or
approximately 11,250 ft. uh and includes the secondary dwelling. So earlier this year, the township committee adopted ordinance 04-25 uh which modified the zoning boundaries in this area to place the proposed lot
6.01 in the RA25 zone and the proposed lot 6.02 within the RA11 zone. And that was done uh to be consistent with the adjacent uh properties within the area. So from a zoning standpoint, the
proposed lot 6.01 on the left complies with all the requirements within the RA25 25 zone. There's no variances required for that lot. Proposed lot 6.02 requires three variances. However, a majority of them are due to the location
of the existing dwelling on the property. Um so getting into those variances. The first one, a minimum lot depth of 100 ft is required whereas 96.6 6 ft is proposed. However, wanted to note that the property does comply with
the minimum lot area as well as the minimum lot width uh requirements for that zone. A minimum front yard setback of 35 ft is required whereas negative 20.3 feet is proposed and again this is due to the
existing structure being located within the actual ride of way and the applicant is actually in the process of submitting um or applying for a license to maintain that condition in the town. Um and then lastly the third variance a minimum sideyard setback of 15 ft is
required whereas 7.5 ft is provided and again that's due to the existing uh location of the structure on the property. There were a few items that were brought up uh as part of the TCC meeting that we had earlier this year. Um there are a
few locations of fence the applicant's fence that encroaches within the adjacent properties. They're currently walking working with the contractor to fix the situation and hopefully have that done and resolved by the end of this week. Um there are a few existing utility poles as well as overhead
service lines that provide electric and uh communication services to both of the dwellings. Uh the township engineer asked us to reach out to JCPNL and to confirm if they would would require any easements um for these services. So our office is also coordinating that the
JCPNL plans to have a technician uh visit the site to confirm this within the next week or so. And if an easement would be uh deemed required, the applicant will work to have that established. Regarding sewer, currently the two structures share a single sanitary sewer
uh sewer connection to the street and as such our office is currently investigating the most efficient way to provide two separate services for each property as well, two separate meters uh as requested by the township. Um the applicant is currently working with a contractor as well to obtain quotes. Um
and we will continue to work with the township engineer uh to make sure that this is done according uh to plan as well. And then lastly for water, uh, per the SMCMUA or the water department, they recently confirmed that there's two separate service lines, two separate
water meters for the two buildings, which is good news. Uh, however, they did confirm that an easement would be required um as the service to get to 6.02 travels through lot 6.01. So, an easement would need to be put in place, which the applicant would agree to to
have established. And I believe Miss guy that wraps up my direct testimony and can no further questions. Any questions? Yes, I have a question. The water service uh running all the way through the property is a legacy thing obviously, but isn't there a water line
on in Confood as well? Couldn't they come into that lot from the other side? I I don't believe there is. Um, I know that the SMCUA confirmed that it comes through the the lot 6.01. Um, so they recommend just simply putting an
easement in place to accommodate that that service line. Um, yeah. And if there's a problem, they dig up the whole they dig up the whole thing. Well, the applicant is working to, you know, put in a separate sewer line right
now as well, which is a huge cost uh for them. So we are working to make sure that that is in place but they do intend to keep the existing water line and then and put the appropriate easement in place and then that that easement would be between the applicant that the the
second party of the lot you know and and the utility being that it's it's serving to the meter as opposed to behind the meter. Yeah, I understand. Right. I'm a little curious right now. Um the application is really just to separate
the lots and to separate because of that the the infrastructure various infrastructure. No plan changes to the building or anything at this point. That is correct. Other than fixing the fence encroachments, there's really no site improvements for the terms of the
license that you're working with on that. Uh would that you know if you know what happens down the road if we approve you know this with the variances for where it is and something and major improvements to the to the to the
structure are made. Um is that grandfathered in or do we revert to would it revert to the to the zoning to the any any future improvements to that that lot would be subject to our zoning standards. Okay. So, so if they were
looking to do a building addition to that, particularly since there's an encroachment into the town. So, basically say if it stays as it is. Yeah. It's okay. You're not changing anything. But if there's any substantial changes, like if you wanted to tear it down and build new, then everything
would have to be fit to they tore it down. They'd be subject to uh viewing it as a vacant lot. Correct. Okay. Like lot area lot, you know, they you know, building envelope, right? the more traditional building. Okay. ETA. Yeah. The neither a
subdivision approval nor a license agreement uh should be granted by the governing body would supersede uh or change that fact. Okay. Uh they still sub. You can look at the license with the the
township as uh something that would have could have been addressed with or without the subdivision. With or without the subdivision. understanding that that both structures are over 100 years old and and that's an existing nonformally well predating zoning by decades predating it could have been addressed
as part of the original and then subdivided and then modified appropriately. Okay, thanks. Yeah, I'm still a little fuzzy on the whole license. Could someone maybe just summarize what it is that the license is for? So the the license would be for the
continued encroachment into the right of way of the existing structure. That existing structure is the carriage house. Permission from the governing body on behalf of the township to do what I guess has been done since conflict's been there. So I guess what I
ask is they're not asking to do anything different. No maintain an existing non-conforming use based on the age of the structure that I just never heard it called a license before. It's just the permission from the governing body to authorize the
continuation of the approach. It legalizes it and that structure may very well date well predate Conklin as it right. Sure. I'm sure it does. Yeah. Particularly looking to the other side and a small
portion of land that goes into neighboring jurisdictions. Yeah. I have a quick question, Mr. Chairman, related again to the license. Um, and I don't want to get too bogged down on this and I think this would be for you and that is um is there a sequencing here? Like do you
get the license first? And I mean it doesn't matter the planning board first and then the license if the planning board approves and the license we assume the license will be approved because it's been there the structure's been there before concl. Is that correct?
Yeah, it's fair to understand that the applicant and the township are working together mutually to resolve the issue. It's it's it's not a position of contention. It's well documented that that historically was there entitled to be there and certainly certainly appropriate to
have it as a condition of approval and to grant approval subject to the to our chairman's point that you know a third story addition later in the right of way would certainly be subject to a board application as well as a
modification of that license. Okay. to increase that encroachment. Okay, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I have a couple of questions. Um, the first is about the electrical service that you mentioned and the fact that there might be an easement required and you have an
inquiry out about that. That is correct. Yes. Um, can you describe the electrical service? Does it come down through the what you're proposing to be 6.01 down to 6.02? Sure. Yeah. So the there's I believe there's two poles and the
overhead lines run through along the northern property line and they provide service to each of the buildings. Um so the as part of the subdivision the town has asked us to reach out to JCPNL and to uh confirm if they would require any easements and make sure that they are
documented um on the plans as well. So that's what we're doing in the process right now. So so the it's the utility that would require the easement from 6.02. so that they could serve 6.01. Correct. Okay. And then my other question, this is about something that
might be extremely obvious to everyone, but I just want to make sure the dividing line on this survey. Yes. Does that exactly match the um action already taken by the township committee to reszone
what you're asking us to make 6.02? Yes, that's correct. This the subdivision was done in coordination with the zoning efforts to reszone the properties. That's correct. Thought it was worth asking. The answer is yes. Can't assume
anything. Good question. We we didn't create uh we alleviated or eliminated any split zone lot. Correct. Perfect. Okay. Thank you. Mission accomplished. Any other questions? Okay. Oh, oops. I'm sorry, Miss Flowers.
Uh, the TCC had asked uh and maybe I missed this, but the that triangular property across from Conqu what can you tell us about that? What's there now? What's going to happen to it? Yeah, so the the applicant also owns that small property. Um, it's not
developed. believe is is wooded and uh grass right now and open space and the applicant um is coordinating with the adjacent property to sell that um that that portion of their property. But that's not a part of either one of these lots. It's already a separate tax. It's
on the east side of Conklin Avenue separated from this parcel. Um so they were taking care of that separately from this application. separate lot couldn't be joined right obviously with component there and actually that is a split
municipal lot fight over the census just closed their annexation have to wait until next year any other questions okay you want to next witness then Mr. Chairman our last witness is our planner Mr. Chairman, did
you want to open to public? Oh, I'm sorry. Comment after both. It's uh Let's wait till after both. Okay. We're up to planning. Thank you for the reminder, though. Sure. Please state your name and spell it for the record. Paul Ricky, R I CCI. You
were already sworn in at the beginning, I think. Yep. Yeah, that's right. Can you please Now we believe that really is his name. Can you please provide the board with your qualifications and experience, please? Yes. I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I've
been licensed since the year 2000. I'm also a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I have a master's degree in city and regional planning received from Ruckers University in 1997. Currently, municipal planning consultant in six towns. I I've testified
throughout many boards throughout the state. I believe over 250 right now. I've testified in front of this board several times recently on the golf course application. Yes. um in amongst other applications as well. My license is in good standing as well. Okay. Um please proceed. Thank
you. Paul, what did you review in preparation of your testimony this evening? Um I I reviewed the the the subdivision plat. Um I reviewed I I visited the subject property professional reports. Uh call with the applicant, reviewed your master plan and pertinent sections of your zoning
ordinance essentially. Yeah. Uh sure. I mean, I think it's quite clear that this is an exceptional, very unique situation uh that's occurring. It's it's not too often that you hear about a property that exists in 1894 in a state, then a roadway ends up through
it, and who knows what happened back then, but it this is clearly um an exceptional situation, which I think the law was anticipating when we talk about hardships under the C1 provision. Just one point of clarification. If if we
have a negative 20.3 foot setback, I assume it's my understanding that this board will be granting a zero foot setback um with the understanding that the township council in its agreement will allow for that structure to remain in the right of way. Is that accurate? I
don't think this board is granting a negative 20 point, right? you're granting a zero foot setback and with the understanding that the council through its agreement would allow for the continuation of the the structure to remain in the right of way. I just wanted to clarify that you know I think
that's fair because the governing body has the authority to grant the balance of the relief sought or that already exists. Yeah. Um I don't want to I'll try not to be repetitive with the information said by
the the site engineer, but this is an oversized 42,870 87 square foot lot. It's both in your R25 district and your R11 district. Um what's important from a planning
perspective is that both properties will meet the minimum lot area requirement. Um the I guess the normally lot will will still remain slightly oversized whereas the the RA11 lot would be essentially meet the zone requirements
for the zone. There's also um as you heard um from the site engineer we're seeking a lot depth variance. I think it's I don't want to call it technical in nature but there are some ambiguities to the lot that create that variance. Um it's measured by your code at 96.6 6
feet where 100 ft is required. You probably saw on the subdivision plat that the northerly property line is 104.45 ft dep in depth. And the southerntherly property line, it's somewhat irregular. It moves in one direction and then it has a slight bend in it. And that
measures 97.28 ft. Because the way the lot depth measurement is made, it's calculated. There's a measurement made in the middle and that results in that variance. It's my opinion that it's substantially consistent with the zone plan and that
the lot width itself is required to be 75 ft where 114.5 ft is required. So um so the width exceeds and we're slightly under on the depth but most importantly we meet the minimum lot area uh requirement. Also,
practically speaking, because the structure is 20.3 ft into the right of way, the lot will feel deeper as well because of that structure because we're part of the home is not on the the property per se, right? So, it's going
to feel deeper. So, in terms of having the feel of a 100 foot lot, this this will be will be provided um as part of this act application. Uh I believe despite these conditions that this still results in in in sound land use
planning. It's a means of of legalizing a longstanding pre-existing non-conforming condition associated with that township agreement. Um again for me most importantly by meeting the minimum lot size requirements that's going to
advance the purpose of municipal land use law that that I'll state. And looking at your the bulk chart, it it reveals to me that the building coverage lot coverage is well under the ordinance requirements that that shows that overdevelopment's not occurring as as
part of this subdivision uh as well. So in terms of the the pre-existing non-conforming conditions, the the existing sideyard setback you heard from the site engineer, that's not being changed. That's an existing condition today. That proposed subdivision line does not alter that. So, if this
subdivision not did not occur, that would be a pre-existing condition today. Um, that is a legal pre-existing non-conforming condition that um, in my opinion, we're entitled to the C1 hardship for that exceptional situation
for a pre-existing non-conforming condition. We also advance at least one purpose of your master plan. maintain a diversity of housing but encourage infill and stabilization of current residential areas rather than continuing straw sprawl patterns of development.
You know, development is remaining as is. Uh and for these reasons, this application under your C2 criteria with the benefits outweigh the detr detriments advances at least two criteria of the municipal land use law. Uh, purpose E promotes the establishment
of appropriate population densities and concentrations. That's based on conforming to the minimum area requirements. And purpose G to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for variety of residential needs. That's a in this context to meet
the needs of New Jersey citizens. I believe that the variances could be granted without a substantial detriment to your zone plan and your zoning ordinance. This is something that's such a minor type of applications that's not anticipated in your master plan, but in terms of meeting your core principles of
of what the zone plan called for in terms of law area uh and like we are adhering to that. Um again that the subdivision or this the original platting pattern predates the development of Complent Avenue. That's a
that's a situation that you do not see uh often in my opinion. Um and here I think we're really generally recognizing the existing conditions of the lots in the area regarding the the pre-existing nonconformities. I believe the lot depth
is the minimus in nature and the fact that the lot area uh is satisfied as well as the oversized lot width that's not a substantial impairment as well. So I'll just sum up. For all these reasons, I believe that the board has the necessary justification to grant the
requested variance relief. Thank you. Any questions? Any comments, questions from our professionals? Okay. I will ask for any public questions at this time of either
witness. Uh, seeing none public comments, I'm gathering there aren't any of those either. So, you want to summarize where we are, Mr. Warner, or you have any final statements?
I'm sorry. Summation there. I There's nothing further that I could add. Okay. We would respectfully request that you act favorably on the application. Okay. No surprise, Mr. Chairman. Miss Calli was more succinct than I.
It's a low bar. But uh um the the uh but we have a minor subdivision with a lot depth uh free variant bulk variances for proposed lot 602. One is lot depth 96.6 versus 100.
One is uh speed that is one is sideyard setback 7.5 ft versus 15 ft. And the third as uh uh uh Mr. Ricky uh points out correctly in my opinion. Um in essence, we'd be granting no uh uh front
yard setback requirement or zero I should say uh versus 35 uh minimum required. Uh whereas the balance of the relief effectively uh would be one of the conditions of approval that being a license agreement from uh the township
committee. uh otherwise uh the conditions were set forth and addressed in uh both uh the planning memo of April 16 and the uh Mr. F's uh engineering uh
memo of May 8 uh uh including removal of existing fence encroachments obtain obtaining the license the various uh utility uh separations visav the meters and the service uh the services
themselves if necessary and the easements associated there with uh and I don't think there were any other conditions of approval. Uh, as always, a majority for passage by the board and if
it's a motion to grant, I'll assume it's with all the stipulated two conditions. Does that meet your understanding? Yes, that's it. Okay, I'll just quick question before we move. Yes. The encroachments, if the engineer could
just review those again. It looks like there's a board fence that goes on to lot eight and it looks like there's a masonary wall. Are those the two encroachments that you're talking about relocating? We could, Mr. Chairman, we could reopen. Correct. Yes. Who can? Yes, please. Right. Remain under oath.
Of course. Yes, sir. Um, yes. So, that was actually brought up by the TCC review and they asked that the applicant go out, stake the property line, confirm all encroachments were brought onto their property, which they're currently doing. Our survey team went out there and they staked out the property line so
the contractor and the applicant know exactly where the property line is and they're working with that contractor to bring any of the fence encroachments off of um off of the adjacent property line. So any encroachment that's currently on the side property line is going to get brought in. So the masonary wall would be considered the same as the fence
encroachment. No. Um I believe it's just the fence encroachment that we're being masonary wall would remain on l correct. And how do they deal with that legally? I'm sorry. Is there the mason? Is it a wall that encroaches from your lot to
lot 8 or is it lot eight's wall? Looks to me like it's Well, are you talking about to the northeast corner? Yes. Along. Yeah, there's a small sliver of retaining there's a there's a functional purpose
to that wall. It's an encroachment properties. They just only because I heard our all the encroachments were going to be removed. It doesn't sound No, that one would not be actually the the request of the TCC was to remove the
existing fencing. Jason L. So I may have overstated the masonry wall would be considered a fence. Sounds like it's more of a retaining wall. I'm correct. It says it's a retaining wall. The grade uh drops off pretty significantly in that
area. I'm going to believe you're correct. Yes, that is a a retaining wall. Thank you. [Applause] We'll make sure the condition is more specific. Okay, that's I'll entertain a motion. I'll move that
we have uh we uh move for approval with all of the conditions that were outlined by I'll second that. Can you Yes. in order. Yes.
Yes. Mr. Flowers. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. Okay, [Music] moving on to our next item on business.
Uh, the investigation and designation of non non-condemnation redevelopment area. So, you go to the end for the Morris County building. Yes. No, I sorry, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to Yes, we are going to present the findings for our
study. Okay. So, the area needs study. I um uh called back from retirement. He's in the wrong chair. [Laughter] Um
Paul and I co-authored the report, but he was certainly integral into it. And so I've asked him to come back because he had a lot of the background and context for the report. So he is going to present the findings for the board. I am going to broadcast or not broadcast
um put up on the screen some of the images from the report. I just if you give me one minute okay while while we're doing with the chair's permission I could give a quick context. Do do we need to swear in Mr. Phillips? I'm certainly going to swear. I'm going to
wad him qualifications as well, frankly. But uh but while he's standing, if you'll raise your hand, sir, 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. I was kidding about the blood, dear. I think
the board will accept you. Yes, I I Yes. Um but yeah, yeah, get it ready. and and and while Liz is attending to the technological aspects, uh this is an area in need of pre-development and non-
condemnation as the board will remember the governing body directed the board to conduct this study uh and to have this hearing thereon. Uh we had a resolution that we adopted a couple of meetings ago, if I recall correctly, authorizing
uh uh Mr. Phillips and Miss Laney to put together the area needed redevelopment study. Um it's essentially uh uh uh done in isolation the site or here we have two lots portions of two lots that are being considered and you match the lots.
We'll hear more about this from the appropriate person, our planner, but uh to the criteria to see if one or more of the criteria in section five of the local redevelopment and housing law is satisfied and thus uh the uh if so, the
site uh all or a portion thereof would qualify as an area in need of redevelopment. Again, the emphasis on this being a non-condemnation redevelopment does not authorize our township uh governing body to have the authority to uh uh uh uh to condemn to
uh uh exercise the powers of the eminent domain. Otherwise, Sonia Atley did the noticing. Uh we published uh twice uh 17 at least 17 at least 10 days prior to this evening and provided uh copies of
the study which has been publicly available if I recall correctly to the office of public advocacy at the state, the county planning board and adjacent clerks. Uh so uh here we are. I do have a resolution uh in the event uh well
really regardless of what the determination is uh by the planning board, but it's provided in the affirmative that we find uh uh that it is an area in need of redevelopment, that's not going to influence your decision. You'll hear from uh Paul and anyone else uh to make that
determination. And what you do once you adopt this resolution, it is a recommendation to the governing body. the governing body would then have the ultimate authority uh to make that determination. I hope I didn't make it any more confusing than it was before. We have done this before, but it's been a little
while. Mr. Chairman, yes, I I would appreciate a thumbnail overview of why we did this study and what we're linking it to as a requirement or need of the township. Uh just so we are all kind of
operating for the same context. Sure. And since I've already stolen just a bit of thunder from Mr. Phillips, I'm not going to steal anymore. I know it's in his report. I know he intended to address the context as well as the criteria and how the property satisfies criteria. And lastly, my other question
is how are you going to get to that property? How are we going to get Well, that I think that's I mean, that's a part and parcel. Okay. It looks like it's landlocked of of that. But uh so without any further ado and with the chair's permission, we'll uh turn it over to Mr.
Phillips. And this this is a public hearing. So all members public who are here, including the young gentlemen all the way to the back there, they certainly can ask questions and and make comments. Yes, Mr. Phillips. Thank you.
Nice to see you all again. And for the record, uh, I am a licensed professional planner in New Jersey and my license remains in good standing. Still paying the fee, correct? I, yeah, I still pay the fee. And I, uh, was formerly the managing principal of Phillips Price. I
am now serving in a consulting capacity to the firm. So, I work for Liz Laney now. And uh Liz basically to be quite serious has been doing yman's work on the affordable housing plan not only in Mars but in several other communities
which she inherited from me and she has literally been working till midnight and nights and weekends and I kind of volunteered to take the lead on this particular redevelopment investigation because I think as the board knows I do have quite a bit of redevelopment
experience and I think that that kind of did provide some relief uh to Liz. The other thing you should know is um I did make a commitment to the township to the governing body to Tim Quinn and also you know I had conversations with Rick B
that despite my retirement that I would stay involved particularly through the housing element and fair share plan. I made that commitment uh and uh because I do have the institutional memory uh and uh I took the lead in the preparation of
the prior housing plan and um as as you will uh note that this is going to come back to the third round housing plan which was also part of our fourth round plan but I'll get into that in a in a in a bit. Uh so as Steve indicated, this is
the public hearing where this board is going to basically make a recommendation uh to determine whether certain property that is located in the vicinity of catch road qualifies as a non-condemnation area of neat redevelopment in accordance
with the enabling statute which is the local redevelopment and housing law. The area that is being considered consists of portions of two existing tax lots. They're known as lots one and 1.01 in block 1901. They total just over 3 and a
half acres in size. And each of the lots is owned uh by Mars County. Uh I think as uh Mr. want to mention the governing body, the township committee back in April uh authorized by resolution this board to undertake the investigation and
I think at the May meeting the board uh by resolution authorized the firm of Philips Price to actually conduct the study on its uh behalf. We then prepared a report which summarized the results of our investigation which has been shared
with uh members of the uh board. So, if you've had the chance to read it, you kind of know what's coming. Uh, but, uh, I'd like to just kind of go through the report and then, uh, I'd be happy to answer any, uh, questions that members of the board and the public may have.
So, uh, again, the study area consists of about three and a half acres of portions of two lots owned by the county. Lot one, which is the larger lot, is over 100 acres in size. It has frontage on uh catch road as well as
handover avenue and Rainer Road. The parcel is improved with multiple buildings which comprise county facilities and all the associated pertinances including parking areas. The report lays out there's roughly a dozen
facilities either related to or run by the county. I'm not going to go through all of them. They're they're indicated on page two of the report. uh but they are accessed by two driveways from West Hanover Avenue and one from uh Rainer Road. Uh there are also solar fields as
this board is aware that were developed several years back along West Hanover Avenue. That's on the lot one, the larger piece. And also in the southeast portion of lot one is Catch Road Field. Catch Road Field includes a soccer
field, playground, and associated driveway and parking uh areas that are accessed directly from Catch Road. That is on land that is leased by the township from Mars County for those fields and facilities. The township also
maintains the field and those facilities as well. There are also as you can see from the slide there are a number and maybe the uh the larger slide of one lot one Liz would be helpful. There are also open
space areas. Yeah, as you can see located uh primarily uh in the southeast section of lot one which are uh unimproved mostly wooded lands as you can see on the other side of the soccer field. Uh there are also some wetland
areas here and none of the existing driveways within the larger lot actually provide access to this portion of the lot. Lot 101 is a 3 acre parcel. U and that consists also with frontage on
catch road currently improved with a 10bedroom supportive housing facility for individuals with intellectual and developmental uh dis uh disabilities and that is administered by Arc Morris. Uh there is if you could show go to the
blowup Liz I think that would be better. Yeah, that shows you can see on that blow up there's a driveway from Catch Road that leads to a parking area adjacent to the uh home. Ark Mars has a ground lease agreement with Mars County to operate that facility and has the
full responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of the premises, the buildings, the equipment and the like. As you can see from the aerial to the rear of uh lot 101
uh there is uh unimproved wooded areas which actually constitute the bulk of that lot. That lot lot is about is 3 acres in size and about 1.7 acres in the rear are undeveloped. And this acreage, as you can see from the aerial, it doesn't have direct street frontage and
access to catch road uh other than through existing facilities uh basically the building and parking area. Uh lot 101 also borders uh lot one in the rear as you can see from the uh exhibit. So,
the summary of the study area uh encompasses undeveloped portions of lot 1 and lot 101 which lack street frontage and roadway uh access. Uh we as part of the normal investigation, we look at the master plan and zoning for these uh
properties. Uh our report on page 8 discusses the study area in relation to the master plan. Just I want to just highlight two things which are sort of pertinent to the investigation. The first is that Mars County back in 2012
identified certain lands within the larger lot, the 100 plus acre lot, which is lot one, which are located directly west of the existing housing development, Loris Muse, which is shown just to the top. Uh they uh basically
identified those lands as a potential site for affordable housing. Uh however, I think as many of you know, this area was subsequently improved with the solar facility installation. But I think the point here is this area was basically
while not the same exact location, it was part of lot one that was targeted uh for potential uh additional affordable housing development on those county own lands. Uh the second thing from the
master plan is the um study area. Uh it basically if you look at the surrounding context it encompasses a variety variety of either specialized and/or affordable housing developments which would include the Morris Muse apartments which I just
spoke of the supportive housing of ARC. There's also a nursing home facility as part of the county facilities. So the potential redevelopment of the area for affordable housing would be consistent with the established land use pattern in this immediate uh neighborhood. The uh
just for point of information, we always look at the zoning the entirety of this study area uh and uh lots uh one and 1.01 in their entirety or within your OSGU zone uh district. Um, so this board
has considered and also recommended redevelopment area designations in a number of prior instances in the past 10 years where I conducted the investigation on your behalf. Uh, some of you were here for this, some of you
are new, but just to give you a brief history, I think the first one we did was the Colgate uh, redevelopment uh, area. Uh we then did the abbey which was part of an area needed redevelopment subsequently did a redevelopment plan and we also did a redevelopment
investigation for a office building I think it was at 340 Mount Kemell Avenue although no redevelopment plan was ever uh put in place for that particular uh property. So you certainly there's familiarity on bea on on the part of this board with the with the process but
again just to kind of go through it uh per the redevelopment statute uh an area can be deemed in need of redevelopment after there's a a public hearing which is this evening that public hearing has to be uh noticed uh and ultimately it's
the governing body that makes the determination. The statute says planning board conducts the public hearing. Planning board makes a recommendation to the governing body and the governing body will ultimately make determination that an area either does or doesn't
qualify for designation. And the statute lists uh roughly eight conditions or criteria where any one of those eight in some cases there are multiple times where a condition is met. any one or
more if it meets the criteria it can satisfy the requirements for redevelopment area designation. Uh, and just to um provide some additional context, in the past with those buildings that I cited, the Colgate,
there were buildings, there were buildings that were largely either vacant or underutilized or abandoned. And at that point, we were basically focused on either the B or D criteria. And B is uh the discontinuence of the
use of buildings that were previously either in manufacturing or commercial or retail or an office park uh or there were sufficient vacancies in those uh buildings. The DRiteria are basically areas with buildings that were either dilapidated, obsolescent and
faulty arrangement or design. And certainly uh with these other in these other instances uh we were able to demonstrate because of these and and other factors in some cases that these areas were proving to be detrimental to public health and safety in their basic
vacant and disused condition. To the focus of tonight's meeting is on the C criteria and I'm going to read it. Okay, I'm I'm actually going to read it right from the statute. land that is owned by the municipality, the county, a local
housing authority, redevelopment agency, or redevelopment entity, or unimproved vacant land that has remained so for a period as of 10 years prior to adoption of the resolution, and that would be the adoption of the uh
resolution that I spoke about previously. and that by reason of its location, remoteness, lack of means of access to developed sections of portions of the municipality or topography or nature of the soil is
not likely to be developed through the instrumentality of private capital. That is the seed criteria. So with that in mind, uh our evaluation essentially revealed the following with regard to the study area. So, as I
described, it consists of portions of two tax lot, two tax lots under common ownership by Mars County. Uh, the land within the study area, as you saw, uh, these lands currently unimproved. They
lack street frontage and roadway access. The portion of lot 101 consists of sort of excess unused lands that are nevertheless developable. These are the lands behind the existing arc facility. Uh the unused portion of lot as I
mentioned is actually greater in size than the used portion of the lot. However, these lands as I mentioned cannot otherwise be accessed from a public rightway. The closest being catch road without impacting the existing facilities. And I'll get to your
question Linda on that. Uh which have existed actually these facilities for over 30 years. the portion of lot one in the uh study area which again is the larger lot with multiple facil facilities owned by the county. Uh this two is developable. This portion also is
cut off from the balance of the lot by other existing facilities. Um and for example the township lease catch road field and specifically its driveway and parking area restrict access to these unused lands. other county facilities including the solar
installation ultimately ended up restricting access to these areas. Uh so again access cannot be provided without impacting existing facilities. There are also I think one of the exhibits showed
that there were the wetlands. Yeah, there are also wetlands which encroach on a portion of this area of lot one which also limit the ability to access these developable uh acres three and a half acres uh compo comp comprising
portions of lot one and lot 1.01. So in short the study area comprises undeveloped acreage relatively limited in size and locationally challenged. Um so this acreage is therefore in our opinion unlikely to be developed through
the instrumentality of private capital alone and by that you know let's just take by example a market rate housing or even inclusionary housing where there'd be market rate and affordable housing that is definitely something that is not
in really the mix for this excess challenge land. However, a 100% affordable multifamily project would be appropriate in the study area given its proximity to all these neighboring related developments. Morris Muse,
there's the Dean Gallagher Congregate Living, there's the Ark facility. And Linda, to your point, the township had identified these lands uh as basically a suitable location for providing affordable housing that it can assist
the township in meeting a portion of its third round obligation. And this gets back to the litigation involving the Red Bulls where we had to provide for an additional 50 units of affordable housing, which is ultimately basically why this property was designated. these
portions in in terms of their location uh and delineation why these lands consisted of the study area which I think essentially answers your uh question. Um so construction of uh of affordable housing on this land is also
unlikely through the instrumentality of private capital alone. some form of public uh intervention or subsidy is necessary and again especially that where there are going to be no market rate units to internally subsidize the
overall project. So in that regard, the redevelopment area investigate determination would provide access to certain financial incentives for the uh developer mostly in terms of tax credits and also in terms of a redevelopment of
the potential for long-term tax abatement. All of which puts the affordable housing developer in a far more competitive position because and I know Tanya you know this tax credit housing is very competitive. Uh so this designation would ultimately be uh
necessary but notwithstanding that the area still has to qualify on its own. You know you can't really sort of have the tail wag the dog. And we think basically for the reasons that we've expressed uh that this particular area does meet the uh so-called C uh criteria
due to its size, its location, its remoteness and lack of access to the public roadway system uh is unlikely again in our opinion to to be developed through the instrumentality of private capital. And in that regard, we believe that this board is in a position to make
an affirmative determination and recommendation that the area would uh qualify uh under the C criteria or C condition of the uh statute. And Linda, in answer to your direct question about where's the access
going to come from, the contemplated access at this stage would be via an easement through the portion of the property adjoining property where the catch road field is and that would have to be basically somewhat of a reconfiguration of that. But it would
continue to provide access to both catchfield and it would provide access into this development behind the ark because you can't provide access without impacting ark through lot 1.01 alone. Thank you. You're welcome. So I'm happy to take questions. I don't know if
there's any doesn't look like public but certainly if there Yes. So it is related back to the litigation at the Red Bulls and they called for 50 units but this is correct. This is three plus acres,
right? Three. Um, so potentially there could be more than 50. Well, I I will say that, you know, we've been dealing with concepts at this stage in terms of what we looked at in terms of the product type and trying to maintain a
density and height which is compatible with existing facilities as well as the surrounding uh neighborhood. This is about as much as we could get within that area. I will tell I will tell you that. Yeah. Any other questions? Mr. Cohen, I have a
similar question to Miss Murphy's. um in terms of the and you can tell me that this is beyond the scope of what we're to consider here tonight, but um I'm curious about the exact shape and size of this property, this study property, why that particular size and that
particular shape. If it were 30 ft wider to the west, just to give give an off-hand example, uh there'd be more room. Uh yeah, there there seem to have been some negotiations with the county perhaps. That is true. Okay. There were negotiations, George, with
the county with the uh prospective redeveloper and also the township and its professional staff were very cognizant of trying to make this fit without severely impacting existing facilities, including the township uh
soccer field. Uh and in the other direction as you can see from the aerial you have Mars muse and then you have an intervening out parcel right and you just have nowhere else to go and what we really wanted to do was and and also it doesn't quite show here but the one map
that showed the wetlands also presents a constraint. So, we had this one blob of about three and a half acres that we could use without really seriously impacting other facilities knowing full well that we'd have to have an access easement in through the catch road field, but we didn't want we wanted to
keep their township facilities. We wanted to maintain that. So, we think we can kind of do that. There may be a slight rearrange of the parking area, but we have room to do that. We didn't want to encroach any further and that was the only other place to go and we would have impacted that with a larger site. So ultimately the area was sort of
determined by the concept if you will and and that's the basis for the portions of lot one and lot 1.01 and the developer will have to obtain or has obtained um agreements with both ARC and the county. Yeah. To assemble this
parcel. Prospect prospective redeveloper. Yes. Yep. Okay. Does that mean the developer will own the land or will it will be township land? Might be a lease, right? Yeah, it's it's current. Well, the operative fact for purposes of
the area and native redevelopment study is it is owned by the county. It is is public land. Um uh uh as what is envisioned is a uh donation from the county to the municipality to the
prospective redeveloper of the land and by virtue of that uh uh transfer with a reverter clause that it must be utilized for affordable housing or it will automatically revert back to the county uh uh twice to us and then the county automatically.
um then uh uh it'll be used for that purpose by the prospective redeveloper and uh that uh is part of the package for the uh financing of the 100% affordable project so that the municipal contribution is relatively modest and
reasonable. Um and uh perhaps uh I can say that the county uh was amendable to enhancing what was originally discussed as a uh an an area for the entirety of the project so that we had uh even more
sufficient land to properly plan and fit this 50-unit project uh in a way that's uh hopefully palatable to everybody. Well, and then is there
how maybe I'm step I might be stepping ahead of the game, but how is it that the developer is chosen? Is the developer chosen? Does it a bid process or how do we go about choosing a developer to to be used to select a developer? Certainly getting a little
bit beyond the area needed. Okay. Okay. And I don't mean to to discussion just don't my my my part of my hesitation and reason for doing that is um uh like a lot of these academic exercises we're supposed to view this in quote unquote
isolation you know match land with criteria. So the more we delve into other aspects at least theoretically someone might say that we're considering things beyond the scope of uh the authority for this particular
task. I understand Mr. I may have a similar question to Ed so stop me if I'm going in the wrong direction. I'll wait till you're done. Our our purpose here is to agree that this is an area need redevelopment. your
and say to the township committee that we've reviewed it and we agree that it should be in your jurisdiction to approve an area. We're not approving the area in need of redevelopment. We're approving the study. You're not approving it. You're making the
recommendation the governing body uh would would do the approving assuming the governing body approves it. The only caveat I would just for clarification, it's not your job to recommend the approval. it's your job to uh uh hear the planner and and see if the criteria
was satisfied and then uh make the appropriate recommendation. So, we're recommending that based upon the planners study, we agree that this is an area in need of redevelopment based on the C criteria. That's correct. We agree
that it meets the criteria. So, it's certain it's county it's county owned land. I believe that could constitute an indisputable fact. Um and then uh the uh by reason of its location, remoteness, lack of means of access to develop
sections or portions of the municipality or top topography or nature of the sale soil, excuse me. It could be any one of those. Uh our planner has opined that it's multiple of those reasons uh that it is not likely to be developed through the instrumentality of private capital.
Perhaps you could consider the fact that as of yet it has not been. So two questions would be there's no and again if I'm going above please stop me. There's no market units proposed for this.
There are no market units proposed for the project that is anticipated to result from among other things an area in need of redevelopment finding by the governing body. Correct. We're suggesting that there's a 50 units
that would wind up being built here. Well, the there was a settlement agreement for 50 units as a result of uh resolving litigation previously involving uh property at the former Honeywell site that is now being utilized by the Red Bulls.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, it's about 14 units per acre if I did the That's about right. That could be worse. I mean, it could be worse, right? It could be more. Well, that was the kind of the root of my question before. You consider worse or
what you consider Well, yeah. Back in the day, we used to say we wanted six units per acre and that was like a drop dead number, but obviously that's gone out the window. That was the day. So, that was back in the day. I just like to comment on that. Five cents
once. Yeah, probably. um that that is a you know that units per acre when it comes to affordable housing is not realistic because of the cost and the limited rent income that you're going to get from those. So I think the township is doing something very creative. Um, I
will say in a neighboring uh municipality there's been 44 units done very beautifully on probably just over an acre and that's uh two to two to three stories and uh you know you can't they actually did it in a way to and
this we're not getting into design design elements but to sort of uh blend in and and in some ways hide I would say the density which wouldn't even be needed necessarily tucked away back there. I think they have plenty of space to do 50 units there and it's not going
to be towering and it's probably going to be beautiful and really badly needed housing. I think it's a a great um opportunity to meet that topography might be such that it down and so but but but
this board may well have an opportunity in the not tooistant future to address site plan issues visa be this site but we should get and I'm look at me I'm doing it so and a redevelopment plan which will if there's an affirmative uh
determination by the governing body. The next step would be the preparation of a redevelopment plan which as you well know would go to you for for consistency review and then ultimately if there's a a change in the uh zoning a the redevelopment plan is effectively a
change in zoning a site plan application would go to you so you get several bites at the apple if again this is affirmatively determined to be in need of redevelopment. Mr. Chairman yes Mr. I'd like to make a motion that we recommend to the governing body that this area should be
considered an area in region development. May I make a respectful request that we al that you the motion also include the adoption of the resolution that was circulated which finds as such with a bunch of whereas clauses that I won't repeat. Um but it
also specifically re references the C criteria that Mr. Phillips discussed. I will amend my motion exactly as our attorney eloquently placed it before us. I'll second that. Yeah, I would agree with that. I think it sounds to me like
criteria C was written with this lot in mind. I think it fits. Surprise, surprise. Yeah. Um and we did so we did open Oh, I'm sorry. We need Yeah, we do need to open up to public questions or comments andor
Oh, just Okay. So, we will close that. So, I guess so. We have a motion in a second. That is a roll call. I do believe Yes. Mr. Order. Yes. Mr. N. Yes. Mr.
Flowers. Yes. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Quillin. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Yes. I send that. Nope. No. Nine. I got Okay. Um, is this one that should be
sent today? As we move on to other matters. Uh, do we have anything in the legislative committee report? Nothing. We do. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Don't we have a resolution we have to approve that? Uh, I have decided we're going to put that. It'll be on the next week because it came out so late that I
suspected this one people haven't had a chance to look at it. My apologies that I've mixed up the old one the other distributed I don't know if they do or not but you didn't get it today we didn't yeah okay so yeah okay at this point I
think we're going to open up the meeting for the public comments before we go into our close session so uh any comments from the public okay then we'll close the public comment section and move into our close session
which is I move that we go to close session. So sorry if I could just do a resolution along very quickly uh to go into closed for this particular matter. I'm sorry. Say again. Yes. Uh if I could uh just read a quick resolution to go into we haven't done this in the long because uh this is an open public
meetings act executive session whereas the open public meetings act permits the exclusion of the public from a meeting in certain circumstances uh and the public shall be excluded from the discussion uh of the here and after subject the general nature of which is
pending litigation and attorney client privilege communications relating specifically to the uh housing element and fair share plan for the fourth round prospective and present need obligation. It's anticipated that the above stated
subject matter discussed in close session may be disclosed to the public upon a determination of the board that the public interest will no longer be served by such confidentiality and the resolution shall take effect immediately. So now I move that we go to close
session. Second. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Um, okay. Then we need to stop recording, I guess. And we will not be going back into what? I think we might be relocating if that's
Are we relocating? Acceptable. Oh, okay. Uh, and we will not be reconvening uh in a public meeting afterwards or do we need to to formally adjourn? We do. We would we will I guess Mr. There is no other business to be had. We will we reconvene to formally adjourn but
there's no business after. So anyone who may be watching at home on Zoom that is it for the public other than if you want to watch us adjourn. Exactly. So thank you. We're going to come back in here to adjourn. Yes. Yeah. Well, we could do it there. We could. Yeah. As long as we get
on the course. Yeah.