I'd like to call to order the Township of Morris Planning Board meeting July 7th, 2025. Please join me for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance 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. Thank you. I hereby announce that the legal notice required in accordance with the open public meeting act has been satisfied the statement certifying the
same will be executed. At this time I will ask our board members since we don't have the chairman or the vice chairman if someone will volunteer to share this meeting tonight. I nominate George Quillin.
I'll second that. Mr. Quillin, would you take the chair? Uh, yes, I will. Okay, you may have the seat. Hold on, folks. Need a uh voice vote on that. And there's no other nominations, correct?
I'm sorry. No other nominations. No other nominations. Are there any other nominations? No. No. And all in favor? I Okay, there we go. Mrs. Keep us honest.
That's what I'm here to do. Thanks. Yes. All right. Thank you, I think, for for uh this honor. Uh I've never done this before, so I hope you'll bear with me. Um we have one main matter on the uh
on the agenda tonight. And uh first we need to do the roll call. So sorry Sonia, please call the role. Mr. Flowers here, Mr. Ravage here. Missy here. Mr. Here, Mr. here. Mr. Quin here.
Miss Laney here. Mr. B here. Here. Mr. I'm here. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So, the main item on the agenda for tonight is a public
hearing on um on master plan consistency for an ordinance that was recently introduced. Uh Sonia, would you like to to read the uh description of that?
Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is ordinance 2325 from the plant of Morren adopting of the redevelopment plan for the catch road regarding the property identified on the tax map as block 1901 a portion
of lot one 540 west handover and a portion of lot 101 81 Petro pursuant to the local redevelopment and housing law NJSA4A col2A-1
for one for master plan consistency review. Okay. Thank you. And Miss Laney, would you like to describe uh what our task is here tonight? I I will. Um Mr. Soi, do you want to uh swear me in? Might as well, Liz. I think it's
entirely neurary, but I will. All right. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So, help you God. I do. Great. Okay. Thank you. Um so as you have before you something that was introduced
um by the township committee uh the catch road redevelopment plan uh and it's dated June 2025 which is a redevelopment plan for the area that we recommended to the township committee be declared an area in need of
redevelopment uh you know within the last month. So what we're here tonight to do is a very narrow focus. It's it's pursuant to um the in the MLUL section 40 col55D-26
which essentially requires that any land use regulation and a redevelopment plan is a land use regulation before it's adopted by the governing body has to go to the planning board and the planning board has to determine and then write a or make a report to the town uh
governing body um any provisions in the or in the ordinance, in this case, the redevelopment plan that are inconsistent with the master plan. So, it's a fairly narrow focus. It's it's sort of is this what is uh the contents of the catch redevelopment plan? Are they
inconsistent with the master plan? So, I'm just going to go through all of those uh and make my recommendation and then of certainly the board can ask me any questions that you have. Okay. I'd like to just clarify one thing first, which is this is not a public hearing. Is that correct? Uh I believe
that um we're not required to have this be a public hearing and perhaps we're not allowed to have it be a public hearing. In the agenda there is a public comment section later on but I believe that's for other matters if the public wants to any members of the public wish
to make a comment. But but this this portion of the agenda is not a public hearing. That's right. The contents also of the redevelopment plan will be the subject of a public hearing next Wednesday before the township committee because it's the township committee that adopts
the plan. Um, and that will be a public hearing uh where, you know, the public's invited to get up and ask questions, make comments, etc. Um this is like I said I keep saying it but narrow focus you know is what the contents of the redevelopment
plan inconsistent with the master plan. Um and so I'm sure you're well aware but the last master plan was done full master plan was done in 1994. Um and you know there have been some amendments uh to land use element and the circulation
plan element in 2017. There have been re-examinations reports in 2007 um or 2001 2007 and most recently in uh 2017 and the 2017 re-exam reaffirmed one of
the primary goals of the 1994 master plan which is regarding the preservation of the residential character of the community And the following, these are specific sub goals that were emphasized. Ensure that new infill development in these
neighborhoods considers and respects the context, establish scale and character of surrounding homes. Permit multif family development only in carefully selected locations. So, this redevelopment plan contemplates or permits um
you know 50 units of affordable housing um in and the built context of where it is. It's surrounded by a variety of specialized and and really even more specifically affordable housing uh uh that is either owned by the county or administered by the county or
nonprofits. So you have the Ark special needs, you have Morris Muse, you have Vincent Gallow um retirement retirement home. Uh so this is the built context is sort of um well it is it is it it fits
in with that built context. Um so you know and this is permitting affordable housing which would be in within that built context. The other um aspect of the 2017 report is there's a plate number five which was prepared by Morris
County in 2012 and identified lands on the larger lot block 1901 lot one uh would be an appropriate site for additional affordable housing where they had located that in 2012 subsequently
became the solar uh panels. But what we see here or what we're contemplating here is, you know, in a similar lo similar location in that it's a very similar context. Uh, you know, it's it's on that same block and lot, but it's just in a different location. It's it's
slightly to the south. There's also, you know, the 2017 report mentioned that the uh housing preferences um has gotten diversified both locally on the state level and and really on the country level that as
people age, they want to, you know, maybe want to stay in a place like Morris Township, but they don't want to live in a single family home. advice. At the other end of the spectrum, you have people just getting out of school who would like to live in Morris but maybe can't afford a single
family home yet or just would like to live in a you know a lower maintenance um type of housing. So there was a recommendation in the plan to diversify the housing stock. Um most recently and the last time I was here we adopted the
housing element and the fair share plan. The housing element fair share plan discusses um this project, you know, this particular redevelopment area because it is a part of a settlement agreement with
Fairshair Housing Center um who, you know, uh brought litigation to the township in response to the township's reszoning of the Red Bull site. So, this project not only sort of is part of that settlement agreement, but it's also providing 50 units of affordable housing
towards the uh township's third round. Um, so which are two, you know, very important things. So, from my standpoint, my recommendation to the board based on everything I just said, um, this is not inconsistent. The
redevelopment plan is not inconsistent with the master plan. Um, and is actually in fact substantially consistent. uh you know the standard is a little bit over weird double negative it's not inconsistent um but that would be my recommendation
okay that's it thank you board members any discussion I I'd just like to comment that um the area selected for this development um really fits the need because there are so many other developments of
similar nature in the facility So it wouldn't be like you would develop a 50 unit affordable housing development in a in a separate residential area. This is already surrounded with other multi-unit developments. Uh and and
therefore I think it's a it's if not a perfect fit, it's practically a perfect fit um visa v what we've said in the master plan in the past and how we would like to continue with the master plan going forward. Sure. Yeah. I I I absolutely agree with
what my colleague said, but I'm just curious for the public, and I know that there's not going to be a lot of public commentary on this today, perhaps on township committee next week. Um, and you said it's substantially consistent with the MA master plan. Is there any
nonconformity um that you that you're aware of that you can tell us? No. And as I said, it's it's really the test is not inconsistent. And I think you know it is not inconsistent certainly with the most recent housing element which as you know is is a
part of the master plan. It's an element of the master plan. Um and certainly with the regards to I you know as Miss Murphy was saying putting this sort of a little little bit I I hate to use the word higher density but just this is maybe a more appropriate location than
let's say a neighborhood that's all single family homes. And I think that is consistent with the 1994 master plan to preserve, you know, the the context and scale of residential neighborhoods. Okay. Thank you.
I have a question uh that's um kind of a history question. It's not directly relevant perhaps to the master plan consistency of this uh ordinance, but I wanted to ask about the solar panels that the county installed on the site that had been contemplated. Um they are
groundmounted solar panels and I think Mars Township has an ordinance forbidding groundmounted solar panels. I don't know if that uh postdates the installation of those panels or if the county has some sort of right to
not follow our ordinances. But um does anyone do you happen to know? Uh yeah, Mr. Yes. So the um solar panel was part of a agreement that the county had with their provider and there was litigation involved in it and those panels were
originally supposed to be up at county college and some school facilities and then they backed out. So the county had to do them so they put them on locations of county properties including um the hill there below Mars View. It did become before the planning board and the
planning board unanimously rejected the plan. Um, however, um, being that the county is a superior or higher level of government, um, it's only they don't have to listen to our planning board and
they've moved forward and installed those solar panels. So, so our planning board just has kind of advisory. It's a courtesy. It was a courtesy review. courtesy review similar to what we would do for solar and it was a it was a unanimous vote no on the solar panels but um the
county chose to to do that because of the litigation that was involved um as part of this okay that's a shame and but thank you for the I think it was about 10 years ago or so those panels do bother me when I draw you Linda was here was part of that um
so we I know the taxi committee was you know pretty vocal on it we had some meetings and with the county freeholders at the time, you know, trying to get them to take it someplace else because these solar panels were supposed to be in other municipalities and they ended up in Marsh Township.
Okay. Thank you. We we actually use the term visual pollution. Yeah. Always appropriate. I think that was polite words. Okay. Does anyone have another question for me? Quick question. Just want to clarify. Um, so the details
in this redevelopment plan, such as You might want to use your microphone closer to you. I'm sorry. How's that? The details on the plan, um, such as the facade, the layout of the buildings. Um,
those are not put in stone or those are this is just conceptual and that at some point we'll look at the details. No, I think Well, yes. Yes and no for for the plan this the plan has the requirement. So to the extent that the
plan says shall that's that's a requirement. If it's should there's a little more leniency. what will happen you know presumably ba you know based on your vote tonight and then presumably let's say at on July 16th next Wednesday
when it comes before a public hearing you know presumably it gets adopted the applicant will come with for site plan and then you'll get very extensive um you know renderings and images uh and
much more detail and well like for example this doesn't show the rear yards So, um, and it only shows one of the three buildings, you know, so I don't know how many people I don't know how many families you can any units you can get
into this one building. Um, so when they actually come in, let's say, we can we can make comment and not like or approve certain aspects of all of that and then look for changes at that
time. even though this is what's in the redevelopment plan. Now, uh I think it it it depends on the extent of the changes that you're discussing. I think if you're looking for more detail that you certainly will get that with the site plan application, sure,
but um if you're looking for well I I mean I'm making this up. Oh, I think it should all be stuckco or whatever, you know, or it should all be in the Spanish style or whatever that you can't change if it if it's not consistent with what's in the redevelopment plan. You won't be able to
make that change at site plan. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify because this is on county property and is an agreement between a government entity at the county level and a government entity at the municipal level. when we see it in more detail. Is
it not just a courtesy review at that point? No, I think becau I think it it that's a really good question which I hadn't thought about but I I don't I wouldn't have said so. I would have said that the applicant because the applicant is not the county
but but it's being built at our behest on county land. So I I would like to explore an answer to that question whether it's a courtesy review in which case we can offer opinions but they don't have to take them right or if that goes through the process as a
as a you know regular private applicant would. So I'd like that advice. All right let me sorry Chris do you have an answer that taking notes on that too. I guess my question would be who is the ultimate end owner of the property? Is the county
selling it to this particular applicant? No, it would be the countyy's going to retain ownership. Yeah, they the county, for example, with the ARC project or some of the other sites or other uh facilities on that
block and lot, they lease, you know, the the users lease the land, right? Get, you know, have a lease. If the county wasn't the applicant of the site plan, right? They wouldn't be the site plan applicant. They are not. No, they would not be.
They would um they would not be. It would be whoever is going to develop this. Okay. So, it's an interesting question. The further down you get the line on I I'll have to look into it myself a little bit. Um, I'm inclined to believe like if they're going to go through all the
trouble of trying to come to a, you know, assistant in developing a, you know, a redevelopment plan for the property with the township, they would be kind of subjecting themselves. At least they're they're not, it doesn't seem that they're arguing that they're exempt visv some kind of, you know,
supersedence that the county would have, at least at this point. Does that make sense? like they're they're not as I understand it at least they're not contending that they're not they're you know they shouldn't have to get you know site that is true I think they anticipate getting site having to go through the
whole site plan process before the planning board I just like to have a formal Yeah sure Mr. Quinn has a question. Yes. The way the process is going to anticipate it is that tangent has to name a redeveloper which will be on the
tangent committee agenda next week as part of the redevelopment plan. Um this is a 100% affordable redeveloper. Um then they will be applying for the appropriate tax credit so that they can build um this unit. So it's a very competitive process that they have to go
through. Um the county will give us the township the property and then the township will give that to the developer with a lot of conditions on that that they have to build 100% affordable in a certain amount of time and if they don't do that then there's reverter clauses
that are going to be there that if the affordable housing is not built then the property comes back to the township and then the property goes back to the county of Mars. Okay. So, I guess we'll see how this works out, but it doesn't seem very likely to me that that that the Well, I
mean, it doesn't seem to me that the county would want to intervene and say the planning board is being too difficult and putting too many requirements on the site plan. It just doesn't seem to plausible to me that the county would take that position. We we have an agreement with the county um
that was already put in place for this. Um and your applicant before the planning board will be the developer, not the township or the county. So perhaps it would be useful for us to see that agreement between the township and the county. Sure.
Yeah, that's okay. Right. Good. That's that's the tenative plan um that moving moving forward for this to move forward with the developer to get the 100% uh the tax credits 9% tax credits for the 100% affordable housing project. So
it's all lined out and how it has to move forward and you know timeline similar as the affordable housing plan that we just saw. It's a very strict timeline on how things have to take place. So I take from those comments uh Mr. Quinn, that that the applicant is just a
regular applicant, not a government entity per se, and that we could offer comments relative to the design specifications um prior to approval. He or she would likely accept. However,
having said that, as a as a municipality, we do want this development to go forward because it is part of a settlement agreement. It's also part of our settlement agreement that we had with Fair Share Housing um as as part of that. So So it's the devil in the details that we're looking at as opposed to
questioning the development overall. They're being treated as a regular applicant paying the fees and going through the process as a regular applicant would. Thank you. That's clarifying. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Just one follow question too. Um
so the the the det for example it doesn't say that the developer needs to comport with the the ordinance for governing architectural design standards. It does talk about some design standard. It doesn't talk about that specific
ordinance. So are there other things that don't need to No. There's a provision in the redevelopment plan. is pretty common which is says you know anything not directly addressed in the plan reverts to the ordinance. Okay. So like if there's some specific thing
you have in mind that isn't addressed here then you can um I would say you'd say the ordinance prevails. the ordinance uh governs because if we had to put everything that you know that the plan would be like 40
pages long because you have to put all that all I mean basically I think it's a great plan I need you we need to go forward and all of that. Yeah. I just want to be comfortable with the process and
what's going to occur there and where people are going to be living and what is it going to be like and and is it going to benefit the resident there? Is it going to benefit the municipality? So, I can see a lot of where it's going to benefit everybody, but sometimes there are details that
need to be looked at during the process to be sure of that. Yeah. And I think you'll have that opportunity at site plan. Okay. Thank you. It isn't just the design, excuse me. It isn't just the design detail. Sorry. Go ahead. Ready? Yeah. It isn't just the design details
of the buildings that are a little bit um illdefined in here, but it's also things like the access to the to the site. You know, how are the driveways going to be constructed? And presumably that's going to be up to the developer to propose. So, that's why it was not
specified in great detail. In addition to the agreement that Mr. Quinn described between the county and the developer. I think that a similar agreement having to do with access whatever agreement that is in paper that can be provided the board you know in
advance uh as part of the site plan application in advance of the u the meeting so that you have some knowledge and then they of course can answer questions. Yeah. Okay. But the uh looks like the the plan does speak to access. Page 12. Uh vehicular access to the public street
system shall be provided via driveway or street connection to catch road through existing block 1901 lot one on lands that are now part of catch road field improved to provide adequate access for fire. More specific sign. It's it's a little bit less detailed
than a site plan. Right. Okay. Any other comments or questions from board members? Would anyone like to make a motion? I move that we accept Elizabeth's recommendation that it's not
inconsistent with the master plan and um refer this back to the township committee for action. And then we would um and then you you're also moving to to approve the resolution with the word not included in those two places. I'll
second it. Yeah. All right. Uh, any discussion? Sonia, would you like to call the RO? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Flowers, yes. Mr. Rav, Mr. Rabbits, yes. Miss Murphy, yes. Mr. Benois,
yes. Miss Coriglia, yes. Mr. Quillin, yes. So, right. Thank you. Uh, very good. So that um is going to be an interesting um process as we continue
with the township committee meeting next week and then the site plan when that when that comes through. Uh so moving on with the agenda. Is there anything from the legislative committee to report? No.
Um so next uh on the agenda is public comment. If there's anyone from the public who would like to make a comment, uh, we could open the public comment um, period. Do I need a motion to do that? No. All right. So, just open the public
comment period. Hi, Legal 10ourhead Road. Um, I just wanted, it's not a um, it's just a point to note of Mr. Benois's um, comment. Was there anything else that's not required as part of this redevelopment plan? And in reading through it, I did also note that um it seems like there's no
environmental impact statement that's going to be part of the process or needed um for this. And no, seeing that one of the units, building 2, uh the the outline of the building actually sits on a a wetlands area. That was a little concerning to me. So I don't know if you
could either can I ask you questions or confirm or deny whether an environmental impact statement will be provided as part of this. Uh I may punt to Joe Vu the the board uh engineer as with regard to whether an e uh any will be required.
Joe, do you want to speak to that? Sure. Um so I would recommend first and foremost that any concerns you have you also voice during the public hearing next week at the committee. Yeah. Right. Because this is outside the
action of that was just taken. Uh but the the site plans that will come forth will include assessment of wetland impacts, transition areas and identify all required permitting that would still need to be obtained by the applicant
from D. So there will be uh environmental impact assessment to to that degree. Okay. Thank you. Um, and then just for purposes of the public at next week's
township committee meeting, I'm not sure if anyone here can answer that. Would you expect besides your I don't know if you'll be here um any other professionals from the township to answer questions from the public besides the engineer um and the attorney and the planner and the planner.
You're right. All right. Thank you very much. [Music] Howdy. Ryan Gorman, 26 Normandy Heights. Repeat your name again. Ryan Gorman. Michael Ryan Gorman, I guess. Um, 26 Normandy Heights. Just want to say I'm hugely supportive of all
the efforts on affordable housing. I really appreciate the township has not joined some other municipalities in litigating this further and trying to fight back against these things and trying to find locations that are acceptable to the majority of folks. Most of the people who are massively supportive of this kind of thing don't
show up on Monday at 7 p.m. Uh, but there's a huge number of them out there. I know you've made some efforts to get some of their feedback. So, I'm just figured it'd be good to show up and and share that at least uh one member of the public and everyone I talked to today about it who didn't show up uh is also uh supportive as well. So, very much
appreciate it. I understand there's concerns. People always have concerns. as a business person. I'm also a developer land use uh person, but I also ran a camp company that had tens of thousands of people and one of which was headquartered here in Mars County. And uh we had to go through the process of
deciding whether or not to move and take hundreds of jobs out of the area, more than a thousand jobs out of the area because we were having such a hard time recruiting because much as was mentioned, when people are coming out of school, they don't necessarily have the money to live in such a great place as we all have the opportunity to live
right now. these kinds of facilities afford that type of opportunity. So, economic diversity is really, really important to the economic bedrock of this community, there's a whole other, you know, moral reason for it, but if you just want to focus on the economics, uh, massively supportive of what the township is doing here and what the township's done in the past and what the
township will do in the future. So, very much appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Any other members of the public wish to speak? I'll save my comments and questions for Wednesday, next Wednesday's meeting. Okay. You sure? Because I know when you came in I said but that's fine if
because Yeah. No, they'll be fine for next Wednesday. Okay. Thank you. Uh so we'll close the public um comment portion and uh I don't believe there's any need for closed session. I'd like to make a motion that we adjourn.
Oh my goodness. Mr. Standing for Mr. last must be that side of the room. That side of the room bit of an inside joke. Sorry. The public is kind of like, why are they think it's so funny? I'm going to second that.
All in favor? I I thank you. Meeting is a journ. Thank you everybody. Have a good night everybody. Thank you for watching.