It's the same law firm attorney who accused the mayor of uh you know of not wanting access. >> Okay. Call to order the meeting of the Oakland Planning Board for February 12th, 20
March 12th, I'm sorry, March 12th, 2026. Um, pursuant to uh chapter um >> 231 >> 231 public law 1975 open public meetings act duly noticed, announced, advertised,
and posted in municipal building. The meeting will conclude by 10:30 p.m. That won't be an issue, I don't believe, this evening. Um, no testimony taken after 10 p.m. Uh, please rise for the flag to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, roll call please. >> Mr. Dona >> here. >> Mr. Clark >> here. M
>> here. >> Mr. Mars >> here. >> Mr. Con >> here. >> Mr. Hayman >> here. >> Councilman Talamini >> here. >> Mr. Lit >> here. >> Mayor Kamala here. >> Chairman P >> here. >> Uh just a a message for the all the public that's here. We're not used to
having so many people at our meetings, but um please make sure your cell phones are all on uh silent. Um and uh try to minimize the amount of uh talking between between all of you so we can hear everybody. Um at this time, I would
ask our burough attorney to swear or our planning board attorney to swear on the professionals this evening. >> Raise your right hands. Do you swear a testimony about to come forward in this matter will be the truth? Whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> As an attorney, I don't I don't have to
take it up. No, >> I've heard >> I'm obligated to tell the truth by >> and the board the board engineer is I believe on on route. So >> yeah, I believe so as well. >> Okay. So, we have this evening uh with
us our our planner, our planning board planner, who's also the the burough planner, Caroline Writer. We have Mr. Brian Giblin, who's the affordable housing attorney, and we will have uh John Kimick from Boswell Engineering will be here shortly. Um
so, at this time, I would entertain a motion to open the meeting to the public for matters not on tonight's agenda. >> Some moved. Second. >> All in favor? I. So, if there's anybody here that wants to comment about anything that's not affordable housing, that's not uh has to do with these
properties that are uh being proposed for affordable housing, please step forward and state your name and address. Eric, >> he's going to talk about historic preservation. >> Hi, my name is Eric Shaach. E R I K S C H A U B A C. I live at 61 Loyola Place
in Oakland and I'm also the Oakland Historical Society president. Um, and uh, as the board, the planning board knows, I've been advocating for um, historic preservation in Oakland and I I do have some information that might
be helpful. Um, I think uh that having a historic preservation element in the master plan would be useful and also having a historic commission would be useful in this town. Um, I'm sure everybody here is concerned about the
impact that the affordable housing will have on our community. Now, um, historic preservation can't do anything about that directly, per se, but it can help us maintain a sense of our community by, um, uh,
preserving historic buildings and also the scale and look of the community as well. So, there's a lot of, um, opportunities. Uh, historic preservation offers several tools that the planning board can use to um help keep Oakland uh
and guide it towards a future that is desirable for all of us. Uh, I do want to indicate that there are to do a um a historic preservation element in the master plan, you'd have to do a historic site survey. And I know from Bergen
County there's a grant available um from the open space trust fund and uh this grant would be um 5050 that the um Oakland would um pay up front and then they be reimbursed for 50% of the fees
of somebody to do of a consultant to do a historic site survey. So, um, the letter of intent is due March 27th and the application would be due April 24th. And as historical, um, society
president, I would like to avail myself as the point person on the ground as a on a volunteer basis to help um, perform this survey of historic sites as well and also devote resources from the Oakland Historical Society. And I
encourage everybody in the town to support your planning board and support your burough council. Um, we're all in this together. We got to stick together. And please support historic preservation in Oakland. Thank you very much.
Eric actually has made his spiel in front of the planning board on a couple of occasions. So now that you're all here, you heard it. and also some of the council members I believe are here as well. So, it's important for them to hear. So, thank you very much. Thank you.
>> Uh my name is Joan Czech and my address is 18 Cain in Oakland. I'm here in my capacity as the chief of the open first aid squad to ask you in relation to the current um building but also all buildings and all you know new
businesses to come into town as well that you considered the need the needs of the first aid squad um and our concerns. I know the new affordable housing um building that went in uh off of YPO um it it's three stories no elevator and
for us what that means is when we have an ambulance call the police show up they lug up their 50 lbs worth of gear we show up we lug up our 50 lbs worth of gear and then should we need paramedics in a serious call they come with their 50 lbs worth of gear then we have to
figure out how we transport that patient somebody's got to go down and get the um whatever equipment is needed for that and bring that up. Um and basically, yeah, it's it kills us and you know, my partner is 84. He's healthier than I am,
so that's good. Um but you know, a lot of us during the day, there are people who are retired and older and that there's that to consider. Um there's also obviously our police who help us out to consider. We don't want to hurt them. Um, but also it's the time if you
have an affordable housing, you know, resident and it's going to take them take us longer to get them out than it would somebody in an ordinary ranch house or, you know, even if you have a two-story home, you're not usually on the second floor. Um, that's
just when you're asleep. You know, sometimes we take people from the second floor, but in general, people are on the first floor. So, we're going to be taking considerably longer. if they're heavy people, we're going to have to call the fire department and wait for them to respond to help us out. Um, so
in any case, we hope you would take that into consideration. As well as, you know, even new buildings, just the access for emergency personnel is something that we feel that we should be looped in on. And, you know, I'd appreciate it if if we could do that. Thank you very much.
>> And we and we will try to press some of these features. We actually did on the project by Indian Hills. Former mayor Schwrager was was a pitfall with them to try to get an elevator. >> Yeah. >> They It's not required by code, not
required under the affordable housing >> uh >> you know statute. So >> no matter how much, >> you know. >> Yeah. So yes, >> and yeah, I realize that it's that it's something that that you're limited on, but like I said, it also makes a significant disadvantage for the people
who are in that housing. They are going to it's going to take longer to get them out. So great. >> Thanks. >> Hi. Uh my name is Abigail Jaxarn. I live at 17 Road. I'm here today to discuss my concerns regarding the proposed development of the McBride and Leon
properties. >> Okay. So that we'll wait. You'll have an opportunity after we go through a whole discussion here. >> Non-aggenda. >> So it's this is for non-aggenda items. That's on the agenda. So, we'll have another time for opening to the public. >> Okay. So, is that at 7:00 or is that
>> one? It should be before that. Okay. We just have to do >> So, not tonight. >> No, tonight. >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. Just gota Okay. Sorry. >> Anybody else? >> Anybody else for non-aggenda items? Okay. Seeing none, motion to close to
the public. So, >> move in favor. >> Okay. All right. So we'll move on now um for our public hearing which is um the uh amended housing element and fair
share plan. Okay. And um we uh our planner Caroline will go into some details. She'll give us a little history. Um and so the reason the reason we're all here tonight is because um the
planning board um has the responsibility for the master plan and responsibility for the housing element and fair share plan which is part of the master plan. So we did pass this back in June. Okay. And we had challenges to the plan. Uh in
other words, there were property owners in town who raised objections to our plan. So therefore we had to um engage with those property owners. Uh I think the court hires a special master. Caroline will explain it all and then
you know they have to negotiate um you know uh settlements you know regarding affordable housing. So that has taken place. Now, we're back here again to pass an amended >> uh housing element and fair share plan
and also to review ordinances which the um uh which the mayor and council have introduced and we just give our recommendations and they'll vote later whether to approve them or not. So, Caroline, if you can take over from
here. >> Sure. Thank you, Mr. chairman, um, members of the board, and everyone who's come tonight, uh, to hear what we have to say and what the board is doing. I think it might be helpful just to give a little bit of background about
affordable housing in general and why we're here tonight and why the planning board is taking care of this tonight and the coun there's a council meeting immediately thereafter. Can everybody hear me? >> I can, but there's somebody talking out there. Can you guys just keep it down? >> What's the door? >> Thank you. And just really quick, just
make sure you're loud enough because I know even with prior meetings when the people watching live stream, they can't hear it on the live stream. So whether you're speaking at the podium or at the table, they can't hear through there.
>> Okay. >> Sorry. Seats over here if anybody wants to sit. >> And I'm looking at three empty seats in the front row. >> Two over here. >> Actually, four if these two. >> So maybe. >> Um, you're welcome.
>> So, Mr. Chairman, um, as as suggested, um, I think it it would be helpful to go through a very brief history. If I wanted to talk about the history of affordable housing in New Jersey, it fully it would take their full meeting. Um,
affordable housing, uh, is what's considered a constitutional right in New Jersey. Municipalities have a responsibility to provide for their fair share of housing that is affordable to moderate and lowincome households. There have been a series of uh lawsuits known
as the Mount Laurel cases. Uh many of you may be famili familiar with affordable housing as Mount Laurel housing that relates back to the uh Mount Laurel one and two cases. And I believe Mount Laurel 1 dates back to the 70s. Is that correct? and Mount Laurel 2
which established the Fair Housing Act and subsequently also established the Council on Affordable Housing is from the 80s. Um, you may be familiar with a group or a organization known as COA, the Council
on Affordable Housing. And up until let's say 2015, um, that group COA was responsible for preparing and producing affordable housing rules, affordable housing
obligations for each town. They would review towns plans, their housing elements and fair share plans. And if they approved of the plan, they would issue something called substantive certification. That's what the approval
was called. Affordable housing is handled in periods of years that are known as rounds. Right now, we are actually in round the very beginning of round four. When it was time to adopt, prepare and adopt
round three rules, KA adopted rules uh that had a policy or or a principle known as growth share, which was a direct linkage of job growth and uh population growth to affordable
housing. those growth share rules were actually overturned twice in court. After the second time that the round three rules were overturned, there was a third set of round three rules that were um were proposed and the council the
actual council on affordable housing did not have enough individuals appointed to it. There was a 33 deadlock tie with respect to those rules and they did not get adopted. There was subsequent litigation involving the Fair Share Housing Center, which is definitely a
group we're going to be hearing more about tonight, and the affordable housing responsibilities were removed from COA and returned to the courts. Municipalities had to uh go through the
uh DJ, the de the declaratory judgment process and they had to come to settlement with the fair share housing center and any other uh interested party who at the time was known as an intervenor. Oakland did participate in that process.
Did come to settlement with fair share housing I believe in 2021 did adopt around three plans subsequently and related ordinances. What happened in March of 2024 however is that the legislature adopted new
legislation on affordable housing. It was adopted by the legislature and signed into law by um the governor at the time. That legislation um amended the Fair Housing Act 2. I told you he was on route. amended Fair
Housing Act two and changed uh eliminated COA alto together and changed uh spec certain processes and as we're going to be discussing established very aggressive deadlines for municipalities
to meet um as part of the affordable housing process. So the legislation was adopted in March of 2024. In October of 2024, DCA, the Department of Community
Affairs, released what it referred to as nine nonbinding municipal affordable housing obligations. That means that it went through each town in in New Jersey and and calculated a I'm using air quotes in
case anyone can't see, non-binding obligation. municipalities had um to adopt a binding resolution no later than January 31st
to stipulate what would their affordable housing obligation be? Would they use the obligation put forward by DCA or would they recalculate and put forward a new obligation based on their own calculations? So there's
not a lot of time between October and the end of January because there was significant analysis analyses that needed to be done with mapping in particular mapping of vacant land. And I will note that although the non-binding obligations were released in October, we were not provided with the mapping until
I think right before Thanksgiving. So we lost a whole month then. So municipalities adopted a binding a binding resolution stipulating what their obligation would be. There is then what was established by the legislation
called a challenge process and any interested party could challenge a municipality's obligation and they h and those challenges were due by February 28th. So essentially less than 30 days after the last uh municipal
obligation was so stipulated. Every municipality that did not utilize DCA's obligation was challenged by the New Jersey Builders Association. I think that was 140 160 challenges
somewhere in there. In addition, another 68 towns were also had their uh obligation challenged by the Fair Share Housing Center. Pursuant to the legislation, these challenges which were due by February 28th, all needed to be
resolved by March 31st, 2025. The legislation established uh the affordable housing dispute program referred to as the program which is a series of it's a uh seven retired judges
who uh were handled mediation and sessions on the affordable housing master matters. As the chairman indicated there would be a court assigned uh expert um known as a special adjudicator. they are also planners uh
was assigned to each case. So February 28th uh the challenges came in on the obligation they all had to be decided on March 30 by March 31st then
>> municip 25 last year >> yes 2025 then municipalities so they've finalized their obligation by March had until June 30th to prepare adopt and endorse a housing element and
fair share plan. So it's not a lot of time then and the reason for these deadlines are very important. I'm going to take a step back for a minute. Municipalities that participated early on when there was COA and received substantive certification
or that reached settlement with Fairshare Housing Center via the court process in round three had what was known as immunity. That was immunity from builder's remedy litigation, which is a buzzword maybe some of you have
heard of, but basically builder's remedy litigation happens when a municipality doesn't have immunity and protection. And it allows for a developer or property owner to come into a municipality and say, "Well, you haven't provided for your fair share of
affordable housing, but great news. I have a piece of property for you and it's what I want to do is not going to conform to your zoning ordinance and it really doesn't matter and it's going to be much more dense and a much greater scale and height than what you ever would allow.
That's a builder's remedy and that is sort of the that's what everybody very much uh the municipalities who are going through this process want to have the protection and that type of immunity from those situations. So failure to meet the deadline of June 30th, adoption
of a housing element and fair share plan would result in loss of immunity. That's why that date was so important. So municipalities had until June 30th. Uh Oakland adopted its plan on June 23rd
and and oh adopted and endorsed same night June 23rd. Then as was >> as was established through the legislation, there was another challenge process where any interested party could
challenge any municipalities plan between June 30th and August 31st. That means developers and fair share housing centers. It is my understanding Fairshare Housing Center submitted literally hundreds of challenges.
Oakland received a challenge from Fairshare Housing Center as well as three other developers which we'll be talking about. These um these challenges needed to be resolved through mediation again with
the program and the courtappointed special adjudicator by December 31st. So it's really only a couple of months of mediation opportunities available uh be based on the the dates that
challenges were due and of course ramping up the mediation etc. So the settle everything was settled or supposed to be settled by December 31st and now the next and the next deadline we're all aiming for is March 15th.
March 15th, municipalities must adopt a housing element and fair share plan, which is what's on the agenda for tonight. It must be adopted by the planning board, endorsed by the governing body. In addition, all ordinances required to implement the
plan must also be adopted by March 15th. Failure to do these these things, failure to adopt the plan and the result and the necessary ordinances results in a loss of immunity for the municipality.
So when I say that this legislation changed the way things were done and established a series of dramatic and aggressive deadlines, it is not an exaggeration. It is the reality that Oakland and many
many other municipalities throughout the state are addressing now. To have to put together a plan a few months only a couple months after your obligation is finally resolved and then to have a challenge multiple challenges that need to be resolved within a few
months and then a plan prepared two months later is a very those are very very significant tasks. Um, I want to point out that Oakland has been um very proactive with this
process. Um, the mayor, the council, this board. Um, we have been talking about this from the get-go. I think that the legislation was adopted March 20th or March 24th and I believe I was here
on April 9th doing a presentation on the legislation and what it meant. Similarly, we were here in January talking about the obligation and what we felt, you know, whether or not we felt it was reasonable and what we felt could
be done with it. Um, I believe I'm al I'm fairly certain chairman, I also had similar discussions with the planning board on separate occasions. Um, Mr. Giblin and I also attended a council meeting for an update right before
Christmas. Um, and we spoke about the challenges as well and where we were at. Um, I will let please feel free to jump in. I I'm sure you'll stop me if I say something I shouldn't. We are the challenge is this is a litigation
process. The bureau is in litigation and we do not have finalized settlements >> with any of the objectors >> with any of the objectors yet. So, so we
this is a public meeting and you know we might be limited with respect to what we can say or what we can answer and that's why Brian's sitting next to me so if I start to say something I shouldn't I'm certain he will jump in or smack my arm. So that is the process. Oakland has been
on top of this. Um the mayor, the admin, the administrator who was here somewhere and everyone has very aware and we've had ongoing direct and continuous communication throughout this process.
This legislation as adopted is very very challenging for municipalities in terms of the numbers, in terms of the obligations, in terms of the timeline. I just want to make sure that that is something that everybody understands
that while there may be frustration in this room I have a feeling I have a feeling that there is frustration in this room. Please remember
what started this process back in March of 2024. I just I just want to make sure that that is everybody leaves here remembering that that there are various ways that affordable housing is always
has been and has been part of the has been a constitutional obligation has been a topic etc in New Jersey since for decades. This is the first time it's been handled in this manner. This is the first time unless you can think of other
times that we have had these type of deadlines. So I just want to make sure that that is very clear to everybody and I hope everybody remembers that as the night goes on. Okay.
Okay. So that's a little bit of background. So, as the chairman referenced and as I indicated, the this board adopted a housing element and fair share plan in June. The reason for the revisions tonight is because of the the revisions
that needed to be made in response to the challenges that were filed. Just a quick note as to why the planning board is is even involved in this process is because and the chairman touched on this as well. The planning board is responsible for adoption of the
master plan and any documents that go along with it. The master plan re-examination report which needs to be done every 10 years, any updates to the land use plan, open space plan, and there was even a gentleman here tonight speaking about a historic preservation plan. Those are all part of the master
plan which is always adopted by the planning board. The master plan can contain several sections. They are called elements. There are certain required sections. One of them is the housing element which which contains a
lot of very interesting demographic information. The plan is called the housing element and fair share plan. And the fair share component is the afford how the affordable housing obligation is being met. And again, why I'm pretty sure that everybody is here tonight.
That plan is adopted as part of the master plan by the planning board. That is this board's role. Later on tonight, we're also going to be discussing some ordinances. Ordinances are adopted by the mayor and council. Those are the
elected officials. Every land use ordinance has two readings. Between first and second read reading, there is a referral made to the planning board and that planning board's role with the ordinance is for what's called
consistency review. That's consistency with the master plan. So that's what the board's role is here tonight. They're not voting to approve or not approve ordinances. That's the council's role at meeting number two for tonight. Any
keep going >> questions from the board? >> We're good. >> Okay. So, we have the plan amendments which I'll go through. As we stated, the board adopted its housing element and fair share plan in
June. There were four challenges filed to the plan. Any interested party can file a challenge to the plan. The first one is the property known as so we call it the ropper property. It's behind the property that's behind the I
used to say Oakland Pizza, but I'm dating myself. It's behind the hardware store. >> Um, that is actually a round three site. It's in a zone now known as the R A4 AH, which permits 113 units, of which 17
would be affordable. That site does not have sewer, which we're going to be talking a lot about sewers tonight as well. um they came into the process and they acknowledged that they don't you know that while in the sewer plan they don't there's no sewers available. Um we had
multiple mediation sessions with them and what came from that was the opportunity to potentially obtain sewer through via the Oakwood Nolles pump station which would need to be upgraded. No reasonzzoning changes are proposed
for the ropper site. The second challenge came from a property that called itself TDC, but I'm fairly certain you all know it as McBride or Hovan. That site contains approximately 66.9 acres. Also, no
sewers um and environmental constraints as we all know. Currently within the RC and the IP zone. Um as part of the challenge we had multiple mediation sessions and just sessions with the uh
with the developer. Um they made multiple submissions with different unit counts. They did propose an on-site waste management system. Package treatment
plan. Is that the correct term? >> Yes. package treatment plan which as I understand it means that they can take care of their wastewater themselves through on their own property. Am I saying that right? >> Yes.
>> Okay. So >> therefore the fact that they do not have sewers they have done what we'll call the workaround of not having sewers. As I indicated the unit count has shifted throughout the process. It is our understanding we have a
settlement in principle um and there is an ordinance proposed that would permit uh 240 units on the property. No. >> Um >> the other chairman
>> just just for point of which should we swear in uh >> we were just talking >> you're just some random person that was asking to reflect these >> I was going to tell him he's considered sworn but would you raise your right hand John swear to the testimony he's about to give the board to read the truth hold the truth but the truth >> I do.
>> Okay thank you. You done? >> Yeah. >> This morning? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. Sorry. The other prop, the next property that filed a challenge is a property we known as Leone Brothers. It is in the corporate office zone
district. It is uh near the high school and next to what you call the LAR property, correct? Which is presently under construction today. It's 10 and a half acre site with steep slopes. Uh and with respect to that challenge, the um
they indicated that they could they believe that they could obtain sewer via an adjacent property. In response to multiple mediation sessions with and other meetings with that uh property owner, property representative, um the bureau is
proposing an ordinance to allow uh 85 total units on the site of which 20% would be affordable. I'm going to take a step back because I'm sure some people are saying, why only 20%. That doesn't seem like a lot. we're building all
these other units and not and not uh but only 20% are affordable. So these type of developments or even zone districts are called inclusionary developments or zone districts. What that means is they
allow for typically multifamily residential that contain both market rate what people might just call regular market rate units and affordable units and a percentage of
the total development has to be affordable and 20 when you have a de a development or zoning like that 20% is the maximum it is required and it's the maximum it is the maximum It used to be under round three you could allow 15%
for rentals. That is not um something we can do anymore uh for a variety of reasons in Oakland, but that's not something that we're doing anymore. So, it's 20%. And that has the percentage that has been
determined to be anything more than that is what's you know is cost prohibitive for the developer like 25% for example or 30%. So, I'm sure that's a question some of you might have had. The last challenge came from the Fair
Share Housing Center, which challenged they I think they did hundreds of challenges. I'm not sure how many. Um, we believe that we've resolved what you say it's >> they want us to resolve with all the other challenges and and they'll settle with us >> and then they'll settle with us. That's
pretty much how it works. So, that's those were the challenges. should any you want. Good. Keep keep going. Okay. >> I have questions, but >> Oh, do you want >> Well, you drafted these ordinances, right? And
they're in the they're in the um in the uh Yes. Amended housing element um fair share plan. Um >> how how did these how did these ordinances get drafted? Were they or were they were there was there input from these developers? Was it just
strictly the burrow that came up with with this or you know was it the special master involved? How does all that? >> It's a combination of input from the developers um you know in the case of for example the one where we had a site
that was developed in the third round next door. We borrowed a lot of the zoning from that uh development. Um but yeah, the developers have through the through the mediation process, the developers continued to tell us what they were looking for in an ordinance
and what they would challenge if or not in an ordinance or you know if if something was in the ordinance that was in their opinion cost generative that they would challenge that. So it's been a negotiating process uh throughout >> and you had mentioned that we're not
totally settled with with the objectors. So, are they not totally on board with the ordinances 100% the way we have them written? >> They are not. The the developers are not satisfied with the ordinances. >> That's exactly right. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. In fact, um, not in Oakland's situation, but in other situations, if we have a concept plan that is more finalized, the ordinance often is developed to reflect the concept plan in this affordable housing
arena situation with a challenger. That that is that is not an uncommon that that practice happens. So yes, the the developer or the challenger andor the challenger is often involved. These ordinances will also be subject to
review by the fair share housing center >> and by the adjudicator as well, >> the special adjudicator. You referred to as a special master. It's the same thing >> and ultimately by the superior court >> which has to approve our plan. So, right now, if we if we pass these
items tonight and the mayor and council do their thing and pass, we're protected from the builder's remedy, but but we're still not quite there because there's still >> we've met the deadline, the March 15th
deadline to introduce zoning that makes a realistic opportunity for these developments. Uh, but we're not through the process yet. We still have to get uh we're in front of Judge Lena Caristen. We've already had our first case management conference with her earlier
this week. Uh and she's looking for us to have settlements, signed settlements with these uh objectors. Uh or she's going to decide whether or not what we propose or what we ultimately uh come to terms with is sufficient. M
>> okay >> and m much much of this negotiation has been like last minute right I mean it's a lot of it has been you know you think you're okay and then >> well without saying who it was one of the plans was changed literally
as I was driving here when you introduced the ordinances two weeks ago they asked us to change we didn't but they asked us to change the ordinance the day it was being introduced. >> Mr. Chairman, >> it's difficult.
>> Just could could our professors expand on the fact that this is just an ordinance change and talk a little bit about how this still if this were to happen that there's still a hall planning board process and everything else. Could you just kind of split that up a little bit? >> That's a great that's a great comment.
Thank you for the reminder, mayor. So that's what is being done tonight is hopefully adoption of the housing element and then adoption of the ordinances. The ordinances are adopted tonight as they should be. There is not going to be anybody out there with
hammers and nails tomorrow. There is still a public in addition to all the review and the judge Coren and everything else that needs to happen within this process. There are public
processes. So there would be what is known as a site plan application which is pursuant to the New Jersey municipal land use law that this board handles um review of any type of new building um
uh that there would be a it would be a public meeting. it would be required notice um and it would be held you know held where the public could attend and comment um as needed and as in as we're interested and I'm assuming that for some of these uh there would probably be
multiple public meetings um when you had when you heard the LAR application did you have more than one meeting >> it took a period of two years approximately to approve >> so that's the same process so that everybody knows >> and may I add Mr. chairman that also
third party permits um especially sewers >> D >> and uh any environmental constraints on the properties that they are obligated to uh obtain those permits from the D
and um sewers uh they would have to do normal um water allocation permitting on certain sites and and that is a process as well and it could be a costly process for the developer. We don't know that
yet. >> That's another great point is that it's it's not just the planning board approval. It's any type of NJD approval that is needed. Whatever is needed with respect to the sewers um even the ropper
site which is not there's no reasonzoning proposed there would be a sewer upgrade needed of the Oakwood Nles. So that you know that's a process as well. There are multiple this is a multi-step process. >> That's a great comment. Thank you both.
>> Okay, >> ready. So, just for an idea, DCA, as I indicated, DCA issued what was referred to as non-binding obligations. The non-binding obligation for the Burrow of Oakland was 300 for round four was 306 units.
We worked with the bureau to calculate an alternative obligation that was 252 units. Um there was an objection from the builder association. We went through uh process mediation, worked with the special adjudicator and the end result
was an obligation of 286 units which was a significant decrease in obligation. although it doesn't sound like it compared to a lot of other towns. So that was the round four obligation.
Every round has its own obligation. Every obligation is cumulative. Excuse me. The obligations are all cumulative for your affordable housing obligation. The official term is prospective need, but it's basically the affordable housing obligation. So you have a round
one and two obligation known as prior round. You have a round three obligation and a round four obligation. And if everything continues the way it is in the legislation, in 2035 you're going to have a round five obligation. And in
2045, you're going to have a round six. You'll see where this is going. This is continuing. I'm going to give you the numbers, but I think we're just going to talk about the round four obligation tonight. The numbers prior round obligation rounds one and two was 220
units. Your round three obligation was 462 units. Your round four obligation was 28 is 286 units. So >> So none of them >> and they never will be. I believe we have one that was built.
>> So plus 40 in LAR >> for you have the LAR. Yeah, you have LAR site which that's under construction. >> Yeah, but that's 40, >> right? So you have what you so you don't as everybody knows here I'm sure you don't have sewers right so there is a
process when there is excuse me there is a something within this process known as a durational adjustment which is a deferral for municipalities a deferral of an obligation for municipalities that don't have infrastructure either water or sewer or both for some municipalities
that may be in that situation. So >> ask a question. >> I'm happy. So >> you'll have an opportunity, >> Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to keep going, but I will say that the background noise gets just >> Yes, please. Everybody,
>> so you have Sorry, I just lost my place. The defer deferred >> the durational adjustment. I did the numbers a durational adjustment. You also have a 10-unit rehabilitation obligation which you meet through the rehabilitation program which is not
really worthwhile talking about much more than that. Just dealing with the round four perspective need we have the durational adjustment. However, we had the two challengers that came for we had three three developer challengers that came forward. One was a round three
site. So that's we don't need to speak about that one anymore in my mind. The other two are the round four durational adjustment challengers, Leone and McBride. So those two properties have
been are are within the plan provided they're able to somehow obtain either sewer services through an adjacent property owner or on site via the package treatment plan package treatment. So those are the two
properties that are within the plan. I'll go through them again. The burrow is proposing for reasonzoning of the two sites. The McBride site allowing McBride Hovan TV TDC, however you want to phrase it, 66.9 acres. We note that the
challenger claims that 27.5 acres are developable. Our analysis which is not based on anything official other than D information indicates that it's less than that. Obviously any formal application to the board would have all uh fully engineered plans de you know D
analyses things like that. Um so that would you know that would be resolved as we as the process should the process go forward. And at this time the burrow is proposing resoning of that site to allow a maximum of 240 units of which 20%
would be affordable. The developer Challenger has indicated it would provide its own on-site wastewater treatment plant tra. The other property is Leone Brothers 10 and a half acres steep slopes has steep slopes. Um and the bureau is proposing
resoning of 8 to permit a maximum of 85 units of which 20 would be affordable. Neither has provided a final concept plan. Correct. We still don't have final concept plans for either um to reflect the numbers that I have just told you.
Um we have a variety of concept plans from from both of them. Um, finally, in addition, the bureau has the burrow uh reszoned its an area of its what used to be called its central business
district, CBD. It's now called DT downtown 1, I believe. And we're um as part of this process proposing a slight density increase in that location as well. That's the Copper Tree Mall area along Ramapo Valley and areas along
Ramapo Valley Road. Of course, those uh nothing can be built there without sewers either, but it's just a slight resoning uh there of uh an increase in density to from 18 to 22 units an acre. That is really the meat and potatoes of
the plan. Um did you have was there anything you feel I missed, Mr. Chairman, or >> um just maybe a little procedure. So, you know, you're discussing the plan. We also have to go through each of these ordinances. which you did. You just gave
us a little brief, >> but we may have to go through those in a little more detail um when we actually uh discuss those. Um >> Yes. >> And >> yes, I don't disagree. >> Yeah. So, my I mean, my plan was now is once you finish with everything is to
have the board ask any questions and then I'll open to the public and have the public, you know, grill us with whatever questions they have. Um, and maybe we all need to understand those ordinances a little bit, like some of the details, some of the gory details of
those ordinances. Um, >> do you want me to go through them now? >> I think so. Yeah, I think I'd rather you go through all that. >> Which ones were questions? >> We'll go through We'll go through the appendices in the plan that contain the
ordinance. Is that Is that what you're asking me? >> Sure. >> Sure. Yeah. Okay. >> You want to tell people if they come in down here? >> No problem. >> Three seats over here. >> Some more seats. >> So, there is some room if if people want to come in. There's some room over on this side. Um rather than all up there.
There's a few seats scattered around if anybody wants to sit. >> So, appendix A actually is your rehabilitation manual. It's not an ordinance. Appendix B is the new affordable housing ordinance, including a development fee and mandatory set aside ordinance. This is based, this is
like a 40-page document based on a state template prepared by New Jersey DCA which was released on February 13th. Um it it's every town that's participating in this process needs to adopt new uh
just the general affordable housing and development fee rules because the state also issued new rules on those particular on certain aspects. Those were only the new rules were released in December. So, every municipality, like I said, has to update their affordable
housing ordinance, their development fee ordinance accordingly. We follow the state template, which has since been removed from the DCA website. Um, however, it's being encouraged that municipalities move forward and adopt this ordinance and amend as needed upon
review by uh Fair Share Housing Center. >> Qu December of what year? >> December of 2025. Just I want people to understand how fast this is moving. >> So what happened in December 15th of 2025 is there are rules
they are known as U-Hack which stands for uniform housing affordability control. They uh very much regulate affordable housing units uh size um location throughout developments, bedroom distribution. If you've ever
attended a meeting where there's affordable units being um discussed, someone like me will say something like, "Well, you have to have, you know, 20% three-bedroom affordable units and 30% two-bedroom affordable units." That's the U-Hack rules. New U-Hack rules
require integration throughout the development. For example, I believe LAR has a separate affordable housing building that is no longer permitted. affordable units per U-Hack need to be not only integrated but the same
they need to be integrated throughout the development. They cannot be clustered in one location or in one particular part of the development in particular that might be seen as a lesser part of the development a lesser and they need to be of the same unit
type. In other words, if you have a townhouse building, you need to have both market and and affordable town houses in that building. If you have a stack townhouse building, which would be one unit on top of the other, you have to have both market and affordable stack
town houses in that building. Those new rules, new uh hack rules were adopted, I think they were po published in the register December 15th, 2025. In addition, the development fee rules,
which are fees that are paid by uh for new homes, develop residential developments that do not include an affordable uh affordable units and new nonresidential uh development pay something called a
development fee. That money is uh deposited into a separate interestbearing account known as the affordable housing trust fund. uh municipalities that have development fees and have the uh account have to um to follow certain rules. Those rules are
collectively known as 599. Those rules also were adopted in December of 2025. the state template. Uh, this template was put out, like I indicated, by the DCA, Department of Community Affairs, on February 13th, which really gave everyone plenty of time to review and
prepare the draft ordinance, which had to be introduced just a couple weeks later. Um, of course, and now, as I indicated, it is my understanding that DCA has removed the template from its website. Um but municipalities are still encouraged to adopt the ordinance even
though DCA may be making some changes and there may be amendments required in the future. However, because we have the March 15th deadline that we state will not give an extension for municipalities need to move forward with
that with that ordinance and that's the that's the appendix B and I think like I said it's about 40 pages. Appendix Appendix C is the ordinance for TDC, which many of you know as McBride or Hovan,
that allows for creates a new affordable housing zone for this property. It allows for the construction of 240 residential units with um 20% set aside. The 20% would be affordable units
permits um stacked town houses, town houses and uh flats which multif family um with certain limitations. Also allows accessory type structures um
minimum tracted area 50 acres. There's setbacks etc. uh building height depending upon the type of development that it is if it's townhouse or flat. Um there are some
local ordinances that are not applicable to this uh due to >> they're being cost generated >> cost the developer request yeah the developer requested it. The ordinance also stipulates that the development shall be designed so that only im emergency vehicular access is permitted
from Page Drive. I don't know if anyone wants to Mayor did you want to >> Well, I just want to point out to the board members that um two of our ordinances, the steep slope ordinance is >> um and the tree removal uh ordinance are
not applicable to that development. >> That's correct. >> Based on the fact that their cost Courts have found that to be cost generative which is not permitted when it's an inclusionary development that's specifically prohibited by the the rules adopted by the state.
>> They get to break the rules. >> We break the rules. >> Yeah. Break the rules. >> Okay. You they you all have a chance to comment. >> Will that be soon? I have childare that I need to leave. If I can leave you pass or >> I'm sorry I I
>> It should be soon. We're getting close. Okay. So the ordinance you want to talk about you can talk about page but it was not you. >> No I would just go to the next one. >> The next one is the ordinance for the Leone property
on McCoy Road that permits 85 to units maximum not less than 17 or 20% would be affordable. permitting stacked houses, stacked town houses and traditional town houses. Um much of this was based on the
adjacent LAR ordinance. Um that's the that's Leone. Appendix E has to do with the DT1 zone which it's an increase in density and also clarification that the set aside is
20 the affordable set aside is 20%. As resolutions appendix G is uh sewer expansion timeline prepared by uh Boswell Engineering and also a traffic study of the Hovan which is also McBride. Um
they were prepared these do documents were prepared as part of the process of mediation and provided to the special adjudicator. >> There are other ordinances that aren't part of this. >> The DT2. >> Yeah. >> The other ordinance that's not an
appendix is the DT2 um which is a smaller downtown area. That is the only thing in that ordinance that's changing is it's not even necessarily changing. It's clarification that the set aside is 20, the affordable housing set aside is 20%. There's no
other changes proposed with respect to DT2. >> Okay. >> That's the ordinances. >> Okay. All right. Uh board members questions raise your hand if you have questions. Joe
>> with the uh 20% that's >> your mic on >> the 20%. That's the the maximum we can move it for. So the minimum the builder has to do. >> Yeah, we can't require more than 20. That's correct. We can't require more than 20%. >> That's the maximum we can enforce. >> That's the maximum we can do. That's
correct. >> The builder could on their own do more than 20 if they choose to, but there's zero incentive to uh do that. Correct. >> Zero incentive. I haven't had much experience with an with >> such an offer. And then one one other one other question is if we fail and
lose our uh uh >> immunity >> immunity. Uh could these three properties in theory come and do the same exact thing with like double the units? >> I was going to say they won't do the same thing because they're going to come back and >> but they could come and do >> and do Yes.
>> the same exact thing with like double the units and we couldn't stop them. >> Yes. Well then there would be court case. Yes. You go. Yes. >> Thank you. >> A double. Yes. double the units. They would not come in with what you're what you're seeing here would not be compromise, >> right? And not just these properties, by
the way. It's not just limited to these properties. >> It would be any property that was able to pro prove it could have some opportunity either for sewer or even maybe not necessarily could come forward and indicate that they have, you know, they have the solution to the the
situation and you don't have protection. That's why every that's why the towns that's why this March 15th deadline and that's why I keep harping about these aggressive deadlines because failure to meet one result failure to
meet a deadline such as June June of last year or March 15 Sunday next of you know however many days four days away >> Sunday failure to meet those deadlines results in a town have potentially losing its immunity.
Yet the deadlines are aggressive and unrealistic resulting in you know many municipal every town is doing some sort of special meeting be it planning board council or both. You can't otherwise get everything done you need to. Just to
follow up on that, the other thing that happens is if a developer or property owner is successful in a uh builder's remedy lawsuit, the municipality will wind up paying all of their attorneys fees and expert fees as well. And towns have paid literally millions of dollars
and and gotten much more development than they wanted because of those types of cases. >> So, we'd like to avoid that. >> And when that's all done, then they have to come back and adopt a housing element and fair share plan. So it doesn't absolve you of this whole process. You
after you know that's part of your settlement with the builder's remedy is then preparation of and adoption of the plan like what we're talking about tonight. >> I just wanted to make a statement. Everyone here is very passionate. This board and I'm sure the the council
board, we all think it sucks quite honestly. I'm I'm probably not allowed to say that word on TV, but but but we're we when you look at Oakland, we have a obligation of 968 units. Unrealistic.
>> Four, we have a obligation of 286. Right now, with these three sites, it's only going to build build out 82 units. If we do not adopt these tonight, these builders will come in and take them at
brides site and build 450 units >> and or more or more. And we'll have no control over what they do, >> you know. And again, I I'm passionate about do I want them? No. >> No. >> No one on this board wants them.
>> And I know no one out in the audience wants it, but our hands are tied behind our backs here. We and I have an obligation. I have an obligation. I have an obligation. >> You'll have your You'll have your time. I have an obligation sitting in this board to protect the residents of
>> comes in all the time with deadlines. Every time I'm at a meeting, there's always a deadline >> and it's always a few days before a deadline. >> And respectfully, these deadlines are established by the state by the legislature. These aren't my deadlines. >> These aren't my deadlines. I'm trying to make sure that everyone's aware. I'm
doing, you know, we're all trying to make sure because Oakland takes this seriously, we need to make sure that everybody's aware of the deadlines. That's what we're doing. These aren't Caroline deadlines. I didn't just wake up and think these, you know, >> and so do we all. But you're we're coming in. There's people that are here
now. We need to extend these deadlines. So, we collaboratively. >> I'm with you. I wish. But the state won't extend the deadlines. Maybe somebody here needs to go to the state. >> If you would like to if you would like to uh give us immunity and put up a couple million dollars, I I'll take your
offer right now. But no, and I'm being serious. No. No. Could I just need silence? >> No. I think we have to get control. >> Trying to keep things under control here. Everybody will have a chance to talk. >> Yeah. And again, you know, we're we're all in it. We're we're all in it
together. I'm here to protect Oakland as every board member here is. and the council and we're going to do what we have to do to protect protect the burrow of Oakland and I will vote that way and I thank Caroline for taking the heat. Uh thank you Caroline. I think it was a very good presentation. Thank you.
>> My pleasure. >> Okay, other questions, comments from the board before we open to public. >> I guess one one common question eventually the downtown development would satisfy a lot of affordable housing requirements, right? And that's
where we got the a durational uh extension uh or we can we can defer things we don't have sewers but the developing it downtown once sewers in place would uh address a lot of our >> absolutely affordable housing right you you have a lot of other things in your
round three plan that would address it as well but none of these things can move forward without sewers so that's why these two developments I think you know that's this is what distinguishes them a little bit is is what I believe happened is one is doing its it's taking
care of its wastewater on site and the other one is indicated it will go through an adjacent property. So, it's a little different, right, than >> I'm sorry. It's so hard to hear when there's noise, people, >> please.
>> Um, anybody else? >> Okay. Um, motion to open to the public for comments. >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. One by one. And try to limit your comments, please, to three minutes. I don't have a timer, but we just want to
make sure we're in, so I'll go as fast as I can. >> Thank you. address. Um, Abigail Jaxarn. I live at 17 Back Road. Can't hear her. >> Come on, quiet. Okay. >> I'm here today to express my concerns regarding the proposed development of the McBride and Leon properties. As a
resident of Oakland for 23 years, I've always valued our town's character as a peaceful treeine community nestled in the Ramo Mountains. However, recent increases in development and businesses have raised legitimate concerns about Oakland losing its distinctive identity.
While I recognize that many decisions are driven by state requirements, including compliance with the Mount Lurel Housing Act, it is important that we do not compromise the integrity of our town in the process. The ongoing construction adjacent to the Indian Hill School has already triggered significant
community concern, particularly due to its impact on local traffic and public safety. The anticipated rise in traffic from the proposed development will further strain our already constructed con congested streets. In light of recent tragic events involving child in
uh involving child safety, it is crucial that this remains a top priority. Our schools which are currently o over or at capacity would require reszoning to accom accommodate additional students. Specifically, the McBride property development would likely exacerbate
cut-th through traffic on Walnut, which my parents live on, and I'm here on their behalf tonight, Dogwood, and Grove Street. I understand the necessity of fulfilling state obligations to avoid penalties, but we also have to uphold our responsibility to safeguard our community. Although various stipulations
have been discussed regarding the McBride property, the potential negative consequences of such a development, including increased taxes and demands on our police force a subst are substantial. There is an upcoming project at the old Burger King site which would likely contribute further
traffic to congestion in an already busy area. As an alternative, I suggest the council considering engaging with owners of vacant buildings within our industrial park where repurposing existing sites would help uh would meet state mandates while preserving our town's natural beauty. Surrounding
communities such as Franklin Lakes have successfully utilized commercial properties for their affordable housing requirements, demonstrating that there are viable alternatives to new development. Additionally, the proposed McBride development site includes a stream and sensitive environmental areas
and Oakland already experiences frequent flooding. Further construction may increase these risks. I thank you very much for your time and your consideration. I appreciate the efforts that are being made by our Oakland board here to comply with state regulations
and I just continue to urge you guys to protect our unique character and our environment. Thank you so much. Before the next person speaks, Caroline, if you could I know a lot of people will have the same and they're valid concerns, the
school system >> and traffic. Okay. Now, obviously, these developments are going to increase demands on both of those. What What's our position on that? How can we what what if we decide that we're
>> we're not going to um vote for this because we our schools can't handle the capacity >> because your school is bursting at the seams, right? >> Yes. >> That's what >> so I've been hearing that a lot that everyone the schools are bursting at the seams and the answer unfortunately is always the same is that when it's that
is not a reason to not move forward with an affordable housing project or plan. Um in terms of the Mount Laurel doctrine, similarly um concerns about uh roadway, you know, traffic, um police force, you know, uh ambulance services,
etc. Those type of reasons are not those are not valid reasons to move forward to those are not valid reasons to not move forward with this. >> So I'm sorry there's >> in other words, this gentleman should come. In other words, those are our
problems to solve. >> Exactly. >> We have to provide the affordable housing. If we need to build another school, we need to add on to a school. We need to widen the road. >> You know, it >> it is my understanding that boards of education prepare long range plans looking at uh future development. I know
because often they contact us asking about, you know, developments in the pipeline, but that's a board of education, right, >> function. You also have a regional school, so I'm certain that the other municipalities um that uh lead into your
schools, I I'm sure fairly certain they're going through the same thing. >> Yes. >> Can I just ask a clarification that they brought up two questions? I I don't understand. >> Could you talk about state, name, and address? Stand up at the podium. >> A quick question. >> Yeah.
>> You talked about two key issues. Sewers and walk. >> Name and address. >> Name and address. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Chris McKenna, 60 Grove Street. >> Thank you. >> Talk about sewers and water. I'm having a hard time. First of all, I
don't understand how our water in Oakland is going to change. Are we getting more water? You know, where's this water going to come from? So, if you could make clarifications how we're going to address that. And second of all, explain the sewer system. You
know, you're using a technical term. It's a closed blah blah. What is it? What does it do? Where does it how does it work? How do who's going to take care of it? Who's when it breaks? Who's responsible?
And where's it going to go? Does it just disappear in the air or is it >> I think I'm an engineer. >> Exactly. But you know they're key issues you're talking about >> yet. Please enlighten us.
>> Thank you. >> You're up. >> John, may I Mr. Chairman? >> Yes, please. >> Yes. So um it is it is the developer's responsibility to satisfy the um supply of water for his or her
development or and to get rid of wastes. That is clearly the developer's responsibility. That is not a cost generative item as far as I'm concerned. So obviously to live there you have to provide these things. So the developers
have not yet proven to us that they have adequate water for these sites and they might not be able to prove that there's adequate water supply for these sites. We have not gotten that far yet.
And if there is not adequate water, they would have to build the infrastructure at their cost to supply the water for these sites. >> Excuse me. >> How do they build? >> Where did they get this water from?
>> Well, it's it's a it's a process. You need permitting from the D. uh they have to uh one scenario would be to build transmission lines from Violia from Franklin Lakes. So these are all
costs borne by the developer. Um, so in answer to your question with regard to what this sanitary sewer package plant is, it is basically a sewer treatment plant that is on site that is owned and operated by the
developer and eventually by the homeowners association and they would be responsible and at their cost to dispose of the waste. Um the Rampo River Reserve has a package plant that currently now
services 400 families on the other side of the Rampo River. >> So that operates and that is totally maintained and and the cost of that is by the homeowners association. So it's a small sewage treatment plant is what it is.
>> I hope I answered your question. And another an example of where a development a new development in Oakland by Indian Hills. They're getting their water from Franklin Lakes. They're sending their sewage to Franklin Lakes. So there's there's ways to work it out.
Um you know Oakland couldn't provide that for them, but Franklin Lakes could provide it. So >> Okay. >> And again, we're only we're not in the details yet of these of any developments. There's so much more to come, you know, if these properties are
going to be developed. There's a whole site plan application. There's all kinds of approvals that they need, you know, and you know, John just touched on a few of them. The water, where's the water? >> I I don't want to sound hopeful, but but I'm going to say this. our experience
has been uh being the town engineers in many other municipalities in northern Bergen County is that you hear about all these units and what typically not I won't I I want to use the word typically I I'll just say we've been seeing that
developments that do make it have much less units because it's not able to pencil out for the developer with all of this infrastruure. structure that they have to build. One case in particular, everybody in this room probably heard of
by county that was a buzzword a couple of decades ago here. Um that u probably will never never pencil out for the developer because of the amount of infrastructure that that developer would have to build for that site. So, I don't
want to sound hopeful, but there is a good potential that these sites might not be the magnitude that we're zoning for this evening. >> Mr. Chairman, uh just a question for Kimick, but there's a lot of new faces here that have not lived in Oakland. Could you just give a reference to where
the by county property is? >> The by county property is along the Wayne border um along off of uh Breakneck Road and further off of Long Hill Road. Thank you very much. I was getting there. I'm old. Um, thank you,
mayor. >> Hi, I'm Dr. Irene Burke. I've lived in town for 28 years. This could be very short. I was just stunned by the numbers that I just did of the 968 >> because by my calculations, that means 4,840
units >> would have to be built. That's correct. >> In Oakland, currently we have about 5,000 homes. So, double the homes. So when we talk about water, we're not talking about, you know, that someone's got to pay a water bill. We have well water.
>> Well water runs out. >> Okay? You look at Kennelan. Kennelan is having a desperate problem right now because they don't have enough water for the buildings that they have. Okay? Fortunately, they have some way to get around this building a building anymore is because they have some protected
lands there. Um the infrastructure cannot be overlooked. Okay. the roadways. >> Some towns say we can, you know, maybe you can. We have four lights in town. We have one main road. That is it.
>> Okay. We have five schools. That's a lot. All right. I don't know if everybody's aware of the number of very bad accidents that happened at the intersection of Paige and York this year. >> All right. Because of the I think the timing of the school may have contributed to that. Paige is an
extremely difficult and very dangerous road for people that don't live on that side of the town as I do at five Hannah. Paige is a double yellow line supposed to be 25 miles an hour. It's rarely anything less than 50. All right. There are no sidewalks. I walk my dog. The
road has been recently riddled by the utility companies with pothole patches. Mother's Day 2024. Walking my dog. I tripped over one of those. I broke my collar bone. All right. I'm a fairly physically fit person. I don't believe
that they're not going to come through Paige. I don't know where. Do we know where they're coming through? They want to come through. They propose. >> Damn. Someone does. Anybody does things. >> Okay. They're talking about their waste water that they're going to take care of
this affluent waste water and it's going to drain somewhere. Yes. It won't have bacteria in it, but it'll have chemistry in it. Chemistry from people's medications, chemistry from cleaning. Yes, the Rampo Reserve also has its own that empties into the Rampo River. If we
build 4,840 units >> and start dumping that water into the Rampo Reserve, which is supposed to be somehow protected, I'm saying to the board, instead of saying that we won't meet obligations, pass these silly ordinances tonight just so you don't get in trouble on the 15th, keep your
immunity, and then start going after things like saying Oakland is not a regular Bergen County >> town. We don't have water. We don't have sewers. True. But we also have environmental concerns that are going to be absolutely destroyed >> if this comes in like this.
>> This 968 units, builders don't want to build it because they want to make profit. >> Exactly. >> They want profit. So maybe we can look for builders to say, "Hey, listen. Come build these 948 units for us, not 4,840, >> and the town will subsidize." Or maybe
we sue the state to subsidize. You know, there's got to be a different way of thinking around the back end, not just going, I know they're just throwing all these unrealistic numbers at you and you're trying to make these things go and I understand that. I mean, you guys could be working all weekend, but we
have to stop thinking the way they want us to think and come around the back door and say why we can't have this and it will destroy the If you go and look on page, there's two more houses today up for sale. >> Houses going to start popping up for sale when they start seeing this. And it's not because I don't want a
three-story building. I don't run run out of water. Not to mention the fact this is my first year after all these years. I've had every night two to three dozen deer in my backyard. This year, my deck and two other neighbors, the deer
were sleeping under our decks. They have nowhere to live. >> They have nowhere to go. >> They have nowhere to live. So if you get the bride property, less McDonald's took away, the high school took away. Anyhow, that's my point. I have to sit down. Good evening. Uh John Scurbo, 77 Spear
Street. I am the president of the K through8 school district. I've actually had the pleasure and honor to serve on that for 21 years now. I've made it perfectly clear in the past and I'll state it again. Allowing these types of projects will have a terrible impact on our school district. My board has
informed me to come here and speak to you tonight because they have major concerns as well. You can make a comment that we have long range plans and that's absolutely correct. We always have. We even have long range plans financially and that's why our district is solid and doesn't have the issues that exist in
other towns where they're laying people off in the near future because they've managed their money improperly. The fact of the matter is we're very successful. People move here for our schools. We are at capacity and above. When you sprung
on us and let me just say this, the mayor and council have been tremendous in sharing information and our partnership. I am very pleased with where we are. The fact of the matter is last time we were sprung on a project very last minute with the high school which had major impact on the school
district where we had to lay out $10,000 for a demographic study out of pocket which we didn't have in our budget. We actually had to make an arrangement with OOLPH for 300,000 a year at least for five years to make sure that we have the availability and the space for our
children to grow and learn. And now we're having these projects look forward uh that are going to have a major impact on us as well. We've converted locker rooms to small class instruction. We've converted storage rooms to small class instruction to accommodate our children
and every aspect that they need. The fact of the matter is that's cost us several hundred,000 and if you believe that these projects are going to come in and these students are going to arrive in our district, we're going to have to go forward for a referendum. Now, we looked at a referendum that cost $25
million when we were sprung on this last project to build onto our existing buildings, all of them. The board decided that there was no way we're going to bring that to the community and have that financial impact on them and the taxes. But going forward, if these projects come in, I will guarantee you
we will have to look at every option available to accommodate these children because right now we are full in our buildings and you add any more to what we have, we got a major problem. And the fact is that we have to look at every option available to us. And ultimately the community and this town and these
taxpayers will have to suffer the the consequences of that. But the fact is also that because this school district is so successful and has a great reputation, people move here for that reason and the values of their homes in this community are affected greatly by
that fact. The only other option that people have is to look elsewhere. And to be honest with you, this is the community to be in. So I would ask you to consider that going forward in all these projects that are being brought up to you because where is the money going to come from for the schools? We don't have it. Our budget is tight as it can
be and the fact of the matter is our buildings are as well. So I'm going to ask you to please keep that in mind going forward. I continue to ask you for the the cooperation, partnership, and the continuing of sharing information as you have. But the fact is that right now we have a major problem on our hands
that these projects are true because you know for a fact that these children will be coming into our district and we have an obligation to serve them in every possible way to make sure they get the best education possible. Thank you. just have a brief statement then I just have a question for the planning board.
Uh good evening. My name is James Bar. I live at 170 Page Drive. I'm the one that posted some of this on Oakland neighbors and thank you all for saying sorry for what's about to happen to my property. Uh I want to thank the mayor, the burough administrator, and the burough attorney for meeting with me and several of our neighbors. Again, we're in the
crosshairs of this last week. It was very helpful during what's been a very difficult and concerning situation for our neighborhood. While I've only lived in Oakland for less than two years with my wife Mel and our two young daughters, my family's connection to this town goes back decades. My grandparents, Robert and Francis Hunt, lived at 84 Walnut
Street for almost 60 years, and I spent much of my childhood here in a Dogwood section. After nearly three years of searching for a home in what's been a horrible market and a very difficult time, my wife and I were fortunate to find our house at the quiet dead end of Paige Drive next to what the burrow has
previously described as the undevelopable McBride property, also known as the Sand Pit. It's a peaceful area filled with young families, children playing outside, neighbors walking throughout the day. In its current form, the location of our neighborhood is an A+. The neighbors are
even better. Receiving the recent notice about the proposed development of the sand pits was deeply concerning. After finding the preliminary plans, it appears that Judith Lane, currently just a small access drive for myself and my neighbor Sandy, could become one of the
main entrances to a townhouse development. The plan also suggests excavating the steep wooded hill, which is so steep I can't even walk my dog up there because she'll fall. She's tiny. The plan beside my property and building town homes along our property lines,
essentially surrounding my neighbor's house with town homes. What I thought was a dream looks like I just introduced my children and my wife into a nightmare. This would dramatically change our neighborhood and our property values. Grove Street already experiences traffic from drivers cutting through to
avoid Ramapo Valley Road, adding another cut through from the business part to Page Drive, which significantly increased traffic in an area where children play and pedestrians walk daily. Oakland already tragically understands the dangers that excessive traffic can bring to our residential neighborhoods. In saying that, I'd like
to thank the town for understanding this, at least putting in the ordinance that Page Drive can only be used for emergency access to this proposal. So far, I expect the town will continue to do what's right for our neighborhood and stand firm on that issue to the end. I want to be clear. From what I've seen in
this development, it's unacceptable. The proximity to our homes, the use of Judith Lane, essentially my front yard, as an entrance shows an absolute disregard for the privacy, safety, and character of our neighborhood. We pay a premium to live in a neighborhood where we can enjoy our privacy and walk the
roadway without fear. We should never be asked to compromise on these important quality of life issues. Over the past week, I've spoken to many neighbors who share serious concerns about traffic safety, environmental impact, the impact on our privacy, and a long-term impact on our community. I look forward to
working with these neighbors through this project, and the council to address these issues. Again, my expectation is the Burough of Oakland will do everything in its power to protect our neighborhood from this irresponsible planning and the overdevelopment that threatens the safety, character, and quality of life of our community. And
thank you for your attention to this matter. I do just have one question, especially as it pertains to Page Drive. As of right now, Judith Lane can barely fit the garbage truck down here. My daughter laughs hysterically and watches it every morning. Would the town utilize imminent domain or the easement area to
facilitate the use of Judith Lane in any capacity? Has that been discussed or in any plan? >> Has not been discussed. It's not in any plan. We haven't gotten into any kind of detail like that. As you said, we we do have it in our ordinance to exclude that access.
>> Okay. My understanding is the developer was pretty steadfast on making that a main entrance. Is that something the town will >> He wants that as an entrance. >> Yes, he does. >> Okay. But my my question is understanding these concerns. I know Ryerson has an emergency access point there with just the gate. They recently
moved more rocks over there to prevent people from going around it. I walk down there almost every day. We understand what's going to happen if that opens up from the business park to people from Wayne and now 250 town homes of what that whole area is going to turn into. So again, my expectation is that's a
fight that's worth having to the end. Uh that's not something that we >> think the burough intends to fight that. >> Mr. Chairman, if I could just add something to that. Uh the bureau actually commissioned uh Boswell Engineering to do a a traffic study which we made part of the record. We presented to the court and to the
special adjudicator and despite that, the special adjudicator in her report stated that she believed that that was appropriate access. So >> that's my point. >> I know, but >> we're going to keep fighting. >> It's something worth fighting for.
doesn't live here. >> Somewhere. >> Yeah. And and as clearly these people making these decisions, have any of them stepped foot in Oakland to even see what the is like? I mean, it's >> the McBride have actually owned that property for >> I know for decades. >> And I' I've been on this board, I think,
for 28 years. They've come in front of us numerous times for different proposals. There was always something going to be built there. And it was mostly more recently, you know, more of a highdensity condo type development, but they just never >> Have they ever asked for the use of Judith Page in the back?
Now I'll tell you what happened though before you know early on they were able to access that property through through Ramipo Valley Road between the diner and the tire place. They actually own that rate, you know, easement through there,
>> but they changed um the D has modified >> the uh uh the buffers between uh streams and um there's a C1 what they call C1 stream runs down there and >> they they can't develop that piece of property now. So, they can't come in
Rampo Valley Road. Had they done this 10 20 years ago, >> they would come in and I I I also heard before litigation across the town. I've talked to many people in here. I'd say 90% of them it's for that very reason is opening a page drive. >> So if TDC is watching, that's why we're
all here very upset. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Jeff Schwarz, 172 Long Hill Road. Uh we bought the house in 1987. We've raised our kids here uh Dogwood side.
The bycounty development was going to be next door to my house going in. New traffic light on Long Hill Road. Rightway, which comes out of the office park was going to be made from a oneway to a two-way street. They were going to take part of my front yard to widen Long
Hill Road, make a turning lane into that. Long story short, we successfully fought that development and we can fight these developments. My question is not about affordable housing. I did want to get clarification though
if if the Page Drive you mentioned going in through Page Drive is going to be cut off by ordinance and all that. The entrance to the McBride is where? >> Thornton Road, right? at the end of Thornton where the culde-sac is next to file bank
>> and by the water tower >> through the industrial >> that would through through the office park we don't call it industrial not to clarify just just to clarify the the ordinance stipulates emergency vehicles through page drive through page
>> not nothing through not no no traffic through page drive emergency access correct emergency vehicular access >> so that's good that's great that eliminates the whole grove yo page H drive traffic. But what that does mean is all the traffic is going to come up
and down Long Hill Road uh in and out of the office park >> from both Colonial and Franklin Lakes that way down Breakneck Road up in Long Hill Road. I watch I'm I'm literally the the Jeep Blue House across the street
from the office park. I don't think everybody knows. And I watch every morning when people drop their kids off or at school at Barnstable. There are now two schools, three schools in the office park. Everybody comes out and makes an illegal left onto Longill Road
because they don't want to go down Thornton and Bower and wait at the traffic light, which is always back. Tons and tons and tons of traffic. Now we're going to have tons more traffic. >> So my question is not about affordable housing or anything like that. My
statement is more that thank you to you guys on the board of adjustment, the mayor, the town council fighting all these developments. This is not about any one of these developments and it's not about affordable housing. Unfortunately, there are state laws and
we don't have a choice. We've got deadlines and we have to pass these ordinances. But that doesn't mean we have to have these developments. >> True. >> They can all be shot down. They can all be taken off the table if we make it too
expensive for the developers to keep fighting. True. What we did with B County is we made them fight for years and years and years and they finally walked away. Another developer came in. We did the same thing. They fought and they walked away. remember every time
they send a lawyer or attend a meeting or have to go through these, >> you know, maturations to do all this stuff, it cost them a huge amount of money. All right? I don't care if they're from Texas or from around the corner. Make them fight. Stand up. Join
the groups. This is great. Look how many. We got standing room only all the way out the door. This is terrific. This is what we need to keep doing in the future. And we know that none of you want these developments either. So, thank you for fighting and everybody
keep on fighting. We're going to set up a group on Facebook that's just about fighting the developments. All right? So, we can all get together and if we're like this at every meeting and we have to move the meetings to the senior center because there's more room, which
is what we had to do with by county because so many of us showed up. You got to show up. All right, that's the important thing. You have to show up at these meetings and tell these people that we don't want it. We've got steep slopes. We've got environmental concerns, schools,
traffic. Make them do all these studies that cost them money and eventually they're going to walk away. And that's what we need to continue to do. So, thank you everybody here. Hi, my name is Sandra Sor Si. I live at
168 Page Drive. Um, I've lived in Oakland since 1992. I've lived on Grove Street for 20 years. I've lived on Hickory. In 2018, I bought what I thought was the most beautiful property in Oakland. Um, unfortunately, that property shares about 600 ft border with
the McBride property. >> Can't hear you. Can you talk louder? >> My property shares 600 ft of border with the McBride property. It runs my whole side yard and down my driveway. So, I'm one of two houses that exit onto Judith
Lane. Um, so I have, you know, obviously I have personal concerns, but my broader concerns, which I'll talk about here specific to this issue, are the environmental impacts. Um, so,
okay. My well, I understand the need for the Burough of Oakland to comply with the Mount Rural Doctrine. The doctrine explicitly says affordable housing obligations do not require environmentally destructive planning and I feel like there's no planning in
certain instances. So when we talked about the elimination of the protections for steep slopes and um and tree removal that was to me it seemed like it was a cons well it was a concession made to this developer and this developer only
and it appears that it was not based upon any studies engineering studies but based upon the developer saying it was cost prohibitive or I'm not sure what that term is that they use. So it seems like there was a fold on that for this developer. So I want to understand like
how this is consistent with the burough's master plan and environmental policies. Why was it given to this developer only? >> Yeah, great question. >> Do you want me to try to answer it? >> Yeah.
It's it's a very difficult thing that this board has to struggle with because when we go to approve these ordinances, you're right, we have, you know, our job is to um uh look at what's in the ordinance and say, is it
>> is it in conformance with our master plan, right? >> So, when you see something like a steep slope ordinance being eliminated, you know, you say, you know, that's not in conformance with the master plan, right? So you have to I guess look into it a little bit deeper. You you you have to
um say okay also in the master plan is you know we're you know we're agreeing to provide affordable housing. So in order to do that we can't be putting cost generative you know items on a developer to try
that could you know possibly you know reduce our affordable housing. Um, >> so it's pulling over to the developer and ignoring the environmental impacts of it. >> It's a compromise. So, okay, compromise.
So, we might we may have to um uh eliminate the steep slope ordinance, but that doesn't mean that the developer is going to build all over steep slopes because for a developer to build on steep slopes is very expensive. There's a lot of earth moving. there is a you
know all kinds of costs associated with it. So the developer is not looking to build on >> yeah and and the big thing about the McBride property there's obviously serious sensitive environmental issues there right I'm chairman of the town's environmental commission too so and you
I work I'm in the environmental field >> okay >> that property is going to have to get D permits now the D permits Mr. Schwarz uh you know we remember uh you know I testified with you back then when we were successful the DP is going to come
in and have a public meeting on this on should the property move ahead because like the burough engineer said this thing may p not pencil out at all okay >> we have to put the ordinance in place to to to meet our obligation but there's a lot of steps and we were successful okay
>> uh back 20 years ago for by county because DP came in gave a public meeting we had a crowd like this there And it was wonderful. Everyone came up there and talked about the environmentally sensitive issues that can really affect it. And you know what? The DP listened. They have the power that we can't. They
ones that we're that's where you make your pitch and your best statement. >> Very environmental >> and I am totally on board with all the environmental sensitive issues there. There's constraints. It's called we got to see one stream, we got wetlands, we got steep slopes. But DP is going to be
the important player when if I should say if this thing eventually goes to a site plan. When it goes to a site plan, that's when everyone comes makes their comments about the site plan. The DP will have a public hearing and we have been successful in past. So don't give up.
>> I won't. And I I do want to make clear I appreciate your efforts. I know that you've worked very hard to get to this point and I appreciate the time the mayor has spent with me personally and my neighbors to talk to us. So, thank you. I just, >> you know, hope you do what's best for the town.
>> Thank you. >> Morin Walters, 176 High Wasa Boulevard. Then I appreciate I didn't realize you were so involved in the environment, but I I want to know I'm assuming there was an environmental study done on the area if it was released to the public. And
I'd also like to know if it included our endangered threatened animals of Oakland. And I've been living here for 30 years plus. I've been in the sand lot studying a bobcat survey over 22 years
ago that was done right off of Fox off of Paige. So, I'd like to know the environmental impact study you had done for the American Castrol B owl red shoulder hawk and a bobcat which there was also one found dead right off of the skyline
um exit which is also a corridor from West Milford that comes up through Burger King by the bank there >> up to the sand hill lots. I've had people tell me I actually do mountain line studies, but bobcats were in that
area. And uh, you know, originally I was looking for bog turtles when they were building, you know, 20 years ago. But I I want to know if there could be an impact study done on these animals. I'd happily do it for free, but I'm one
person, so I'd like to ask. I don't live in that area. I'm on the other side, but you can easily get owl calls at night if it's a barred owl. >> We do. >> The bobcats >> I call my camera. >> The the bobcats sound like a a girl being murdered at night and that's why
the woman called me. I get these crazy calls and they and they literally on Fox I don't know there's a couple houses. They were all out there thought somebody was being murdered. And then, you know, I asked her if I could hang a dead chicken in her yard and she looked at me
a little crazy because it was at preschool. But I'm just saying, you know, these animals do exist there. They're all protected. Um although the bobcat from endangered to threaten this year, just in a year. But the cast I've seen there. B owls I've seen there. Red
shouldered hawks. I wasn't too sure. I thought I saw one there. But I I really like an environmental study done on the animals for here as well as the people because you know they all bought this property with the aesthetic value of not having neighbors in their backyards and a nice place to hike
>> and you know what are they going to get back they're going to have town houses all this we all know we've all heard it but we have to look at it you know to go on the woman who spoke before me on an environmental perspective and raise this red tape because these animals do exist
here and I'm willing to approve it. I just need help from some of the residents and I just want permission to set up cameras on McBride Sandlot area. >> Just so you know, there's nothing proposed right now. There's no project proposed. So at that when that time
comes, there'll be a lot of >> like Mr. Haymon mentioned environmental stud up. But I, you know, I would really like permission to go. I've been on that property for years. It's been a while and I was doing large cat studies here
off a colonial road uh 25 years ago and it led to the bobcat here. So either way, you know, uh I'm looking out for our our people, but I'm also looking out for our animals. And I'd like an environmental impact study for the threatened animals that do exist in
Oakland. I mean, you're going to plow down a bunch of, you know, you have these empty buildings, right, in Oakland, like everyone's saying. Let's use the empty buildings and the spaces that we have before we plow down a bunch of land off of what our town is named
for Oakland. These these old oak trees, you know, and we just keep plowing them down. So, you know, I would like an environmental impact study, not only just on the slopes and the watershed, but on the animals that exist there. And we're not even talking about the
insects, the little skipper, you know, the blue skin dude. There's a lot of things. I'm just talking about the mammals and some of the birds that are there that people can just, you know, record on their phone. It's just as good. A call is just as good as seeing it. Okay? They're all identified
by that. We just have to prove that they're there. >> That's it. Thank you. >> Hi, I just have a question. Um, my name is Stacy Mleier. I live on 15 Midair Lane. I've lived here it'll be 25 years this year. >> Um I just piggyback on what the first
speaker said and what she just said. Why can't we use existing buildings to build these these units? Why do we have to build so many units? Because the builder wants to make so much money. >> Why why isn't there a compromise? We have a lot of empty space in Oakland. >> If I can answer that, Mr.
It's because under the process that was adopted by the state in 2024, we have to acknowledge the people that objected to the plan and there were three objectors. So, we have to deal with them. None. There were no other owners of buildings that came forward uh to say, you know,
we're we're proposing or we would permit uh affordable housing or housing of any kind to be built on our sites. So, we were obligated to deal with these objections. >> That was two years ago. Did anyone approach them again? I'm sorry. >> I don't know how it works, but can we revisit that?
>> It's the challenge process. They they're the ones who came and challenged the plan >> uh during the two-month process, the uh these three developers, these three property owners. So, that's >> it's a process. It's a process that was established by the legislation.
>> Can't do anything about it. >> It's just a number. Doesn't mean we have to hit it. >> Knock down all these developments. >> Okay. All right. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Good evening. I'm Steven Quinn, 70 Grove Street. I just have a quick question.
Has there been any discussion on opening up the paper road section of Neielson a for development into the McBar property off street? >> There's been no discussion about that. It might be environmentally. >> Yeah, I think it's in a wetlands area
myself, but I'm not sure. But no, there has been no discussion about that. Hi, I'm Christian Lionelli, 81 Irakquay F. Um, I've lived in this town my whole life. I was born, raised, and am raising my children. Um, I appreciate everything everyone is doing, and I know that if
the time comes, we can't stop it. Um, but to echo what the board president said, my concern is the schools. Um, I'm an elementary school principal in a town that has met many of their requirements with affordable housing. Um, and my school was bursting at the seams. Three
years ago, we had to go to the taxpayers for a referendum. They were not happy, but they passed it, thank God. Um, and we have room for all of our students. Um, but it was scary because if they didn't pass it, we didn't have room for them. Um, and that's a very intimidating
thing as a school leader and also as a parent. Um, and it's a concern that I have for my children and for everyone's children and grandchildren who are in this room. So my ask is very simple and it might be ridiculous and not an option but if there is a way if this all goes through and a day comes when they're
building is there a way to require any of these developers to put an initial investment into our schools um or someone to help us because it's it will be impossible for us to if you do the calculations on the number of units and
the anticipated number of students it's always far more than what they predict and we will not be able to fit So that is just I I know it's probably not an option but I do just want to mention it and hopefully it all works out. So thank you. >> Thank you.
>> The answer chairman is it it would not be legal to do that. >> Correct. >> Hi Carrie Rogers Lax 22 Grove Street. Um I just have a couple of questions but I want to start by thanking everyone involved for the work that you've done thus far. It sounds like from the point at which they released the numbers,
there's been an enormous amount of effort to whittle them back to try to do what can be done. So, thank you for that. Um, I'll second that I think we need to continue to fight with everything we have, every burrow um board, the council, etc. But I have a
couple of quick questions. Um, when we met um with the mayor and we were speaking with Mr. Giblin, there was some discussion of I had asked about um uh green acres money or open space funding. Um it let's say this drags on forever,
this block 3401 the McBride property and um if we wanted to put together a proposal to purchase that property with green acres money, my understanding is once it's reszoned as affordable housing that um that's no longer available. Greenacres funding isn't available. We
kind of broached this but we didn't kind of dig under it and I believe someone said that there was effectively um there could be remedies for that. Is there anyone who can address that that if we reszone this I understand we need
to if we reszone this and then it drags on and on and on and there's an opportunity maybe to put this together. What does that look like? How is there a legal process? I >> I am not aware of it. I've never been through that process before and I've
been doing this a long time. >> Okay. >> So, it's it's just something that doesn't usually happen. >> Okay. >> So, I don't know the answer. >> Okay. >> Um and just two other quick questions. Earlier this evening, um someone brought up could we reszone the office park um
to allow for housing there. And um also it was stated about expanding the downtown and that it was the sewer expansion that we were waiting on and then we could take advantage of the zoning we already put in place for the downtown. Uh can we reszone the office park to
allow an overlay at least for residential housing and or reszone it entirely? And what does that what's happening I guess with the sewer? When will that downtown be developable? Where are we with kind of that that process?
I'll let you take the same question. >> Oh boy. >> So um sewers um as it is difficult for a developer to obtain permits and permission for sewers. It is also difficult for municipalities with the D to obtain permission
um for sewers. uh having and having said that so there's two components one it's it's money and the cost of building the infrastructure for the sewers and also we have to have cooperation with the uh
Northwest Bergen County Utilities Authority. We also have to demonstrate about um water reallocation uh with the D. So without getting into too many gory details, there are still multiple steps that have to be taken
place in order for us to see um a project um come to fruition. Um right now, you know, the costs are exorbitant to have that take take place.
We are still working on it. We're still working with the water reallocation and and what the water reallocation is is that um we would have to um compensate for the amount of water that
is going into the ground as part of all the septic systems and have to purchase water from another entity in order to compensate for that. That has costs associated with that. um those costs are
quite exorbitant and plus we have to get permission for that. So there are are many steps still have to take place uh to get to that that point. So um I I can't say how many years at this point.
When I first got here eight years ago, they said we'll have them in eight years. So, um I I don't mean to be comical about this, but >> uh it almost seems like there every every step we try to take in that direction, there seems to be more
regulations that come about that prevent us from doing that. So, I I I know that that's not an acceptable answer, but that's the way it is. >> Is there anyone who can address the uh office park zoning? You know, I it's an interesting, you
know, something that maybe we should look into a little bit more. You know, not not that it impacts what we're doing right now, but >> we still have to deal with the objectors who file their objections within time and still have >> handles. That's the issue. We can't replace >> I understand. I think that's I think
while everybody and I maybe I'm wrong, but what the impression I'm getting is that while everyone's asking about other buildings, they're not the question is really can we replace one of these two with the other buildings and the answer to that is no. So I'm I but um that's an
interesting question. Should future overlay and that's the areas you know that could be considered for future overlay zoning but not >> but then I have a kind of crazy followup. if it would take that many years for them to develop some of these other properties, right? Because they've got all kinds of constraints.
>> I know this is pie in the sky, but if we beat them to the punch and met our number with things that aren't maybe as constrained, >> when we meet that number, do we meet that number and they can pound salt or no? >> Because we already have the agreements and they have to be allowed to develop.
>> The the point for us is not to meet the number. It's to make a realistic opportunity for other developers to meet the numbers. So the burough doesn't have to go out and build a single unit, right? We have to do zoning that makes it, you know, a reasonable opportunity.
That's all the burrow is trying to do. >> If that gets done some other way, >> yeah, as long as we're immune, again, if we get past the March 15th deadline and we get substantive certification from the court, from Judge Caren, we're done until 2035. That's what we're looking
for, >> right? >> So, you know, there's a lot of things that could happen during that 10-year period, but it gives you that 10 years to make those other kinds of arrangements. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hi, everybody. Pete Pete Miselli, 48
Cherokee Trail. Uh, also a trustee on the K through8 school board. Um, I I didn't want to make this meeting a minute longer than it needed to be. Uh John spoke eloquently uh on behalf of the school board. Dr. here made some comments and Mr. Schwarz, I just wanted to echo a couple of those things. All
right. So, number one, $25 million, right? Remember that number because that was the cost of the bond that we didn't put before the town uh a couple of years ago when we started to really realize that development was coming and we were going to have our schools overloaded.
$25 million. alternatives like uh you know other buildings, other areas uh fighting fighting and buying time uh I I think is is what I would like to be on record as as being supportive of. We as a school board uh in in lie of uh
expanding the schools and spending that money uh we negotiated with OLPH to utilize their school. So it did provide us with some relief. It's not a uh it's not a a fix to absorb 4,000 new homes or 900 affordable units or wherever we land. Uh so think outside the box, be
creative. We don't have any other churches with schools that aren't being utilized, I don't think, in uh in Oakland. So we need to uh just continue to to think outside of, you know, just rolling over and uh and accepting it. So appreciate the time. Appreciate your guys' time and I appreciate the council
as well. This has been a close partnership. I want to make sure I'm on record as as understanding appreciating everybody's uh uh we're all fighting for the same thing here. So, thank you. >> Hi, Jeff Lroski, 34 Oak Street. I just have a clarification. Um earlier
tonight, you mentioned that um the robber property was zoned as RA4 AH. Is that correct? >> I think it's five. That's off the top of my head. Right. I'm sorry if I did. >> It is. It's definitely re It was reszoned for an inclusionary type
development. I might have given the wrong zone name. >> Yeah, I believe you did and I just that threw me. So, >> is it five in your >> In my there's an ordinance that specifically describes that. >> Correct. >> Um
>> that even talks about Tune and Oak Street. >> It's R A5 ah. You're correct. Thank you. >> Okay. That is that was my question. Thank you very much. >> Hi. Um my name is Joe Qualia. I live at 31 Long Hill Road. Um I just moved here
uh a year and a half ago actually with my wife. Uh just want to thank everyone. I've clearly moved into a passionate community that you guys care about care about your community and making sure it's a good quality of life. We just had a baby boy about four weeks ago. Um so
hearing about the impacts potential impacts to school schools is obviously concerning. Uh was not fully aware of that. I'm just getting to know the community. Um thanks everyone for explaining that. Uh this is a place we intend to raise our raise our our son and uh you know have a good uh a good uh
education. Um, also, uh, something I can speak to, my property is adjacent to, uh, this this McBride property. Um, I can speak to environmental impact. Just in the past year and a half, um, it's it's truly an incredible piece of
property. Uh, Mr. Haymon, I believe you mentioned you speak about from the environmental side. I know there is a natural aquifi aquifer under the property um with fresh water um and native New Jersey brook trout uh which I believe are protected. Uh we've seen b
owls, we've seen bears, we've seen foxes, we've seen coyotes. Um we have seen uh too many animals to count. I keeping a notebook. Um it it's it's a really special piece of property from an environmental standpoint. I understand uh you know we don't own the property
and another party owns the property and um but I I I guess just want to go on the record and say the environmental impact should be very closely cons considered um and adequate studies performed just so you understand um that
property is 66 acres and I think maybe 25 acres we're saying might be so 40 plus acres of that property will never be touched. >> Okay. And it's because of that stream that you mentioned and the buffers around that stream. That's the main reason. So, >> okay.
>> So, that's a good news. >> I understand. I you know, one thing that we've kind of thought about that, but the, you know, water, sewage, runoff, uh, waste from construction and and just general living impacting those those streams coming, you know, down down from
the because, you know, it's top of a hill. Um, would be a consideration. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, everybody. Hi. Um, I'm Trisha Pachowski. I live at 34 Oak Street. How's everyone? >> This has been very civilized. I just
have a lot of respect for the way the town is uh communicating with one another tonight. I think it's terrific. We should be proud of our example. Um, do everybody remembers Hurricane Floyd in 1999?
I'm still getting over it. But um in uh when I got uh saved by the National Guard after 2 days at the radio station in Pompton Lakes, we tried to stay on the air as long as we could. Uh our
generator was underwater, but we made it. We still were able to help out. Uh they took me up and then someone was able to drive me from somewhere on West Oak Street past Burns Hardware to get back to my home. And Burns Hardware's
door was wide open. The lights were on. It was nighttime with a sign that said, "Take anything you want. It's fine." And the community respected it. So why am I mentioning that? So everybody remembers how intense that flood was. I probably
am wrong. My memory is really bad, but didn't the Army Corps of Engineers do work on the Grando River area so they could help Pomped Lakes and us from the runoff up the hill? >> Yes, sir. >> Will building on the property behind my
house on Oak Street >> in that patch of woods that's back there, will that have any impact on runoff? Think of Wilbert Mall when they built that in the 60s. I was on a wetlands area which why that was over approved. No one will know but it's
underwater a couple times a year itself. What about the properties down from us? Now my house doesn't flood. Oak Street, believe it or not, is a little hill. It's on an incline. So I'm safe, but I'm actually concerned about the integrity of the work that was done
along the banks of the Ramapo. how it will affect the gates down by the falls in Popton. I had people show up at the radio station after the water receded that were in tears cuz they had nowhere else
to go or what to do. I went past their houses a few days before that in a boat and the water was up to the roof line of two uh twotory homes. So, do we have to check with the Army
Corps of Engineers or whomever was in charge of that abatement to make sure that more people, more structures will have any impact on it? Do you know what I'm saying? >> I know what you're saying. >> Yeah, I I my memory is so bad I forget half what I'm saying.
>> So, we're not at that stage yet with that site, but we'll go through a whole site plan approval process if the developer moves forward. And I think Mr. Kim can answer your question about the runoff. >> Okay, great. >> Yeah. So um the that would come under
the D regulations the current re uh D regul regulations would which get stricter every 1 to two years um and they've just recently got more stricter is that um that area is forest and the
uh developer once he takes the trees down he has to actually reduce the amount of runoff coming off of the property. uh even though he has impervious pavements and the amount of reduction is significant uh we're talking you know 20
30 sometimes 50% for the certain types of storms so um that's a D function that reviews that they're very strict with that and so all the runoff from those surfaces will probably be uh transferred
to for ground saturation to recharge the aquifer. Um, but I can't I can't we're not at that point quite yet or not even close to that point yet. >> It's just something to consider. >> It will go through a whole a whole study, a drainage study >> if the council needs assistance uh
researching or finding contacts from any of the officials, whether it's the Army Corps of Engineers or what have you. I'm fairly resourceful. I'll be happy to reach out. I just keep talking to the answer. How you doing? Dave Richardson, 320 Rample Valley Road. Um, I grew up in
this town. I've been here a long time and I've watched it change from a little one-horse town to what it is now, >> right? And it's it scares me, right? What's going on with the traffic? I I live right across the street from the library. I can't get out of my driveway in the morning or in the afternoon.
>> There's 20, 30 cars all the way out both ways. I got to hope somebody's going to let me out. What's going to happen with all these, you know, these new uh these new cars and these new families moving in? Right. The gentleman down there with the black top on, you were here before. Do you live at the bottom of Long Hill
Road? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Right. The house in the back. >> Uh yeah, exactly. >> Yeah. That was old Doc Mitchell's house. I used to fish that stream back. >> Right. There's when I understand when McBride was going to develop that area
over there, right, that this that the state came in and they electroshocked those brooks to see how many fish were in there because it's loaded with native trout, brook trout, brown trout. And they said, "No, it's have to be what, like an 80 foot setback. >> It's like 200, whatever it was,
>> 300 foot buffer." >> Yeah. And that's what I I guess they build out of it. But I mean that that area back there is it's beautiful. I mean there's so many fish and animals and stuff. Look what they did with behind the high school. >> How many animals were displaced
>> when they took all I got so many deer in my backyard now, >> right? I I have 30 arborite trees that they totally destroyed. >> They can't keep out of them. You know, I' I've netted them. I sprayed them and I did, you know, so it it's a shame
what's going to happen here, right? Between the traffic, the the environmental impact of all the animals and and everything else and you know, so >> thank you. >> I'm going to follow my friend Dave. I've
been living in this town for 66 years. your name, sir. >> Name, please. >> Name. >> Name and address, please. >> Oh, sorry. Ron Wright, uh, 24 Dogwood Drive. >> Uh, my father's pictures hanging over there.
And uh if anyone I guess who enjoyed >> the uh pristine environment and so forth of Oakland, I have used to jump off the trestle into the river, swam in it, fished in it, whatever. And
uh I've heard a lot of interesting points here tonight by different people. And we have a lot of uh points, valid points to uh argue.
And uh I think that if if we get the uh numbers up like we have this group here tonight, but I've had parties as big as this in on Florida and there's what 14,500
people living in this town, I think. So there's strength in numbers if we can get enough people together to uh fight this thing and maybe make minimal contributions out of our own
pocket to hire the proper I'm going to say council and I don't mean lawyers we need lawyers too but uh people who know how to fight these kinds of things we will win because there's
strength in numbers and we have the arguments to support that. So I hope that comes to fruition and uh thank you. I'm Steve Money. I live at 98 Grove
Street. I uh I wasn't planning on speaking today, so I hope I uh hope I get a a point across here. I've heard a uh a lot of uh a lot of concerns about this uh about this development coming up or the uh the possible development. And it's my understanding and I'd ask a
question to uh to the experts here. It's my understanding that if these ordinances don't get passed tonight or by the 15th, all the problems that everyone expressed, all the issues that everyone has concerns about, the water,
the sewer, the schools, the animals, all of that gets worse. >> Is that accurate? >> I just want to make sure everybody in this room understands that because from some of the comments, it wasn't it wasn't explicitly clear. I mean, obviously the town, we thank you for your work. Obviously, they have our best
interest at heart. Any developer that comes in here to build on the land in this town has one thing at heart, and that's profit. >> And they don't they are not going to care. They're going to run rough shod over this town if we don't if this uh if
this is not passed. So, I just want to make sure that everyone that I'm right about that, first of all, >> and that everyone's aware of that. Secondly, I got a um just a uh just a question about um about page drive and the access. Obviously, that's a uh that's a concern. There's a couple
things that I've heard that sort of uh that sort of conflict. Number one is the ordinance going through tonight. It's my understanding that the ordinance says there will be emergency access only through page drive. The other thing I've heard is that the some of the some of
the developers as well as um I believe it was mentioned before a uh a special adjudicator, right? Said that that was not really necessary that that was a um that that that could be used as a uh as a potential uh point of a point of
traffic flow. So going forward with this, what's the what's the situation there is uh is my question. Does the ordinance hold? Can that be fought? And if it is fought by developers to try to open that up, what do we do to try and
make that not happen? Is there anything we can do? That's a >> that's a fair question. >> That's my uh that's my question and I'll step away. Thank you. >> If I can answer that. >> The answer is yes. either as part of their challenge to um the um our our
attempt to meet our affordable housing obligation or as a separate action. Yes, the developer could challenge that part of just that part of the ordinance or the the ordinance in its entirety. So, that's a possibility and you know, without going into any detail about how
we would fight that, the answer is it's clear that the mayor and council will fight that. >> Mr. Chairman, can I just put a finer point on that? Um, the people that don't know, I live on Page Drive. >> So, could and I also am very familiar
with the Sand Pit, having lived here my entire life and how important it is. And that is that is a red line for us for the access coming through Page Drive because of exactly everything you said with the bypass traffic coming through the industrial park coming in from Wayne
coming down Paige to cut across because they don't want to sit on 202 traffic. So to answer your question, the answer is yes. >> Okay. Do we have anybody else from public? >> I'm Mr. 96 Grove Street, Steve's neighbor. Um 33 years ago, I moved in
and I was sitting in my living room and we uh heard the mailman come and deliver something to the door. It was a certified letter that they were building true green chemlon in the back by the sand. We fought that vehemently and we won and that's great news. Um, but it's
just ironic that 33 year years later we're faced with the same story. So I have a question for Mr. Haymon. Um, the sand pits, I don't understand sand to be uh indigenous to this area. I'm curious what was there before and is there a possibility that whatever was there
before potentially put something in the ground that would be dug up once new development would occur? Uh probably not, but I I I can't say for certain. But uh there's certain sand areas uh like I'll get to a little geology
because I'm a geologist by the way. Uh that could have been deposited by like the glacier type stuff. There's a sand literally sand pit there that has been there. But uh something uh being there prior to that I I just don't have the history with the town so I can't
speak to that. But that that the the water coming out of there, the C1 stream, you know, we've talked about that a bunch. There's some really serious uh environmental concerns there that again mentioned earlier the DP is going to have to address and then that's where that's where everybody in this room should show up to that count that
meeting with the DP and protect. >> I appreciate that. I did find something that there was some kind of a factory or industrial facility back there a long time ago and anything that was done a long time ago predated for sure any environmental regulations that are in the state of New Jersey now.
>> So I I implore upon you to investigate that look into it because if you don't know I guarantee you there's some other >> we have the uh historic society right there. So you two should talk. >> My hope would be considered in de another observation I have you know
living right opposite the tallest part of that hill is that right now if you look from the rains last night and just you know with the snow that melted there um it runs water from the hill. It pours water. Look it's an underground stream that feeds the stream that right that
runs behind Gro Street. So, anything that delivers ground water, more ground water, is just going to take any pollutants, dump it into into that stream, put right into the Rample River. That's our drinking water. So, I'm assuming that that's all going to be investigated and looked into as we when
if the if this moves ahead and application comes before us, all those things have to be addressed and will be discussed in detail and espec specifically for the McBride property. Uh, you have the D involvement. that multiple layers in future.
>> Great. And I also know in this environment that we're in, environmental regulations, there's serious moves to cut back. I I'm just concerned that, you know, as this progresses and it it might take time that they'll cut back some regulations that could potentially protect us now, but might might not
protect us a few years down the road. New Jersey is very strict regulations changing. >> Okay. My personal opinion And I just, you know, affordable housing, I kind of find it ironic because when I hear 20%, I think it's mostly, you know, it's not
so much affordable housing, it's mostly unaffordable housing. 20%. >> I don't get to know. Thank you. >> Hi, good evening. Um, my kids say I'm really loud all the time, so I hope that that comes in handy right now. My name
is Karina Marble. 166 page drive. Um, some of this is redundant, but I'm way too emotional to add live. Okay, get it again. 12 years ago. Thank you. Thank you. 12 years ago when my husband and I were
looking for a home. This is what we pulled up to our house and immediately I don't even think the car was parked and he said, "This is the one." We had looked in other towns at houses that were way better than that house that we pulled up to, but we were
like, "This this is it." The property, the it was perfect. Uh, we were about to be married. I knew that this was where we wanted to raise our future children. Sorry, if any of you know where I live, you know that this is completely
changing our life as many of us. But we're on the dead end and it felt safe. It's protected woods behind our home. It felt permanent. It was quiet, private, and surrounded by nature. That's why we chose to live there and put all of our
savings in our investments. Now, our children are 9 and 10 years old. And they learned how to ride their bikes. They skateboard, rollerblade, play outside, not on screens. In the summer, they swim in our backyard
just a few feet away from the woods. We regularly see deer, fox, other wildlife passing through. If this develop moves forward as proposed, everything about that environment changes, turning a dead end street, which I know you're saying that that's where the red line is.
Money, money seems to be talking. And if this developer wants to bring us to court, I it's amazing how you're saying that you're going to fight this and that's where you really draw the line, but it seems like money could win over that and it's
terrifying. And we think about look at the the laws for the properties. Well, one of the other developments, I forget which one it was, but they knocked down hundreds of trees and they had the ordinance. They had the tree protection ordinance. >> They a thousand more than they were supposed to. You're talking about by the
high school, I think. >> Yes, they had the ordinance >> thousand trees extra and just paid a check to save up for it. >> Yes. So, they had the ordinance, but they just took the fine and paid what 30 grand or something for it. We are waving the tree ordinance. I don't understand
that. That's something I really really hope I can >> I can't I can't understand why we would wave something that even a developer like if we're talking about fighting fighting fighting, right? But it seems like wouldn't that be making it easier for them? We're saying they don't have to
have that. The access to page drive is way more uh cost whatever for them. So they'll just pay the extra to cut into my yard, Jim's yard, Sandy's yard. Like they would just destroy our not only where my kids play, but they would have
to cut into my property. And I know you're saying, you know, we're against eminent domain, but they it where my property line would be and they take it, you would be on my pool. That street would be at my pool.
At my pool. So my son wanted to come tonight and say, "Can I tell them that I don't want this because they're going to see me swimming? That's so creepy." And then my daughter was like, "What? That's so so you're talking about multiple level
floor multiple level buildings right there at least three according to that image that they've proposed that would be on top of our properties looking over our little children swimming and playing and no amount Let
me fix my script because I'll just I don't know um no fence or row of trees could realistically block that. They'd be on the slope and they'd be multi-level. There's no shot for my ranch and my pool to not be >> and I I mean numerous people secretly
watching my children from their windows. Disgusting. Um so our privacy that we counted on when we bought the home would be gone. This isn't about just inconvenience. Uh it's about a loss of privacy, safety, property value, the natural environment that made this neighborhood what it is.
And I think that that's what we all agree on here. I'm also deeply concerned about the larger impacts like we talked about traffic school capacity. I find that also very concerning that we're not allowed to even question that until after the fact. We're not allowed to say what's this going to do to our schools,
right? Wayne, they had all the things that we're saying have to be addressed and they have to get the okay and the approval and do it the right way. Wayne got all those approvals and they built over a mine shaft and then the new development started sinking. They opened a new school for that development. It's sinking and they had to fight. They got
rid of all the teachers. I now work with some of those teachers that got hired and let go for that new school. Um, we've already seen the warning signs. So, the the recent development behind the high school with 190 units required the fire department to respond
seven times in 12 hours just this week. Seven times. >> What >> the fire department posted it and saying like that we had to it was a high unusual call and it's we had a very busy day. It was that new development in the back. >> Time out. I'm on the fire department. >> Okay. Well, then the the fire department
posted it. So, if I have misinformation calls that day, >> one to the development. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you for the correction. I'm sorry. >> I think it's our first call we've ever had up there. >> Oh, okay. Well, thank you. But I would do if that if we are not addressing that there may be an increase
in things because just doubling our population size. What would that do for getting into the woods for 240 units? Um uh as I think someone may have brought up before that Oakland once faced a
serious flooding problems and so the town brought in the Army Corps of Engineers to help resolve it and from what I understand those solutions helped Oakland which is great but surrounding towns downstream now experienced increasing floods. So there was a lot of
buzz about the towns around us that they already had to pay the price for Oakland's flooding because of the um in the past. Um, so are we I just are we potentially finding solutions for us but then creating others for the regions with
this new with this plan. Um, I also was very informative tonight about the having to do this so that we don't lose our immunity. I get that we are it's a problem. It's a problem. I I understand that and you are in a tough position. This is not something that we
can blame on one person or one thing. I understand that. Um but uh the biggest issue to me is the waiver waving the ordinances that would help us not have this development. >> We're not waving
>> we're not waving it where >> is it where is it printed? >> Steep slope. >> The steep slope. Yeah. I'm sorry. The steep slope and the tree protection. >> I can address that Mr. Chairman. The we the uh the ordinance waves the burrow's steep slope ordinance. However, there is
also a D steep slope ordinance which we are not talking about. We don't have the right to wave and they're still going to have to comply with that and that's any ste any slope that's 15% or greater. So, they're going to have to demonstrate to the D that they meet their requirements.
>> Okay. Um, I think that that um just I chose Oakland because I believed it was where families in nature were protected. And I hope tonight I can tell my children that this belief was right. So, thank you for everybody.
Good evening. Steve Quinn 70 Street again. So tonight, after listening to everything, I realize that the board is in is in between a rock and a hard place. >> If we say no, we lose control. If we say yes, at least we control the situation.
>> We don't want it. I don't want it. Nobody wants it. But if we give it up, it's a free-for-all for these construction companies to come in and do whatever they want. So, we have to vote yes. And then we control it. We control the situation, ordinances, rules,
regulations, make these uh developers, >> lose money on these situations, but if we don't vote yes, and it sounds terrible, but if we don't vote yes, we've lost we've lost the game. >> Mhm. >> All these things we talked about tonight are going to happen.
>> They're going to come in and it's a free-for-all. >> So, I I appreciate it. And it's very difficult situation you're in. It really is. And my heart goes out to you. We're in between a rock and a hard place and better we control the situation than somebody an outsider
>> and we and we can litigation we can spend years and years and years and years with these developers, >> you know. It's it's just the beginning, >> you know. So we we have to move forward and nobody wants it but we have to and
we can trust. Thank you. >> Hi back again by Hannah. Um, can I request that future meetings maybe the town gets notified through the reverse 911? >> Um, because I didn't the even the meeting that was the um short meeting
back in June, June 23rd, I I saw that you said you put it in the newspaper who gets newspapers. I do not. Can you put it on the reverse 911? >> You know what we can do? May not have the reverse 911, but we can send out to the emails and the text blast. We can we can do that. That would be great because and maybe maybe say let's have it at the
high school or at Indian or at Valley to say we're having a big meeting. >> Right. So just so you know the planning board meetings all take I'm sorry Mr. Chair all the planning board meetings take place at the senior center and that's a very large room >> so large. We're going to bring lots of people.
>> We'll find a school. >> Okay. Thank you. Can I just add one thing really really quickly? The by county development that we fought also had affordable housing as part of that plan even 20 years ago. So this is not something new.
>> You know we can we can fight this even with the affordable housing. That's not the issue. The affordable housing is not the issue here. It's the developments themselves. >> Yes. >> Hey Stephanie I Gro Street. I know everyone's tired obviously. I don't make
this take any longer, but I thought that the um I didn't understand that the um the steep slope ordinance that was uh that was being waved was the town only and there was an actual other steep slope ordinance that still had to be >> is a D steep slope ordinance. >> That's fantastic. >> That's that's great. That's great to
know. My question is is it the same thing with the trees >> with the with the tree organization? >> There is no tree there's no state tree replacement ordinance. No. >> Okay. Okay. That was question. Anybody else?
>> I have a just have a question about the Leon property. Um, this is for Caroline Ryder. Appreciate your presentation. I appreciate all of your hard work on this. It's um at the council, the planning board and the professionals. Um
uh I noticed as I was reading there was a section um and and where I found it was on in the report which is posted on the burough website. I recommend everybody read that because that would answer a lot of questions. Caroline went through it and and detailed the process
of of how we got here. And there's a lot more detail in there. But on page, sorry I don't have my glasses, but on page 36, there was a determination um that the Leone property was eligible to be
considered for what we're doing now. And I forgot the term, but it was indicated that there were no historic structures on the site. And I wanted to um find out how was that determination made because
there's a house that dates back to 1920 according to some quick internet research. And also there is a barn and some outuildings and um I checked some maps. Uh the 1912 map does not show the
property. So it is probably around 1920. So I was wondering if that there was a determination on that by analyzing it, its architecture, researching its history that it was not historic or was it just an absence of having um a survey
done. >> So I believe that that reference has to do with the the historic register, the the state and nationals historic register. >> Is that what is that what you're asking? I'm asking how how did TNM figure determine that?
>> I believe that that's that's my recollection as we we looked at the state and national historic register. Are you saying these properties are on the register? No, I'm I'm saying that they probably were not surveyed and because a survey was done in 1982 to
83 and uh that was a driving survey and and it's possible that property was missed and and might have also missed the 1999 uh uh review revised survey. So, I was
thinking that it might not have been investigated, but I also noticed um that I was wondering I was wondering if it were a historic property. I'm not sure. I I would have to research that. But if
it were a historic property, would that make a difference? >> It's on the register. on the registry >> only if it's on the historic reg and I believe the last I looked the property owner had to agree to have it put on the registry and clearly that is
not going to happen. >> Yes. >> In order to be on the registry not this property in general what a one a property owner must pay is what you're saying not this property owner called out. >> Yes I understand it would have to meet certain criteria as well >> right. Yes. There's a whole criteria to
be put on a register >> and the property owner would have to consent to it. Is that correct? >> Right. But I know you've been this is something you've been talking about because I've been I've seen you at all the planning board meetings that I've been at and the council meetings that I've been at as well. You've been >> somebody said it tonight. Keep coming to
meetings and of course your topic is different but you've certainly been following that mantra. >> Okay. I was just wondering if if it had an impact on this, but but thank you very much for your answer and I appreciate you're all very tired, so I
will stop. Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> I'm not. >> Okay, I'm not seeing anybody else. Last chance. >> Okay. Motion to close to the public. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Okay. Hi.
>> All right. So, we're back. Uh we haven't got too far on the agenda. We're still under public hearing amended housing element and fair share plan. Um so, we've heard uh from our planner, from our attorney. We've asked
questions. We've heard the public comments. Um, would somebody at this point like to make a motion to either approve or deny the amended housing element and fair share plan?
>> I'll be the brave one. >> Reluctantly, >> reluctantly. >> I will make the motion. >> I'll second >> to approve the plan. Okay, we have a motion and second. >> Second. >> Andrea. Andrew second. Okay. Any further discussion from the board?
I think we're all upset. Okay, >> Mr. Chairman, just point order. Are you doing all one time? >> No, this is just for the Yep. >> Yep. the plan. Okay, roll call, please. >> Mr. Clark, >> yes. >> Miss Levy, >> reluctantly. Yes. >> Mr. Marco, >> yes.
>> Mr. Connelly, >> yes. >> Mr. Haymon, >> yes. >> Councilman Talamini, >> yes. >> Mr. Lith, >> yes. >> Mayor Kamala, yes. >> Chairman P. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, that is adopted. It now goes to the mayor and council for their
approval. Uh, now we go to the ordinances. There's five ordinances. Uh, they've all been introduced by the mayor and council. Our job is to uh review them
and determine whether um they are within um the guidelines of our master plan. So um we'll start with the first one 26 code 983. Um and by the way whether if we do whatever we say if we
say we we like it, we don't like it, it still goes to the mayor and council for their approval. They don't need our approval. It's just we review them and give them our opinion and then they decide. They adopt the ordinances. >> It's an endorsement. >> It's an endorsement of the ordinance.
Correct. So the first ordinance 26 code 983 ordinance to amend the burough code to include a new affordable housing and development fee to conform to state requirements. Caroline explained all that. It's basically a boiler plate from the state.
Okay. that has been turned into an ordinance for Oakland. So, I'll entertain a motion to uh recommend endorse that uh ordinance. >> Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that ordinance is consistent with the housing element that you just adopted and with
your master plan. >> Correct. Right. So, keep in mind that we just adopted this housing element which changes our master plan. So when we decide whether it's in conformance with the master plan, we're assuming you know that that housing element is part of it. So
>> motion chairman >> second. >> Okay. >> Mr. Con and Haymon. Okay. Any discussion? >> Okay. Roll call. >> Mr. Clark. >> Yes. >> Miss Levy. >> Yes. >> Mr. Marcetra. >> Yes. >> Mr. Connelly. >> Yes. >> Mr. Haymon. Yes.
>> Councilman Talamini. >> Yes. >> Mr. Liss. Yes. >> Mayor Kamala. Yes. Chairman Podach. >> Yes. Okay. Uh, next ordinance 26 code 984. This is an ordinance to amend 59-53.1
of the burough code. Um, and this is for increasing the density in the downtown one overlay zone. Motion to >> Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry to keep interrupting you. I just wanted to make sure it's clear that it increases
density and also clarifies the affordable housing set aside is 20%. Sorry. >> Thank you. Feel free to chime in. >> And I would also since you already interrupted you want to tell you that I think that this is also consistent with our master plan because we literally
just adopted the housing element also which we're going to be speaking about later in 2023 the board updated its land use plan to reflect the changes from the last housing element. So therefore that this this anticipation of this type of development along Ramico Valley Road I
feel is >> Thank you. >> Uh any further discussion from the board? Okay. Roll call. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry. >> Mr. >> Mr. Clark. >> Yes.
>> Miss Levy. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mars Cavetro. >> Yes. >> Mr. Connelly. >> Yes. >> Mr. Haymon. Yes. >> Councilman Talamini. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lift. >> Yes. >> Mayor Kamal. >> Yes. >> And chairman. >> Yes. >> 26 code
>> 26 code 985 ordinance to amend uh 59-53.2.1 which is the downtown 2 affordable housing overlay zone. Caroline, you want to chime in on >> all you're doing there is verifying the it's is confirming the 20% set.
>> So yeah, >> and we have a second. >> Yes. >> Discussion. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Clark. >> Yes. >> Miss Levy. Yes. >> Mr. Marka. Mr. Connelly. Yes. >> Mr. Haymon. Yes. >> Council Talamini. Yes.
>> Mr. Lith. Yes. Mayor Kamala. Yes. >> Chair Madage. >> Yes. 26 code 986 ordinance to amend the land use and zoning ordinance to create an affordable housing district for block 3301 lot 2
block 3401 lots 112 1940 43 52 53 5758 this is the McBride property and in connection with the burough's affordable housing obligation so here once again.
Caroline, >> oh, >> you say it so well. I >> So, this is a reasonzoning of the McBride property. This is a little So, of course, it's consistent with the housing element which we just adopted. your land use plan. Um actually your
land use plan from 20 >> from 2000 identifies a portion of this property for multif family housing in connection with affordable your affordable housing obligation. Um approximately 10 acres of
it the western 10 acres. Um, your your land use plan in general obviously recognizes affordable housing obligations, what COA, which doesn't exist, etc. Um, but your land use plan hasn't caught up
with your housing element due to the timing we've been talking about tonight. >> So, I don't believe that your land use plan identified or multi family housing >> in this in this area. There we go. >> Thank you. >> All right. I'm told one of those doors
has to stay open. So, it's open. >> Um, okay. >> Do you need me to repeat that because you were not involved in the door? >> I think we're good. All right. Motion. >> Oh, sorry. >> Second. >> Okay. >> Discussion. Roll call. >> Mr. Clark.
>> Yes. >> Miss Levy? >> Yes. >> Mr. Maratra? Yes. Mr. Connelly? >> Yes. >> Mr. Haymon? Yes. >> Councilman Talamini? Yes. >> Mr. L? Yes. >> Yes. 26 code 987. Ordinance to create new inclusionary zone district one for
129 McCoy Road block 4004 lots four and five Leone property >> burrow of Oakland Bergen County, New Jersey. Same >> I would offer the same comments. I was remiss with the last ordinance in not mentioning that um there's already discussion in the bureau of uh updating
its master plan both from the re-examination report that needs to be done this year and then just in general because of this process and my apologies for not mentioning that with the last ordinance. >> Okay. >> But everything else is the same. >> Okay. Motion >> motion.
Okay. >> You got the second. I'm not sure. >> Okay. >> Discussion. Roll call. Mr. Clark, >> yes. >> M. Levy, >> yes. >> Mr. Marsro, >> yes. >> Mr. Connelly, >> yes. >> Mr. Haymon, >> yes. >> Councilman Talamini, >> yes. >> Mr. Lith, yes.
>> Mayor Kamala, yes. >> Chairman Pa, >> yes. >> Okay. Uh, now we move on memorialization. Do we need to do that, Greg? Uh, or do we just basically do >> No, I would say >> Yeah, those roll calls were on the
resolutions that were prepared in advance of the meeting. So, I think you're done. >> We're done, right? No need to memorialize because the the resolutions were already done. You guys all saw them. I'm going to sign them. Okay. Um bills to be paid. We have budget 1
through three, escrow 1 through five. Motion to pay the bills. Uh uh >> subject to availability of funds. >> First, >> Tommy. >> No, Mr. H. >> Andrea second.
>> Thank you. from the other end. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Roll call. >> Mr. Clark. >> Yes. >> Miss Levy. >> Yes. >> Mr. Marcetra. >> Mr. Con? Yes. >> Mr. Haymon? >> Yes. >> Councilman Talamini? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lith? >> Yes.
>> Chair Kamala? >> Yes. >> Chairman B? >> Yes. >> Approval of minutes for February 12th, 2026. Motion to approve. >> So move. >> Second. >> Discussion. Nothing. We gave. >> All right. Little tweaks. Okay.
>> A little tweak. >> Good. >> Okay. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Clark. >> Yes. >> Miss Levy? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mars? Mr. Connelly? >> Yes. >> Mr. Haymon? >> Yes. >> Councilman Talamini? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lift? >> Yes. >> Mayor Kamala? >> I abstain. I was not present.
>> Oh, that's true. And Chairman Page. >> Yes. >> New business. Mr. Chairman, did you do Yes. >> Yes. I did before comments. Okay. >> Yes. Any new business? Anything important enough to discuss at this moment? No. Old business. We're good.
Okay. Uh, next meeting is April 9th. Back to the senior center 7 p.m. >> Um, motion to adjurnn. So, move. >> All in favor? >> Thank you very much. Let's go.
>> Oh, he'll talk your ear off. >> You don't have any ears left. >> Make sure I got my agenda ready here. >> Do you want it? I should have it. Is that right? times washed
in 911, too. Anytime you think about I know, >> are professionals ready? >> Yes, I'm here. Yes, sir. >> Are you ready? >> Yes. >> Ready? >> Everybody on this end of the day, so we ready? >> Yep. >> Yes. All right. We're going to push the button
>> so they know. All right. Meeting call to order. This is the March 12th, 2026 mayor council meeting. >> Uh would the uh clerk read the statement of compliance. >> This meeting is being held in accordance
with the open public meetings act NJSA 104-6. Have it been duly advertised and posted in the municipal building in compliance with NJSA 1048D. The meeting will adjourn. no later than 10 p.m. unless the majority of the
council members that are present vote to extend the time. And I have an additional statement to make. Mayor, his statement is to advise the public that Governor Phil Murphy signed PL2024, C.106 106 into law on July 10, 2024,
which amended provisions of NJSA35 col1-1X governing legal public notices in New Jersey. Effective March 1st, 2026, municipalities are required to publish legal public notices on their municipal
websites. In according with this law, the Burrow of Oakland posts all official public notices on the Burough website burrow website where they are available for public review. Public notices may be viewed at https www.ocland-nj.orgabout-browpages-notices.
>> Can you repeat that? Apologies. >> All right. All rise for a pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence. >> Uh, council picky, would you lead us in the pledge? >> Yes. Thank you. >> 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. >> We're going to stay for a moment of silence. >> Thank you. Would the clerk call the role, please? >> Mayor Kala >> present.
>> Council President Talamini >> here. >> Councilman Eert >> here. >> Councilman Pignatelli >> here. >> Councilwoman Rose >> here. >> Councilman Saliani >> here. >> Okay. I don't really have a mayor's report, but I'm going to I just want to read a letter that I wrote. Uh but prior
to doing that, I just want to uh uh acknowledge the planning board meeting that just took place uh for the last two hours. Um clearly there was a lot of confusion with the affordable housing ordinance that we had to put them we are going to put in place and with the
hearing with the planning board. The residents really had an opportunity to ask a lot of good questions. there was good back and forth to really really kind of diffuse and so the resident can understand the position that we've been put into. So I just want to acknowledge the chairman and planning board for the
fine work that they did. Now I just kind of want to read this into the record. Friends and neighbors, I want to level with you about why Oakland is being pushed into these affordable housing decisions and why it feels like everything is happening all at once. I did not run for office in office to turn Oakland into something is not. I grew up
here. I see we have Danny Dele in the back. He grew there. We have Mr. Iser and his family. He grew up in this town. We have Miss Rose who grew up in this town. What else am I looking at? Well, Pat's old enough to have grown up in this town. >> But so I I mean Eric Shawback. I went to
school with Eric. So I mean it's it's we're looking at 360 years of of people living here, people that really care for this community. Many of us moved here precisely be because we value the character of this community. quieter streets, the trees, lower density neighborhoods. I hear your
worries about traffic flooding, school crowding, and about preserving what makes Oakland feel like home. I not only agree with you, I stand with you. That's why for the last year, the governing body has engaged in multiple public hearings with the help of some of our best experts and in the state regardless
of political affiliation. So, I just want to really commend our planner, our attorneys, our engineers. I mean, we couldn't have done this without you. This has been such a LABORIOUS PROCESS. BUT WE ARE OPERATING under statemandated legal framework that was designed in
Trenton, not in Oakland. This was put together in Trenton. Under the New Jersey Constitution, the Mount Laurel court decisions and now under new legislation. Every town is mandated to create a realistic opportunity for its calculated fair share affordable
housing. The most recent law set hard fourth round deadlines including requirements that towns like ours have imple implementing ordinance in place by March 15, 2026 if we want to stay in compliance and maintain the protectionists from builders remedy lawsuits. And that's why these two
meetings were put back to back. Uh we had to have the planning board meeting prior to the council meeting and I recommended that both meetings take place in council chambers so that the public we can watch in real time and we can record both sessions here for the people that could not make it so that we
can really get that information out there to everybody. So what is a builder's remedy lawsuit? It's a type of law, depending on the project, that has a bad track in the courts that exposes the taxpayers, all of us here, to substantial legal bills and other ramifications because this
involves constitutional rights out of New Jersey Supreme Court Mount Laurel decision. Last year, on his way out the door, Governor Murphy signed into law the new ownorous requirements for times towns like ours. Short, this is the fourth round. The law did not pass with
bipartisan bipartisan support. It was driven and adopted by the Democratic majority in the legislature without a single Republican vote. Whatever your politics, that is the reality. Suburban communities like Oakland are being told from the state level to accept a scale and a pace of development that most of
our residents and I would never choose in their town. Within the framework, our hands are tied in important ways. We cannot simply block every higher density or inclusionary project by pointing to traffic, environmental concerns, or older zoning provisions that for years kept multif family housing out. Traffic,
sewer, storm water, and steep slopes still matter, and they will be scrutinized in engineering and site plan review. But the law will not allow us to use these issues as a blank to excuse or avoid our affordable housing obligations. If we try to do that, the court can and will step will step in to
impose its will. The stakes of defiance are not abstract. If Oakland is found non-compliant after this these statewide deadlines, we risk losing immunity from builders remedy suits. We risk having a judge rewrite our zoning laws from the bench. We expose the burrow to errone
enormous legal costs, including the possibility of being ordered to pay a developer advocacy group's attorney's fees on top of war our own. That's what the attorney was talking about fee shifting. Not only we pay for our litigation, we pay for the other side. That would mean your tax dollars funding
not just our lawyers, but their lawyers. This past year, me and former councilman attended the mediation process and fought out loud with special judge appointed to implement the law. I even went out to make these I I wanted to make these conversation public, but was advised legally. I cannot. Uh if you
recall sitting with the planner and our attorney, uh I did make the ask on several occasions to the judge that we wanted to have the recordings of these sessions made public so the public can understand what we're dealing with and how difficult this was to deal with. One of the issues that did come out of one of our hearings was the fact that we did
have uh I believe somebody from Fair Share that was removed during the hearings. >> The uh the original special adjudicator. Yes. >> Yes. We we have one of the only towns in the state that has somebody removed in these hearings. >> So when you see this mayor council
advancing resoning and settlement based inclusionary product projects, it's not because we think Oakland's roads are fine or the flooding is imaginary or that you don't matter. It's because the legal gun is pointed at our head of every suburban town in New Jersey. We're trying to steer through that reality in the least damaging way we can,
preserving as much local control as possible rather than surrendering to everything to a judge. You have every right to be angry at how this was done at the state level. You also have a right to expect that given the law we've been handed, your local officials will protect you from even worse outcomes in court. That is what
we're trying to do. Comply, keep enough to keep Oakland out of the crippling litigation and fees shifting while fighting within the limits of the law to make sure that any required development is responsible, safe, and consistent with our community's character as possible. We don't ask you to like this
law. We ask you to understand and bind it the bind it puts us in and it judges us by how we navigate that. We ask that you understand the bind that puts us in and to judge us by how we navigate it on your behalf, not by the false idea that we could simply
say no and it makes it all go away. And that concludes my comment. >> All right. Do we have approval of minutes? >> So moved. >> February 24th. Let me get put get the minutes up first. February 20 24th, 2026.
>> Motion to approve. >> So moved. Mr. Salant, do I have a second? >> Second. >> Miss Rose, any changes? >> Not seeing any. Roll call. >> Councilman Talamini. >> Yes. >> Councilman Eert. >> Yes. >> Councilman Pigmatelli. >> Yes.
>> Councilwoman Rose, >> yes. >> Councilman Saliani, >> yes. >> Uh, February 2024th, the executive session minutes. >> So moved. Second. Do anybody have any changes? Not seeing any. Roll call. >> Council President Talamini.
>> Yes. >> Councilman Eert. >> Yes. >> Councilman Pignatelli? >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Rose? >> Yes. >> Councilman Saliani? >> Yes. >> All right. Do I kind of went out of order? Do I have a motion open to public? >> We have a second. Second. >> Anybody from the public wish to address
the governing body? >> Good evening. William Syi 12 Eagle Crest Place, Oakland. Uh, I'd like to thank the town for all the information I'm putting out about what you guys are up against and the state's role and everything else is going on. What I'm
asking because a lot of people on social media get upset when they kind of find out these developments are happening. Um, if it would be wise to get out to the public all the land that there was the 286 units are going to be built on
certain pieces of land. Remember Eric, you went through and Mr. Mary, you went through and said, "No, you can't build houses here because there's rocks underneath these trees." So, whatever parcels are left, could that be made public so public can know that this could be a potential housing site or
this could be would that be beneficial to keeping the public informed? >> Actually, just for our our our uh plan or our attorney, once we're done with these ordinance, we're immune for 10 years. Correct. >> Well, if the court grants us immunity, >> we're not there yet. >> We're not there, but if we get there.
>> Yes. So, yes. So would that mean that the land that say did the aerial survey you said no you can't build houses here because there's the rocks or streams are those plots of land then not considered anymore or will they always still be on
the list to consider for development >> Carolyn >> I'm I'm not sure I'm understanding >> I think he's referring to remember we had the meeting in I believe it was June and they had the the aerial pictography and we walked 287 where they wanted to put houses >> they can land analysis.
That's having to do with the uh the obligations, the vacant land. Is that what you're talking about? Maybe that would have been in January. >> Yeah. >> Is that what you're asking? >> I Mr. Sister >> Yes, that that's what I'm asking. Yes. Were those will those will those vacant land obligations still be valid
even though we we don't have to do anything till 2035? So those not to make this process more complicated than it already is, but what we looked at in January >> was pro what we looked at, excuse me,
were sites that were identified by the state in the calculation of >> how many units >> of the calculation of our obligation, >> right? >> And those are not necessarily properties that would even be eligible
for such development. For example, actually, can I say what one of them was? I mean, it's a >> just say any any property >> like for example, there were properties and I'll take a different town, not Oakland, but similar thing. There was a house of worship that was because it had uh that was that was on the list, a a
portion of the house of worship lot because there was a small wooded area next to a parking lot, >> you know, as you So, that was on there and there was probably similar, I'm sure, similar situations in Oakland. So those aren't even necessarily eligible. Those would never be eligible
for affordable housing. They were just utilized in the calculation of the obligation to show you the challenges that >> didn't Oakland do that with they took the aerial and they said this all this is developable and then we got to appeal that and then the number for the development went down from 350 and we
wanted 250 ended up at 289. Yeah. So, are those odd pieces of property that you got to the number of 289 still developable for affordable housing? >> Oh, what went into the VLC calculation? >> Yeah, because a lot of those lots for
correct >> and also it doesn't that was not that was by far not the only factor in what developed your what what led up to the obligation. I could speak for three hours on that whole process as well with the three criteria, but um that's I mean
the D actually the DCA mapping is public record. >> It's public record. >> It's public record from the DCA >> if it's still available on their website. I don't know. >> But actually it's on the video that you guys put together. >> Okay. >> Yep. I just want to take a minute to thank you, Miss Penosian, and the entire OC team. I came to you guys uh very late
yesterday >> and asked you to pull up all the YouTube videos of all four hearings >> and so we can put it post it on the website and and uh Facebook. But thank you so much for being able to cut those up and deliver them so quickly. >> A couple of staff members. We're very um
they did good work. They did do good work. All right. Thank you. Thank you for the >> Anybody else? >> Thank you, Mr. Shaw. I I did u Hi. So, sorry I just spoken already, but my name is Eric Shiaak. E I
K S C A U B A. I live at 61 Loyola Place in Oakland and I'm president of the Oakland Historical Society and uh I've been advocating for historic preservation in Oakland and uh I I just
wanted to reiterate what I said at the at the meeting um the planning board meeting before that um we have the opportunity to get a grant to um do a historic site survey in Oakland and it
would be a 50/50 grant. Um if the um Burough Council authorizes um money to be spent on professionals to do a survey of um historic sites in Oakland, they could be reimbursed for
50% of that. And uh the uh letter of intent would be due um at the end of this month and uh then the application itself would be April 24th. So, let me uh what's the March 27th would be the
letter of intent and April 24th would be the final application and I'm very happy to assist in the completion of that and also um I would be the point a volunteer point person on the ground trying to um
inform the professionals on what uh sites might be historic and uh I do and I would avail the um uh resources of the Oakland Historical Societ society as well. Uh I just wanted to add because I did ask a question about um one of the
properties and apparently something um a site being on the national register is significant for consideration for affordable housing. Did I understand that correctly? >> There's implications. I >> implications. Okay, fair enough. Um, I
think we do have some historic sites that are not on the register that could be and a survey would reveal that and uh the sooner we do it the better and I think it's just the right time to do it. So I I would appreciate if you
considered that carefully and thank you very much for your hard work on all of this. >> Mr. Shak, who who's historical leazison? >> Steve, Mr. Salian, you want to interface with Mr. Shaw? Get this thing going. And can I just ask, do you know how much the the survey would cost? Do you have an
idea of what it would cost like in total? >> That that I don't know. I'm sorry. Um, >> yeah, >> that was my question for you. How much is it? We have to figure out the cost. >> It's a labor it's a labor intensive process, right? I mean, Oakland is not a small community geographically. So that means somebody needs to
physically survey >> the all the road, right? I mean, all the streets and the whole the entire municipality. That's my limited understanding. I know before um CO there was someone from the county who would
assist with this process cuz I from another municipality we'd had these discussions but it was a much geographically smaller and more compact >> uh municipality but then co you know I don't know that that's that's still the case plus co
>> I think we would need an an estimate what it's going to cost. >> Okay. >> If you could find out for us and let us know. I I'd be glad to research that for you. And I just wanted to add that I I I have um started tabulating and creating a database myself of my own knowledge.
So that might help to some extent. So >> and it's all up here. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Thank you very much. >> Anybody else? >> Frank Furbacher, 56 Balton Avenue. It's fur bac.
Uh good evening. Um want to thank everyone for uh all of their time and energy. Um and really even the last meeting with the planning meeting um you know the way chairman Pod Ash was able
to um make what is a very controversial topic uh one that was I would say that meeting went much shorter um than I think it could have gone. Um so thank you to the planning board uh and to our professionals uh who uh feel like I was
in a college lecture uh that last weekend. Um the amount that was uh provided from an educational standpoint was definitely um really helpful and impactful for residents. I think um I think there's probably
dozens if not more uh residents who weren't attending or weren't watching that meeting. Um many of which I'm sure have continue to have questions. And I do appreciate um the burrow's uh
notice that went out on Friday, I believe it was, in relation to affordable housing uh as well as the video that was compiled by Mr. Cy and team um really appreciate it. One of the things though that I would uh just want
to say is I do think it would be very helpful for residents um to have simple resident friendly summaries of what's going on um and in a more proactive way. Uh something that explains the key
points. What is the state requiring? What Oakland's obligation is and what those next steps are. There's a lot of people who, you know, when it comes to meetings like this, don't necessarily follow up and look at the agendas or
look at the minutes. Um, and it is available. Um, but not all residents are going to take that action. And that leads to, I think, what we saw last week and earlier this week, which was rumors flying around, people trying to do their
own research, which they should do. Um, but a one-page overview or an FAQ could go a long way toward helping residents stay informed and reducing confusion. Uh, it may even be helpful to think about how the bureau can provide these kinds of summaries whenever complex
issues like this arise. Um, one good thing about all of this is it does create a lot of cohesion and makes it really truly um, you know, not something that's political, but rather something that is more about how do we
come together as a community. Um, and I know this is a complicated process and there are so many towns that are navigating this. Um, but my hope is just simply that as this moves forward, the bureau continues to prioritize clear and accessible communication for residents.
Um, and just one question and I don't know uh how relevant it necessarily is but um when it comes to planning and when it comes to uh looking at sites or potential sites um does the town have
any power or um does it look at even the possibility of acquiring certain properties with the intention of using those sites for future development? um say for instance a site is deemed uh
unable to be developed on for whatever reason. Um just wondering if the town looks at something like that. >> You you actually just described Great Oak Park. The town was very proactive in acquiring that piece of property and turning it into a park because it really wasn't developable >> and it clearly had a lot of
environmental issues and we took it over and we turned it into a beautiful green space. So this this governing body and this town is very actively looking at those opportunities. >> Thank you for that. Um I guess what I'm referring to is more in in the sense of the opposite of um acquiring a site
where the town could say, "Hey, this might be a good area that's away or not going to disrupt a piece of the community as much as let's say um I think it's the Mc the Sand Pit um area." Unfortunately, yeah, unfortunately,
there's no these are the two last remaining swaths of land that are really left left in Oakland, which is why it was very attractive for the developers and and and the property owners selling. I mean, this is all about money for them and and these are the last last two real big pieces of property.
>> We bought that property on Breaking Neck Road. >> What's that? >> We bought that property on Breakneck Road, too. >> Yep. Um, and just the one thing that I did hear that was interesting, um, was the idea of how do we, if needed, um,
reszone some of the industrial area? Um, I believe that was mentioned in the last meeting. So, um, you know, that was definitely something I took out of it, but thank you all for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> Not seeing anybody. Do I have a motion
to close? >> So move. >> Do you have a second? All in favor? >> I >> I >> All right, we're up to resolutions. Uh I'm >> getting >> Okay, that's right. We have uh to the Oakland Communications Commission
for a junior commissioner. I'm pointing forward to get Mr. Eric Darcy and this is with mayor with council consent. >> So move. >> Have a second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Congratulations, Mr. Darcy. All right,
we're up to resolutions. Uh, I'm going to be removing 2619 and 20. The rest we'll do to the consent agenda. 26109 authorized tax refund for overpayment for 107 Grove Street. 26110 authorized tax refund for overpayment of 24 Chucka
Drive. 2611 authorized recreation refunds. 26112 authorized contract Boswell Engineering for the 2026 road program. 26113 award contract for Boswell Engineering for Grand View and Acorn Avenue stormwater improvements for
construction inspection services. 26114 amend temporary budget. 26115 amend budget appropriations. 26116 authorized leap improvement grant application.
26117 authorize fiscal year 2027 municipal alliance grant application. and 26118 authorized congressional directed spending applications. Uh this is going we're putting in an application for uh once again we got denied last
year for continuing the PFOA water treatment out of the Wellsfield and we made application to Senator Kim Booker and our assembly and our uh Congresswoman uh Congressman Poe.
Have a motion to >> move. >> Second. Any discussion on any wish to point out? Not saying seeing any. Roll call. >> Council President Tamini. >> Yes. >> Councilman Eert. >> Yes. >> Councilman Pignatelli. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Rose.
>> Yes. >> Councilman Saliani. >> Yes. >> All right. We're up to 26119 resolution endorsing the housing element and fair share plan. Our planner like to take that one. Thank you. Actually, um, this is just a, you know, the planning board adopted it.
This is just part of the process is for the governing body to endorse it. Do you want me to talk about the plan again? >> I think we're good. Unless I I think we've or >> I mean, I will say quite often council members don't even have me come for the endorsement, attend the meeting for the
endorsement. Of course, I'm here for other reasons. And while you're at that 26120 resolution adopting fourth amendment housing spending plan >> or would our attorney like to take that one? >> No. >> No. It's another routine
um matter that that I don't think there really needs much discussion. >> Okay. All right. Do I have a motion to approve 26119 resolution endorsing the fair housing element and fair share plan and 26120 author resolution adopting the fourth round affordable housing spending
plan? >> I'll make the motion. >> Mr. Salian, do I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Rose. Roll call. >> Council President Talamini. >> Yes. >> Councilman Eert. >> Yes. >> Councilman Pignatelli. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Rose. >> Yes.
>> Councilman Saliani. >> Yes. All right. Before we get to the ordinances, we have received numerous emails from residents. I'm going to ask the clerk to please read into the record the correspondences we have re the people who have sent us correspondence concerning affordable housing.
>> Thank you, mayor. On March 9th, 2026, we received correspondence from Jim Depa from 86 Grove Street, John Nas from 17 Hannah Road, Ursula Becca from 34 Grove Street, and John Lax from 22 Grove
Street. On March 10th, we we received correspondence from Sandra Sori of 168 Page Drive, Robert Soya of 145 Page Drive. On March 11th, we received correspondence from Stacy Mcalier at 15
Whittier Lane, and Vincent Furio of 104 Grove Street. And on March 12th, we received correspondence from Alba Vu of 12 Hannah Road, Rich Ganelli of 111 Page Drive, and Brian Van Grow of 29 Gro
Street. All in opposition of code 26 code 986, the ordinance. >> Thank you. All right, we are up to ordinance adoption. We have 26 code 983, an ordinance to amend the burough code to include a new
affordable housing and development fee to conform to state regulations. Do I have a motion open to public? >> So move. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second. And would anybody from the public like to address 26 code 983, an
ordinance to amend the burough code to include new affordable housing and development fee to conform to state regulations? >> Not seeing any. Have a motion to close. >> So moved. >> Miss Rose, Mr. Talamini. All in favor? >> I.
>> I. >> All right. Who would like to make a motion to adopt 26 code 983? >> Mr. Tammy. Do you have a second? Who's a second? Second, Mr. Saliani. Roll call. >> Council President Talamini. >> Yes. >> Councilman Eert.
>> Yes. >> Councilman Pignatelli. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Rose. >> Yes. >> Councilman Saliani. >> Yes. >> All right. We're up to 26 code 984, an ordinance to amend section 59-53.1 of the Burough Code to revise the
permitted density and required affordable housing set aside in the downtown one affordable housing overlay zone. And as everybody here has heard from the testimony from our previous meeting. Uh and also just so just to be clear, all these were all these
ordinance were um what do you call it Tom? >> Endor No, no, no, no. Not well these right they were endorsed by the plane but they were endorsed at our last council meeting. >> February 24th. >> Yeah, February 24th. Do >> I have a motion to open to public? >> So moved.
>> Second. >> All in favor? I. >> Anybody from the public wish to discuss 26 code 984? >> Not seeing anybody have a motion to close. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. We got uh Mr. M. Rose.
>> All right. Uh who'd like to make a motion to 26 code 984? Motion. So moved. >> Mr. Sananny, do you have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Eert. Roll call. >> Council President Tamini. >> Yes. >> Councilman Eert. >> Yes. Councilman Pignatelli,
>> yes. >> Councilwoman Rose, >> yes. >> Councilman Saliani, >> yes. >> All right. 26 code 985, an ordinance to amend section 59-53.2.1 of the burough code to revise the required affordable set aside in the downtown to affordable housing overlay
zone. Do have a motion to open to public. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Miss Rose, Mr. Talamini. All in favor? >> I. Anybody would anybody from the public wish to ask questions or address 26 code 985? >> Not seeing any public. Do I have a
motion to close? >> Some moved. >> Mr. >> Who's the second? >> Second, >> Mr. Saliani. All right. Do I have a motion to I'm sorry. All in favor? >> Okay. >> Motion to adopt. >> So moved. >> Do I have a second?
>> Second. >> Roll call. >> Council President Talini. >> Yes. >> Councilman Eert. >> Yes. Councilman Pignatelli, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Rose, >> yes. >> Councilman Saliani, >> yes. >> All right. Rep 26 Code-986, an ordinance to amend the land use and zoning
ordinance to create an affordable housing district for block 3301, lot 2, and block 3401, lots 11,12, 19, 40, 43, 52, 53, 5758, better known as the McBride property, in connection with the burough's affordable housing
obligation. Do I have a motion to open to public? So moved. >> Mr. Tali Mini, Miss Rose. >> Yep. >> All in favor? I >> I. >> Anybody from the C public wish to discuss 26 code 986? This is the McBide
property. >> Not seeing anybody. Do I have a motion to close? >> So moved. >> Mr. Saliani, do I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Eer, >> who would like to make a motion to adopt? All in f >> Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. >> Sorry. I'm sorry. Go ahead,
>> Mayor. My understanding was that the planning board found that to be partially inconsistent with the master plan. Okay. >> So, in order to adopt it, the mayor and council number one has to pass it by a supermajority, but number two, uh, needs to put reasons on the record as to why they're adopting an ordinance that's not
consistent with the master plan, which obviously is to comply with our affordable housing obligation. >> Okay. Does anybody have any questions? >> Good. >> Okay. Yes. >> Okay. >> Now I can do who who would like to uh
motion to adopt. >> I motion to adopt. >> Motion to adopt. >> Mr. Talamini. Do you have a second >> based on what what he said? >> Mr. Saliani. Okay.
>> Mandate. >> Hang on a second here. Just make a couple notes. All right. Roll call. >> Councilman Talini. >> Yes. >> Councilman Eert. >> Yes. >> Councilman Pigmatelli. >> Is it yes? >> I don't know. That's a tough one.
>> We need a super majority. >> Okay. Yes. >> Councilwoman Rose. >> Yes. >> Councilman Saliani. >> Yes. >> All right. All right, we're up to our last ordinance, 26 code 987, an ordinance to create a new exclusionary zone district for 129 McCoy Road, block
4004, lots four and five, better known as Leone property in the burrow of Oakland, Bergen County, New Jersey. Councelor, do we have >> Mayor, this is the same as the one you just considered. It it is not uh in compliance with the land use element of the master plan. Uh so I think that you
need to note that uh the board found it to be inconsistent with a portion of the master plan but uh you're adopting it in order to comply with your affordable housing obligations. >> So is this up to your super majority also? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Does anyone have any questions? Not
seeing any. Do I have a motion open to public 26 code 987? >> So move second to open. >> I got Miss Talami, Mr. Saliani. All in favor. Anybody from the public wish to address 26 code 987? Not seeing anybody. Do I have a motion to close?
>> Sec. Mr. Saliani. >> I do have a motion. >> I >> Okay. I do have a motion to adopt. >> So move based on the recommendations of our attorney, Mr. Giblin.
>> Mr. Telami, do I have a second? Second, >> Mr. Eert. >> Roll call. >> Council President Telamini. Yes. >> Councilman Eert. >> Yes. >> Councilman Pignatelli. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Rose. >> Yes. >> Councilman Saliani. >> Yes.
>> All right. That concludes our ordinances. Uh we're up to uh we don't have a work session. Does anybody have any new business to bring forward? >> Yeah. A couple things. And uh it's a little bit new business reports. First of all, I want to thank the professionals for their time tonight. Um you actually made it a little easy on us
to be honest. Uh you answered a lot of the questions the planning board. I really want to thank you for your explanations uh over the last couple weeks and helping us communicate with the public, so I want to make sure that was uh called out appropriately. >> Additionally, um I know we weren't going to do committee reports tonight. I do I
do want to speak about that there was a uh you know, there was an election on Tuesday and um I I do want to I do want to thank former Councilman Solinski. Um we worked with him. I I think he did a very good job. So, we want to thank him for his running. And I do want to extend my congratulations to new council uh
councilman elect and um you know, we just move forward from here. But I just think we should acknowledge that it's very tough to do these things and run and with all the chatter back and forth that was out there. I hope that's all noise and we just move forward in a positive manner. >> Thank you, sir. Anybody else have any
new business? Anybody have any old business? Uh we're going to dispense with committee leaison reports. Can we go right to bills to be paid? >> Yes. Bills to be paid is $366,10927. So moved.
>> Do have a second. Second. Any discussion? >> Not seeing any. Roll call. >> Council President Talamini. >> Yes. >> Councilman Eert. >> Yes. >> Councilman Pignatelli. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Rose. >> Yes. >> Council Saliani.
>> Yes. >> We pay the bills. Also, I just want to extend a congratulations to Mr. Dumper. He's stand sitting right over there. Congratulations on the on winning the election. Uh we look forward to working with you and going forward. At this point, we're up to a German. The next burough council meeting will be
held on Tuesday, March 24th, 2026 at 7 p.m. here at the council chambers. Unfortunately, I will not be here. I will be on vacation, but uh Mr. will be in Mr. Calamy in these capable hands. Be >> before we close, the chief did ask me to say one thing even updates. The police
will be doing DWI patrols on St. Patrick's Day. I think it's a very important reminder to the community that just be picking Uber on St. Patrick's Day. >> Okay. >> Do I have a motion to adjourn? >> So move. >> We got it. Mr. Saliani, Mr. Talamini on
the second. All All in favor? >> All right. This concludes today's meeting. Thank you everybody.