Call to order the meeting of the Oakland Planning Board. This is a special meeting uh for June 23rd, 2025, pursuant to chapter 231, Public Law 1975, Open Public Meetings Act. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided
by adoption of an annual schedule of meetings. Although this meeting was not on the annual schedule, it was a special meeting. Um, we post a copy of SAM at Burrow Hall and Burough's website. Uh, it's advertised in the record more than
48 hours in advance of the meeting and, uh, we mail a copy to any person requesting save. uh meeting will conclude by 10:30 p.m. Therefore, no testimony will be taken after 10 p.m. Please rise for the flag salute 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. Roll call, please. Mr. Jona, here. Mr. Clark here, Miss Ley here, Mr. Morris
Cetra here, Mr. Connelly, Mr. Payman, Councilman Talamini here, Mr. Liz here, Mayor Kamala here, chairman here. Uh, Mr. Jono, uh, you'll sit for Mr. Connelly this evening. Um, and I'll
entertain a motion to excuse the absences for Mr. Connelly and Mr. Haymon. So move second. All in favor? I Okay. Um this time, uh Mr. Russo, if you could swear in our two
board of professionals. Caroline and John, raise your right hand. Uh well, we know Caroline's going to make a presentation. But John, in the event that you're asked to answer some questions or give some testimony, uh the both of you uh stayed under oath that you're going to tell the truth about
nothing but the truth be correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, I'll entertain a Motion to open the meeting to the public for matters not on tonight's agenda. So move. Second. All in favor? I. Is
there anybody here who would like to comment or ask questions about anything not on tonight's agenda? Okay. Seeing none, motion to close the public. Second. All in favor? Okay. Uh this evening um we have one
item on tonight's uh agenda and it's a public hearing for the housing element and fair share plan amendment to our master plan and everybody on the board should have received a draft copy um
and hopefully read through it. I know some of the members did and asked a few questions and did a nice job with that. But anyway, um our our planner Caroline Raider is here and she will uh go through the plan with us and
give us an outline of the important items that we need to know. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is this working? Can you hear me? Yes. Great. So, Caroline Ryder, the burrow planner and the board planner with TNM
Associates. Um, so I wanted to start out tonight by just talking about why are we here? Why did we hold why are we holding a special meeting and not just a special meeting tonight of the planning board. I think you have the mayor and council
afterwards, which I don't know how many other times Oakland has done this. This I will tell you this will be my first of three times this week that I'm doing double meetings and another night with just the planning board. So what is what's happening and why are we here?
What we're here to talk about tonight is the housing element and fair share plan that is part of the master plan. This board, the planning board is tasked with adoption of the master plan, amendment
of the master plan, etc. So that's why we're here tonight. That's why you're first. Essentially, this board is considering the plan for adoption. So the master plan contains several elements or essentially chapters or
parts. Some are optional. A few are required. The housing element is one of the required components of your master plan. Now this is the housing element and fair share plan. So it's two it's let's say
two parts. So the housing element contains a lot of demographic information about your town about Oakland and a little bit about Bergen County. And the fair share plan contains information on affordable housing and what is the bureau's
affordable housing obligation and how is the bureau addressing it. So I just want to speak a little bit about how we got to where we are tonight. So affordable housing in the state of New Jersey is a constitutional right. Municipalities have an obligation
to provide for their fair share of the regional obligation. And that's an important component because to remember affordable housing is a regional obligation and we talk about the region quite often. So, when we're talking
about your obligation, it is important to remember that absolutely nobody from the state or anywhere else came to Oakland and looked around and drove around and studied all of your plans and said, "Okay, Oakland's obligation should be X and Wayne, which of course borders
Oakland, should be Y, and Franklin Link should be Z, and uh Demerest, which is elsewhere in Bergen County, should be A. It then a plus B plus C. It does not work that way. And affordable housing starts at the regional level. There is a
regional obligation that is calculated. And we're in region one which has the greatest of all of the different regional obligations of over 27,000 affordable units which I believe the next region down has 20,000. So just to
give you an idea of the the difference. So what happens is if you think about it like Thanksgiving and you have a really big pie and if you have a really big pie, you can have a bigger piece of pie because there's enough for everybody. Doesn't even need
to be Thanksgiving. It can be any day when we're eating pie and however and that's how it works here. So we have a bigger regional obligation. So we have more to filter down to Oakland and to other towns within the region. So just sort of keep that in the back of your
mind for starters. Now affordable housing is handled in periods of years known as rounds. We are presently at the very end of round three. Rounds one and two
uh I believe started in the 80s to 90s and sometimes those are combined together and called prior round. Round three, I guess, officially started in 1999, but we're going to talk about that in a minute. So, there were there have been
over the years case law known as the Mount Laurel decisions and the Mount Laurel doctrine, which should sound familiar to everybody. The first Martin Laurel one was sometime in the I believe mid70s. Mount Laurel 2 was what established COA, the New Jersey
Council on Affordable Housing. COA for many years would calculate each municipality's affordable housing obligation again starting from the region but each municipality's obligation. Municipalities would prepare housing elements and fair share plans
and submit them to COA for a process of what was known as substantive certification. That was sort of your stamp of approval from COA would be sub subsert substantive certification. When COA went to adopt RA affordable
housing rules in round three, first of all, round three started in 1999. They were a little bit late with it. They adopted rules that had a principle in it known as growth share. Growth share was a linking of affordable housing obligation to employment growth and
population growth. It was it was handled a different way. the affordable housing obligation. Those rules were overturned in the courts. Then COA went and adopted a second set of round three rules also utilizing growth share a little bit
differently. Those rules were overturned in the courts. KA went to adopt KA the actual council council on affordable housing went to adopt a third set of round three rules and the council which was short staffed is the wrong word
short on appointments I believe actually had a three-3 tie and failed to adopt the rules litigation ensued and the round three process was removed from COA it was declared morabond
was removed from KA and it was returned to the courts. So, anybody who participated in the round three process with Oakland and I know some of you are in this room participated in a process where there was an action of declaratory judgment where the burrow reached
settlement with fair share housing center where the burrow and fair share together with what at the time was called a special master which is now referred to as a special adjudicator participated most likely in
negotiations, mediation sessions, settlement hearings, etc. I personally was not involved in your round three plan, but was involved in others and have read have read your plan. So now
once after round three, which again ends very soon in July, um what happened last year was the legislature adopted legislation in March of 2024 that was signed uh
signed by the governor. And now there was legislation that was addressing the affordable housing obligations and how they were to be met. for round four, which is goes from 2025 to 2035 and all
subsequent rounds. The legislation changed a number of things. First of all, it completely eliminated COA. Second of all, it directed DCA, the Department of Community Affairs, to
prepare obligations for each municipality by a certain date that and those obligations were considered non-binding. It changed uh the way that bonus credits were handled with, excuse me, it changed the types of bonus credits that were
available uh for credit um at to assist the town in reaching its obligation. It changed certain aspects of the vacant land adjustment and it one of the big things that I think it did well two big things is one
it in implemented very aggressive deadlines which we're going to talk about in a minute. It also implemented what is called challenge periods. These are new new this is just a new aspect to the affordable housing process. So
while I can tell you when the challenge period starts and ends, I don't have much to offer in terms of historical knowledge of what would be happening because this is new. And the challenge periods and the deadlines, they play together. They work together a little
bit. So let's talk about some of the deadlines. So and just as an aside, I did give a presentation to council about the legislation. Mayor, when was I feel like that was about at least a year ago year ago pro maybe over the summer. I don't remember. So, I did speak about a
lot of this at that time, but regardless, the legislation was adopted in March of 2024. In October, sometime around the 18th of October of last year, DCA released its
municipal obligations. The municipal obligations again come from the regional level and are filtered down through a series of factors. One of which was land capacity, i.e. how much land there is in a town for for development.
However, the mapping I just want to point out that the mapping that went along with that that analysis was not released until weeks later. So now we're into November. One of the deadlines from the legislation was that municipalities had
to adopt a binding resolution by January 31st. That resolution needed to state what was the municipality's obligation, affordable housing obligation. They could either a utilize the DCA
non-binding obligation or b utilize a different obligation with an explanation of why that different obligation was utilized. All municipalities had until January 31st to to do to adopt this resolution.
Then there was the first challenge period, a 30-day challenge period whereby any interested party could challenge the obligation that a municipality uh identified. And what ended up
happening was that a the builder association challenged each and every municipality that did not utilize the DCA non-binding obligation. I believe it was about 158 or 159 towns that were
challenged of which Oakland was one. In addition, the Fair Share Housing Center challenged I believe about 68 towns as well. Not Oakland, but they did they did have some challenges what ended up happening after that. So that was the
challenge period went through the end of February. However, pursuant to the legislation, all obligations had to be finalized by the end of March. So, that gave basically 30 days for 100 some odd challenges. Um, and what
ended up happening is there's something created uh by the legislation known as the program. It consists of seven retired judges who hear uh hear mediation and hear, you know, hear the cases as they come forward. So
Oakland, like several other towns, participated in settlement hearings and mediation sessions with the builder association and our special adjudicator also participated. In the
end, Oakland settled on an obligation with the builder association like many other towns did. So that was the first challenge period. And again, the legislation required that that the all the obligations had to be
finalized by March 31st. And I will tell you, I was personally involved in a settlement hearing until 4:15 on March 31st, not with Oakland, with another town. So these did go through the end of March. Now what is happening is pursuant to the
legislation all municipalities need to adopt a housing element and fair share plan by June 30th which is why we're having the special meeting tonight. Then it needs to be endorsed by the governing body which is
why there have mayor and council are having a special meeting afterwards. I will state that any municipality that does not adopt the housing element and fair share plan and upload it to E3 through E courts to the program within 48 hours will no longer have immunity
from exclusionary zoning litigation which some of you may know by the more common term of builders remedy lawsuits. Similarly, any town that didn't stipulate its obligation by January 31st also ran the same risk of losing its
immunity. So, these dates are important and aggressive. The reason that I'm sort of giving you all this background is I want to explain why we're again why we're here, what led to this, why, you know, why we're doing what we're doing, why this board is
considering this at a special meeting in the middle of a heat wave. because this is the deadline that was imposed by the legislation. We had an obligation that wasn't finalized till the end of March and then we had till
the end of June to prepare a plan. So that's why we're here. Now, I also want to stipulate that again from June 30th through the end of August, there is a 60-day
challenge period by which or during which any interested party can challenge a municipality's plan. And again, it's uncharted waters. I don't I can't speak to what is going to happen or what might happen.
Also, it is my understanding that the fair share housing center will be reviewing your plan as will our special adjudic the burough special adjudicator. So, a special adjudicator um which they uh used to be referred to as special
masters. The court changed the name a little over a year ago. Those are professional planners like myself, although I don't do this. um who are appointed by the court to serve as special adjudicators and they review plans, assist with mediation between the
various parties etc. So while we're adopting a plan tonight that I think is really good and meets all the meets all the requirements and the criteria, I want to put it out there that there is further review that will be happening.
Everyone understand that with the background before I get into our plan, Mr. Chairman? Thank you, Caroline. That's the best explanation I heard on housing. Okay. Okay. I think I think it's important to
really lay the foundation and the background because I want not only the board, but there are members of the public and apparently this is being video. I have two cameras on me from different angles. I'm not sure what um what this is, you know, who's going to be watching this, but somebody is going
to be watching this somewhere. So, I wanted to make sure that we were really clear with respect to the requirements and, you know, and and what the next steps are. Okay. So, as I indicated,
um affordable housing is handled in terms of rounds. for your round three plan when you participated in the courts there was a your prior round your rounds one and two obligations were combined with your round three obligation and that was very that was a very common
thing that happened. Sorry, put my laptop to sleep. Um, this board did adopt a housing element and fair share plan dated December 2022, but I believe it was actually adopted in early 2023 if my memory serves me
correct. You have a settlement agreement with the fair share housing center August 11th, 2020. Um, you have a court, so you have a court approved plan. So, that's a very important thing to have and we use a lot of the assumptions within your court approved plan going
forward. So the housing it's the housing element and fair share plan. The housing element contains a lot of demographic information which is very interesting to planners but maybe not to most other people. For a few highlights, your 2020
census population was in excess of 12,700 people. Your median age was of the burrow was 43.8 years. You have over 4,300 households. That's an occupied housing unit or a household is a group of individuals living together forming a
h in within one housing unit forming a household. Um and you have over uh 4,500 total housing units. You have an average household size of 2.87 people. Again, it's all very interesting, but I feel like we're probably here to talk
about the fair share plan, which is the affordable housing. So again, I had indicated DCA was tasked with developing non-binding affordable housing obligations. Affordable housing obligations are both
present need and prospective need. Present need, I think, is a bit of an unfair term because it gives the impression that present need that this is what Oakland must do right now, today, June 2025. And that's inaccurate.
Present need used to be referred to used to have several other names, but basically it's your rehabilitation requirement. What that is is number of units to be rehabilitated that are occupied by a household that is low or moderate income.
So Oakland had a present need or rehabilitation obligation under round three. It continues to have one under round four. Your round four rehabilitation obligation is 10 units. Oakland has established a rehabilit a
municipal rehabilitation program. It is um administered by CGP&H very you know they do a lot of this um and I think you've you've started rehabilitating a few units already and you will continue with that program through round four and that's how we're addressing the round
four obligation. We the the program is funded through the affordable housing trust fund. That fund is uh fin is the the funds from that go into that account are from
development fees and any type of payment in loo. Um so that's the affordable that's your rehabilitation obligation. Uh, one other thing to note is that Bergen County has a home improvement program and any um resident of Oakland, just like anywhere
else in the county, is eligible to um participate in in that program if they meet the income guidelines and the guidelines for the type of work to be done. So, that's even though Oakland is required to and does have its own municipal um rehabilitation program,
there also is a county program. So, I think what we're really here to talk about tonight is what is called officially the prospective need, but you all probably think of it as your affordable housing obligation. DCA calculated a a prospective need
obligation of 36 units for Oakland, a town I will note is in the highlands, but 306 units as was provided for under the Fair Housing Act
two, the legislation which is now the Fair Housing Act 2. We analyzed the data that was used to to develop the 306 unit obligation and we the bureau and its professionals
together calculated an obligation of 252 units. So I indicated there was settlement and mediation a lot of back and forth and we settled at a number of two
186 units. So that's our round four obligation. So we still in the plan have to talk about what have we done in the past, what are we doing for round four. Round three, as I indicated, which was done through the
courts, your rounds one, two, and three obligations were combined and the those were looked at together and it was 682 units, excuse me. So, Oakland
does not Oakland's vacant land is very limited because of environmental constraints, but even more so because, as we all know, you don't have sewer. you don't have sewer infrastructure. Correct. Right. There's no sewers. So, Oakland in round three, which again
covered round rounds one through three, had two two uh things that were its obligation was addressed in two two ways. Via settlement with fair share housing and through a mediation process.
One, there was something called a vacant land adjustment. That is a recognition by that a municipality does not have enough land to build or to zone for its entire obligation of 682 units. There is a process that
you you go through to calculate not a new obligation but what the burrow aims to meet. It is known as a realistic development potential or RDP and your RDP was calculated at 148
units. I will note it is very important to remember that when you have a VA and an RDP is calculated, the remainder of the obligation just doesn't go away. It's if you it's just looked at a little bit differently in particular before
round four and that's called unmet need and the difference was 534 units. This was addressed through a variety of mechanisms identified in your plan much of which was uh zoning for certain locations. There was one municipal
municipally sponsored site identified uh bonus credits offered where were available. However, you still don't have sewers. you go through this process, you still don't have sewers. There isn't any targeted
date for sewers to be coming in. So, you received what was called a durational adjustment, which is a deferral of the municipality's low and moderate income housing, your affordable housing obligation based on the lack of infra
based on the lack of infrastructure. There was a recognition in your round three plan. It actually correctly stated that the burrow's durational adjustment would outlive the third round which again ends in the next few weeks
theoretically. So there was a recognition that you don't have your infrastructure and it wasn't going to be coming by the end of this the by the end of round three 2025.
In fact, it was recognized that it would go in that the durational adjustment would go into round four. And that is what our plan so stipulates is the recognition of the need for the durational adjustment and the right for the durational adjustment due to the lack of infrastructure.
I'm going to take a quick break at this moment and mention which I wish I had done at the beginning that Oakland has been very proactive about this process. And the reason that I'm mentioning it now, we're going to see in a minute. And as I indicated in a side somewhat of a sidebar with the mayor earlier, I did
give a presentation on the legislation maybe about a year ago, but we have been speaking the burough's professionals and the burough staff and officials have been speaking about this about the affordable housing obligation
about the about what how to address it and how to handle it for several months. I believe um myself, your engineer, mayor, the administrator, the burough hired special affordable housing council as well as its uh
burough attorney. Um and I believe uh at least one other person from the council was part of the committee as well. We've been meeting regularly, very regularly recently and speaking. So, I wanted to take this moment and sort of interrupt myself and indicate how proactive
Oakland has been about this situation because I think it's very important to say that that there have been many meetings and many discussions and a lot of analysis of what is the best
approach to take. I just wanted to say that. So now going back to your plan, your round three plan again, duration adjustment, vacant land adjustment. You address it through a series of as I indicated inclusionary zoning, which
means let's talk about what is that an inclusionary zoning or subsequently what would be an inclusionary development which are you only have one that's under construction right now. Uh the rest are not being built due to lack of sewers. But an inclusion what inclusionary means is that exactly what it says it's
inclusionary. So there will be a certain number of total units either in a development or before it gets to the development phase permitted in a zone district with an affordable set aside. And what the set aside means is that a
certain percentage of the total units need to be affordable. Typically it's 20% sometimes also 15% is permitted for rentals and I do believe you have one development under construction right now uh LAR is that how it's known yes LAR
that is an inclusionary development it's up by the high by the school so number of inclusionary so that inclusionary development as well as other inclusionary zones were utilized to meet the RDP then the
unmet need was satisfied IED via establishment of zones as well. They were known as the DT1 and the DT2. There was overlay zoning put on those zones. And what an overlay zone is and this an overlay zoning can be done for unmet
need. What an overlay zone is is it permits the it can permit other uses besides the inclusionary residential development. So it's a zone district might be
overlaid with another set of uses that are permitted such as the inclusionary development that I referenced earlier. So that is the DT1 and the DT2 zones were adopted and then there is an afford there's an there's an overlay option an
affordable housing overlay. So that's what that means. So going forward to round four as I indicated continue to lack sewers as was anticipated. I believe the plan states something along the lines of no planned
anticipated or estimated dates for installation installation of the infrastructure is known in the bureau. Um there is also a recognition that that might change. Round four is a 10-year period. While there isn't a planned date
could and it's not anticipated that at this time that there would be were that to happen the burrow would receive advanced notice. In other words, no one is showing up to install sewers on a Monday
morning without people knowing about it for quite some time in advance. and the burrow would have the opportunity to revisit its plan at that time to determine if the deferral or the durational adjustment which is the deferral still made sense.
So the plan the plans the premise of the plan is the durational adjustment the deferral of the obligation through round four. There is one other item in the plan having to do with the overlay zone for
the DT1 zone. There is a requirement within within the rules about durational adjustments having to do with uh consideration of applications made to D for a town that has a durational
adjustment. That's a specific section for which Oakland has respectfully requested a waiver from that section. And in support of that request and to further articulate Oakland's commitment to provision of affordable housing in the
manner that it is so able to do so, there is a recommendation to increase the density of the DT1 zone. I'm just going to pull it up in my plan. So presently that zone permits a density to 18 units an acre. There is a
recommendation to increase that to 22 units an acre out of support for this waiver request and to show Oakland's commitment to the provision of affordable housing. So I wanted to put that out there. That was what was in the plan.
The rest of the plan has a lot of requirements to excuse me addresses the requirements that are within the legislation which is now the Fair Housing Act 2 uh dealing with consideration of multi-generational
housing um other you know the state plan and etc. Those are all requirements from the legislation. That is basically the plan in a nutshell. There are also several appendices go through those. Uh the first one is actually
appendex A is um your rehabilitation manual which exists today again because you have a rehabilitation program right now. So it's going to continue. I would anticipate that manual. Let me backtrack. With the legislation, there were certain other requirements, other types of
affordable housing regulations that needed to be updated. Some of those are ongoing. Some U-Hack uniform housing affordability controls. Those rules were initially republished sometime in December with the um
and they're probably going to be revisited, etc. So, some of the affordable housing ordinances, etc. that we have today might need to be updated once these rules are finalized and once the everyone's caught up to where they need to be. So I wouldn't surprise me if maybe there needs to be some tweaks to
the rehabilitation manual and I know CGPNH is very much on top of that. You'll note that your affordable housing ordinance and affirmative marketing plan um are in in appendix and I think I even have to comment that modifications are needed as well modifications will be
made as needed to comply with any future round four requirements. development fee ordinance. Same thing. Now, the development fee ordinance is what allows a municipality to collect development fees that go into the trust fund. That is, and the trust fund is solely
utilized for the provision of affordable housing. That's what is funding your um your rehabilitation program. Um that's what I believe you utilize perhaps when there was a property purchased uh several years ago for affordable
housing, etc. There's a within the trust fund a certain percentage 20% can be used for administrative costs and then there are other requirements for other other port other uh parts of the fund. Uh you have a resolution within the
appendix appointing the municipal housing leaison and your administrative agent. We have a draft ordinance um and then the spending plan which is just a revisit of how the affordable housing trust fund uh dollars are spent. So
that's a summary of the plan, Mr. Russo. Yeah. And just and in reading the plan, um I understood it to be that our our perspective need is 286 units. Correct. Yes. But you're going to still try under the durational adjustment
theory to which is permitted by the code to reduce that number to 146. I don't believe we can reduce it. No, it's a deferral of our obligation. The VA, there was a VA done under round 3 to 148.
So the the 286 cannot be reduced. If we go back and revisit our plan, we can then we can look at it. Yes. It's a deferral of the obligation. So would that be considered additional unmet need where we now have 534?
I think that at this point it's just deferred and then we'd have to see what happens you know if sewers come forward or you know some other something else comes forward. I'm just trying to run through the numbers to make sure I heard them correctly. I think we started off with a
requirement under one, two, and three combined that you indicated with 680 with 148 being the realistic development and 532 being deferred and that was subject to duration. No, I'm sorry. I
think your numbers may be off a little bit. Can I repeat them? Yes, please. That's why I'm trying. 682. Okay. Your RDP was 148 with the unmet need of at 534. Does that not add up? No, it does. I was off by two. Okay.
Thank you. I know you looked at the plan pretty carefully, so I'm sure you would have picked that up. So, I So, I wanted to kind of connect the 682 to the 286. Are they Yeah. similar or is it the 148 to the 286? I'm trying to
understand what these numbers mean. So, the obligations are cumulative. Is that your question? affordable housing. Let me rephrase that. The affordable housing obligation that is not the rehabilitation that's separate is cumulative. So rounds one, two, three, four, you're going to have five, six,
seven theoretically going forward, assuming there's no changes. So the 682 is where we were at the end of round three. Yes. And the 286 is incremental.
It's added on to it. Yes. I'm sorry. It's just very warm over here. It's so warm. That's understandable. And I'm doing so much talking. So, those are great questions. And
it's complicated. I'm not going to not the affordable the whole Be careful how I say this. The affordable housing process is complicated in New Jersey. It's not straightforward. So yes, that's those are great
questions. Can I and with a lot of acronyms also. So So at the end of round three, we were at 682. Yes. Nothing has changed and they've added 286. Yes. Well, originally they added 306, right?
Which was brought down to But so but nothing has changed. So we settled we settled for around three. Yes. And now we're at round four. And next comes round five, right? And and so they're adding more to this, you know, this
arbitrary number. I'll call it arbitrary. Um so so you can say however you'd like to. Yes, it is cumulative. Your obligations then except for the rehabilitation which replaces so your your rehabilitation
number replaces your prior rehabilitation number. But your obligation, your perspective need obligation. The big numbers are cumulative. Rounds one and two. There's we're we're at round four now. So we have round one, round two, and round three. And now you were at round four.
Yes. And then in 2035, you're going to have round five. Unless there are some ch unless so if I have a a a five pound bag I I can only put five pounds of stuff in it, right? Um so next
year we've agreed we've agreed that that I have my five pound bag and this is what fits in it. Um, now we're at round four and they're saying I have to put more of this stuff in my f five pound bag. It's an
interesting perspective. I don't know that I've heard it related to in that manner, but okay, we'll go with that. Um, yes, it is and I know I keep saying this. It's cumulative. This is so my my but my bag doesn't get bigger
but my requirement does. Your obligation. Yes, your obligation gets Yes, your oblig I keep saying this. I'm not trying to sound repetitive. Your obligation is cumulative. Round one, round two, round three, round four, and
then round five. So, this is why I start with this very long introduction about why are we here? Why are we talking about these numbers? What has happened? And we have now moved from a process
where COA has been eliminated completely. Not that it was very it wasn't really doing much in round three, but it's been eliminated completely and now we have new legislation. And the legislation the legislation again has these very
quick moving deadlines um and significant obligations. I I'm just going to go off off track for one minute. So I I started off by saying this was a regional obligation. We are in region one. Region one contains Bergen, Hudson, Payic, and Sussex
counties. Okay. So I want to region one's total obligation. Remember I talked about the pie. You have the big pie and you get a bigger piece of pie. Your region one's total obligation is 27,743
units. That's what was calculated. Any qualified urban aid municipality does not have an affordable housing obligation. They might have a rehabilitation
obligation but they don't have a prospective need obligation. So of that 27743 that is then as I indicated filtered down divided amongst all the other municipalities. Can you give an example of the municipalities or cities that don't have to participate in this so the residents
understand? Well, the fact that they don't have to participate, they don't have a prospective need obligation. Sure. Just give me a second, please. Loi. Loi. Yeah, I I did it. We did it last week. Their uh didn't have to their rehabilitation is 144 to rehabilitate
existing affordable housing units and their uh future need is zero. Zero. Yeah. I'm looking on the list. I have a I have a feeling what would be another one is um um actually Bergen Bergenfield is a
qualified urban a municipality. Um Cliffside Park Garfield Garfield Hack and Sack Loi. Um, Camden,
Pen, Bridge, Bridgetton, and Kate May County, um, Belleville, Bloomfield, Vinland, Irvington. So, what differentiates them from us? Why we have the obligation?
They don't. because they're what's called you're ask are you asking what makes a town a qualified urban aid municipality? Um how do they meet their number? They don't have an obligation. So someone just say how do they meet their number?
So in other words, they're built out already. There's a so there's a list of there's a list of urban a municipalities produced by the division of local government services each year relying and I'm reading right from how the obligations are calculated and relies on a statutory formula that
considers the municipal tax rate equalized valuation number of children participating in TF pero that is population and population density the 2025 urban aid list the most recent was the one used for calculation there's 62 municipalities
And then there's an an analysis done if they're qualified. There's three tests looking at to see if they're qualified. Having to deal with substandard housing units compared to all housing units in the municipality, if the same ratio was used, population density and more
something else with population densities. So basically all urban a municipalities were looked at and then they were determined are they all qual what's called a qualified urban aid municipality. Um and then I believe right 47 of the 62
urban a municipalities were determined to be a qualified urban aid municipality throughout this process. So they don't have to whoever said it they don't have a perspective need obligation. They'll have quite often they they may have a rehabilitation obligation that depends on each
municipality. But so again, we're in this housing region one. It has the largest and greatest obligation and then it's filtered down. So I just did I sorry
did I tell you what was the next biggest obligation by region? Did I already do that? I did that. 20,000. Thank you. Sometimes you forget what you said. And after that, after the 20,000, we go down 11,000, 13,000, 9,000, 1,800. I mean,
this is so these are the regional obligations. So, so just to be clear, you had stated that we have 4,300 housing units in town. 45. 45. Okay. And our obligation is 968.
So basically the state's way of looking at this is you need to put 25% more affordable housing into our town. So it's except that the rounds are separated. I
mean the rounds are separated out but the only reason the only reason that I'm bringing that up is because and it doesn't apply to you. It applied to another town I work with. But if you there is the reason that I'm saying I'm bringing this up is because if your
obligation is a certain percentage of your can't be exceed a certain percentage of your occupied housing units which yours doesn't. There's a cap on it for that. So you don't exceed that you I see mayor what you're saying is you took rounds one two three and four you added them. You did simple math you
added them together and you said this is our obligation. So right now you have the durational adjustment. You had it in round three. was anticipated to be extended through round four. It it you know that's our that's our case that we're making um at this point in time. You had previously also a vacant land
adjustment which I'm assuming came out of settlement and negotiation and mediation as part of the court process. So this is the case that we're making at this point in time. Um with regard to the obligation I
it is not unrecognized that the legislation is challenging and there are elected official you know all I'll say is there are elected officials who participated in this process. So you know that's what I can say about that. That is the legislation now um that unless it
is changed that is this is the process this is the time frame this is how it is going to be. So, I will tell you the plans need to be adopted by the end of June. 60-day challenge process and then or ch excuse me, 60-day challenge
period. Then after that, settlement mediation all of which is supposed to be resolved for every municipality by the end of the calendar year. So anyone who's doing the math recognizes that that means September, October, November,
December, this all has everything has to be resolved. Any comments from your special adjudicator fair housing? Any challenges for every municipality? And I will remind you that for the obligations, there were 150 some odd towns that were challenged
in the obligation and that we had a month to settle as well as the fair share housing obl challenges and we had a month to settle that and it was hectic. So see what happens. Then once the once everything is finalized by the end of
the year, then the towns have until March sometime in March of 2026 to revise plans as needed, adopt ordinances, and do everything that is necessary to in implement the plans as they are finalized. In my mind, the only thing that would
bring a change to this time frame is if there is a change to the legislation because they're right. I mean, Joe, are you Because it used to be when there was COA, they could, right? They could have say, "All right, there's a, you know, a six-month extension for all towns that
are participating or something like that." But there's no, the only one who can make that change now is, I believe, the legislature, correct? So, and this is the same legislature that's forcing this on us. Well, they adopt in fairness, mayor, they adopt there's
always been an affordable housing requirement and they just adopted legislation that has this process in it. Yes. And they changed a lot of other things as well. But anyways, that's that's what the legislation did. So that's that's I
just like to get let's get, you know, focused on the job that we have to do because, you know, we can talk about these numbers. There they are. I agree with you. It doesn't really it's nothing there's nothing this board can do about it. We have a job to do. Um we had um
we had our obligation in rounds one through three. We dealt with it with a plan um and the plan is approved. Now we've got to do the same thing in round four. We have these 286 units that we have to deal with. And
and what Caroline is telling us is we're just going to continue our durational adjustment. Um the durational adjustment because we don't have sewers.
Now, the 148 units that we do have to or that um that we could possibly provide in John is is that um with those 148 fall under the u the potential to put the sewer
line in that's approved right now. Yes. You received I don't want to speak for Mr. Yak. I'm still butchering your name. I'm sorry. Yak is fine. Yeah. Um but yes, there was a durational
adjustment under round three for everything. There's a dur and that's what we're continuing forward with round four is the durational adjustment and there was a recognition of that. There also were analyses um of flows and of gallonage that were contained within your settlement agreement within your
plan. And I did recreate uh one of the tables in the plan with the help of Mr. Boswell. Um because some of the numbers change somewhat of this the the g the the gallonish gallons per day. Gallons per day. Table
22 um primarily came from your settlement agreement but with some help from Mr. Boswell. All right. So now part of the plan that you want us to um to approve also includes increasing the density in DT1
and DT2 and everyone just DT1 excuse me in DT1. Okay, which for everybody that doesn't know that's our downtown DT1 is our downtown area. So um we have this overlay zone in
DT1 that provides C density to put affordable housing units into. And now you're saying, "Okay, we want to show that we're trying to provide some of these units. We're going to increase that density." Yes.
But does the sewer plan would that allow for that? You know, is my question. Right. You're increasing the density. The sewer plan is only allowing us to take a certain number of gallons per day. Right now, we want to increase the density.
It remains to be seen. So we don't know even under our current approved wastewater plan when we could handle those additional there are still many steps water reallocation etc.
So so if we brought water in from it remains another. Okay. So it is possible then anything. Also, if you just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, um there is a zoning map greatly reduced in size, but it is one
of your appendices. So, if you wanted to if you're able to see, it's your DT1 actually falls quite nicely in the middle of the of the burrow. If anyone wanted to just revisit the majority of the downtown. Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chairman. Yes. But I just want to the north that we call DT2. But yes, Mr.
Chairman, that's correct. Yes. Um and thank you for the reminder that while the numbers are challenging, there's a plan to be considered tonight um that the you know the burrows had discussions on for quite well
and Burough's had discussions on and we you know for a while and 286 and I mean we may all think it's crazy but that's what was settled. So that's we have to deal with that and so you've presented a plan here for us to deal with that 286 and that's what we Thank you and thank
you thank you for bringing us all back to that Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it because I know I get just as caught up in the numbers as anybody else. I'm doing a lot of this these past few weeks. Um but yes, I also um the attorney and I have discussed um just a
couple of Do you want me to go into this now or Sure. couple of quick revisions to the plan. Um, page 28, table 20. And I would like to thank one of the board members who was kind who did a
very thorough review and pointed out this to me that um, so there's several columns in this table. project, block, lot, status, affordable units, if there were bonuses, which really only applies to the bottom
row, and the total um the West Oakland A1 uh is shown as six affordable units, but that six was not correctly carried over to the total where it shows eight and two rows. And by the way, the West
Oakland AB one is what uh some people refer to as the coremark. I think there's uh we actually heard I think the McDonald's is it a McDonald's application recently that was part of the site and involved a um a subdivision as well as a site plan. the Terune site
which is two rows down similarly has 17 units in the affordable but that number was not correctly carried over to the total but it adds up and I just wanted to point out that was a typographical error and I really appreciate uh everybody's taking another look at this to you know to assist with that um
similarly there was a line on page 36 that just doesn't belong um it's the third the end of the third bullet and it do you want me to read the line Joe or Yeah, for the record, the township's plan exceeds the 102 units required for rental housing.
It's clearly does not belong in Oakland's plan. Um, and then there are a couple of, you know, I'm sure as we go through this, there's typographical errors and things of that nature that are not substantive. So, I just wanted to point those out.
Mr. Thank you for reading it through so carefully. Do you have other questions? Mr. Russo, I have questions, but I don't know if it's worth asking the questions because uh it's unrealistic, but uh it
just baffles my brain. But the 900 units, do we have where we're going to build 900 units? Do you have that on our master plan right now where we're going to build 900 units or do we only have where we're going to build 248 units or 148? The 148 because
at this point our plan involves a duration. So that's all we're shown is the 148 even though our number is 900. Yes, because you received Yes, because some of it came out of negotiation under last round, but you have the durational adjustment and that should be sufficient
going forward at this point. I think most of it was the vacant land adjustment, right? And that's but the duration. Yes. But as the chairman said before, if we do put sewers downtown, we're just shooting ourselves in the foot because quite honestly, we were
we're increasing the density of the downtown to meet this plan. Correct. I'm not sure I'm understanding your question, but I just want to really make sure that we're all clear, excuse me, for the record, that this plan is that
Oakland is creating a realistic opportunity within doing what it needs to do and that there is nothing in here that is contradictory or trying to give the appearance of something that it isn't or not trying, you know, trying to make it appear as if the plan is unreasonable. I agree with you, but
we're increasing the density of the downtown as the chairman just said to meet this new number to get to the You're increasing the density. Yes. Of that is the recommendation within the plan. That's the responsible thing you're you're being told by our professionals. That's the responsible
thing for this board to do to move Oakland in the right direction. That's my recommendation. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And I believe it's realistic. Yes. Thank you for your question. I'm hearing somebody talk but I can't
see who's talking. Mr. I just um Caroline on the draft of the resolution that I prepared on page three of the last bullet uh where I said that although the burrow's perspective need is pres that should be that although the burrow's fourth round perspective need
obligation is presently at 286 the burrow will continue its efforts instead of to decrease to defer that obligation because I'm trying to find I'm sorry I'm trying to can you I'm pulling it up as we speak. I'm sorry. Hold on. And and
basically I got that from I think in the report. You think in the report? No. No. I'm saying what what I just read that was in my draft. What page? I'm sorry. What page of the resolution are you on? Page three. The last bullet on page three.
You think that came directly from the report? No, no, no, no. I got some of it because in your conclusion, okay, Oakland, Oak Oakland lacks available infrastructure to provide for its affordable housing obligation and therefore is eligible to continue its
durational adjustment. So I sort of like sort of paraphrased it a little. Yeah. I think you did a good job. But but should the word defer the word decrease should be defer. I think that might be a better option if you're able if I that would be respectfully that would be that's what I
think it should be. So, so that paragraph should read that although the bureau's fourth round prospective need obligation is present at 286, the burough will continue its efforts to defer that obligation by continuing its durational adjustment pursuant to NJS.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any board members wish to ask any questions Caroline? Okay. Uh Seeing none, I will entertain a motion to open to the public for questions from the public.
So move. All in favor? I. Anybody here from the public wish to uh comment, ask questions regarding uh the affordable housing plan? Yeah, please state your name and
address. Uh Steve Penosian 69 Glen Gray. I um it's very complicated, but The question I have is is more of a broader higher level um planning number or target number. If I understand it
correctly, the state's number is 77,000. Is that correct? I'm sorry. Can you say that the state's number is what? I didn't hear what you said. Um I'm trying to understand where all these numbers come from. And it sounds like if I understand it correctly, but the state's uh number is
77,000 affordable housing units. Is that is that correct? So our region is 27743. So the state Yeah. The states No, the state's over 80,000. Oh, it's over 80,000. Yeah. Yeah. I think I was kind of throwing some numbers out that were
like roundabout. So I I read I read it doesn't matter what I read. And this is just for round four, correct? Yes. I'm only talking about round four. I'm not even there. I'm the perspective that I got is is the the number that's driven by the state legislator. uh which is
that total number of you're saying it's about 80,000 I thought it was 77,000 immaterial okay but what I'm trying to understand it sounds like our region which is responsible for 27,700 and change is a part of that total
number yes okay so and then Oakland we have our number that's part of that 277 yes so what is driving our number going up does that mean somebody else numbers are going down or is that state number
moving from 77,000 to 80,000 or higher? That something's driving the number up this cumulative number that we keep referring to. I think I think maybe what you're missing is that that 80,000 is not the cumulative number for the whole state.
That's strictly a round four number for the next 10 years. Okay. And out of that 80,000 Oakland has 280. But for the state though, the state has a number. I mean, and that number is 77 or 80,000 whatever. Right. Yes. And that's only for this round. There's other cumulative
numbers before. That's where I'm going. What's changing caused our number? That's my the fact that the state is increasing the number, right? The state, not because a neighboring municipality says we can't do it. Okay. Who's gonna
who's gonna get take from them? The reason part of the my question is I was at a meeting in New York and White Plains last week. New York's number is roughly about 100,000 units which I thought was interesting
the relationship between New York. Thank you. So no other just so you know no other state does this like New Jersey. So, whatever New York's number is, I have no idea what their analysis is or anything else. Yes. No, New Jersey is, you know,
solo like this. Uh, Chopper Russo, 392 Rampo Valley Road. Great presentation. Thank you for the numbers. Um, I know we're not going to have sewers or what have you, but going forward when can I just point to like say a project that's is being worked on now. It's from the
old round. So if it was to come up now the one on courthouse where we have retail underneath with three units on top are we going to do like a percentage basis like let's just say if that was four units on top would one of those four have to be uh affordable? So that's
a great question. You do have what's called a mandatory set aside ordinance. Um and that is a requirement. So, that was one of your unmet need mechanisms. And almost every town in this area has one of those. Um, you have to have a
certain number of units in order to have that kick in. And I'm guessing that whatever was approved, this predates my time with the burrow. I think it's three units. That's probably is four units there or three units there. Board of adjustments. That was three of it. It
did not qualify for housing, but anything four above, I would assume would. Correct. So way you're you're I don't believe it was for No, it wasn't. I'm asking about the future. I'm from today with what's going on with this, you know,
and I know there's a difference between you building new houses and having rentals. It's 15% versus 20%. Okay. Sorry, you could give me the exact, but it's in our ordinance. It's in the ordinance section where you know where
it gets activated and obviously from round two or was it three you can't pay it pay it away. It's got RCA a regional contribution agreement. No, you're correct. I think those were eliminated in 2008 or somewhere around that time um when there were changes to the fair
housing act at that time. Yeah, Frank makes mist. Okay. Anybody else from the public to ask question? name and address, please. My name is Eric Shaach, 61 Loyola Place
in Oakland. Uh, I'm kind of surprised about all these numbers. And I probably was might be stating the obvious that where are we going to put all these? And I also want to state something obvious. Um, I'm the president of the
Oakland Historical Society and I want to um make a point that the center of town has a lot of historic buildings that are worth preserving and I'm wondering if there can be a provision in this plan for preserving those buildings and u especially in the
uh the the new the DT1 and DT2. There are several um buildings from the 1800s. I think they should be preserved, but um I was just wondering if if that can be put into the plan. Another point I wanted to make is not only do we lack
the infrastructure for sewers, we also don't have the traffic infrastructure either. The town center is clogged with traffic already. And if we put um thousand units, uh of course they're not all going to go in the
downtown section, but that's going to really make a big difference in our roads. And I was just wondering if as a question um does that have any impact on the on the plan. Um so that those are my two questions is are there provisions for historic
preservation preserving the character of our town and also second um what about traffic? So the traffic question um is uh the I'll call it the easier one. Um while there is a recognition of not having
infrastructure for water infrastructure for water or sewer being you know handled in a certain manner uh the Mount Laurel doctrine does not you know traffic is not an issue school capability things of that nature. No
that's the municipalities need to um address that in their own manner. many towns I I've been in a lot of these meetings this month and many towns are saying the same things you know you are what about the traffic where do the units go etc so um regarding the
historic nature of it uh your DT1 zone exists today I know we did just we've done a um streetscape ordinance to help with certain appearances um and I believe that there are I think that there might be some uh requirements
within the existing ordinance and the appearances. I don't that's not something for the necessarily for the plan though at this point being conjunct kind of um simultaneous but not related is what you're saying.
So concurrent I mean well there is a DT1 zone today. So, um, and I believe I know that at least the master plan that was prepared, the master plan amendment that was prepared a couple years ago does recognize the, you know, the appearance
and the his the uh this the charact the developed characteristics of that area. So, um I don't recall if the ordinance actually has anything in it or not. Like I said, that the ordinance exists today.
So, and I think what Caroline's saying, this is like it wouldn't be dealt with as here. This is not where we would look at something like that. This is strictly affordable housing. You should read the DT1 uh ordinance, zoning ordinance, and then see what you think because there there
is some language in there about character buildings, etc., you know, and then if you have other ideas, you should come back and talk to us. All right. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just actually
I was pulling up the DT ordinance as you were speaking and there are there are criteria, excuse me, there are uh references to the building's appearance, types of roofs, etc. That's all in the zone district, excuse me, the zoning ordinance today.
Anybody else from the public questions or comments? Just wait one. Oh, sorry. Hi everybody. How are you? Susan Imperio, 71 West Oakland Avenue. I have a few questions. Number one, we were talking about how you're going to either
uh cross over into, you know, land where it's not obligated or not not quote unquote to be built on. Does that mean at some point somewhere down the road 10 years from now, something is going to kick in where you're going to start now uh implementing uh eminent domain to
people and their properties. Okay. So, there's no eminent domain or redevelopment as part of this plan. I just want I just want to say that I just want to say that first of all, there's no redevelopment or I'm going to say that again. There's no redevelopment
proposed as part of this plan. Now, the second thing I'm going to say is even if there were redevelopment proposed as part of this plan or elsewhere or not even part of this plan, redevelopment now does not necessarily need to contain
eminent condemnation, which is what you're calling eminent domain. A taking is what I believe you're referencing. So there is nowhere in this plan does it talk does it reference eminent domain condemnation or anything like that as to
what might the bureau do in the future I think that there's a lot of unknowns right now our you know number one being the infrastructure number two being what would the legis you know if the legislation is going to remain as it is what would the numbers be etc there's a
lot of unknowns so I don't know that anyone you know can speak for what might happen in the future. Um because a little over a year ago, none of us thought this legislation, you know, none of us knew about this legislation, right? So, so I I don't know that at least I can't speak
to hypotheticals of what might happen. Okay. The other thing was is that you mentioned something about 100 units in the uh West Oakland Avenue area. Where is that? Did you say something about you mention I don't think it was Oakland. The only
thing that I know of on West Oakland app is is right at the intersection rail valley road. So you got the Walgreens there. You the city. So there's going to be a McDonald's restaurant and also a building an apartment building that will contain affordable housing. It's I don't
remember how many. I thought it was 24 units. I did I if I said 100. I'm sorry. Somebody said 100 about something. or 100 that I unfortunately I don't know if your mics are on or not but we can't sitting over here it's very hard to hear you guys can you hear me okay oh you I
can hear yeah I'm I'm the loud so um I think there's 100 there's not 100 units on my stove my thing was the evidence domain and the other thing was the big issue with me is the water issue because I happen to have septic and I've been having water issues but I want to
understand I'm sorry. I just was asking you means drainage. When you say water, you don't mean drinking water. Okay. Correct. Okay. So, first of all, I appreciate what you're saying and again that's I know that there are issues in Oakland with that. So obviously any type of were
there to be development in the future it's just because something is in a plan that was approved under round three doesn't mean that once the sewers should the sewers come in that the next day there's a building permit in hand. There is still a site plan process whereby any
development needs to come in for site plan approval before this board. It's reviewed by myself. It's reviewed by your burough engineer who certainly is aware of your drainage issues and would be looking for, you know, all storm water management needs to be addressed. No, right. No, no runoff things. All
those those those requirements aren't bypassed simply because it's an inclusionary development or an affordable development. Those there are other public meetings that take place to discuss um any of these developments. I
just want to I want to make sure that's clear, too. It's they don't just get to go right to building permit. That's not how this process works. But like, you know, when you keep saying in the future in the future, the future's going to be here before we know. Correct.
Well, well, there's a lot of things in plann. So, are we caught up to that future? I think that we're I think that we're doing the best we can to meet the deadlines and address the
obligation in a responsible manner. Um if there is a specific water problem where you live or drainage issue where you live right now, that's one issue that's separate and distinct from any affordable housing plan. If there is concerns about future development, like
I said, it would be there'd be storm water management that would be part of any development that you know affordable units or not. Okay. All right. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Thank you. Anybody else? Sure.
I still live at 69 worked at the board of education. Um, so I looked it up. Uh, the number that Murphy signed into law is 84,69 100. Yep. I know that's not in our
control. And it's defined and I know this is Google. It's defined as a target number. I'm out of the corporate world. When I hear the number target doesn't mean anything. It's still negotiable. But coming back to the fact that
Governor Murphy signed this into law and it's 84,698. This number, it sounds like this number could only change if he or the next mayor next governor changes the number. Would that be safe
to assume? So the number of the 84,000 unit number that Right. So what so what has happened is with that obligation that's broken up into the regions that's what I was trying to explain and then
it's broken into the regions the only way let me backtrack that number is calculated a certain way the total are calculated a certain way based on the legislation so there and so that is how this is going to be addressed going
forward barring a change to the legislation which is now the fair housing act two am I answering your question Yeah, I just I'm trying to understand the number that number is 84,698 cannot change unless uh the governor that's that's the number right now for
round four. But who can change that number? The governor the pro well the signed into law. It sounds like leg we need to have the we need to have legislation. There would need to be a change to the legislation. And I think I just want to also I don't want to belabor this point by any stretch, but
you were asking about the obligation and the it was I just want to without getting too granular. The way that it is the way that the obligations were filtered down to each municipality was by looking at what was called factors. An income capacity factor, a land
capacity factor, and an equalized non-residential valuation factor. Those three factors were a comparison of the town against the entire region. Then the factors were averaged together and applied against the the region's obligation which is why the region's
obligation is so important because that's where it all stems from. My question wasn't granular though was more higher level. You're granular. I was trying this is the number. This is our number. Our number shouldn't change unless number
our round four number I don't anticipate changing. Okay. But there will be a round five number. Yep. Hi, my name is Jerry Anger Mueller. I live at 24 Lake View Terrace. I know there's some houses going in. So, group homes for disabled people going in. Uh,
so affordable housing, does that include houses for 55 and over and disabled or group homes? Would that be considered part of the housing? So, that's a great question. Thank you. So, yes. um certain amounts of credits can be
can be achieved via group homes or what's called supportive housing is like an umbrella term for uh you know for generally for a certain demographic certain amount for can be achieved that way and you you have in round three in addition a certain amount can be
achieved via age restrict age restricted or senior housing was the term that you used and the actually I believe your municipal project for is going to be senior or age restricted housing. Yes, you're correct about that. That would cover some of the some of it, but it you
can't you can't cover all of it that way. 30% age restricted housing is limited to 30% of your round four number and um then you also have to have at least half of your round four number available without restrictions was called available to families etc. So, a
certain percentage. Yes. And you have utilized both age restricted and group homes in the past as well. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That was a great point. Anybody else? Okay. Seeing none, close. A motion to
close to the public. Some moved. Second. All in favor? I. Okay. Um, at this time, um, I will entertain a motion that we either adopt or
or reject our, uh, housing element and fair share plan amendment as prepared by TNM Associates. Somebody like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman. uh on the advice of our professionals, I
think that quite honestly, we must move this motion. So, I I I'm in favor of the motion. There's a motion. We have a second. Second. Okay. Uh discussion. Yes. Uh with with regard to the uh
resolution that I prepared in advance of today's meeting, uh I just want to note that uh that's my discussion with Caroline a few minutes ago. On page three, the last bullet is going to read that although the burrow's fourth round perspective made and instead of the word
decrease, it will be deferred. And then on the last page uh where the now therefore be resolved and then be it further resolved where we have the plan dated June 12, 2025. I'm putting an asterisk and then I'm just
putting down on the bottom that and and as revised to include in this writer suggested revisions uh made at the hearing. Okay. So I want to make sure those were incorporated into the plan. So Mr. We're we're actually voting on your uh
resolution resolution, right? Okay. So, the resolution that you all have in front of you, okay, which refers to the plan and Mr. Russo mentioned a couple of changes to that and that's what we will be voting on. So, when we vote on this,
we'll be both adopting the plan and memorializing the res all at the same time. And it's basically we're going to adopt the draft of the housing element plan dated June 12, 2025 as a sub element of the burough's master plan and
that uh we recommend that this plan be endorsed by the mayor and council of the burough of Oakland and also in in some of our other resolutions uh we give Caroline or Tina Associates discretion to make any minor revisions to the plan which may be required necessary to uh to
satisfy the burrow's affordable housing Okay. So, just one item of housekeeping. Mr. Jona, I think you were I said you were sitting for Mr. Connelly. He since showed up. So, you're now sitting for Mr.
Is there any more discussion before we vote? Take Joe first. Question. The density is changing from 18 to 22 in the DT1 overlays. Does that have to be addressed in first question is does
that have to be addressed in this like part of it or it's in the it's in uh Caroline's plan okay this resolution refers to and then the second question is that 18 uh how was that originally
calculated like was that a result of other numbers or was it just set so 18 that's if I'm understanding your question that's what's currently permitted. I'm assuming it came about via settlement and mediation under your round three process. I don't the
density. The density. Yeah. So, it's just a n arbitrary number not based on I'm certain it wasn't arbitrary. um respectfully 18 is you know that's not you know we're in the realm of of of overlay zone uh type densities and I'm
I'm assuming but don't know for certain because I didn't participate that it came about through your mediation sessions with your um special adjudicator and the fair share housing center but I don't know I I wasn't I I can't speak to what happened I wasn't here I mean it's not 18 is not a result
of of the another calculation of something that something else I'm going to have to change. That's kind of what I wanted to know. I don't believe so. No. Okay. I think it's okay. Not that I know. That's a legal question.
Yeah, Kevin just did. I know. Kevin beat me to it. Mayor, do you have Yeah. I just want to say Carolyn, uh, you know, thank you for
working through this. We spent numerous hours working on this and unfortunately we're dealing with a a really illconceived piece of legislation coming out of Trenton and really rushing this through. you know, I mean, this was only passed in March of 24 and here we are, you know, little more than a year and a
half later to try and make this obligation. We're not the only town working through this issue. This is, you know, this is statewide and and I mean, it's just the the way that Trenton is just treating these municipalities is is awful to make this number. It's just
absolutely awful. Carolyn, thank you and thank you for everybody for all the hard work we did. It's it's a tough pill to swallow. Thank you. My pleasure. Anybody else? Just I just wanted to add before the vote that uh you're right, it was a team
effort and uh we did get the notices out. So just for the record as I set forth in the resolution, uh the surrounding uh towns were served with the notice. uh a copy of the notice and a cop the notice and a copy of the plan as required was sent to the Bergen
County Planning Board and the New Jersey Office of Planning Advocacy and the notice was published in the record I have on June 13, 2025. So all the notice requirements for this special meeting uh were satisfied. Just wanted to put that in the record.
Thank you, Mr. Russo. I actually did provide the secretary with um yeah, the white slips. Yeah, I got you white slips, too. All right, we're good. Roll call, please. Mr. Justa, yes. Mr. Clark, yes. Miss Levy, yes. Mr.
Marsetra, yes. Mr. Connelly, yes. Councilman Talamini, yes. Mr. Lith, yes. Mayor Kamala, reluctant. Reluctantly, yes. Chair Mat, yes. Okay. Have adopted. The planning board has
adopted and memorialized resolution. Okay. So, we can skip over uh review and discuss ordinance. There are none. Memorialization. We took care of that. We're not going to pay bills, approve any minutes tonight. Um, we're going to skip over new and old business so that
the mayor and council can do their meeting. Um, so, uh, our next meeting will be on July 10th. We will have, uh, looks like maybe two applications to hear. Um, so I will entertain a motion
to adjurnn. So move. All in favor? I meeting. Thank you everybody for coming. Meeting call to order. This is the June 23rd, 2025 special meeting. It was a joint meeting. First, we had a planning board and now this is the council
portion of the meeting. Uh would the clerk please read the uh statement for clients? This is a special meeting of the Burrow of Oakland. Notice of this meeting has been provided in accordance with the open public meetings act NJSA 10 col4-6
at sect by notifying the Bergen res record posting a copy on the bulletin board in the municipal building and filing a copy with the burough clerk public notice of the time date and location was provided and details for public access to this meeting
were posted rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.
Roll call. Mayor Kamala here. Council President McCann here. Councilman Pigantelli, Councilwoman Rose here, Councilman Saliani here, Councilman Slinski,
Councilman Talanini here. Okay. Do I have a motion to open to public? Open excused. So, Before we do that, Eric, I'd like to make a motion to dismiss Councilman Pnatelli and Councilman Suzinski. Second. Excuse
favor. Excuse me. All right. Motion open to public. I give you your route, Carol. I give you your route. Motion open to public. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Anybody from the public
wish to address the governing body? Not seeing any. Do a motion to close. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. I. All right. So before you we have uh resolution 25207. It is a resolution of the mayor council of the burough of Oakland endorsing the
fourth house fourth round housing out fair share plan adopted by the Oakland planning board. Uh all the members were present during the planning board presentation. They heard all the testimony from our our professionals and and also the debate from members of the planning board. Uh at this time I just
want to say that the as I indicated during the planning board portion of the meeting uh we have a lot of our professional worked very hard on this plan. Also uh just want to acknowledge the work that uh council president McCann did working on this as well when we came down to the deliberations and
negotiating the number. It was uh it was days and hours working to get through this through this process. Um, at this time, do I have a motion to approve 25207 resolution of the mayor and council of the Burough of Oakland endorsing the fourth house housing outlet and fair share plan adopted by the Oakland
Planning Board? I'll move it forward. So, do I have a second? Second discussion. Yes. Uh, I have a quick question. So, even as we put this forward, um, it'll be reviewed by the state and the state can still appeal back this motion, correct?
I'm sorry. Can you please repeat your question? With with this resolution with with this resolution, the state has a chance to review it and come back and and they can challenge our our resolution. Correct. They can challenge the plan. Any interested party can
challenge the plan. And you're correct in that um I don't know that this DCA is going to be reviewing our plan, but our special adjudicator will. and Fairshare Housing Center, which is a nonprofit uh housing advocacy group, will um also has the opportunity to review it. Uh Mr.
Gillson, is there anyone I'm missing? I don't believe DCA is actually going to be reviewing the plan. I I don't believe so either, but as you mentioned, any interested party, so any property owner in town would have the ability to challenge the plan as well. Thank you. You're welcome. Any further
discussion from the governing body? Questions for our professionals? Mr. Mayor, I I I have a Mr. Just Yeah, just a couple comments. Um, I want to thank our professionals. Caroline, you work really hard, not only working hard in Oakland. I know that your calendar is
full of all the communities that you represent. Uh, I want to also thank uh Brian Giblin, our uh council on affordable housing attorney. Uh, we probably should change that title. Um, and I want to thank Mr. Gillson for all their hard work and uh notwithstanding
that my support uh for their appointments to work with us. Um I may have a different conclusion that that's not a reflection on on their hard work. Uh there's something that came up during this process that was very disturbing to
me. Uh as you mentioned um my role was initially uh to help and advise and as you as you noted mayor I participated in the uh and the conferences with the judiciary uh and and what came to light during
that time was um the in our discussions with the special adjudicator uh he was being advised by a guy named Art Bernard and Mr. Bernard uh under the rules of ethics and was and under the rules of
ethics the special adjudicator and any advisers are supposed to be neutral and of course if anyone can Google Mr. Art Bernard uh I brought to the court's attention that Mr. Bernard was one of the architects and implementators of the
original Mount Laurel plan going back to the late 80s. Mr. Mr. Bernard actually testified in front of, excuse me, he actually spoke in public on behalf of a developer just six months earlier prior to uh our meeting with uh with the
court. Uh it was Mr. Giblin who pointed out the obvious what he believed to be an obvious conflict of interest. Mr. Bernard and the adjudicator argued with me that that was not a conflict. Frankly,
I don't know what basis they can argue that on. I'll let them stand on whatever arguments they made that were nonsensical and circular arguments. But ultimately, Mr. Bernard was removed uh um or stepped down. I believe he stepped down. I want to be correct on
that. I'm not actually I'm not clear. It was never clear how he he was no longer. And and we had another meeting in which we moved down from the was it 306 or 309? Originally it was 306. And just to clarify, Mr. Bernard, I do I do believe stepped aside. He stepped aside. I do
believe that. Okay. He didn't want to. That was for sure. I know. And and in fact adjudicated and believe he needed to, but he ultimately did and but he didn't step down from that process in other jurisdictions. He still participated throughout the state uh in
other through the similar process that other towns were going through that we were going through. And I find that very disturbing. I find it disturbing that the judiciary did not remove him. He's not, in my opinion, he was not an
unbiased adviser in these discussions. He also informed us for the first time that I heard and I had read the legislation that the DCA had concluded that as we met our local need
um that whatever we subtracted in our negotiations had to be picked up in the regional need by another community and that it was the DCA's position and the builders association's position that when we calculated our need with our
professionals that we should have included in our calculations the regional need. So we should include in our calculations uh Patterson Pamis anywhere else and I asked the
question well why wasn't that done by because you would think the DCA would do that and the answer was because they didn't have the ability to do that. So I would question the process here because if DCA a state agency who's who is
responsible for interpretation of the law where for the first time in a settlement discussion we are learning that the DCA's interpretation of this statute is that we're supposed to calculate the regional need. So if we want to take 50 units off we have that we have to find where those 50 units are
going to go in another community. I and he and that's the interpretation endorsed by Mr. Bernard to the special adjudicator. I find the process messed up. I also it's just on its face unfair
because minimally at a minimum it's unfair and it tells me that there is so there was a question earlier tonight uh put to the planning board and it was a good one. You know what's to say down the road the state cannot say now you
have to have we're gonna pass a law and now you have to have sewers. Then the question who pays for that? Are you going to tell the mayor and council you have to put in sores and you're going to have to raise everyone's taxes $500 a year on the average house?
It's a lot of money. And it also creates a lot of dissent. It creates a lot of hostility amongst neighbors against the local elected officials when a state mandates something like that. I thought her question was right on point. Where else
is this going? And I would ask this question of the DCA. Why have a running count from round one to round two to round? What else? What other what is the purpose of having a running count?
There's only one purpose that I can think of. So this election, it's not about Republican and Democrat. This election is where do you live and how what kind of community do you want to live in?
The idea that you would take out of the calculation traffic, the impact of traffic is nonsensical and it tells you there's another agenda. Mr. Salani and I, if you didn't notice,
we were chatting over there and and and he brought to my attention, you know, our need is two, I think we settled again 28 286 286. That's in terms of numbers of units built. That's times five.
286 is the number and we're going to reduce that through our through another process that we have coming up. But whatever that number is in terms of what needs to be built, it isn't 286.
Say we settle at 200. It's 200 units times five. There's smarter people in the room that can do the math faster than me, even with that round number. So my concern isn't what our professionals have
recommended under the limited scope. They're charged with this is the law. I thought Carolyn did a really good job of answering the questions about hypotheticals because it's really not before her. She can only answer the questions that are put before her as it relates to what is the what needs to be
done tonight. Um I thought Mr. Ymik's uh legal answer, although he's not an attorney, I thought maybe the attorney was a little slow on the legal question from the board member. Um you know, where is this going? I I don't see any
reason to to keep accumulating our prior needs because it it leads to only as as potentially pointed out where you know eminent domain is a local under our state government under our constitution is a local is a local authority but you
know state constitutions change uh DCA members change legislators change so we have to ask ourselves in the future as was pointed out by the person asking the question, where are we going? So, um
we have a an an imminent need and an imminent responsibility to address tonight and vote on um as pointed out uh uh by the recommendation of our professionals and they believe it is the responsible it's responsible to vote
yes. So, um but I also have an esquire at the end of my name and I'm entitled to my opinion as well. So, I just wanted to put that on the record. Ma'am, thank you. You're welcome. Anybody else? Caroline Russ,
I I just want to make one one other comment. I had asked our burough attorney prior to this meeting when they passed this law in March of 2024, and I was asking what the breakdown of the party and the partyline vote went on this thing. And Mr. Gilson, could you
tell us what your finding was? It was a strictly partyline vote. There were no Republicans in favor of the legislation. So I just and all three of our legislators voted against it. I just want to put that on the record so that people watching this understand
where this is coming from and why this is happening. Is there any further discussion? I would just like to add one more thing. I don't care what party you belong to. This is about where we live and why we moved here. Uh why people who's been who moved
here third generation here. You know, uh the question was asked with regard to the zoning uh from the historical president about the character of the town. I mean, I think that is again this I'm just looking at from a
different perspective. I'm not looking I'm looking beyond what's in front of us right now. Um I think that the idea that if we would just if we were to ultimately have 200 units that we would have to build times five um I think
undoubtedly and and not take into account school the effects on the school and traffic which is of course the things the only things you should be looking at if exclusively right that's really what else what other
questions are there to Can we handle the flow? Can Can the town bear it to the to the characteristics? It's a that's our sense of community. I don't We all live here because we love where we live. We could fight about politics. You could
talk about uh Biden and Trump all you want, but at the end of the day, we all live here. We all go to the shop, right? Well, most of us, okay? I've seen some of our Oakland members uh our Oakland community at the shop right off for whatever reason. Um but but we all live
here. So I so mayor I you know that I think that's good that you point that out but I just think that this for me this comes down to the community as a whole. I agree council president. Thank you. Any further discussion? Not seeing anything. Roll call. I need a motion to
motion. Motion on the table. Motion on the table discussion. I didn't hear who motioned in the first place. That's why Oh, she didn't hear it. So who was the original motion? Steve. Steve, sorry I didn't hear anybody motion. I think you need to close the discussion. All right. Okay. And we and we voted on closing.
Did we vote on closing? Now we got to move to close motion. Close discussion. So moved. Got a second. Second. All in favor? I. Okay. Okay. So now we're going to vote on the Now we're going to vote on resolution 25207, resolution of the mayor, council
of the burough of Oakland, endorsing the fourth round housing element fair share plan adopted by the Oakland planning board. Roll call. Don't we need a motion? No, we already we had we we did a motion to open. We did a motion to close public. Don't we need a motion, Matt, to I believe we had
a motion on the table for discussion for discussion. But we did have a we had a motion, but the way the resolution works, I mean, we can just re motion, but a resolution, it's not like an ordinance hearing. Once we motion and second, then there's a discussion amongst the council motion first,
please. Okay. I just want to make sure we're all clear. Okay, good. Councilwoman Rose, yes. Councilman Saliani, yes. Councilman Talanini,
yes. Council President McCann, no. Motion pass. Okay, the motion passes. Uh, not seeing any further business on this on this agenda. We'll have a motion to adjurnn. So move. So move second. Those in favor? I. All right. The next K
burough council meeting will be held Tuesday, July 15th, 2025, 7:00 p.m. in the Burough of Oakland Mun Council Chambers 10 Law Drive, Oakland, New Jersey. This meeting is now a journ. Thank you. Thank you everybody.