Jacob dim the lights once once my present. I have to put my calls. Do I have to put my calls? No way. No way. Because it's the Come on down. I will do it.
I don't mind. Good evening everyone. It's 7:30. I'd like to call to order the Old Bridge Township Planning Board meeting for June 26, 2025. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay,
Daniel, can we have a roll call, please? Mr. Dama here. Mr. Lenning here. Mr. Agopian here. Miss Cannon. Mr. Rena is absent. Mr. Petty here. Missella here. Mr. McGisac here. Mr. Brennan here. Mr.
Ferrara is absent. And Chairman Lowour here. Swearing of the officers. Uh, yes. Um before we uh start the uh public hearings, uh can I swear in the uh professionals for the board? Uh would you please raise your right hand? Do you
both swear and affirm the testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, you do. Thank you. Okay. First uh on the agenda is a public hearing fourth round housing element fair share housing plan. Vena,
uh just uh for the for the public hearing on this uh particular item, I'm going to swear in our township planner just once again. Um do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. And for the record, could you please state your name
and identify yourself? Sure. Um I'm Vina Savin. I have been the township planner for the last eight years now. I've been practicing planning for the last 20 years. I have a bachelor's in architecture, a double masters in
planning and policymaking from NYU. Um, and I have testified before this board multiple times. You're accepted. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Um I see that there are a lot of uh new board members. So I'm just going
to give you an overview of what goes on with the affordable housing. Right. So it it's it dates back to 1976 with the Mount Laurel decision wherein every municipality had an affordable housing
obligation to address. There was the first round, there was a second round and then there was a third round and um there was the council on affordable housing that was established that monitored the whole process until the
third round. Um every time uh there were regulations established on how a municipality creates affordable housing. around third round when COA which is the council on affordable housing came up with uh new rags uh they were kind of
unsuccessful and um municipalities were guided to follow the second round rules. Oldbridge Township addressed or complied with our first round obligation. Uh Oldbridge Township comp complied with
our second round obligation. The third round obligation also the housing plan was finally approved in uh 2017. That was the third round. Now we are commencing the fourth round and in this
period since the council on affordable housing has been abolished. The um Governor Murphy last year, March 28, 2024, established new regulations to come up with affordable housing obligations for
every municipalities and it was mainly to streamline the process to create these affordable housing obligations or affordable housing units. In uh October of 2024, uh the Department of Community Affairs
um did an analysis based on the law and came up with numbers for each municipality within New Jersey. Brbridge was assigned a present need which is our rehabilitation share of 318
units. our prospective need which is what Oldbridge is supposed to build in the next 10 years because this round starts from 2025 to 2035.
Within these 10 years, Oldbridge has an obligation of 685 units. And um those 68 the the number 685 was challenged by us because we know
uh that these numbers when DC established these numbers what they did is they looked at the aerial imagery anywhere they saw vacant land they assigned a number to it. We have a lot of vacant land. Oldbridge has a lot of
vacant land but most of the land is constrained. We have significant environmental constraints like wetlands, transition areas, streams, uh flood hazard areas and those areas are really not developable.
But when this number was established, we were given uh the time till January 30th to uh respond and u evaluate their analysis. For almost one month, I was analyzing their data. One of the biggest flaw of
that data was they looked at tracks. They didn't look at parcels. So one tract could actually have three parcels. Some of the parcels could be under same ownership. Some of them would be completely
separate from ownership standards but there would be constraints. So although it looks like a large chunk of land, it is constrained and it cannot be developed. So Jan 30th I submitted a report challenging the 685 and at that
time looking at the track data I came up with a number of 333 um there were a lot of mediation meetings held um to fight back present a case with fair housing center and I'm
trying to explain this in the most simplest way um Joe can actually use the technical words but I I know most of you are not familiar with affordable housing. So I just want to give you a background but there were a lot of mediations. Unfortunately
uh Judge Jacobson came with a ruling that our final adjusted number uh is the one that fair share housing center came up with and that's 673. So from 685 we only brought it down to
673 and uh now it is upon us to come up with a housing plan to address that obligation of 673. When I say our number is 673.
The way it works is if there are 10 units on a property, if a property can accommodate or uh be developed with 10 units, 20% of that has to be affordable. If it is for sale, if it is a rental um
development, then 15% of it is supposed to be affordable. So imagine when you have an obligation of 673* 5 is actually what you're building in the town. So which means the actual
development that occurs on it throughout Oldbridge would be almost 3,500 new units for the next 10 years. So luckily the fair housing act allow allows municipalities that want to
challenge or feel that they don't have that much land to conduct a vacant land analysis and that vacant land analysis is more accurate because it's based on the mod 4 data. So it goes by parcel by
parcel. You can actually jump to the second slide. I'm just going with the flow but uh it you can skip this too. All right, stay here. So I used the most um so it was a huge task because old
bridge is huge and we have x amount of properties that need to be analyzed. Each parcel has to be analyzed. So with the mod 4 data you look at class one which is vacant and privatelyowned
parcels. In Oldbridge we have 973 such parcels. Then you look at class 15C which is waken publicly owned parcels that we have Oldbridge has 700 such
parcels. Now each of these parcels so I'm talking about almost 1,700 parcels that had to be evaluated for its development potential. I went through each parcel to see what is really developable and um you have received a
copy of the housing plan. All the data is in that housing plan. I'm trying to sum it up sum it up for you so that it's easy but each and every property was reviewed. Now in uh in terms of class
one any open space that is affiliated with cluster zoning or older developments it's preserved there is a conservation easement on it you cannot build on that parcel so that property was eliminated. In some cases there is a
surface parking lot on the property which is used by an adjacent commercial use that is not developable because if we develop on that parcel the commercial property has no parking right. Um then
there are parcels that are owned by OBMUA our municipal utility authority. We need them for our utilities for future. There are some parcels that are owned by serville. There are few parcels that are owned by
Perth Amboy. Don't ask me why we have properties for Perth Amboy. But the water for Perth Aamboy goes from Oldbridge. The parcels are within Oldbridge. So all these parcels were eliminated and what remains on the
private side is only 40 properties. So out of the 973 parcels only 40 of the properties are truly developable and not the entire parcel. So in that two among those 40
parcels there are constraints. So a property could be 10 acres but only two or three acres of that parcel is developable. So when you come up with a realistic development potential and I want to take a step back the whole
purpose of doing a vacant land analysis is to come up with a realistic development potential for the town. So if somebody else is saying that you can absorb in 3,500 units we as a town analyze it better and come up with what
is the true what is the realistic development potential within the town. So class one we had 40 parcels. Again class 15 C township owned parcels we have 700 such parcels. The township
owned parcels it's a little more easier because we have an active we have been actively participating in the green acres program where we have the recreation open space inventory which is called Rossi. So those parcels that are
either funded or unfunded under the green acres program are on the rosy list. All of them are preserved or those cannot be developed. So with 15 class 15C although we have 700 parcels only
two of those parcels are really developable. There were some parcels which are significantly constrained especially where crossroads area is or where Lawrence Harbor is. We have some parcel but they have significant constraints
cannot be developed. So all those were eliminated. Next slide. Is there a way to zoom in actually? All right, stay there. So these Okay, this table here, this table here, right? It lists all 40 parcels that are
privately owned, that are vacant. You have the acreage in the second column. Sorry, this uh this column that is the fifth column. Next to it is net developable acreage. So what I did is we
have an extensive GIS database the wetlands or the constraints that we we get the layers from DP. I superimpose it on our parcel layer to see what really is development uh is developable. The numbers are not 100% accurate, but
they're close enough. So then you have the net developable acre. And then based on the affordable housing regulations, if a property is more than 5 acres, a density of 8 units per acre is applied.
If the developable net developable portion is less than 5 acres then uh then the density of six units per acre is applied. So here's a list of all 40 parcels and here's what can be the
obligation that uh that is old bridge share. The next one is the public properties. There are only two parcels um on East Greystone Road. Both of them are uh developable and they can come up
with 17 affordable units. Um the parcel on um East Greystone Road right next to Roseville Center is the larger parcel. It's almost 30 acres. However, only 10 acres of it is developable. We had
evaluated the site in the past for other uses as well. So that is included. Now once you analyze the class one and class 15 C properties, the next step is also to look at properties that are underutilized
uh within the township. So you go by the aerial and you have to see uh I know in the past there have been um pre-application meetings on certain properties. So I know they are right for development and the owner is interested in selling. There were a couple of uh
developers that reached out to us. So I analyzed their properties as well as what I came up with and only five of these properties made it into the housing plan. Um and after the entire vacant land analysis
was completed based on the applied densities old bridge um realistic development potential is just 312 units. The 673 that was assigned by the
court doesn't really go away. So our the 312 which I came up with is our realistic development potential but what remains so 673 minus 312
whatever remains becomes your unmet need and you don't just escape that you have to come up with a plan to address your unmet need and this plan has come up
with uh a mechanism to address the 312 based on the vacant land as well as some of the projects that were approved by the planning board. Some of the projects that were approved by the uh zoning board the under five underutilized
parcels and then we have a plan in place to meet the unmet need. Can you move to the next slide? So this table is our compliance plan and um I'm just going to re refer to my
table because it's very hard to see. Can you zoom in? Thank you. All right. I think this is go back. Can you zoom in a little bit more? just focusing on the table so that I can give
a rundown. Okay. Thanks. Thanks. So here you have your obligation prospective need 312 rehabilitation 318. Council has passed a resolution that we will make sure that we will address the 318
because we have an affirmative affordable housing program in place that we use to address this present need. Um historically in the last 10 years we have rehabilitated almost five to five
to six units every year with a rate of uh an average of $20,000. But um in 2020 when um we all experienced the pandemic there were a lot of people doing home improvements. That was the only year which was an
anomaly but that was a year when uh we rehabilitated 10 units. So when you average out over a period of 10 years there were like 7 to eight units that were rehabilitated and we have enough funds in our affordable housing trust
fund to take care of those um units should the same rate be applied for the next 10 years. So council passed a resolution to accept the 318. Now the question is with 312 units we have waken
land analysis which came up with 256 based on the privately uh sorry 239 based on the privately owned vacant parcels, 17 based on uh the uh publicly
vacant land. And we have a total of 256 credits. So for every affordable unit, you get one credit. So we have 256 units there. Now among the inclusionary
housing, I'll skip underutilized because that I want to talk in the end. Those are those five parcels I explained before. But Poor Farm Road, there was a project that was approved on Poor Farm Road for duplexes for 35 units of which
seven units are affordable. We get seven credits for it. Oak Tree Plaza. This is again a zoning board application that was approved four years ago. We have family rental units. Uh five, we get
five credits for it. Then among age restricted inclusionary housing we have vision old brbridge 3 which is 105 old matavan road. It's a beautiful building that that is under construction right now on old madavan road. There are four
age restricted uh units in there. There are six medicaid uh units in there for a total of 10. We get 10 credits for that project. Then we have vision oldbridge 4 which is on the agenda tonight and
you'll hear more if that gets approved uh which is a collaboration between between public and private we will earn 14 um credits for that program uh for that development. Geke Park Residency an approved project on 516 we have another
five units from there we get credits for it also on the right what you see is rental bonus credits. So previously in the last rounds there were more rental bonus credits that were offered to the
township. So if there were rental projects you could get more credits. This fourth round regulations have changed. So based on our need or the realistic development potential of 312,
we are eligible for 78 rental bonus credits. We haven't reached that cap yet because the way the crediting program works is you get one bonus credit if it's a special needs housing. You get uh
one bonus. So one credit for one uh unit you produce a rental bonus credit for if it's a municipally uh sponsored project then if it is a market rate unit that was converted to affordable unit then you get one-on-one credit you get half a
credit if the property is in transit village it's a transit village designation um if there was there are a couple of restrictions also age restricted units since we have a couple of age restrict restricted housing um units. We used to
get more rental bonus credits on age restricted, but now it's only capped to 10%, so out of your 78, you could only have eight uh units. It's capped. So, we have that 10% and then also we have to
produce very low income housing units. If you produce and the law is that you have to have a minimum 13% but if you produce 14 or 15% which is very difficult to get those those additional units get a rental
bonus credit also. So based on all these regulations this uh compliance plan was prepared wherein the township has 375 uh credits accumulated. So our obligation based on realistic
development potential is 312. We have credits worth 375. There were five sites that are underutilized and have been included and I had to come up with a development potential based on the net developable
area. So there's a property on Texas Road uh which has uh reached out to us multiple times uh in the past. It is in a residential zone and that property has been included. Foxboro Drive, I know you
guys are uh familiar with the RD management property, but there is a property on the other side of a Foxboro which is waken. That parcel was included uh in this uh underutilized risk. There
is a property this that comprises of three parcels on Spring Valley Road and it's a huge piece of land. Uh it has some constraints but it is developable. So this property is right next to Plaza
Grande. Um there have been multiple proposals in the past, active adult communities, um warehousing, flex space, multiple uses and nothing has come to fruition. But I know that that property is again ripe for
development. So that has been included. There is a property on Ferry Road close to the hospital. It's a huge piece of property. It has constraints but again has a potential to be developed that has been included. And then 3963 CR516.
It's act it's actually a pending application in front of the zoning board. It's for um apartments on 516. Um it has not been uh fully heard. No. Um uh there has been no action on it yet,
but that is um has a potential to be developed with multif family. So that property has been included. There was one home that Habitat for Humanity developed in the last 3 years on Norwood
Avenue. We get credits for that and that has been included as well. Next slide. So, municipal land use law has uh criteria for site evaluation. Uh you
look at sites that are clear for title before you come up with affordable housing obligations. You see that they are within the sewer service area. You also look for compatible land uses. And then you have to see if the site could
be developed with RSI standards. So each and every site that you heard tonight from me has been evaluated based on these standards and in the housing plan for each site there's an information sheet. It gives you details as to what
the net developable area is the whether it's within the sewer service area or not. For example, the property on East Greystone Road, which is owned by the township, it's currently not within the sewer service area, but we are working
on the crossroads plan, the plan that was uh adopted, the redevelopment plan that was amended by the council couple of months ago. There's a portion that is also not within the sewer service area. We're working to include that parcel as
well as this township old parcel to have it within the sewer service area. It just made sense to include it in our realistic development potential. But you will see in the housing plan a site evaluation sheet for each of this project. Next slide.
Um this is the list of underutilized parcels to help you. I have put in aerials and show constraints on the properties to see how they're development it uh developable. It's just for your reference but all this material
is included in the housing plan. Next slide. Now the most important unmet need. We have come up with three areas where we think that we could address our unmet need. And I just want to explain
how the unmet need works. Unmet need is not something that really goes away. So you have your three 312 obligation. The remainder from the 673 is your unmet need. If in the next six months or a
year or two an ordinance is written and we grant approvals in the planning board that gets added to your RDP, the realistic development potential. So then your realistic development potential actually increases from from 312
to a higher number and your unmet need reduces. These three areas are areas that um we have been we meaning the township attorney and myself have been focusing on for almost a year. It's a
long process but I am pretty optimistic that uh they will be developed at some point. I'm going to start with my most favorite because it's my baby. I started it from inception and I started it almost um six years ago be even before
covid started and that's the trans transit village um the transit village site is actually right here and this site to give you an idea is right behind the home depot the Walmart the gateway
shopping center and what transit village does is if you have high ridership on a train line or a bus line then you are eligible to apply for a transit village designation which comes from New Jersey
department of transportation. When I took over Oldbridge and I saw this uh the commuter bus line, I was absolutely thrilled because I think at that time when I started, I was the first planner to even start a redevelopment project
based on a bus uh terminus. At that time, I reached out to NJ DOT, NJ Transit because there are some parcels, parking lots that are owned by NJ Transit. And we had a pre-application meeting when I made a presentation. The
who's who was there like NJ do DOT, NJ transit, DCA, everybody was there and they were quite thrilled that we are pursuing the transit village based on bus ridership. Unfortunately, East Brunswick Linders beat me. Uh and uh it
was only because of COVID because we had the pre-application meeting and the next month we were hit with COVID and bus ridership went down. everything slowed down but last two years I'm back in action. Luckily uh FTA granted uh
400,000 to do planning studies to NJ Transit along Route 9 corridor for a bus rapid transit system and I've been working with them closely. We already had two public meetings to get public input. They were advertised on our
website. We were on TV. Um there was a lot of good input that we got from residents because the Kohl's shopping center is dying. There is a asphalt or a sea of parking which is underutilized if
you look at it. Um it's a presentation for some other day but I am very confident that we would be close to getting the transit village designation. I had a second pre-application meeting last month. We have six months to finish the redevelopment plan on this project.
And the good news is within the radi of half half a mile there is a 100 acre parcel that is owned by Brunetti and is uh can be developed based on transit village standards. So I don't want to mo miss the opportunity especially because
when you are in a transit village designation you get one on one uh you get.5 rental bonus credits if that site is developed. So that is one site. The second one is raceway park. Um if you
may recall we passed a res uh ordinance 3 years ago to um uh to convert it to R120 zoning. The township was sued. We have been in mediation with the property owners through the court. I have been
working very closely on um a redevelopment plan for that area and it's guided by the courts. So that is in making and the last site is the summer's landfill site which uh I have actually
christined it as Tctton Square uh so that I am not using a family name but Tctton Square is nothing but the landfill site. There is a developable portion. There is a developer interested
in developing uh that site. Uh there was actually an area investigation study that was conducted approved by the planning board as well as the endorsed by the council. Uh I am working on a redevelopment plan. Uh because there is
land in that landfill area that is uh free of any encumbrances, no uh contamination and that can be used for residential. There's also a portion that has to be capped and probably can be used for uh recreational fields for the
township or come up with a private recreational facility but the plan is in making. So these three sites are adequate to meet our unmet need and we will have enough credits and rental bonus credits from uh development of
these sites and I have always said that I recently attended um the New Jersey planning conference where I was speaking about transit village. I think it's very important for the township to uh you can't really stall development but it
has to be in a streamlined manner. The township needs to decide where you want to focus your growth and where you want to preserve. This will help us preserve some of our properties for open space. The way the plan is written and I think I did a lot of talking. I'm ready for
questions. But before I take questions, I really want to thank my staff. Um Emily who has helped me. We have worked relentlessly. Joe is aware. weekends, weekends, nights. It was like 14 six 14
to 15 hours every day. She worked super hard. I couldn't have done without Danny. Uh because he's a zoning officer. He really doesn't have to help me, but I have full confidence in his knowledge and he he knows so much about parcels.
He has assisted me throughout the days uh getting information, getting datas, getting deeds. So, thank you Danny. Uh Emily, if you're watching, thank you so much. And Meen for being the support for all three of us. But this was a herculan
task. And uh I think we have accomplished um a plan that I'm excited about. We have to submit our plans uh by all municipalities by June 30th uh to be covered. And Joe, if I've missed
anything, you can fill in before the board. Yeah, I I don't. The only thing that I I I just wanted to the board's aware of is um our current obligation of 673 that was assigned to us by the court uh through the affordable housing uh
resolution program uh is currently under appeal. The township uh council had decided that they wanted to appeal that. Uh it has under appeal, but we filed a motion for a stay with the court to see if we could either one have additional time before we had to adopt this plan to
see how the outcome of our appeal would be or two at least allow us to uh uh develop a plan based on our number which we believe is the correct number versus the number that was assigned from the court. Uh that motion was denied. So what is in front of you is what we have to do to comply with the law is comply
and put it together forth a plan that addresses the whole uh number 673 that is assigned by the court. However, we I just wanted the board be aware that the council did approve an appeal. The appeal has been filed and it's currently pending with the appellet division.
We're waiting to uh and actually as of this afternoon, fair share uh housing just filed their responsive papers. So, we're just waiting for the the court to set forth briefing schedules and we'll see how the court handles the appeal. This just as another side note, there are as of as of now as that I'm aware of
six or seven other towns that have filed appeals and there could be up to another six or seven more that may be filing shortly. Uh but that's um so we're not the only town that is filing appeal of of the decision. And just one more thing uh in this plan what you will see is the
affordability affordability assistant program manual and also a copy of the spending plan but the affordability assistant manual as well as the spending plan is actually from the third round. We have not updated it only for the
reason that uh UHAC and NJ HMFA is coming out with new regulations. the new regulations would not have been out before June 30th. So, we didn't want to update our uh program until we hear the
new regs. So, most municipalities are uh just supplementing these plans with the older program that is still in place. The spending plan, I do want to wait uh to update it as well. I'm working on it with the township attorney and uh
probably will have it within the next two months. But those are two documents that come from the third round and that will will be updated in the next few months. I'll take any questions. Okay. Thank you, Vina. Uh let's start to my right.
Eric, so Vina, can you I know we talked about the vacant land and you and I have had too many conversations about some of the parcels that they came up with. When we went back to them, they obviously took nothing out, right? So that little
strip of land that's next to the police parking lot, they're still considering that developable. Correct. And but but here's the difference. So when they came up with the 685 initially and they were using track
data, that piece was included, right? They didn't factor it out later when we challenged but when I did a vacant land analysis the property is developed according to me it there is no room for putting more development so I did not
even consider that part portion but the original numbers yes you but the number is based off so for folks that are listening so for the record if you drive up Route 516 next to the police parking lot there is
a piece of land that I can probably leapfrog that is maybe 10 ft wide that the state and fair share is deciding there's a developable piece of land. Yes, that is correct. And when we went back to them and said it's a township
piece of property and it's it's really a lack of a better term a side lawn to the to the parking lot. They're telling us that we need to put houses on it. That is correct. So, and and I know Miss Sodell said that there's about six or seven that are already appealed. There
should be 564 appealing this. Not not a handful, not a dozen. It's it's atrocious that what they're doing. Um, on another note, the the 600 or so, 673, right? Yes. How many of those So, those
are all going to be net new, correct? So, there's no we have no prior credits or anything like that. No, we don't have any prior credits. Okay. So, I know there was a lot of conversation. I I just want to make sure that it's clear to everybody, especially the board members who haven't been through this and haven't had a lot of conversations
with you. So, yes, we might we have some credits. We have some here, we have some there. We have uh a couple of applications that are either in front of us, one today and then as we go forward. That's all new develop that has to be
done, right? No one here is pushing for this, right? We have to go into these conversations with developers in order to meet an obligation by the state to do so, right? And it's it's very sorry to
say that, you know, I don't want to see this town overdeveloped, right? As a council person, as a planning board member, and I'm sure everybody up here agrees for that, right? The state is mandating this to be done. They don't care what the township engineer, the
township planner, the zoning officer, folks that live in this town, the council that is elected to represent you folks that come up here and um volunteer your time. They don't care what we have to say. All they care about is here's your number, build it. We don't care how
it gets done. So when we're out there and folks are really looking at some of the the properties that are getting developed, whether they're old properties or new properties, the state doesn't care about
your woodlands, and anyone that that is going to come up here and tell us otherwise is a liar. Because if it was up to me, I would put a close for building in this town. But we have no choice, right? There are lands that are ours that we have to work on to to get
developed because of this. And there are folks that own private own private land that they they have the right to develop. But the fact that they can just shove this down our throat and if we don't agree with it, the builders can go to the courts and then the courts will
make us do it and we have plenty of pieces of property within this town and surrounding towns that we could show you that the court mandated that we have to do it. So I just want to make sure that everybody understands what is really being presented here. Being presented
here is the remaking of the town because of what someone who probably lives nowhere near this township thinks that this town should be developed. Whether it's Old Bridge, Marboro, Manalop, and Seerville. In essence, what they want is just
Newark everywhere. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Depal. Um, anybody on my left? Yeah. Oh, I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. Um, okay. You're saying like this piece by the public works area that's they're
claiming can be developed. Yes. So, they come in and some a developer comes in and puts an application into that. Yeah. Well, no, we own that piece of property, but what they're doing is, and from the conversation of Ian and I had, they're including that in the lack of a better term, the square footage of developable
land in the town. So, if there is, I don't know, 10,000 square feet. I don't know if that's the number. They're saying, well, that's 10,000 square feet that you could develop. Go develop it somewhere else. You can't do it there. But that's still 10,000
square feet that we're telling you that you should be developing. And that's where that number is coming from because if Vina, correct me where I am wrong, I think we were down to like 300 and change. Yes. Based off of reasonable building. Yes. And Vina's been in this town for eight
years and everyone up here has been in this town for decades probably on end. Right. I mean, Mayor Cannon, you were you've been here for quite some time. Um, they are just looking at straight up a
Google map. What's green? Give me the square footage. Build on it. That's what the state did to us. That's what the state's not only doing to us. And I don't want to say did to us. It's doing to the garden state. They're saying, "Well, if it's green, build it."
That's what the state is doing. And it's disgusting. So we really have no choice. We we do, but then you get sued and then you have no choice. So the the
remediation that we can do as a planning board, as zoning boards is when we have folks come up here and they want to build, have the conversations with the folks that are looking to come in, right? whether it's Vina or Nicole or whoever else, the ability for them to
have the conversations of what fits in that parcel and what fits in this town and make it make it work what's best for that area, right? We we have applications that come up that residents will come out and disagree with how things work. Beener and her team will
work with the the developer and their engineers to finagle things to make it more palatable for the neighbors and more palatable for the the area. That's our power. That's the power of this board and the power of the administration is to make sure that it's
that it somewhat fits into the makeup of what we feel this town needs to be. Right. Unfortunately, it can't be all green, but we could try our best to do it, which what we did with the um think about what we did with the warehouses.
That would have been 7 to 10,000 residential units up and down Route 9. We made a decision to stop 7 to 10,000 units, which is probably 20,000 additional cars on Route 9 because of development, right? We made a decision that what's best for this township was
those was those warehouses because it didn't put a excess strain on the schools, an excess strain on the utilities, on power, right, on our um emergency services, right? If that area was
developed in the way that it was actually approved to, right, we would have been sitting with we have eight or so thousand kids. We probably would have had 15,000 students in our school system, which we don't have the schools for, which we would have had to, you
know, it's bad enough we have to the taxes being raised enough. Think about how much more if you had to build schools because now you cannot ask a builder, you cannot ask a developer to build a school like they did in the past, right? Go up like Cindy Street and all those areas. You got schools. Those
were built by those developers. That's not allowed any longer like to have that. I mean, I'm sure they could out of their goodwill, but I highly doubt that would happen. Any other questions from our left?
Good. Sure. Let me first I'd like to thank Vina and her staff. Monumental task. Um, you know, I travel the building. I see how hard everybody's always working. So, I think Thank you so much. Everybody should recognize you and your team for how hard you worked. Um, you know, then, you know, Councilman
Deal made some really good points. And, uh, you know, I'm born in Old Bridge, raised in Old Bridge. I work in Old Bridge. My family is being raised in Old Bridge. I'm Old Bridge proud. If if there's proud, it's me. Um, I'm in town every day. Residents ask,
"What are you doing on the planning board? How come you're approving all this this building and uh, you know, they just see that these trees are being knocked down and these things are being built?" And, you know, I try to explain to them to the best of my ability that, you know, there are certain things that we can control, you know, like you
putting your plan together and saying, "This works for Old Bridge. This is going to be our best option." And other things that that we can't control. And, um, you know, we really fight for that. you know, we I do that's why I got involved almost 10 years ago with the planning board and uh because I care
about my town. So, Eric made some really good points and I think the awareness to the residents, you know, of why this happens. You know, this nobody wants to see destroyed. You know, I sure don't. I want my kids to be raised in the same town that I was. I also realize that we
need, you know, positive growth. So, you you try to balance it out. I think we're doing the best that we can. You know, I appreciate again all your hard work and um you know, let's just keep fighting the good fight and hopefully stays as green as possible. Thank you.
Anyone else on my left? Okay, I have a a couple questions. Um did Alfairy uh did we get anything Alfairy as far as uh um credits with uh Yeah, that was round two. That's the old
that that was used for no round three. Sorry. Mr. Chairman, you mean that the application we just recently approved? Yes. Yes. That applies actually the round three. Okay. Obligation. So, but we are getting credits for those. Right. If you look at the plan, there is a section where it says prior round
compliance and we had a couple of projects. We had Avalon Bay, we had Alfairy. So, there is a chart that shows where we stand with compliance. So we are uh I think we approved most of the
projects except for one which is the um Oaks 2 the uh Route 9 MUI and uh the the the surprising thing was when DCA came up with our 685
that property in spite of having an ordinance in place to be developed was included as vacant land and Joe and I were fighting over it because it's like double counting. You we already are using it to address the third round. How
can you say now it's vacant and slam us with a new number? But that's the only site that has no action yet. But that's not true too. Um Oaks One, which is the Edgewood MBM project that was approved,
Regency Center that was approved. There's a white oak lane south extension that actually gives access to the alairy uh to the not alairy I'm sorry route 9 muih zone and that roadway is under
construction so they are working towards it's not like there is no activity the infrastructure improvements are being done so that the development really occurs so it's something that is going to happen in uh soon but we are still
waiting for an official application from them. But otherwise, uh I think the 200% affordable projects, one on uh Malbero Road, the 72 unit project is uh nearing completion. The Habitat for Humanity,
the 12 homes that were in the harbor area, they're nearing completion. So, uh they're they're starting construction. So, we are actually in a very good shape with the third round. And that's the sad part because ever since I took over any project that came to planning board or
zoning board, we have been extremely proactive arguing with developers to provide affordable housing. So in spite of all the sincere efforts that we have been taking over the last 8 years, we have been questioned or penalized for
having vacant land which is so very constrained. But let's see where we go with this. Well, I I might have missed that on. By the way, there was so much information in that report. Uh it's just like I mean I be lying if I said I understood any or
all of it. Uh but uh my other question the vacant land um I noticed there's a lot of vacant land between Fington Road and and Catrell Road. And I know Bernetti owns its farmland. There's a
reason that was not pointed out on your your list. Which is the one? Uh well, in area uh area 10, that would be between 516 and Fington Road and control. Oh yes. Um so when you do a vacant land
analysis, you look at class one, class 15C and underutilized parcels, but properties that are active farms, they're classified differently. So unless those are no longer being farmed properties and are waken I don't really
include now I can say that in future Brunetti might not reach out to us and say that okay we want to do something with it but we're hoping that you know see I think this is a policy document right it helps the township come make
policy decisions whether it's any open space farm or uh an underutilized parcel as to where you want to see growth and then maybe work towards preserving some of those areas. So it's a great guide for the council to take action and then
even for the developers or farmers that want uh to transfer because there have been some farmers interested in transferring their development rights to some other location. So if somebody comes to me and says I want to preserve the farm and I want to transfer my
development rights to potentially transit village because that's where the high density will go. We'll be happy to preserve the farm and transfer the rights somewhere else. So this is a great tool and a policy document that helps you plan the township. Now like
that part that I just that parcel that I just spoke about is R40. So if if somebody was going to build houses, single family houses, okay, u in let's say for for 50 50 houses,
um they still could build s single family houses and uh comply with an obligation of uh of uh affordable units too, right? True. But that's very uh it's like a hypothetical question
because typically when you are building single family homes you don't see somebody providing you obligation in that sense they would provide you with the development fees in lie of providing affordable units. So typically what I
have seen is uh developers when they're building apartments or town houses or uh stacked town houses they are okay to provide affordable housing on site but when it's a single family home it's very hard to get an affordable unit. For
example uh the board had approved 220 Gordon Road. There was a subdivision that was approved for 13 lots. They chose instead of having uh two units as affordable they chose to pay uh money for the development based on the
development fee ordinance in lie of providing those units. Right. Well, like in high but yes, they don't the obligation doesn't go away whether it's in monetary form towards the affordable housing trust fund which then helps us fund or that's where our spending plan
comes from. That's where our rehabilitation share comes from or to provide on-site um units. We or me as a planner I prefer the on-site units because we have an active affordable housing trust fund. We do collect money
from the commercial users because even the commercial uh developers have to provide in money for the development uh the fund but um it's very hard to get a unit from a for sale single family home.
Well, I I I was referring to like a High Point where they built all these single family houses, nice houses, and then they have one section of uh I would call them town houses are connected together that are affordable. Yeah. At that time.
So I guess it can be done. It can be done when so we recently went through H Khav and Regency Center and Edgewood properties like three different developers but if you recall um it was
one general development plan right so the commercial the single family homes all of them were approved but with the mindset that a total of I'm just throwing in the number 1300 homes but out of that there was an affordable
housing component when Edgewood came in they agreed to build those I think it's 144 affordable units within the town houses and the apartments so uh there is a different ways to build them on site
okay and uh my last question might be for the attorney uh this this plan is supposed to last for 10 years okay in 10 years we're going to have either three different governors or maybe the same governor Can does the governor I I see he gets
involved. Does he is it possible this could all change? Yes. For the better. It Well, yes, absolutely. Uh I mean this this this act that was adopted and that we're following currently. Uh the act that we're currently
following, the amended fair fair housing act uh was recently amended under you know this current um governor's regime and the administration and it is designed to go on in perpetuity. You're supposed to be the fifth we could it could be uh the way it's written will be
applied to the fifth, sixth and and so forth moving forward. But at any time the act can be amended as again just like uh this act uh you know abolished COA which was our you know first and second round mechanism of compliance. Um you know next year two years from now
the legislature can act enact a new law that further amends this or repeals this alto together and comes up with a whole new mechanism uh that could change the whole method way methodology of providing affordable housing altogether. Um, it won't the affordable housing obligation itself won't go away because
the Supreme Court in the Mount Laurel decisions found that it is actually a New Jersey uh uh constitutional right. So there will always be some type of obligation unless there's a constitutional amendment that's adopted. But the way it's handled, how it's
handled, the mechanisms, whether it's on a local level or the state level, yes, that that can always change at any time. Okay. Thank you. Can I just stay one more question? Maybe it's been answered. But so these these these parcels that you've looked at that you say, you know,
because of constraints and so forth, it really cannot be developed or cannot be developed with the numbers that they're giving us. There is there an appeal to that or Yes. Well, when it comes to the determination of what our obligation is, the 673, we're appealing that. Okay.
We're appealing that because we believe, meaning the township, when we did all our calculations and worked off of the DCA's formulas and and numbers, that our obligation is 369. Right. Okay. So, that is currently being appealed at the PEL division.
But we can use that as as evidence that the the numbers they gave us just are not Oh, yes. We'll be we'll be fighting that where we can fight. uh uh Councilman Deal Palma made 100% accurate points, but I just want to supplement by saying where we can fight in that
mechanism while still being compliant, we are and we and we're making sure that the the town is protected. Okay. Uh I think we'll open it up for the public now. If does anybody from the public would like to comment?
Seeing no hands, I close the public uh session. Okay. Um we'll go to the resolution. Yes. Yes. Uh uh Mr. Chairman, we I I prepared a resolution um uh for the boards if they're going to act favorably and and adopting the uh housing element
and fair share plan that was presented by Vena and was circulated and provided to the public. Uh I would request that the board act on the resolution because I do have to uh as the uh township's affordable special affordable housing council have to have this filed by June
30th and it has to be uh you know uh approved by resolution. So I would request that if the board is going to act favorably if it would adopt the resolution that was provided. Okay. Um do we have a motion? Reluctantly move
it. I'll reluctantly second. Okay. Mr. Dalma, yes. Mr. Lenning, yes. Mr. Agopian, yes. Miss Cannon, I reluctantly vote yes. Mr. Petty,
yes. Miss Mella, yes. Mr. McGisac, yes. Mr. Brennan, yes. And Chairman Lowour, I'm reluctant, but yes, too. Okay. Uh, we're going to take a five minute uh break actually. Uh, Mr. Chairman, while um the
we take a break, actually before we do, the board can still act because we do have the other resolution on so Okay. We don't need you. Okay. Just trying to keep business moving. Okay. Second uh resolution is uh 20 50-2024P
Oak 18 LLC. Uh can I get a motion to move that forward? Move it. Mr. Dama, go ahead. Second, Mr. Petty. Mr. Dama? Yes, Mr. Lenning. Yes, Mr. Gopian. Yes, Miss Canon. Yes, Mr.
Petty. Yes, Miss Misella. Yes, Mr. McIac. Yes, Mr. Brennan. Yes. And Chairman Lowour. Yes. Okay, now we start our fivem minute break. Okay. Uh, next is application 51-20
23P vision bridge for Urban Renewal LLC. Uh, Peter Clauser is the attorney. Good evening. Good evening everyone. For the record, Peter Clauser with the firm Hal and Pape. I'm going to make this very easy. Uh we just heard a lot of
information. We were one of those applications, one of those pieces of property that Vina was talking about with that are providing 14 affordable units. The last time that we were here, we presented the entire application. Public was open, public was closed and um we were only coming back for a vote.
The reason that we did that is we were asked by the municipality and certainly the applicant on their own consideration said, "Just look at your project one more time. see if there's anything that you can do to address any of the concerns that Madison, our neighbors had. You'll remember the room was full
the last time that we were here. Um, so I am amazing. Uh, no. So, we we we were able to um Scott was able to figure out a way, our engineer, uh, to move the building a little bit by kind of splitting the parking front to back. and
we were able to make that change because you may recall their major concern that we were hearing was the the setback to the buildings that were there. Now, it didn't come that easily and there's a lot of people that take credit for it. Vina, again, um your council persons
communicating with Madison and then we finally had a sit down with them in the township with your representatives, our representatives, a couple of people from the the board of Madison and everybody seems to be happy. So, I want to tell
you nothing about the project has changed. Uh, you know, numbers of units, the way that it operates, the architecture, the buildings. Scott's going to show you what the change is. It's a very brief presentation just to show you those dimensions. Um, I'm going
to ask Allison, who's our professional planner, to come up and simply affirm that based on the modification, her planning testimony has not changed. and um and then I'm going to ask you to vote on the application. Now, the one thing that is a little different because a
building moved these engineers that makes a lot of work for them. It makes a lot of work for your engineers. So, we're only going to ask you for preliminary approval, the preliminary site plan approval. It's a little unusual in Oldbridge. You're actually more accustomed to granting preliminary and final all at once, but we have to
give everybody time to do the engineering, but we need to take a step forward. So, we're asking for a preliminary approval. We're also asking for you to grant the variance, deviations, and waiverss that were requested the last time we were here. They're all memorialized in Vina's report. We agree with them. They were
put on the record the last time that we were here. So, I would just ask if you include that in your preliminary and then Scott and your team will go to work and we'll come back at some point. We'll have a very nice, short, pleasant meeting where we ask for a final approval and tell you that we did all
the things that were in this that were in this report. Um, so if I could, I'm going to ask Scott was sworn the last time that he was here. I would remind him that he's still under oath. He was accepted by you as a professional engineer. He designed the project. And I would ask if he could just briefly take
you through uh the modifications. Sure. No problem. Uh, good evening everybody. Um, my name is Scott Turner from Menllo Engineering. I I do recognize that I still am under oath. Uh we uh presented for the purposes of this
hearing a new uh rendering that's up on the screen. It's the villas at Mororrow's Corner. It's an overall plan exhibit. Its original date was 22125 and we put a revision date of uh June 26, 2025.
Uh and it's an overall uh exhibit of the uh entire parcel uh on top of a uh Google image. Uh my testimony should be fairly brief tonight. We're really going to focus on just the modifications that we've been making over the past uh month
or so. Uh what we did uh I'm I'm sorry I I don't apologize for interfering slow. I just wanted to make sure we properly identify the exhibit for the record. Um is this was this the one that was previously identified as A1 that we're modified? It was A1, but it is a
revision to A1. All right. So, we should mark it, I think, as a new exhibit, I think. Okay. No, no, I I appreciate that and don't disagree. So, I'm just trying to now look to see what the last exhibit we marked was. Sorry.
Last one I see is A3. Sorry. No, no, it's fine. Just give me one second to go through. Sure. Yeah, I know. That's what I'm being teased about. Yeah, I think I have the last one I have is A3. So, this will be That sounds right. Yeah. Okay.
Thank you. Okay, good. So, uh but what we did with this modification is we focused on this uh rear area where building uh number one was placed. And what we were able to do is we shifted building one up to the north further away from the rear property line and
from our neighbors. So now that building is set back along the rear property 79 ft versus 37 ft previously. Uh the 37 ft uh rear yard setback created a variance as I'm sure you all remember. Now that
we're at 79 ft, we've eliminated the rear yard setback variance. Uh, a product of doing that, however, is that we had to realign and readjust the parking that's necessary for the development itself. And what we did is we brought a new driveway and roadway
around the back of the building. Uh, and and that certainly helps in terms of circulation because it's now tied into the uh other uh areas of the property. I know the fire marshall reviewed it and he certainly liked this plan better because it's easier for him to get around. Uh, so there's some benefits to
that. Uh however, now behind building number one, there is a driveway and a parking lot. Uh the uh driveway itself, the curb line along the the back is set back 30 ft from the rear setback line. So in my opinion, it's a healthy setback from the from the rear line. And we took
the one single um retaining wall that we had in the back that was about 10 feet in height and we've tiered it uh to be two roughly four to 5 ft tall. Uh retaining walls in the rear and we maintained the uh the buffer between the
top wall and the rear property line that we testified to previously where we put a significant amount of uh buffer plantings between uh the uh rear property, our neighbors and our retaining wall. And that's all we have not changed that buffer scheme that's all going to be there and in fact
there'll be additional plantings because of the tiered wall system. Uh so those are the real physical changes on the property itself. Uh the uh parking we we did a new parking analysis of course based on this change. We only have a loss of three parking spaces from the
prior plan. So we have a total of 137 physical parking spaces on the ground. uh where 135 ft or 135 spaces are required. Uh so we are compliant still with the parking demand uh for the property. Uh and there's no change to
the building footprint whatsoever. We we literally just took it and pushed it up. Uh the only minor modification to the building is the interior space where uh we uh the architect uh had to do a little bit of modification on the inside just to provide a small rear lobby and
entrance so that people could get into the building from the back. Uh but there's there's no other change to that building whatsoever. Uh we also uh part of the presentation and what we made modifications to was the cross-section exhibit and I'll just show that to you
very briefly. if you could put the cross section up there. So, this is a a a new exhibit. Uh the villas at Moral's Corner, cross-section AA exhibit. It's dated June 26, 2025. And we can mark this as exhibit A5.
Uh this will more than likely look familiar to you. This is what we had presented at the at the last hearing where we we put together this cross-section. However, we modified this to uh identify the changes made to the site plan. We now show that our building
number one rear line is set back 79 ft from the rear property line. We have now the uh rear parking lot uh cars parked up against the uh curb line and sidewalk next to the building and then the 24 foot wide drive aisle, the curb, and then the two-tiered retaining walls with
some landscaping at each plateau. And then the uh you know the landscape buffer planting plan that we previously discussed at prior hearings. And then of course these are our neighbors to the rear uh that uh you know no change to that other than uh you know applying the
new uh building setback itself. Uh so you could still see we are still significantly lower in height. Uh that hasn't changed. It's just shifted further away from them. Thank you Scott. I have no further question. I have no
further questions for Scotty's available if the board has any questions about this. Okay. Uh Mr. Dari, would you like to go first? Mr. Chair, sorry. We've had extensive conversations and meetings with the applicant uh professionals uh in in the uh
preparation of the revised uh plans and I don't have any questions for for Mr. Turner. Um uh the applicants applying for preliminary only at this time and uh we're confident that the comments in our review memo will be addressed uh as part of the final site plan application
should the board act favorably. Okay. Thank you. Uh Mr. Tetro. Yeah. I think uh Resh pretty well summarized everything. There's I think that the issues that are out there will be resolved in final. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can I just interrupt for one minute? I I I do want to get on the
record because I did forget and and Resh pointed it out in the review letter. We do have uh the new letter. It's dated June 24th, 2025. There are a couple of just clarifications in that letter we should get on uh record. Uh, one specifically is in regards to the, uh,
30foot setback uh, along the rear property line. Uh, it's the tracked perimeter buffer requirement. Uh, the letter indicates that it's still at 30 ft, which was what it was. Uh, I'm sorry, it was 37 ft in the letter, but the actual track buffer setback now
based on this new plan to the curb line is 30T. So, there's a design exception required for a 30ft setback, not 37. So, I wanted to just clarify that. And then just another minor clarification is uh the parking spaces we are providing 137
spaces. Uh there's 140 pointed out in the letter. Uh that's the net reduction. So, we have 137 not 140. Just wanted to make sure we got that clarified. I I agree. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Uh Eric. Okay. Anybody on my left have a question? Mr. Just want to say thank you
for trying to work with the people behind us or behind you, the neighbors, cuz that room was filled. Try to make your life easy. Thank you. Anyone else?
Well, I I think the project looks great. I didn't have a problem with it too much in the past, but uh I like the fact that there's wetlands going to be preserved. The Route Nine and uh and Texas Road. I
I know it's not your problem, but this it's a nightmare out there and maybe uh more traffic will help the state and the county to get together, but uh okay, let's open up to the public. have just I just would like to get I think you're entitled to have Allison, our planner,
come up and say that her testimony still remains. I think that's important for this board to have on the record. I I think the chairman was just open to the public for questions of this witness though. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I apologize. Uh see no hands. I close the public. Next witness. I'm sorry. I thought we were doing everybody. Thanks,
Scott. Thank you very much. Allison testified on the application last time. Special planner. She's still under oath. She was sworn. Allison, if you could just share with the board your thoughts about the modifications. Sure. I don't think these modifications rise to a level where it would change the
opinion that I previously gave gave the board. It's a slight change to the buffer design exception, but the reasons that I supported the variance in the design exceptions before still stand. So unless the board wants to hear me talk for another 20 minutes, we can leave it at that. Thank you,
Alison. You're welcome. Okay. Uh, our professionals, any comments? Let's hear Alison talk for 20 more minutes. I'd like for cash to leave. I second. No, Mr. Chairman, I have no questions.
I have no questions. Just um I just want to just quick comment. So, I just want to thank Mr. Clauser, the engineer, the planner, and everyone on that team and the developer for hearing the residents and addressing
their issues. As I said earlier, when I'll bring the affordable housing piece back into it, this is the this is the opportunity that this board has as well as residents to come up and work on a more palatable um development coming
next to whether it's their home or other areas. So, I do want to thank you. I know it's it's an excess cost that it cost. It's time, effort for not only the folks here, but also our planners, but I did want to uh make sure that I thanked you guys on the record because
appreciate that. It's easy to say I I moved the picture. It's not as simple as just cutting that out and moving it up. It's not an erector set. It's not Legos, you know. These are million millions of dollars worth of designs that are going to be put in. And
just so you guys all know, we do appreciate everything that was done to make sure that this room wasn't filled again with those residents and their displeasure. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anybody on my left? Um, good. I just want to what Eric said. I think you've
been very responsive and and I think that it bodess well. You set a good example for future. Thank you very much. developers. Okay. I I have no comment. Thank you for your testimony. Now I'm going to open up to the public. Any questions? Saying no hands. Close the
public. So then Mr. Chair, just to clarify again what I'm asking the board to do this evening is to um obviously approve a preliminary approval along with the there's design exceptions um from the your your your plan. There's some bulk variance relief which all again was all
put on the record and a handful of waiverss. They're all identified in your professional report. I said bean's report but you have a combined report. Uh so grant that relief. We'll go back to work and we'll come back with a a nice final application. Okay. Uh can I get a motion to uh move
this forward? Motion. I'll second. Mr. Depal. Yes. Mr. Lenning. Yes. Mr. Egopian. Yes. Miss Canon. Yes. Mr. Petty. Yes. Miss Mella. Yes. Mr. McGisac. Yes. Mr. Brennan. Yes.
And Chairman Lowry. Yes. Good luck. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. I want to ask you, I knowbody's in the audience. These two should we have announced the Uh we can do it right now. Okay. If you walk through. Yeah. Um before we get just while we're getting
set up for the next application, I just want to make two quick announcements. Uh for anyone that's here in the public that's for uh the last two applications on the agenda. Fox Houses L uh LLC application number 37204P
that is being adjourned. It is the the uh the next hearing date that that is scheduled for is September 25th. Uh so there'll be no further notice provided for that application. It will be uh heard at the September 25th uh planning board meeting. Uh lastly, with regard to
the last application, Community Bible Fellowship Church application number 33, 2004P, that is also being adjourned. That is being adjourned to the August 21st, 2025 uh planning board meeting. And that also is being adjourned without further notice. So, if you're here on either one
of those applications, Fox Houses, please come to the 25th uh September 25th uh board hearing. And if you're here for the Community Bible Fellowship Church, please come to the August 21st, 2025 planning board meeting. Thank you.
Okay. Up next is application 35204P, Oldbridge Regency Village LLC. It's a minor subdivision. Uh, attorney Kenneth Pap is representing the applicant. Good evening. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, boards,
professional, staff, and public. Kenneth Pap, on behalf of your applicant, this is a uh technical or financial minor subdivision. There is virtually no proposed revisions to the uh Regency
Shopping Center. We're asking that this board permit a technical subdivision so that the property associated with target can have its own lot and block designation so that Target can pay their taxes directly. The ordinance actually contemplates technical and financial
subdivisions. uh the there's no physical change at all to the property and the when the properties are subdivided they are then reattached to each other through a a system of cross parking cross circulation cross drainage and cross utility easements so it continues
to function exactly the same so that is our opening statement I could we provided notice in advance of the hearing I trust that our notices were found to be in order Mr. Yes. Thank you. Our testimony will be approximately one and a half minutes from Brian Ends who's alongside of me. I
think you got the picture already and then because there's a variance required, there'll be about three minutes of Allison Coffin. If we could have Mr. Ends sworn and we'll share his credentials with you. Absolutely. Please. Uh thank you. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Could you just please state and spell your name for the record? Uh yes. Brian Andis. B R Y an E H nees. And Brian, if you could share with the board your professional and educational background. Uh yes, I work at Bowler
Engineering BLER. Uh our address is 125 Half Mile Road, Sweet 207 in Redbank, New Jersey. I graduated from NGIT with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering. have been with Bowler for approximately 15 years and have been a practicing professional
engineer for over 10 years and my license is in good standing. Are you responsible for the plan that we're about to present to the board? Yes. I'm going to ask if you could describe to the board the plan that is before them and go I'm giving you 90 seconds to tell them where that red line is on the plan
and and confirm that there's no physical changes to the to the plan. Yes. And I Mr. Hey, I'm sorry to interrupt Brian. I'm having to give me one moment.
There you go. Oh, it doesn't have the red line on it. Everybody has their perfect. That's it. Shoot. I'm sorry. There was an extra the lease line off.
Remove one extra line. So essentially what I just passed out is uh building B subdivision for target plan prepared by Matrix New World and it's dated June 23rd, 2025. As Mr. Paper already alluded to, the red box you see
on that plan is the subdivision line. And again, I will confirm there are no physical changes to anything on site of how it operates or circulates. I have no further testimony required of Mr. and and if with your permission I don't see any public I could go to the
next question. Okay. I'd like to open up to our professionals. I have no questions for for Mr. Andis. Mr. Tetro, I have no questions. Eric, make it easy for folks to pay their taxes. I'm good. Anybody on my left?
One little question. I have the trucks in the back. they they'll be able to cross over it. Absolutely no change at all in operation. Okay. Zero. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh I'll open up to the
public. See no hands. I'll close the public. Thank you very much. Uh okay. Can we get a motion to move this? Uh well, we're going to there is going to be a variance. We have a planner to testify. Oh, okay. As as Alison is coming, my apologies. As Allison's
coming forward, I will tell you that we've had the opportunity to meet with your professionals and the idea that was circulated, which we thought was a terrific idea, would be to prepare subdivision deeds and embed all of the cross utility, cross parking, embed all
that into the actual subdivision deeds. You'll have the opportunity to review the form and content. That that sounds acceptable to me. Yeah, we thought it was a great idea. Yeah, absolutely. It didn't come from this side of the table. came from. And just for the record as well, uh I I
know this looks like just like the uh the the version that was submitted uh what you had circulated, but let's just mark it as exhibit A1 just for record purposes. As you're doing that, Allison Coffin could be sworn. Yes. You have her credentials.
Yeah. Just for the this record for this application, do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give this evening? Is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I Can you please state your name and spell it for the right? Allison coffin. C O FF I N. I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey and certified by the American Institute of Certified
Planners. Okay. You're accepted. S. Yes. Not changed just to share with the board the proofs that would support the granting of the variances for this technical subdivision. So with a technical subdivision, um little bit of relief we
need. Uh there's no technical frontage for this lot. So the lot frontage is zero. We've got sideyard setback that is technically at zero feet because the lot line passes right through the wall um of the shared walls of the the two commercial entities. So when we're
looking at a a lot that has no frontage, there's also a part of the municipal land use law that applies here. It's section C455D-35. [Music] And that is when you're creating a lot that has no frontage. the the board has to look at some certain conditions as to
whether or not you could issue a permit for a building or structure or create a lot that has no frontage with a building or structure on it. And that involves uh looking at whether or not the site can function safely. Does it provide adequate access for firefighting equipment, ambulances, and other
emergency vehicles? That sort of thing. In this situation where we have a development that already completely exists and functions, clearly this lot has adequate safety for for firefighting equipment and ambulances. As such, the circulation that was already approved
doesn't change as a result of the subdivision. And when it comes to the variance relief that the applicant's requesting, that's also technical in nature because we're not changing anything physically about this lot. It's just putting a lot line around one of the buildings for tax and financial
purposes. So given that there's no change to the approved plans other than subdividing a portion of that parcel out, I think the board would be justified in granting the relief that's being requested. I have no further examination of Miss Coffin. She's
available to the board. Okay. Thank you. Um any questions to the professionals? No questions. No questions. Mr. Palmer, anybody on my left? Okay. Uh going to open up her testimony
to the public. See, not seeing any hands or public. Uh close that. Okay. Now, we're looking for a motion to move this along. I'll move it. Second.
Mr. De Palmer? Yes. Mr. Lenning? Yes. Mr. Gopian? Yes. Miss Cannon? Yes. Mr. Petty? Yes. Miss Mella? Yes. Mr. McGis? Yes, Mr. Bernan. Yes. And Chairman Lowour. Yes. Thank you all. Thank you. Good luck.
Okay. Uh we've got the public. Yeah. There's no one here. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Just a formality. Yeah. Formality wise, we motion to open to public for any general comments. Open to public. No. Say no hands. I need a motion to uh
adjurnn. Move it. I'll second. All in favor? Hi. Hi.