I'll share more of this. It's 7:31 p.m. and this is the Township of Old Bridge Planning Board reorganization meeting agenda for January 29th, 2026. Uh we to start the meeting we will
salute the flag >> algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisibley and justice for all >> call the roll please
>> Mr. Dama >> here >> Mr. Lenning >> here >> Mr. Mr. Tama >> here. >> Miss Cannon >> here. >> Mr. Rena >> here. >> Mr. Petty >> here. >> Mella >> here. >> Mr. McKisac >> here. >> Mr. Brennan absent. Mr. Ferrara absent.
And Mr. Low >> here. >> We have three me three members. Two I believe are here. Um Mr. Lenning as class two board member, Miss Cannon as class four board member
and I have the oath of office. If you could uh both of you can do at the same time but if you could repeat after me. >> I state your name. >> I Casey Lennon >> do solemnly swear or affirm. >> Do you swear swear or affirm >> I will support the Constitution of the
United States. >> I will support the Constitution of the United States >> and Constitution of New Jersey. the con >> constitution of New Jersey >> that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same >> that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same >> and to the governments established in
the United States >> the government established in the United States >> and in this state >> and in this state >> under the authority of the people >> under the authority of the people >> and that I will faithfully >> that I will faith >> faithfully >> impartially >> impartially and justly perform
>> and justfully perform >> all the duties of my position of planning >> all the duties of the planning board >> to the best of my ability. So help me God. >> Best of my ability. So help me. Thank you. [clears throat]
>> We're going to take nominations now. Any nominations for chairperson? >> Nominated and lower. >> A second. >> Mr. Mr. Dama. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lenning. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tama. >> Yes. >> Miss Cannon. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Rena. >> Yes. >> Mr. Petty. >> Yes. >> Miss Mella. >> Yes. >> Mr. McGisac. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Watworth. >> Yes. >> Okay. [clears throat] I'd like to nominate Barbara Cannon for vice chair.
>> I'll second that. >> Mr. Dama? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lenning? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tama? >> Yes. >> Miss Cannon? Mr. Rena, >> yes. >> Mr. Petty, >> yes. >> Miss Mella, >> yes. >> Mr. McKisac, >> yes. >> And chairman Low.
>> Yes. [snorts] >> We need a nomination for secretary. >> I nominate Casey Lenny. >> Mr. Dalama. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lenny. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tama. >> Yes. >> Miss Cannon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rena. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Petty.
>> Yes. >> Miss Misella. >> Yes. >> Mr. McKisac. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Low. >> Yes. Okay. Vice Secretary. >> Daniel. >> I know that's >> nominate Daniel. >> Jabling the boss. >> Okay. That's
>> Mr. Dama. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lenn. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tama. >> Yes. >> Miss Canon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rena. >> Yes. >> Mr. Petty. >> Yes. >> M. Miscella. >> Yes. >> Mr. McIac. >> Yes. Chairman L. >> Yes. Okay. Uh board attorney uh
nomination is def Francisco Baitman Kunsman Davis Lar and Flam uh PC. Do I [snorts] have a nomination? >> I'll move. >> I'll second. >> Mr. Dalma. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lenning.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Tama. >> Yes. >> Miss Canon? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rena? >> Yes. >> Mr. Petty? >> Yes. >> Miss Misella? >> Yes. >> Mr. McI. >> Yes. Chairman L. >> Yes. Okay. Next. Uh board subcommittees. Uh master plan. We have any volunteers?
>> Okay. Barbara. [clears throat] Okay. Eric de Palmer. U we have one other spot open. We have I'll take it. >> [snorts] >> Okay,
>> I think we need a motion for it. >> Okay, >> I'll second. >> Mr. Dalma, >> yes. >> Mr. Lenning, >> yes. >> Mr. Tama, >> yes. >> Miss Canon, >> yes. >> Mr. Ren, >> yes. >> Mr. Petty, >> yes. >> Miss Misella, >> yes. >> Mr. McGisac, >> yes. >> Chairman Lowry,
>> yes. >> Uh, open space. Uh Casey Lenning, you interested? >> Okay. On nominate Casey, can we have a >> I'll >> Mr. De Palama? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lenning? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tammo?
>> Yes. >> Miss Cannon? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rena? >> Yes. >> Mr. Petty? >> Yes. >> Miss Misella? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mcisac? >> Yes. >> Chairman Lowry? >> Yes. Uh land development ordinance. Um on on the list is Barbara Caner, Eric De
Palama, and Keith McKisac. U >> I'll move to a second. >> Mr. Dama, >> yes. >> Mr. Lenning, >> yes. >> Mr. Tama, >> yes. >> Miss Cannon, >> yes. >> Mr. Rena, >> yes. >> Mr. Petty, >> yes. >> Miss Misella, >> yes. >> Mr. McGiser, >> yes. >> And chairman Lowour,
>> yes. Uh, minor subdivision and site plan committee. Eric de Palama, Keith Mcisac, Edward Lowour, Tina Marcella. >> Can I get a motion? >> I move it. >> Mr. Dalama? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lenning? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Tama? >> Yes. >> Miss Cannon? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rena? >> Yes. >> Mr. Petty? >> Yes. >> Missella? >> Yes. >> Mr. McIac? Yes. And Chairman Lowry? >> Yes. [snorts] Okay. Next we have planning consultants. We have two uh candidates. Environmental
resolutions inc harbor consultants. Do I have a motion? >> Move it. >> Second. >> Karen, I think we we usually take them separately. >> Separately. >> That's my mistake. >> That's okay. Okay. First one is environmental resolutions and this is
for planning consultants. >> Mr. Dalma, >> yes. >> Mr. Lenning, >> yes. >> Mr. Tama, >> yes. >> Miss Canon, >> Mr. Runner, >> yes. >> Mr. Petty, >> yes. >> Missella, >> yes. >> Mr. McIac, >> yes. >> And Chairman Wat, >> yes. Uh, the next planning consultant
application is Harbor Consultants. >> I'll move it. >> Second, >> Mr. Mr. Dalma. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lenny, >> yes. >> Mr. Tama, >> yes. >> Miss Canon, >> yes. >> Mr. Rena, >> yes. >> Mr. Petty, >> yes. >> Mella, >> yes. >> Mr. Mcisac,
>> yes. >> And chairman Lick. >> Yes. Next, we have a engineering consultants. Uh, first one is Environmental Resolutions, Inc. A motion. >> Okay. Second,
>> Mr. Mr. Diploma. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lenning. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tama. >> Yes. >> Miss Canon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rena. >> Yes. >> Mr. Petty. >> Yes. >> Miss. Mella. >> Yes. >> Mr. McIac. >> Yes. >> Chairman Lowry. >> Yes. Okay. >> Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. I understand
that still open. >> Just for the record, I understand that that RFP is still remains open. So you can take the vote on the first consultant listed, but the RP still remains open. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Traffic
Consultants. Okay. Uh Environmental Resolutions, Inc. I'll move it. >> Mr. Deal. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lenning. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tamo. >> Yes. >> Miss Cannon. >> Mr. Rena. >> Yes. >> Mr. Petty. >> Yes. >> Miss Misella. >> Yes.
>> Mr. McIac. Yes. >> Chairman Low. >> Yes. Uh traffic consultant. Second application is CME Associates. >> Move it. >> Second. >> Mr. Dama. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lenn. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tama.
>> Yes. >> Miss Cannon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rena. >> Yes. >> Mr. Petty. >> Yes. >> M. Missella. >> Yes. >> Mr. McSac. >> Yes. >> And Chairman L. >> Yes. Forestry Consultants. Chestnut AFS.
I'll move it. >> Mr. Dama, >> yes. >> Mr. Lenning, >> yes. >> Mr. Tama, >> yes. >> Miss Cannon, >> Mr. Rena, >> yes. >> Mr. Petty, >> yes. >> Miss Mella, >> yes. >> Mr. McKisac, >> yes. >> Chairman Lowry, >> yes. >> Okay. U next item on the list is
adoptions of 2026 planning board rules and regulations. Do we h have any uh changes? So, uh, chairman, good evening, uh, board members. Uh I would recommend that the board table the these for now
to the next meeting only because uh the one change that I'm trying to get in is we're eliminating the vice secretary position after speaking to the township attorney and the board attorneys because uh since we have full-time employees as
secretaries um we really don't need to have two positions secretary and vice secretary. Um, so I want to make that change in uh the bylaws as well as um there was an
email that was sent out about u moving the meeting time to 700 p.m. and um I I just wanted to discuss it a little more at this meeting and then um you know
make the change accordingly. So we have a lot of big applications that are coming up in front of the planning board and what has happened is it's my observation um that some of the meetings especially when I'm at the zoning board
uh and now those same applications will be carried or will be heard by um the planning board there's a large amount of residents that want to speak and we have been in meetings till midnight um on
those occasions. So it makes sense for us to start at 7 if it works for everyone so that we have the 3 hours which is 10:00 but even if we go a little beyond that we still can wind up before 10:30 and we are not all here
until uh midnight. So, and the difference is at council meetings when residents come and make comments and that's wait let me back up. The third change is that we are going to limit residents to comment for no more than 3
minutes just like the council does so that everybody gets a chance to speak. The only difference between council meetings and planning board zoning board meetings are um council doesn't have to respond to every residents but when it comes to planning board zoning board the
professionals who are questioned have to respond back. So the resident participation period is much longer. So having these changes will enable us to conduct meetings in a timely fashion.
And um I I just wanted to bring those up. I will have those changes in the bylaws at the next meeting and then we'll ask you to vote on it. But I'll try to circulate the bylaws in advance of the meeting so that you get to read them.
>> So uh right now right now we're we're just going to table >> table it. Yes. Okay. >> Motion to table. Mr. Diploma, >> yes. >> Mr. Lenning, >> yes. >> Mr. Tamo, >> yes. >> Miss Canon, >> Mr. Ren, >> yes. >> Mr. Petty, >> yes. >> Mella,
>> yes. >> Mr. McGis, >> yes. >> And Chairman Low, >> yes. >> Okay. Resolutions. First one, 37-2024P, Fox Houses. >> I believe it's the one off of Route 18.
Okay. Um, can we get a motion to approve that? >> I'll make the motion. >> Mr. Dama, >> yes. >> Mr. Lenning, >> yes. >> Mr. Tamo, >> yes. >> Miss Cannon, >> Mr. Rena, >> yes. >> Mr. Petty, >> yes. >> Missella, >> yes.
>> Mr. Mciserac, >> yes. >> And Chairman Lowour, >> yes. Uh the second resolution 65-2024P Hook Mountain Associates LLC is carried over to the February 26 26
uh meeting. Okay. Consistency review. Master plans and consistency review for ordinance amending Obridgeidge Township Code Chapter 250-49 entitled Application of Yard Regulations.
Bina, would you like to explain what that's about? >> Sure. So, um the uh ordinance to 50-49 and 50, both of them actually pertain to um accessory structures related to
single family homes or residential uh zones. What happens is we have an ordinance in place that allows uh accessory structures only in the rear yard and the sideyard implying that no accessory structures are permitted in
the front yard rightfully. So you don't want like a swimming pool in the front yard. You don't want a shed in the front yard. But what the ordinance, the current ordinance does is it overlooks through lots or lots properties that are
located at the corner because based on the definition, a corner lot has two front yards. So then the pro the property owner is challenged now because he cannot have a pool or a shed or
something in his sideyard which is also a front yard. This ordinance makes it easy for those cornered lots or through lots. It says that you cannot have an accessory structure in the front yard
that face that the house is facing on. Which means this the second front yard is where you could still have a pool or a shed. We did the same change when it
came to fences last year but now we are fixing because these accessory structures were not covered by the fence ordinance. So we are trying to fix this if talking about consistency with master plan. The master plan's overarching goal
is to remove inconsistencies in the land development ordinance and make it easier for residents. So this this is an attempt to fix that and I believe that the proposed ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan
and that's both ordinances. So ordinance 250-49 is nothing but avoiding redundancy. So we are eliminating that section from 49 but we are including everything in one place in uh ordinance
250-50. Okay. Does anybody have any questions about either one of these ordinance? >> Oh, go ahead. I >> think thank you first, for the explanation. 250-50. I think first maybe there there may be a
spelling correction in bold under section A. It right now reads one and interior lot. You may have may may have intended to be on an interior lot just for guidance. You see that the word
one? Now my my understanding of the reason why accessory structures were put by side was so that they weren't visible from the street. And unfortunately a corner lot does have
two portions of their property that are visible from the street. So I think it's inconsistent with the intent. I think the intent of the accessory structure to be in the rear. It was so it wasn't visible directly visible from the
street. And I think this changes it and then makes it visible. That's the only thing I would lend to this. I don't believe it's consistent. It's unfortunate [clears throat] that a house on the corner does have two street faces, but they should be placing that
accessory structure on the side that is adjacent to another piece of property. >> So >> that would be consistent with the original ordinance. >> No, but I think the reason why these ordinances these are policy decisions that come from the council, right? The
planning board's job is to just review it whether it's inconsistent with the master plan. And what I'm trying to say is it is not inconsistent with the master plan because we're trying to make
it easier for residents especially when residents want to put they are on a corner lot and want to do any accessory structures. There are other ways and that's why we first fix the fence ordinance because that's where the
screening comes into place. We are now allowing the fences to be in those front yards which were not permitted before. So you have the screening and now you're allowing because most of the corner lots
don't have deeper rear yards if you look at them because they have two frontages and generally they're not a perfect rectangle. They are almost like a triangular lot. So this allows them to
put it where also with the first change that we made with the fences, we are now allowing them to screen them as well. >> Thank you. Listen, I I believe the master plan also carries the intent in
the best interest of the community. So I will say again that I believe that by putting an accessory structure visible to the street it almost becomes a detriment because if it's not maintained then it it it it decreases the
visibility from the street. Your home just doesn't look as pleasing. That's my opinion. >> But then you're depriving a homeowner from putting in >> they have one position where they could place it. That's the way it currently is. I'm only stating my opinion. >> No, I get it. Go ahead.
>> And I think I'm entitled to state my opinion. >> Yes. All right. And that's all we I'd like to then question the second >> 250-49 item F. I want to understand why why the
adjustment to omit this section because this section appears that when it was written for a house that was a smaller piece of property, you could have a pool and it didn't have to comply with I'll say rear or sideyard setbacks. But by
deleting this section, does that now mean that some homes with pools that are infringing on that area would be in violation? Because this whole section is being struck out. Is that correct? >> The whole section has been struck out
because we are covered. We're covering pools and underground above ground and underground pools under the accessory building structure. We cons we consider them or evaluate them as accessory buildings or structures. So there is
duplication and in the past so many years we're trying to remove those duplications. We want it to be in one place rather than have it. So it's not taking away from the actual uh it doesn't change the meaning. It's covered under this ordinance.
>> But I don't see the same language carried over. >> It doesn't have to be because accessory buildings and structures are defined by our LDO. So we don't need to be specific about pools and um uh like above ground
or in ground. And actually, luckily, our board secretary is also the zoning officer. And actually, in this rare occasion, if you want, Danny, you can chime in if I'm wrong. >> My my concern was how does this impact a
resident that may have a pool that's infringing on a rear yard setback? >> Would they then be once the occurs? >> No, the the language is the language essentially isn't changing. I think it's just being removed because right now
it's in two different sections. It's in 250 and 250 and 25049, right? So in the grand scheme of things, the setback for a pool is always 6 feet, right? And that's just being moved from 250 to 49 because like Venus said, a
pool is definitionally an accessory building or an accessory structure. So we're moving it to that section of the ordinance just to keep it just to clean things up. the and and I I understand it. That's why I'm speaking. Yeah. >> But the mere language isn't being carried over.
>> So, I think that the language that's here gives the current resident more protection or more rights compared to the adjusted language. And I'm wondering is that a detriment or a problem to them? >> The only difference >> could they end up being in violation
essentially? No. by the adjusted language. And that's talking >> the the changes in the language would cuz right now if you're on a corner lot, right, and you're looking at a house from the street and the right side of it is a side street. That's technically a front yard. As the ordinance reads now,
you can't have a shed, you can't have a pool. Um the only structure you can have there by ordinance is a fence, right? So this change allows us now me to approve fences, to approve sheds, to approve gazeos, patios, things in that what is a
sideyard to a homeowner but a front yard definitionally to the township. >> Right. >> So we're trying to make it easier for residents so that if someone wants to make improvements to their property in that definitionally front yard, right, they don't have to go to the zoning
board for approval. Um, there's probably been multiple dozens of applications for pools, sheds in in front yards on corner lots. So, the language was meant for corner lots only, not for interior lots.
>> You know, our basis was, well, if there's a fence there, right? If there's a pool now in a front yard on a corner lot, there has to be a fence. You'd never know that there's a pool there because it's going to be hidden behind the fence. So, >> but you'll know if there's a beat up shed because now you're going to see it
from the street. >> Correct. >> And that's what this permits. Now, >> this ordinance would permit someone to put a shed. Yes. In a front yard on a corner lot. >> And I said, but my point was that that's why the original ordinance was written
so that they could only be on sideyards when you had adjacent property. you could not be on the street side because from a street from a visibility standpoint if you're not maintaining it you got a beautiful house and a beat up shed that's why you we didn't permit it
so by changing it we're not permitting and introducing that >> the that's my talk >> so the one more thing I want to add to what Danny said right so on every street there will be a corner house on both ends who is then disadvantaged because
they won't be able to put any accessory structure because also by definition front yard is anything beyond a straight line that is drawn along the building line. So when you look at two front yards they won't have any space to put
in and that line goes to the back. So even their rear yard to some extent is compromised now because you're drawing a line along the building line. there's a very tiny corner left for these property
owners to put in a pool or a shed. So it's kind of not fair and this is something the zoning board annual report has still not been released but in the last year itself there were two or three applications that went in front of the
zoning board wherein it's it's added expense to these residents to go and ask to use their own property just because they're on a corner lot. So in that sense we are trying to help these residents have a pool and then the
zoning officer or me we review it if it triggers a variance or if it is encroaching it is too close to the front yard line they will be directed to the zoning board anyways and at that point generally when they're defending a C
variance they have to show some positive and negatives wherein I me when I'm reviewing it or Danny when he's reviewing it, we add them to put we ask them to add a fence or put in some landscaping. Now, if it's a pool, we're not going to ask them to put a
landscaping. It won't make any sense. You would need a fence to really protect and give them privacy. >> And I'll say, so in my six years on council, we've had quite a number of folks that have come to us that have lived on corners for fences and for all
sorts of things. because the ordinances prohibit that you can't I mean you go into Swood South, you go to Southwood, you go down into Lawrence Harbor, there's a lot of these types of properties, right? And some of those
properties aren't the sizes of other neighborhoods. So, you don't have, as Veno was explaining, you don't necessarily have the space to put an accessory structure somewhere, right? that if you're on a 50 by 50 lot and
both of your both sides of your property that are on the street side are facing the street and are considered front yards, you may only have 15 to 20 square feet in your backyard to put any of this stuff. So these these are the things that as we look at these and as we have um conversations with the residents some
of the changes that we have to do understanding that there's going to be situations where an ugly shed may exist. I would also say that you have folks that have sheds in their backyards
that those same ugly uh sheds can exist from looking from the street side. So I think we have to weigh some of the good with the bad when it comes to this. I think um the change outweighs any of the bad because it does help residents because they're going to come up to the zoning board and more than likely the
zoning board's going to give them that variance because it's like more like a common sense type of thing. Yes, we understand it. It's, you know, when this was written and h and how it was written, the times have kind of changed a lot. More folks are in their backyard.
They could do more things, right? So, we want to make sure that we're more friendly to those residents. And that's really the precipice for for these changes to allow residents to utilize their yards more than they have in the past. >> And just to add on to what Eric said, right, most of these policy decisions
are made based on the data with that we get. So in the past few years we have made numerous changes to the land development ordinances to help residents. So when you look at the
zoning board applications that come in the similar type of applications that come in is like an indication where probably we need to revisit the policy. That's how we have been making changes to the fences. We have made changes to
the floor area ratio because there are so many uh homeowners that have to come in front of the zoning board just because they were finishing their basement. You know the basement is there finished or unfinished. How does it
affect your volume of the building? But they were they were required to go to the zoning board. So we have been fixing those inconsistencies in the land development ordinance so that we can reduce the number of identical
applications that go in front of the zoning board. And this is again um uh it's consistent with our continued efforts to eliminate such um uh such issues with the land development ordinance.
>> Okay. Any any anyone else have a comment? >> Question. Um, >> any are are there requirements for the distances sheds need to be off property lines? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Do you know what they happen to be? >> It depends on the zone, but any sheds under or up to 150 square feet is 3
feet. Um, and then anything greater than that depends on the zone. It goes anywhere from 10 feet to 25 ft. >> Are there any height restrictions? >> 15 feet. >> 15 feet. Correct. >> Not the interior. >> No. No. Yeah. Yeah.
>> I only know that because I had to deal with a specific issue for a resident. It wasn't the inside measurement. It's the outside measurement. >> What did you do, Eric? >> It's a unique situation. >> Sorry, I thought I turned it on. It's a unique situation because you're potentially putting a shed in your
neighbor's front yard even though it's your backyard, but you know, it is what it is. Would there be something where you could possibly limit the height on those structures if it's in this particular area? Because if now if you're >> if you're the neighbor and you walk out, you have a 15 foot shed next to your
front of your house that was never there before. >> Well, that's that's what I'm saying. It's that's pretty pretty tall. You know, I I'm not opposed to the shed being there or the fence definitely because you're allowing the residents to
use it, but then 15 ft's pretty pretty high. So maybe we could look into something like that. >> Drive a corner. >> If you have a corner lot, the house next to it, walk out your front door, you could potentially see a 15 foot tall
shed. street side. >> Well, no, because when you come out of what what Casey's referring to is when you come out of your home, >> you're the house next to it on the sideyard. >> It's a corner lot, right, Casey? So,
you're not really on the other side. You're other side of the street. So imagine imagine there is a house with a garage on the side. There are many houses that have garage entrances from the side.
>> It's identical to having that type of because a garage would be 15 ft tall. So it's something we can look at. Um, but again, I think probably it's a
policy decision that needs to come from the council. I'll bring it up and we'll ask uh we'll have a discussion with the township attorney on it. Um, Yep. >> Yeah. I I think obviously we there would
have to massage some of some of this when it comes to it. I mean I my neighbor the way my neighbor is my neighbor is the corner property in case you you know where that is. His backyard faces my sideyard but he is on the corner. So
>> he's around the bend but he's he's right there. So I understand where that is like. So and and I from him he's had he has never put a fence up because of some of these issues and now he just I I like it the way it is and plus he has my fence so he doesn't have to look at me
in the summer. Um but um no, I definitely understand and I think it's something that we can look at, you know, adding certain restrictions on some of these sideyards, you know, with consultation from attorneys and and having conversations um with the rest of
council, make sure that we're not putting a 15 foot high, 20 by 30 shed [laughter] in there in in someone's really in essence, you're building a second house, right? and we just want to make sure that we're consistent. But I know that
when we look at these these changes, these these changes will greatly help the residents that that live on those corners because it does get costly to come to the zoning board. If I want to put up a shed, I'm going to have to pay possibly an attorney and whatever other
fees to come up there. It's not fair to them when I could turn around because I live on an interior lot. I could just put up a shed that's 140 square feet and not even ask permission because it's small enough >> you know and one thing like in my
designwise right in my experience majority of these side accessory structures if it's a larger one are attached to the building. So then they become part of the p principal building's footprint. it doesn't become
like an accessory structure which is separate from the principal building. The issue has come up more often with fences and with pools. So like
if there was a garage then it is absorbed into the principle. It's not really segregated or separated as a garage unless you have a huge piece of lot where you could have a detached garage or you could have a detached
shed. >> This issue comes more when you have the smaller R5s, R seven. I mean R5 is a completely different [snorts] um issue because they have really undersized lots but the R six R seven is
you know they are not too large they're smaller lots where they need pools but again we'll we look into it uh I will definitely bring it up in front of the council but I think overall the this ordinance will at least help those
corner lot residents to get their pools in to get their patios in if they want. >> No, I I agree with that and you know, I support that. I just think that, you know, we just need to make sure that we're not allowing somebody to build something that could potentially be an issue for the rest of the neighborhood.
So, you know, I I I want the residents to get their pools and their fences. It's just that we like when you think about there could potentially be a 15 foot shed in your neighbor's front yard now. So, I just want to work for [snorts] everybody. >> Mr. Chairman, just in terms of the
how how this got it is the council that makes policy decision. They've introduced an ordinance. They've sent it to the planning board uh pursuant to a section of the municipal land use law section 26.
uh and before it can be adopted, they're required to send it to the board for the purpose of reviewing for as to whether or not it is inconsistent with the master plan. So the determination of this board is whether or not it is
inconsistent with the master plan. I I think you've heard from the planner from Vina that in her opinion the ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan. Uh if there were specific in
inconsistencies, you could point that out or return it to the council with comments regarding those inconsistencies. But but that's that's how it's here. It's not a debate over the ordinance itself or whether it
should be modified added. It's it's limited to consistency with the master plans. >> Okay. Thank you. Um any other comments? Okay. Um we have to open it up to the public.
See no public. We close that. get it all out. >> Um, Daniel, we have to vote on each one separately. Do you? >> I believe so. Right, council? Yes.
>> Okay. Um, for the uh 250-49. Do I have a motion? >> Move it. I'll second it. >> Mr. Palmer? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lenning? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tuama? >> Yes. Miss Cannon, >> yes. >> Mr. Rena, >> yes.
>> Mr. Petty, >> yes. >> Mella, >> yes. >> Mr. McIac, >> yes. >> And Chairman Lowry, >> yes. >> Okay. And the master plan review for ordinance uh 250-50. Do I have a motion? >> I'll move it.
>> Second. >> Mr. Dalama? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lenning? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tama? >> Yes. >> Miss Cannon? >> Mr. Rena? >> No. >> Mr. Petty? >> Yes. Miss Mella, >> yes. >> Mr. McKisac, >> yes. >> And Chairman Low, >> no.
>> Okay. Now, the U master plan consistency review for Raceway Park redevelopment plan. Dina, you're up. >> So, um, >> yeah. >> Good evening, board members. Um, at the
previous meetings, we have had, um, discussions. So, you're you're familiar with the Raceway Park. um plan and um the plan is in front of the council. It was introduced uh it has been referred
to the planning board uh to see if it is consistent with the master plan. There there is a recommendation that was uh included in the master plan that was revised April 28th, 2022
and specifically it talks about large underutilized parcels including Raceway Park the former Lowe's site etc. where it recommend and the Lawrence Harbor area and it recommends that this area be considered for redevelopment. the plan
is consistent with the recommendations. Um and um that is my testimony that the proposed plan that is in front of the council is consistent with the recommendation of the master plan
re-examination report 2022. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Barbara, go ahead. Um I mean we haven't done a master plan review. We were supposed to do it a couple of years ago. We haven't done it. >> We are way past aren't we somewhat past
the >> No, we haven't. By statutory requirement, we are supposed to do a master plan examination every 10 years. We actually did it in 2017, but there were some things that need to be fixed.
So we amended it. The last revision was 2022. So, uh, by law, we are not required to do it right now. It's 10 years. We're covered for 10 years. Um, that's where
we are. But if there is anything that the master plan review committee would want us to look at, revisit, or add new recommendations, we can definitely take that up. As it pertains to the raceway
park plan though the recommendation was made in the 2022 re-exam and the proposed plan is consistent with that recommendation. Barbara did >> we haven't you know we haven't had a
master plan we didn't have any meeting last year I'm not I don't remember the year before >> and >> the the Barbara the reason we haven't had is because last year and even this year for that matter is a very crucial
year for the affordable housing I understand >> yeah so and that is also part of the master plan so the housing plan is an element of the township ship's master plan and we were statemandated but we
had very stringent deadlines to meet. So last year was in fact you should be soon I just had a conversation with our board attorney Mr. Sello, you should be seeing the housing plan uh soon for adoption because that kind of also dictates some
of the land use changes that will uh occur and that we would have to update our master plan accordingly. So I think this is the year we probably will be meeting to go over any of the changes that come in. >> So is the plan as it is stands now is
more of a conceptual I mean it's not locked in stone, right? >> Pardon me. plan that we have for wa the raceway park area that whole >> piece of land >> huh >> it can be ch modified it doesn't have to be >> no this is the plan because the plan has
come from the settlement agreement if you may recall it was something so just to fill you in the raceway park raceway park the entire area there was a proposal to build warehousing because
The zoning at that time was SD5. With SD5, it would have allowed up to 3 million square ft of warehousing. And the road infrastructure is not really capable of handling that type of
traffic. So, the council made a decision and we reszoned it to um R1 120, which is 3 acre minimum zoning. Uh the ordinance was passed. We were sued by the uh owners. We went to the court. The
court remanded us to get into an agreement. Mark Rosselli, myself, we have spent almost a year um trying to negotiate and settle in and eventually August of 2025, the council got into a
settlement agreement. This plan is just a mere replication of what was agreed by the council through the settlement agreement. So this plan that is in front of you dictates the number of residential units that will be placed uh
the um the amount of commercial that will be included in that area, the type of uses that can go into that area. So the plan dictates what will be
what will be allowed. So it's a zoning ordinance for that area. >> So that's already set. So we don't have any say in that anymore. >> No, it's it's it's >> so so the 600 homes um the warehouses all that is in place basically.
>> Yes. And I wouldn't call them warehouses as such because the settlement agreement was crafted such that we don't allow any building to be bigger than 200,000 square ft and we limit it to like almost
like flex space or commercial buildings. It could be a light industrial building. We don't know. Um but those are the type of uses that are so you won't see um million square ft warehousing or a
typical large warehouse. Um what is permitted is almost like the smallest warehouse that was approved for segment which is on fairway lean. >> So the architecture the the type of houses all that has been set already.
>> No you said twotory. >> No. So, so what this this plan or the agreement does is it sets the height, it sets the density because this plan is also helping us address our affordable
housing obligation because remember we have an affordable housing obligation of 673 affordable units. So with this uh raceway park plan, the uh summer site
that I'm going to come in front of the council soon, all these are part of our affordable housing plan and we are just trying to now um get the ordinances in place. But for Raceway Park, it was two-sided. It's part of our affordable
housing plan because we were already trying to settle in with this property owner. It may so happen then where that when the actual design comes up they may not be able to put 600 units but the
plan is written such that whether they build 400, 500 or 300 units doesn't matter. they will have to provide for 120 affordable units because what we care about from this plan is that we get our share of the affordable housing
units. So the property owner has not gotten his LOIs. So the wetlands are not mapped. There are areas that are constrained. I did an extensive research on the wetlands, the the land use, the
development intensities to come up with this plan. So this is the max they can do, but that doesn't mean this is what they will do. They still have to map their constraints. >> And there's more than one owner of the property we're talking about.
>> Yes, probably. >> Yeah. So they they're all in sync with what's being proposed. >> This plan, regardless of who the owner is, includes eight parcels. And the plan is for those eight parcels. And that
eight parcels when I look at it, I look at it as one whole area which has now been subdivi has been zoned into three different zones. There is a single family zone R70 because there's a pond area which can
have beautiful single family homes in that area. There is a zone that is identical to our EDO4 zone. It is the area 4 zone which allows flex space. It allows retail. It allows commercial activity. And then the last one is the
mixeduse inclusionary raceway park zone which is almost towards the um Manalopin border and um Englishtown road which is the mixed use and there is ample natural buffers to provide screening but that's
where you will see probably a boulevard created perpendicular to Englishtown road where you'll have multif family houses. We don't do we have a developer? >> Nope. This plan will have to be a amended
eventually to fine-tune the design standards because we were in a very tough position. Typically what happens is there will be a developer he will have some concept. I review the concept I suggest I make recommendations and
changes to those concept. Here there is no concept. there is just areas marked up and those areas are nothing but zones. So this ordinance was very tough for me and Mark to even you know come up. There has been lot of like land
calculations uh and lot of research involved in what we came up with and again there was uh mediating attorney who was trying to bring us together to come to consensus and that's when this was created but
again my understanding is before anything comes and we don't even know if you know what the naps really plan to do I don't know if they'll come up with a site plan next month or we won't see anything for 10 years. We're hoping they
would because we want to see our affordable housing units built in, but there is no developer. There is no plan in place. >> My apologies to interject. I I my recollection from the last testimony.
>> My recollection from the last testimony was that there was a developer and it was the naps. So I am I >> nabs are the de the owners they are not the developers they are not into a development business
>> and they may choose to be own developers who knows they could okay any more questions concerns >> u I'm sorry to be you know, but so the naps own all of excuse me, all of that
property. >> So >> there's individual homeowners that came to the meeting to ask about and there >> this plan does not address their properties though. I'm not reszoning their properties. This plan out of So
let me step back. When you heard me testify about the area investigation study, it included 29 parcels, included the parcels that the homeowners own, too. This plan is only
specific to eight parcels that are owned by the NAP brothers, which is the raceway park. That's why the plan is called the raceway park plan because these are this plan is only uh for those eight parcels. The next step would be to
then re-evaluate other properties and see what can be done. But they are already I mean most of them are already EDO zone. So they allow for a variety of commercial uses. But that's the next step. We would have
to evaluate those properties and then either create an amendment to this plan or create an addendum to add on to this plan for those parcels. But if you look at the plan, if you open up the aerials,
it only marks eight properties out of the 29. And and that's why I said the plan is consistent with just the settlement agreement because the settlement agreement was only for those eight
parcels and not for the 29. >> Okay. I I have a question, Vina. What happens if we vote no against this tonight? >> If you vote no, you're only saying that this plan is not consistent with the
master plan. If I if I'm not mistaken, the council still has the ability to override and um affirm this as an ordinance. >> Yeah. Because there was a a >> but but here's the thing. I mean, and I
would have the board attorney chime in. The master plan is crystal clear when it says that you have to look at properties such as Raceway Park and consider redevelopment. So, you really can't say
that it's inconsistent. It's a policy decision that was already made in the master plan. It's not like I'm saying, oh, the overall goal of the master plan is to do this. No, there is a specific recommendation that pertains to Raceway
Park parcel. So, for the board to say that it's not consistent is really difficult. And I'm not trying to tell you this is I had numerous conversations with our township attorney too because I wanted guidance from him and I'm
speaking from that. Uh and uh our board attorney can chime in if I am incorrect. >> May prior to your proceeding, may I ask when was when was the raceway park added into the master plan? Why would that
specific property be included into our >> It was not just Raceway Park. I read the >> No, I'm asking when was it and why was it? >> So it's tw So here's the thing, right? for the last so many like I I have t uh I think I started working for old bridge
in 2018. So for the last eight years what we have done is wherever we saw areas where um that could qualify for redevelopment we have amended the master plan so that the redevelopment agency gets a chance
to look at it. The agency then directs me that you know this is the area maybe you should look at it. When you pick up any redevelopment planning projects it's important that your master plan also talks about it. So the first step is your master plan even with the
redevelopment planning projects. We went through the entire township to see which areas. So if you notice the recommendation is not just for Raceway Park. It talks about the Lowe's property that has been that was vac and luckily
we are having Tesla now come in on that property but it talked about the Lowe's property that was vacant for almost 10 years. It talks about me pursuing transit village designation it within where the old bridge commuter parking
lot is. It talks about Lawrence Harbor where there are some vacant parcels or there are parcels that qualify for redevelopment. And as a planning principle, as the township planner, my role is to see where in the township can
we site areas where we can potentially encourage growth and where we can preserve growth. So these areas are not going to be awakened lot that is within a single family residential district. These are going to be areas that really
need to be planned well. So most of the and I made a presentation in front of the council too when we looked at it most of these areas were along the highway corridors like Route 9, Route 35. Englishtown Road is a big chunk.
It's like almost 250 acre property and we know that some of the businesses there were kind of dwindling down. They were slowing down. We come up with uh they have come up in the past to ask us can we have auction use here. Now
auction use means that they are going there will be a lot more people coming in for the auction and I had determined that no an auction use would add on to the traffic and there was a lot of back and forth between their planner our
planner. So before they could come up with a plan for a warehouse because they were in negotiations with a developer who wanted to put in 3 million square ft of warehouse. We thought it was best for us to take charge and plan as to what we
really think is suitable for the township. So uh and that's the role of the master plan, right? Like Barbara said, when are we when are we redoing our master plan? This these recommendations were added as part of
our uh ongoing investigation of vacant parcels. Now that we have a housing plan in place, probably it will be again time to look at our plans because there are still properties that are vacant and
that have potential to be developed. There are some parcels that are vacant that are right now qualified as QMS and they could potentially because when we were working on the housing plan, we had eight objectors. There were eight developers that were objecting our plan,
but our plan was so s solid that we could actually push away most of these objectors because otherwise we would end up having many more developments. I think maybe maybe you're just missing my my question here or the point and and
I'll say that part of what we're do here from a community standpoint and one of our objectives was to make Oldbridge an attractive a destination location and Raceway Park has been a staple in this
community for I'll say over 50 years. one of the reasons I moved to Oldbridge and now in hindsight I'm saying why did we elect to look at that property and deem it in need for redevelopment because that's what put us in this
position where we are right now I was under the understanding it was the Knaps that wanted to redevelop the whole time but it really wasn't it was someone else that could have developed warehouses so to block them we got ahead of it
>> so the in 2022 when when some of this stuff was added, it wasn't so much it was a lot of empty air land and land that we knew that that the owners wanted to develop, whether they wanted it to develop themselves or be part of the
development or sell, but ultimately the the usage of the land as it was at that time, whatever whenever that was, they deem themselves, you know, and and I know from Raceway Park is it's not advantageous. We don't
want to run the the raceway any longer. Things like that would have would have come up. Conversations would have happened with the the prior administration under um Senator Henry. So, some of those conversations would have happened and that's why they would have been added into this stuff like
with Lowe's obviously, right? But it's properties like that that whether or not the folks that own Lowe's and that corporation or Raceway Park. When we look at those, are there pieces of properties and large pieces of property
within the township that we deem by putting it in an area redevelopment would revitalize that area or revitalize that property? So, for instance, with Raceway Park, threearters of it, if I'm not mistaken, is not even used for the
most part. So when we look at it, you know, we say, okay, it's not that we're forcing you to do it, right? We're saying that we by by adding the red the your property to a redevelopment zone, we're giving you the opportunity to work with us and and develop it the way that
it would best fit that portion of town. Now, with the the proposal at the time that they wanted to put the x number of million square feet of warehousing, we all knew the second that came up, Texas Road, Englishtown Road will not
handle those types of trucks. So, that's what they were looking to do, right? And then obviously the the longer story of all that that happened if you want to know I could I could tell you offline of how it was reszoned by us reszoning that
prohibited the usage for the warehouse which then prompted the NAP family to take the township to litigation based off of the litigation that property or they've decided that the best use for that property and you know
highest and best use would be what the redevelopment zone would be. >> So my understanding and from speaking to the operators of Raceway Park is they want to continue to operate as they currently are. So let's pause there for a second.
>> The testimony from one of the last hearings, a homeowner came up and complained about the noise and the sounds relative to cars racing with and she didn't live directly on the property. How would we take a portion of that property where we still have a
racetrack ongoing and introduce residential homes directly adjacent to the racetrack? It doesn't make any sense. >> Well, I think that as the >> the property is developed, that raceway would probably cease existing, >> but they don't want to cease their
operations. >> Well, right now, because of the the the use of business, right? And if they cease any operations today, they more or less go from a revenue source to no revenue. >> And can I can I can I also suggest some explain something because if you look at
the redevelopment plan, right, the residential area that is being um mapped out or the zone that has been created is separate or is away from where the racetracks are. And I'll tell you the
first problem even before there was an developer interested in putting the 3 million right we were getting constant requests from Raceway Park to expand expand the AI the uh long-term storage
place. Now the issue with that use has been and I've been fighting ever since I came on board because they wanted to keep expanding the area. The one thing that happened and this is way before my time. Raceway Park kept coming to the
planning board on the pretext that they want to do a concept plan review with the planning board. Miraculously, there were resolutions of approval. Now, if I have to go back and challenge those meetings were concept meetings that were
never noticed. So there is a question on the validity of those zones too. But there was a constant fight with them wanting to expand the long-term storage. Just 3 weeks ago there was a fire there
and there were like 14 cars on fire because what was happening is they were just stacking up cars where the emergency services can't even breach. So we thought if we have a plan in place like an overlay zone so that we can curb
that type of use because Englishtown road cannot handle that traffic. There are trailers with cars. There was an image that was posted and if you go actually that image is available on Google if you do street views there there is a trailer that is stuck at the
intersection of Texas road and English town road. They can't make the turn. Now imagine adding more of that long-term storage. So the idea was okay let's come up with a plan so that we can curb the
type of users that are going in so that it's under our control and the best we thought is okay the around surrounding properties are mostly wood haven village estate too or the older wood haven sections so let's reszone there's an
airport which is going to remain so let's reszone it to 3 acre zoning and we got challenged so then when It comes from the code and we are mandated to work with the property owner. We have to work with that. Right? So then when we
were creating land use plans, the current uses still will be permitted. They still wanted the motorport facility to be one of the permitted uses. IA they have a long-term lease, a 100year lease. So even if we don't want
them, we can't push them out. It was a use permitted by the planning board. They are there. But with this plan, we are now trying to contain that area that they cannot expand and take up the entire raceway power property. So, uh
the residential area is separate and closer. Like I said, there are some constraints on the property which provide natural buffers. So when the concept was created, it was not like oh you can have residential here next to a flex space or you can have residential
next to the motor facilities. We planned it such that single family homes are allow allowed along on wall road or where the pond is. The mixed use is more on the county road. The flex space that
is allowed is more on the central part where you you don't have as many homes. So there was a lot of thought that went into it and I think this is the best what we could do given that it was a mandate that came from the court and you
know we'll have to see I am pretty certain that the plan will have to be amended in future because I myself I can't predict how the design is going to be or how the buildings are going to look at. So, I would want to have a
another bite at the apple at some point. >> Okay. Any any other questions from over here? Well, my question is is that that if we if we approve this then then we're
saying that the the zone that you drafted up the zones the flex zone that that uh u h muih zone um and the EDO4 and the R7. If we if we approve this
then that's in stone. It's a done deal. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, >> and that zones that zones uh I'm sorry, but those zones were already laid out in the settlement agreement that was signed by the council. So, the zone is already
kind of in place. Oh, so as a PL planning board, I if we see something we don't like, we're stuck. What is that? What you tell >> your role as the planning board on an ordinance such as a redevelopment plan? Because a redevelopment plan is an
ordinance. Your role as the planning board is to only see if the plan or the recommendations, the redevelopment plan introduction is consistent with the master plan. So that's where it is. If
you are if there are some qu questions concerns I mean Eric is the representative for the council >> to to answer the question at least and either our attorney or or me to stop me
if I'm incorrect. >> Zoning we've never play part in zoning. We're not the zoning board from a planning perspective. when they come to us with the plan, we have the same powers as we do if any other application to sit there, review them, ensure that
they're consistent, right? So, they can't just come in and dump something on us like we've had multiple that we've sent back and they've had to revise the plans, right, based off our recommendations. We we will always have that power. this board, regardless of who sits up here, what council person
sits up here, what planner, what attorneys, what volunteers, will always um continue to have the same power over an application whether it's a redevelopment zone or not. Right? We don't sit here and say you can't build
it because it's not um zoned correctly. They'd have to go to the zoning board first before they come to us to have something reszoned. So, we'll always retain that power. like that redevelopment plan's not going to say it needs to be, you know, 25 feet off the
property line and, you know, whatever, right? Those things will still have that that power to one question and one to request as we do any other application. Well, the reason I asked because the MUI
zone, okay, that flex zone you want to call that was uh that's over Alfair's site. And you know what we got out of that site, right? >> I bring that up, it hurts, right? Yeah. >> Yeah, I know. So, so that's the Alfair.
And the another thing that concerns me is the that the uh um the zone. to >> you know the Alfairi site's a good example right so they came to us and they wanted to
>> they wanted to do things that we didn't agree with right we sent them away they came back with something that was more palatable for what we needed to do based off of the the legal settlements and things that we had right so that that's actually a great example um Mr. hour and
the fact that they came to us with something even though they could have done that. When we looked at that, we were like, absolutely not. We're not going to segregate a building over here that you had to drive out of Middle Sex County into Mammoth into Mammoth County
and around to use amenities >> and putting all the lowincome people in one area. >> Yeah. So, we were able to do that. We'll we still have we still have that ability. This board has that power. >> Okay. because and another thing that bothers me uh the R seven zone
all the developments on Englishtown Road are uh R20 >> you know you're you're you're going from if you talk about consistency R seven is much different than R20 >> so no Mr. flower. The R seven zone is
along John Wall Road. >> Yeah, I I know where it's at. >> Right. Yeah. >> So, the across the street from that on John Ball Road is all Wood Haven. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Yes. >> Those are actually R seven R six.
They they are permitted as R seven R six. So >> I I looked at the zoning map and I thought Wood >> the zoning map does not show Wood Haven's GDP. The the zoning map does not shown. So it it does not and what we
have done is we wanted we wanted to take advantage of the pond. We wanted to take advantage of what is on the other side of John Wald Road which is all Wood Haven. Wood Haven single family homes were zoned. They were it was part of a
GDP, but those lot sizes are consistent with R six, R seven. They're not R20. So we we had that specific only on John Wall Road. You will not see R seven on actual English Town Road or where
Pension Road is, you know. So, >> so, so Wood Haven's going to come through with more development in smaller zones. >> Yes, the GD but you would never know that by looking at the zoning map. >> You wouldn't because and that is one of the flaws, right, that I have been
fixing because [cough] I'm so sorry when I came in front of the board with Oaks One. You recall when Edgewood Properties came in front of the planning board recently for approvals, right?
What happened before that? It was part of a GDP. I went and I fixed the zoning first before they came in because the old GDP has was approved based on old
planning principles wherein you know the buildings could were more like the quadruplexes not the townhouse style buildings. So we wrote an ordinance we wrote a zone for it and then they came in front of the PL
planning board so that it's consistent. The problem with GDPs are that GDPs, these two GDPs that Oldbridge has, one is Oaks one and the other is Wood Haven, they were written 30 years ago. And
there was there is only a map that shows the bulk standards. There is no ordinance and that's where it is flawed because even if the GDP was approved by the planning board, it should have been reflected in the zoning ordinance on the
zoning map. It makes it so difficult because there are almost 30 clustered zones in Oldbridge and if you look at the zoning map you will see R20 R15 but those lots were approved by the
planning board for R seven because they took advantage of alternate design standards and they were all designed for R seven. So if you look at the aerial aerial imagery and you look at the lot sizes, you'll get an idea but not the zoning map as such.
>> Okay. Thank you for that. I'm just hoping that uh uh this uh new flex zone by p between pension and Englishtown doesn't turn into the site the alfairy situation. >> Okay. Can I say something? Go
>> ahead. So, I I think everybody's very passionate about this particular property. I have fond childhood memories of of going to Raceway Park, you know, the night of thrills and all that kind of stuff, but the owner decided not to do that anymore, and it's their
property. They have a right to develop it. And through the courts, uh, a plan has been developed. So now it's our job to make sure it's consistent, which you testified that it is consistent. So that's what we're
really looking at tonight, not what might come. You know, >> just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. >> So >> So you're saying they're going to continue to use Raceway Park? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> That's >> okay. So it may be >> actually gave them the their yearly
permit at the last council meeting. >> Okay. So, so are they looking I mean do we know are they looking to sell off parts of their property? I think they are just looking at some sort of protection so that the township doesn't
come and reszone it to or like single >> I don't think we should have any conjecture on what a property owner is going to do with their property in my opinion whether they want to develop it today tomorrow 15 years from now we don't know >> and I and I don't I'm I'm I think I'm
playing the part of an attorney I'm trying to we don't know what is in the mind of of they may have an idea today and then decide tomorrow not to do it. But what this is, this has just given them the the guard rails of the agreement between themselves and the
town of what could potentially go there at any given time. But as far as I know, they're going to continue to operate as they operated yesterday until until they decide not to. So, I mean, it could be 20 years from now if they decide that they
>> just I mean, like the Veretti property like um up and down Route 9 that GDP was 20 some odd years old before they even put a shovel in the ground. So, this could be well into I I could be
>> retired and and out of the township by then. We don't know. Or it could happen tomorrow. >> Yeah. I mean, by putting these in places, just like his owning, you could buy a piece of property and sit on it for 15 years and then decide to build. >> Okay.
If we have no more comments, I'll open up to the public. Seeing no hands, close the public. Um, so um, do we have a motion on on the >> ask one more question? I need to be a
pain, but I've been here a long time. I'm not going to be for here much longer. And I I was here when the Brunetti whole thing, you know, we went through a lot of things with him and a lot of proposals and most of which didn't really come to fruition, but we
we thought they were going to come through. So, I just wonder, you know, how locked in are we? I mean I think if we agree to this um then if he just sits on this land for another 10 or 15 years that the same
plan he could then start working on this utilizing this plan that's put in place you know >> this point >> he could >> he could at this point we really don't know it's not like a typical you know
situation where we knew that okay to today I'm going in with a redevelopment plan, the council approves it and you know next month there's a there's an application filed. I wish it was that way only because then it would give me more room to review it and be more
stricter on the design guidelines or you know regulations that I'm adding. But this was more like we literally started with a bubble diagram and then we were like okay what uses can be permitted and then we started evaluating the land for
constraints. So maybe nothing happens for next 15 years and he comes in after 15 years with the same plan and probably at that time just like we did oaks we might have to revisit it and tighten it
up at the site plan level. >> Yeah. Because again, see, look at this this plan, right? There's language in there that says any roadway improvements, any infrastructure improvements have to be determined at a later stage between the county because
Englishtown Road is a county road, right? I cannot uh unlike the plans that I wrote in the past where it was local roads where where we did segments, right? I said, "Oh, this road needs to be improved. This needs to be connected." I can't do that with this
one because it's a county road. So, there has to be whenever they're ready with a plan, there will have to be significant input that would have to come from our township engineer, from the county because the roadway is
theirs. It it is going to impact Texas Road, which is a county road. It is going to impact Englishtown Road, which is a county road. All we have is Pension Road, which is local. So if he doesn't do anything for 20 years
then this this same concept would then be implemented you know I mean is there any wiggle room to modify things to update things to or is it we're just locked in period >> I I would I would think that in 15 20
years from now if they were then to decide to develop they could probably approach the township to amend in the redevelopment zone by going through the redevelopment agency or look to do it. I mean, Barbara, I wish I could look 15 years in the future.
>> Well, I mean, because I did I [laughter] I went through this. I mean, Brunetti had all sorts of plans. >> Um, no, but I think like just just like the um changes that we did to Mr. Brunetti's property at the Oaks and things like that where they were initially garden apartments, I believe,
>> right? They were they were not garden apartments. Sorry. They were a mix of garden apartments and quadruplexes. And nobody builds quadriplexes anymore. >> Yeah. So, as as times change and as styles change, right? I mean, the the debate I have with my mother-in-law all
the time why she won't redo her kitchen because I don't know if I'm going to like it in 10 years. Well, [laughter] I the the time now is to to do what you have and then 10 years from now we could address it. I think that should they come back and want to change whether
that plan the zone or maybe just the mix in the the way that things look that's something that they would that they would engage the township the planning board the zoning board redevelopment agency or whomever else at that time. >> See the classic example is Edgewood right
like I said before the style they had nobody builds those type of houses anymore. Do we really want garden apartments anymore? No, we don't build them anymore. So and the problem with those quadriplexes and garden apartments if you recall I had said they are more
spread out so now you have lesser open space I would rather want them if it is multif family that was approved for them that's the use that was approved I would rather want them to go threetory or fourstory and give us more open space
give us more amenity right same thing with the town houses instead of seeing uh quadruplexes like four four units so that now you have four garages more roadway I would see I would want to see a cluster of eight which is now more
typical right so that I get a dog park and that's how we negotiated with Edgewood we said okay we'll write an ordinance so that it meets up to the current standards but give us more amenities give us a basketball court give us pickle ball courts give us dog
parks you know and add more pedestrian connectivity, give us more open space. So probably if it doesn't happen in 15 years, they might want to come back to us and say, "Okay, we approved this, but now things have changed. We want to work
with the township and amend the plan." I I think that when I look back over the past seven years plus, just that snapshot in time, every time we've had an area in need of redevelopment, there was an application right behind it. So,
I don't think we're looking at 15 years. I believe there's something in the works already and it'll be on the table relatively soon. If I could say, you know, Vina put a lot of work into this searching every property in Obridge because of the state
mandates on the affordable housing. So, you know, where are you going to put it when we have to put it in somewhere? Vina went out and found spots where we could do that. You know, that's not up to us. You know, some the public might think that we're doing this out of our
own fruition. The state mandated us to put affordable housing in. We have to find spaces to put them. So there was a lot of work that went into this and re you know reszoning that where you can't put one in between my house and Dina's
house. You know you got to find space. So that's a draconian thing that's going on that we have to submit to basically. So, >> I mean, you know, I see both sides because they've been around for so long that I remember with Liby and York and,
you know, with we went through a lot with them and then they end up selling the property and things changed and stuff. I just, you know, I guess having seen what's happened over the 40, 50 years I've been here that it just makes
me sad to think that, you know, it's being developed in a way that I'm not real excited about. I don't like warehouses. I'm not, you know, and and that we don't have more say, you know, because we've talked about putting a
library at that end of the township. you know, that might be a area that would be good for a library facility and the township just doesn't, you know, we're sort of always reacting instead of
being active. I mean, we are acting a lot of it's being mandated either through the state or by the seller of the land or you know that we do have restrictions. We don't have free reign to do our little utopia that we would like. Barbara, just to just to mention
one more thing, right? When there is a redevelopment plan, the township or the township council gets one more chance through the redevelopers agreement because typically when there is a redevelopment plan, there could be an
ask for a pilot. There will be a redevelopers agreement wherein we get to work on some of these things or like stuff like infrastructure improvement, stuff like what you mentioned community facilities those can be worked at during
the redevelopers agreement stage because remember with all the plans that we did in the past five six years we always had a redevelopers agreement. There was always a condition put on the site plan approvals that the approval is subject
to the applicant entering a redevelopers agreement which is again voted and reviewed by the council and the township attorney. >> Okay. >> Okay. I last bite I promise [laughter]
>> the the town was proactive. They changed the zone to three acres single family homes. Then the property owner took the town to court and this is what the court decided. Right. So we we tried. We want that nice big house and a nice threeacre
property and you know it just wasn't in the cards. Are we all through? So again, do I have a motion? I'll move it. I'll second. >> Mr. Dalma,
>> yes. >> Mr. Lenn, >> yes. >> Mr. Tama, >> yes. >> Miss Canon, >> no. >> Mr. Rena, >> no. >> Mr. Petty, >> yes. >> Miss Mella, >> Mr. McIac, >> yes. >> Chairman Low,
>> no. >> Okay. Okay. Okay, next on the agenda, minutes for November 13, 2025. I need a motion. Please >> move it. >> Second.
>> Mr. Diploma? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lenning? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tama? >> Yes. >> Miss Cannon? >> Mr. Rena? >> Yes. >> Mr. Petty? >> Yes. >> Missella? >> Yes. >> Mr. McGiser? >> Yes. >> Chairman Lowour? >> Yes. >> Okay. Minutes of December 11th, 2025. I'll move it.
>> Second. Mr. Dalama, >> yes. >> Mr. Lenn, >> yes. >> Mr. Tama, >> yes. >> Miss Canon, >> yes. >> Mr. Rena, >> yes. >> Mr. Petty, >> yes. >> M. Mella, >> yes. >> Mr. McGisac, >> yes. >> And Chairman Lowour, >> yes. Okay. General public comments. Uh,
I'd like the board thank the board members for uh making me chairman again. Thank you. And uh congratulations, Barbara, as vice chair. I'm still making comments. >> I know.
>> And congratulations to your firm. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh next, u we got to open it up to the public. Seeing no hands again. Close the public. I need a a motion to adjurnn. Move it. Move it. >> Second.
All >> in favor? Hi