Good evening everybody. Uh it's uh 7:34. Um I'd like to call to order the March 12th, 2026 Oldbridge Township Special Planning Board meeting. Please rise for the pledge. to the flag.
>> Roll call. Daniel, please. >> Mr. Dama, >> here. >> Mr. Lenning is absent. Mr. Tammo >> here. >> Miss Cannon. >> Mr. Rena is absent. Mr. Petty >> here. >> Miss Mella >> here. >> Mr. Mr. McGisac >> here. >> Mr. Brennan
>> here. >> Mr. Ferrara absent and chairman Lowour >> here. >> Okay. >> Do you swear or affirm their testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh we're going to go into executive sessions. I need a a motion. >> Second. >> Mr. Dalma. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Miss Cannon. >> Mr. Petty. >> Yes.
>> Miss Misella. >> Yes. >> Mr. McGis. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And >> yes. Next, we uh have the adoption of the 2026 planning board rules and regulations. Uh has everybody had a
chance to look at them? And uh okay. Uh the first the first one would change is um one colon one-5.
>> I thought we were moving that to the next session when we had more. >> Well, we're we're we I think we got it enough now. That's why. I'm sorry. Okay. So, uh the uh under the secretary the uh uh
removal of um couple line items on that. Uh I don't have a problem with that. Does >> Mr. Chair, can I um may I ask Dina, would you be able to just outline some of the changes because I think looking
at it, it wasn't so much change. Is it is it just rewarding and just kind of cleaning up some of the language because there's no no material or any change to any of the boards is just taking out certain things that are aren't applicable.
>> Well, one of one of the main uh change changes would be the time. We have to discuss that. But the time hasn't changed. >> I think that >> No, I thought that that that was change. It wasn't changed. It was the thought,
but it's staying at 7:30. >> Well, in in the in the copy that I I received >> uh it was uh was >> this is marked here. It was marked.
>> Oh, okay. It was going to be >> Oh, okay. change it back. Yeah. >> Yep. So there is no substantial change. >> It's just that some of the uh terminology like the clerk secretary and stuff there were strikethroughs.
>> Um but the only change actually is the timing that we're limiting uh residents uh that come and speak. But other than that there is no change to the document. >> Okay. The the time was going from 5
minutes to 3 minutes, right? >> Three minutes. Yes. >> Okay. >> Can we >> after after everyone is done speaking? The ones that have to have stuff that have already spoken can come back with new questions. But this is only because
we have bigger applications that are going to be coming in front of the board. And I know there will be a lot of public participation but to be able to give everybody a chance if we're giving five minutes we'll we will never be able to finish. So we want to restrict it to
three minutes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. So uh the on the 2 col 6-4 under the electronic uh evidence >> there's be there's a line you're taking
at am I correct? >> Yes. Which only clarifies that because I know there were some emails exchanged about um getting paper copies. This if you look at the section it specifically
talks about the exhibits that are introduced during a public hearing. So if there is something that is produced by an applicant digitally the planning board has the ability to ask for a paper
copy which typically they do. a applicant who comes in if they have an exhibit because they have they are allowed to submit exhibits three days before the public hearing. So those exhibits typically they would carry
copies and distribute but if they don't the planning board has the ability to ask them that okay at the next hearing please provide us paper copies. So it was just a clarification uh because I believe there was some confusion about
the language. >> Well, the way I read it if if you take out that last part of that sentence u and you it says that the the board member the applicant document shall be
provided to the board member by the applicant. Period. >> Yes. the the applica the the board member can't get it unless it goes through your department. >> No, this is at the meeting. The board member can ask the applicant directly
for a paper copy to be provided at the meetings. >> Well, that's that's not was that was not the intent of that. >> No, the whole section is about evidence. Evidence is produced at the public hearing. Yeah, but
>> the whole section talks about digital submission at the public hearing, >> paper copies or or plans or other applica application documents of oh see
of evidence see that that's that's new. Is isn't that new? >> It only it's not new. It is that was the intent always because it is electronic evidence which is at the meetings. So it
only clarifies it further because of some of the emails that were exchanged about paper copies. It's not really changing anything. It's just making it more clear. It just says in the language that
application documents of the evidence provided at the hearing. It only makes it more clear and the planning department would not have those paper copies anyways because it's evidence that is produced at the meeting. So it has to be the applicant who provides you
with that copy, not the planning department. The planning department is only taking two paper copy for any project. We are not asking or if it is going to outside consultants or like for
example the forester wants a paper copy or the fire official wants a paper copy only then we ask for paper copies. The planning department only asks for two copies which is required by law. One we have it for file the other one is for
public review or for planning board review and this is a change that is coming about in all municipalities it's a statewide change that even now noticing requirements are digital so I don't understand
>> I think I can I think I can say Mr. Chairman, I think I I I recall because I'm going through my old notes. Um I what we actually added that paragraph in last year or was a year and a half ago and that was being added at the time
because I remember having conversations with the chairman because >> the the issue was if we got everything's being submitted electronically but if the board for a specific application or a board member said well I know >> the the the application plans were submitted electronically and we can get
them electronically but I need not of exhibit but the actual plans or document. I need a paper copy of that. And so the intent was for that amendment um to allow for a planning board member to go to the planning department and say, "We got this application coming up.
I can't review this electronically. Can you ask the applicant to get x amount of hard copies for us?" And then that's why it was going to go through the planning department because I remember I drafted that language. But I I think the and I might have accidentally put it into that section where it's evidence because it
wasn't intended to be uh for exhibits. It was intended to be for the actual application documents in case a board member asked for paper copies. So I think that in chairman is that what that's I think why the disconnect right now is because that language was supposed to be for application documents
not for exhibits. >> Right. But because it says evidence, >> no, I know what you're saying. I think what the chairman's gonna want then is to, and I don't mean to put words in your mouth, is then to add some language some somewhere else in the do in the rules to allow for that original intent
that the >> application documents. It can be requested in paper from the applicant and certain when when when requested. I mean I would request to carry uh this and that is that is exactly why we were trying to journ it to the next meeting
because townwide we have made that decision that we're not going to ask for paper copies because what is going to happen is I will be dealing with now individual requests from board members to get paper copies from the applicant
and we're so busy right now that it really takes up our time and it takes away from the purpose because if I'm doing it for one person, I'm doing it for not just board members, planning board members, but also zoning board
members members. If the council has made the decision that we are going digital and have everything digital, there is a paper copy available in the planning department to be reviewed by either public or the planning board. And I've
made this clear numerous times that between our office hours, any board member, any resident can come and review those applications. It is physically not possible for us to provide those copies
or even for that matter. It is difficult for any board member to review it. For example, planning board deals. In fact, zoning board it's slightly easier because their applications are not that big. In the past 5 years, the applications that planning board has
reviewed are 100 pages, 150 pages. My office is flooded with paper rolls and all I do is I take those and throw out. So now we strictly tell the applicant do not submit paper copies
unless we ask for it because we keep getting revisions revisions like tiny changes. Again I have 105 paper copies and I mean we have an environmental commission. We're trying to save trees
and we are throwing out so much paper so that it's a conscious decision. It's a decision by the state. Oldbridge is not the only town. Many of the municipalities have gone completely digital. I know of some municipalities
that are not accepting paper copies at all. And that is precisely why few years ago the township council made a decision to get the surfaces to every board member so that they can review it digitally. The uh IT department is
actually working on getting the surfaces now replaced with uh tablets and um that should be coming up soon. It'll be much better than using the surfaces but that is the intent. So I am not too certain.
I need to discuss it again. But I foresee a lot of problems in changing the language. So I highly recommend the language be the way it is. Paper copies are available in the planning department. It's not that we don't have
paper copies. But I promise you it will be even hard for you guys to take it to your car. Those rules are that heavy. So, >> so the intent of the change, >> Dina, >> was just to make it that should when an
applicant comes and submits uh new evidence which you know we're marking sub exhibit A, A1, so on and so forth that upon our request that they they have to give us paper copy. That is correct.
>> Right. So, Joe, does that read that way as the attorney? >> Yes. >> All right. >> I I No, I >> attorneys could read things a lot differently than I can. >> No, no, that's exactly how it reads and how it's in this section. I just was going back on trying to clarify the the
confusion between the chairman and vina as to because I do recall coming up with the original language but in the original language had a different intent >> but that's how it reads and that's how it is in the current draft right now uh and how it will um proceed. Now that
answering your question as to you know whether the prior intent in the prior amendment wants to be reressed and as being a good explanation >> that's a different topic. >> I would uh request that the uh the prior
uh agreement be revised. >> Take out the word evidence. But that also means that the planning board can review can request paper copies which is not the uh current policy of the township.
>> Yeah, I I understand that. But the but the uh applicant's the one that's supplying the paper copies, right? The applicant bears all the expense. All you're doing is taking it from the applicant and handed >> it's not about it's not you're missing
the point here. It's not about the expense to the applicant. It's the the volume of paper that is coming in and it takes away from the intent of going digital because if we are doing it for one person we are doing it for I cannot
pick and choose that okay I do it for the chairperson and I don't do it for others. So if it is something that has to be done, it has to be done. Then I might as well ask applicants to submit 15 copies and distribute have every
board member come and pick it up from the planning department. It doesn't make sense to me. But again, uh I will discuss it with the administration. Um I'm not in favor of it as a manager of the planning office. Uh but again
it's not solely my decision. Uh I will go back I will discuss it with them and get back to you guys. >> Okay. So we we can uh vote on this and maybe uh uh hold off on that particular
section. Well, no. I think chairman what what that this section the way it reads is exactly how it was reading it is that this applies to electronic evidence, meaning the evidence provided at at the at the
hearings. What would end up happening is if Vena comes back and the administration says, "Yes, we're okay with going back to paper copies or or however that that conversation goes," it would be actually a different section. And it would be probably better under two section rule 2-4 applications where
we add a new provision there. Uh because while while we included it here back in a year ago, it shouldn't have been here. I'm realizing when we're reading it now, we're going through it. It should have been in a different section. It should have been in probably section 2.4. We talked about >> and that is precisely since it was said
evidence provided. >> Yeah, >> that's that's how I read it that it was specific. >> And you're reading it correctly, >> right? >> Okay. But but the it's it's going to be a rare occasion. I I believe I don't believe it's going
to be uh everybody on the board wanting a copy for uh a set of plans, but it it might be uh beneficial to a planning board member that wants to make a onsite uh inspection
>> with 105 copies. >> I didn't get it. What what what the chairman is saying is in his how he views it to how it would work is that it would proceed exactly how is is now and how it's all electronic all submission. But if it's 30 days 20 days before an
applications being heard and one of the one of the board members says I'm requesting a hard copy then the planning department would reach out to the applicant and say we need one hard copy. One planning board had requested it and it would come back. you would get it and then you would give it to the planning
board member and it would just be for that application for that one one planning board member. Now the problem is I can see where where your concern would be is well you might get you know the chairman may ask on the 21st of May and then another board member has on the 23rd and another board has on the 25th
and now you're going back to the applicant every time and it's becoming a so that's an issue that we'd have to if if it went forward that's an issue we'd have to address and try to figure out how to handle that but I think that's what the chairman is asking not that every application you have to get paper copies and give it to every applicant every board member it'd be on a if a
board member asked for it and it would just be for that specific application. It would just be for the board member that's being that's requesting it. >> Right. I I mean I for see I think either we do it with all applications have everybody submit 15 copies
so that I'm not doing the back and forth. I get that >> right or nobody gets it because it's not that there is no paper copy and it's now I mean this I've been arguing and explaining this for the last 8 years so
it's a little bit frustrating for my staff too because it's not again I'm saying it's not that there is no paper copy there is a paper copy I know some board members who regularly visit the town hall so They are free to come in
anytime. We have never denied anybody because we have residents that come in and ask for um inspection of these paper copies. If a board member tells us that they're coming at so and so time, we'll make the conference room available. But
for to have language in the bylaws that picks and choose and gives that option, I wouldn't do that. If that's the case, I would just ask for 15 copies, have each one come in for every application, pick it up from the hallway, and be done
with it. >> So, I you know how I feel about paper. I go into your office and I get I get nervous the amount of paper that's in there. So, I'm one of the people that'll probably never ask for for paper. I'm probably the only desk in my office at work that
has no paper. But um what's the intent of us getting it? So Mr. Chairman, it would be for you to review and ultimately then bring back, right? So you you would ask for the paper copy and then
if you were to do a a site visit or whatever and you want to review it, but it's not that you're going to be keeping those things home. It's just that you want to be able to review the large copy. Right. >> Right. >> So not an essence to keep it. So what if we would just make it that you have to provide a you have to at least provide
one copy that copy stays in the planning office >> is at the disposal of the of the board members or even >> if a resident wants to see it and that's it we have one copy one copy only >> we do have that because
>> has a copy >> we do have a copy because we have a copy on file we have another additional copy that we keep so >> so we have the copy So it's not that if Mr. Lara wanted the copy.
>> Yeah. >> You could find your >> you could find your way through the office with all that paper. >> So So but but um Barbara respectfully I know you have uh complained about nobody
being in office but you just think about the workload. You see all the development that's going on in the last seven years. Oldbridge has built like no any no other municipality. We are so busy and people
are have the right to take vacations, right? So we try our best and that is why I keep saying just make an appointment, send an email that you're going to stop by at this time and I will make sure there is somebody. I'm always
in the office. I'm always there. Danny is here from 7 to 3. Yeah, it's it's just proper communication and we'll make it happen. There are paper copies and like I said, if somebody wants to inspect it, there
have been times when we have arranged it in the conference room that planning office has. So, you can spend an hour, two hours there and look at the copies. But trust me, those paper rolls are so huge that I I'm we don't want to see it even because every day we are getting
deliveries and we have not just active projects that come in like not active new projects that come in that are coming in front of the planning board but once you guys have approved it it comes back to my office for compliance review. When it comes for compliance
review guess what I'll give you an example. segment retail right now they are on their 26th revision every time there is a revision they send me those many paper copies so now I literally
stopped and I'm not trying to save the developer money it's his money I'm trying to have less paper and stop wastage of paper because for that one revision if one word has changed and I get 105 pages all I do is I note the one
word change and I toss off the 105 pages. >> So let's just >> Yes, >> correct. And it's always there. >> Yes. And that is available in the >> So obviously keeping the the copies and
if there's revisions they got to send another one. Could they just send the revised page? >> So that's set of all of them. So what I do >> because I'll be honest it's ridiculous if if if there's a 100page document and page 94 changes just send me page 94.
>> So I mean I'm trying my best to work with them. So what I have started doing and ERRI has been very cooperative with it. We ask them to send us PDFs first. I review digital copies first only when
I'm okay with it and I am ready to get the plan signed. I ask them to send me paper copies. Otherwise, the planning office would be flooded with papers. >> Mr. Chairman, maybe my my suggestion is and I think working off of what the councilman was saying is um we can move
forward with with these revisions as we're we're discussing now, but with regard to paper copies, maybe what we look into is not um necessarily having uh additional uh application documents being provided upon request. But maybe we have because I understand the intent
is maybe you want to take them not just review them in the in the office but maybe take them with you when you go buy a site is maybe we have and we can talk I'm just talking we'll talk about offline as to specifics is a way of having an extra copy that gets can be signed out only by board members. >> Okay. >> Board members can sign them out. You
take them with you. You review them. You do what you need them. You bring them back to the planning office to sign them in in case another board member wants it. So it's not that way. It's clean. It's we are we're not >> one offing numerous times and we're having a process where the board members can actually take them with you. >> Okay. That
>> but that won't be in this because we can't we won't be able to amend that right now. That's something we need to work out specifics but that's something maybe we can figure out offline. >> Okay. That's that's a very reasonable solution. >> I thank you for that. >> Okay. So uh uh so the hours stay the
same correct? 7:30. >> Yes. and only further just uh cleanups and the uh speaking time goes down to three minutes. >> Yes. >> Okay. So,
>> and Mr. Chairman, the only you actually pointed out to me the only other amendment we should probably add in there is under the order of business after roll call, we do the swearing in professionals now. We should probably put that in there. >> Yeah. uh uh two one colon 2-4 order of
business. We should probably just add in uh in between roll call and approval of minutes the fact that now we swear in the professionals. Um it's a good practice that we've started to do in here and it's probably good to keep it in our rules as well. >> Good catch. >> Your catch. I'm just reminding you.
>> Okay. Uh do we have a motion? >> Move it. Second it. Mr. Dalma, >> yes. >> Mr. Tammo, >> yes. >> Miss Canon, >> yes. >> Mr. Petty, >> yes. >> Miss Misella, >> yes. >> Mr. McGisac, >> yes.
>> Mr. Brennan, >> yes. >> And Chairman Lowour, >> yes. >> Okay. Next discussion. 2020 20-2035 amended housing element and fair share
housing plan. Vina, you're up. >> So, good evening uh board members. Um I was here in front of you June 26th to present the housing plan and here I am
again. Um I believe that um I I just want to give you a background history of how this started for some of the new members if they haven't um you know if they're not quite familiar with the affordable housing uh obligation that
the township has. So on your screen right um the Mount Laurel doctrine the obligation for New Jersey municipalities to provide affordable housing dates back to the landmark Mount Laurel decision by New Jersey Supreme Court which
established that every municipality has to provide a realistic uh uh opportunity for its fair share of the regional need for low and moderate housing. In response to this, the New Jersey legislature enacted the Fair Housing Act
in 1985, which created the council of affordable housing and required that all municipalities adopt a housing element and fair share plan as part of the master plan. Uh as you are already aware
a master plan document is a function or approving that is a function of the planning board. The housing element and fair share plan again becomes the responsibility of the planning board. Um the township Oldbridge Township fully
complied with its first round and second round affordable housing obligation which was pre99. The second round obligation for Oldbridge Township was for 439 units.
Oldbridge at that time produced 586 affordable units with a surplus of 147 units. Then came the third round. On July 7, 2015, Aldridge filed a declar
declaratory judgment action seeking court approval of its third round plan. The third round affordable housing plan was approved by the court on June 19, 2017. In third round, the township's obligation was
1396. The township satisfied this obligation through inclusionary housing through projects that are under construction that are complete. Some of them have received planning board approvals. you
are familiar with the Alfairy site which was the last one that came in front of the planning board. Um the fourth round now on March 20th 2024, Governor Murphy signed a new legislation referred to as the amended law creating
a framework for the fourth round. In October 2024, DCA, the Department of Community Affairs, published its report assigning Oldbridge Township a present need of 318
units and a prospective need of 685 units. Key provisions of this amended law was it abandoned COA and it transferred the duties to DCA. It created an affordable housing dispute
resolution program to manage any disputes and mediations. It required municipalities to adopt a housing element and fair share plan no later than June 30th. Last of last year, Oldbridge Township accepted DCA's
present need, which was 318, but challenged the prospective need, proposing a much lower figure to 325 based on the local land capacity or the vacant land analysis. Challenges were
filed by Fairshare Housing Center proposing 745 units as their number and NJ Builders Association with 685 as their number through hearings and settlement conferences before the program member
Honorable Judge Mary Jacobson retired. The parties negotiated on April 7th, 2025. Judge Jacobson issued her recommendation establishing Oldbridge's uh prospective
need at 673 units. This was accepted by the affordable housing judge on April 24, 2025. Oldbridge Township adopted its fourth round housing element and fair share
plan on June 26, 2025 and filed it with the program the very next day. Following additional challenges by seven interested parties, the township reached mediation agreements with Fair Share Housing Center um and confirming the
obligation and a path to compliance that was done in January January 15, 2026. I hope my dates are right. Uh Joe, um >> I think the mediation agreement was prior. We had to prior >> we did it before, but I think the official
>> they accepted it. >> Yes. So on February 3rd, 2026, the program members granted a conditional compliance and directed Oldbridge to adopt its final amended housing element and fair
share plan uh by March 15, 2026. And that's where we are today. So now fourth round compliance. Like I mentioned before, the present need is 318 existing substandard housing units occupied by low and moderate income
households that require rehabilitation. We have an active rehabilitation program and um we on an average have rehabilitated like five to six units every year. We have funding in the
affordable housing trust fund and CDBG grants to support this program. Prospective needs uh the adjusted need uh is 67 673 units. Um so this plan proposes to
have 853 affordable housing credits which is a surplus of approximately 180 per uh surplus credits that goes on to the next round. There is also three additional sites and I will go through
each site in detail but there are three additional sites that can fetch us additional 60 credits a minimum of 60 credits. Um this is the rehabilitation program. I already spoke about this. Uh the
township has the township council has adopted a resolution committing to bond for any funding shortfall ensuring that the rehabilitation obligation will be met. What happened? Danny, this is stuck.
Uh the prospective need. It's it's really hard to see this table, but this table is provided in the digital copies that were posted on the planning uh department's website. But I'll go
through each of the sites. There are 14 sites that help us meet our obligation. There are three surplus uh sites which are which can become a realistic development uh potential but as of now
they are not. So we have included them as surplus credits or surplus rights credits which will come to fruition in the future. So, okay, this is a map that really shows um the sites that are there. Um this the
the area it is just to give you a context, but I will go I will have a enlarged version of each site in the next few slides. But the areas marked or the properties marked in yellow are the ones that are the 14 sites that help us
meet the obligation. The the sites that are in blue are the surplus sites which one of them um no actually two sides are where the transit village is just like
um Miss Ganon had asked about the transit village is it one site no it's actually multiple site multiple properties that come within the halfmile radius and there are two potential sites that will be redeveloped. Um there is
one property that is owned by Wood Haven. Two parcels actually that are owned by Wood Haven on John Wall Road. It makes sense to include them uh as surplus sites because they they were one of our objectives as well, but have uh
ex have backed out and are working with us to come up with a plan that works for the township as well. Now the first site is Trectton Square which is as you all know the summer site
or the uh landfill site the Oldbridge Municipal landfill site um next to the Cheesequake Park. Um they are working with us. In fact we designated the area as an area in need of redevelopment. Uh
there is a potent there is a developer interested in um remediating the site because it's contaminated but there is some clean uplands in that area as well and wants to develop that site with 450
townhouse units. It's a combination of for sale. So 50% of it is for sale, 50% of it is for rent. But uh that gives us uh a a good chunk of affordable uh units
and in fact 90 uh we will get 90 affordable units out of that project. The next site is the Englishtown Raceway Park. The planning board recently heard um uh Sami present the plan. It allows
the developer to build in up to 600 u multif family unit. Not multif family, it's a combination of town houses, stack town houses uh and multi uh apartments. But regardless of how many units they
build, they have to provide 120 affordable units. So we get credits for those uh 120 units. The next one is the sites three and four are the site uh
that is that Khubnian is a contract purchaser. That is the only property where we are still negotiating because uh based on this plan and the density that we require to get a transit
village designation we have 30 units per acre which means there will be uh 1,500 units out of which 300 sorry out of which 274 units would be uh affordable
units. whereas there will be 26 special needs housing. The key point here is when it is a transit village uh there is a development in transit village the
township is eligible for an bonus credit of 0.5 per you per unit and if it's a special needs housing the township gets one onone bonus credit for any unit that
is built within a designated transit village. So we are still working, we are still negotiating, we have had couple of meetings with the developer and I think we are inching closer and closer uh to
the goal the township wants to achieve. There is a potential that some of those units may be uh for sale. Um not all of them would be rentals but it's not something that we have really finalized yet. And that is
why um I'm I might I will be coming back in front of the planning board with an amendment once we have a settlement with the developer. And at this point if Joe you want to add. >> Yes. M Miss M if I may just jump in just uh for the public's and and and uh the
board's uh edification. Um the reason why we have to still move forward with the plan even though we are still negotiating with uh Khavnanian with regard to this site and this development is based on the court's order. The court order that was issued that uh accepted the settlement with fair share uh did
set a mandatory uh deadline for adoption of the township's amended housing element fair share plan by March 16th since March 15th is a Sunday. uh that while the township is given the ability to adopt a binding resolution acknowledging that it will adopt all
required uh resolutions and ordinances implementing the plan at a later date and we can just have to adopt that resolution by the March 16th deadline. The court order specifically did not include the house amended housing element fair share plan. So that is why we are still moving forward even though
we haven't fully negotiated all of the sites. We're going forward with what has been presented in the plan and what was included in the settlement with fair share housing. However, as Mr. Sant had mentioned, there's a good chance that we will be coming back for a further amendment once we uh to the housing
element fair share plan once we get that um being resolved. And just to make a side note, currently that is being mediated through the court through the court's special adjudicator. uh and we uh the court is maintaining jurisdiction over the entire uh township's compliant
fourth round compliance as so we will be having um case management conferences with the court itself with all objectors including K of Nanian as part of that process as well. So I just wanted to note that for the record in case there was any confusion as why you know the board might or the public might be asking or why moving forward now if it's
not in the final form. It is in a final form but we will be amending it most likely based upon the current negotiations. Can I just ask something about the for sale? I mean, the for sale units would be a consideration to be included in this
>> in the affordable housing count for sale units like uh like uh Habitat for Humanity builds for sale units >> and they are within certain price range and you when you resell it has to be within we don't have anything like that
anymore. We did initially but I don't think we've had any recently at all and I wondered if that's what you're talking about something like that. >> Correct. So we have been even in the past for some of the port applications that came in right we we work with
developers to ensure that if there are for sale units there are some affordable units because we're trying to create truly inclusionary housing. So to answer your question, anywhere there are for sale units, there will be for sale
affordable units also created. >> Okay. So people can sell the house within a and makes within a certain amount and then the next people in would inherit that same plan. >> Correct. >> All right. Thank you. So the next site now the couple of sites that I will be
talking about they are actually either under construction or have been approved either by the planning board or the zoning board. So site number five which is Oak Tree Plaza is actually a site that got an approval. It's a mixeduse
development has 36 apartments. Five of them are affordable and the project is currently under construction. Poor Farm Road site six which is again a site uh which is almost close to completion.
No, in fact they have been occupied. Some of the units have been occupied. That's Ryan Homes on Poor Farm Road and uh that project has 35 duplexes of which seven are affordable. We get credits for
those. Um, O site 7 OBJ LLC. It is an application that was recently approved by the zoning board and um that site has an existing
mixeduse building with a retail store and eight apartments. the uh owner came back to the zoning board to do a rehabilitation of the building and added two additional units to the building. So
now the the addition and the existing building together would have 10 units. They have agreed to have two of the 10 units to be affordable and those will be deed restricted for 40 years based on
the new regs. The next site is the um ferry road site. These were Foxboro Ferry Road. These were one of our objectives and we settled with them. Uh because this site uh if if you may
recall Foxboro had come in originally with three sites. Two of them were on either sides of Foxboro Foxboro Drive. One of them was the planning board application that was denied um and it went to the zoning
board. The zoning board denied it as well. So they had initially reached out to the township to include three of their sites, but we agreed or we settled to accept only development on this side.
So, I'm working on creating an inclusionary um uh housing zone to accommodate town houses here. And that would be 100 124 townhouse units. But regardless of
how many units are built, so it's up to 124 units. Regardless of what is built, 25 of those units are going to be affordable. And these are again for sale town houses. Now sites 9 through 13 are age
restricted. First is Hanley Orchards. Um this is a project that was approved by the zoning board. It includes 58 units 12 of which are affordable and this site is currently under construction. Site 10
is Vision Oldbridge 3. It's on Old Matavon Road. The uh project is complete and this has 48 units of assisted living with 10 affordable units, six Medicaid beds and four age restricted rental
units. uh vision old bridge 4 which the planning board uh recently approved which includes 70 luxury age restricted units 14 of them are affordable
ge park re residency site 12 which is a fully uh complete uh project that has 33 age restricted units five of them are affordable and we get even rental bonus
credits for this project because of a its age restricted status. The next one is an interesting site and this is a site that was not included in the June uh 2025 plan that was adopted by the
planning board. This is the Rotary Senior Housing which is located at 100 Tytown Road. So this project was built somewhere around the mid80s and when when it was built it's 100% affordable.
It received section 8 funding. There were 204 units that were built. So 203 affordable units and one unit was for the super. But in the second round only 110 units
were included. And I was talking to our former uh planner who wrote the second round plan. Uh at that time there was a restriction on how many age restricted units you could include and that is why only 110 units were included. However,
the entire project is fully affordable. This only came to our attention because a new developer who bought the project in 2018 is now seeking to refurbish the
entire facility with newer amenities. They want to add like uh uh a gym. They want to add some computer labs. They want to add some recreation element to the uh to the senior housing center as
well as they are going to rehabilitate each of the unit with newer amenities. I've seen the pictures of it. It looks really fancy. But to in order to be able to do that, they are seeking funding
lowinccome tax housing credit funding from NJHMFA. Also, they are looking for a pilot program with the township. The township council has already passed resolution in support of it. And so the remainder 93
units that were never credited for have been included in this plan because with the with the NJHMFA funding, these units are going to be uh restricted to affordable housing up to two 2050
up to 2050. So the township is then eligible for u credits on that project. So that was the site 13 was a new addition. The next site is the uh wait did I go back
the you know what this is a wrong picture that was added actually uh I'm sorry about this but um 308 Norwood Avenue it's a property in the harbor area which was uh built by Habitat for
Humanity where we get one credit and that's again a for sale unit. Now, three sides were included as surplus credits. So, by with including these 14 sites, we have already met our
obligation of 673. In fact, we have 180 surplus credits. However, Wood Haven had reached out to to us with five sites that they own and
they would want to develop. They were one of our objectives. We have rejected three of their sites because they are zoned for commercial. They were part of the original GDP and we want to retain those for commercial. However, these are
two parcels that are located on John Wald Road and it just makes complete sense in terms of planning to include them because on the other side of John Wald Road is the Raceway Park redevelopment area. Wood Haven is
willing to work with us. We have had a couple of meetings with them because they want they are interested in actually doing age restricted housing. Apparently there's a high demand for age restricted housing in the township. Their project at the corner of Texas
Road and Englishtown Road has been highly successful. There's a waiting time to get into that project. So they want to build age restricted housing but this time they want to develop a different style um and we are still
talking to them. The one thing that we asked Wood Haven was that they include special needs housing and they did they since they did they've never done it before they wanted some time from us to get the details and see how they can
develop the project to include special needs housing. So we are working with them and that is why the site is included as surplus. So we'll definitely get some credits once uh we settle in with them. Sites two and three are two
sites within the um uh the prospective transit village designated area. These two sites are actually owned by NJ Transit and NJ Transit has been uh selling their
properties to economic development authority that is now redeveloping these sites to create it uh create more transit friendly developments and EDA is anxiously waiting for the township to pursue their transit village designation
so that they can redevelop these sites. So that's why those two sites have been included because at some point this year once we have a plan in place um EDA will be redeveloping these two sites. So
>> Miss Swan if I may just going back to uh the Woodmont site just to explain to the board as well. Woodmont was an objector to our plan. Wood Haven. >> Wood Haven, sorry. Wood Haven, sorry. >> Um, they were objectors to our plan. Uh,
as part of in the reason, another part of the reason why we're including them as surplus is they voluntarily uh withdrew their objection based upon being included in our plan as uh surplus working with the the township on the
future development of those sites as Miss Sant has explained. So uh just if there's any question is well you know if we already meet our number why are we including this site well that is part of the reason is because it is part of uh and we don't have an official settlement it is part of the the reason uh kind of
a settlement and a resolution that they proceeding and withdrawing their objection based on that uh being included as a surplus in future negotiations. >> If we exceed our number we get credit next time. Oh, absolutely. Any anything that exceeds >> uh the question was if if we uh exceed
our number, do we get credit in the following rounds? And yes, the answer is absolutely. Any uh surplus, any number that's above our obligation gets carried over. Uh and just to that point, uh we still have our appeal of the court's order designating the number at 763. Uh
because if you recall, our number was I'm drawing a blank right now. >> 325. >> Yeah. 325 324. So, if we win on our appeal, we'll have a lot of surplus uh moving forward and we may not have to plan for anything for the fifth round depending on how that works out. Uh but
I just wanted you to be be aware of that. >> So now in summary, um as of December 31st, 2025, Oldbridge Township has collected roughly 9 million, expended seven, and we uh the affordable housing
trust fund has roughly 2.2 2 million. Uh the accumulated interest income by December 31st, 2025 was roughly 800,000. Uh so that's the money that we have in the affordable housing trust fund. We
have an active program that we work on. All inclusionary units uh that are part of this plan will carry a deed restriction of 40 years for rental housing and 30 years for for sale based on the new regs. Oldbridge Township is
committed to adopting a model affordable housing ordinance recently approved by DCA Fair Housing Center and affordable housing professionals of New Jersey. Uh there is an appendix M in the ordinance
uh in the plan that actually includes a resolution. Um they we the township already passed a resolution showing their commitment to adopting the model affordable housing ordinance, the affirmative marketing plan, the
development fee ordinance and the spending plan in the coming future. Um the township has appointed a municipal housing leazison which is me um and has retained CGPNH as their administrative
agent to oversee compliance and monitoring based on the state regs. The township um submitted our monitoring for um the uh last year on February 15th. So
I'll take any questions. Thank you. >> Did Habitat for Humanity ever build their complex? >> They are. >> Habitat for Humanity was building something over in Lawrence Harbor completed. >> No, they are not completed. They are
under construction. >> Oh, okay. So, that will be we can get credit for that. That is but that goes to the third round. That was part of our third round obligation. We don't get credits for that in the fourth round
>> because if you recall that 12 units were and the project WISA at Oldbridge that is on Malber Road those two projects were part of our 100% affordable municipally sponsored projects part of
our third round. So we got credits for that in our third round. Oh, okay. And then just one other thing, the the other senior housing we have, you know, we have one on um you know, out in South Oakidge off Englishtown Road.
>> The senior housing that we have off of Englishtown Road. There's a senior housing building. >> The new one, that's the Wood Haven one. >> What is it? >> Not Haven. No. >> Anyway, there is one
>> if there is an older one. Unless the >> over 55. That's Wood Haven. The one that's on Texas Road. >> Is that Wood Haven? Yeah. I don't know. I can't remember the road. It's on, but And there's also one by the hospital. >> Old Madawan Road. The one that went up
or uh Vision. That one you're talking about? >> No, it's off English Town Roads. >> Are you talking? >> Can't remember the I just wonder if we got credit for those. So we yes I know there were couple of age restricted housings that were that got credits for
for the second round. However, we do not get credits for it again unless their deeds have expired and they have got another extension for 30 years. So we can't get double credits. So once they
expire just like rotary h rotary housing we never use the remainder credits. But there are some municipalities wherein the deed restrictions have ended in this round and they have signed up for new agreements to be deed restricted for the
next 30 years then you can get new credits. There are some projects that will be eligible for credits the same way in our next round but in this round we don't have anything where we can get credit. >> I was just wondering what and then there's a senior housing over by the
hospital. Yes, I checked that because I think it's like the Castello and then there is Mayor Manor or >> Mar Manor and >> Mar Manor. Yes, there were a couple of projects but >> that's on those are right off 18 right near the uh right near the hospital. >> Right near the hospital but those they
are still within their 30-year restriction. They haven't expired. So they haven't extended. Once the extend is when we then we can use them for credits. So, probably the next round. >> Any other questions? >> Okay. U I'll open up to the public.
Good evening, members of the board. Um, for the record, I'm Anthony Zerillo, uh, from the law firm of Scopin and Spitzer. I'm here on behalf of K of Nanian, who Mistress Ordillo and, uh, Miss Swan have, um, allely stated is one of the objectors to the housing element fair share plan, um, and the contract
purchaser of the transit village site. Um I'm here just to state for the record that uh Ka Nania in accordance with the court's order is continuing with its objection um with the understanding that we're going to continue to work with the township um towards a potential settlement um for the transit village
site as to an appropriate design and density. Um it's Ka's continuing position that the 1500 unit designation has provided to it is not economically feasible and therefore doesn't provide a realistic opportunity for the development of affordable housing. um that again understanding that in
accordance with the court's order, we're continue to work with the township as we have been um towards an equit um a just solution to that issue. >> Thank you. Uh are there any questions for this gentleman?
>> Well, he's not providing testimony. He was just providing his comments. Okay. >> Well, thank thank you. >> Can I just ask another question? I've been around too long, I think. So, I remember way back when, but there were times when you could give money instead
of building that builders could donate money. >> That that's no longer permitted. That was >> You don't They didn't allow it in the They took it out in the third round and they continued that out. Yeah. That was that was something that was utilized in the first and second round. >> Yeah. So, I just wonder do we still have any of that money? Probably not. I just
wondered if that money is being spent. And any money that we would have received for that would have been in our trust fund, which is what Nina testified to at the end as to what those balances are. So if we did receive any money from that or if we paid any money from that, it would have came from that same trust fund. So that's still that balance would
>> identify. We don't have that option anymore. >> No. No. >> Okay. Seeing no other hands, no other people, I close the uh public section. Um >> Mr. Chairman, there's a resolution
that's on the agenda that was circulated that uh approves and adopts the uh amended housing elephant plan if that's the um desire of the board. >> Okay. Well, um your presentation was
quite complicated, a lot of numbers. Sounds good. Um I'm looking forward to approving it. So, uh, um, any questions about the
resolution? Okay. Uh, can we get a >> motion to adopt? >> Adopt. >> Mr. Depal. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tama. >> Yes. >> Miss Canon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Petty? >> Yes. >> Miss Misella?
>> Yes. >> Mr. McGisac? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernan? >> Yes. >> And Chairman Lowour? Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh
open it up to general public comments. See no hands. Close that. Uh looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion. Second. >> All in favor? I. >> Any opposed?