All right. So, you're on record. >> Okay. Thank you, Nora. Announcement is being made that adequate notice of this meeting has been given and that is being conducted in accordance with NJSA 104-6 EXCAC of the New Jersey Open Public
Meetings Act. Nora, please call the role. >> Mr. Dich, >> here. >> Mr. Dinsmore, >> here. >> Mayor Desai >> here. >> Mr. Dpierro. >> Mr. Dpierro. Michael >> here. >> Councilwoman Hernandez
>> here. >> Mr. Mey >> here. >> Mr. Npalitano >> here. >> Mr. Patel >> here. >> Mr. Shaw >> here. >> Miss Smith >> here. >> Mr. Von >> here. >> We also have our board attorney Mr. Wel >> here. Okay. Would everybody please stand for
the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> This meeting is open to the general
public. With that being said, are there any members of the general public that would like to introduce anything that is not on our agenda for this evening? All right, seeing none, I will close the public portion and move on to our agenda. Uh, Mr. Wenszel, I believe we
have a swearing in. >> Uh, I don't know how these things work. Uh, that's correct, chairman. Uh, so if Mr. Patel could stand up, please. >> Yep. >> Oh, okay. Can't tell which way you were. Okay. My hand. >> I state your name.
>> N Patel. >> Okay. Do solemnly swear or affirm >> Do solemnly swear or affirm >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey >> and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey
>> and I will bear true faith >> I bear true faith >> and allegiance >> and allegiance >> to the same >> to the same >> and to the governments established >> to the government established >> in the United States >> in the United States >> and in this state >> and in this state >> under the authority of the people >> under the authority of the people.
>> So help me God. So help me God. >> Wait, there's more. I do further solemnly swear >> I do further solemnly swear >> that I will impartially >> that I will impartially >> and justly >> and justly >> perform all the duties >> perform all the duties >> of the office >> of the office
>> of planning board member >> of planning board member >> according to the best of my ability >> according to best of my ability. >> So help me God. >> So help me God. >> You're sworn in. >> THANK YOU. >> CONGRATULATIONS. NORA, >> YOU NEED HIM TO SIGN BOTH, RIGHT? >> UH, just the the paper. The yellow one.
>> The fancy one. >> The fancy one. >> Welcome aboard, Mr. Patel. >> Sure. >> All right. >> Okay. Moving on with our agenda. We have a presentation on the housing element and fair share planning amendment and
ordinance amendment. If you wouldn't mind please introducing yourself to the board. Some of us are newer. >> Absolutely. And and including with that, I would turn to your board attorney for probably swearing myself in because this will be a public hearing for the
purposes of the amendment. >> Thank you. Second two things at once. So no words. >> All right. Ed um do you swear for untel truth for this planning board tonight? >> I do. >> All right. Can you please state and spell your name for the record?
>> Certainly. The name is Edward Snikus. It's S N I E C KUS. >> All right. Mr. Snikus, you're employed uh with Burgess Associates. >> That's correct. >> And that's the township uh um retained uh planning firm to assist the township
with regard to its affordable housing obligations. That is correct. and you've been the point person uh with regard to the development of uh the um affordable housing um uh plans and uh response to the
fourth round. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. And and now you're back here today and kind of setting you up and then winding it so you can go uh that you're here today on an amendment to that plan.
So, those members of the planning board who uh were not here back in I think was June >> of 2025, uh the original uh housing plan for the fourth round, and Ed will be more uh eloquent at this
than I am, but there uh was an original housing plan that was approved back in June per the uh amended Fair Housing Act that had to be done. Remember there's these very strict timelines these these things have
to occur within. So that original housing plan needed to be approved in that time frame. Afterwards what happens is that plan get uh has the opportunity to be challenged. Paripany had several challenges both from fair share housing
center and from uh interested uh developers of various parcels. What has happened since that time is there's been a resolution of those challenges which now brings us here today because of the resolution of
those challenges. Uh there the original plan which was approved back in June needs some my word tweaking to match up with the resol with the um um with the
resolved uh challenges. So that's what Ed is here tonight not to show you a brand new plan. This is the plan, just the plan with the amendments in line with the current consent order.
>> So, uh, with that, Ed, you want to, uh, advise the board where, you know, want to fill in those gaps? Certainly. And, and also in an effort to introduce myself, I'm a licensed professional planner and a licensed landscape architect in the state of New Jersey. Um, and I've been having the privilege
to prepare your housing element fair share plan since the third round. Um, so I've been doing this for a little bit of of time, familiar with the the township and many of the the nuances, I guess, associated with how the plans were developed and and put forth. But those
of you on the board that may have heard from me last uh June with regard to the housing element fair share plan, um, I do want to let the new board members know, the mayor as well as others, uh, of how this goes about. Where we are right now is, as Mr. Wel just mentioned
is the we're amending the housing element and fair share plan. What that plan is is actually an element of the master plan. The master plan based upon the municipal land use law is the responsibility of this board, the planning board. I'll tell >> Can I interrupt you for a minute?
>> Yes. >> Thank you, Mike. Hello. >> Hi. Um, the document I have that I've been using is the housing element and fair share plan dated June 12th, 2025
from Burgess. And you're talking about a June 25th. Was there a document after the one I have for June 12th? >> Yeah, Mike, if you remember, we had the initial document on June 12th, 2025. uh that was the document that was reviewed
with the board on the 25th of June and we had to have it on file 10 days prior to so that's why it's June 12th of 2025 since that time if you remember there was an ARA sheet that we had adopted at the same time of that document and in
that document we had uh just adjusted certain things that were typos in the document due to the compressed time frame we had to prepare that document as well so that's probably why you're seeing June the same document with some little changes.
>> Yes. Yes, I would say so. But but the references to the sheet numbers in my latest amendment should should correlate. >> Good. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um, so just also for the new board members, this becomes a master plan element and that's why tonight we had to have the public
hearing because whenever you're adopting or amending a housing element, fair share plan or a component of your master plan, you're required to have a public hearing. And as I just mentioned a moment ago, we had to have this document on file 10 days prior to the hearing. Also do a public notice, which I wanted
to mention for the record that we we properly noticed for tonight's meeting uh 10 days prior to the meeting. So in accordance with the statutory requirements I learn to mention that um in addition to that what we had on file in an effort to try to be uh very
succinct and to the point is is we prepared a memorandum that taugh that outlines the overall amendments and as was just mentioned by the board member a moment ago uh the last amendment was adopted on June 25th 2025. So essentially what we're doing as was
mentioned by Mr. Wzel is we're going to amend that document. I'd like to walk the board through the actual amendments and we try to make it a very descriptive means but I'd like to identify the page numbers and things of that nature that are relative to the amendments. And just
lastly, one last thing to to mention was as you've mentioned by Mr. Wel is that we are under a very uh statutory imposed timeline. We have till March 15th to have this housing element and fair share plan amended. And that's why we've
scheduled tonight's meeting in order for us to amend that document. In addition, the governing body, uh, the mayor and council have also implemented or excuse me, introduced several ordinances that are related to this housing element fair share plan. Also tied to that same March
15th deadline. I'll be touching on those in a moment. um just because first we'll be talking about the element of the master plan and then we'll be talking about those ordinances that have been referred to you. And the reason why they're referred to you is because since you are involved in the in drafting of
the master plan and effectively the housing element fair share plan, the uh municipal annuity law requires that those ordinances be referred to this board for review of what's called consistency. Actually, the language talks about inconsistency. Are there any
inconsistencies with the land use plan or the master plan? And by us reviewing the amendments first and hopefully getting to an adoption this evening, we have the ability to then look at those ordinances and opine on whether or not they're consistent with the intentions of the housing element fair share plan.
So I'll talk about that in a moment, but first my testimony will be about the amendments. Sorry about the long-winded introduction, but it gives everybody at least an outline of what we're going through. So I'm just referring to a memorandum we prepared of uh February 16, 2026
uh where I've identified in this document the various pages and sort of repeated items that were I thought relative for at least the new board members that may not have seen the document before but also it sort of gives you the sections and the logic behind some of the changes. Um so I'm ch
turn the page to page two and I wanted to identify that we just repeated the executive summary uh that's involved in the document starts on page eight and that in table one under the affordable housing obligation. I just wanted to point out for this board uh under the uh
category of fourth round obligation, we have an obligation of 496 units and this is for the fourth round. And just to kind of give the board uh what that means and to the public, the fourth round is for the next 10 years. We went through the third round cycle which was
when which was from 1999 through 2015. And then we had uh what's called immunity because we had a housing element and fair share plan adopted from 2015 effectively 2020 by the time all
that settled out to 2025 June 30th of 2025. We had uh uh immunity from any what's called developers remedy lawsuits where someone can come in and say that we did not have a constitutional we did not satisfy our constitutional obligation
for affordable housing since that June 30th 2025 to now being that we're in 2026. We are under a statutory uh time period that allows us to have coverage from immunity but only if we were to be moving forward with this plan which we
have been has been identified for the board. So that uh number of 496 was established through a process that we went through with the state department of community affairs as a result of the fair housing act and originally that number was supposed to be 553 but it
actually was became 496 because we found certain errors in the calculations that the state had. So I just wanted you to know that uh the township has been uh diligent in trying to reduce the number as much as we could. Going further down, um the prior round
obligation on the next page, that is essentially the same as how we've addressed it in the prior fourth round plan. And then also the third round obligation, which was that time period between 1999 and 2025, which starts on page 4, that has some minor changes to
it. And I've tried to uh consistently, but I think some of it didn't come through consistently, but I'll I'll talk about it for the record tonight of what we actually changed. But in the third round, we did in fact seek a a what's called a vacant land adjustment. Again,
we had a 13 unit 1314 unit obligation back in the third round, but you're able to through the Fair Housing Act in a municipality that may be developed or built out to a condition adjust that number downward. And the way you adjust that number downward is by seeking
what's called a vacant land adjustment. Um, as we may think, well, we still have some vacant land if you think about it, but we are able to exclude lands that are restricted by flood planes, wetlands, steep slopes, highlands, certain highlands protections. So, we at
the third round back in 2015 to 2020, uh, sought that adjustment and reduced it down to 845. Still a substantial number, but we were able to get that number reduced down to 845. What happens in the fourth round and any other future round is you're required to
look back and the reason for it is to see if any programs did not come to fruition that you had planned for in the third round to see if you had to make adjustments to them. And as Mr. Wel Mo mentioned a moment ago is that when we
submitted our June 30 June 25th plan to the program which is called the affordable housing dispute resolution program which is the new program that's been established by the state for review. They also had a period by which they would receive objectors uh
objectors to your plan if they disagreed with certain things or wanted to be included in the plan. As was mentioned, we received objections from what's called Fair Housing Center. The Fair Housing Center is a nonfor-profit agency that's uh that's in the state that has
been notoriously involved in affordable housing matters throughout the state. Just for reference, they actually uh were involved in litigating affordable housing plans to the tune of uh I believe over 500 of the municipalities in the state. So, you can see that they
were substantially involved. It wasn't just Paripany, it was almost all plans that were submitted. Um, and part of their objection was they wanted to see how we were addressing the third round plan, that prior round plan. And that's one of the things that we had to deal
with when they came to object to the plan. So, I wanted to point that out to the board of why we had to go back through that third round plan. Yes. >> Sorry, interrupt. Just just two questions. So, you're saying that this FH FHC is challenging all over the state, not just Paripany. So they've done this in multiple towns, not we're
not just the only one. >> That is correct. >> All right. And then the 496, >> we have 10 years to get 496 built or just approved. >> What your obligation is as a township is to actually zone for these properties. And the properties have all come to the
municipality stating that they're willing and able to be developed. They have rights to the properties. They are willing to do it. They showed a concept plan and that's how we built our housing plan around those concept plans. And the reason why we had to was because we had
such a need and we had to find ways of addressing that need because these properties were all identified as I won't call them stranded assets but assets that are in in a state where they needed to transition to something else. Uh most of them if not all of them were
were existing development. So that's how we had to address it. Unfortunately, we couldn't seek vacant land adjustment further from that number because all these properties became available. We had more than actually the seven that are included in the plan. >> Yes, another question. So, when they
wanted to come back and look at our third round, why would they do that now? I think I might have asked you this before, but it boggles my mind. Why would they do that now when we had the immunity, when we did our best? Um I mean we we we got the approval that we
were >> correct >> done. >> You put the zoning in place. You did what you were supposed to do. >> Why would they come back to >> What happens is that they look at it and they say, "Well, is this a realistic site that would be developed so that we would meet that third round requirement.
What had happened was, and I'll point to this in a moment, the West Mount Plaza, if you look at table three on this page, you'll see that it has some strikethroughs through it, and it's in red text. Hopefully you all have the color version. Um that West Mount Plaza is the former Kmart building.
>> Oh, that's right. >> And that was supposed to move forward to another mixeduse affordable housing inclusionary project with also market rate developments. Unfortunately, that developer did not move in that direction. I don't know exactly the reason why for the official record, but
what was brought out by fair share was look, you have a requirement of 845. you're not meeting all your 845 by this property being zoned such. But when we were involved in that process, that property still represented at least to
me as a as a planner as a mixeduse project seems to make some sense because you have commercial, you have the park and ride facility that's there. So you have the ability to get mass transit back and forth to that location. In addition, when you look at the 845,
there is actually what's called unmet need. And I apologize for all these phrases and terms. They tend to confuse easily me at times and I've been looking at at this for entirely too much time. Um, but we have a unmet need of 634
units of unmet need in that prior round. But we were able to apply certain credits to that need in order to bring it down. But at the same time, what fair share is looking at is well, you had this prior round need that was a need defined in that prior round. But this
project did not move forward. It didn't even make an application before the board. So therefore, that's why it became a suspect. What was fortunate was we were working with the park lanadeex project, the redevelopment area, and
that project was able to fill that hole that we had in the prior plan. So you'll see that I've adjusted numbers from that project to help fill that gap. So we were able to say, look, okay, we understand in order to settle a fair share, they were like, you know, we're
not going to settle unless you figure something out. Because this was 63 units of credit plus bonuses that we had applied in that prior round. Um, so they said, look, you got to figure something out. I said, listen, Parcipan has done a yman's job in in addressing 845 units.
we need to find a way to make this work. At the same time, I knew that Park Realy was looking to expand upon that redevelopment plan and that seemed to make sense to fill that gap. So, we were able to move the numbers around to fill that gap. Hopefully, that explains the matter. Thank you.
>> But that also helps to explain what we changed in the third round. So, there you go. All right. So, that's the dialogue for the third round. Now moving to what's called the fourth round obligation which starts in 20 uh June 30th of 2035 goes on to 2025 sorry goes
on to June 30th of 2035 which is hard for me to say. Um so we made certain adjustments to some of the text that you'll see here just to help with clarification of the text. I I won't bother going through all that detail, but at the same time, what we also noted
in the fourth round was we did get fair shares agreement that look, we're affirmatively addressing our 496 units, but if you remember, we had um additional unmet need from that third round. And because they saw that certain
projects were not moving forward in the third round, plus I hope this doesn't sound complicated, we were moving credits from Park Realies redevelopment into filling the holes for the third round as well as helping us to cover the fourth round.
That removed them from some of the unmet need mechanisms that we had for the third round. you still have to put in affirmative zoning for the RDP for the 845 plus we had to also implement zoning to cover the unmet need a portion of the
unmet need from the third round. So since we moved some credits for park reality out of that third round mechanism into the fourth round, we had to replace some of the gap of unmet need that was established from that third round. And one of the objectors, 7
century road, which was a uh a development that was part of the original interested parties in our housing plan. There were over 16 interested parties in our in our housing plan. We chose seven of those interested parties because at that time from a
planning perspective it made sense due to the distribution, the types of developments that they were, the proximity to residential single family homes, things of that nature. That's how we made those decisions. Um and so in order to fill that gap, Seventh Century
Road was interested, if you recall, some of the members may remember this is that part of that property was a overlay zone for warehousing because the office building was vacant at the time. So instead of that development
uh type that was being proposed there, they were interested in doing residential. And if you know where that property is located, it's actually located on the fringe of a residential area, a single family home into the office development on on Sentry Drive.
Sorry, I said road before. Century Drive. Um, and what happened was they were interested in doing town houses there, stacked townous and some uh regular town houses. And so we looked at that and said, you know what, that makes
a good transitional use at that location instead of warehousing at that location. And as I understand it, that was also in favored by neighbors as well at that location. So in order to fill the gap for the park being moved around, those credits being moved around, we chose to
put the seventh century into that category of unmet needing for that third round. And what that helped to do was to address that that gap. So that's what's being proposed in the foreground plan. Hopefully I can always explain that in another way if you need it, but that
sort of explains how we move certain things to address unmet need, but also reach settlement with one of the objectors to the housing element fair share plan. when we met with the court program judge involved in this matter um
as well as what's called their court approved adjudicator which is a professional planner that's hired by the court that is supposed to be someone who is objectively looking at the objectors and the township and saying okay how can
we come to a meeting of the minds or and also is the township meeting their fair share obligation and doing really what they can to address their need. What the court adjudicator realized very quickly and I think they did make the adjudicator was present at a council
meeting last year um is recognized that you know what paripony doesn't have to address all the objectors because it was even more objectives than just seven century. They've addressed their entire 496 which was their fourth round need plus they've moved credits around and
shown a good faith effort in getting projects approved developed moved along so they said look to address this gap in the unmet need fair share housing center wouldn't you come along if in fact we included seventh century draft and they did I can divulge this now to you
because we're out of mediation we reached this agreement and that's how the mediation agreement was was drafted from that agreement And so that's what brings us here today and makes these changes to the housing element fair share plan. Just for some other information relative
to the housing plan, I'm now on page eight. You can see that introduction section one doesn't change. Section two of the housing element doesn't change. Section three gets some minor changes as it relates to um on the second to left
last paragraph. Um, at the bottom of that paragraph, if you see that it says these these corrections altered the township's prospective need from 553 to 496 affordable units. There was a typo in there before I fixed it was 49 was
actually 196 became 496 just so you're aware. We did also across the board made changes to what's called the affordable housing dispute resolution program which is the official organization that we submitted information to. Yeah, we use the acronym of uh AHDRP
in the document. I'm now on page nine. There really isn't any changes to this section, but we're looking at section 3.3 on this page. Turning to page 10, um we noted some minor changes at the bottom of the document. The last
paragraph says the township has determined that seven locations containing existing development represent new development or a change circumstance requiring the fourth round RVP obligation. That's what I just explained to the board. Uh I'm now changing to pages 11 going on to page
13. This is really again one of the more substantive things mentioned to the board. In this section, we go through what's called site suitability analyses. And we identified the park builders aka Lannadeex project that was previously
approved. We didn't at the time because we submitted this back in June know just yet that the redevelopment plan was going to be adopted or amended for the park project. So, we had to recognize that in the text of the park builders
project. We wanted to put that in the housing element be their share plan. So that's what you'll see on page uh 13 as well as page 14 of this memorandum. Those two adjustments uh to the redevelopment plan. 15 stays the same,
16 as well, 17 stays the same, 18 as well, 19 stays the same, and then 20 stays the same. 21 as well stays the same. Sorry for all this. 22, 23,
24 up to 25. And I just wanted to I repeated those sections in case there was new board members reading this for the first time, they can kind of read along what the section completes so that you you weren't just picking and choosing what you're seeing. Um on page
25, we talk about revisions. On page 63 of the report section 4.3 prior round components we identify just that the table is being uh the table number is being changed on this page 26 the third
the next page sorry section 44 third round components this is where again we're going to be striking out west mount plaza because now this becomes one of those gaps and we're adding to the park landedex project uh because because it's being moved to the
unmet need component. We still kept and I think I didn't mention this before. I mentioned the West Mount Plaza project. Yeah, I think I did because it was so appropriately located and had a uh a park and ride facility. We're maintaining it as unmet need and fair share uh appreciated that and also gave
that credit in their considerations for approving the plan amendments. Going on to page 28, uh West Mount Plaza. Here's where we just define how West Mount Plaza uh has been moved to the unmet need category because of its
uncertainty of when it might come move forward. We couldn't prove that that was going to be a development that was going to occur in the next 10 years. Nor was the developer. So, that was where we had to be on page 29 again to getting to a little bit more of the
substantive things. uh overlay zoning or what we're talking about the overlay zones in the third round plan. We identified specifically um the language there. We did strike out one of the paragraphs as it relates to the park project because we made modifications to
the park project going on to page 30. Uh we did note two overlay zones that did not move forward and fair share was also saying you know what those two projects may not be contributing to your
housing plan. So everyone including the adjudicator recognized that the overlay one and overlay 2 zone which are both lo located in the north beverick road corridor area um did not represent sites
that were probably not going to move forward in the next 10 years. Um so those two sites are actually being recommended to be removed. We're not officially removing them just yet. That should be another governing body action after this plan gets adopted um only
because of the sake of time. We didn't actually adopt an amendment yet removing those two zones, >> but they have existing zoning on them. >> If we did get to the point where they were removed, would we also then at that point removed the overlay zones that were applied to those properties?
>> That's what I'm saying. Yes. >> Uh overlay zone three. This is where we've now added the um excuse me, let me just make sure this is the case. Yes, overlay 3 would be now covering. Okay, excuse me. I did make note that
the overlay 3 zone is being changed by a redevelopment plan. The redevelopment plan now applies to that overlay 3 zone. So therefore, that's the zoning mechanism that's implementing the change in their zoning. uh proposed overlay 8A. That's where I
just mentioned to you on 7th Century Drive, the KF Schoolhouse LLC is requesting that overlay zoning. Um I will note that that zone um since we introduced that ordinance and I'll talk about the ordinances in a moment. Um
they they have requested some minor adjustments to some of their setback criteria. I'll be discussing that with the governing body tomorrow at the at the mayor and council meeting when we get to the public hearing on that. But the spirit of the ordinance is still the same. It's really minor setback 5 foot
changes, things of that nature that when they actually saw the ordinance, and I was hoping they were going to see the ordinance ahead of time. They uh got back to us and I said, "You know what? I got to deal with that in a public hearing." So that's where I'll be dealing with that public hearing. Going now to page 31 of the report. This
is where we've now made certain adjustments to the overlay zones that are addressing unmet need that I mentioned a moment ago. Um really turning the page now 32 33 really going to 34.
On page 34 this talks again about the fourth round components in that document where on one upper pond road we had a typo for the block and lot numbers. He just had to correct that typo on that page. Going now to page 37. I'll let you catch
up to me on that page. >> Excuse me. Where is it typo? >> Uh yes, it was under the one uh Upper Pond Road. It was listed as block 13. It shows as block 136 right now. >> Uhhuh. >> It was previously lot I believe lot it
was shown as lot 13 block 13, but it's corrected as block 136. You follow that, mayor? Okay. >> You okay? >> I'm good. >> Okay. >> So, now I'm turning to page 37.
Um on page 37 on section 4.6, item number seven, UAC requirements. This is the uniform housing affordability controls document that recently was amended by the state. um as we're all writing these housing plans and I'm kind
of chuckling only because it seems insane to be doing this at the same time we're trying to get court approved documents done. So um we had to recognize that change and wanted to identify that for the board. And you'll hear from me in a moment when I talk about the amendments that have been
introduced of why the affordable housing ordinances are being amended as well because the U-Hack regulations are being adjusted uh as well as the Fair Housing Act changed certain things as well. So that was the only change on that page.
The next page, page 38, consistency with state initiative. All of that is the same. Going on to page 39 4.8 section 4.8 at the bottom identifies requests not included. This is a
requirement of the Fair Housing Act uh that you identify anybody who may have tried to be included in the plan but was excluded. Previously seven Century Drive tried to be part of the third uh fourth round plan when we reconstituted it back in June but of course they're now
included as unmet need. So therefore, I had to take them out of this section. That's really the technical change that was being done there. Uh sorry for all this longwinded stuff, but on page 41, I'm trying to skip ahead. >> Once on page 40 and 41, they applied and
you you guys said no. >> Not the best spot. Okay. If they come back any and still want to build, they can, right? >> They can still come back, but they would have to seek a use variance >> and they but they still have to be required to put in affordable housing 20%. >> Oh, yeah. Across the board. We have now in our affordable housing ordinance that
will be changing what's called a mandatory set aside requirement >> and that applies when somebody comes in for a use variance and receives that use variance >> and it's going to be five or more units. One of the units 20% has to be afforded. >> All right.
I'm sorry. >> Sorry. Uh fair share appendices on page 41. I just want to identify that we've made certain adjustments as you turn the page on page 42. We've made certain red line of changes that there are certain amendments pending that will be
supplemented. What I look to do if the board uh votes to approve this document tonight and it's endorsed by the governing body tomorrow night is to then codify a brand new document with all these changes in it. This will be on the website, needs to be on the website for
the township as well as then if board members are interested, I could send you a PDF of the document as well as if you wanted a hard copy of it as well, so you can keep it in your records. Um, but I just wanted to identify that. The last component I'll touch on for the housing
element is the amended 2026 spending plan. This is really a document more for information of the planning board, but it's really a purview of the governing body because they control how money is spent that goes through that proper or
uh uh agency of the government. So, I just wanted you to know that we amended this document based on certain requirements from the fair housing center. They wanted to see more affordability assistance than what we had obligated. But yet, we will be um
obligating the funding. But what is also required is that we then work towards spending the funding. And that's something mayor that I would ask you that we we plan for future meetings to talk about how you would best like to do certain things and then with consultation with the government to go
forward with that. So that's really the overall amendments to the housing element fair share plan for this document. Um with that I would turn it back to the board for any further questions. Uh, Mr. Chairman, what I would also offer is that
subsequently we ask for any public comments or questions, but then from there I would ask the board to consider this for a vote to approve these amendments so that we can then follow up at the governing body level with endorsing the amendments to the housing
element fair share plan which then we would then submit to the program, the state program in order for us to get immunity. And the purpose for immunity is to protect us and protect our zoning. So we have the ability to enforce our zoning instead of the alternative which
is I can give you examples unfortunately that some municipalities have chosen not to and I'm not saying this round or others but they have lost control of their zoning. The court then takes over what they want to do and where they want to do it. Um so then it becomes almost
open season on your zone plan. So, I'd just be I'm trying to give you the background of why it's so important to get this document done and and approve it in some form. So, thank you. >> Okay. With that said, any questions from members of the board? We'll start with
the board questions. >> I I have a question. >> Yes, ma'am. >> On the amended 2026 spending plan >> after page 46, >> the payment in the PIL, can you expand on that a little bit? >> Sure. Uh,
which page? I'm sorry, mayor. >> Uh, page two. After page 4. >> Page two. Thank you. >> At the top. Representative B. >> Oh, yes. Uh, this is one of those programs that this that the Fair Housing
Act allows you to set up, which is accepting funding from a developer instead of constructing the developments on site. It's called a payment in lie of program. It's something that we are no longer as me as a professional recommending that municipalities seek
because otherwise you have to build them somewhere else. You have to then use your funding to build those units somewhere else. What's difficult about that is finding the land, finding the location, and effectively finding some
other supplemental funding to build these units at that location. And then you're almost concentrating the units at one location, which sometimes is not necessarily the best thing to do. I'm not saying it's a bad thing because I've done it in other municipalities and appropriate locations. It might make
sense, but um we're trying not to because these numbers just get so hard to chase. It's hard to, you know, find the actual projects in the end. So that's what that represents. >> Okay. Isn't part of that affordable housing trust spending plan though where maybe
I'm wrong that >> you could compensate some of the landlord for some of the apartment the differential >> certainly you can definitely do what's called called an affordability assistance program which is working
through the firm that has been currently retained it's called CGPNH they do your administrative agent And under that organization, they'll they'll establish a program for rental units where you can subsidize the rents by buying down through a developer. If
he's willing to deed restrict a certain number of units, you then get credit towards the number of units that they would be buying down. So, you can use some of your trust fund monies towards that type of program. You then get credits towards your plan. >> Is that still allowed?
>> Oh, yes. Yeah, it's encouraged. Mr. >> Go ahead. Thanks for all this hard work and I I I appreciate all you do really. >> Thank you. >> I always say the same thing if I had said it last year as well. Six of these properties on west of 287. That means
we're going to be going to Brook and uh the Hills High School as opposed to just one. I don't know. I don't know where Serbo is going to fit into this. So I'm guessing it's east of 287. So puts it at the high right up against R Park. But, uh, you know, for the most part, like that's a lot of units on western part of
town. That that high school is already has more than the the high does. So, >> I mean, I know you did do due diligence. I see all the ones you had in here that you didn't choose. And for obvious reasons, busting and location, I get it. So, uh, 2022s and I need some, uh, wide a little bit.
>> Yeah, that's that's something that, as a planner, I get very frustrated with um because >> you're feeling like you're losing control. you're losing local control over all this because of the state required mandate that that's coming down. Um, and so it's just very
frustrating to be at the table and trying to find the best plan you can and being understanding of the impacts. When you tell the court that this is going to impact our schools, they say, "Okay, your next question. What's your next question?" >> Or it'll impact traffic. They say,
"What's your next question?" >> And they just don't consider those those provisions. And I find that very unfortunate because it puts the municipalities in very difficult positions. >> Do do you know uh I know it's obviously very early, but do you know if the embassy suites is going to be just uh knocked down or just renovated?
>> I was heard at least during the early stages of this that they were looking to renovate because I'm saying to myself, how great would that building be with the atrium inside, you know, and having units built around it? >> Okay. Thanks again for hopeful explaining everything. It's great. >> Sure. Certainly.
>> Okay. Yeah, seeing no. Oh, Mr. Daddy. >> Yeah, a couple of quick questions. Um, and I think I know the answer, but I just want to very clear. Um, so let's say third round obligation. Um, 1314. Are we saying we have completed or
met that obligation already or what we're saying is that we we've affirmatively addressed the 845 units that we were able to reduce the number down to. In addition to that, we've also affirmatively addressed some of the unmet need. Remember the RDP, which is
the 845, the remainder between 1314 and 845 is what's called the unmet need category. >> They still want you to do some level of zoning in the third round to address that need. What became a real wrestling match in this round, the fourth round, I'm sorry, this might sound too
confusing, but what what became a requirement that if we didn't, let's say we didn't address the whole 496 for the fourth round, >> there would be an unmet need component remaining of that, let's say it's 100 units, just for discussion sake, what's required in this fourth round is that
you address 25% of that 100 units or 20 25 units of that total amount. And then you have to implement affirmative zoning for that. even though those properties may not come to fruition. So there's even more of a hammer now to make sure you're addressing them.
>> So when we say fourth round 496 496 includes 25% of >> Yeah. Don't don't look at the 25%. I'm sorry. It's probably going to cause more confusion than it's worth, but I realize that as soon as I'm open my mouth. Um but regardless the 496 you're addressing
your whole need and including the previous unmet. Yeah. That's what brought us a lot of credibility with the fair share housing center and was able to get us to to the final decision because they saw we were affirmatively addressing we're not looking to skirt it. We saw there was a lot of developments that needed to have some
reconsideration and we addressed it. So okay and then one last um so under any project when we say hey uh we have a credit of 137 just as an example >> uh does it mean that we are committing and the builder has also committed to
put 137 units aside under the project? >> I wanted that's a good point and it's probably helpful. Is there a specific program you're looking at or specific project >> at at park? You know >> I'm going to use an example the first line line item page five. I'm glad you brought that up because it's an example that kind of helps me describe one other
component that I might have just glanced over is that part of our plan also implements or utilizes what are called bonus credits. >> Mhm. >> So if a development for instance if you can refer to page seven. >> Yep.
>> And if you look at page seven you see four gate hall brothers. >> Yep. >> That's applying 36 credits. They're going to do 36 affordable units at that location. We're getting 18 bonuses. No, no units have to be built for those
bonuses. And so it's a total of 54 credits that we're able to get for that development because it's a redevelopment of an existing site. >> All right. But we are only putting 36 aside units. >> Correct. Okay. It's a good question because it helps you understand how many units are we really putting on. Okay.
All right. So 496 really does not mean we are putting 496 units. >> Correct. It's minus 124. >> Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. So, we're putting together 372. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Dinsmore. >> Just just an observation and and I don't
know the answer to this. Is there any reason why if we we develop say embassy suites why those students couldn't go to the high rather than to the the hills? >> I I believe the board of education would make decisions on
>> placement of the children. >> Absolutely. But I'm just saying that if if the hills is overcrowded and the high has some room and you've got a single location that's actually relatively close to the high's
travel patterns. >> Yeah. And my understanding is they already balance out between the two schools based on Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But that's not happening right now. >> H >> but that's not happening right now with the embassy.
>> Okay. Uh, any other questions from the board? >> Sorry, Ed. One more thing. Sorry, Mr. Uh, did you touch on this one yet, did you? >> No, I was going to do that after we vote for the House. Thank you. >> All right. Well, with that said, I'll conclude the questions from the board, unless No. Okay. Open it up to any
questions from the public. >> Uh, one question. Um, >> wait, wait, sir. Can you please state spell your name for the record? Double Sha D H A V A Last name Sha S H A H I'm coming as a leazison from the board of education.
>> Okay. Uh your address >> 86 South Parman Road. >> Okay. >> Um question. So have after phase 4 what was signed off in December? Have we met all the requirements for the affordable housing for the next 10 years?
>> That's what we're that's what we're doing and that would be true. What I'm also just going to preface that with is because we have to get the court's final sign off >> on all the information we're submitting. So it's not just this housing element fair share plan. There's a lot of other reporting data that we have to submit as
well. But we will get that immunity and that's I feel very confident that we will get that immunity. >> Okay. >> So once we get the immunity for the next 10 years I know we still have office buildings but it's necessarily we don't need a housing for that. It could be any
type of space. Correct. >> You don't need to. That is correct. But yet what might have to be a balance is to consider whether or not what might be an alternative. But of course that becomes the governor body. Thank you.
>> All right. Uh seeing nobody else from the public, uh I'll close that portion. Any final comments from the applicant? Oh, sorry. You're not the applicant. Yeah. Thank you. Uh no further. No further comments. I would turn this back to the board for
consideration for adoption of these amendments because it's your role as the planning board. >> All right. Um, any deliberation before we >> Could I ask one additional question based on what Mr. Shaw had said? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. >> So, we met 496 a complete obligation.
We're good for 10 years. any additional housing that if and when it does come to precipany it could be anything the governing body can decide it is not there has to be no component of affordable housing in there or it could be entirely all affordable housing.
>> Yeah. I will clarify though, okay, >> that um if you do approve >> un some unforeseen residential development to to be reszoned for, >> you would have to include a 25% set aside because you still have a remaining
unmet need from the third round. So what's required of any agreement and court approved settlement agreement is that you have to have what's called a mandatory set aside ordinance. And so that states that if you are in the future going to add a new development uh
that wasn't foreseen in this round, you still have an unmet need that you had said you didn't have enough vacant land for. So therefore, you have to affirmatively address and require them to have affordable housing. But if you did also address it with another, let's
say, non-commercial to non-commercial, excuse me, non-residential to non-residential use, um, then you you have the ability to do so and that doesn't incur a impact to your housing plan. >> So, it's only impact when it's from commercial to residential.
>> But isn't that part of our It's part of our master plan that we state to 25% set aside for affordable housing. 20% >> and it's actually that would be that's why the housing element becomes part of your master plan but it's also in your existing code it was required it's
required of all municipalities that had an unmet need >> that they adopt that ordinance >> just a question so when they're figuring out the third round fourth round do they even talk about that does that's is that considered >> I don't I can't venture to say that
that's considered only because there is such issues I have with the overall calculation of the need. Um, but I'll just leave that as I'll try not to give my own personal opinion. >> Okay. Does anybody have any any uh
discussion or deliberations about the uh about the amendments? Opening up for discussion among the board members. >> The amendments just uh filling in the tweaks that you just went over. That's all that's all they do. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And this is an already approved
uh package. It's just, you know, dotting the tees and crossing the eyes, cross outs and and the additions that we see in the red. That's all we're approving at this point >> and what I testified to. >> Okay. >> All right. Well, I'm not seeing anybody speaking
up, so I'll accept a motion at this point. Uh, >> Mr. Chairman, >> go ahead, Mr. Mey. a motion to approve the amendments to the housing element and fair share plan and I believe also the amendments to the ordinance. >> No, we're just not not
>> that is not included. Okay. >> Yeah, we're just we're we're there's uh Ed didn't go over this, but we're there there's a very unique steps we have to take here. So we have to adopt the plan and then Ed is back on center
stage to talk briefly about the tweaks. I'm going to use Mr. Dinsmore's word uh to the ordinances. It was just the plan Mr. Millie for now. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh Nora, please call the role. >> Dich. >> Yes.
>> Dinsore. >> Yes. >> Desai. >> Yes. DPro. >> Yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Nearly. >> Yes. >> Politano, >> yes. >> Patel, >> yes. >> Shaw, >> yes. >> Smith, >> yes. >> Von Aen, >> yes.
>> Okay, that order of business is done. First vote of the >> first of our new year. So, congratulations everyone. Uh, let's move on to our ordinance amendment. >> Mr. Synikus. >> Snikus. >> Snikus. Sorry about that. Uh, back to you.
>> It's been worse than that. Trust me. >> Okay. >> I have one of those last names, too, so I get it. >> Right. But thank you, uh, members of the board. Uh, Mayor, um, what we have tonight is as well several ordinances, and I believe there's a total of eight
that have been referred to the planning board for consideration. As I mentioned a moment ago is that now that we've adopted the amendments to the housing element parish air plan uh in accordance with the municipal land use law any ordinances that are affecting your land
use code need to be sent to the planning board for review for what's called consistency review with the master plan. And that's so that things aren't being done on one level that don't get informed by the other level of government. And so what we're dealing with now is these ordinances are now all
a product of the housing element fair share plan and as well as the mediation agreement that was mentioned a moment ago so that we have the ability to implement the zoning that's part of the housing element fair share plan. Seven of the eight are the zoning to
effectuate those properties that we had talked about um including the overlay zone. Um what I didn't what's not part of this is that we don't have to amend the actual ordinance for the park lanadeex project and the reason for that
is there was a redevelopment plan that was adopted that effectively reszoned and established the zoning for that parcel. So that's why that's not an amendment tonight. So essentially for the record it's the AH2 I'm sorry AHD-MU2
zone the AHD8 affordable zone the AHD 9 10 11 and 12 zones and then the last is the OVL-8A which is the 7 Century Drive overlay
zone. So those seven zones with their criteria are what is being implemented in accordance with the concept plans and the housing element and fair share plan um outline as a result of mediation agreement. The last one number eight
that you should have in front of you is an ordinance that talks about amending the general affordable housing ordinances. And this ordinance which is rather lengthy the reason why it's so lengthy is that it spells out all the various administrative requirements associated with a you know administering
affordable units also administering uh reporting of units that need to be reported yearly to the governing body. Uh what the municipal liaison supposed to do I'm sort of smiling to your uh board member who is the municipal liaison be Jennifer Smith. Um and then
also in addition to that what the administrative agent is supposed to be doing for the municipality. This is a requirement to be updated because there have been certain changes to the fair housing act uh from 2024. In addition to that you remember me
mentioning UHAC the uniform housing affordability controls. They are also being amended just recently. So this document looks to address those changes as well. So, we've made those changes so that this is all up to date and now going to be implemented in accordance
with the uh housing element fair share plan. And so, with that, Mr. Chairman, as a professional planner advising the board uh in in accordance with the municipal land use law, I find that these would not be inconsistent with the actual recent housing element that this
board tonight just voted on um and implemented. Uh the reason why is because of those changes and what was required by the mediation agreement uh for this zone. >> All right. So as I understand it, seven of these ordinances apply as the overlay
zones for the properties that you know this is basically required for us to move forward with those. >> Only one of them is an overlay zone. Okay. >> The others are the actual affirmative zoning for those parcels. If you remember there was seven properties that were part of the June plan. Those seven
properties are part of I'm sorry, six of these ordinances address seven of those parcels that uh were required to be part of the plan to address the four 496 units. So we had to affirmatively address each and every one of those. >> Okay. >> So that one overlay the new 7th century
drive that was the one that is new here. Okay. part of that. And the last one would be >> so these set the guidelines for for how the building plans will be >> correct. The ordinances by which they have to >> that's number 14. >> Ed, can you uh for the board members
just let them know which one is the overlay? >> Certainly. That one was it it calls out at the top of the heading as o OVL-8A. >> No, I know the ordinance number. I know the ones I don't know the ordinance numbers. I'm sorry. I have the ones that
we received from council cuz we refer to here >> number 14. >> So the the the uh >> towards the back >> is that number 14? >> Yeah. >> The one for uh >> left side >> seven century. >> Seventh century that's 20 2614 is the
very last. >> Okay. Got it. >> So we'll be getting >> you'll be getting some adjustments to that. >> We'll be getting that tomorrow. >> Yeah. I'll be testifying to that tomorrow. >> Okay. And that's eight. >> That's 8a. >> It says eight.
>> That's what some of the uh you'll see some of the uh typos were related to. That has to be 8A. The reason being is that I didn't realize at the time that the OVL8 is your warehousing overlay that was implemented years ago, >> right? >> That is not being moved forward. So I
had to catch that at the last minute in the flurry of trying to do all this in time. So I apologize for that confusion. >> Okay. And the other ordinance which is in the front of our packet are those general affordable housing ordinances that you're referring to. So these would
be adjustments to our affordable housing >> administrative requirements is the way I like to >> the thing I get worried with this is just uh putting us into a corner where we lose some flexibility when the plants come to us. So without having a lot of
time to review these, I guess I'll ask general questions, you know, I'm trying to think of how to how to phrase the questions, but um effectively um what kind of changes are are we looking at here versus our existing
laws? >> Yeah. What sort of changes you're looking at is that we had to implement certain setback density coverage requirements. But I will recognize that many of them are probably asking for a little bit more green space than a lot
of the existing non-residential uses had on them. >> Okay? >> So you may see even storm water management improve as a result of that. Um in accordance to uh especially with the new D rules where they're requiring more green infrastructure to be implemented. Mhm. >> Um in addition to that, you still have
the ability to seek to to grant variances, see variances from these requirements if you find that there's a better alternative. And that's always a case when somebody can come to you and make certain adjustments because >> try not to defend developers too much
here, but what they may have done things in a shotgun approach and then all of a sudden realize, you know what, I need to adjust certain things to make certain improvements. Yeah. Then you have the board's ability to vary that as a result. I guess the problem is though if they're in, you know, for for those areas where maybe they're working in a
different direction. Uh well, you know, for for one reason or another, there's a lot here to go over and we've just got it today. >> That's I'm sorry if you just got it today. >> Okay. >> Um >> that was my fault. >> But um >> sorry, Nora. >> Uh
yeah, I'm I'm just worried that all of a sudden the developers say, "Well, that's your ordinance. No variance is required." And now we lose that that ability to make decisions here. >> Yeah. >> Well, let me let me let me just piggyback on on what Ed was just saying.
You don't necessarily lose your authority as a planning board, right? What you what you you you what is happening here is that just like when the town uh zones certain areas, they
set a zone, they say, "Okay, this is the R1 zone." In the R1 zone, the lot a the average lot size is 10,000 square feet. And then they'd say, "Okay, well then this section is going to be R2." And the average lot size there is 5,000 ft². So
there are properties that are going to fall within that. And there are properties that are not going to fall within that. >> So then when somebody seeks to develop one of those properties, they're going to have to come either here, depending on the jurisdiction, either here or to the zoning board to uh obtain relief.
What this does is actually, if you want to look at it this way, it actually places them under your jurisdiction because they're coming here to get relief. They would not be going to the zoning board because they've gotten the
use that they're seeking here. whether it's an overlay and just you know for everyone's purposes if you're new an overlay is simply saying there is a zone uh applicable whatever that zone is let's say warehouse but on top of that
zone an overlay literally an overlay is this other type of zoning so you could do it but you could also do the other one it's kind of an eitheror uh but when we're talking about the affirmative changes the ones that Ed's been talking about where it says says, "Okay, this is
allowed residential, this is allowed at at a certain density." That doesn't mean the process ends there. That developer, you pick whichever one. Uh would still have to make an application for a site
plan, at least a site plan approval, they would be here. Uh they may have variances. even if they're in a redevelopment plan, we just call them deviations instead because we that's what we say. I don't know why, but you know, it's the same. It's a variance,
right? Uh so regardless, you're not really losing just to go to the the chairman's point, you're not necessarily losing jurisdiction or losing your ability to oversee these. What's happening is is that there's this
external force known as this affordable housing obligation that is really you're not the one that's actually being in fact it's really the mayor municipal council because they're the ones who are being told well you really can't make the you have to make these decisions
within these parameters. So just to go to once again to chairman's point, you are going to see these if the if they do develop, they are going to come before you and at that point you will have the ability to at least do a site plan review and and depending if they need
variances. Uh so you're not these are not somehow going to be rubber stamped >> uh in any way, shape or form. Am I correct at that? >> You're very correct and and in fact I will add to that as you had mentioned some of the frustration for the the council was they had to work within
certain parameters and what's called uh not cost generative features. So for instance we would love to see uh 50 foot buffers let's say for something >> uh a little bit out of the norm whereas the court and the adjudicator would say no no no 25 ft's enough that's really
not as far as you can go. So it didn't come to the normal channels of let's say this board saying we'd like to see a housing over here and we'd like to then formulate the zone and maybe maybe put in 50 foot buckles. That's not the case when you're dealing with affordable housing. You have to deal with certain
limited ability to adjust the rules because they know you have this constitutional obligation that comes first. Well, maybe the environmental criteria comes first, but then you have this constitutional obligation and you're going to allow this zoning and tell me why it's not reasonable.
>> Okay, so that's how it comes about. Unfortunately, >> just reading through some of these quickly, I'm not that concerned with what I'm reading so far. Um, but I am seeing a lot here with has to do with income and other questions. Uh I guess
my question related to those is are are these in any way um going to encourage or discourage um smaller unit developments instead of these large scale developments. >> Interesting. Um not sure what framework
you're saying that under but yet they will be coming to you with their proposals. >> Typically the market drives what they would propose to you. And in some situations when you're thinking of this just in a general term, they do have minimum requirements required for the
affordable units have to be integrated. Certain types of units have to be integrated. They also have to receive certain adjust certain uh types of improvements as well as access to all of the amenities within the development. But the market rate units are really up
to the developer themselves as far as the size of the units and things of that nature. that becomes somewhat market driven >> obviously because they want to work within the market parameters. What I found interesting in this process was even though it's 496 units a lot of
these were town houses there's interesting to me I'm saying why are they now becoming townouses instead of multif family developments. >> So it's probably because of the market. >> So when you say town houses does that mean they'll they'll fall under an apartment structure or a condo structure? It could be either for sale
or for rent. Okay? You can't be sure of that. But at the same time, what I'm seeing is that because they're town houses, it's a different type of unit structure. You're owning to the sky in a sense in a townhouse compared to a market rate unit where it might be flat flat units.
>> I've I've had the opportunity to live in townhouse. So yeah, >> that's what your deed says, you know. So that's where in this instance, I'm seeing that they're trying to address at least a more diversity in the marketplace. So, that helps with some of that, I would say. >> And and by the way, board members, I'm
sorry I'm taking over a little bit right now, but um my my last question is, uh you know, I'm seeing that our our rental units are now occupying about 40% of our total units in town, >> and that feels high to me, and I know affordable housing kind of drives more
in that direction, but is there anything in here that would encourage uh ownership units instead of rental units? >> We couldn't go there. we couldn't regulate the the ownership type. >> Okay? >> The only time we could have done that back in the third round was saying, "Okay, you're going to do rental units. We get certain bonuses for that."
>> That was no longer the case in this round. Instead, they gave you bonuses for the uh redevelopment of sites. >> They recognize that municipalities are being somewhat burdened by that, so they gave you the bonus credits for that. >> Yeah. Is it okay if I ask your opinion? Is 40% rental units high for a
community? >> It's it's on the higher end. Yeah. Yeah, >> but recognize too that a lot of that might be senior units too. I know you have Brookside and things like that that and uh Baldwin Oaks I think is another one. They those two developments are
seniors. So, as I know my in-laws are in their 80s and 90s, they've moved into an apartment because it's much easier for them to deal with than a house. >> So, those units tended to become an asset for the communities. >> Sure. >> All right. And Ed, you you you know going to the rental issue that that's
also market right that that's ultimately a a question for the developer >> especially as we're looking at the third and fourth round the number of units I'm like saying myself parcipany being the prime market it looks like it's trying to adjust itself towards ownership at least. >> All right. So Mr.
>> Yep. Quick question. So um when you were were discussing about town houses versus apartments. So in these calculations, was there a different kind of calculation like 496? Was it one to one? Doesn't matter. >> Not for the fourth round, they took away the rental bonus credit. So therefore,
you can only get credit for certain types of development you were doing. And so because a lot of this was redevelopment, I know it's a big ask and you talk about impact to schools and regional impacts as well, but at the same time, it gave you those bonuses to do so. >> Okay.
>> Uh, another question. Yeah. If some developer wanted to come in and put in say 10 apartments for veterans only, what would that do to the calculation to >> veterans? You can do a veterans preference for some of these units. Um there is a certain percentage you can
do. I I can't recite it right off hand, but you can do veterans units for some of these developments and that could be a consideration. >> Okay. What about a senior uh >> senior component gets restricted. There's a certain percentage 25%. can't
be more than 25% of your 496. >> But none of these developers wanted to do senior or have that obligation. >> Okay. >> So, we couldn't incite that requirement because they were all available sites. And >> at that point, you didn't have an option. >> Okay. But if somebody did wanted to do
it, >> oh, if they did want to do it, sure, you could do it. >> Just make sure you don't do more than 25% of your unmet need. That's really what I would do. >> Okay. >> Work backwards. >> Okay. Don't we have one coming in on >> You probably have from the Yeah, from the third round. We do have
>> There is an assisted living facility that was approved at the former Glaco Smith Klein location, but their site plan was not >> not officially approved. So, they will be coming back to this board. But they they did get approval, preliminary approval for that location, but they
didn't get final. So, they probably would come back to you. I did get uh interest in that property, but uh I'm waiting for where that's at. So that would be something >> they're building the 255 555 and older right now and then the blank area where the big mountain of dirt is is supposed
to be the but they've never come back. That was like oh my god it was probably my first year on here >> to property with big tree I think. >> Yes big tree and a big mountain. >> We kept that big tree didn't we? Ed, >> could you help uh understand on the first page of this report uh the fifth
whereas 66 Glen AB LLC having filed a challenges pursuant? >> Which one? Sorry. >> Oh, the very the very first page of the very first page. >> What is 66 Glen A LLC having to do with our town though? >> Did they challenge our town? No, no, no.
I think I think Ed has >> That must have been a typo. >> Yeah, Ed's Ed's got >> Oh, >> was that on the affordable housing ordinance? Can I >> It's the the first page >> first page of this one. Ed, right here. >> Thanks for picking that up. >> We don't have a six just six gl who
challenge you was I was using some formatted documents to work through this. >> Uh who challenged us was seven century. That should have been seven. >> You'll also see a note a little lower. >> They uh we're at Morris. >> Um I looked it up there. They challenged thing.
>> 66 plan. >> Yeah, I figured that. >> I looked it up. We don't have a 66 and right right by myself. >> Ed and Mr. Burgess are very popular. >> Vacation. >> I Yeah. >> 2035. You get a vacation from this.
>> Oh my god. All right. I believe Mr. Vidsmore asked a question. >> I I just have one question. It really doesn't uh pertain to what we're doing here tonight, but it pertains to what we might be doing some other night. Has the legislature or any possible legislation
come forward that might increase the uh not increase but change the way that we zone for multif family homes on single home residential lots. >> There's discussion about afford uh accessory dwelling units. >> Yeah. ADUs.
>> Yeah. That's still a bill that's being considered. There's a lot of objections to that. Uh I would say including the League of Municipalities. Uh they're very concerned about what that means because across the board if you approve something like that, at least this is my opinion. This is only my professional
opinion is that there's a lot of nuances involved when you do accessory units. The property size impact the neighbors, things like that. And in the original bill, a lot of that was pushed aside. And I'm saying to myself, do you really want to do that? Don't you want to
consider certain rights of the neighboring property owner >> to the single family home that wants to rent out maybe an accessory dwelling unit in the back of their home? So I thought the broad brush of the or of the bill was so wide was so open let's say
uh not enough qualifying criteria in there that I think it was problematic in my opinion of why it may not move forward. But yes, there is bills being considered for that. Also, another bill that's also potentially affecting affordable housing or multif family development is considerations for
adjustments to the uh what's called the residential site improvement standards, the RSIS. You may hear that acronym a lot as board members hearing uh uh housing developments is that the state established many decades ago residential site improvement requirements for
parking. And what's being considered is certain adjustments to those ratios because of their proximity to transit routes and even transit routes such as bus stops. So that that entire corridor for that bus stop would allow a certain
exemption from certain requirements of parking. What I feel is not being considered in that big picture. Yes, it's good to encourage mass transit, but what's not being considered is the suburban quality of some of the communities and how people need to have
another car or a car to begin with to uh access their their place of work or to get goods and services from food stores, things of that nature. So, I would implore you to pay attention to that regulation as well to make sure it's obviously being considered with the
impacts to a place like Paripney Troy Hills. Yeah, you can get to New York City with mass transit, but not many other places. >> That's my point. But then people are always saying, well, what about ride share? And I'm saying to myself, not everybody relies on that. People need cars and they need access to have them.
>> So, that's a whole another discussion for another day. >> Okay. >> The other thing, um, I forgot we have we added in 2019 the, uh, affordable accessory apartments in the R1. >> Yes. did we did add that in 2019 and not
one person applied. >> So we did create it, we put it there, we allowed people and and nobody applied. >> So >> how much how many housing units do we have in R1 once actually? >> Um I don't know the numbers off the top of my head. >> Fair number.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. I don't even know if it's so common, >> but it's al it's also your old powder mill section and powder mill. It's it's the larger properties, >> you know, they're not trying to put them on small 6,000 foot lots. They're on
large lots that that allow it. So, >> the reason why we did it is because of the larger lots, better area for setbacks, coverage factors. Those coverage factors were actually considered to be exempt as well under that bill. really that bill has been tabled but not sure where it's going to
go from. >> I mean it it's to me I don't object to ADUs. I don't object to multif family homes as long as the buffers and the other bulk requirements for a residential home are maintained
>> because we've seen what's involved in the trenches. You know why you require it. >> Yeah. So >> okay any other questions from the board? Uh yes Mr. Patel. >> Okay. Uh so this 40% uh rental uh is it statemanded or is it requirement? Is it
just for precipy because we're a prime location or is it across the state? >> I think what was cited was in fact what our ratio is right now. What your percentage of it is that's what the split is in >> and then so as you're now approving more potential rental properties are you
upsetting that factor even further. The idea being and I I don't want to sound any negative in this regard, rental has its purpose, but I believe there's a concern about transient populations, things of that nature, um, and trying to
maintain a balance between people who have an actual vested interest in their town and others that may not. >> And it may not apply to other township, correct? >> No, I'm not saying it's a regulation. It's not a regulation. It's really just an analysis of that percentage.
Other board members seeing none. All right. Any questions from the public? >> Oh, sorry. >> Why don't you just state spell your name? >> Double Sha Dha V last name Sha S H Ah 86
South Parl Road. Um to confirm and reconfirm 496 meaning 372 units will be town houses. No, they're not all going to be town houses. Some may be multi. >> Some may be. Okay. Do we have a required
split? Um, in terms of like >> we have it based upon the uses that are permitted in certain zones >> town houses for instance. >> Okay. >> In other zones we permit multif family and in some zones we permit mixed use. >> Okay. >> Which is allowing commercial with the
multif family. >> Okay. So let's say these were like condos and 40% of the uh affordable units were like studio apartments. Is there some regulation like that or >> there is a regulation that requires that 1% of all the affordable units within a
development have to be threebedroom >> then there's a requirement that a maximum of 20% could be one bedroom the remainder could be two bedrooms. Can you >> can you get that breakdown again? >> Wait, wait, >> wait, wait. Just just to be clear, what
Ed is talking about is within the we'll use the 20% set aside as as a concept. >> 20%. >> So So you have if you have a 100 unit building >> Mhm. >> 20 of those units are affordable and they're supposed to be spread out
interchangeably in the development. Exactly. Right. There's no there's no way you should be able to tell that those 20 are affordable units. >> Okay. But within the 20 and this is what Ed's talking about, there is a breakdown
both for bedrooms and for income verification. So there's there's really two. So Ed, you just I just want to make sure that everybody was understood that that that what you're talking about is the breakdown of the 20%. Right.
>> So the 20 can be anywhere from studio, onebedroom, twobedroom or threebedroom. >> Well, this is what this is what Ed's going to explain to you. >> They anticipated having just a lot of small units. Yes. >> Instead of having what they call family units. >> Yes. >> And so what's required is that of the
20% >> four of them mean 20% of the 20 can be three bedrooms or have to be minimally three bedrooms. Uh no more than four can be one bedroom
two. >> Romania remainder two >> is two bedrooms. >> So >> the studio count as a one bedroom. >> No you can have studio is it one bedroom? Studio studio or one bedroom? >> Studio one bedroom same thing. >> Same thing. Okay.
>> I mean it's like the workers thing and then they figure out how many >> right. So, >> so, so and then right the the concept there and and once again we'll probably say this more eloquently than I can but
the concept there of the threebedroom, twobedroom, onebedroom breakdown is that you have different levels of >> affordability income and there also need to give opportunity
to families versus single people because all you do or onebedroom units that's going to be single or couples whereas a threebedroom is supposed to incentivize >> family >> a family and obviously they have to all meet income verification and uh be you
know within there there's a certain number that has to be high low income middle low income and low low income >> low I'm sorry moderate low and very low >> very low there you go I knew Ed would
know the Um, so you know, there there's there's a greater breakdown within that. And once again, and I and I want to clear up, I know that we're using these terms townhouse versus uh I'll use uh the
British term, a flat. >> Okay. Um they're they're they're the the difference here a townhouse is theoretically and is a vertical
>> from ground structure ground to sky >> right technically that that's a townhouse whereas a flat is as it you know a flat you could have a threebedroom or fourbedroom flat and you could have a two-bedroom townhouse.
>> Um, so, you know, I'm just saying that in terms of not getting too deep into the concept of a townhouse versus a flat and also because a townhouse >> and a flat both can be condoed, both can be ownership, both can be rental.
>> So, it's just realistically when you think about it is just looking at it. >> Are you looking at it? Is it a high is it a sevenstory uh flat across or a whole bunch of homes in a in a in a row? That's really the
only difference. >> And um that so so it's not so you shouldn't necessarily focus in the and and part of this is you don't really focus on the ownership versus rental issue. You're just focusing on the set aside.
>> Thank you, Joe. probably very helps to clear that up. I appreciate that. >> Also, just one last thing, I know I don't want to add more confusion, but it's important that you know this is that we have permitted town houses, but also we also permit stacked townhouse.
Now, that's a new fancy phrase that allows one over one, but just two units >> next on top of each other. So, that's a stacked townhouse. >> So, you'll see that definition in one of the codes. Can you repeat that last section again?
>> Yeah, it's called a stacked townhouse. >> Okay. >> And that would be where you would have town houses that are side by side. >> Yeah. >> But then one of the last units could be a stacked one over one. >> Got it. Okay. >> Okay. And that's to allow some of the affordable units
>> flexible because these are units that are I'm trying not to give too much difference to developers, but to in order to afford the affordable units, they do need to do certain things to make them work, especially when they're trying to meet certain bedroom requirements as just talking about.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Uh we were in the public portion. Uh so uh any other members of the public? Seeing none, we'll close the public portion. Um, any last comments, Mr. Snakis? >> No, that's what I have. I'll just ask
the board to uh hold time really by resolution to the governing body as to whether or not you found the orders consistent or inconsistent. >> Okay. Any deliberation from the board? All right. Well, and with that said,
I'll accept a motion regarding uh Mr. Snakis, could you repeat? Yeah, it would be motion, >> Mr. Winsel. I believe that's a resolution, >> right? So, uh this would be uh a resolution, but because the council be is meeting tomorrow, you're going to
authorize me to send a very quick letter tonight to the municipal clerk. It's the beauty of email. Um send a quick email to the clerk tonight that you all met. You had reviewed the ordinances. You reviewed the amended
uh uh fair share housing plan and remember that thing you just approved, Mr. Mey got ahead of us. We want to approve everything all at once uh in very uh Soviet fashion, but you have one step at a time. So we uh so now that we
you you're finding consistency with the plan and that the ordinances are consistent with the plan. And that was a whole bunch of lawyer talk for saying you think these are these are appropriate in light of Ed's recommendations. >> Okay. So with that said, I will accept the motion,
>> Mr. Chairman, >> to approve or disapprove. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Motion to approve the amendments to the general affordable housing ordinance so that they are not inconsistent with the uh master plan. >> Very good. Nora, please call the role.
>> Wait, we need a second. >> Second. Yes. Thank you. Do we have a second? >> Second in the fall time. >> All right. >> Dora, go ahead. >> Dich. >> Yes. >> Dinsore. >> Yes. >> Desai. >> Yes. >> Diro. >> Diierro. >> Yes. >> Hernandez.
>> Yes. >> Millie. >> Nolitano. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Shaw. >> Yes. >> Smith. >> Yes. >> Von. >> Yes. >> Okay. Looks like that concludes our agenda for the evening.
Uh motion to close the meeting. >> Motion. >> All in favor? >> Okay. >> Meeting is closed for the evening. Thank you everyone. >> Thank you. >> Haven't had a meeting in four years. >> How's it feel?
>> Not much. >> Saturday.