Okay. Announcement is made that adequate notice of this meeting has been given and that it is being conducted in accordance with NJSA 10 col4-6 at SEC of New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act. Nor would you call the role please? Mayor Barbario here. Mr. Dpierro here. Miss
Hernandez here. Mr. Mey here. Mr. Matier. Nope. Mr. Npalitano here. Mr. Shaw here. Miss Smith here. Chairman Dinsmore here. We also have our board planner, Miss Winter, our board engineer, Mr. Kangiano, our board
attorney, Miss Steinley, and our special guest, the town planner, Mr. Snikus. If we could say the pledge of allegiance, please. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America, to the stands, one
nation under God, indivisible, liberty, and justice for all. Wait, did you Sorry. No. All right, this meeting is open to the general public. Is there anyone here that wishes to address this board on any subjects not on our agenda tonight? Hearing and seeing none, we have only one item on our agenda and
that is the housing element and fair share plan. Councelor, uh good evening board. This uh Dustin Glass from Seamaro and Farney. Uh our firm is the uh township's affordable housing council. Uh we're
here tonight. Uh the board's already been presented with an affordable housing plan. Uh this is to comply with the fair housing uh fair housing act and the fourth round obligations. Uh the planning board's charge tonight is to uh review and then would adopt the uh
housing element of the master plan which would then go to the governing body for an endorsement uh thereafter. Uh the fourth round of the Fair Housing Act requires that a municipality, it has a variety of dates and deadlines, many of which have passed. The next one is that a municipality must adopt its housing
plan honor before June 30th of this year and then filed that with I'll say the superior court and the affordable housing dispute resolution program within 48 hours. um participating in the process, I'll just say in good faith and continuing to uh do what's statutoily
required uh permits the municipality to maintain its immunity uh from builder's remedy lawsuits. Uh so participating in the process and uh at this point in time, adopting a plan is what is needed to for the township to maintain its immunity. Uh you'll hear from uh Ednikas
who will present the plan, provide an overview. Uh we're here to answer any questions. I think it's important to remember that this the fourth round is a 10-year long process. So to the extent there are projects in here that are to be constructed, they're not popping up tomorrow, they're not popping up the
next day. Yes, it'll be over a period of time. And yes, there's impacts to the community. Um but they're nothing immediate. You know, they're they take time to occur. And I think as you'll see by the plan, there's a reason methodology as to how uh units were allocated. Uh, and Ed will walk you
through the process as to the uh the number of units that we're the township is satisfying, how we arrived at that number. Um, well, I guess I could tell you a little bit about that. Just for brief uh brief discussion, the Department of Community Affairs issued uh numbers throughout the state. uh that
there were the affordable housing obligations at least whether they were uh presumptively valid or whether they were just guidance I guess is to be debated but municipalities were free to uh offer uh differing numbers based on their analysis of the statute and the vacant land available in their
municipalities in this case the DCA had calculated 553 affordable units for the fourth round new construction need I'll call it prospective need uh that municipality submitted for 496 six, Ed was able to review and find parcels that
the DCA had included that I'll just say for lack of a better way of putting it should not have been included or not developed for a variety of reasons. Um, and the uh court after mediation or the the township did receive a challenge from the builders association, which is
a I'll just call it a trade group, I guess, that represents builders associations throughout the state. Uh take it for what it's worth. Mediation was unsuccessful, but the program eventually sided with uh the township dismissed the builder's challenge and agreed with the 496 number. This plan uh
is here to address the 496 units. And I think with that, I will stop talking and over to Ed Sners. Uh thank you very much. Everybody hear me? Okay. And I'll just swear you in. Can you please raise right hand? Do you swear affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth? I do. And could you just please um state your license and background for the board? Absolutely. The name is Edward Snikus uh Jr. I'm with the firm of Burgess Associates in 25 Westwood Avenue in Westwood, New Jersey. I have a license in professional planning and also a
license in landscape architecture in the state of New Jersey. Um I was the author of this document and I will be providing the presentation associated with it. We've been retained as your affordable housing planners uh for this document in concert with the overall township and we
are submitting this document to the planning board for consideration this evening for potential adoption. And what this document becomes is actually an element of your master plan. uh it's a required element under the municipal land use law and it's a component that
we currently have a housing element and fair share plan but that fair share plan is about to sunset uh on June 30th very soon and because we were given um a a an approval by the court based upon that
third round plan uh up until June 30th of 2025 and so that's why the state back in 2024 had prepared prepared new rules associated with this next round. It's called the fourth round. We've gone
through the first three rounds already and we're now in the fourth round of the housing element fair share plan. I do have a PowerPoint presentation that I'm referring to for the record. Um also I'll be referring to the documents dated
June 12th, 2025 and it has been on file minimally 10 days prior to this meeting. included in that. We also did the notice to surrounding municipalities as well as we did send copies to the state and to the county planning board in accordance with the regulations since it is an
element of the master plan. And so with that, I'll go through this presentation. And as Dustin had touched on, u the effort here is really to address the issue of affordable housing within the community. And what we're trying to do is maintain uh protections from what's
called developers remedy lawsuits. uh those are actions that could be taken if in fact we didn't affirmatively address what the state has assigned to us as as the allocated need for the fourth round. And so we're trying to maintain compliance with the doctrines and with
the the rules that have been established. I'm just going to go through some quick background that we prepared just in case there's people in the audience that are not aware of this information. Uh first off there was Mount Laurel 1, Mount Laurel 2 starting from 1975
uh taking us to 1986 wherein the uh New Jersey Fair Housing Act was affirmed and its validity was affirmed at that point in time. In addition to that, the New Jersey Housing Act created COA, Council on Affordable Housing. The Council on Affordable Housing was a former agency.
It no longer exists, but that agency of the state was assigned to prepare rules and also obligations for municipalities. It required a housing element and fair share plan to be adopted by all municipalities. In addition to that, they established what were called the
first and second round rules. So, COA did all those components as part of an agency of the government. And then in addition to that, Parcipany Troy Hills prepared first and second round plans and they were certified by COA. So Paripany and the township itself has a
long history of complying with the affordable housing requirements of the state and that's something that I think we should be proud of and re be recognized for uh as we move forward. included as well. We also prepared a third round plan and we petitioned COA
when COA was still in effect at the time uh for that uh plan to be certified. On two occasions, we actually submitted those documents. Uh at that point in time though, uh COA and the statewide rules were challenged and determined to be non-compliant. At the time, there was
an issue called growth share that was being cons considered as part of the rules. If a municipality grew, it would have to add affordable housing. that was overturned because it was not specifically identified in the Fair Housing Act. And so therefore, we now have something called fair share. And
fair share is a uh methodology by which the the the affordable housing need is distributed to various communities, all communities throughout the state uh with the exception of urban aid communities. Urban aid communities are exempt from that distribution. And so we as a
municipality received that that uh allocation of the numbers and those numbers are based on several factors. COA's third uh statewide rules were challenged determined to be non-compliant. Uh fair share housing
center then also had sued the state on um and then on March 10th in 2015 the New Jersey Supreme Court decided what was called Mount Laurel 4. another action of Mount Laurel where in fact it was determined that COA was ineffective
and they were trying to create these new rules based upon fair share uh but that the courts realized that it was going nowhere and so therefore they pulled the uh responsibilities back to the court and so actually municipalities that wanted to get protection from affordable
housing lawsuits or builder's remedy lawsuits needed to submit a petition to the court to get their plan certified. Um, so it's it restates that the court is that forum instead of COA. Just real quickly, if we don't act, and I just wanted everybody to be aware of
this, there has been many examples of where municipalities have lost control of where affordable housing can go. And one in fact that I've mentioned to you, and it costs a lot of money through legal fees and things of that nature. No offense to the attorneys in the room, but it takes a lot of litigation and
discussion about it. Uh South Brunswick is a prime example where Judge Wolson back in 2016 uh he ruled that the township was not proceeding in good faith. Um and so therefore withdrew their immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits and the court actually took
over in concert with fair share housing center as well as the court master and builders to decide what their housing plan would be. And so that itself uh caused a lot of issues associated for that township. And just as an example, it's not meant to scare anybody, but
it's just that that's the reality. It's the reality of why we need to prepare a plan and pursue a plan uh in order to be maintain conformance with the appropriate rules. In addition to that, um we did uh in the third round, we
entered a settlement agreement back on April 11, 2019. Judge Gaus was our uh uh judge that reviewed our settlement agreement and approved that settlement agreement on July 24th of 2019. All this is to show you and show the road roadway
that we had actually gone down in order to maintain control of our zoning. Um the total need at that point was 1,314 units. That was a very substantial number. So we pursued something called a vacant land adjustment. And from a
vacant land adjustment, you look at the available lands that are available for development. And then you also uh then factor in environmental restrictions, whether there be deed deed restrictions on specific pieces of property, things of that nature. But that at that time,
we also were required to consider certain interested parties that were interested in being part of our housing plan that were also indicating that they would build affordable housing as part of their developments. And that was something that we were required to consider as we went through mediation
with the corn appointed master at the time. And at that point we were established we established a RDP or from the vacant land adjustment of 735. So a reduction from 1314 to 735 for the third round. that left an unmet need. Uh
what's called an unmet need, which is the remainder after you subtract 735 from 1314 of 469 uh units, let's say, um that were still remaining. We did actually h have to
first affirmatively address the 735. You'll see in a moment. I'll be going backwards a little bit in time to show how we did so. And then also we also adopted overlay zones to capture units associated with unmet need um in order to show that we were positively
addressing unmet need. You're required to address your entirety of your RDP, but you're not required to address your entirety of your unmet need. You just to show an effort to address unmet need under the third round housing plan. Um,
Judge uh, Gaus also approved the housing plan back on December December 10th of 2020. There were several projects approved and then also under construction since that housing plan as this board well knows as well as others.
And then some have been zoned uh, but remain as zoned. Moving forward now into the fourth round, the fourth round need allocation. Uh back as I mentioned a moment ago last year around March 20th of last year uh there was an amendment to the Fair
Housing Act. I'll be referring to that amendment as FHA2 or Fair Housing Act 2. um it identified that COA was no longer effective and it abolished COA from an agency of the state and it created a new process and a new entity that was associated with the what's called an
affordable housing dispute resolution program and it's associated with the uh office of the court and uh it is signed under the the uh fair housing act 2 as Dustin mentioned a moment ago that DCA department of community affairs was then
charged with establishing what the need should be. And then at the time there was also an identification that the Jacobson decision which was a case that was ruled by Judge Jacobson down in uh Mercer County between uh West Windsor Princeton and Fair Housing Center uh
wherein they debated over many many meetings uh the actual uh rationale to establish what the need would be and that decision has effectively been uh carried forward. did it it's been uh ruled effective and that decision
established the process to go about how to distribute the need. DCA followed that model uh from the Jacobson decision and then distributed the need to the various communities. I would I would say that and I don't want to be accusatory in any way to DCA but they had very
limited time to prepare their allocation of need and as Dustin mentioned a moment ago we did find some fault and some errors in their calculation for the land capacity factor. There were three factors that were part of their analysis. The land capacity factor,
there's also the non-residential valuation factor as well as the income capacity factor. Those three factors get factored together uh no pun intended uh to be calculated as where in fact need would be distributed overall. First the
need is established statewide. There was about 84,000 units that were estimated with in need for the next 10 years by these calculations and then from that need they then use the uh Jacobson methodology to distribute the need to various municipalities. So we did review
that information. Uh let me just fast forward to follow along my outline. Um fair housing act two also um identified how that calculation is done and then that calculation is in two parts. One part is called perspective need that's
the new construction that Dustin mentioned a moment ago uh obligation. There's also a present need obligation and what present need the difference is the present need obligation I would consider that as rehabilitation of existing units. We currently have a very successful uh rehabilitation
program that we've been conducting uh throughout many years, I think since the 70s using uh CDBG grant funding to help upgrade homes, whether it be their critical systems, roofing, uh uh heating, things of that nature have been
improved in certain homes, and we look to continue to do that. But what's been estimated is that we have additional need going forward in the next 10 years for that. And I'll touch on the numbers in a moment. Real quickly, what is uh what qualifies
as low and moderate or moderate and low and very low income? We are in a region, a housing region that was established during uh COA that is a housing region called housing region 2 and consists of Essex, Morris, Union and Warren counties. And in those counties that the
numbers are calculated every year as to what are the income qualified individuals. Just for reference, you can see that moderate income is you can make up to 74 $75,000 a year in 2025 uh for a one person whereas low is
47,000 and very low is 28,000. The reason why there are those three levels of income is that there are various unit types that are required by the rules have to be established within these affordable housing developments. And this just gives you a snapshot as to what some income levels are. And this is
provided also in the uh housing element and fair share plan draft that this board is reviewing. Next slide. Excuse me. Got that animation. um DCA in the fourth round in October 2024 had
distributed the need uh under what I just mentioned a moment ago as present need we have 138 as projected from census data that the state has used to compile what the present need is we reserve we didn't actually have any
dispute over those numbers because we reserved our rights to re-evaluate those numbers and you do have a right under the rules to re-evaluate that doing what's called the windshield survey. You can go around to the various uh neighborhoods and evaluate whether or
not we feel there is 138 or not. But yet, we are still putting in a program in the overall housing plan to try to address some of that need, whether it be real or not. Our prospective need is was assigned, as Dustin mentioned, at 553. We saw it and
received a reduction down to 496. Uh the court set it at 496 on May uh 13 of this year. Many be surprised by the 496 unit affordable uh requirement, but I wanted
to point out that there are not only parcipany is is subject to this. What we're seeing throughout Mars County is that there are a number of municipalities that are 400 or more. Um in fact, there are some close to a thousand. We have Roxbury Township at 989 units that they have as a need
number. Uh in addition to that, we have in Bergen County um Pamis, the burrow of Pamis is 1,523. They are capped at 1,000 units. Um but yet still 1,000 units is a lot of affordable units. Edison Township 727,
South Brunswick is 959. Wayne Township was 1,746, but they also have a thousand unit cap based upon the rules. So that just gives you an idea of where we are within the context of other communities. So it's not just uh within paripany, it is
actually within our region as well. So where we are right now in the schedule of time unfortunately the and I speak I say unfortunately only because it really required a lot from planners as well as administrators uh at the municipal level in order to prepare housing elements and fair share plans.
It was a very short time frame. We had October 24th where the numbers were actually distributed. We had until January to to determine whether or not those numbers could be adjusted. February 28th there was the challenge period uh at which the courts were reviewing the challenges but also um as
I mentioned by May we received actually a final determination. So from May to now we actually had to formulate a plan and uh get it submitted and reviewed in order for us to have this meeting tonight uh to potentially adopt the document. What would be the next steps
is that we would have on July 1st through August 31st is a plan of challenge. That's where challenges can occur to our plans um within that two-month time frame. That those challenges would occur at the state level. Uh they would be accepting any challenges to our housing element fair
share plan and then we would get into mediation there after that point. But yet you'll see in a moment that we wanted to prepare a very defendable plan that that addresses our need. Um it's a very uh statutoily appropriate plan. Um
so we feel very confident that it should survive challenges. Uh March 31st would be the time frame um wherein any implementing ordinances would have to be adopted. You'll see in this m in this element of the master plan, there are some recommended um uh draft ordinances
for some of the zoning areas that we're proposing. And those are draft ordinances at this time meant to be placeholders that are reflective of the actual developments that are being considered for those locations, but that they would be further refinements to those and you'll see them as a board uh
before they get adopted. So with that, I'll transition into the review of the prior and third round. And the reason why we're going backwards in time is that it's required by the rules. You have to look back to see how your programs all did in the prior plans to see if there's any gaps that would have
to be addressed. We did not have any gaps in the prior round. We have addressed all of our 664 unit obligation from 1987 to 1999. Many of the projects have been completed with some approved as well. So that's the prior round uh plan. Oops.
Sorry. I meant to advance the slide. I'm sorry if you can't see this from a distance, but it's part of the plan document itself. The next step was to look at our third round plan. We have a 845 unit obligation between 1999 to 2025. That
845 unit obligation of RDP has been also affirmatively addressed. Although I will identify for the record that we did have two locations where we had zoning for uh inclusionary housing. They were located on Edwards Road. What what has come to
pass as Dustin mentioned a moment ago is new rules based on D changes to their uh inland flood uh requirements. And those two projects or those two locations where we established new zoning for affordable housing are no longer practical because the flood elevations
have changed and they now are not providing affordable units. So the net effect of that is is that we do have to find affordable units to address that gap in the need. In addition to that, we also had a market to affordable in the prior round uh that we had as part of
our our planning. Um and in that we had established the program but it never got off the ground. So we do have to make up for that project that program but I did not want to leave us uh vulnerable to that program in the third round. So I
chose to move credits associated with other successful developments that we had in our plan. And one successful development that you have in your plan that's actually under construction and people have started to move into the development is park which is the former Lannadeex project if you remember that
had 120 affordable units as part of that development approved. So that development those 120 units we look to apply 74 of those 120 units to the third round require uh uh need of 845
and the effort there is to address that gap in the need. Um so therefore we've affirmatively addressed that gap and now have uh shown that we address that condition. In addition to that we had several other projects including uh prior cycle
credits. We had prior cycle alternative living arrangements as well, senior units that we applied to the third round. Also, uh built and approved developments. We had 700 Mountain Way, Palmar Associates. Also, we had one
Habitat for Humanity project that we uh included in the plan. Also, inclusionary developments such as Stanbury, the Mali Avalon project. uh West Mount Plaza uh was also part of a a reszoning that we
did. Park as I mentioned and Wer WER I'm sorry on John Johntown Road Johnston Road sorry and then uh Leica which has gone under many names but it was always as SJP Mars Corporate Center was also part of the plan. Sorry these
are not readable. they were in my office. Um but yet they are in the plan under the tables that are provided for the third round. In addition to that, we had some proposed alternative living arrangements that have been completed. There are series of five that also give
us credits. But that I wanted to identify that of that third round, we actually had 634 actual units be approved and part of that plan, but yet took benefit of 211
bonus credits. That may sound a little unusual, bonus credits. What the bonus credits are is that you're allowed for certain types of developments, whether it's a rental, whether it's a uh group home type development, you get certain bonus credits associated with those
types of developments that you can apply. And so therefore, that 211 plus the 634 makes up for the 845 need that we need to address between 1999 and 2020 uh 25.
So now to the fourth round. Uh so we've now affirmatively addressed the prior and third round. Now we're looking at the fourth round. So within the fourth round again we went back to look uh from the third round to the fourth round. How the community has
done from the standpoint of what area are available for potential development. And the mechanism of uh vacant land adjustments is something we look back to. And as you as you well know, we are now a conforming municipality to the Highlands. So we use the Highlands
buildout analysis as the tool to evaluate any vacant and developable land. We went to the portal for the Highlands. Uh used the portal at the Highlands to review vacant land within the community. And I'd like to report that you don't have any additional land
that I didn't already identify in the third round. So there was no additional vacant land that is adding to your RDP from the third round. What that does not recognize though is that there are requirements under the rules to look at
potential developments that are willing to be part of your plan. Under the Fair Housing Act, there's a section in this in the act that calls out that existing structures most appropriate for conversion to or rehabilitation for low
and moderate income housing, including a consideration of lands of developers who have expressed a commitment to provide low and moderate income housing. The reason why I read that into the record is that's the rule by which we need to recognize certain uh interested parties
or entities that might be interested in being in our plan. So from that uh statement, we did have to consider a number of potential entities that were interested in being in our plan. We had a need number of 496
even though we were still at an RDP that was already addressed. We do have this 496 number that we still have to affirmatively address. Um so the township with limited de vacant land was required to review these sites. Uh we received the numerous uh
willing sites for development request. We reviewed the planning ration, goals and objectives of the master plan as well as the Highlands regional master plan and we recognized that not all were appropriate in where they were located. Um so we did uh deny certain requests.
It was apparent though that we had ample developments to address uh locations that exist to address the allocation of 49 496 units. Um there was a so therefore we have reduced consideration to seven sites
within our plan that we're proposing to the board for consideration. Uh they're either vacant or underutilized or unused sites um that are currently developed within your community. And what's unique about that situation is that because
they're currently developed, they often fell within uh locations that were already within the Highlands master plan recognized as environmentally excuse me um I was going to say environmentally constrained zones, but it's not. It's actually um developed areas within the
community. Um and I'll remember the acronym in a minute. Uh but that statement or that identification was recognizing the existing developed condition. Many of them are office buildings. There's other commercial properties. One of them is in a a a vacant lumber yard uh that's being
considered. So, as you can imagine, the master plan, at least at the Highlands level, as well as our level, um recognize those sites as commercial development, but that they uh were not environmentally constrained from the Highlands master plan. In that regard,
um we then looked at whether or not the sites were considered for redevelopment. some were as part of the overall redevelopment scheme that has been identified within the municipality as well as many would benefit from adaptive reuse. Uh many were located were adjacent to
major highways. Uh also in your zone plan they were maybe more appropriate than other locations as well as their geographic distribution was also considered in establishing the numbers and the consideration of specific properties.
And I just found the actual se section that I was hoping to find. Uh it's the existing community zone, but also some are also located in what's called your lake community zone. And it had to do with proximity to the uh the reservoir.
Uh the properties adjacent to the Bhutin reservoir. They're not uh in my opinion, I'll show you in a moment, one of the properties is on the opposite side of Route 287. So, it's not a directly adjacent property, but yet as they established setbacks or offsets from um
certain water bodies, they did the Highlands did put it in the lake community zone. Uh no locations were in environmentally constrained sub zone and many as affordable housing provide consistency with the Highlands regional master plan. We also reviewed from a
water standpoint um their demand for water. uh as this board will likely remember is that in the prior round plan there was a scarce resource order that was exhibited or established for the community. We then went through and looked at what availability of water there was. Um we
have a very successful water improvement program that improved our wells, improved capacity and uh our systems. It addressed the scarce resource order that was removed in 2020 and that since that time uh we have been submitting reports
to show how our improvements have been made to our water system and from estimates based upon the number of units that are being proposed uh we find that there is still capacity available in the water system.
In addition to that, we also looked at locations and as I mentioned where they were adjacent to new roadways or excuse me, existing highways and roadways uh where traffic patterns will occur and had compared them to realizing that the existing properties were also currently
developed for non-residential uses. We also looked at the specific zoning requirements and established a draft as I mentioned in the document. We also reviewed that and recognized that these will all be subject to a full site plan review all of these properties that
we're recognizing and identifying for the plan uh for on and off-site impacts as well as fair share improvements as well as part of those developments. So looking at the fourth round addressing the 496 units there are seven
different properties that are recommended in the plan. Uh the first one is for Gate Hall. Uh its location is currently an office building. Uh we are recommending that that be part of a consideration for affordable housing. Uh
that property is located in the RO zone. Also, we have the park lanedex project. They're asking for increases in density. If you recall, there was the prior zoning for a portion of the existing office development that's there. What
we're offering is that they are interested in expanding that project, making it much more of a comprehensive center, still maintaining a mixeduse aspect to that development, but also increasing residential density in that location. Uh there will be a need for
further traffic improvements for that project. They do have that in their phasing schedule uh to make certain improvements to accommodate the additional development. Uh there's another project called the Bixmore redevelopment. That's the mixed use at the Paripany um plaza. I think
that's Marcel. Thank you. Um that development has an existing movie theater that has a redevelopment area being considered for it. uh that I feel is a prime opportunity to do a new mixeduse center right there on route 46
and adjacent to other similar uses as well as its proximity to uh goods and services at that location. The next one is on route uh excuse me in Paripony Boulevard. The Embassy Suites is interested in converting the building
the existing building into affordable excuse me a inclusionary development. would have market rate as well as affordable housing as part of it. Um, that would be something considered as an adaptive reuse of the existing building. I find that is an interesting proposal,
especially with the indoor uh uh atrium space that's inside that development, providing some amenities for future residents, and it provides an opportunity to have some residential closer to some other goods and services that are provided on Route 46.
uh 400 interpace that is a location wherein there are existing office buildings. There is a proposal to convert uh and remove one of the office buildings and part of the parking area but to establish a multifamily residential development at that
location. The next one is at upper pond one upper pond road. That is also a development that is currently an existing office development. Uh what's proposed there is to do stacked and conventional town houses at that location. Uh that would
be a conversion of I think it's three office buildings there where there's a total of six in total on the entirety of property but three office buildings would be replaced and then it would create sort of a mixeduse area as well at that location. The last one is on
Route 46. It's the former servo servo lumber property. um that is a recommendation for a mixed excuse me a multif family residential development at that location. So with the within each one of these developments, they provide 20% of their overall number of units
will be affordable and that would meet all the affordable housing regulation requirements. And with that, it it allows us to apply again bonus credits to this round. And the bonus credits are permitted to be a maximum of 25 25% of the need that you're being address that
it's being addressed. What we're proposing is to address the entire of 496. And so therefore you can take credit for 124 bonus credits associated with that 496. So in in net the number of affordable units being developed by those seven
projects would be 372 uh units of credit of affordable units in those seven projects with 124 bonus credits that adds up to 496 total uh units. Therefore, that would address your entire fourth round need,
which is, you know, different than our third round. But because we had so many interested parties and so many potential projects, we needed to consider the ones that made the most sense to the community. Um, and so we reviewed those with the affordable housing committee and we arrived at a series of seven that
you're seeing here that are part of the plan. And those seven are shown on this map uh throughout the community. And what I think this map helps to show is the distribution of those various projects. We recognize that the probably the southerntherly area sly wester
southwesterly area of parcipany is experiencing a lot of growth right now uh for the uh former Matt Cali corporate center that was there um and many of the infill that has occurred at that location. So we then looked at other locations that were being offered um and
tried to distribute that need throughout the community wherever possible. So that is the map that shows that distribution. The last part of it is the plan summary. As I mentioned, we we're addressing our uh rehabilitation share
through continuing through the community development block grant program. Um, and also in addition to that, you'll see as part of this document in the appendices at the end of the document, there's something called a spending plan. The spending plan is a projection of potential income that's coming into your
trust fund. And what we did in that document was to identify under rehabilitation funding to help uh fund a program to help existing residents in the community that might be income qualifi that would be income qualified for improvements to their homes for
critical systems whether it be plumbing, heating, uh electrical or roofing systems. And that's something that we have a long track record of assisting uh our residents with um and it's something that we would help to expand upon. You currently have an administrative agent
that would help to uh administer that program. That is a private consultant that's hired by the township every year. That consultant would be in charge of actually administering that program for rehabilitation. So that is how we're addressing affirmatively the 138 units
of rehabilitation requirement. I mentioned again the prior round, the third round that is all being addressed as we had talked about uh the RDP as well as the prior round obligation. What is also being addressed and is part of our current plan, it's still remaining
in the plan is to address our unmet need. We have 469 units that were remaining from the third round that were not affirmatively directly addressed by uh RDP. So, we had put in various overlay zones that exist currently that
we're looking to maintain and I'll turn to those now. And what I've done is provided this map which shows you where the various overlay zones are. And in the total on the columns that you may not be able to read from a distance, but it shows that we have affirmatively
addressed from the prior round approximately 303 uh it's probably closer to 350 at this point of potential units to address unmet need. The reason why I say potential is that some of them have not come into fruition, but they're not required to come into fruition for
the third round or a actual round. You're just to show you've done your due diligence and establish your zoning to address that need. And so those mechanisms are going to remain in effect and remain in the plan. Um, and so that would be another way of showing that
we've affirmatively addressed the unmet need. In addition to that, what isn't shown on this map is that we do have mechanisms that we've adopted in the third round that are part of your existing zoning. There's a mandatory set aside ordinance that your planner is well aware of that is required of any
development that's five or more units has to that isn't forecasted within our planning uh that has five or more units that one of those units or 20% has to be affordable. And so that is to capture any unforeseen developments that may come before these boards whether it's
this board or the zoning board. Um and so that is captured units already uh for unmet need uh through the zoning board. In addition um lastly what I'll talk about is just where we are right now um is that we're at the point of having
this board I said land use board I apologize it should have been planning board to adopt the housing element and fair share plan. That is what I'm offering to the board this evening. Um, we are having this hearing tonight in order to adopt this document. Uh, if the
board does find affirmatively that it is an appropriate plan to adopt, it is a very strict time frame by which I'll charge Dustin with this that we have to submit it by 48 hours uh in order to have the plan considered by the program. They have that actually in the state law
that we have to submit it that soon. Um, in addition to that, after this plan is adopted, the mayor and council would be asked to endorse the plan. Um, and they would also be asked to consider the spending plan as part of the document because this board really does not
review items of where funding is spent. It's more of the role of the government body in order to do so. What it's provided for in this document is to show how we have affirmatively addressed it, but yet ultimately it's it is uh adopted by the mayor and council. Then we enter
that challenge period between July 1st and August 31st. And then after that, the next schedule would be March 31 30 31st of 2026 would be the next step at which we would then uh look to formalize what is in the housing element fair
share plan. And so with that, Mr. Chairman, um that concludes my direct presentation to the board. I would turn it back to the board for review and uh consideration of any questions. Councelor, you have anything to add? Uh, no, I don't think so. I u um I guess
just uh the only thing to add if in the world where there are challenges to it, there is a uh period of time when the parties, you know, whoever does challenge it could meet to work out whatever those challenges are, whether it be revisions to the plan, uh which would occur realistically sometime in
the fall. And then I guess just just speaking to the timelines real quick, and I know uh Ed had mentioned that they were very truncated. I think it's important to note that the statute indicates that every municipality in a world where you were challenged on your numbers. So that occurred in the spring
or winter, whatever you want to look at it, that the program was going to render a decision by March 30th. Well, whether they rendered a decision or not, no one received them on March 30th. They just finished their mediations at that date. We received ours or the township
received its judgment on May 13th. So 45 days after the statute said everyone would receive it by that was kind of the part for the course that's to some degree that the courts don't have to listen to the legislature in that respect. So just to give the board another example of the very truncated
timeline of not actually knowing what the number was going to be whether we were working with the 553 number or 496 that wasn't solidified till you know middle of May. But I think with that I I don't have anything else to add. All right members of the board of questions.
Michael, four comments. All of the above. Okay. I have two comments and one question. Um, I really don't like increasing the density in park. I know we're under the
gun here. I'm going to support it because we're under the gun, but increasing that density is a very bad idea in my humble opinion. The other one I would be concerned about um is the lumber yard. That's a very complicated
traffic pattern. Now, um as it as its current function was as lumpy yard, it did not give us a problem. But if it's going to be residential, entrance and exits from there from from
apartments is I don't see a solution there. That whole area would have to be totally redesigned. Yep. To something else to make that work. Absolutely. So, those are my two concerns. Um, I know you're under the gun. I would support it. I'm really concerned about those
those two. The other one is um maybe um this is a question for you, Dustin. Mhm. We're talking about this agency that uh investigates the people for their incomes, determines who's going to move
into them. You know, in the in the 40 years I've been on the council, I have never seen a report from this agency as to who's moved in, who's moved out, how many they're keeping track of. Not a
single report has ever come from this so-called agency. Does one exist? We're paying one. I know. I've seen in the budget, but I have never seen a report from this agency. Have you, Jamie? No. That's the That's the administrator. our administrator. So, we have to actually I
I forget to the administrators. GH CGPA. Yeah. JCP and HH to be giving us annual. They're the ones that do the um backgrounds. They're the ones that do all the affordable housing administrators of the township. They do the backgrounds for select projects. You
may have a developer opt for their own administrator of the affordable units. And every there has to be a monitoring report that's prepared that assigns how they've been monitoring the actual units themselves. The mayor and the council should certainly be reviewing that.
Well, we should if it's a private if if it was a private administrator, they still have to report. Okay, good. Yeah. So, we'll have to We've never seen a report. That's fair. I I'll check with the our administrator and then we'll see which
ones don't be quarterly. I think they should be monthly but at the very least quarterly reports. I will also mention the Fair Housing Act in an attempt to try to address that issue is now asking for all these administrators to report directly
to DCA and there's now monitoring at DCA that's being done as well. Good. Okay. So start questions of uh I have some I have some oh real basic question um lanedex now
park sorry landex which is now park when we first voted on that for the third round it was unmet need right I thought okay and I know you showed me this I guess I'm having a little confusion with what unmet need is and I know now I
guess you put some of that toward the third ground to help meet our numbers. Correct. Correct. And you and if we do more building there, we're going to use that for the fourth round. Correct. So, what is unmet
why can't that why is unmet need in a separate category? Unmet needs in a separate category and I can understand. It's a good question. Um I can see why it's confusing at park because it's doing both elements. First off, it started as unmet need. um a mechanism to
address unmet need. And the reason why it started off that way was at the time it was not deemed clearly when they were going to start doing their development. It was we went through discussions with them with the court master and the court master actually decided and said look
we're going to assign you to unmet need. We don't feel you're going to be appropriate for RDP at the time. It's been proven that they have in fact worsen it was the first project before all the other third projects. Exactly. So, they proved this wrong, but um there still was a requirement to address part
of what's called your unmet need because your overall need was so high. It was 1,314 units in the third round. That 13 1,314 units was reduced down to the the 800 units, but yet um there is still a
requirement under the rules to show that you're looking to put in some mechanisms to address that unmet need. and and uh park became that one of the mechanisms to address that and so that the reason why it wasn't originally part of RDP and solution is because they weren't clear
on when in fact they were going to be starting and sure enough they have started. So we took benefit from that because we had those two projects that did not come to fruition. Um and now our regulatory uh because of regulatory changes are no longer applicable to
address affordable housing and they've address they've actually sent us letters indicating that on Edwards Road those two projects. Yeah. And so therefore we were able to assign some of the credits that we fortunately received and and and are constructing at park lanedex. Good.
In order to assign to those credits. Another thing is you and I was trying to look for it because I did see it before I came here that quote you read after talking about the Highlands conformance about developers wanting to they're interested in um
projects that have to do with community low income housing, right? Think of it as inclusionary housing. Inclusionary housing, which is different than I guess. Yeah. So, I mean I mean all of these people are, aren't they? So I'm I'm what
what's the significance of that being different? Yeah, the inclusionary housing part of it is is that um they've identified under the rules, the affordable housing rules that you in order to incentivize development to build affordable housing because they're
really not making any money on the affordable unit. So that would be like one unit with a lot more than 20%. No, they're saying that you should allow them to build four units for every one unit. Four high income for every one low income. Yeah. And that way they
subsidize through that density bonus. But that's in our master plan, isn't it? Oh, it is in our master plan. Yes. Affordable housing is in our master plan and that's one of the goals and objectives that we're furthering with this document. But so like why is I guess that's not everywhere. No, it's
not everywhere. And that's sort of the result of the Fair Housing Act. It wasn't everywhere is what I was saying. It has been part of our master plan because we participated through the various cycles and we put that in there because it was required uh in order to maintain conformity with the Fair Housing Act. Okay. Thank you for
answering my simple questions. Your presentation was great. Thank you, Nick. Did you Thank you. Thanks. Awesome. In the book, too. I learned so much just going through it. Appreciate it. I'm happy to see that no trees are going to be cut down. It's always going to be uh something that's already there
established and we're knocking something down and and I'm I'm happy with that. Um okay. So whatever we decide tonight which for uh it's for by tomorrow you have something in it by tomorrow. Uh 48 hours for tonight. Yes. So that means
that for the next 10 years we have these 496 to build. You have zoning to put into place. Not like not like it's got to be completed by 2035. It has to be just approved. the the zoning has to be in place. That's really your obligation. Okay? When we get to 2035,
I probably won't be here, but at the same time, whoever is, we'll be looking at your plan and saying, "Okay, what didn't come to fruition? What is not realistic anymore that maybe didn't come to fruition?" Um, and may change the zone plan then in order to address that.
Um, but yet at this point, we're forecasting for the next 10 years. they've all indicated that they're willing developers and willing to do this project for the densities that they've asked for and so therefore we feel that they're appropriate. Okay. So then if let's say there's one of those ones that has a high number in it and
that company goes bankrupt uh this one Parkland edex just just throwing out there we lose those 60 affordable units as a hypothetical. How do we pick up another 60? Then you would then we have to then also I didn't mention this. It would be probably a midterm reporting to
the court. So in 5 years if yeah after that 5 years something of that occurs. There's a bankruptcy. There's a property that has maybe some environmental constraints that weren't thought of at the time. Um and it needs to change. At that point we may have to amend the housing element fair share.
Okay. And then one that I I I guess is more personal than anything else. Um there's already like seven projects being built that are all eventually the kids are going to go to Pacific Hills High School. Yeah. And in this proposal here, there's six more out of seven than our Pacific Hills High School. And it
looked like these other builders who proposed something which you guys said nope not necessarily fine. It would have been more balanced. Three for the high, four for the hills. So I'm just concerned eventually. I mean what's hill going to look like? You got I think it's
like 2,000 units total on this side now plus whatever's coming here. So I just want to know how come more it wasn't more balanced for the high school purposes. 287 splits our high schools. Understood. Understood. How come it went it went six out of seven? It had to be balanced based upon also distribution
from traffic standpoint as well. Um we wanted to consider needed to consider that factor. Uh also needed to consider where properties were being redeveloped already. So we did include those uh certain properties that made sense from uh a planning standpoint. Uh certain
properties that like you had mentioned may benefit from additional greenery due to the fact that it's currently all maybe all coverage. So the after weighing all those factors that's how we considered it. But yet at the same time it's understood there's going to be
impacts to those schools and that's that's extremely unfortunate and that's unfortunately something that um as the rules have been established as well as the courts in litigation have said sorry that's not what you need to consider
when you consider affordable housing. So unfortunately I wasn't able to use that as a direct tool to try to sway and decide where things go. So all right thanks explanation. appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Other members. Yeah. I Well, I was part of that committee and of
course we there's a lot of painstaking going through this whole process. Town's a big town and um and I and I want to address this one thing, Ed, because we we we did have discussions based on unmet needs versus
the prior the the current round and why we couldn't meet those unmet needs. And then it made a lot of sense because we had a lot of interested parties. We couldn't ignore it. We couldn't ignore the fact that we had to address round four. And the reason why we had to
address round four was because and you know Tom there was so many um interested parties that if we would have ignored it, we could have been had litigation uh against us. It's one thing that's this is the criteria to where we got to
tonight and I didn't want that. Um cuz I will tell you litigation never goes well for a town when it comes to affordable housing. It just doesn't and it's and um and I know this seems like it's the last minute because this is how much time we put into it to make sure we got the
right got it right the first time. Now let's talk about the unmet needs and I I understand it more now ever since we had these meetings. We had I think 300 units that were supposed to go where Mount Arlington Plaza is and that came to 63 units I think. Right. that makes it an
unmet need. You still have to I just want everybody to understand that you still have to even if a developer decides not to build well you still got to meet those needs of that um affordable housing and that's where that 63 came in. Um I know there's a concern about you know you hear Seros this and
that. Well, they still got to go through the process. They still have to have traffic approvals. They have to have DOT approval. They have to have all those things set in place that we don't get to determine, but the the state will determine. And so that doesn't mean we
we take them out of the uh you know that we take them out of the role to to do it. They still got to meet the criteria. They still got to meet those types of things. I tell you unfortunately in the recent years anything has been nothing thoughtful has come out of Trenton when
it comes to affordable housing. Not not one thing. It's like they don't care about suburban um Jersey. They just don't. They make these rules up and then as you know, you have one Democrat um
senator who who fastpaced this. You jammed it down the township's throats, not just Paripany, just jammed it down our throats and saying, "These are your deadlines when we didn't have those deadlines prior to the when when they put this bill in. And
this is the bill that we have to now face, you know, we have to deal with. It's a shame we have to deal with it, but it it doesn't address water. It doesn't address um schools. It doesn't address traffic. It doesn't address any of those things because in Trenton, they
don't really care. They call affordable housing. I call it highdensity housing. That's what they're ramming down our throats in Trenton, but it's mandated. I've been on the other side where I've seen towns that were going to fight it. I left that town
and now they lost their immunity. The last thing I want in Paripony is the courts to decide where the housing goes cuz we lose all control of our planning and our zoning boards. This is why the plan that we're putting forward today, in my opinion, is the best plan that we
could put forward. I want to thank you, Ed, um for all your work. I know it was a lot, you know, sitting with you. Sometimes you're like a sedative. You could put me to sleep, but that's okay. Dustin, I know you got a lot of phone calls for me. I had some concerns, but
um I think you know um you're going to get you 48 hours to to answer this thing cuz the last thing we want to do is lose our immunity. And I know some of the board members, you have concerns and stuff, but this, you know, this is a plan that is going to, you know, next 10
years. And like you said, whatever is not met becomes an unmet need. So hopefully I'm still the mayor in two to 2035, but I don't know. That's a long time away. But um you know, there was a lot of work. I know Tom, you and I had a lot of conversations about this. This is
the last meeting I wanted to have, you know, but we have to address it. We can't run from it. That's the bottom line. You can't run from it. You can't hide from it. This is the mandated and it's mandated. And I say that for a reason because the state mandates it, but of course they don't give us any
funding for anything. Um, and as you know, our water capacity only because we built two new wells over the last four 3 years. And if they recommend we build another one, we're going to have to build it because, you know, if we want to have any commercial industry come in
here, we have to have this resource for water. So, thanks a lot, gentlemen. I appreciate it. Anyone else have questions over here? No. I I would just like to thank Ed for his work. You're welcome. He Ed is always
I've been dealing with Ed for what 30 years now. You are always very thorough. It's hard to say that. Thank you. I do have a question and that is that even though you talked about the improvement in the water, was there any study done of the aquifer?
No. No. Just on capacity. I'm I'm extremely concerned about that. The human beings have a long history of overdrawing aquafers, whether it's Las Vegas, Oklahoma, or even Carthage in Roman times. So, this is this is
something that I would love to know. I mean, we may very well have plenty of capacity, but I don't know. We could wake up one day and the mayor's sitting there telling everybody they got to stop drinking water because we don't have it anymore. Don't talk about Flint, Michigan. You talking about our water
resource? Yeah. Oh, we did a study on that back in 1984. Elam and Pop Off were our experts then. That's all. And uh we we determined that with our artisian wells, they're 600 ft
deep. With our artisian wells, we had enough water to provide all of Parany's needs. even if every piece of land in Paripany were developed. Now that being said, okay, then 10 years later, the
courts came around or the the state came around and they says you can't pump all that water out of the ground cuz that that water is is underground water. It comes from probably the glaciers, but then it feeds other towns, right? So, if we draw too much, the other towns don't
get any water. So it's the it's the it's the government that's limiting the water we pump out, not whether we have enough in the ground for us. They limited us. Yeah, we and they also require that we have an alternate water source. Yep. So we have to buy how much a million
million gallons? I forget. We have to have we have an agreement with Jersey City. We have to buy I think it's 100,000 gallons. Yeah, something like that a year. Whether we use it or not, we have to pay for it and that satisfies our allocation. So everybody everybody
um in Lake Haywa and down to where I live in Pipony, okay, the water tank on um near the reservoir, every so often our water department
sneaks some Jersey City water into that tank and I get up in the middle of the night to get a drink of water. I get the glass near my nose. I know it's Jersey City water and for a couple of weeks I have to go to bottled water. But with we're
the only section in town that gets that Jersey City water. Local complaints. Tom, can I just add one more thing? And because I I got to deal with it more than anybody and I'm going to say make this statement loud and clear.
pilots do not do not affect the schools whatsoever. Cuz I'm bringing this up for a reason. Cuz it more kids going to the schools. Pilots don't bring kids into the schools. It's projects like affordable
housing that do that. That's that's the difference. And I want everybody to understand that it's going to you're going to hear in the future pilots bring school age children. No housing residential that brings school age
children. A mandated highdensity housing brings school age children. Pilot or no pilot, it does not increase the school population. I just want to make that clear. And uh the other point you should make is the school board does receive the
land tax. Right. Right. So if it's an empty office building, um the land tax is the only re source of income. So whether it's developed or not, they get the same amount, the land tax.
Well, your turn, Tom. I am not a fan of Trenton taking away home rule. I am not a fan of Trenton mandating urban sprawl. I am not a fan of Trenton not providing us with the resources we need to handle the traffic
that is going to be generated by this. I am not a fan of not knowing what our real natural resource constraints truly are. All right. I think all of this, if we're going to
do something like this, Trenton should be on board with doing a complete census of what all of our requirements are, whether it's traffic, regional traffic. I think we have a regional traffic problem right now.
It is difficult for me except for the fact that I it's been made very clear that the alternative is worse. Yeah, that's
I I I'm having, you know, I'm going to vote for this. I object to it. It's a brilliant piece of work on your part, but you had constraints you had to work within. You had courts and mandates
that had to be met. Okay. What management in the world doesn't have to deal with that anyway. But that's those are my objections. That's that's where I stand on this. Uh Ed, you've done a fantastic piece of
work here. And Mr. Mayor, I I have to applaud all of the the work you're doing to get him and to get this whole plan together cuz you had to lead for this. Thank you. And and I appreciate that. So
here's what I will say, Tom. You don't mind building um affordable housing units if they're for your residents, right? If they're for your individuals that work here in the town that you know labor in the town, but it's not. And it's the process is just it's an unfair
process. But that's what's mandated and that's what we have to you know abide by. If I were going to Atlantic City I would actually bet that by 2035 we will have overbuilt and the reason we will have overbuilt
one is the reduction in the in the birth rate but also more importantly the reduction in the immigration allowed. And if that immigration is continued at the current level, I
really think that we're going to find that we have too much housing at that point in time. We have too little now. We need we need more, but we will have too much if this all goes through. That's my opinion. I'll probably find
that it's different in 2035. But that's that's probably correct because we did the same thing with offices. Yeah. Yeah. Big demand for office space. So we built lots of offices. Now we're tearing them down.
We're building apartments and warehouses. And warehouses. And what are we building in 20 years? Something else. Yep. Now, I'm just going to turn to my professionals here and find out if there's anything they want to say before I open it up to any public comments. You
have anything to say, Andrew? No. And did a wonderful job on the report. I have nothing to add. Thank you. Okay. Are there any members of the public who have any comments or questions on this at this time
hearing and seeing none? What else do we need to do? Make a motion. Yep. Motion. I have a motion. Well, the wording for the motion will be uh to accept this current version of the housing element
and fair share plan. I think that's to adopt. Yeah. Either one to adopt or to adopt. Yep. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Uh, Nora, would you call the role, please? Mayor Barbario? Yes. Mr. Dpiro?
Yes. M. Hernandez? Yes. Mr. Millie? Yes. Mr. Npalitano? Yes. Mr. Shaw? Yes. Chairman Dinsman? Yes. Miss Smith? And I miss you. You miss me. Miss Smith. Yes. All right. Is there anything else that
needs to come before this board at this time? Motion to adjurnn. Yes. Second. All in favor say I. Anybody opposed gets to stay here. Congratulations. And you came here
on Saturday. Congratulations. Thank you. Look at everything. Yeah. It is.