the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
>> Welcome everyone to the March 3rd uh meeting of the Ramsey Planning Board. The New Jersey Open Public Meetings Law was enacted to ensure the right of all citizens to have advanced notice of and to attend all meetings of public bodies at which any business affecting the
public is discussed or acted upon. In accordance with the provisions of this act, notice of the regular special schedule meetings of the planning board were published in the legal ad section of the Bergen record and the Ridgewood News on October 31st, 2025. Uh before we do our roll call, we have a
couple of members to swear in. Um Mr. Zabala will be sworn in and um and Miss Dian is going to be sworn in who is going to take over the unexpired term of Mr. Carrie who has resigned from the board. >> Okay. And Mr. Sabala, this is your being
sworn in for your second term on the board. If you both raise your right hand, >> do you and repeat after me. I repeat your name. I >> do solemnly swear >> domly swear >> that I will faithfully >> that I will faithfully >> impartially >> impartially
>> and justly perform >> and justly perform >> all the duties of the office >> all the duties of the office >> of planning board class 4 member >> of the planning board class 4 member >> according to the best of my ability >> and according to the best of my ability >> I do further solemnly swear
>> I do further solemnly swear >> that I will support the constitution of the state of New Jersey >> that I will support the constitution of the state New Jersey >> and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. >> I will bear >> true faith and allegiance >> allegiance to the same >> and to the governments
>> and the government >> established in the United States. >> established in the United States >> and in this state >> in this state >> under the authority of the people >> in the authority of the people. >> So help me God. >> So help me God. >> Congratulations. >> Okay. Uh, Miss Lup, could we have the roll call, please?
>> Yes. Council Musa, >> here. >> Miss Dane, >> here. >> Mr. Bar, >> here. >> Mr. Forbo, >> here. >> Mr. Stro, absent. Mr. Voni, >> here. >> Mr. Zawa, >> here. >> Mayor Dylan, >> here. >> Uh, we have our minutes of our January
6th uh meeting. Do I have any additions, deletions to those minutes? Not hearing anything. Can I get a motion to approve the minutes, please? >> Motion to approve. >> Thank you. And a second. >> Second. >> Thank you. A roll call, please. >> Yes. Council council. >> Yes. >> Meny.
>> Yes. Mr. Bard. >> Yes. >> Mr. Palumbo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Verdoni. >> Yes. >> Yes. Uh we have four uh site plans waivers this evening. What we'll do is we'll call you up one at a time. You can have a seat at the table. Uh give your name and address for the record. Uh
describe your application and then the board will ask any questions that we have on the on the applications and we'll act on all of them at the end. So we'll go through all four and then we'll act all together. Uh so the first one this evening is Michael uh Evangel DC.
>> Good evening. >> Hi Michael Evangel 145 North Central. I'm north Frank Pike in Ramsey Sweet 309 with the office and it's a chiropractic office. So I've been licensed for 40 years in
the state of New Jersey and I was in Ramsey from uh 2008 to 2020 previously and I was in Pramis then come back to Ramsey. >> Okay. And it says you're it's going to be one employee said basically it's just you >> right the chiropractic office practitioner. >> Okay. Uh any questions from any members
of the board? >> Dr. Evangel I think I already know the answer to this but you will not have any drugs or anything administered there. I'm just >> supplements. >> Supplements, right? >> But not no um >> no that's illegal for chiropractors to do.
>> Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Yep. Any other questions? >> The state of Washington, you can deliver babies at one time. >> Not hearing it. Okay. So, you all set? We'll act in a second. And welcome back to Ramsey. Thank you.
Uh the next one we have this evening is Rebel Core Management. Good. >> Hello. Good evening. Uh my name is Stephanie Junkerelli with Rebel Core Management. The address is 1000 Lake Street 700C in Ramsey. Uh we are
proposing a modern Pilates studio for the use. >> Okay. Um it says here two full-time employees of yourself and one other. >> It would be myself and our business partner. Yes. Okay. Um, hours basically it's like I guess by appointment sort of you know when do you
have the classes? >> Yes, there's class times. I didn't want to update you with a bunch of stuff, but yes, we have class times beginning at 5:30 a.m. through 7:30 p.m. with gaps in the middle of the day. >> Okay. Any questions for any members of the board?
>> Is this their first practice or were you someplace else before here? >> I'm sorry. Is this your first practice or were you some place before you came? So, we have two other locations in Essex County and Morris County. This would be our third. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions? No. Okay.
You're all set. Welcome to Ramsey. >> Thank you. Thank you so much. Have a good night. >> You too. Okay. Uh next we have uh Erica Smuckler. Good evening. >> Hi. Good evening. Um I'm Erica Smuckler.
Um I'm Ken with kids counseling at a child and teen counseling practice. Um and the address is 300 Lake Street for >> Okay. And I assume it's by appointment, right? >> Correct.
>> And you're the you're going to be the sole employee there. I'll probably have two about two um practitioners. >> Okay. All right. So, will they be full-time or part-time? >> Part time. >> Okay. So, why don't we just update that on the on the on the waiver? Um we always ask this question because you're
dealing with children. What is your procedure for drop off and pick off? I assume the parents always have to be with the child. >> Yeah, there's a waiting area for the parents. >> Okay. So the parents will will bring the child in and then you when the if the child is having the session the child will go back to the parent and leave
with the parent. Right. >> Right. >> Okay. Any other questions for any board members? >> No. Okay. You're all set. Welcome to Ramsey. >> Thank you. >> Uh the last one this evening is MJB Home
Entertainment. Hey, my name is Martin Benson and the location, well the company uh does photography and video and it's 623 Swan Street in Ramsey. >> Okay. When you say video and photography, it's you do you go out and
you shoot weddings, things like that. >> So, occasionally we do go to locations to shoot. Uh like tomorrow we're going to Philadelphia to take pictures in our office, but uh people come to the studio to do uh head shots primarily. >> Okay. And you'll have yourself I assume
and you said three part-time employees. >> Yeah. Electric makeup artists and different people will come depending on what's needed. >> Okay. Any questions for any members of the board? >> I did learn back to the question about children and head shots and things for modeling or whatever. Do you have parents there at all times and talk
about that and how that works? Yeah, we don't too often do kids stuff, but yeah, if any kids are there, the parents come and there's like a waiting room and so the you know, I mean the parent in the room during the shoot or sitting in the
waiting room, but it's just like the kids stuff is usually for acting, you know, like actors need head shots when they're getting started. So, >> any other questions? >> Okay, you're all set. Welcome to Ramsey.
Okay. Do we want to act on these uh waiverss this evening? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion we approve the site plan waivers as presented. >> Thank you. Can I get a second, please? >> Second. >> Thank you. Uh roll call, please. >> Yes. Council, >> yes. >> Mr. Dying, >> yes. >> Mr. Bar, >> yes.
>> Mr. Palumbo, >> yes. >> Mr. Verdoni, >> yes. >> Mr. Chairman, >> yes. Okay, we're going to open up the meeting now to public comment. uh for public comment. This will be on anything other than uh this evening's uh public hearing which you'll be able to comment
on uh as I'll discuss in a second. Anyone wishing to to address the board should recognize step up to the microphone and give his or her name spelling the last name and address. Please speak in an audible tone for the record and address your comments to the chair. There will be a five-minute time limit for speaker unless reduced because
of the volume of business on the agenda. No time shall be seated to anyone else and no time shall be saved for later use unless otherwise directed by the chair. Any responses made given during the board's comments which immediately follow public comment. No one other than the person having the floor will be permitted to enter into any discussion
without recognition by the chair. Does any member of the public have any comments this evening on anything other than uh tonight's public hearing? Okay. The second call from any public comments. Third and final call. Okay. Not hearing
any. We'll close public comment. Any comments from any members of the the board this evening on anything other than tonight's public hearing? >> Yes, Mr. Chair. To my borrower friends and colleagues, I am grateful for your support during the loss of my father,
Henry Cusk. Your calls and messages and thoughtfulness are incredibly comforting. Thank you very much, guys. I appreciate you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Anyone else this evening? No. Okay. So, we tonight we have the
public hearing on the 2026 amending housing element and fair share plan. Just so we have a lot of members of the public here this evening. Uh we have with us uh Mr. Burgess who will be giving the presentation. um what we are going to do because we I want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity uh
to ask any questions or comments and and being mindful of anybody's time constraints. After Mr. Burgess is done with this presentation, we'll open it up to any questions or comments from the public. Initially, everyone will have, you know, three to four minutes to ask what they want. Um once everyone has had
an opportunity to speak um you you certainly can come up again but I want to give everyone the opportunity you know so you know if there's time constraints that anyone has they have an opportunity to speak before you know someone speaks for a second time. >> Okay. Uh with that so we will now open
up the public hearing on the 2026 amended housing element at fair share. >> Mr. Chairman I have um a procedural couple of procedural questions before Mr. Burgess starts speaking. Okay. >> Okay. >> Name and address for the record, please. >> Sure. My name is Joe Carrie, 498 Road,
Ramsey. Um, first of all, no public meeting notice was read as opposed that was stated you did not read at the top of the meeting. Um, now the one thing I want to call attention to what what what did I not read >> on the on the agenda? There's an open
public meetings law notice that should be read out loud. >> I did read it. >> I apologize then. I didn't I I apologize. I didn't hear that. I'm sorry. Um members of the public have not had a reasonable opportunity to review application materials in advance.
The fair share housing element plan and related mediation agreements totaling 213 pages were not available to us until 4:30 last Wednesday, February 25th, six less than 6 days ago. Normally
items being heard would be available on a board's or or council's agenda page where members of the public would normally expect to find such document. Instead, we were told on Wednesday it was on the planning board page. Can I ask the board to address this issue
before testimony proceeds? And on another point, we members of the public were only aware of this R5E Island Road overlay directly impacting our properties when we discovered it on the February
11th mayor and council agenda less than 3 weeks ago. Now about we don't have representation tonight. um page 15 of the statement of reasons um in the mediation agreement that I
would guess all board members have. It's appendix one at house. >> How is this procedural? >> We haven't had time. >> But you're going you're going into >> we don't have so we bear we ask your forbearance in the fact that we don't have legal representation. Okay.
So there thank you. Um Okay. So, so I have a question for the chair. Am I correct that all members of the board have the full amended plan? >> Well, you mean Mr. Burch's >> correct >> plan? Yes. >> Yes, >> they they are. >> And they and they have all the exhibits
and appendix. So, someone asked questions, they'll be able to refer you those those plans. Okay. And on the agenda tonight, there is the amended housing element and fair share plan and there are three ordinances.
Will the plan and each of these three ordinances be v acted on and voted on separately? >> Yes. >> Yes, they will. So, uh I guess this would be a Mr. Whitaker question. Can you please explain to the members of the public what the role of the planning board in relation to the master plan and
what is being heard tonight? >> Absolutely. That's what I was going to do uh just before you got out. >> Thank you. Thank you. So, >> I will go over it. >> Okay. And then second question to Mr. uh to Mr. Whitaker, can you please tell the members of the public what the law says
about the relationship of the various elements of master plan and if they have to be consistent with each other as part of your comments? >> That's going to be part of the overview and explanation given by our plan. >> Thank you, sir. And um also can you inform members of
the board as well as members of the public under municipal land use law what are the procedural differences between the votes on the amended plan and the ordinances? >> The answer is yes and I will. >> Okay. Thank you. And there and another
one under the municipal land use law when a zoning ordinance is sent to the planning board for recommendation and then is sent back to the governing body is not recommended does the governing body have the option to to um disregard the
non-recommendation by the planning board and adopt a zoning ordinance any >> the short answer to that is yes but they have to have a supermajority. Okay. >> Thank you sir. Okay. Um I guess Mr. Burgess, go ahead.
>> I'm just going to address I was planning on doing this anyway. Mr. Terry asked the question. So we go through it. Tonight the planning board has before it an amended housing element fair share plan as well as three ordinances. Mr. The Burgess is going uh as a licensed planner is going to testify this evening
to explain first the requirements of each municipality in the state of New Jersey and what they must adhere to under the amendments to the fair share housing act which is legislation that was promagated by and adopted by the New Jersey Senate and the New Jersey Assembly and it was signed into law by
Governor Murphy. The planning board under the municipal land use law has the exclusive jurisdiction to adopt a master plan. The municipal land use law is a state law. The housing plan element is part of the master plan and is required in accordance with the legislation and
requires the housing element and the fair share plan to be reviewed. The planning board as I already said has exclusive jurisdiction to review that and the planning board when they do this review uh has at the end of the review
uh must either adopt it or not adopt it. But that is within the planning board's jurisdiction. It's not something that goes back to the governing body. Uh the public hearing tonight uh will be conducted like any other public hearing. Mr. Burgess is going to testify and
after he testifies and as chairman has already stated, members of the public will have the ability to ask questions and provide public comment. All testimony will be under oath. The board will then make a decision regarding the plan. Uh as indicated in Mr. Burg's
report, the plan is a result of a settlement pertaining to the objections raised to the burrow's fourth round uh obligation uh under the municipal annuiness law and under the uh the fair share requirements.
With that said, after the master plan has been considered by the board, the next step will be the ordinances. And as Mr. Carrie asked and I confirmed each of the ordinances will be reviewed separately. Um the ordinances uh at this
point uh under the municipal land use law the mayor and council have introduced these ordinances under uh NJSA4 55D-26A. After it's introduced an ordinance is sent having to do with land use aspect
is sent to a planning board. The planning board has 45 days within which to make comments back to the governing body as to whether these ordinances fall within um the uh consistency of the
master plan. The planning board does not adopt an ordinance. they just make a report back to the mayor and council and then the mayor and council has this on their agenda to either adopt or not adopt the ordinance at their meeting.
So, I just want that understood that it's not the planning board that adopts ordinances. It's the mayor and council that adopts ordinances. But there is a requirement in miscellaneous law that a planning board has the right to review the ordinances and then make a
recommendation back to the governing body. And as I stated, each of those ordinances will be reviewed and will be acted upon separately. So at the end of the evening, in essence, there will be four votes. The master plan first and then after that, a separate vote in
connection with each of the ordinances that will be explained. That's the overview of how this procedure works. It's a procedure that is required under the state law known as the municipal land use law. Are there any questions with me as to how we're going to proceed?
>> Okay. Then I turn it over to the chairman. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Burgess. >> Yes. I think Bruce wants to swear me in first. >> Yes. You would raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?
>> I do. Please proceed. >> All right. Qualify the witness. >> I can qualify myself. >> The witness has to qualify himself first. Okay. >> Okay. >> I appreciate that, Joe. Um,
quick background on my uh planning experience and my affordable housing experience. I'm licensed as a professional planner in the state of New Jersey. Um, I've been licensed since 1981. Um, I'm also a member of the American
Institute of Certified Planners and a member of the American Planning Association. I have up until recently sat on Rutgers University's Blowstein School of Planning and Policy Development as a
associate member overseeing a lot of different things for the for that program. I'm also a former member of the state planning uh entity that oversees all the licensing of planners in the state of New Jersey. Um I've been a guest speaker
down at the league municipalities for many many years. I've also spoken at the national planning conferences for quite quite some time. Let's put all that aside for a moment and talk about my experience as a
planner doing affordable housing. Um I've been active in that area since the very beginning of this process uh which began in 1987 when the council on affordable housing first established their affordable housing needs for every
municipality and established a series of regulations governing that. At the time those regulations were about this thick and everybody was a gas because they thought that was so much. Today they're about this thick and we look back upon that first and second round of
affordable housing is now the golden age of affordable housing. um as a firm in any given year. My firm represents anywhere from 40 to 50 municipalities with this fourth round of affordable
housing which began in with 2025. Uh we've prepared a total of 43 housing element and fair share plans uh which the program has indicated to me was the most of any firm in the state. Uh in addition to that I am a special
adjudicator. It's a term used to indicate that I am assisting the judges who are overseeing this entire process. There are about 10 there are 10 different judges that have overseen what's called the affordable housing
dispute resolution program. And from now on I'll just refer to it as the program. Um, I've represented eight of those 10 judges reviewing housing plans that have been submitted uh to the program and I
assist the court in determining whether or not those plans have been um prepared consistent with the applicable regard legislation and regulations. With that, I would ask that I be accepted as an expert in this field. >> Two questions just for the edification
of the public. Mr. Burgess as a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey. Uh is it not one of the requirements that you have a full understanding of the municipal land use law? >> That is correct. Yes. >> And a full understanding of the case law that interprets it the municipal land
use law. >> Yes. >> And a full understanding of all of the um requirements uh and conditions that are set forth uh under the fair share housing rules. I'll call it uh that been propagated not even in the last round
but this fourth round >> correct yes >> and you have been a planner for the burough of Ramsey for how many years? >> About 15 years >> and so you have a full familiarity of the Ramsey plane board ordinances >> and um and the municipality itself.
>> Yes. >> And in fact you have promagated and the board has passed uh governing body has passed other zoning ordinances in the past pertaining to rent. against which my office has prepared. >> Are there any questions by any members
of the poor of the board first about Mr. Burg's qualifications? I trust not because we've used them as our expert. >> Yeah. And Mr. Burg, just to also clarify, you've prepared the other elements of the master plan over the years. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Any questions by members of the public
as it pertains to Mr. Burgess's qualifications? >> Yes. U Joe Kerry, 498 Island Road. Um C A R E Y. Um thank you. I actually most of my uh questions have been um answered. So we note from the January 26
statement of reason 700 challenges were filed before August 31st. >> 700 challenges were filed. Uh it involves 424 municipalities. There are multiple challenges. For example uh in Pipony we had 28 or 29 separate
challenges to that one housing plan. So, >> and so out of the 43, your 43 clients, I would assume you had more than 43 challenges. You just said 28. >> Um, no, what's really interesting is 424 municipalities filed housing plans.
We did 43 of them. Um, of those 424, Fair Share Housing Center objected to four an even 400 of them, which is interesting in light of the fact that they don't have any professional licensed professional planner working on there, but with them
in house and they are old lawyers. None of them have ever prepared a housing plan, but they saw fit to find for 400 of 424. We have represented some of the larger municipalities in the state from
Peripany to Cherry Hill down in South Jersey and everywhere in between. But on the other hand, we also represented Teter Bland. >> Yeah. One of the smallest communities. Fair housing did not object to that one.
Of course. So, so we agree that he's more than qualified. We just wanted to clarify a couple of the questions involving the fourth round. Thank you. >> Okay. So, >> with that, Mr. Burg before you start, just for any of the
members of the public that are watching this on YouTube, uh Mr. Burgess does have a presentation. I don't know if you can see it uh online. If you want to download it or view it online, it's been posted on the Burough's website on the first page under news flashash.
Um before we we get into the PowerPoint, let me just give a little background a few things because over the past few months and the fourth round technically began in 2025 and state legislature gave a very truncated time frame within which
municipalities had to prepare housing plans, um hear objections from developers in Fairf Housing Center, respond accordingly, compare amended plans to address that and at the same time work
towards mediation and settlement of any of the disputes. And over those past few months, I've been going around the state talking about this issue. And the one constant drum beat I have heard wherever I go is
that why is there this rush to judgment first of all? And secondly, why was so much of the decision making be taking place behind closed doors? And then thirdly, what's with these ridiculously high affordable housing need numbers
that the state has given every municipality, particularly municipalities like Ramsey, um, where you're a fully developed municipality. And I I will say I live like 10 minutes away from here, uh, the
nearby municipality. So I'm very familiar with a lot of municipalities in Bergen County. have been a long-term resident and in particular in Bergen County where we have basically fully developed municipalities.
The state has still seen fit to give us very very high numbers. Fortunately, there is a process to reduce that obligation and that's one of the things I'm going to get into. But going around the state and taking a
lot of heat at these meetings because people assume that I'm an advocate for fair share housing center which I am not. But that's the perception when we start talking about this issue. But one thing I found out about Ramsay
which was really rarely but unique was the fact that actually some disheartening is that only here and all the towns that I've been through was there a significant letter writing campaign
which expressed the concerns that you have. So in going through all those letters, I really appreciated the fact that a in large measure the these letters expressed concern, not outrage, which is more typical of
what you I found around the state. There was some outrage, but for the most part, you simply were identifying, you know, areas of concern and raising thoughtful questions about the process, the numbers,
why this site versus that site. And because of that, it helped me refine my PowerPoint to hopefully answer the questions that you were all raising. Um, and I have to say, I found them all very legitimate questions. So, I've got a 20
25 minute PowerPoint presentation to present. Um, afterwards, I'll be happy to answer your questions. And what I'm hoping is that we can have a thoughtful dialogue about some of the issues that you've raised that I'll bring to the floor in the PowerPoint. And in that
way, you'll understand what some of the issues are that planning boards and governing bodies have have faced by the state legislature. is the one that really put municipalities behind the eight board because they're the ones that created
all these regulations. It was not a local governing body or a planning board. And given all that, the analysis that go here, you'll find it. Unfortunately, in large measure, municipalities have few options to deal
with. Um, but even with that, you know, we try to minimize the pain as best as we can and I hopefully you'll agree with me when I go through the PowerPoint. So, we could start with slide one.
Now, this slide, I think, gets right to the heart of the immediate question because I hear this everywhere I go. Why bother to comply? As I said earlier, not every municipality has decided to participate in the
affordable housing dispute resolution program. We have 564 towns, 424 are taking active participation. And the reason why I think it's important for municipalities to comply
is that if you don't uh and you fail to comply with the Mount Laurel doctrine and the New Jersey Fair Housing Act, uh you can have all of your local ordinances be deemed unconstitutional. And I say that because this process
started with Mount Laurel won by the New Jersey Supreme Court back in 1975. And at that time they ruled that every developing municipality in the state I think we can move to the next slide
already. So every developing municipality in the state has a constitutional obligation to provide for its fair share of affordable housing. And what was interesting about that
decision, it ran for I think 268 pages and immediately every lawyer and planer focused on basically one paragraph that talked about every developing municipality has an obligation and everybody was
immediately trying to point to another municipality in their region that statistically speaking has a greater level of development. And compared to that municipality, we're not developing. They are until they have the obligation. We have none. And that went
on for about 8 years. And in 1983, now the Supreme Court revisited the issue and said the heck of what we said back in 1975, we're going to say every municipality has this constitutional obligation.
But they did then point to a book then the state plan which broke up the state into growth areas and non-growth areas and they said every town in the growth area which is basically all of Bergen County uh has a greater obligation than those
towns that are identified in that plan as a n being in a non growth area. I also urged that the state legislature take this issue, you know, and deal with it because they didn't
feel this should consistently been issues that the court had to deal with. And that's what the state legislature did. They created the New Jersey Council on affordable housing called COA. and they put together numbers in 1985 and
1986, published in ' 87 and that became what was called the first round of affordable housing obligation and we'll get into what that obligation for Ramsey was in a moment. There were subsequent rounds every initially every six years later on it
became every 10 years we are now in the fourth round of our obligation. So when the Supreme Court talked about the Mount Laurel doctrine, if we
um that's the issue when I was talking about the constitutional obligation that was the Mount Laurel doctrine. Um I keep that in mind when we go further into the to this analysis.
A second question that I often get at these meetings is we hear about a builder's remedy. And what does that mean? A builder's remedy is the next slide. A builder's remedy is a port
awarded sightsp specific relief given given to a developer who has sued a municipality and that if they are able to show that the municipality's housing plan is deficient doesn't properly address the town's affordable housing obligation or
they haven't even prepared a housing plan because that sometimes is the case. Also, the municipality is determined to have failed to address its constitutional obligation and they then have a significant problem on their hand
because that developer then can decide for himself or herself how many units and what side building and how it will fit on a piece of property and a court will give that person the right to build accordingly.
The poster child for that process is right here in Bergen County. I'm sure many of you may have read over the years about what happened in Anglewood Cliffs. Anglewood Cliffs refused to pursue a housing plan that addressed its obligation
and they fought to fight for years. But in the end when they lost, they not only lost that litigation and had to prepare a housing plan, but the court took away the rights of the planning board and the zoning board to even
review development applications in the town. And they appointed what was then called a special master. Now it's called special adjudicator. But they appointed a special master that would review all those plans that were filed with that town for years until
they finally changed their tune and start and prepared a housing plan. Now the rationale behind the concept of builder's revenue is very simple. It's what was the hammer that would encourage municipalities to prepare these plans.
So they we might have to chase that kind of eventuality. Now the third question that we always get is well what's the site selection criteria which is the next slide that is used to determine whether a site is
appropriate or not for affordable housing. Overwhelmingly the courts and fair share have taken the position that proximity and I should also say the state plan makes the position that proximity to mass transit is number one
on the on the list and secondly access to the regional highway network is on the list. Those are the two primary driving forces that the ports and fair share argue are appropriate locations
for higher density development. Beginning with this fourth round which just began this past year, a new element has been added to the mix. Um, with the fourth round, they say that if you're a
vacant land adjustment municipality such as Ramsey and just about every town in Bergen County, you have an obligation to address what's called unmet need. I'll get into what that means means in a minute, but it means that you have to
develop or excuse me, you have to redevelop existing developed properties at a certain percentage to address a portion of that unmet need obligation. Okay. So that's the issue that I think
is what drove the this municipality to look at Island Road and um Franklin Turnpike as overlay zones. Now additional criteria that is often talked about in accordance with Joe Shair is
whether or not your site is in a location that's in the silver service area. It talks about land use compatibility because although their developers will try to scare you by saying if you don't permit us we're going to come in with a
30story building and I've actually seen close to that in one Bergen County municipality and um which shut down but you know that fear factor. you still have to talk about land use compatibility, but it's balanced with
the need to address a portion of your affordable housing obligation. So, if you're a municipality, for example, that has a typical two or two and a half story building height, they'll say we should allow you to go to three
stories, sometimes four stories, and in some instances even five stories to address at least a portion of your affordable housing obligation. Um, so there's that balance that we are always wrestling with as we're preparing housing plans to try to figure out how
are we best going to do this balance and still minimize the overall impact on the community. I keep clicking this because I keep I don't want to keep turning my back on everybody to look at that. So as I said
earlier, there are four rounds of affordable housing obligation. This slide shows you what those four rounds consisted of. There's also something called present or rehabilitation need um that is uh that
runs through the fourth round and for that our obligation here is 51 units. you know, the 51 units uh were derived from the idea that you looked at uh your housing stock, you looked at
income levels, you looked at people that are considered uh low and moderate income households, and then they do estimates on, you know, percentage wise, statewide figures, um of how many of the housing
units in a municipality are occupied by low and moderate income households. and such units also are in need of rehabilitation. Other number became 51. To short circuit that whole issue, um this municipality
like just about everybody else in Bergen County is relying on the county housing improvement program for funding to help those residents um to participate in the county program to help fund rehabilitation of their homes.
It's the prospective need or the new construction needs that usually where the the battles begin. The first and second rounds combined covered the years 1987 to 1999. And at that time our obligation here was
189 units in the third round. Now the third round was a total mess. It started off to be 1999 to 2005. Unfortunately, CO decided to change the process that
was successful in determining housing need in the first and second round. They worked with whole different growth share methodology and multiple times they published their housing needs.
People sued it went to court. The court said, "You didn't do it right." And it took until 2015 for the courts to finally say, Coey, you've become dysfunctional. And that was the term they used in their in the case. And therefore, we're going to take
over the process. The courts are going to take over the process. And by the time new housing need numbers for that third round took place, and now there was a 10-year period. So they stretched it out. Technically the third
round was from 1999 to 2025 and that's when the numbers jumped dramatically because now it was a you know 26 year period. Um, so that number was 736 units for Ramsey and that with the
fourth round initially and it was a fourth round again the whole process has changed with the fourth round they created this program that I mentioned earlier. They had the Department of Community Affairs, DCA,
and generate what they called preliminary numbers for municipalities. For Ramsey, I believe it was 503 or 504 units and um we went to about to try to reduce
that number. We reduced it down to 450. The courts accepted that number a fair share. gave us a have to fight about that, but we prevailed and we reduced it somewhat to 450. Now, that's not the end of the the game
there because for towns that are fully developed, you are entitled to what's called a vacant land adjustment. In order to do a vacant land adjustment, um, what we had to do is look at all the vacant property in the municipality,
overlay a whole bunch of environmental constraints, steep slopes, wetlands, wetland buffers, sealand stream corers, and wherever that fell on top of vacant land, we were able to subtract that acreage from the consideration. But what
was left vacant acreage that was not environmentally constrained um resulted in what was called a realistic development potential and the courts have accepted this process and um
during the mediation process and the review fair share and the developer uh who had also objected took issue with the way we did that analysis but in the end we did prevail. So the next slide,
that table on the bottom shows you what the original obligation was for the first >> if you want to go down. >> No, we're here. >> That's good. Um, we were able to address the entirety of
our 189 union obligation back in the first and second round. And I'll show you how we did that in a moment. As for the third round, although our number was 736, we calculated the RDP at only 54 units.
We then the difference is 682. So, we've really took out a significant potential impact on the community. In the fourth round, our number was 450. We have an RDP of 26. So, the difference
is 424. Now, what does that difference mean? If you remember earlier, I talked about the term unmet need. Unmet need is that difference between what your original number was versus your
RDP figure. And you are obligated by legislation to address the entirety of your RDP. you are not obligated to address the entirety of your unmet need, but you are required to see how you can address at
least a portion of it. Now, during the third round or at the end of the third round, our office had done an analysis of a lot of municipalities throughout the state and we figured out that on average towns were addressing about 30%
of whatever their unmet need was. Um, in the fourth round, we haven't done that analysis yet because the plans are still being approved. Um, but from our experience with the ones we prepared and the ones I've reviewed as adjudicator and other towns that I've looked at, it
appears that towns are typically dealing with about 50% of their unmet need. Um, so let's talk about how we're dealing with all these numbers and that need factor and what that means for you. So very
quickly for the first and second round um our obligation was 189. Now we had a plan that addressed 163 units of that 189. But what's
interesting about this back in the first and second round you were entitled to do what's called a regional contribution agreement with another well-being receiving municipality. So we were able to ship out the
equivalent of 94 units of our obligation to Jersey City and they took that money to rehabilitate housing in their community. So if you shake out that 94 units that we shipped
out from the 163, that meant that although our obligation was 189, we only had to build 69 units here in town. And the reason why we did that was because we also got what's called bonus credits
for 26 units. Now those bonus credits are from at the time you could get two for one rental bonus credits. you could get additional bonus credits if you're providing senior housing. There's a few other components to those, but suffice
it to say, you got it up to 26. So, out of 189 units, we ended up having to build about 36% of our obligation and still get certification of our plan. Now,
there was the I think I just skipped a page. Uh in the third round um our RDP was for 54 units and these are the project could be a little difficult to read. Um it
these projects included Timber Valley two projects some diesome court one for family sale units and one for family rental units and some se section 202 senior rental housing. All of those units had already been built, but
because of the way we mixed and matched things, we were able to shift all those existing developed units to the third round RDP. So, we did not have to build a single additional unit. We got 40 affordable units
credit for that. We got 14 rental and senior bonus credits. And in that way, we dealt with the entirety of our third round RDP without having to build any additional units in town. Now, it still leaves us with the unmet need for the third round. And if you recall, our
obligation, our unmet need, not obligation, but the unmet need number was 682. And the table before you shows about 195 units that we put into our plan. But
again, we took an additional number of RCAs that were shipped out to Jersey City and applied it here. That was 56 units. And there were 95 units of existing units and other developed projects that you did early on in the
first and second round which we were able to shift here. And in that way, again, without having to see much in the way of new construction, there's only 44 new construction units that we had to deal with in this third round to address
682 units of unmet need. And we were able to get the court to approve that. So that means leads us to the fourth round where our obligation um our RDP number, excuse me, was
roughly 26 units. And here we talked about uh the special needs housing in one project was which was has been built. We recently zoned property on northbound 17 Constantine Drive, which is right before
the entrance into the Home Depot, for lack of a better term. Um, and properties there. Uh, at 425 Island Road, there was a site plan approval for a 70 unit project which would include 11
affordable units. Five of those 11 were applying to this 26 unit obligation and then there's 40 in North Franklin turnpike. Uh we get two units of credit and that was part of our fourth round settlement agreement. Now I do want to
point out there's one typo in the housing plan. Uh in the table five on page four the amended plan. Um the total was 26 units as shown here but the table on the page shows 24 units. If you add
up the numbers it does say 26 but we will correct that with the final version. And that leads us to probably the properties that you are most interested in. That's the fourth round unmet need. Now we've got 424
units. We are required to address 25% of that obligation through redevelopment which means 105 units. Now we have identified how we are
addressing that through two uh special needs rental units an additional six units from 425 island road that I mentioned earlier. The overlay zone that I think most of you
are here about is for 70 units. There's the law 5 zone in North Franklin turn for 27 units. And then we have what's called a mandatory set aside ordinance which means that and this is part of our
settlement agreement. If anybody were to come in and propose five units or more multif family housing, they would be obligated to do a 20% set aside. Now, what that for let's talk about the
R5E Island Road overlay zone first. The the difficulty with this area was that fair share housing center immediately seized on this area as a focal point and they did that because of the proximity
to the train station and because of the proximity to the interchange onto Route 17. Um they initially were proposing a much much higher density and a much much smaller minimum lot size
than we wanted. And we fought over the density and we finally got them court to agree to a 19 unit to the acre density and it could only happen if somebody accumulates to an a minimum 2 and 1/2
acre site. Now in that in that overlay zone, let me first explain what an overlay zone is. It allows for that density as an overlay zone. If it doesn't happen, the underlying current single family zoning
is still in place. So somebody can also build single family housing there. What we find is that there is only one lot of the 30 lots in this zone. There's actually two and a half acres in size. Uh there are only five lots that are
scattered around that are over 1 acre in size and fully half of the 30 are less than a third of an acre in size. So for the most part, it would take a significant amount of effort for someone to come along and convince you all to
sell your property to accumulate five or more lives to build. Now, in large measure, that means it's really up to you if you want to save your neighborhood because we cannot and fair
housing center nor the courts can force you to build any affordable housing if you don't want it done. And I see people shaking their head no, and I'll ask why when when you're starting to speak. But now that's the bottom line issue about
all overlay zones throughout the state of New Jersey. They're not the municipality is not condemning property to make it happen. It's all up to the property owners if they want to sell their properties or not. And I've
heard time and again through going around the state that um there's just a misunderstanding about what overlay zoning zones mean. But it's really in large measure in your hands
because nobody can force you to sell and build affordable housing here or higher density housing here. Now the same holds true with the uh north front and turn plank overlay.
So uh this was also a bone of contention uh with fair share. They initially wanted to extend this zone to the entirety of North Franklin Turnpike all the way down to the Allenale border the
same way. And I forgot to mention they also wanted to extend Island Road thanks to overlay zoning much farther south than we ended up having it. Um here because the lots are smaller and
some are only developed for multif family housing. We have a density of 13 members to the acre. Um probably the most significant distinction between the two the two areas. Um but again the issue for those
that are in that area the issue is if you do not sell that housing does not get built in your single family neighborhood remains in intact. Now that's the broad overview of
how the municipalities address their obligation. I think in large measure Ramsey has done a good job in terms of minimizing the overall impact on the community based on all the numbers that I just ran through. So the question then becomes well what's the next steps and
that's the last slide. Um the planning board is obligated to vote on this plan. If they do not vote on this plan um and adopt a plan by March 15th,
you can lose your immunity and that shores are all sitting here March 16th. Somebody's going to come knocking on the door and file a lawsuit to get a builder's remedy. So, it's critical that
the board vote on this plan. Um when they after they vote on this plan, we'll then talk about the ordinances and what they say in terms of the adoption because they are als the the board is obligated to do what's called a
consistency review to show how this is consistent with the newly adopted housing plan. The governing body is then obligated to vote to endorse this plan and make sure it gets filed prior to
uh the 15th of the month. And that's the deadline spelled out in the Fair Housing Act and state legislators are for God knows what reason selected March 15th as the the drop dead date. So that's in I
know it took a little more than 20 or 25 minutes, but I hope it explained in some detail how we got to this point uh for Ramsey and what the next steps in the process are. And with that, I guess I should first ask the board if they have
questions and then we'll try to open it to the public for questions. >> Yeah, thank you Mr. Burgess. I think what we'll do is we we'll open this up to any questions from any members of the board. Uh once we go through that then we'll open up to any questions or comments from members of the public.
>> So Mr. Burgess you mentioned that the the fourth round the RDP obligation for Ramsey is 26 units. Correct. >> Correct. >> And Ramsey has fully satisfied that with a combination of a couple things. Um the
Ramsey housing site I think the the the new zone at Constantine Drive. uh the zone in 425 Island as well as I guess the proposed overlay zone on North Franklin that those between those four and I guess some bonus credits also you
have in there. >> Yes. >> That would then satisfy the 26 units that the town is required to meet. Correct. >> So once that's satisfied for these other overlay zones that's there for the the the larger number. The burrow has no
obligation at all to satisfy any of those numbers. >> Correct. All they are obligated to do is put in overlay zones to address 25% of that unique number. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> You talked about the the process. Maybe maybe we can go into that a little bit so the public kind of understands how the how the process works with fair share. So if you maybe you want to start just from start to finish sort of how do you how do you get from you know them coming up with their initial number to
eventually the settled number with them? Yeah. And this is probably the most unfortunate step in the whole process because because the state legislature created this as a court process
um that got the lawyers involved and no offense to Bruce, but um once it became a court process, everything was then going to be done behind closed doors because if you did You're thinking the public fair share would be sitting in
the audience listening to what your strategy is going to be. Every developer would have their attorney sitting in the audience listening to how you're trying to deal with the issues and then they would do their own strategizing to figure out how to best that. So the
process demanded that municipalities do this in closed session behind closed doors so the other side doesn't get wind of you know what the municipality strategy is and that's unfortunate
because up until now under the prior rounds uh it was a much more open process. Um so you know that essentially was the beginning of the process. um as part of
the process, you know, once the municipality adopted its initial housing plan and they had to do that by June 30th, the regulations provided that any objector could file an objection to
the plan during the course of that summer. >> And who who can those those objectors can be anyone property property? >> It could be any property owner in some instances. It was that overwhelmingly, as you heard me say earlier, it was fair
share housing center and developers. Fair share housing center filed, 400 objections. There are a total of 700 objections filed and the rest were from develop overwhelmingly from developers. >> And and once you're an objector, you're
now part of the process as far as the settlement goes. >> That is correct. So in theory if you had let's say an open discussion about various parcel of the Ramsey and developers sitting in the audience and you were talking about parcel A or parcel B they would now become object
they in theory they could become objectors because they know you're talking about their parcels making them now subject to this whole process. Yeah. >> And fair share would kind of force you to also include those parcels because now they know someone's out there looking to develop other parcels as
well. >> Not only that, those developers were then knocking on those people's door would be knocking on those people's doors to to see if they could get a contract to buy the property if they could get the property res. So
>> it's not fair share says for example we want 10 properties. Okay, there's other objectors. We'll take eight because there's two others. It's we want 10 plus what all these various other objectors are going to want as well as part of any
settlement. Correct? >> A car is not going to negotiate and say we're going to take less because you have 10 other objectors. They're going to say we want what we want and you deal with the other objectors by giving them what they want. >> Right? Because in the the problem
especially for towns in Bergen County as an example because we're all unmet need comm vacant land adjustment communities there's always this large number of unmet need. the developers would be
arguing we could help you meet your to the totality of your obligation and so you know the the goal line keeping would be yeah you constantly moving in that direction and you know that was why it was important
to go into close session to make sure that didn't happen >> and when you negotiate with with fair share or any development it's not sort they look at the at what's realistic as far as a development Right. Like >> no. And that was the bigger problem
because fair share as I said earlier they don't have licensed planners on staff. They're basically attorneys. They have um who would only see that you're not meeting your obligation.
And often times you would hear them say, you know, you have such a large obligation. You should consider 25 units to the acre where where you are proposing six or eight of the acre because in that way and only in that way
are you going to address a significant portion of your obligation. And when you would point out that 25 to the acre just wasn't reasonable because sometimes they were pointing to sites that were environmentally constrained and they would say when you're building
on a smaller portion just go up or um I guess my favorite story is in Saddle River where um they argued that and
take this with a grain of salt because we're very very busy and you know there was limited real analysis I felt on the part of you know some of the objectors and we had an instance where and this is
we talked about this in public in Saddle River so it's not like I'm saying anything new and different but at one point we received a report that said there was a site in our third round plan that had never been developed it was five zoned for five years. So therefore,
this no longer represented an appropriate site and you have to consider a different you have to find a different site to make up for that number of units that would have happened there. We had to write a a report in the
response and I the report of most other things said if you turn to page 33 you would see a photograph of the affordable housing under construction. And if you looked at page 36, you would see a photograph of your boss, the fair
share at the groundbreaking circle, just showing that they would provide information without really knowing what the housing plan said and it was infuriating, but that's what we were dealing with and
unfortunate. And >> I think you said before what fairshare looks at is two things really. Proximity to public transportation. >> Yes. >> And proximity to highways or access to highway. >> That's the primary focus. >> Okay. So if if you for example went to
fair share and said I got an acre over here, I got an acre over there over here. None of them is in proximity to any of this stuff. They would just say doesn't work. Go find something else. often times they would except for those municipalities that didn't have any
train station or didn't have any major highways going through it, they would come up with something else was Hawaii, you still had an obligation and had to address it. But where there is a train station or mass transit and where there is a highway within interchange,
that's where they were always demanding um affordable housing be placed. >> Right. And as part of the fourth round here, it was I guess you said they started with a larger uh area on island that they initially wanted and Franklin Dick as well and it
was negotiated down to a smaller area. And these negotiations is never that we'll give you a different area in exchange. It's we want what we want and we're not going to we'll take that plus something else if you're going to give us something else.
>> Yeah. Because they you know especially recognizing that they're located down at Cherry Hill. They're not all that familiar with northern New Jersey. So, all they're doing is looking at aerials and going up. There's a train station
here. Look at Island Road and want to provide the housing there and a high density because there's a train station. and they came in at a significantly higher density initially
for what they wanted to see on Island Road. And they were talking about much taller buildings than we ever wanted. And it was only through the adjudicative, you know, and the judge
who recognized that it seems a little out of character with what it should be, you know, what the development should be. >> So, so fair share when they when they negotiate these, they don't they don't care really whether it fits within the carriage. They're really looking at
numbers. Yes, >> areas and numbers. And you have 424 that you have to meet and how much can we put where to get to that 424. >> Yeah. And quite frankly was often as the
timeline kept shrinking where a decision had to be made. It was who's going to blink first, >> right? Because my understanding this is this is statutory. Statute says you have to do something by a certain date and there's no there's no leeway. It's not
like a town can say, "Ah, we missed it by a day. We missed it by two. What's the big deal?" When it's statutory, it's either meet the date or you don't meet the date. >> Yeah. And that was in large measure the huge problem because the legislation
says March 15th. The legislation said June 30th. Um then they gave a certain specific period of time for objectors to file. Um you can't municipalities wouldn't program can
change the legislation and so everybody was really locked into these days. >> Yeah. It's sort of like you know you sometimes hear when you know judges are sentencing someone and they say I'm stuck with the guidelines that the legislature proposed here. Sounds like
it's kind of the same thing. >> These are the dates. You have to meet the dates or you then lose your immunity which we'll get into that in a second. But it's not like we could say, "Well, give us an extra week, give us two weeks, give us three weeks," whatever it
is. That fair share knows that. >> So, they know that every town is stuck by these certain dates. So, the closer you get to those dates, probably the less they budge when you talk to them. >> In some instances, that was true. In others, you know, they relented a little
bit recognizing this is not as good as they're going to get pictures. The municipality show that we're drawing this line in the sand. And if you could prove that, you're going to be tough about it. You know, they sometimes got dogs. But also I want to point out that what
you just said about the time frame that was part of that legislation from the 20 some municipalities uh that was recently decided because they were asking for an extension of time past March 15th because it was such
a truncated time period to to work in and um you know they lost three or four times in court and then >> why or six >> five or six and then justice alto last week refused to accept it for the sup
state federal supreme court is in Israel. of that going against the issue >> and and just some some people ask this question had that been successful even if you don't join that it still applies to all the municipalities in town in the
state >> correct um so we talked about I think you talked about before builder's remedies because I think that's the other aspect of this which I think the board you know needs some clarification on so we talked about
the process we talked about, you know, if you meet the process, you have this immunity from builder's remedies. My understanding basically of what builder's remedies, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you basically lose the right to control the zoning in your
town. A builder could come in and say, you have you have an unmet need. I have the ability to satisfy all or a portion of that unmet need. Here's what I propose. And it doesn't matter whether it fits within your zoning, whether the
height's right, the setbacks, whatever it is that they can go position the court to say the town has not complied with its requirements. Therefore, I'm going to come in and I'm going to develop property X and this is how I'm
going to develop it and the town's going to get X number of affordable housing. Forget about what the zoning says. This is what I want to put and where I want to put it. >> A large measure. That's correct. But there is a provision in the legislation that does also talk about land use
compatibility. However, there's a lot of case law that makes that a very flexible concept. As I said earlier, you know, if you're a two and a half story town, it's unlikely somebody's going to get a
20s story building, but you will get something higher than two and a half stories, >> right? So using Island Road as an example because we have we have I think a prime example of the Lumberyard site where we did have a developer many years ago come and seek to develop something
there that at the time uh the board was not comfortable with I think on the height and the density and withdrew his application in theory that developer could come back if if they have if we lose the immunity because we don't comply with this could come back with something even more intense on that site
higher more dense And there's really not much that the town can do to stop them. >> Yes. Because well, and you see that throughout the county where oftent times you're seeing four and five story buildings popping up where
there's no similar heights nearby. But you know the those judges are making the decision that because you're not addressing your affordable housing obligation and because you have no faith and plan to speak of we have to go
somewhat higher and some places it becomes six stories or eight stories. You know it really is you know sight specific but you're seeing that's what you're seeing taller buildings starting to pop up all over the county. And this in this I guess
also affect each individual lot as well because right now the overlay zone as I understand it you have to have two and a half acres and you have a certain density for that. If the town was to lose its immunity and the buildings they could pick a one acre site and develop
on that one acre site something that is much is not zone for right now and is much more dense than what is even this overlay zone. That That's correct. In fact, Fair Share originally wanted a oneacre minimum. That's what they were
pushing for and we just said absolutely not. We refuse to to budge on that issue. >> Okay. So, and and that applies not just on that applies throughout the town, right? Um, no. It's only >> No, the builder's remedies. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. It would apply anywhere in the town where they could find some place that >> it's a residential zone and they have an acre or whatever it is and they want to build whatever they want even though it's not permitted. Basically, the town loses the the ability to control it zoning in that instance.
>> Well, again, River is a a good example what's referred to as the Rosie O'Donnell estate in East Allen down road. It's surrounded by single family housing but on that estate and I wouldn't build I
think it's 48 town houses with some affordable units um a lot higher density than the two acre minimum zoning that s River has any other any questions for any members
of the M I request you uh about the burrowwide mandatory set aside. That's your last row on the unmet need slide with 424 units. So right now we're at about 25%. >> Met need. >> Yes. >> And we have that borrowed mandatory set
aside 20% with TBD. Is there an expectation that we have to get somewhere between that 30 and 50% number that you've been hearing of or what is the what is the requirement that the uh fair sharehousing is going to expect for us to meet at that? We have a settlement
agreement that accepted this. So we don't have to go to 30 or 50%. Okay. They accepted the 25% given. >> Okay. >> So would that be credit later down the road if we had a when the fifth round comes? >> Unfortunately, there probably won't be a
fifth to the sixth and the seventh round. Yes. >> So that could be rolled over if we do have greater numbers. I'm hoping that core heads will prevail and there'll be an adjustment the formula to determine what obligations are. I think
there needs to be an acknowledgment that fully developed municipalities are in fact fully developed and you shouldn't make everything look like Queens. No offense to anybody from Queens.
>> Joe, it was that wasn't going to be my question. Um, from your experience, it seemed like they moved the goalpost every time they go around. this fourth round. Does this end at 2035
and then there would be a fifth and a six and a seventh and an eighth >> presumably they're supposed to do every 10 years and the legislation doesn't say it stops at a certain point. So it's and you know
I also say this in these public meetings it's not the governing body here that you have to talk to. You got to talk to your state legislators. They're the ones that put all this into motion. So you find out if you don't know who they are,
find out. You had a great letter writing campaign for this, do it to them. Joe, if if we miss the opportunity and we're subject to builder's remedy and there's a an area that is is up for sale
and a builder gets it, is there a minimum acreage for them to develop or it's just whatever they can fit into that that stamp of land? >> Uh, it's usually roughly one acre is a minimum like really like 08.86
eight six acres that they have often used as a bare minimum which less than an acre. Um and that that would really wreak havoc in in this neighbor in this island road neighborhoods for example. I
was the benefit of mandating 2 and a half acres as a minimum because you'd be it's it's difficult to accumulate you know that number of for the most part that number of lots to come up with
two and a half acres because half of the lots in the area are only a third of an acre or less. >> Thank you. So on this Island Road, it seems to me it had to be a arduous job for a developer to try to put
together enough an acreage to to build a we could accommodate four of my houses. >> It would be difficult. Um I'm not going to say it's not possible.
>> I don't want to give anybody the false impression. It's really up to the homeowners in the area. Can you get the numbers again? You said there's only one lot at 2.5 acres and then you said half of the 30 lots are.5 acres. >> No,
>> no more than a third of an acre. >> Okay. Not more than a third acre. And there's another >> I think there were four or five lots that are a little more than an acre. >> Thank you. Thank you. Any
other questions from any members of the board? >> I have one question. When all of this is being discussed, wherever it's all being discussed, any discussions around the implications to schools or services when more people are in the neighborhood or is that can
just picked down the road? >> That unfortunately is picked up and thrown down the road. thrown down. >> Um the courts have consistently said that's not an issue when it comes to affordable housing. If you have the services, you you're obligated to provide the services.
>> There's case law that a municipality tried to use as a defense. It said, "We don't have sewers." And they said, "Yes, you will. You'll put them in." But it's affordable housing >> and water too, Roger. >> Water, schools, uh infrastructure, police departments, etc. they cannot use
those as a defense of the affordable housing and the requirements. Uh just to to follow through with this, you've been a planner for a long time and and you understand New Jersey law and the municipal land use law originally basically is a a document as
I understand it and have lived with that really permits home rule. >> Yeah. >> And that's why towns have a planning board and have a zoning board to control their planning and their development of a municipality. And during the course of not only affordable housing, I correct, but some of the other mandates that have come out
of the state, home rules been chipped away. No, >> just explain. >> We had the residential site improvement standards, which every town now has to comply with, which talks about how many how big a parking space has to be, how many parking spaces you need for a development. And used to be that the
towns could have that in their ordinance that was taken away. In the past, we've had um ordinances that could control what type of um drainage systems we would have and then we had storm water management acts that come out and all towns have to comply with that. Good or
bad, we've had ordinances that controlled um trees and things like that. We now have an ordinance has come out of Trenton for that. So, it's not just this, but this is the one that really hits us between the eyes, >> right? And um put aside the Highlands
Act. That's right. Okay. >> 9 89 municipalities come under the Highlands and they told towns that were put in the preservation area that you could only build one house for every 25 acres, >> right?
>> Think if you were a property owner thinking this was your nest egg for retirement and then all of a sudden that's what you're told. >> And and just to clarify, this whole procedure has been governed by the courts. In fact, Pearl Ramsey has a docket number and every municipality
has. There's a judge in Bergen County besides the 10 judges. There's a judge in Bergen County that oversees all of this to make sure that we're meeting the requirements and we're doing it on time. it. What's what's interesting is it's just really coming to light after the
program judges made their decisions uh just recently and that process has now ended and now we're finding because I got three calls this week from the program that we've now scheduled
fairness hearings on the plan with the with the visited judge and that was never really contemplated. did as part of the process. But all of a sudden, there's going to be a formal trial. And these are not Zoom hearings like we've
had with the program. These are in-person hearings where there will be testimony given and objectors show up cross-examination and objectors present their own experts. So, this process is really not ending anytime soon. And
correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of the affordable housing, a lot of the affordable housing um viewpoint from a planning standpoint, uh mass transit uh is a big uh item on the
list of where this housing should be. >> Yes. And from what I understand, you're telling me, telling us this evening, that that was first and foremost in Fair Share Housing's approach to this, that that could never be taken off the table.
That was a given that they wanted something done near that train station. >> Yes. And it's primarily because it's also talked about in the state plan. >> So you they have that to fall back on, >> right? And we recognize the train
station on Route 17 was statemate mandated also. It's not anything the municipality had anything to do with it. >> Yeah, they took I think they condemned the property and built >> the train station. It was not municipality that did that. >> Thank you.
>> Any other questions for any members of the board as to Mr. Burgess? >> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. So, what we'll do, we'll open this up to any uh questions or comments that any members of the public have. Uh come up to the phone, give your
name and address. >> Let's take a two-minut break. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> All right. We'll come back at 9:05. That's Yes, >> I was just curious. Please water
down the shore. Rainbow. The other thing we've been Happy. Okay. I don't know what they're doing. Yeah. >> They have they have number That's all we go Language%
something That got the Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. This got denied street. They tried to put a bunch of units there and it got denied. >> That one street was too narrow. Oh, really?
Uh, having a happy So now you guys I'm just going to kill my properties. Good luck. I don't I do that all the time. Sexual season transportation project.
Another chance. four cars. The elevator car elevator wasn't there. Sorry. >> So, it's the first time I ever had a group project. Hey, we'll take the elevator.
And I'm like, We don't exhausted. >> Yeah. He's like, "Sorry, All right, we're gonna go back on the record. Um, Miss Roll call before we start >> here. Here, Mr. Gard
>> here. >> Here >> we're going to open this up now to any questions or comments that any members of the public have, like I said before, so that way everyone has an opportunity to to speak uh with any time restraints people have. We'll give everyone like, you know, three to four minutes
initially. You certainly can come back at the end, but I want to give everyone at least an opportunity to speak to have the opportunity to speak one. So, give uh your name and address for the record and then you can ask your question to Mr. Burgess. >> Jamie Stevenson, 521 Island Road. Um,
just want to start off by thanking you for your thorough explanation. >> Just to interrupt you, we only to have everybody sworn in. It's one of the rules the state has. So, if you'd raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm the testimony you about to give would be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Um, again, thank you for the thorough
overview. Much appreciated. And, uh, thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. Um, so I know you've emphasized multiple times, you know, part of the rationale for this location is due to proximity to transportation. Um, but I did want to just call out some other
factors in some documentation that I'm sure you are very familiar with. Um, so I would like to submit a copy of section two, the goals and objectives from the board's 2021 land use plan element. Um, if I can approach and actually I'm going
to hand off another document, the fair share housing development effectiveness plans as well. And I have other copies if I don't know board members want I can hand those out. Anybody needs them? >> Vagly familiar. It's got my name on it.
>> Yeah, I was going to ask. I was like, you know, I know you uh I think we addressed this before, but to confirm this is your document, right? Written by your office. >> Yes. >> Yes. All right. Um so if we p turn to page 11,
get my copy out here. Um of the plan, um and we look at 2.2 2, Burrow of Ramsey land use goals and objectives. Um, would you mind reading the policy statement for goal number one, please? Uh the burrow recognizes that one of its most significant attributes
is its unique land use arrangement. One that's characterized by attractive detached single family residential neighborhoods with a distinctive suburban flavor of the plans recommendations are designed to protect
and reinforce the prevailing p this prevailing pattern. It recognizes the established densities in the burough's residential neighborhoods and precludes the introduction of incompatible non-residential uses or intensities of
development into these areas of the burrow. >> Thank you. Um and then if we could flip the page to 12 and um if you don't mind reading the goal number seven please. >> To go with the policy statement. >> I'm sorry the policy statement. My
apologies. Uh the borrow seeks to encourage a encourage a limited level of infrastructure improvement to accommodate local needs. The addition of new facilities that may be utilized to support higher levels of development and
considered in this plan is discouraged. The burrow's land use policy is explicitly designed to discourage infrastructure improvement projects that would encourage a significant increase in the carrying capacity of the land and consequently result in increased
pressures for higher levels of development. >> Thank you. So now that we've looked at these two policy statements, I'm just asking how does this increased intensity of the use on Island Road reconcile with
these two policies? >> In large measure, it doesn't. But the problem is that document was written in 2021 and the programs fourth realm um legislation and regulations
occurred in 2025 and it really was a gamecher in terms of um protecting the municipality as we would have liked back in 2021. >> Yeah, understood. So I I guess my point
is from a procedural standpoint, shouldn't the board reconcile the policy goals and statements of the housing element before we proceed any further? Uh now typically what is taking place is the municipalities are adopting the
housing element because they have this deadline coming up and then subsequently um reconcile it in some fashion by amending the land use plan after March 15th. and um the programs
have recognized that there's only a handful of us planners that are doing this and um you know we just didn't have the time to reconcile. Now I will say that in large measure I
would think that when we go to reconcile we are going to point out that we've been forced to do this by virtue of the kind of numbers that were given and by the way the process has played out.
Not that we want to um just roll over on this issue. >> Understood. Thank you. Is that my timer? >> No, you can keep going. Okay, thank you. Um, so did the board adopt a written finding explaining how the Island Road
overlay preserves the character of the neighborhood? >> No. >> Okay. Um, so my next set of questions are based on the developing effective housing plans in the fourth round. Um, this document for everybody that's unaware was issued by the Fair Share
Housing Center and the Housing and Community Development Network in December of 2024, which I know you kind of discredited this group a bit uh with not having the lensure, but nevertheless, they do have this written documentation, you know, providing um
and outlining, you know, ways and objectives of going about this planning. So, um, um, was this written by the same group that challenged the 2025 housing element and fair share plan that this planning board council approved?
>> Okay. Um, did you review the document and guidance in it before and after the challenge? >> Um, I had I read it when it came out. I was curious as to how what they were saying. Um,
it's curious that here is a group that's never prepared a housing plan, but they're the ones telling everybody how to prepare housing plans. This is the group that has never been to a meeting like that like like this where they've had to defend the
position that they've taken. And I guess it's somewhat ironic that you present this when they're the ones that wanted even higher densities in your neighborhood on a smaller lot size and a much broader area.
Um than we ended up being able to achieve. Um in reading this I found in in large measure it's a fairly straightforward rendition of what the legislation is. I was abused that in 32 pages or whatever
34 pages whatever it is there's two paragraphs about the fact that I had the adjustment process because to me especially for Burton County and Hudson County and Essex County um
that's the key to this whole process and I seem to be took given kind of short and shift and all this. >> Okay. Um well if we turn to page 13 I know not everybody has access to this document but this uh you know it kind of
gives a guide to miss municipalities on how to prepare a housing element and fair share plan. So I was just hoping that we can quickly I know we're running out of time here but there's three points I wanted to make here or I guess highlight or that they made that I would like to highlight. Um would you mind
reading just those flag bullets there? There's three in column two on page 13 please. >> Uh one is analysis and this is under what should be included in the housing element fair share plan. >> Yeah. >> An analysis of the municipality's
demographic characteristics. Secondly, consideration of the lands most appropriate for construction of low and moderate income housing and instructions most appropriate for conversion and rehabilitation for low and modern housing including land
proposed by developers committed to providing low and moderate income housing. And then the third component is an analysis of the extent that the municipal ordinances and other local factor
I guess factors advance or detract from the goal of preserving multigenerational housing continuity >> or yeah family continuity. Um well thank you. So to those points, um, and living on Island Road, you know, our neighborhood is a viable established
residential area characterized by modest homes, long-term residents, seniors, young families, and first generation homeowners who have invested in maintaining and improving these properties. So my last question is um
whether or not you have performed any of this type of analysis on the island road overlay. >> We had originally when we put together the June housing element fair share plan we had not included this area initially.
It was fair share who came back when they objected to the plan saying you should be designating this whole corridor for affordable housing at a high density. And that's what forced our hand and we're at
a disadvantage so to speak because there is the train station right there. >> Okay. There's also a train station on Main Street. But thank you. Um I guess you answer my question. So the answer is no. the analysis whether it was by or by like your
>> team or fair share housing it was not done >> no the answer I think is that >> we had initially rejected providing this overlay here they forced the municipalities handwriting their objection
>> okay so but neither party did an analysis >> no I think we did an analysis >> okay should not be designated initially. >> But when the objection came in,
>> they forced the municipality to consider a segment of the corridor because originally when they objected, they wanted a much more expensive area to be included at a higher density. >> Got it. Okay. Well, thank you. That's
all I've got. Appreciate it. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you. Thank you, >> Mr. Burgess. Just just to clarify something, the the party or the group that prepared that I'll call the presentation that Mr. Steven prior to
you, they're the same people that you guys were negotiating with >> other right. So, in their document, they're saying one thing, >> yet in their negotiations, they're taking a completely a position contrary to their own document. >> It it appears that way. Yes.
>> That's right. Okay, thank you. >> Good evening. Hi, I'm Melissa Roch. I live at 480 Island Road. Raise >> your right hand, please. Swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give me the truth and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Thank you for letting allowing me to ask
these questions. I'm just going to be touching on some on alternative compliance mechanisms. In the interest of time, they're going to be mainly yes no questions. I did time myself when I said like four minutes. So I hopefully I get although I did add a question or two during this uh I will hold you
>> discussion. Okay. So regarding any municipality's affordable housing obligations and specific to settling the challenges to Ramsay's fourth round proposal. Is it correct to say that a municipality should be able to use a multitude of mechanisms, not just the
types of overlays proposed here as R5E and R5F in order to achieve compliance and settle challenges? >> I would say that your statement is more reflective of how one addresses RDP.
Typically for unmet need, you do overlay zones because that way the underlying zoning also still is enforced. So if you wanted to say add on to your single family house, you could. If it was a it
was a simple inclusionary zone, you wouldn't be able to do that. You would need significant relief from the zoning board because in an inclusionary zone, you only permit say apartments or
multif family or town houses, >> not single family. >> Okay. So, I feel like you're going to curtail a lot of my questions, but the next one's kind of important. So, as far as you could tell, >> could you speak up? >> I'm sorry. As far as you could tell, was
the Fair Share Housing Center aware there was a second train station in Ramsey? >> They were aware. >> Okay. Is there a reason why no overlays were considered anywhere near that area? >> They first wanted to do it an overlay
with that area as well. It was not one or the other. They in this way wanted both. >> Okay. And we fought that. >> Okay. And then I guess all I mean
>> Yeah. Um so I I also I guess want to understand does in these negotiations it sounds to me and am I understanding correctly the fair share housing center can point anywhere on a map that they like
say we want that and your the town hands it over. the town hands it over in order to settle a mediation. Is is this pretty much because that's what it sounds like. Not at all. >> They said me must have this. I mean, yes, you negotiated down from what they
said, but >> Well, we negotiated down. >> Mhm. >> In some instances, we just simply rejected what they were asking for. for example, the other train station, for example, the entirety of Franklin
Turnpike, for example, extending the overlay zone farther south along Island Road. Um, that's not all that unusual. We've done that in other municipalities as well, where we just say what you're asking for
is totally inappropriate and it doesn't comport with sound planning design criteria. Um, so you know, there are times when you just can't fight to fight, but when you're unfortunately next to a
train station, >> I it makes it more difficult. >> I wish you knew why I was by a train station. It's okay. If I had known, I would never have purchased this house.
Thank you for your time. You're welcome. Uh Alicia Carbone, 50 Ferguson Place. I also live at Ferg 46 Fergus Bakes currently. >> Right hand swear affirm the testimony about the truth and nothing about the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. >> Um just so everybody knows my lot is a
halfacre. So I don't fall in to what you said. Those are we were defined as. Um okay. So I'm here to be creative, right? That's what we should be doing, I think. um since we have no options and we have this very strict deadline. So, Mr.
Burgess, can you describe uh for the public what an accessory dwelling unit is? >> An accessory dwelling unit is typically, for example, a detached garage in your backyard or you just want to build a small apartment structure in your
backyard. Um sometimes um I've seen on split level houses they take the from the rear they go take the basement area make that an accessory structure.
>> Um why that's not popular is because a lot of people don't understand that you don't get to select who lives there. It's a lottery. So, some people are >> right. >> I just thrown over that idea.
>> But you you prepared the housing element for Princeton, correct? >> I did one, but not for the fourth round now. >> Okay. Well, they do uh they do allow accessory development units there. It's a pretty nice town, I would say. Right. >> Yeah. >> Um they're also referred to as granny flats or in-law suites. I have two small
children. That would have been a dream to have my mom next to me or my in-laws next to me or anyone who um you know if you've ever had to find housing for your parents who are on a fixed income in this world, it's not easy to do, right? So that would have been a huge benefit
to my family and I'm sure others. >> Could I just offer a comment about Princeville? >> Sure. Because in all the housing plans I've ever done, it was the only place where we said we're doing the required number and people would get up and say,
"Why are we only doing the minimum? We should be doing them more." >> Right. >> So, do you know how many municipalities have local ordinances that allow accessory dwelling units in New Jersey? >> No. >> Eight municipalities. >> I was going to say it's not many. No, >> we've had probably the most success in
Fairfield >> where there's a cap the number there. You could do up to 10. >> Okay. >> But in Fairfield in Essex County, we've had such such a successful program. I think they've now done 25 and they the
courts have allowed because they've been doing a great job on it. >> Yeah. And they also count towards credits for the fair share housing. Correct. Obligation. >> Yeah. But again, it's C usually it's counted at 10, >> right? Okay. Well, since there's So, another thing to touch upon so everybody
knows in New Jersey, um there's currently no state law as it relates to accessory dwelling units. There are some that have been proposed, but none currently. So, since there's no state law, municipalities have full control over regulating these ordinances. Correct.
>> No, you still have to follow. There's a few things that you need to follow, but you do have control over the characteristic of the house, the size, the density. Correct. Okay. >> Correct. >> Um, all right. So, can you point me to a chapter in the master plan that's
dedicated to accessory dwelling units in Ramsey? >> Uh, we I don't believe we have one. Um, I don't believe the municipality wanted to pursue accessory apartments. >> Okay. So then um there's no area in the housing element that analyzes burrowwide
accessory dwelling units as adoption. Correct. Okay. >> So we often hear the town is fully developed, right? Um did you know this that that in the proposed overlay zone, eight out of the 30 properties have a secondary an existing secondary
structure. Four of them four out of eight of them being in Ferguson Place alone. Right. I was actually wanted to put an ADU over my garage and I was just told no. The reason for that is because in 1972 the burrow released ordinance
34-4.5 which states that the accessory buildings are not for human habitation 3 years prior to the Mount Laurel doctrine was passed in 1975. Right? So I did some math. So, per page 20 of the amended housing element, which I cross referenced with the April 1st, 2020
census, there's 5,267 dwelling units in Ramsey. Does that sound about right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Pursuant to page 20 of the amended housing element, which I cross reference with April 1st, 1970 census, which
predates ordinance 34-4.5, there were 3,618 dwelling units in Ramsey. Does that sound about right? >> I'll take your word on that one. >> You have a great chart. It really is. Um, and it was correct with the census, so a win for everyone. So, it's possible
that 3,618 dwelling units exist in Ramsay that may already have an existing secondary structure. Is that correct? Potentially. >> Say potentially. >> All right. So, do you agree that ADUs, if properly regulated and deed
restricted, can towards can count towards affordable housing obligations? Yes. Okay. Certainly. >> All right. And as been stated, to meet our fourth round obligations and protect the town from builds remedy lawsuits, we have to come up with 424 units that meet the affordable housing requirements.
Correct. >> No, we have to deal with the 26 >> 26. Correct. Yes. Okay. So, let's even talk into the future, right? We're being creative. Would you say that three 3,618
potential dwelling units presents more of a realistic opportunity than the 30 homes on Island Road overlay zone which are currently properly inhabited? >> No. Um, and the reason why I say that is that the density that we ended up,
>> okay, >> permitting, um, that could encourage, that's likely to encourage more affordable units than the 10 unit limit on accessory apartments. >> Okay. So, we're talking about going, let's say, uh, because a lot of towns
are giving grants to people to build these units over the in their properties, right? $100,000 grants, correct? That's a pilot program currently >> um in legislation. >> So, are we thinking of building more than 30 3,618 units?
>> No, we're we're planning on building 26. >> Okay. So, seems like All right. So, the proposed housing element does not comprehensively analyze accessory dwelling units as a burrowwide gentle density, that's what it's referred as, strategy that would result in increased
home values, decreased infrastructure expenditures, and enriching the lives of our Ram Ramsey families. Correct. We're not even going to contemplate it. >> Correct. again because there's the 10 unit cap >> and our obligation for unmet need was
such >> but >> 10 units didn't get you very much >> but Fairfield went to 25 and we had 26 so we could potentially maybe only have to build one unit >> a unique situation they had a very very
aggressive program probably and I know for a fact it is the single most aggressive program in the state >> okay and is at 10 units or 10% of units? >> No. 10 units. >> 10 units. Okay. All right. So,
I can sell to a developer, but I can't build a studio apartment over my detached garage in Ramsey, right? That's what we're all agreeing to here tonight. Would you say the town's inclusion of ADU should maybe be reanalyzed for the next 10 years?
>> Yes. No, I've only been a proponent of it, but again, it's up to the individual municipality. >> Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Burgess. >> You're welcome. >> Uh, good evening, Jeremy Stass, 486 Island Road. >> Raise your right hand, please. You swear
affirm the testimony about the truth and nothing but the truth. >> I do, sir. Thank you. Um, Mr. Bridges, great presentation. I also want to let uh the council know or the planning board know I am a licensed architect in New Jersey. Okay. Uh license number 21 AI 02054700.
So on behalf of my neighbors, I've been really struggling with this over the last few weeks coming up with questions for this council uh to help explain the process. I I do appreciate all of your questions tonight. They have been excellent of of Mr. Burgess. Um I wanted
to focus on to for a few minutes. Um, I've reviewed both of the plans since we got them last week. The 2025 housing plan, which which you wrote, as well as the 2026 amended housing plan. One is 96 pages, the other 213. Right. So, the original 2025 report,
which this planning board and council ultimately passed and adopted, um, as you mentioned, does not show any new overlays, right? I think you would you would mention that before. So only in the amended plan were the R5D and R5F
overlays introduced which which are now being introduced in or as a uh ordinances excuse me. Um but at the time of original writing they you did not feel they were required right in 2025. >> I was comfortable with the you
recognized that June 25 plan was conceptual. We had a file that did not include any um appendices. Um I was comfortable with the plan that we came up with. It was when we had to deal
with the objectors that that changed things >> and that answered my next question. So so these overlay plans were created in response to litigation based on these challenges. >> Yes. >> Um okay. Um Ramsey is a significant transit corridor. I think that's why a lot of us
did invest here, right? transit stations as well as significant amount of bus stops in Ramsey, right? So, there's a lot of places in this town to get access to public transit. So, I I just I want people to realize it's not just train stations. We could be looking at corridors around. >> Let me comment on that because there's
been a lot of discussion throughout this process with the program judges as to whether or not bus stops should count when the legislation talks about mass transit and the emphasis has
always been on train stations rather than individual bus stops. The impress is short, but anybody who takes the bus to this city knows if that's close to their house, that's what they're doing. >> I understand. I'm just telling you what the judges are saying. >> Makes sense. Um, you've answered a
number of my other questions. Um, uh, was to was transoriented development, which especially around Route 17 and and and Ramsy downtown train stations. Was that a focus of your 2026 amended housing element plan? >> I don't know. only to the degree that we
had to deal with fair share of that issue. You know, we had looked at the other train station and the possibility of providing additional floor of housing on
the downtown area. um that was not considered by the municipality for a variety of reasons, especially when fair share then started talking about multiple stories in that corridor and that was just not
acceptable to the town. >> Um and they backed off on that one. But again, at the Ramsey Main Street Station, we have four sizable parking lots that abut that station, right underdeveloped Blacktop, right next to downtown Main Street. Uh
there are numerous uh townships throughout New Jersey um who are addressing sites like this um with with mixed use with um um parking underneath building up above. Right. what the new
overlays that were proposed are are potentially relocating 28 family single family homes. You know, why is not more emphasis placed on four undeveloped parking lots in in downtown Ramsey?
>> One thing recognize that the fair share is not backing away from one site if we did something else because they were talking about the parking lots for example. But in addition, when you're dealing with
municipal property or DOT property, you needed to have a developer in hand, you had to have the proforma and all the fiscal information available to present it and have it signed off on as part of the mediation agreement.
And as you know, as an architect, that doesn't happen in a week or two or a month or two. It takes, you know, in a much bigger effort. >> And and that's the point I'm getting at. And and maybe this is not for this round, but in 2035 when we all have to do this again, right, we need to be
ahead of this. We need to be thinking creatively like my neighbors have discussed. And I imagine Missouri developers calling us. I'm sure they would line up to develop a parking lot around Main Street. So I just I I really I'm more talking to this board to be
considering larger picture here. Um North Franklin that overlay was was added as a result of the litigation. Correct. Yes, >> that's not necessarily close to transit, right? What is the attractiveness of that overlay zone? >> Um, they were focus fair was focusing on
the fact that there is some multif family nearby in that corridor, excuse me. And they talked about going down Lake Street and then over to 17. So, it's not that far off from Route 17. That was their focus.
>> Walking. >> Not walking. No. uh built to drive onto the Route 17 corridor. >> Correct. >> Um so it seems like there are a number of places in town that would also fit that description. Right. Multif family already there and close to our Route 17
corridor. So once again for future rounds um I think we ought have to be very aware of potential for additional lawsuits frivolous or otherwise that's going to force us to create these overlays. Um because I what I feel is
that a pretty dangerous precedent is being set here. Um that for years to come we are going to have to rectify. Um my last thing I'll pass it to my my neighbors here. Um sir in the end uh page 36 basically your summary of the
2026 amended housing element and fair share plan you say is detailed herein the housing element and fair share plan can accommodate the entirety of the community's affordable housing obligation to 20 through 2035 in a manner that affirmatively addresses
affordable housing need while at the same time addressing planning concerns and maintaining the overall character of the community. I my question to you and and the board that do you feel in such a condensed time frame since these challenges were filed that we've had to
the town has had to uh uh respond to do you feel that statement is still accurate where appropriate planning concerns addressed you know even without other sites being studied and rejected and is a proposed R5E Island Road overlay zone
by proposing this overlay zone are you maintaining the overall character of the community through potentially 350 units that would basically displace 28 uh of my neighbors. >> All I can say is I think I said it
earlier our our experience with a number of municipalities and overlay zones. We've had the discussions about if you want to maintain the character of your community, don't sell to a
developer. And if you recognize that um you'll continue to maintain the existing established character of that area. And I know that might be asking a lot of
people. But if you really take pride and you know love your neighborhood, you know that's what you would do. >> Well, we're all here, I think, because of Exactly. >> Yeah. And I think that reflects it. Thank you for your time and thank you for the their great questions.
>> You're welcome. >> Thank you. >> Um my name is Jamie Harsha Troy. H A R S H A T R O Y. It's a mouthful. >> Raise your right hand, please. >> I refer testimony back to you. >> I do. >> Thank you.
>> Um I am piggybacking on this conversation. >> Just for the record, please. >> Oh, I'm sorry. 11 Thornhill Drive. Thank you. >> I live on I actually back up to the Franklin Turnpike all the way. Um, I am going to piggyback on to that conversation and you got a big headshake
out of me on that one. The big no and I'm going to throw out some experience that I have. I am a real estate agent. I'm very familiar with fair housing in v various different forms. Um, but I'm also coming to you as a former planning board member in New York and Rockland
County. I can tell you that it is most certainly not up to the homeowners not to sell. In my experience, very large-scale overlays will almost certainly lead to predatory investors, door knockers, aggressive fear tactics from solicitors looking to
buy and hold and rent the properties until they are able to acquire enough to build. The active solicitation is aggressive. It can be very very it can borderline on what we know as blockbusting. For those who don't know what that is, it's
pushing people out in fear. Um, and I've seen it happen. I had sold 15 homes within one year in a neighborhood that I lived in. Uh, you know, I was part of the problem in that case, not intentionally
and I had actually stood up and had to speak in front of the Department of State because solicitation got so severe. So, my question to you guys is and a statement to you is to get ahead of this. This looks like it's happening. I think we have kind of all come to that
conclusion. So, I would like to know what kind of protections you're going to put for our neighbors in place. Ramsay does not have strong no solicitation laws. Um, we have to protect the neighbors
against this type of mass solicitation. Some of my recommendations are no knock ordinances, lists, rental registrations because buy and hold property devalues the neighborhood as a whole. It devalues a town. Um LLC identification rules. We
had to really get ahead of this in Rockland County because people are buying these properties under LLC's and then we can't find them. We can't find the owners. We don't know where they live. They live in the city. you know, we we can't get a hold of them when things go wrong. Um, and other things to
protect the residents in general. You know, I and I would get them on it quickly because I am already familiar with a few of the neighbors having gotten letters for solicitation already. So, that is my request. Look into your solicitation policies in Ramsey. Get
ahead of it. It is very poor to minimal right now. >> Could I make a suggestion? >> 100%. I know there's minutes being taken, but you rattled off quite a number of things. If you could put that in a letter and email. >> Gladly. Gladly.
>> My address is on the housing plan. >> Gladly. And And this comes from experience. A lot of it. >> I I'm Councilwoman Musk. We do have a no knock ordinance in this town. You go to the burough website and register for it and it is enforced
>> and we don't publicize it when people get upset about that solicitation. We need to we need to publicize it. We need to get it a little bit stronger and we need to have lists in place, stickers. >> You can supply the town's people with stickers. >> Yeah, we have those. >> Then publicize it a little bit. I think
our communication in this town is a little bit mediocre. I think we can do better. And I think that if you get ahead of some of this stuff, it will then allow the town's people and the neighbors to make that choice of not selling to investors. But it's not all
on their shoulders. You can't put it all on their shoulders because once these investors get wind of some of this and they start being aggressive, they will come out in force. And it's not it's it's more about the fact that this overlay is large. If you had spread this
overlay into various different locations throughout the town, I would be less concerned, but this overlay is very large and it's in a location that's very close to commercial districts that are currently owned by investors already. So maybe a little bit, it might be a
little bit of a knee-jerk reaction on my part, but Ben, there done that. >> Thank you. So if I may ask >> if you could put what you had in an email to Mr. Burgess and Miss Burgess if you could then share that with Miss Lup
and Councilwoman if you could look into uh how we publicize the no knock ordinance in town perhaps you may have to maybe put it on the website in the front page or something along those lines >> and start getting ahead of your rental registry. >> I often will I prepare ordinances for
the town. That's it. That's right. >> Perfect. >> I really appreciate you sent me that. >> Excellent. We'll do. Thank you. I appreciate it. >> My name is Linda Dunn. I live at 10 Amanda Court. >> Affirm the testimony about to give me the truth to nothing. >> I do.
>> Thank you. >> So, I'm going to change gears a little bit and uh my questions might be a little shorter uh based upon a lot of what has already been said. Um, so Mr. Burgess, am I correct in assuming
based upon your previous comments that issues of traffic and safety were thrown down the road along with issues of school and public uh services? >> No, the the issue of safety is always
there. Um, that typically is part of the site plan review process. So, for example, if there's a a poor alignment for a driveway or whatever, um that's handled at that time. >> Exactly.
>> And plans can't be denied if they don't resolve pure safety issues. >> Okay. So um yesterday the planning board was sent copies of this report which is a report from 2004 that was prepared by
project for public safeties prior to the building of the train station. We at our request I served on a committee back then for traffic calming and at our request uh New Jersey Transit and uh hired project for public spaces to
prepare this traffic calming report. Um, >> would you like a copy of it? >> I have a copy of it. >> You have it? Perfect. Okay. So, then you have probably seen that on page seven of this report, it states some New Jersey Transit stat statistics that were
collected in May of 2001, where they estimate that approximately 8,000 cars per day travel along Island Road. That was 25 years ago before the train station was even built. You agree with that? I believe it shows that.
>> It says that. Okay. And then I'm sure you're also aware if you've seen the report uh that on page nine it refers to a speed study that was conducted in uh July of 2004 that report
reported a median speed of 34.4 mph and an 86th percentile speed of 39.9 mph. while that zone uh was still as it is now a 25 mile per hour zone. And then uh their conclusion and their
report was that because of uh a combination of speed and crossing issues, very very poorly and inadequately designed uh crossings. That that whole corridor was deemed to be
hostile to pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages. So, their report has about 58 recommendations of things that the town could have done to calm traffic back
then. I count two that were actually done. I have lived on my house on Amanda Court where I can't leave my street without turning onto Island Road and I've lived there for 34 years and I can
tell you not much has improved in 25 years. They made two improvements but it is still a disaster. Speeding is excessive and crosswalks are terrible. So, as part of this uh overlay,
did were there any considerations to traffic issues? >> No, that wouldn't have happened at this level. What would happen is after the ordinances are adopted, the site plan review ordinance would also then be
looked at to see if changes are necessary. >> Okay. And who who would do that? probably my office right after the municipality. >> So I imagine that if you see >> and um they may very well bring in a traffic consultant.
>> Okay. And then is it up to the burrow though to make the decision to actually implement those? >> Yeah. >> Because as I said there were 58 recommendations from 25 years ago and two were made that I count. So is there any consideration of safe
walking to schools or is that all to be done at a later date? >> That would all be done subsequently. >> Okay. So, um, moving on to the >> I just add to that because as I said earlier in response to a question,
at some point after March 15th, presumably the planning board would reopen Millennia's plan element and possibly um another traffic safety element of the master plan and look at
stuff like that to see what would happen if these sites were to develop. Correct. Okay. Well, and I'm glad you brought up the traffic element of the master plan because there are a couple of recommendations and goals in the master plan relating to traffic. One is uh the
recommendation is to avoid zoning changes and zoning variances for higher density residential development or more intensive commercial development than currently permitted to limit future increases in traffic volumes. And the goal is that future
development and uses should consider the reduction in traffic conflict points to the extent possible. So do you believe that this ordinance 042026 with the R5E overlay is consistent with the planning board's stated goals and
recommendations which by the way were approved 13 weeks ago to the state so very recently. >> I'm sorry what document are you referring to? I am referring to this is the traffic circulation
uh Ramsey traffic circulation and transportation element. It's dated November 20 November of 2025 and it was approved December 2nd of 2025 and my understanding is that this is part of the master plan that was approved by the
planning board. Can I see that? Second. Okay. Now, this has not been prepared by your office and for whatever reason, I never even received this. >> Well, there you go. You can keep that copy. >> Keep a copy for me. >> That is for you. >> Thank you. I saw this up here. I thought it was hard or something. I don't
remember this. >> Okay. >> So, would you say that this overlay is consistent with those goals and recommendations that this board approved 13 weeks ago? Let me read that in conjunction with everything else before I answer that question. >> Okay. So, in conclusion, what I would like to say, and it's really not so much
to you, it is more to the planning board, is that even if the overlay gets approved, which at this point it looks like it probably will. And even if the high density never goes in, the Island Road corridor with Finch Park at one end and then extending through to the
elementary schools is a traffic nightmare. These residents cannot get in and out of their driveways. I have a hard time getting out of my street to make that turn. The crosswalks are terrible. The lighting is awful. And some real substantive changes really should be made for that corridor. It's
it's where, you know, our our primary playground is at Finch Park. And that should be considered. And I guess I direct that to you, Councilman Cusk, since you're on the council and on buildings and grounds.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> Good evening. My name is Brian O' Conor. I live on 464 Island Road in Ramsey, New Jersey with my wife and my daughter. >> Swear affirm the testimony about to give me the truth and nothing. >> I s
Yes. So, my wife and my daughter and I, we've been living in Ramsey on 464 Island Road since uh March 2021. Since we've been there, there've been five car accidents. So, that's average like one car accident a year. And
they're all happening in less than 100 ft, 75 to 100 ft from where my driveway is. So my question is if during the overlays has anyone performed a capacity analysis as well as other related traffic circulation impacts these sites might cause um how much are we looking
at as as far as apartments buildings between now and 2030 about how many units altogether >> that's hard to say without knowing who's going to be selling. Nobody has to sell their property.
>> I know, but the developers seem to have like the upper hand. >> Seems like they have control to some extent. >> Not necessarily. Here >> why don't we why don't you give your name and address for the record again and then why don't you start start over? I don't know what was picked up. What
was it? >> Sure. I'm Brian Okconor. I live at 464 Island Road in Ramsey, New Jersey. >> You're 40. Okay. All right. So, let me start from where start over again. Uh, what I was looking for is, uh, you know,
since they've already done the overlays, did anyone perform a capacity analysis report of the traffic? Because from what I heard, the 2001 was 8,000 and as as I said before, I've been living here since March 2021. This we're now March 2026.
There've been four five car accidents. >> Yeah. We are not >> We are not traffic consultants. >> I know. >> So, okay. Um, Megalia prepared a report that I just received. So, I don't know what it says. So,
unfortunately for me, your question is a little premature, right? >> No. Well, according to the report, they were looking at what? 350 units. >> Yes. So, if it's 350 units, let's say each unit has two cars.
Roughly like how many cars would you say would be on island road? >> Yeah, usually traffic consultants will look at peak hour impacts and peak hour impacts typically a dwelling unit. It's a 6 um
units per tread because people leave their homes at different times. For example, I'll leave my house at 7:30 to get to work. my wife will be close till 8:4 to 9ine to get to work. So, we're in two different peak hours
and that's what happens in traffic testony. So, they talk about uh it differently than just two people leaving a house and so therefore it's two trips per peak hour and peak hour is the critical indicy that they traffic
consultants will use. So, right now I leave home at 5:30 every morning. So when I open my door between 5:17 5:30 there's always a car driving by. So what I'm looking at by 2028 2020 2030 if we
have 150 units up there we're looking at 300 cars. I also observe over the 5 years on Thanksgiving Day the whole street is taken up >> all the way down to the train station.
So what I'm looking at when we have 150 units, 300, 250 cars, their family and relatives come over in Thanksgiving, we're looking at parking from Finch Park all the way to the train station or all the way to Interstate Mall. So again,
I'm looking for cumulative impact report showing what what Yeah. something in in writing to say, "Okay, we look at this and it's good to go. We can see another three 300
500 cars on this road." >> No more accidents. >> This traffic report may have the >> I think we're on. >> Lieutenant, does did PD go the generator package? >> No, we're okay.
>> Okay. So, she said we're we're good. >> We're good. Okay. All right. So, let's go back on the record. Roll call, please. >> Council Musk here. Here. Mr. Gar. >> Mr. Blumbo. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Voni. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Zala.
>> Yeah. >> Chairman >> here. >> Okay. Mr. Burgess, I think. >> Let me offer this. >> Um, in the third round, a tremendous number of housing plans had overlay
zones. very few of those overlay zones have ever been built. So the suggestion that it's definitely going to happen here um isn't borne out by the experience
elsewhere. And when I say experience elsewhere, I'm talking about municipalities in Bergen County that have overlay zones that have never been built. um and quite a number of them that are higher densities than than this. So
while a few lots may develop over time, I don't envision that the entirety of the area would ever get developed. Um that doesn't help you from your problem which
is a safety issue. Yes, elementary school, >> right? And I would suggest that if and when any lots are put together to come in for a development application,
that's when this board or yeah, this board um would be evaluating in detail the traffic safety issue and require developers to do the traffic counts and the municipality might hire its own traffic consultant to do its own counts
and look at all the safety considerations. But at this preliminary stage for the housing plan, you know, that kind of analysis is not undertaken. >> Okay. So, can they still go ahead with a vote even though
>> I'm sorry, say that again. >> Can you still go ahead with a vote after I just mentioned that there were five accidents in 5 years and we're looking at more units, more accidents >> in the future? This board, I know I know
you're not going to like this answer, but this board to protect the municipality has to vote on this document. They might deny it and not approve it, but that would probably put you in much much
greater jeopardy than um if they were to approve it and then look at some of the issues you're raising and possibly amend the document in the future. that they need to adopt this document.
>> Okay. So, we're looking at Okay. >> I'm just concerned about my my daughter >> my daughter's safety. >> I fully understand that. >> Okay. >> So, Mr. I just want to >> Yes. >> explain. So, whenever we have a project being built or being proposed, one of
the things that this board always looks at is traffic. So we looked at it at the other project that's proposed for the senior housing on island. So for hypothetically if there was a developer that came in and said we want to build
whatever on island, one of the things that this board looks at and takes very serious his traffic. So they we they would have their traffic study, we would have our traffic study. If the traffic studies show issues, they have to be addressed. >> When was that one done completed? That
last report? When was the last traffic report completed? >> You know, analyze the traffic condition on the island for 425. >> Yeah. So, that was that what I was referring to was 425 where the senior
housing uh project is. They had a traffic expert. Uh I believe we had our traffic expert and they discussed how many trips because senior housing is a little bit different than you know regular housing. how many trips would come out and what the added volume onto
that road would be. >> Was any done for 425? >> Excuse me. >> Was any done for 425 Highland Road? >> Yeah, >> there was one done. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And >> according to my neighbor here, she said there was like 8,000 was the number of
cars they said on the >> So that that was a a two a study that was done 20some years ago when they built the um parking deck for the train station. And that was that was I guess a study that was done on how many cars go
up and down island. What I'm referring to is when we have specific applicants come with specific projects, we always have any traffic study done that tells us what are the counts and more importantly what additional volume is
going to be added if any to the street because of what's being proposed. So if hypothetically there is ever a project that's for the board, that's something that would be taken into consideration. If our traffic consultant says this is an issue, it's going to have to be addressed somehow,
>> a stop light or whatever. >> Can we take in consideration what I just mentioned again, the five years, five accidents, because that's on my mind again. I have a daughter in elementary school and again within 75 ft of my driveway, those accidents happen.
>> Understood. >> Thank you. If I could just h I Joe Kerry 498 Island Road >> swear affirm the testimony you're about to give the truth and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Um just a quick follow-up question on
that. I think the issue is not if the sites themselves have a traffic plan, but is there a comprehensive plan along the entire corridor similar to what the
PPS report was done in 2004? um site specific plans, traffic plans tend to be they look at their site and they're just saying this is what we're doing and there isn't
really taking into account the cumulative effect of this site might add a few cars and that site might add not as few but a little bit more and then this guy says this and currently right
now we have two sites one's been approved. We have Ramsey lumber that could be a significant number of of units and um vehicles. And now we're looking at
this other thing. And I think it's extremely important for the bureau to be proactive on this issue and not just rely on the applicant to do the count for his site and what's your site going to do when
there's been longstanding cumulative issues along that corridor. Thank you. Steven Bennett, 36 Ferguson Place, Bmpton, New Jersey. >> Raise your right hand, please. You swear affirm the testimony about to give you the truth and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Thank you.
>> And referring to traffic and the 2004 study. At that time they the plans did not require a widening of Ferguson Place to get into
the back entrance of the Ramsey lumber yard. However, this time now you have the nursery on the other side of the lumber yard which has no direct access off of Island Avenue that could sell and would meet the
requirements of the 2 and 1/2 acres and random lumber would meet the requirements of 2 and 1/2 acres. My my fear is that with all the additional traffic, they would need a another means of entrance and egress out
of this complex, which is only Ferguson Place, which would mean that our road would have to be widened considerably for the amount of traffic that would be coming in. Because living there for 24 years,
I had to make them change the street to parking on only one side because when I went out to work at 6:00 in the morning, I couldn't get through the street cuz two cars were parked on either side and I couldn't fit through and a fire truck wouldn't fit through.
So my these are some of the considerations that I hope um because of the water in the street will lower my property value. So, and I know I have resilient neighbors on our block that I don't
think they want to sell, but I but a large residential complex is going to need more than one entrance where the Newcastle entrance is now to accommodate all the people going from that end all
the way over to the nursery because I don't think you're going to knock houses down that are not part of this just to put a road Um, I just would like that to be part of the consideration of reviewing these plans because
like I said, that would reduce the whole value of that block considerably because I would assume it would take most of the 10 ft on either side of the street to expand the road. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Hello, Stacy Tossy, 41 Ferguson Police.
Ramsey, right here, please. >> Thank you. >> Affirm the testimony about to give the truth and do nothing about the truth. >> I do. Thank you. >> Good evening. >> Thank you. >> That was first of all the time that you've spent here and the details in your um presentation was great. I
appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> So, I I understand the town has obligations under the housing element and fair share framework. And my questions tonight are not about whether or not the town must comply with those requirements. For context, my family has a close
connection to emergency services. My husband serves as a career fire lieutenant and an EMT. So, emergency response reliability is something that I take very seriously. My questions tonight are focused on whether this overlay location has been adequately evaluated from the standpoint
of fire protection, EMS response capacity, and emergency access reliability. I'm asking these questions to help ensure the public record reflects whether these public safety considerations have been fully evaluated
before advancing this overlay. Mr. Burgess, I have a feeling that this might not be something that you c you can answer these questions based on what we've already talked about, but I'm going to ask them anyway if that's okay.
>> If that's okay. Mr. Burgess, have you conducted or received any uh an emergency response time analysis for this overlay, including projected increases in fire and EMS call volume and response conditions during peak
traffic periods? >> No. >> Mr. Burgess, have you evaluated whether emergency vehicles can reliably access and exit the neighborhood during peak traffic conditions or roadway obstruction scenarios?
>> Now, none of these questions are easy to answer. These are always changed because you don't know which laws would be combined to then determine how the any application could comply with all the site plan design criteria that's already
in the ordinance. >> Yeah. >> And that's what would determine a lot of the things that you're asking about. >> Right. Okay. So when an application is submitted to the planning board, uh it's required that copies of the application and the plans go to a number of
different departments including the fire department, police department, etc. And we have to get reports back from them to determine what is being proposed meets their requirements. >> Okay. Have you evaluated whether the site complies with NFPA fire apparatus access
standards including roadway with turning radius and unobstructed access for fire equipment? >> The again the site plan design criteria address that issue >> and it would depend on when the
applicant files the plans for which properties they they would have to comply with those standards. I'll make sure that that's addressed. Can >> I just what Mr. Whitaker was saying, we we have had applications where they've done their radiuses with the fire trucks and everything and we made them go back
and modify it because what the applicant was proposing didn't work for the fire department or police department. >> Yeah. My husband says we have a great fire department here. >> We do. We do. >> We do. Um, have we evaluated whether current fire and EMS staffing equipment
and deployment capacity can support the projected density without increasing response times? >> That's really two different issues. You know, the issue of personnel
um is a problem that many many municipalities in this area are facing because the average age of communities is going upwards. >> Um we just did a study for Roxbury where the average age of their first
responders was now 60. Yeah. Wow. Indeed. Um, and now they're thinking of whether or not they have to go to a uh full full paid department. >> Exactly. >> And that's what other municipalities around here are student government to be
having to address as well. >> Yeah. >> So, uh, obviously this question is probably not relevant, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Have you consulted with the Ramsey Fire Department regarding whether the proposed density and
existing access conditions can be supported within the town's current volunteer response model? >> No, we have not. We would be doing that on a site specific basis when they come in, not at this early stage.
And have there been any evaluated um simultaneous emergency demand scenarios such as multiple calls occurring during peak traffic conditions and whether emergency access routes and response capacity would remain reliable.
>> That would be assessed during your site plan review. >> Okay. Given the plan that planning boards are required to consider public health, safety, and welfare when evaluating land use decisions, can we
confirm whether you have determined that emergency access and response infrastructure in this proposed location are even adequate to support the proposed density? That issue again would be during the
site plan review process and that's what she addressed. >> It's one of I just wanted to definitely come up here and say that for the record even in the future 10 years down the line or in the foreseeable future with this overlay that these are
major concerns major major concerns. Um especially for a town like Ramsey with a volunteer fire department. Um thank you. I'm asking these questions to ensure that public health, safety, and welfare, particularly emergency response,
reliability, and emergency access are fully evaluated as part of the public record for this overlay. >> Yeah. Well, the as I said, as Mr. her said earlier that is addressed during the site plan review process and that's when that issue
>> the first purpose law >> section one of the issues law talks in terms of the same words you just used that one of the purposes is ensure right >> those things are adhered to >> absolutely >> and every planning board and every zoning board is required to abide by
that >> okay thank you Good evening. Nick Capalano, 50 Highwood Road. >> Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear affirm the testimony about to give you the truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Please proceed. >> Thank you very much. I'm going to um
piggy back on what Stacy had said. Um but I'm going to talk about the school system. Um she covered the emergency management. Um, did anyone look on the strain on the community resources, specifically the schools, um, and with
rising health care and whatnot, um, and and taxes going up, hypothetically, with the, uh, uh, potential of 450 families moving into a school system potentially? Um, what would be the strain on the
school system? Um um as a high school principal, I do budgets. Um I do a lot with education. Um in terms of uh the enrollment, increased enrollment, increased class sizes, increased teachers, with benefits
and salaries and classroom space and s and and parking. We're already having problems with students parking. Now we're going to increase more and then um you know potentially 300 new students. 350 new students. What's that going to
look like? Has anybody contacted the school system and had conversations with the school system? Um, I'm just I'm bringing this to light as things to think about. >> No, we we all understand that. And unfortunately, the case law is extremely
clear, correct? >> That you don't you cannot stop affordable housing and all that we've been discussing in this housing plan. because of that factor. >> Excellent. And I was going to I was going to respond to that. Yeah. No, I
was going to exactly dovtail on that. With that said, you see a lot of schools with the rising healthcare teachers are getting laid off. You see half pizza, Montlair, all these schools are struggling. Now we're adding to that. Does the school system go back to the
taxpayers or does the school system go back to town council and say, you know what, we have to hire 100 new teachers. I'm just throwing this number arbitrarily out there. Salaries, benefits, I mean that could easily be over a million dollars. Just something to think about.
>> Look at look at packinacers are being laid off. >> At the same time, they approved 4,000 dwelling units. >> Absolutely. >> Their obligation >> and that's why I had said earlier talk to your state legislators. It's not the
council. Understood. It's the state legislature that has forced all of this upon us. >> I I hear what you're saying. I I think everybody in Ramsey needs to hear this though. >> This is important. >> And not just in Ramsey. >> Yeah. >> People in Ramsey are going to be
watching this. So, thank you. >> Just to uh emphasize what Mr. Burges said, it's happening to all the municipalities. They all have the same concern. Right up the road in Franklin Lakes. You probably seen it in the paper. Two corporate campuses have been
reszoned for exactly this 1,400 units for the school system at Indian Hills and Ramapo >> and police library etc. and Franklin Lakes is small community uh that's a major >> that's the old IBM correct and >> and Beckton Dickson
>> and Beckton Dickson. Yeah. >> So it's happening throughout >> Y >> and again it's not something the towns want what the towns have been told you got to do. >> Understood. Understood. just I I I guess I wanted to see the ripple effect and how it's going to impact the schools.
Thank you. >> Good evening. Mike Dunn, 10 man court. >> So affirm the testimony about to give the truth nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Uh thanks for your um presentation and answering all of our questions. Mr. Burgess, um want to make sure I
understood um something that you said earlier. Um, you mentioned that in the negotiations with Fair Share, they wanted overlay zones not only for R5E, but also for the train station uh at Main Street. >> Yes. >> Um, I'm wondering how did the
negotiations transpire where we wound up with one versus the other? We talked that they talked about and I forget how many stories they were talking about but it was quite a number and we impressed upon them that the
equivalent of a wind tunnel effect on a very narrow street would not be found planning and they eventually acknowledged that fact. >> So and the wind tunnel you're referring to would be near Main Street. Is that the idea?
M main street as you know is pretty narrow to begin with. >> Yes. >> But if you had five, sixtory buildings on either side of that street. >> Mhm. >> You know, the the image the character of the area would would be dramatically different and
we were able to convince them that all one area could accommodate you to it was just bad planning to do it there. Oh, on top of it was the issue of parking. you just couldn't get the parking for those
residents because the sites are small to begin with and if you're going to have that great retail with apartments above they're not providing any parking >> I see my neighbors might think also that their card is pretty narrow as well and uh you know could make a very similar
argument >> yeah see I think the distinction that they were fair share was impressed with was we talked about how when a two and a half acre plus parcel. You can get that great parking
in downtown Main Street. You cannot. >> Okay. Thank you. >> My name is Maryanne Carrie. I live at 498 Island Road. >> I You swear affirm the testimony about to give me the truth and nothing but the truth. >> I do. Thank you.
>> Okay. I have a document here. I don't know whether you have it. I think it was sent to the uh secretary. It's called the Ramsay planning board meeting minutes analysis. Do you guys have that? And it basically this is a list of all
the planning board meetings and what was talked about at them. Do you want a copy of this? I I have enough for everybody. >> Can I approach? >> Yeah. I keep one. >> Thank you. I appreciate it.
>> So, um, so this lists the council meetings, the dates, and how long they lasted. But my basic question is and none of the nothing about any of the these issues that we've been talking about in the overlay zoning um for all
of the ordinances that are about to come forth. Um it doesn't look like the planning board was ever informed or it was never talked about in the planning board. So, I wonder when the planning board found out about this uh overlay
zone or these ordinances that were coming forth so quickly in our minds. And do do you do you know when? >> Well, after the mayor and council did the first reading, it comes to the
>> Okay. That's when Yeah. We found out. So, you know, it was just a small amount of time for >> and and remember Mr. Burch said the litigation and the mediation required confidentiality. >> Correct. Yes. You know, I I appreciate
that explanation. So, I understand why. Um, okay. So, you found out just three weeks ago, too. All right. Well, thank you very much. >> Hi, Joe Kerry 498 Island Road. >> Um I think just to kind of clarify that
understanding litigation is not discussed in open public meetings. >> Litigation is can would be discussed in executive session. We know um it happens at the board of ed all the time mayor and council and you can review their
minutes and they say executive session you don't know what it is because something's going on. It could be a personal issue, anything that is under litigation. And I guess the question was how come because this thing is significantly
impacting the plan in Ramsey. How come the planning board in the 16 scheduled meetings between the period of when the housing element was presented
there were even after the challenge was filed there was 1 2 3 4 five canceled meetings and two meetings for less than 20 minutes that wasn't there time there for
the board to have an executive session where this could have been brought to the attention and then it could have been explain. You know, the members of the public members, the class board members could have had an opportunity to contribute what they thought. >> There was no time there.
What was >> is that a question to me? >> I I'm I'm not 100% sure who I would be asking this question to would be to the Mr. Mr. Iorio. Mr. >> Car, you are on the board, correct? during this period of time >> and I am not allowed to say anything
that happened to me on the board of any >> I'm just stating a fact right yes I was you were on the board >> yes >> there is nothing before the board >> to act on as you know the board has agendas based upon applications that come in ordinance that the mayor and
council introduced the board was not part of any of these discussions regarding installment or the mediation so I'm not sure exactly what you think the could permanently do on their own when they're not party to any of them. >> Well, I what is I think it goes back to
my original question to Mr. um Whitaker was what is the role of the planning board in the plan and what you know and saying the board's role is to review site plans is only talking about half
the role of the board. The board is also responsible for the long-term plan and to make sure that everything is done is in cohesion with the master plan and to design the plan. saying there wasn't and
I think from everyone's concern was it just wasn't discussed and now literally we stumbled upon this was going on and and we saw this at the at the fe and we stumbled upon an agenda item on the
fee February 11th mayor and council meeting and it's like sorry done deal and how can that happen how and members of the board, planning board who you are public members and you're supposed to be representing the opinions of what public
members might see and decisions made here impact Ramsay for 20 30 40 50 years as I'm sure Mr. Burgess will agree and you're being forced to act reactive
as opposed to being proactive. And if you're being proactive, we can stand there. Everybody's known this 503 number, 450, 475, whatever it is, that was issued in October 2024.
And there are things that we can do that might make the affordable housing people a little bit more happier so they're not going to come down on us with a sledgehammer. And that's really I think is the issue that the board members should really
think about a lot because here it is decision you're change you're if now I don't know the status of we've we've tried to look at the mediation agreements and we've tried to look at what the varing different things say and
what the penalties are. We understand builder's remedy. Every not not one person has said you're not they're not in favor of affordable housing. Everyone recognizes there is a need. I think from our standpoint we're standing there and saying you need 70.
But the tactic that we're using is the 20% set aside. So we need 70. And I'm sure we could come up with a dozen different ideas where to find 70 units or where to build 70 affordable
units around the burrow and still maintain the character. But the tactic that we're using in this overlay is 20% set aside. So you you have 70 affordables
that equals 350 units. And the as Mr. I earlio said I was on the 425 island when we heard the the board when we heard 425 island those were market rate units
market rate in Ramsey 92 Main Street million dollars off of Mechanic Street a million dollars market so we're tearing down 28 homes well-maintained small homes they are affordable they are what is
what affordable housing is and look at the characteristics of the community. We're retirees. We're first generation. We're, you know, pe we have people who don't even know how to speak English and we're trying to explain to them what's going on and they're like, "What's going on? What's going on?" And people have
received letters. People are already and as um Jamie said, there are people have received letters. People have received letters There it is. It this is very very real
for us and it is and as Jamie said it it I don't want it but what about you know what about if grandma dies and then this and then the son who lives in Oregon comes by and says sell the place. Oh,
look at this guy offer him. And that's a real problem for us. And I recognize that the, you know, the the board hands are tied on this, but it's very frustrating for me the fact that there
was no time for you to talk about this. Thank you. >> Hi, Stacy Tossy, 41 Ferguson Place. Mr. Verdone, I heard you call him a piece of [ __ ] just now, and I am horrified that that
came out of your mouth. It was either you or him. I looked directly at you, and you said, "No, it was him." To do that in this beautiful town, you should be embarrassed. >> I have good years. I do, too. Me, too.
I guess I'll make a statement since we're seem like we're closing up, right? This is obviously falling apart here. Just like the infrastructure with the lights. Um, all right. So, it seems like we have a place and zero plan. Alicia Ferguson Place Alicia Carbone 50
Ferguson Place 46 Ferguson Place restoring a 1910 half an acre house with my two very young children. So we have a place we don't have any plan. I'm speaking to the Ramsay people as well as the planning board. It's been said several times that there's no
proposed development. We have discussed serious, highly impactful issues that have not been considered. We have discussed some creative ideas that have not been contemplated at all. When do we consider these issues? When
do we get creative? Who pays the price for all of this is what you need to answer us and the rest of the town. There's proposed development. There isn't proposed development, but myself and several of my neighbors received this letter within
a week of the proposal of the ordinance last month. I'll read you the the middle part. We have identified your property 50 Ferguson Place as a prime site for future development. Recent legislative changes in the state of New Jersey have resulted in your property being included
in the town's housing element and fair share plan as a potential site to help meet the municipality's affordable housing obligations. This designation significantly enhances the development potential of your site and we are therefore very interested in discussing a possible acquisition. We'd love to
meet with you. So, tonight, your decision as the planning board is going to guide us, right? It's going to cause us to reconsider our love for a town that is willing to abandon us, a town that does not value our investments, our families,
our children, our safety, our contributions to this town. You'll fight for a parking lot over your people. That's what you represent. Your decision tonight will determine whether you can continue to repeat there is no proposed development.
It will no longer be our community. Okay. So, I'll make a statement for Joe Carrie 498 Island Road. Um I recognize what's going on here and I
know the pressure is against everyone and I we we're very cognizant of March 15th and what the implications of not passing this are. Um but we urge the board and when I had asked Mr. um Whitaker
before there are three different there are four different votes here. There is the housing element master plan there and then there are the three ordinances. Now, and the different types of vote you have is you're not voting to approve,
you're voting to recommend the ordinances. And um the governing body has the option to disregard that non-recommendation or however it
would might be might be worded. Um the planning board as we tried to find was not very much involved in what was going on here and we understand that everyone is
pretty much given a fail and complaint but there is one out. Um the board board is charged under municipal land use law with stewardship of the master plan not reacting under duress. major zoning shifts like this,
especially overlays placed on stable established neighborhoods, understanding how it happened. But zoning shifts like this deserve deliberate review, full transparency, thoughtful consideration of other
alternatives. And then even then if you look at this overlay that we're we're talking about here and when you're saying it'll never happen that means it's realistic opportunity which is mentioned 14 15 times in the affordable housing act. Now
two other overlays in the neighborhood have had willing sellers willing buyers 425 island road and they're still figuring out at Ramsey Lumber. This has unwilling sellers and very aggressive buyers.
Um there's been ample time over the past several months for this board to have been meaningful engaged in these discussions even if even in executive sessions as necessary understanding this was litigation even you could have been discuss that
could have been discussed. self. We respectfully urge you to send ordinance 042026 the island road overlay zone back to the governing body with a recommendation of not or I guess saying saying not
recommendations given the reasons is you the board was not consulted on this. The ordinance is not compatible with current land use comp and and traffic and circulation goals. They must be repaired and there are less impactful options to
create the 70 units and add and maybe even additional unmet needs that were not publicly explored or adequately analyzed. If the governing body ultimately believes it must adopt this ordinance
to and to and to disregard the planning board's concerns to meet the state state deadline, then that decision should r excuse me that decision address squarely with the governing body. It should not
be said that the planning board endorsed a 60-year-old policy shift without full vetting of alternatives and without the benefit of calm long range planning. Again, the burrows on net meat is 424
units. Using the 20% overlay tool, we're talking 2,120 units that have to be built in Ramsey if this thing is fully built out. And in 10 years, is it a thousand? and then we have to build 5,000 units. So, we should
the board should get very much ahead of this. Look at these other alternatives and sending the message by not recommending it isn't the end of the world. It's just going to the PL going
to the governing body saying somebody knew what was going on here. No. And they'll say sorry, we have to do it. and it's not on this board. Thank you. >> Anyone else from the public would like
to make any statements or have any questions of Mr. Burgess? Okay, not seeing him, we'll close the public hearing and we will open it up now to discussion by the board.
>> Um, I guess Mr. Whitaker, can you just >> first discussion would be on the master plan. As I said to you earlier, this amendment the planning board on the municipal language law has the jurisdiction um to adopt the master plan. It's not
something that's sent to the governing body. The ordinances, as I previously stated, those three ordinances and all ordinances land use oriented, those are reviewed and then a recommendation is made to the mayor of council as to whether they should be adopted or not.
that the claim board does not adopt. >> Okay. So I think >> the discussion first would be uh based upon the review this evening is the master plan aspect. >> Okay. So we'll open that the master plan aspect of tonight's hearing up for
discussion by the board. I think I don't think anyone likes the situation that the board has put in or that the burrow is p were put in by the state. Um this is mandated by the state. It's mandated by the legislature
as Mr. Burg just stated and I agree with him. If we want change, it's it's really to the state legislators for the state to come in and tell a town like Ramsey that you need to create areas for affordable housing. And the
numbers that they come out with, in my opinion, for a town that's fully developed is is unreasonable. Um, with that said though, the ramifications of not complying with this is
is very detrimental to the town if we don't comply with what the state legislature provides and is not me is not optional. We can't miss it by a day. It's it's in the legislature. It says what it says. If you miss it, you lose
your immunity. Any developer can come into this town and develop what they want anywhere in this town. um including on single family parcels on Island Road. They they don't need to get an assemblage. They can get
a 1acre lot and put something in there that is well outside of our our zoning. Nothing that we would ever approve. And unfortunately, this board would have no ability to stop that. So, as a board, we have to weigh
the potential for maybe development at some point in the future versus the reality of the facts of that if we don't meet the deadlines and the requirements that the state provides, then the entire
burrow, including the properties that are in these proposed overlay zones, would be subject to builders remedies and developers can do what whatever they Um, you know, we've seen it before. The lumber yard is a property that developers have looked at. Um, they
proposed something that this town was not willing to agree to. It was too tall. It was too dense. I remember one of the arguments was that the fire apparatus couldn't reach the number of floors that they wanted. And eventually that developer backed off. without
zoning in place, a developer like that will come back and probably propose something worse um on that site and on other sites in town. Um so I I think the ramifications of not complying with this to the town in
general are just too great for the board not to comply with it. I mean, I agree. The re the builder's remedy is unfortunately unsightful. Um, heard a lot of good arguments tonight. Everyone's had a lot of good points and unfortunately, like you heard, our hands
are tied. It's coming from the state legislature. That's where you got to go. But if you think you're getting aggressive letters now, wait till the 16th. If we don't make this date, those letters are going to come 10fold. It's going to get worse. So, as much as it's a tough thing to do, I understand the
concerns, this being late. Totally understand. I live next one of these zones realizing the issues. I look at this bill, the best situation we can do is to pass this and prevent that from doing this revenue. That's the only real feasible option we have left. Now, a lot
of people have brought up a lot of good points tonight, whether it's safety, it's development. I urge you to continue doing that in this town. your state legislation don't be a one and done where this goes and you stop doing this because everyone's part of login points within a week you guys have dissect the information done a great job and that's
got to continue so the only way we're going to prove this down is continue to have that level of contribution from you guys and bring things up and not letting this die whether it's in this town or the state legislature so I feel that's where we have to go it's it's a tough decision but I think this is the our
responsibility to protect the town from it development and have keep builders from coming in doing what they want without any regulation. Unfortunately, that's where I think that's where I'm going to fall we have to go. >> Yeah. I think you know what I find ironic about this whole thing is, you
know, the state legislature comes up with this legislature that we have to follow. They come up with the fair share housing authority and then they know there's these timelines and they know that when you have these objectors come in that
there's a deadline and they can stick to their guns and say this is what we want and if you don't agree to it then the ramifications for your town are the builder's remedies. So it kind of put all the towns, not just Ramsey, every
town in a situation where you have to capitulate to some point. I know there's been a lot of talk about, you know, should we have town hall meetings about this and should we discuss this? I think Mr. Burges, you know, discussed that, you know, and
made the point where if you do have these town hall meetings, every potential developer is going to be in that room and they're going to hear about every site that we're talking about and they're going to now join into those lawsuits and fair share is basically going to say, "Okay, on top of
what we wanted before, we have five, six, seven developers who all have pointed out properties that they're willing to develop into affordable housing. We want those also included on top of what we already want. So
I think like I said I I think you know at some point the legislature has to understand that towns like Randy that are fully developed. You can't keep doing this you know every so often and having the town go find some more properties that they dictate you know
you have to comply with. um the situation we are in is weighing you know the potential development against the builder's remedies and like Mr. Gargo said I said earlier I think the risk to the town for not um
complying with the deadlines is too great to just let it pass by. Any other comments from any members of the board? >> Okay. So without hearing any I guess the first order would be >> the first step the um
the council uh special counsel the federal Ramsey had for this litigation uh has developed a resolution that the board could consider. uh and I have already submitted that resolution to you uh to look at um and if someone wants to
move that resolution that's your prerogative uh but it's part of the resolution is part of what uh special counsel uh prepared uh who was the council for the litigation. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do make a motion we
adopt the burough's amended fourth round housing element and fair share plan as discussed tonight. >> Do we have a second? Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Yes. Council Musk. >> Yes. >> Main. >> Yes. >> Mr. Baron? >> Yes. >> Mr. Palumbo?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Boni? >> Yes. >> Mr. Zabano? >> Yes. >> Chairman? >> Yes. >> Okay. So now I think we need to take >> need to take each of the resolutions in order. >> You mean right. >> The ordinance the last ordinance would
be the one for the compliance ordinances. the first two specific ordinances you have to go through the first. >> Okay. So, first we have ordinance 04-2026 which is the new R5E Island Road
multifamily residential overlay district. Um I think we've discussed what this is. I think Mr. Burgess has explained what this zone means. I don't know if anyone has any questions of Mr. diverges if hasn't already been asked
about this specific ordinance. We can ask it now. >> The approach you're taking is does this ordinance uh comply with what you've just recently approved in the amended master plan uh for the housing element
at fair share housing. >> Right. So remember, we're not approving the ordinance. We're simply making a recommendation to the mayor and council that the ordinance is in compliance with the fair share element of the master
plan that we just approved. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can make that motion that we do recommend this to the mayor council that is in compliance with the very fair share uh plan that we just discussed this even. >> Thank you. Can I get a second?
>> Second. Thank you. Roll vote, please. Yes. Council me. Uh, Miss Dy. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gargan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Palumbo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Berdoni. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zabala. >> Yes. >> And chairman. >> Yes. >> We have our second ordinance. Ordinance
05-2026, which is the new R5F North Franklin Turnpike Multifamily Residential Overlay District. Again, this is what uh Mr. Burges discussed before. Uh, does any board members have any further questions
of Mr. Burges on this ordinance? Okay. Not hearing any. Um, does anyone want to make a motion as we did with the prior ordinance? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we recommend this to the mayor and council that it is in compliance with the Burough's amended fourth round
housing element fair share plan that was approved this evening. >> Thank you. Can I get a second, please? >> Second. Roll call, please. >> That would be Mr. Bardau. >> Yes. >> Mr. Plumbo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Verdon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zala. >> Yes.
>> Yes. And we have ordinance 06-2026 which is the affordable housing mandatory set aside. And that is the one where every what five units is it? >> Yeah. Let me comment on this one. Um you have a mandatory set aside ordinance
under the prior rounds. highly required wherever you have five or more unit multif family units. If they're for sale, it's a be a 20% set aside and if they're rental units, it would be a 15% set aside. Under the new
fourth round rules, everything is a 20% set aside whether it's rental or for sale units. That's the one change in this ordinance. >> Okay. So this is obviously similar to what we have already on in the ordinance um with the one change that Mr. Burgess
just has explained. Uh do we have a motion for this ordinance? Mr. >> Chairman, I make a motion that we recommend this to the mayor and council uh as it is in compliance with the burrows amended fourth round housing element fair share plans as approved as >> Thank you. Can I get a second?
>> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Yes. M. >> Yes. Mr. Bar. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Mr. Zabella. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, we have one resolution this uh evening which is
the RA of Ramsey uh DPA Ramsey Acura. Can I get a motion to wave the reading? >> So move. >> Motion >> and a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> And can I get a motion to approve the resolution, please? >> So move. and a second.
>> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Council, >> yes. >> Yes. Mr. Bard, >> yes. >> Mr. Palumbo, >> yes. >> Mr. Bean, >> yes. >> Yes. Uh, we just have on our old business the Alejandra and Andrea Presza
uh applications carried to our April 7th meeting. >> There's no 17. >> And there's no more 17. >> No more 17th. with that. I >> guess we can do that. So, um Okay. So, I
guess we need a motion to technically uh to nominate uh Mr. Garva as the uh new uh vice chair of the board. >> This is Councilwoman Musk and I want to nominate Ryan Garz as vice chairman. >> Thank you. Can I get a second, please? >> Second.
>> Roll call, please. Council member, Miss Dailyy, >> yes. >> Uh, Mr. Plumbbo, >> yes. >> Mr. Verdon, >> yes. >> Mr. Zabala, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Uh, with that, I don't think we have any other new business. Uh, can I get a motion to adjurnn, please?
>> Motion to. >> Thank you. Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I. >> All right. Thanks for staying late and taking with us, everybody.