Are you You guys ready? >> Good. Here we go. >> Good evening. This is the village council special public meeting. The date is December 17th, 2025. The time is 700 p.m.
Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by a posting on the bulletin board in Village Hall, by mail to the Ridgewood News, the record, and by submission to all persons entitled the same as provided by law of a schedule, including the date and time of this meeting. Roll call. Council member Mortimer
>> here. >> Deputy Mayor Parn >> here. >> Council member Whites >> here. >> Council member Winterrad >> here. >> Mayor Vajanos >> here. Will you all please join us in salute to our flag? >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We're going to take things um in the order that's on the agenda, which is a
little out of our regular order. Obviously, we're all here regarding affordable housing and Kensington. And so um there's some information that we want to get to you before we get to public comment so that whatever your comments are, your questions can be as best informed and as upto-date as they
could possibly be. We're going to lead off with our attorney, Matt Rogers, who's going to give you the state of affairs of the litig the current litigation with Kensington and um Fairshare Housing, which is the public advocate arm for affordable housing.
Matt. >> Okay. Good evening, everybody. Um, I've been asked to explain the process and the legal implications of the actions the council is taking tonight as they relate to the projects included in the vill villages housing element and fair
share plan. Throughout this, I'll refer to it as our affordable housing plan. As most are aware, the ordinances concern affordable housing development and Rididgewood's obligation to comply with the state law, the Mount Laurel
mandate as everybody calls it. And what does that mean? Well, there's wellestablished legislation and court decisions creating a constitutional mandate that every municipality in New Jersey must provide a realistic opportunity for development of affordable housing within its borders.
Now, many many towns feel the process is an arbitrary exercise of a municipality zoning power. Some towns even filed challenges to this fourth round of affordable housing which is known as the amended FHA, amended fair housing act.
But I think if you've followed it, you've noticed that none of them have prevailed. Courts are well aware of the importance of the constitutional mandate for each town's obligation. In Rididgewood, we went through the third pound third round and received
compliance. This is now what's known as the fourth round and municipalities are required to provide even more additional affordable housing than what we did in the third round. That's part of what the fourth round is. It gets revisited now
every 10 years. So the next round or fifth round will be in 2036 or 2035. So that came about and that new law, the amended FHA came about in July of 2024. They adopted a new set of rules, many of which were not before not before us in
the third round, mostly from a procedural standpoint. Things changed for the fourth round from the third round. And we're facing one of those new rules right right now, which is what's known as the settlement settlement process. Uh this is the mandate that any town that
has a challenge to its affordable housing plan and in this case we've got two challengers. Um the fair share housing corporation and Kensington have challenged our affordable housing plan. So any town that that has that has to go
through a settlement conference and the courts bound and bound us to finish it by the end of the year. We got first notice of it back in the beginning of November. We had three settlement conferences so far and we've participated in them uh with the parties
who have filed the court challenges there. These conferences are managed by the by a superior court judge who's retired. The judge's role without question is to ensure that the municipality meets that mandate of
providing a realistic opportunity for affordable units to be developed in the town. In the settlement conferences, the courts focused mostly on Kensington's development. The judge reviewed submittals and documents submitted by
the parties and noted that there was a modified Kensington plan coming in other than the one that was under an ordinance back in August that the council defeated and that it complies this this amended or modified plan complies with the
zoning height and bulk requirements or setback requirements that any development going in there right now would have to comply. comply with. But most importantly, this plan provides for affordable housing units. That's the
preeminent factor. The judge made clear that if the village does not resolve this matter through settlement, an order would be entered in which Rididgewood would lose its immunity from from builder's remedies lawsuits and be stripped of the presumption of the validity of its zoning ordinances.
This would happen if we are unable to settle. And the settlement process is supposed to be over by the end of December. So this is going to happen. This is right around the corner which could happen to the village. This is the incentive the the stripping or the immunity that's given to towns from
builder remedy lawsuits is the incentive that the courts and the legislature intended to force municipalities to comply with that affordable housing mandate. Many towns would rather not have to do it. Although no one's no
one's objecting to affordable housing, people have objected to the development. And this incentive is what carries the day when the court looks at these matters to ensure a compliance. The judge has overseen settlement
conferences in this way before. They've seen this happen. They've seen towns uh with with different reasons for for not complying or for different reasons for not accepting a proposed development. This is nothing new to them and it's not a unique concept for the
court that people that the that the people the neighborhood is up against the development that's being proposed in their area. So we have been told by the judge that the removal of our immunity is their remedy and that they will use that to
force compliance. when I requested that the or that the neighborhood organization that's been organized now to fight this or go against this when I made the request to the court that they be permitted to be involved in the settlement discussions
the court denied the request um the court's denial was based on its position that public opposition is not a legal standard upon which affordable housing can be denied or granted
and this was all made very clear. Now, if you're asking about what a builder's remedy, what does that mean? right now and for over 30 years, I don't even know how long it's been, Rididgewood has maintained immunity from developer suits, which means that our zoning, we're able to control our zoning
through the process that we have for adopting ordinances, planning this out, putting it together with the what we call our master plan and presenting it to the to the planning board for review and approval. We provided compliant and satisfactory
affordable housing plans in the past and they were accepted by the court even when they were la particularly with the third round there were multiple challengers um and including the fair share housing center and as a result we achieved that order of immunity which is what you're
really looking for when you do work toward compliance with this mandate. The immunity prevents a developer from suing the village to construct larger scale residential projects at a location, density, and height of the
developer's choosing on the basis that the village has failed to meet its affordable housing obligation and the developer was going to go satisfy it for the village. If immunity is not granted to us by the court and we were stripped of the
presumption of validity of our ordinances, a developer could pro propose a project that ignores zoning limitations on use, height, setbacks, building coverage. For example, a developer could seek to build a 60-foot
structure in an area where zone our zone our zoning ordinances would restrict a maximum height of 40 feet. This would expose many properties throughout the village to a significant unregulated development. There's a map
up on the screen that was prepared by our affordable housing planner, Beth McManis, which shows in yellow the different sites that are in the village that would be susceptible to builder's remedy lawsuits.
>> D uh Dylan, can you make that a little larger by any chance? Go ahead, Ben. >> So, you can see from this, if it makes if it's made a little larger that um it's a widespread issue and it's a
widespread how how the exposure to the town would be with regard to this. The loss of immunity seriously jeopardizes the village's ability to control land use and development in their borders. In addition, New Jersey law provides
that municipal ordinances normally carry a presumption of validity, meaning that they're presumed to be valid when they're adopted by the council. If we don't have our immunity, that presumption is gone. It makes them developers would then have the ability to challenge zoning
ordinances in town with far greater ease. One last thing. In short, failure to to comply with the fourth round would result in our losing control over the development in their village. I think by way of example, if you wanted to take
this in line, all you have to do is look at Englewood Cliffs in their third round requirements of affordable housing. The town disregarded a court's order to permit development of a an affordable development, affordable housing
development, and failed to settle with the developer. They fought the development. The court ordered the development could proceed, and the developer knew this and knew it was going to happen. So, what they did is when the court ordered it to proceed, they made their development bigger than
what they had originally proposed. The downside is extensive with regard to that. So now that has that larger development has been built. They are now open. It's now open for you know for renters from what I understand. One of the other
things that I'll talk about is the fact that the court ordered the town to pay the legal fees and some of the professional fees for the developer in that in that instance and for Anglewood Cliffs. And you can look it up. I think I could be wrong, but you can look it up. I think it was reached seven
figures, the damages. Now, I can't guarantee or or or assert to you that I know exactly what a court will do or desire. I can only base that opinion or my opinion on precedent, trial experience, on building remedy lawsuits, and trying to understand
what's meant by that constitutional mandate and how important that is to the court. But the council has to weigh the consequences of the of challenging this and challenging any of these developments against the likelihood of success in litigating and particularly in this instance the exclusion of the
Kensington development and project from our affordable housing plan. If the court's willing to strip our immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits, you can assume that a court will be willing to find our affordable housing plan is lacking and that the Kensington project must be included in it. We could
appeal that order, but the appellet division would likely uphold lower court's decision. It could also uphold the removal of immunity. How likely? I can only suggest that the numbers and the percentages of approval
are high in the '9s. And um again, the developer could then increase the size of the plan if it wanted. The matter would then proceed to site plan review. Nothing can be done or constructed until a site plan application is filed, public hearings
are held and a decision is voted on by the planning board. This will take maybe, you know, will take several months, maybe even a year, but unless it can be shown that safety and health are negatively impacted, the court was going to approve this.
All this while our immunity is removed and we are subject to developers coming in to develop some of these sites. The proofs in this and what the court said was objectively I find the following and the court said that there's you have a willing developer who
wants to put up affordable unit units. Developer is under contract to purchase and develop property which includes affordable units and subject to the approval. The project complies with existing height and setback zoning requirements. There are other permitted uses at at the
site according to our zoning that could be more intrusive while providing providing no affordable housing and the court already ordered the site to be included in our affordable housing plan. That's the proof that a trial judge is going to have because the
settlement judge is going to say that this should be included in our plan. Courts in New Jersey consistently look for ways to allow affordable housing developments regardless of their public opposition or municipal resistance.
While the litigation could delay the project, the council also considered what's going to happen with the loss of immunity and and the zoning validity during a litigation. Even if there's is a site plan application before any building can take place, after the site plan application
to the planning board, the there's an extreme likelihood of success that the court's going to order any application approved, even if it's a bigger one than what we're looking at right now. There's little doubt in my mind that
this project would be approved. And I'm not saying this out of turn because I know the builder already knows that. The cost of litigation, including attorney and professional fees that the village could be ordered to pay, is another part of the consideration, but
not the most important one. The potential damages to the developer, including carrying costs and the like, can also be ordered by the court, but again, the issue is the development in this particular site. The court made clear during the
settlement discussions what would happen if Kensington is not resolved. Court actions would be immediate and remove the village's immunity, the presumption of validity of our ordinances and ultimately allow the project to proceed. Depending
upon the size of what it's going to be proposed, it could get bigger. Tonight we're here to adopt to introduce a number of ordinances that have to do with our affordable housing plan. The main one I think obviously is
Kensington. And the reasons why it's important is because of the ramifications to the town if we don't go don't follow through and resolve this matter with Kensington. I've advised the council of this and um I believe that's why we're on it tonight
to introduce those ordinances. I hope this explanation helps clarify the reasons for the council's actions and the legal considerations underlying their decision. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Matt. Um, good evening.
While none of us really want to be here tonight, I'm glad you all are because our goal has always been to get you all the information that we have on this process. We are not here to change anyone's mind
about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. This assisted living facility. Not going there. Don't want to. We know that you don't like it under any circumstances. And for the record, despite what some of
you may believe, we're not crazy about it either. This is being thrust upon our community. But before we go to public comment this evening, we want you to all know the current situation that we are facing.
And believe me when I tell you, it's a situation. It has been the vill's position up to this point to deny all the ordinances that would allow Kensington to build their assisted living facility on North
Maple between Marshall and Franklin. And we have said we will continue that because the neighborhood opposes this unless a court orders us to make those changes.
As I'm sure you all remember, and for those of you who were not here, I'm going to start at the beginning. And we we tried to get some of this information out by meeting with a small committee of some of you that we hoped would disperse this information. But but we're going to
go through it again. At that meeting, this council voted unanimously to deny changes to that section of town prior to even hearing any public comment.
We denied Kensington right from the start. At that time, we brought in our affordable housing consultant to discuss this matter that night. Beth McManis, who is perhaps the leading affordable housing consultant
and planner in the state of New Jersey, gave testimony in this room in great detail that if Kensington filed suit to object to our denial that in her opinion, we would ultimately
be ordered by the court to make the changes necessary to allow the development to proceed. Matt Rogers, our village council, who has extensive experience and as much as anybody in New Jersey in this area,
agreed with her assessment and confirmed her opinion that in his opinion, the court would ultimately order us to make these changes. Nonetheless, this council went against the advice of its attorney and its
affordable housing expert and denied the ordinance. Anyway, we did that because despite what some in this room may believe, we support the neighborhood's opposition to this oppo proposal.
Because you oppose it, we oppose it. And again, despite what some of you may believe, we are all on the same team. Always have been, always will be. As expected,
Kensington filed suit objecting to this council's actions. Two weeks ago, I was asked to sit in on the court-ordered mediation conference. What I heard that day was so significant. I took notes and set in
motion the series of meetings that we have had this week culminating not tonight but tomorrow. The highlights of what I heard I will summarize for you. Please pay close attention because this is so important
and this is what is at stake right now. Judge Pauline Sap Peterson said that based upon her objective review of the facts, if the village does not make the ordinance changes requested,
she said that she would recommend that we lose our zoning immunity to builder remedies lawsuits. The loss of zoning immunity amounts to the equivalent of the death penalty in
affordable housing litigation. If we lose our zoning immunity, it would mean that our zoning ordinance that are the fabric of the character of this community
that limit the height of a building, its density, the required setbacks and allowable uses could be challenged by developers and builders. This is what is known as a builder's remedy lawsuit.
As I have told many of you, the day we denied the ordinance allowing Kensington to build its assisted living facility, this matter would be decided by the court. That day has come.
Tomorrow afternoon, Judge Sap Peterson, she put off last week's settlement conference because she saw the schedule we had laid out and said,
"You must make a decision by next week." We believe that she will recommend loss of immunity before the end of the year, if not immediately tomorrow. As Matt said, the loss of zoning immunity could result in the
construction of a 60-foot structure where before only a 40ft structure would be permitted. The map you see on these screens, please look at this map shows some of the properties that could
be vulnerable to development under these circumstances. It's throughout the town. It's everywhere. As you can see, development of just a fraction of these properties without the protection of our current zoning
ordinances could change the character of our village forever. Once a 10-story building is built, it's not going any place. This is not an outcome that this community or any community can tolerate.
which is why this remedy is in the affordable housing legislation. It is the hammer that forces all communities to comply because the courts and the legislature understand that
without this hammer, few if any communities would comply with affordable housing mandates. As Matt said, none of the actions taken by any community has borne fruit.
Many, many, many towns have tried to fight this as you have urged us to fight this. They all lose and they all lose on appeal. They understand
that communities don't want this, but there is a mandate in the legislature to get this done and it is up to the judges to enforce it. Past history has shown that the loss of zoning immunity has favored the developer in 99% of all cases and they
are, as I said, they are always upheld on appeal. The potential loss of our zoning immunity changes the stakes for us. Our plan had been to continuously say no to Kensington, believing that the worst
case scenario would be that the court would simply order us to allow Kensington to build their facility. We had nothing to lose. Loss of our zoning immunity, however, could result in massive development
throughout the village. That sign over there, will somebody hold it up so everybody can see it, please? somebody massive development. If we say no, that's what's coming.
You can believe it, not believe it, but that is the fact that every one of those sites would be subject to that kind of development. It is likely that if we lose our zoning immunity, developers would be lined up
trying to get into this community that has for so many years successfully kept overdevelopment at bay. You think every developer in the state or on the eastern seabboard doesn't want
to build a 30unit building in Ridgewood, New Jersey? Everybody wants to build here. It's our zoning ordinances that keep them from doing it. We lose that, we lose everything.
Judge Sap Peterson also specifically said that public opposition is not the legal standard for consideration in these cases and has, and I'm quoting, no bearing on any proposed development.
This council is is as upset about this situation as the rest of the community. We have all the same concerns that you do. everything. Narrow streets, traffic, too
much on too small a lot. We cannot, however, allow this community to lose its zoning immunity for even a moment. The consequences are too dire.
I thank you all for listening. We will now go to public comment. Public comment is three minutes per person. Um at one minute a bell will sound and then when time is up I will say time is up.
>> And also public comment lasts for 40 minutes plus whatever is on public access. So we will go from now for 40 minutes. Please state your name and whether or not you are a Rididgewood resident.
>> Russell Rothstein Ridgewood. >> I'm sorry if you could speak into the mic a little bit. Russell Rothstein Ridgewood resident. Thank you. >> Yes, it is. >> So, I won't take the full 3 minutes. While you're 100% correct that we probably don't have any choices. Many of
the things that you just stated are totally inaccurate. And this is it's amazing that you could talk like this because Beth Mcmanis, the preeminent person in the state, told us
in front of you that the reason why the entrances had to be on Franklin and Marshall was because it was better even though no studies were done. But in fact, I believe the town went to the county and the county said you cannot do a curb cutout. So, just a lot of
inaccuracies that the people that you represent continue to happen. Just like the inaccuracy where you just said that you were all against it, yet the young lady on your left in this room said, "This is great for the community." So,
you all weren't against it. Okay. So, we know what's coming and we know this is what has to happen, but your your inaccuracies are noted. And one other question, with all due respect, what is your um what is your
involvement with legal housing? Have you ever had a case like this before? Ever in in your in all of your lawyers years? >> And Russell, the way we do this is we will write down questions. We we wait till everyone is done and then we respond. >> I can answer them quick. Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you very much, Russell. >> Good evening. Natalyia Perisvich 370 Godwin on the west side. So obviously we hear gathered and some of the facts this is the first time we're hearing because we as in the summer been kept in the
dark the community was. So my question is why does it all feel so rushed? You just answered this and we keep hearing the same thing. Act now or face builder's remedy. But what that framing skips over a nuance and pushes the village into towards making major zoning
decisions under pressure. And because residents haven't been clearly told until now this urgency exists, we were left in the dark and uh reading between the lines. But just briefly because it matters. The housing element is how Ridgewood shows to the court in a clear
and transparent way that it is making good faith effort to meet its affordable housing obligations. Right? When it's current, it's viewed as a court as guided zone and it guides zoning. But zoning isn't supposed to chase projects,
right? And in this case then my question is if the housing element is so important in this to show court the good faith effort what concrete steps has village council taken to bring to bring Ridgewood's housing element up to date
and in compliance with the vill's master plan right um I don't think I I haven't seen or heard anything about updates or attempts to bring it into up to date and this council has been in office for
almost a year. That's one. Then another one uh you know this brings me specifically to the S1 overlay that is being discussed. If this is overlay is truly about compliance, there are reasonable concrete ways to structure it without locking in maximum density. For
example, the village could impose a strict floor area or building size cap tied to surrounding residential scales. It could require step step backs above the two stories to reduce massing or it could include revision clause. But if the uh village council wants to say well
it's not going to be approved by court. Respectfully courts don't require municipalities to approve the maximum density possible. They require evidence of good faith planning proportional zoning and realistic path to compliance. Tools like this I mentioned they used by
towns to demonstrate exactly that. And if the court truly wouldn't accept any of these tools, then village should be able to explain on the record why they weren't even attempted. That is what good faith planning looks like. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Shelley Rothstein Ridgewood resident. First off, I'd like to thank the residents that took photos Monday night because Kensington has not provided anything in writing. These are based on
pictures taken on someone's phone of the slides that I've had to reabel because they were such poor quality. So that's why you have these visuals. It is looking very likely that a huge luxury assisted living facility disguised as affordable housing will be built on
North Maple on the corner of my street, Franklin Avenue, stretching a full block to Marshall Street. By now, you have seen the revised plans for this mess. We now need to make Kensington do the dirty
work. And as mayor and council, this is your job. Many in this room attended the November citizen safety advisory committee meeting. Mr. Mortimer, you were there representing the board. Village engineer
Chris Pier reported back in response to the committee members suggestions for traffic improvements to the intersection of Franklin and North Maple. To every single suggestion, his answer was a
resounding no. The village is unable to provide the most basic traffic safety features to protect its citizens. His excuse for not being able to improve the signaling for both vehicles and pedestrians is the outofdate electrical
conduits that run under the street. He stated that the village does not have the money and I quote him to update this outdated infrastructure with the addition of a 100 plus unit assisted facil living facility at this
corner. These improvements are now absolutely necessary. This intersection has been ignored for years and is an accident waiting to happen. On Monday night, I asked Matt Seckler of Stonefield
Engineering if he was aware of the village's unwillingness to make improvements that will now directly affect the safety of the staff and residents of his new facility. He agreed with every one of the residents concerns
and suggested that Kensington may be able and willing to work with the village and county to make the conduit improvements and full intersection signal updates using a technique he called directional drilling. In
addition, they would consider paying to repave North Maple Avenue after the work was done. The residents of Ridgewood are calling on you to make this happen. This intersection must be
made safer. You have urged the residents to work with Kensington. We have tried. We are un we're unacceptable. The torch has now been passed to you. Make Kensington pay for the improvements. Follow up with them and
get this done. Thank you. >> Thank you, Shel. >> Uh, good evening. Uh, my name is Steven Roitz. I'm a third generation in >> I'm sorry, could you state your name again? >> Steven Orovitz. I'm a third generation in the town of Rididgewood. Um, one of the things that um, I just wanted to
mention after the presentation that Kensington made on Monday was that um, they do seem amendable to actually um, working with the town to find a more suitable um, location. In my humble
opinion, this is when I talked to the one of the owners um, after the presentation. Um there are plenty of lots in my humble opinion in the town of Rididgewood that have been unused um and could potentially be used for a facility like this because in my humble
opinion where it they're considering now between Marshall and Franklin it's just uh the population is too dense. the area is just, you know, riddled with very thin and um narrow streets where parking
makes some of these roads like Marshall a one-way street. So, in my humble opinion, there's other places like um Grove Park, you know, by Pamis Road that would actually provide a um an
institution like Kensington even more beds than 100 plus and the ability to actually um manage. But obviously the zoning and planning would have to figure into that. Uh and as far as the the law is concerned, um there's a number of
different things that can be appealed in my humble opinion. One of which is that hammer that you mentioned where they can literally strip the ability to zone um from a from a municipality or village. Um that does not seem like it's part of
from what what I remember of the New Jersey Constitution, part of the New Jersey Constitution. And I do not believe the courts have that ability to do that. Um, so there's probably a number of different ways to appeal this uh because uh if they do this
development in this location, it is going to be a traffic hazard. Um, and it's also going to be very dangerous for the students from Rididgewood High School who go up to uh that area. So that's my piece. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Stephen.
Evening, Denise Lima, Ridgewood resident. Um, Matt, thank you for the overview and the seriousness of what's kind of going on. You didn't mention how many additional affordable housing units we need to comply with. Is it 10 more,
100 more, 50 more? Because when you look at this map, it can get kind of scary about the numbers. And I think the broad spectrum of this map is why all of the Rididgewood residents are concerned
about the transparency and frequent communications. I don't know when Beth did this, but the small group of people in the neighborhood of Kensington that you're getting together, this is much broader. It's 100 units. It's all of Ridgewood, all of the yellow. So I think
there's a genuine concern of trust and transparency and frequent communications from the village council to the residents because now here we are in the ninth inning. So is Kensing the only one that's suing us? Because in the book
there's additional resolutions for additional affordable housing changes and shouldn't we just be focused on this? I feel like there's some scope creep. Um, are there other developers wanting to develop? Do we know what that number is? And that's why there's so
many additional zoning changes. Um, because again, I just feel like it's scope creep. Can't we just check off the Kensington thing and not worry about everything else that's in this book? So, I I don't understand that. I did attend the Kensington um presentation and they were like,
"Hey, you know, we're doing everything new and we're conforming to zoning and it's 50 feet and we're going to do curved, you know, sidewalks and fa la and the the setback and and then all of a sudden halfway through they were like, "Well, we're not really committing to
that yet. This is just kind of a proposal." And so we were like, "What?" They're like, "Well, we're just trying to test the water and see kind of what you guys are thinking." We're like, "So, you're wasting our time on this this new design with and it's not even real." Like, what
does that mean? So, if we can't be at those discussions, and I think we've a few people have said it here, we need our voice to go through you to tell those judges, this isn't just wo wo is us. There's serious issues, as you've said, with this corner and with this
lot, and they need to be aware of it, and we're relying on you guys to do that. Thank you. >> Thank you, Denise. >> Hi, I'm Kayn Thomaseski, Ridgewood resident. I'm sure you recognize me. Um, I just want to say one thing. Um, or a
few things. Where do you think that we can trust you? um, Mayor and the rest of you, um, when you say that you, um, have our back, but you've been behind this for, you've been working together for a couple years. Well, they've been working
here, trying to get in here for a couple years, but we're not idiots. We read your fourth round housing proposal. I've said it multiple times. You wrote them into the proposal that you sent to the court. Everyone can read that. So, where would we feel like we could trust you
when you actually wrote them in? Um, where could we feel that you are actually fighting for us when you wrote them in? How can we say that we're on the same team when we have an email between you
and Kensington saying, "Oh, we'll just push this through over the summer." which is why we all showed up because our nice little Oprah request showed us that. How can you say that you're on the same
team as us when I just found out a month ago, mayor, that you just walked our street? You just walked Marshall and Franklin like a month ago and you admitted that you had never walked that street. So that's crazy to me that you
are representing this town and you haven't even walked the street that you are selling to the devil. We want to say this is affordable housing. Why would we trust that you're actually fighting for us? You're up here fear-mongering
everybody when we know that you could fight on our behalf and say to the courts that this isn't about affordable housing. This is about some play that you have come up for your next political gain and it is four units. When I know
someone that actually lives in this town in affordable housing in an apartment too small for them and they would love something that they could fit into for their family. >> We say, "Oh, Beth McMantis is so great." >> Oh, I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. Go
ahead. >> I want those five seconds back. We say Beth McManis is so great. She's the best in the state. Um, she's in the best of the state because she's pushing affordable housing. She's not representing the towns making sure that
we're not destroying villages. And I would love to see an overlay on this beautiful map that you guys put together that shows what was actually proposed in the fourth round of affordable housing and what the state
has come back and said this is your map because I don't know who put this together, but I would love to see an overlay of what the state actually said that we have to do versus your beautiful little coloring. And I would love to know where you all live and if you would
be upset if someone was shoving >> this monstrous building at the end of your street. Thank you. >> Thank you, Kalin. >> Good evening. My name is Gary Negridge. I'm a resident for 53 years.
So, I think I have a little bit of ownership here. I got a couple of questions. You got a guy wants to develop a building, 100 units. He's going to give us a lousy 10%
which is the legal minimum. There are towns around here that got 20% out of their deals. If everybody wants affordable housing and you've got this group that's chasing
you in addition to the state, I would think that if you said, you know what, you're going to have 80 units and you're going to charge Ridgewood rents for every inch. So, you know what? I
want a 12- foot sidewalk on Maple A because I'm gonna have a hundred units coming out. I didn't see any 10 foot sword 12ft sidewalk on that shing scheme. I counted the parking spaces that they gave us in their gorgeous
cartoon. Boy, 26 spaces. What are we going to do? Bring in a bunch of people in wheelchairs? No, that's not what's going to happen. negotiate. They want in. They want
Ridgewood's money. Yes, we have to give them the affordable housing, but gets something back. A developer comes in and wants to build anything. The city doesn't give him the utilities.
Go make your deal with public service. You want more water because you got 100 units. You got bathtubs, showers, washing machines. Guess what? The water main room won't take it. Pay the water department. Make a deal.
We don't owe you the ability to feed your building. Those are public utilities. Negotiate with the public utility. I wish somebody here would go into New York City where I
worked for 50 years and see how they cut a deal when a developer wants something even if it's legally required. Thank you for listening. Thank you, Gary. >> Hi, it's Christine Corbett. I live in
Rididgewood. I'm a westside resident and this is far from well relatively far from my home but it's still hugely important because all of us are here every day and right in front of us. Um the couple things I wanted to say is I would love to see us get actual
affordable housing. Uh I have no objection to affordable housing but I think the number of units for in the rest you know 100 luxury units and 12 beds for Medicare patients is really ridiculous. So I I don't think we can do much at this point about Kensington. We
should negotiate where we can, but also there's other requirements for affordable housing and we should be doing something proactively as much as we can to meet them to find actual affordable units with where it's not such a little meager pittance. The other thing is I think it's unreasonable to
have all that traffic going through the neighborhood. At least some access should be able to be made from Maple. um at least it's a main road and you're going to have trucks. I think there should be consideration and it should be somehow legally enforcable for the timing of the shifts, the deliveries,
the garbage and then it should take into account the livability for the neighbors, the safety of the neighbors and including the school timing and all the students that are traveling that way because I it's really scary to me how it's going to affect safety and also quality of life for the people that are
living there. Um, I think improvements should be made to the intersection to the extent possible because it it's just going to be it's going to be a nuisance for those of us that live on the west side and have to go that way. It's going to be a real quality of life issue and a safety issue
for students going that way and for the neighbors. And I guess lastly, I think that there's a the other zoning changes. I know there's a lot of um fingerpointing and I really don't know the back back and forth about who talked
to who about what when. Um but it would be really nice if anybody with um financial interest can disclose that and recuse themsel not just for this but for all the kind of zoning changes that are down the road. Um and that's what that's all I wanted to
say. >> Thank you Christine. Kelly Morgan, Rididgewood resident. I live on Franklin Avenue. So, mayor and members of the council, I'm speaking this evening out of the serious concern regarding the process,
the precedent, and the direct and lasting impacts that the Kensington proposal will have on the surrounding residential neighborhood where I happen to live, including permanently diminished property values. At our meeting last week, we learned that the proposed Kensington assisted living
development, repeatedly described as our answer to affordable housing, would include units that cost as much as $15,000 per month. That price point does not align with any commonly accepted definition of affordability, and it raises fundamental questions about how
this project is being characterized to justify its scale and location. We learned that the village has also been in discussions with Kensington for 18 to 24 months and that village leadership encouraged the developer to pursue expansion to the third property at the corner of Maple and Franklin.
This expansion significantly increases the project's mass intensity and impacts. Assisted living is not a permitted use in the B2 zone and yet residents are now being told that zoning changes will be necessary to accommodate this development. That sets a troubling
precedent, one where zoning becomes flexible when it benefits out of town developers rather than serving as a safeguard to these established neighborhoods. I want to directly address the repeated references to the threat of builder's remedy which have been used to justify
limited communication with residents. Builder's remedy does not require secrecy nor does it prohibit the discussion of and proactive engagement with affected neighborhoods. It does not mandate acceptance of any project at scale. Nor does it eliminate the municipality's obligation to consider
traffic noise, light, quality of life impacts. Invoking this litigation risk should not be used as a shield to avoid transparency and meaningful dialogue. Transparency has been a theme that has come up over and over again. So, I hope you're hearing this. In fact, residents
were not brought into this process until very recently. Despite repeated requests for information, I sent personal emails to every member of the council as well as Keith asking for updates, asking for updates, and I, you know, we were kept in the dark saying we can't talk about this because of the litigation. So, we
had no answers. And now we're in the 11th hour. We're backed into a corner and we're going to be rushed to, you're going to be rushed to make a decision on something that impacts our quality of life. We learned the building footprint was shifted to allow additional 10 feet um at a county request. So that pushes
the structure back further closer to our homes. These terraces that they showed on the diagram are now going to overlook my backyard. These resident these residents at the assisted living will be able to watch my children play basketball. Isn't that lovely? So traffic impacts were not addressed um at
all. Um mayor, you actually said last week that you avoid Franklin and Marshall when you come to and from Village Hall because of the traffic that's there already. And we're not we don't even have a building there yet. So, this is just crazy. >> Time is up. >> We are going to be impacted by this 24
hours a day, seven days a week. It's unacceptable. You need to do something about it. >> Thank you, Kelly. >> Hi, I'm Megan Bracken. I'm a Rididgewood resident. Um, I just want to start by saying I think it's disingenuous for you to say you were all against this when
you were going to pass this this summer without engaging any of us in meaningful discussion. And when asked when asked directly our deputy mayor if she was comfortable making the decision like this without traffic studies without pedestrian
studies she said yes she was comfortable and thought this was a great place for this facility. So please don't don't do that to us. Um you just characterized broadly resident opposition and said that's not a basis for legal standing which I understand. yet you didn't share
at all what you all shared with the courts in terms of the difficulty of the traffic in this instance, the proximity to the high school and the proximity to the flood plane. So, I would like to ask you to clarify that for us. Um, and I would like to also know you're talking
about how difficult this has been on all of you and how you're protecting the village, but nobody, and with respect, Mr. Mayor, you didn't say anything about your commitments to us and how you plan to protect the residents of this neighborhood moving forward. The community expects and deserves
robust public discussion and that has not taken place. There's been a lack of transparency. Look, and Kensington's primary motivation for this project is profit, not the long-term health and safety of our village. And as council members, your duty is to represent the
interests of the residents, not the developers. We're the ones that elected you. And while it's clear that you're going to approve the zoning overlay, I implore you not to let that be the end of your responsibilities. You must make every
possible effort to safeguard the quality of life in our village to ensure the safety of our pedestrians, especially our children, to rigorously protect the adjacent flood plane. And please do not defer these critical tasks to the developer whose priorities clearly do
not align with those of the community. Their empty promises the other night of we'll consider that or we'll look at that or we'll commit to looking at that are troubling at best and insincere at worst. Ultimately, I want to voice my deep disappointment in the way this
process has unfolded. If this conversations have been going on for two years, the lack of transparency is really disappointing engagement. This has undermined the trust that residents have placed in you and we deserve better. and I hope you recognize the gravity of your duty
moving forward. Thank you. >> Thank you, Megan. >> Hi, I'm Susan Shriber. I think you recognize me, too. I've lived in this neighborhood for many, many years, and I've seen so many changes. And one is
traffic. Now today I drove down Hope Street and there were some work being done in houses or two two vans maybe three vans were parked uh contractors and they were on both sides of the
street and you know that's the way it is when people are getting their homes repaired or whatever and only one car could get through at a time. Now, when I think about the building that's that's
going to be um started with this huge uh monstrosity, um you talk about box trucks or something like that. You're dealing also with very narrow streets, very narrow.
Um we have a problem with the sports events and parking. what you know what's going to happen with all of that. Um people come from all different towns and they're parking our our streets are
becoming parking lots for these sports events. Um it's just horrendous when I think about what we're going to have to face with all the building and even after the building all the um
important vehicles that are going to be going in and out of an assisted living uh facility. I mean it's going to be really hard on on us and I just hope that you uh consider other parcels of
land. There must be something else. I've haven't heard of any other parcels of land in Ridgewood that might be more conducive to this type of facility, but you know, I really do hope uh that we
you take it and really consider uh the neighbors. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Susan. >> Cynthia O'Keefe, Rididgewood resident. So, I just wanted to um actually revise some of the historical context, Paul,
that you gave earlier. You said that you were against this plan and you know, you wanted to fight it. But over the summer and and even earlier, I attended almost all of the planning board meetings where this topic was discussed. And unfortunately, very
few residents came out as is usually the case. Um, and everybody was very satisfied with this plan. Beth McManis, the planner, who's got a great deal of experience, said, "We got lucky. Kensington came to
us. We didn't have to go to them." So, um, given her experience, she why didn't she give you all of the different scenarios, um, you know, that the residents are dealing with now? She sat in her car and
did a 15minute u traffic awareness study doesn't take into consideration anything that's happening and what these neighbors are dealing with. Just like the Shedler plan, you didn't listen to our neighborhood. We told you about traffic and safety issues and health
concerns that we are also dealing and grappling with on a daily basis. And again, no lessons learned. So I you know what? Why are you all sitting up there? I don't understand it. I don't understand your role if you're not up there to kick the tires and do a traffic
study. Now, Pam, you did say it was a great plan. Paul, you agreed. Evan, you thought it was wonderful. And Frank, you said I agree with what Evan says. Siobhan, I I didn't remember hearing anything about what your opinion was, but several of you did meet with
Kensington one-on-one, so you know, we'll never know what the outcome of those discussions were. Was it a pat on the back? And this is going to be great and a wonderful boon for Rididgewood while not taking into consideration the
children that walk from the high school to get their lunch. The traffic um that currently everyone is dealing with in this area. It is so unconscionable to me that you could make this decision and have this sail through and do it during
the summer when most people are away and think this is a great idea without kicking the tires. And you know, you you need to start doing your due diligence. You're not doing that. You're underperforming. I didn't vote for any of you. And at least I feel good about
that. Thank you. >> Thank you, Cynthia. Hi, how are you? Uh, Sheila Costella, Ridgwood resident. I actually had no intention of speaking tonight until I saw this map and it's alarming to me. So, I think that I would request or
somehow get this out online or a picture of this map and a description of the affordable housing requirements. Like I I really want to know are we do we have 90% more to do or because it's really this really concerns me because just driving around in Ridgewood we just had
four apartment buildings put up over the last I don't know it's always less than we think six years or whatever it was and the traffic is a lot worse and then you drive down the block and you know that 40 townhouse that unit's coming in all these people are coming into Rididgewood that's all. So, I just have
a request. Please let us know what the requirement for this town is for affordable housing because that map is frightening to me and if you could put that map out to the town because I think everyone would be alarmed. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Sheila.
>> Good evening, Ann Loving Rididgewood resident. Uh on this map, um it brings to mind something one of the previous residents said, a term called fear-mongering. There's four lots on South Irving Street
where I live, which is a street of private homes. Two of them I can identify as good friends of mine. Somebody needs to explain this like how you have all these private properties. Uh you know, this is this is what a
previous citizen called fear-mongering. It's ridiculous. I do not think somebody is coming in to take up private homes on all these residential streets. This is just being put up here to scare people and it's unconscionable.
>> Thank you, An. >> Hello everybody. Nancy Brennan Hill. I went to the meeting with Kensington on Monday and the question that I asked them was where's the green space? Where are the people who are going to live in this
building? How do they get out and where do they sit? And the answer they gave me was that this is a secure facility and there's a terrace that they can sit on. Looking at it from the perspective of the people who are going to live there,
I think that's absolutely horrifying. And if this whole endeavor is only going to provide four four units, is that it? Four units of affordable housing, there must be ways that we could go to this meeting and negotiate with the
judge and say, "In the meantime, we found a way." >> Excuse me. Excuse me, one second. If we could just keep the chatter down so that we can hear the speaker. Thank you so much. >> So if we went to the meeting and we said in the meantime we found a way to immediately provide 20 units of
affordable housing and with all the property owners in Rididgewood who own multiple buildings certainly we could find something like that. And just to get back to the safety issue you said that it could be challenged on the basis of safety. Well,
if this is a secure facility and people have to be walked out, I'm not quite sure what that means, but what do you do to help these people if the underground absorb the overflow doesn't work and you have to ambulance them out? I don't know
how you get people out that are secure in a hurry if the flood zone underlaying system doesn't work. So, that seems to me that's a safety thing for the residents, not just for the neighbors. So, just something to think about.
>> Thank you, Nancy. We have time for two more speakers and then we're going to go to our public access. >> Dominic Magaliano. Uh, audience 4071. I would just like to know if it's 10% or 20% affordable housing. You don't have
that on this on the then uh does Kangnes own the property 6165 75 North Maple? Do they own it? Next question is if they don't own it, is it
under contract review? The attorney review, I mean that's a question. And once again, could you guys explain the difference between variance and audience? I'm I just want you guys have
most control of Kingston if you can. All all these developers come in. Try not to give up control. I know your hands are tied with the judge, but try best way you could do it. Have control of these people coming
in. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Dominic. John Fry, North Irving Street. So, good evening, Mayor Village Council. Matt, um we the residents have all had a horrible journey. I guess you have too since uh
July, but I believe your journey started about two years ago. Um in this process, we have all invested in the entire community. um we have our homes, we pay our taxes, we go by the variances and the guidelines on anything that we're doing.
It seems that in return we should expect the village to support those guidelines for us as well as for anybody else that's coming into the town. Ridgewood's typically a very generous town. Um you saw that when we reached out for the
food just recently, but people are constantly reaching out helping other people with housing, food, and so on. We support all different types of homes um helping people. So it's what a sham that becomes that how the community we're
wasting all this money on Kensington and litigation and so on and the efforts that we've all put in. I mean there hundreds of manh hours that have been invested in this over the period of time when we should be figuring better ways to invest that energy and money in our town. There's the share ha fair sh fair
housing um not share senior living facilities an organization in town I believe they have two houses right now that would have been a great opportunity when you realized that Bill Sennon and his other people wanted to sell those properties or get move them on to have
said let's build some more houses there that would take care of our fair share housing requirements instead of flipping it and letting another developer come in. I realize, you know, you say that we can never lead the development, but maybe we can plant the seeds for that to
make that happen. It's very disappointing that Kensington, a developer from outside of our community, has weaponized the fair share housing. Um, they're doing it all over the world, all over the country, but to force change on our town. But with the
private meetings that you have have occurred between all of you and Kensington over the nearly two years, we start to wonder is this really your plan or and to or has it engaged. How did you engage with Kensington? You know, the Beth McManus and so on. It just becomes
a very disappointing and we become skeptical of what's happened. I think other people have mentioned that concern. Tonight's agenda indicates several other proposals for additional properties in the village for higher density housing. Well, that must say
that concerns us all because what's the game plan here in town? Um because indeed when we go to that next round that Matt was talking about what's going to happen in 10 years, are we just going to be back in the same spot? That's a horrible thing. Or are we just going to be then be called the city of Ridgewood?
Highdensity housing and large streets facing structures, they change the character of the community and ours would be absolutely no exception. >> I guess I have to leave once again. Cut off. >> Thank you, John.
And we have a couple of people on our uh public access. Rurick, you're up. uh War Roric Alibabel for 56 years. On behalf of Cynthia and myself, we wholeheartedly
support the Kensington plan to build an assisted living facility at Franklin and Maple. Ridgewood needs it and the location is a good one. I appreciate the fears of some residents as few people enjoy change, but we must
change to adapt. Nothing is permanent. And to those who talk about preserving Richard's charm, we must renew to preserve. Very frankly, the discussion I've been hearing, the comments I've been hearing remind me of the huge
debate against the apartments when that took place about six years ago and none of the fears came to be. One item that comes up are the traffic lights at North Maple and Franklin Avenues. To those who are aware of my
activities regarding a better Rididgewood know that for a good 10 years I have tried to get the village to redo the lights at the intersection. They are by far the worst for cars and pedestrians in Ridgewood.
Excuse me. Yes, you can have Kensington and a safer crossing. I suggest that as condition for approving the plan, Kensington will pay for the hiring of a renowned traffic engineering firm that would do a master plan for all of the
five traffic lights in the CBD. The three on Maple at Lynwood, Franklin and Ridgwood Avenues, and the two others on Franklin at Oak and Broad Street. The plan would coordinate the workings of all five sets of lights and would replace them with smart or intelligent
lights as they do in Europe. Lights that would adjust not on a timer basis but on the real time measurement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Thus, if the predominant traffic is northbound on Maple, the traffic is given priority to
eastbound traffic on Franklin. And more importantly, if pedestrian traffic trying to cross cross Maple at Franklin build up, the pedestrians are giving the right away. The cost of the study will be borne by Kensington as will a major portion of the cost of replacing the
lights. So the lights are joint owned jointly with the county and it will pay its fair share. One problem I have with Ridgwood is that we get too comfortable with what we have and are unwilling to push ourselves.
With the new lights, we can lead the county, if not the state, with improving safety for vehicles and more importantly pedestrians. And that is more so for the intersection at Franklin and Maple as it is for anywhere else.
Yes, with Kensington we will have a muchneeded addition to Rididgewood and a much safer CBD. We have a village cure council and village manager who get things done and I have all the confidence that they will get this done also. Thank you.
>> Excuse me. >> Excuse me. >> Excuse me. >> Excuse me. Everyone everyone ran over on time and let's be excuse me. Let's be clear. We listen to everyone's opinion equally.
We let everyone run over on time. And in this room, we listen to opinions that we don't like. And so I ask that you be as respectful as everyone is of your opinion if someone dis disagrees with
it. That's all I ask. So let's move on. Susan, you excuse me. We are done with public comment from this room. >> Oh, I I have I just have a question. >> We Excuse me. >> I just have one question. I'm ask 40 years. I just have one question. >> Excuse me. >> To beat them to the punch.
>> Excuse me. >> To beat them to the punch. >> Excuse me. >> You turn around and you pass for one family house. >> I'm going to ask you to sit down because I said how long how much time we had. >> I said that there was time for two.
Excuse me. Please sit down. >> I could speak. >> Nope. No, I can't. >> No, you're done. >> What is that? Where are we? >> There is time. There is time. Excuse me. >> There is time allotted at the There is time >> you guys. >> There is time allotted at the evening
>> for one family houses. >> Beat them to the punch because I'm looking at that yellow. >> Sir, you need to sir. >> Hold on. >> Sir, we can't. >> And I see that >> once cut the mic. I got >> We will ask you to be >> Tom. Tom if you don't if it was
announced that they stopped taking comments from the public in the day they were switching to remote so please >> but it was right it was said I think everybody >> I tell you we're done >> Tom please yeah >> and I and I announced just so you know I announced where there was time for two people left
>> you can ask me the question later on >> yeah I'm I thank you >> there is time at the end though >> there is time at and I was trying to tell you there's time at the end of the meeting and it's not a long meeting where you have you will have an opportunity to speak I Excuse me.
>> Because we have we have an obligation to get our work done. >> We have work to get done. There will be another opportunity. You can just sit here and try and just keep talking over everybody and that's fine. But we're trying to get work done. All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate I
appreciate you sitting down for a moment and and here you'll be the first one who will have an opportunity to speak at the end of the meeting and and we listen to every comment at the end of the meeting. meantime, we're gonna hear from Susan on public access.
>> Um, hello Susan Ruan. Um, I'm a Ridgewood resident. Um, I want to thank the village council. I know this is probably a sore subject right now, but for fixing the King's Bridge foot bridge, um, people have been using it
and people are very residents in the neighborhood are very happy with it. As for I've been listening to the the senior housing and I'll be honest I don't I have not been up to date on it
but as I'm listening to this I'm shocked of uh in short that there is no um traffic study done um for this particular development considering it is in the center of town and the center of
town's already chaotic. I I'll be honest. I never go into Ridgewood because I cannot stand dealing with the traffic. Cannot stand dealing with the parking. Cannot stand dealing with a lot of things. I rather go to Allenale Hocus
anywhere else um Westwood than Ridgewood. If you're putting a big development in the middle of Ridgewood without a traffic study, I wonder how many other people are going to deter coming into the town center because of
that. And I think that is the least that should have happened. I mean, there's so many other things, but a traffic study and now putting this development in even deter me more not to go into Richwood
and to go to other neighboring towns to avoid the traffic nightmare that we have to deal in the town. So, that was my just two cents. But again, thank you for the foot break. >> Thank you, Susan. And with that, I'm going to close public comment and we
will have response from the council and from our attorney. Matt, would you like to lead this off? >> Yeah, why don't I try off? I don't know that I'm going to be able to answer everybody's questions. Um, but um, you know, I think the easiest way to start this is to say that at the end of
the third round, um, we submitted an affordable housing plan. That plan was approved by the court. >> Matt, when was that third round? >> Well, it started in 2015. um basically finished around 18 and we got our order of compliance in 2020 I
think maybe the years in between but at the same time we had four uh challenggers four objectors to our plan. We worked through it. Um and the council chambers was filled with people as well
objecting to the proposals. Um and um we got our order of compliance from the court which continued our immunity from builder's remedies lawsuits which is really the reason why you comply. At that time we felt that yes we pretty
much took gave a good look at the town. Um we looked at every possible potential site. uh zoned for it in certain areas. Um there were other requests for other places that we didn't zone for, but it worked out. The court accepted it.
The fourth round came around and again every town, not just Rididgewood, but every town had to look for new sites. If you recall, I can say this that when the DCA came out with the numbers, and I can't tell you the criteria that they used because it would take the rest of
the meeting, but when they came out with the numbers, we were supposed to have another 427 affordable units built. That was the number that they gave us. All right? So, we whittleled that down in our affordable housing plan. We did that. However, what happens is that with
affordable housing, you are required to speak with a potential developer. So if someone has an idea about developing a particular piece of property for affordable housing, there's a requirement that you do that to maintain good faith. If you don't talk to them, it's bad faith. It's basically the
courts becomes aware of it. There's a challenge to it and the court's told that you never talk to them. They didn't want to discuss it with them and that's it. So we've talked to people from Kensington. We've talked to people who wanted to develop properties over on Chestnut Street, up on Maple Avenue,
Gothal Road, uh number of different places throughout this process. So, it's not just one that came in and talked. There's there were conversations with our planner um with a number of these different places who reported back to us. And so, that's kind of the way it
is. So, there's no exact number. What happens is that the court looks at what your plan is and decides, okay, you're going to provide this. So, that's where you are. That's what you're putting together. Um, there's no other objectors. It doesn't look like anybody else wants to put in affordable housing
in your town. You've taken care of the objectors, so you get compliance. And that's the way it works. They don't say, "You've got to meet this. Go find it." You don't get to choose which properties other than the way you zone in the future. Because if you see what we're doing tonight, we're overlay zoning
zoning on a couple of property on prop and in the B1 and B2 on some properties up on South Broad on a property over in Gothal. We're trying to to provide that opportunity. The court looks at again I said this earlier the realistic opportunity for developing affordable
housing. >> Please, you can't ask questions. Denise, >> we're Excuse me, Denise. We're gonna try and answer everybody's questions. We we have lists. So please, >> so there is no number per se that we've got to at this point in time have to
provide. Okay, there's no that says that unless the village meets 25 units, you're not going to get compliance. It's a matter of who wants to develop an area, what the potential for that site is for it, the court looks at those factors to determine whether or not this
site is going to be suitable for it. Someone brought up proper planning and what you got to do and you can put in F. You can put in all these different things. Affordable housing supersedes local zoning. That's a case law. That is the way that the courts approach this. So no matter what you put on this, if
you zone for affordable housing, what was there before, even overlay zones where you say that you've got a developed property and you say that this could be developed with affordable housing, but presently it's developed with a certain type of improvement and
use. And if it ever comes around being a developer coming in to doing it, you can put so many in there or so many units in there per acre. um it supersedes the existing zoning in that zone. Affordable housing does. So you can't say that
affordable housing's got to have F, it's got to have X, Y, and Z. The affordable housing proposal gets looked at, gets determined whether or not it's going to be a safety or a health problem, and then it looks to see what it does. One of the criteria that the court looks at,
however, and they looked at this with Kensington, is that the height requirements in the zone where it's located to be located and the setback requirements in the zone where it's to be located are met with this proposal. So, the court says to itself, this is
not going to be that much of intrusion because it meets those setbacks. It meets the height. We'll look at some of the other things. There is a tra just so everybody knows there's a traffic study being done. Okay. So, whoever says and keeps saying there's no traffic study,
it's not accurate. Let me see what else I can answer here. Uh, someone asked about Kensington. They are a contract purchaser, which means that if they get approvals, then they go through with the deal. All right. So,
that's what it means to be a contract purchaser. Um >> the the issues. >> Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. We you speak. Excuse me.
You speak then we speak. That's how these meetings run. >> Excuse me. >> Can I >> Excuse me. >> We have just so everybody knows we have a public comment section at the end of the meeting. If you have other questions, you can try and ask them then. All right. So, don't interrupt us.
>> If we don't if we don't answer them adequately, please ask. We didn't interrupt. Please tell us that we didn't answer them adequately at the end of the meeting. This is how these meetings run and we cannot we cannot address the issues that we have to address when people are shouting from the audience.
It just doesn't work. Excuse me, please. I'm asking you. I'm I'm asking you. Yeah, I think in light of all that you've done, you can be a little more gracious when she's asking for clarity. >> I am ask Excuse me, sir.
>> I think they're out of order. >> Listen, excuse me. Yeah, you can applaud. You can yell. Just so you know, nothing will get done and you can feel good about yelling at us when it's when we are speaking. We don't yell at you.
We wait until you're done. When when when people say things that are inaccurate from from the mic, we don't interrupt you. We don't stop you. We ask for the same courtesy. That's
>> so you can ask me ask me at the next go round of public comment. >> Excuse me. >> Well, I can't help you if you're not. We're going to try and move on. >> So, Matt, please continue. Okay, people asked about the decisions with regard to
access. Just so everybody knows, the county owns Maple Avenue. All right, North South County decides what happens with development on those streets. The village, and this is kind of an
anomaly, owns the light at Franklin and Maple. So, we can control the light, but we don't control access to properties and sites that are in that area. So the decision about ingress and egress gets made by the county. All
right. The there was some issues or uh something about um a a committee meeting where uh representative of the village says we don't have money to pay for underground electrical improvements and things like that. All I can say is that I I was made
aware of that last week after the meeting. um and that person doesn't have the decision making power and quality to decide what to do. Um however with site plan applications there are such things called you can look it up called
off-site improvements by developers and if there's improvements needed for the light then that may be one of the things that a planning board asks a developer to do. Um and that may be one of those things that particular aspect of it if that's the cause of the problem of why
the light can't be adjusted that can be dealt with. Um we don't get to choose where the applicant does the development. Um, somebody was saying that something was unconstitutional that we were doing and
I forget what the comment was, but there's a the thing is that it's overridden by the constitutional mandate to provide for the realistic opportunity of affordable housing in the town.
That's a constitutional mandate held by the courts. If there's some other issue that that flies in the face of it, I can tell you this is that affordable housing supersedes it more than likely. I do not know of any aspect of development that
isn't superseded by affordable housing except for health safety. That those are the things um someone asked who are the parties that are suing the town. I said that in my opening remarks. Fair share Housing
Center, who is the or which is the um affordable housing advocate in the state of New Jersey. They have filed challenges to just about every town's affordable housing plan and Kensington has filed it. In fact,
Kensington's filed two suits against us. One for our housing plan and one for the denial of the ordinance back in August. Um, what we're doing tonight is introducing ordinances that
represent our housing plan. Okay. So, somebody was asking about, you know, you don't even have a housing plan yet. Well, you're right. We don't have it because it doesn't become a housing plan until it gets approved by the court. And somebody was saying about reconciling this with our master plan.
Well, that doesn't happen because affordable housing takes precedent over that. And one of the components of our master plan is to adhere to the the the requirement, the mandate for providing affordable housing.
So some of those things that you see in the master plan apply to regular development, whether it's a commercial building, residential building, town houses, things like that that don't have an affordable housing component. 10% of the set aside for the units here
is the standard for assisted living. That's different than something like the Dayton or some of the other developments that came around as a result of the third round. They get 20%. In fact, it used to be 15
for rentals, 20% for sale. Now everything's 20%. Um, somebody's tried to say that there was only 20 spaces on site. There's not. I think there's a I could be wrong, but I think there's 87 on-site parking spaces
provided by this development. I could be wrong on that number, but you know, they're required by a state statute to provide a half a space for every one unit. That's the requirement
and they've met that. Um, I know there may have been other questions. I may not have answer them all, but that's what I've marked down that I I should address. So, >> council, would anybody like to respond? >> Yes.
>> Some of you may feel like it off. Sorry, I turned it off rather than on. Um, raise your hand if you can't understand me with this mask on. If you feel like you only heard about this in the summer, then you weren't coming to meetings at the council in
2024. We have been talking about affordable housing and we've had Beth McManis come in 2024 here and to the planning board. We've had many meetings, many presentations.
Um, and the only people on this council who have been speaking with Kensington are me and Paul Vajanos. In those discussions, well, before those discussions, I I spoke with the village
attorney and asked, "How does this proceed? How should we present ourselves?" And he said, "Make no promises." And that's what we did. We made no promises. We did what good faith required of us. We listened to them and
we also fought back. I'll give you an example in that S1 ordinance that's in the books right over there and that we will be voting on tonight. You will see that
EIFS is prohibited. What is EFS? It is a type of low-grade stucco. In our discussions, I said to Kensington, I don't want this kind of stucco on the
exterior of the building and they agreed to it. So, these are the kinds of things we asked them, can you do this kind of setback? Can you deal with the height? um and and and
they provided a concept drawing to us. Concept drawings in planning are common. Um and so it doesn't surprise me that what
Kensington showed you on Monday night was a concept drawing. Um when when a developer comes before the planning board or the zoning board, sometimes they will present a concept drawing to
get an idea of how the board feels about it. But when they want site plan approval, that's when they'll put in all the specs. So there is that difference. They weren't just leading you down the go down uh the wrong path.
Um, please don't take the Kensington development as the whole of our housing plan. There are four other ordinances on deck tonight for us to vote on. It is the whole of the housing plan that we
have submitted to the courts for their approval. And yes, this map is alarming. And when I voted at the count at the planning board in favor of the
Kensington project, I was thinking about how good for a community diversity of housing is. How good for our community in terms of creating jobs. it would be how good for our community to change
what looks an area that looks like it's going down in blight and could that improve the value of homes nearby. Um let me just gather my thoughts on some other things.
Um so to the extent you want us to fight for you that is what we have done. Oh and when I voted to introduce the S1 ordinance in July
I was thinking that this is a good plan. The standard way of introducing an ordinance and in order to get the public's feedback is you introduce an ordinance and a month later there's a public hearing and then the vote. We did
not deviate from that plan. That's exactly what happened and we heard you and that's why we defeated the ordinance in August. Um, and uh, let's see who owns the property.
What Kensington told us is that they have an option to buy. Now, that was months ago. I don't know if things have changed since then. Um, but at that point, they did not ha have full ownership of the property. Um, and I
think that's as many of your questions that I can answer right now. >> Who else would like to respond? I'd like to if I could. Um, so two quick points before I get into my general comments. So there was a question about financial interests of anyone up here in this in Kensington. The answer is none. Not a
dime. Don't have any financial interest in any of these properties whatsoever. And if I did, I'd recuse myself immediately. Uh, another question in terms of what this gets us in terms of how long this lasts. One of the reasons why I'm voting tonight in favor of this is that this will likely insulate us
from the uh losing of our immunity for the better part of the next decade. Um this means that we're done with this for 10 years most likely. Um that to me is an extremely important point. Um I want to be clear that we hear you. Um we all want the same thing here. We want to present overdevelopment in the village
of Ridgewood. Um I will be more candid than maybe some of my other council members. I don't like this law. I don't like the Mount Laurel decisions. I don't like the way New Jersey uh tries to tackle the affordable housing and low-income housing crisis. Uh I think
it's done poorly. I think what it is is folks in Trenton can't figure out how to do this. So they push this problem down to municipal levels. So folks like us have to figure out how to make it work in places like Riveridgewood, which may not be the perfect place to do this sort of thing. With all that said, I have to
follow the law. Um we are subject to New Jersey law whether we like it or not. And as I think Paul and I think Matt very eloquently put tonight, the judge wasn't asking us to really adopt this. They were basically telling us to do it or else we were going to face a future that we could not live with. Because of
what the judge has said, the way I view view it, we have two options. We could take no action, try to fight this, and essentially allow judges, lawyers, and developers determine what Rigid will look like going forward. Or we could act responsibly, bite the bullet, do something I don't want to do,
come up with a plan that I think looks at where we could put affordable housing with the minimum amount of change to our community. And that's what we did and that's what I support. I stand with my fellow council members in acting responsibly. Whether we agree or disagree with the law, this, I think,
is the least worse option going forward. I can't allow a judge or a developer to decide what Ridgewood will look like for my kids and my grandkids. I have to go and try to do something. we have to go and try to do something that tries to limit this. And again, this allows us to avoid that mess for the better part of
the next 10 years. In terms of Kensington, I did not have conversations with them. Um, good faith required that the council do, and I'm thankful that the mayor and deputy mayor took that upon themselves. No plan is perfect, and I agree we should continue to work to try to figure out ways to fix that
intersection and do other things that help the community. with that. You know, I do think that affordable housing in the context of um senior living, it's better than the alternative. It's better than putting retail there. It's better than putting 40 housings uh 40 units of
regular housing, which would be far more traffic than anything else that could go there, uh you know, would generate. And right now, that property is zoned for that. They could easily, a developer could easily come in, build another housing project there, which again would be even worse for the community. So whether I like it or not, this is
probably the least worse option in terms of what could go there. And I do agree with the deputy mayor. I do like having housing for seniors as well. Now, to be even more candid with you, no elected official in this state has ever lost their job by by not opposing uh fighting developers. I could very easily
stand up here as could all of us bang our fists on the day and scream and yell that we're going to fight to the last fight, but I'm not going to pander to you like that. I'm not going to lie to you and tell you that that's the right way to go about this. I think what we're doing tonight is the right way to go about this. Figure out a way to work
within the confines of the law to protect the village that we all love and to give us the ability to say that we protected this for another 10 years when hopefully the state of New Jersey can fix this and not pass this down to the folks up here and the folks in uh in municipalities to fix what is really a
statewide and a national problem. >> Thanks, Sam. Who else? I forgot to say one thing. >> Jump in. >> We're not the only town that has this problem. In California, they have a similar law to our Mount Laurel uh uh
structure. And um in Beverly Hills and you'd think they can control how their village looks, their town looks, a developer with weaponizing the um developer uh the builder's remedy built
a n is building a 19story tower. I don't want to see that in Ridgewood. >> Sure. So um I want to address some of the questions and then make a little bit of a statement. Um, uh, like Evan, I want to address my only financial interest in this town, like many of you,
is my primary home, which is 274 IV Place, um, which is located in the historic district. I actually live in the district of town. I'm incredibly empathetic, um, to what's gone on in our town. I was born and raised here, and if this was an anecdotal story, I would say
the single biggest thing that has changed in this village is traffic. Um, I've walked your property many times, all the streets. I went to the high school. One of my kids went to the high school. I um I want to assure you that this full council is listening and whenever we have this, the first thing I
do is I go there and I've been to the property many times um before and since. I I want to also say that this is a difficult situation for the state of New Jersey. It's difficult for Ridgwood and I'm 100% empathetic for this neighborhood because when the all four
parcels came up, my neighborhood was drawn into that. I assure you I am listening and I know the rest of the council is as well. Um I did want to address the Kensington and the meetings. The first time I interacted with Kensington because I do live in town was when they wanted to buy the town garage
next to Ben and Jerry's. That was their first attempt. I also um attended their sessions like you went to when they were trying to purchase the property on Broad Street and I was in favor of that. Um I I want to say they've been around for a while. I've seen their products. I was
not I'm grateful to Paul and Pam for the them being the negotiating points, but people are often asking when we first heard of them and because development has been such a big issue in my adult life for Rididgewood. I've been to all those sessions. Um, a couple things with
what people said. There was a suggestion that we could develop on Grove Park. We cannot develop on Parkland. We um, when you look at Rididgewood, you know, when I was running for office, Rididgewood's fairly built out. it's just fairly built out. So, you have property that would
need to be um redeveloped. I do want to say because I followed this very closely before I was on the council, I think the whole community needs to understand how many existing overlays were passed in the third round. For example, there's properties that are predetermined in the last round that I don't think people are
aware even exist. You can see some of the vacant lands. If you see large parcels of land, you can always ask us questions about that. That being said, um, as Evan mentioned, this is the fourth and final round. It will be 10 years before there'll be another requirement. Tonight, um, we're
going to introduce four ordinances. So, similar to what happened with the Kensington, when we introduce, we introduce it, we send notice. So, a lot of people are going to get a lot of letters in the town. We send the letters out, and then at our next meeting on January 14th, we will have individual
public hearings for all of them. I want to let you guys know that because that that's how we do it. There's actually a way to notice the neighborhood and Kensington, this area, you saw that the first round, you'll see it again and notice will go out that the last thing I
want to say is with respect to listening, there is no doubt that that intersection and Maple in general and pedestrian traffic needs some help. I would I would bet we need about five new traffic lights in town and they're expensive. When this moves past the
council, it will go to planning board and I took copious notes. Pam is the member of the council that sits on the planning, but those considerations need to be forced. Greenspace, we will be arguing and advocating for more of that storm water drainage. All that becomes detailed to be fleshed out by the
planning board. But the number one um thematic theme that I've heard all throughout Richmond is traffic. And we hear it and we're taking it very seriously. So, um, similar to Evan, this is not, you know, when you look how
overdeveloped our town is, the influence of traffic, you know, there there are massive developments in places that used to be nurseries. There are streets from my time as a child that didn't even exist. You know, nurseries that went out of business that are now full culde-sacs. We've all seen it. And for
me, I'm very empathetic to that. So, um, to the residents, if you have suggestions and as this progresses, I'm here for you. If you want more information pumped out into the public, we will make that available. Um, the only thing I can assure you is I'm I'm
going to do what I can to maintain local control because the loss of local zoning control would be catastrophic to our town. It just would be. Um, but that doesn't mean the conversation's over. We really want to hear from people. We want to hear it. For me tonight, the primary thing that I've heard out of all this
discourse is traffic. And we are very lucky to have people who can help and will help that as much as much as we can. So, um I think that's everything. And again, with great sincerity, this is an ongoing listening exercise of what
people want as not just the Kensington area, but other areas developed. We do want to hear from the neighbors, and I'm open to that. and uh I'm just very empathetic to um how much our town is changing, how much it has to change, and the mandates that we're looking at.
>> Thanks, Siobhan. Frank, so I've only been on the council not even a year yet, and for most of my time up here, I I'm proud of the decisions that I get to make and the way I get to help my town. This is not one of them. And I want to start by quoting what our village manager said back in the summer that
this is the biggest malpractice of government probably in in in the country, but definitely in our state. And it just as being up here to do what's best for the town is running directly counter to that. We're forced to comply. The state is telling us that
we have to do this. And what is frustrating to me is that I can't take into account what you want. I mean, the judge said that, which I personally found appalling that the the neighbors were not able to be there. Um, and what
scares me the most is that and that was just a hypothetical of properties based on the size that could fit larger than than what's there now. And when when you know like I want to stop massive development. I agree with this sign. There's people that have said we don't
want Richwood to turn into Hackinack. Well, if we lose our builder's remedy, then that's a possibility. And that's scary to me. I want to keep this town as best as we can. And I think as Evans said that this is the the best of the
worst options. And so while none of us want to be here and none of us are happy that you know as the council we have to do what's best for the whole town. And that doesn't mean that I want to minimize what's happening to you. I empathize with the neighbors. We've
heard about traffic issues. I when I started my position, I volunteered to be on SEESAC, the citizen safety committee, because that is so important to me and I will Shelley continue to fight for it, you know, because I do believe that pedestrian safety and safety in our town
is the most important thing. And so I regret that we're in this position, but please know you can be as angry as you want about it, but it's not us that are forcing this upon you. It is a state law that is m that the judges are telling us that we have to do. They don't care what
you say. They're just saying this has to happen. And to me, that's a broken system. And I hope that we can as a community and I hope the rest of New Jersey at some point can figure out how to fix it because it's broken and it keeps going further and further down a
broken road. Thank you. >> Thank you, Frank. Um, I took a lot of notes. I'm going to answer as many questions as I possibly can. By all means, um, when we finish our business, we will go back to public comment. Please ask any questions that we did not get to, that we did not
answer adequately. We will do the best that we possibly can. I promise you that. First, second, I greatly appreciate everyone listening and following our format. This is how we do business. We are not here to avoid your
questions. We're here to answer your questions. As I said in the beginning, you're not going to like a lot of the answers. By the way, that's part of transparency. It's We're going to tell you what the
story is. I said you're not going to like it, but this is the story. And I'm going to and I'm going to tell a story now about the meetings that Pam and I took. First of all, we did not start taking them two years ago. Um, uh, Kensington has been
here for two years scouting locations, looking at where they wanted to go. They've been here for two years. We started last summer, so year and change. Um, uh, there was a question about um, who owns the
property. Um, the people who own the office buildings still own the property, but Kensington has potential control. they have the option to purchase those properties. And um who was it? Uh
forgive me. Somebody said um Oh, Kelly, you said that that I suggested that they buy another piece of property making the problem bigger. I
did. In fact, I pushed it. And I am very happy to say that I did because they would have otherwise likely been able to put the same size development on two of the lots instead of three. It would have
been a complete disaster in my opinion. So yeah, I I did do that. But let's go back to the to the meetings and and why we were at the time happy with what we
got. We must provide affordable housing. There's no question about it. This town is fully built out 100%. No place to build anything. The only the if you want you want to build a new house, you got to knock you got to buy one, knock it down, and build a new one. And you see it happen all the time. And that's what
this is. And what we said back in whatever month that we had that meeting where we had Beth testify is those office buildings are old. They are done at some point in the next x number of years and probably not get in the double
digits. They're going to be gone. They're they're for sale. If this didn't go through, something else will. Evan mentioned um that a CVS could go there. And I know that you're opposed to this project.
I am in my heart of hearts absolutely certain that if a CVS went in there, first of all, you would oppose it as vehemently. And we could not stop it because it's zoned for that. So when this came in,
we said, you know what, this is not the worst situation because it does provide a service to the community. It is not a CVS. We know that anything that goes there is going to
create greater traffic. We know that. But that this is, as we said, a lesser of many evils. And it's been said many times tonight that we didn't oppose it. I'm going to
read from what I read to you. Because you oppose it, we oppose it. Those of you who were at that planning board meeting that I was at, remember I
stood in the lobby and took many, many questions. As a result of that outcry from the neighborhood, I spoke to my colleagues. I spoke to our attorney. I spoke to our affordable
housing consultant and our manager and I said, "These people are incredibly upset. We can't approve this." The discussion went back and forth about, but we have to. We need the affordable
housing units and if we don't do it, we're in big trouble because of the builder's remedy suits. But my colleagues agreed and that's why
we voted it down. We voted it down because you opposed it. Did we think it wasn't so bad? We thought there are worse options. I still think there are worse options, by the way. I will I've I've said that. I maintain that. But you
didn't want it, so we fought against it. And by the way, it was not blown through in the summer. There are statutory deadlines when these things need to get done. We were following statutory deadlines as we are now which the late
the the latest statutory deadline is that this deal must be done by December 31st which functionally means December 19th because the next two weeks are dead. So that's why the judge is waiting for a
decision tomorrow. Let me continue. The suggestion was made that we are at fault and a perfectly reasonable suggestion. We are at fault because we put them in the plan. We put them in the plan because if we
didn't put them in the plan, they would have gotten in anyway. They would have sued us. As I as we said several months ago, we we know the trail of this. By the way, I didn't know the trail of this before. I've just been on the job
training. I've learned a lot. And and we said at that time, Beth said it, Matt said it, they're going to win. We knew at the time that if we didn't put them in the plan, they were going to get in the plan. It was it was a fat
comp plea and it was out of our control. By the way, if you want to blame somebody, blame the state legislature because this is their plan. >> Yeah, >> Stephen, you mentioned that the hammer is not really something that is is something
that we we can appeal. I urge you to go speak to the best lawyer that you can find because it is absolutely it is not just a hammer and it is not just real. It is a big stinking hammer.
It is for real. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We would still be saying no because we'll just wait till the judge orders us. Um, you also said that um, Kensington, you spoke to somebody
and they are considering another location. That would be great. I don't know that. I have not heard that. I have not had a lot of contact with them, but I I hope that you are right. I don't think
that that is for whatever reason ultimately accurate. I'm not saying that it wasn't said to you. I'm just saying that I I I'm pretty confident they're they're going through with this because they know they're going to win. They've always known they're going to win. We've always known they're going to win. And
we've never said anything different. And in terms of transparency and fearmongering, we're all looking at that map saying, "Well, that's fear-mongering." No, that's transparency. That's what this is about is telling you
the bad news, not the good news. The bad news. We told you this when we denied it. You think we want to come here and tell you this? Not in a million years. Denise, you said, "Who else is suing us?" And Matt
did say it was um uh Fairshare Housing, which is a public advocate arm. Speaking of which, there are several ordin there are several ordinances here being being um put forth tonight. The reason is that
with Kensington in the plan, Fairshare Housing is not satisfied. They want more. So, there are other neighborhoods that are going to be affected with
overlay plans. Overlay plans mean that if there's a building someplace and that building is sold, it is suitable for affordable housing. And if we don't do an overlay plan, we
will not settle this case and we will lose our builders. We will lose our zoning immunity. So we have been for the last two weeks in addition to working on Kensington negotiating further because they are not they are a beast that is
not satisfied. They want more. They are on a mission a crusade and their their fair share housing as the public advocate has its own mission. As
we know, Kensington has a completely different mission. Our mission is to protect the community as much as is humanly possible. I think Christine was the one who said we should reveal all of our financial
interests. I will speak for this entire council unequivocally. No one sitting on this deis has a financial interest of any kind in this or any other development. Nothing.
Please quote me. It's on tape. Do opra requests. Nothing. Not a nickel. We do this because we care about the community. My wife said to me tonight, "You sure you want to go?" And I said,
"Absolutely, because somebody's got to tell everybody the bad news." I'm going to continue, Dominic. Oh, I already answered your question about who owns the property. Traffic issues.
We know there are traffic issues and we are completing a traffic study. One of the reasons we didn't complete a traffic study earlier is because the court does not care. This is a planning board issue.
This will go to the planning board. This will be discussed. You can be heard at the planning board. I recommend you go to address these safety and traffic issues. Do we know that there are safety and traffic issues? Of course there are. There are
now because of that offset intersection and the narrow streets. Go to all the planning board meetings. Come to the January 4th 14th meeting here. You will all have an opportunity to be heard again. You can repeat
yourselves. You can come up with new information with new discussion. But I'm putting it out there. January 14th is a public hearing on all of this. And who was it
who said that I have never been through this neighborhood? I've been through my kids went to the high school. They played sports on those fields. I've been I've parked on your streets.
I'm one of those people who came and parked on your streets for sporting events. I still park on your streets for sporting events. I do. I've been there many times. It was the one time that I met with Pam and Andy
Welch for three hours that they pointed out things that as a casual observer over the years who just made gyros and did not sit on the town council that I learned much much more.
So much of that is really important, but Judge S. Peterson is not interested in that. The planning board will be interested in that. And to the point that Siobhan
made, I am so happy that we have such a highc caliber planning board with no disrespect to anyone who has sat on it before, but these are architects and
engineers and attorneys and and and otherwise really smart people who care about this community as much as we do, as much as you do. and they will take all of this into consideration. Traffic is not the issue
tonight. We know it's an issue, but not tonight. Let me continue. And again, I'm trying to address I wrote down all of my notes. Let's see. Susan Shriber, you recommended that we
should consider other parcels. We have no standing to do that. It is not our decision, our recommendation to say, you know, you should go over there and do this. This is what they do. This is what they This is why they were here
two years ago. They and by the way in the negotiations that is it forgive me Greg we should negotiate harder. Kensington was negotiating with the
backdrop of a giant gorilla sitting behind them called affordable housing. They know they know what they have to give up. They know what they don't have to give up. And
at this point, while we are not happy with this because you are not happy with this, I am grateful. grateful, please quote me, that they
came back with a plan which has not yet been formally submitted that fits within the current zoning box. Remember when it was 60, 65 ft, whatever it was tall,
it is now inches under 50, which is what is currently allowed. It had different setbacks. the setbacks are within the current zoning box that are currently allowed. You know who gets
credit for that? You do. You do because you made a lot of noise and that's why they did that. I was very concerned and I still have some concerns that
if we did not settle on this tonight that they would come back with the original plan which was significantly larger or
>> something bigger than that. Am I fear-mongering or am I telling you what the state of affairs is? That's for you to decide. But I urge you, this is all on tape. Take the tape, hire a
lawyer, and ask him, "Is he telling truth?" Because if he's not telling truth, we want to know. We want to call him out on. It's all It's all here. You don't have to remember it. One more thing about that map. Does anybody remember the church? What was the name of the church that just
closed on the west side in the >> Upper Ridgewood? >> Upper Ridgewood. Anybody remember how big that piece of property was? >> It's 1 point something acres. We were so fortunate that that was purchased by another
church. And if any of you are familiar with that church, by the way, as we know, churches aren't doing so well these days. A lot of them are struggling and a lot of them are closing. And when they close, if there is no
zoning immunity, then in that place, in that beautiful wooded residential community, a developer could conceivably come in
and build something that is not suitable to that community. That is what the loss of zoning immunity means. And that is an incomplete prepared on the fly map to illustrate
the danger to our entire town by the loss of zoning immunity. For those of you who would like to blame us, that's what we're here for. We're here to take the punches and
that's fine. We sleep well at night. And again, my apologies that we couldn't do better for you. We wanted to do better. We really, really did. So far, this is the best we could do,
but this will go to the planning board for traffic considerations. I urge you all to attend. And with that, we will return to our regular agenda. By the way, as I said, at the end of the evening, there is another public comment
section. If we did not answer all of your questions, my apologies. We're doing the very best we can, as you can see. Um, and and some some things, by the way, we can't answer. We just don't have Oh, uh, there was one other question about not an not giving information during litigation.
We can't function like that. We just can't. I I actually, as Matt knows, um by revealing what the judge said during mediation, I violated the judge's order.
Absolutely. Unequivocally. By the way, for those of you who didn't know, I'm an attorney. I know this. I'm an officer of the court. And for those of you who were in the committee meeting, if you remember, because Matt was Matt's out front on this, I excused him from the
room when I revealed this, but it was so significant. I could not keep it confidential. You had to know this. You don't have to like it, but you had to know this. And with that, Heather, let's return to our
regular agenda. So, could I just say one thing when we introduce the ordinances because people want to know the areas and there's different areas. We're going to we have different slides. So, the first one will be Kensington to show the area, but for some of the people who are leaving,
there are other areas where you may get another letter because of some of the zoning changes. So, hopefully that makes sense. So, we're going to change the map and it's going to be specific to the ordinance we're reading. Dylan, you want to go to the the first
one? There you go. So, this is this is the area that correlates to the ordinance that we're going to introduce right now. And it's got a subject line and an area. And so, when everybody gets the letters, it's relative. It's 200 feet, Matt. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So that and you'll you'll see it'll change. This is the first of four. Sorry, Heather. >> Paul. Paul. >> Oh, excuse me. So sorry. Still answering questions. >> I I move the first reading of ordinance
4071. >> Second. >> Second. >> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Parin. >> Yes. >> White. >> Yes. >> Wiggrad. >> Yes. >> Vaganos. Yes. So ordered. Will the clerk please read ordinance 4071 by title? >> An ordinance amending chapter 190 land
use and development to create the S1 senior overlay zone district. >> I move Go ahead. >> Great. I move that ordinance 4071 be adopted on first reading and that January 14, 2026 be fixed as a date for the hearing thereon. >> Second.
>> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Parin. >> Yes. >> Whites. >> Yes. Wiggrad, >> I I just want to be clear with the public. I'm voting yes, but in between then and now, the certified letters will be recirculated. So, that's just the formulaic process. So, I'm voting yes.
And again, to note the date, it's January 14th, and you will anybody who is within 200 feet of that will receive a notice. So, yes. >> Okay. And Vianos. >> Yes. I move the first reading of ordinance 4072.
>> Second. Okay. Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. So ordered. Will the clerk please read ordinance 4072 by title? >> An ordinance to amend chapter 190, land
use and development of the code of the village of Ridgewood to modify zoning standards to create the to-1 townhouse overlay district. I move that ordinance 40 4072 be adopted on first reading and that January 14,
2026 be fixed as the date for the hearing thereon. >> Second Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Wiggrat, >> so my council is going to get annoyed with me. Um, this is a different area of
town and you'll see at the top the district is Gothal Road and the corresponding addresses are in the book. the full ordinances has detail um that is the parcel and again everybody within 200 feet will get notices of that and
keep in mind that's an area that has different streets on different sides so some of the people it's 200 feet both ways so this is a separate ordinance and to the person who made the suggestion about the criteria while Kensington is at 10% this ordinance I believe is at
20% affordable so um Yes. >> And Vanos. >> Yes. I move the first reading of ordinance 4073. >> Second. >> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Parin. >> Yes. >> Whites. >> Yes. >> Wiggrad.
>> Um, again, sorry. Anybody else can jump in. So, you'll see this area. Great. >> This is an area of town. Um, particularly if you had a young dancer by Arpac. It's past the Y where the old Domino's Pizza was when we were growing up. Um if you go down past on Chestnut,
you can see it. And again, should anybody need any additional detail, these notices will be there'll be quite a few because there's many residentials on Oak. So, um again, between then and now, the community who's impacted this within 200 feet will receive the same
letter that Kensington got over the summer. And that's the overlay area. So, Yes. And Vaganos. >> Yes. So ordered. Will the clerk please read ordinance 4073 by title?
>> An ordinance to amend chapter 190 land use development of the code of the village of Ridgewood to modify zoning standards to create the CR1 commercial residential district. I move that ordinance 4073 be adopted at on first
reading and that January 14th, 2026 be fixed as the date for the hearing thereon. >> I second the motion. >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Wonderrad, >> yes. >> Vanos, >> yes. I move the first reading of
ordinance 4074. >> Second. >> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Pin. >> Yes. >> Whites. Yes. >> Wiggrad. >> Um, yes. Again, so this is a large impact area as you'll know that a lot of the housing obligation exists in town
for many reasons, but for the Kensington folks, there are several areas uh where people will get double the letters. So, if you look at the um eastern most part of that, you may may receive I don't know Heather, is it going to be one letter or two based upon the changes?
because some of these houses will have two zoning impact changes to them. So that is the area. Um it's rather large geography which means the number of letters that will go out through the community will be extensive. >> Okay. And yes,
>> yes. So ordered. Will the clerk please read ordinance 4074 by title? An ordinance to amend chapter 190, land use and development of the code of the village of Bridger to modify zoning standards for the B1 and B2 districts.
I move that ordinance 4074 be adopted on first reading and that January 14th, 2026 be fixed as the date for the hearing thereon. >> I second the motion. >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Perin, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Wiggrad, >> yes. >> Yes.
I move the first reading of ordinance 4075. >> A second. >> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Parin. >> Yes. >> Whites. >> Yes. >> Wiggrad. >> Yes. >> And Bajianos. >> Yes. So ordered. Will the clerk please
read ordinance 4075 by title? >> An ordinance to amend chapter 190 land use and development of the code of the village of Ridgewood to modify the mandatory affordable housing set aside standards. I move that ordinance 4075 be adopted on
first reading and that January 14th, 2026 be fixed as the date for the hearing thereon. >> I second the motion. >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Perin, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Yes. So, this is not directly related to an individual area, but rather our
approach to amp up the contribution. So, other areas um you'll you'll notice in Kensington it's 10%. This is an an ordinance that will apply to all of them and increase it to 20%. So it it applies to all the maps we just introduced with the exception exception of Kensington
because they have different requirements with their senior housing. >> Yes. >> And >> yes, Matt, um I believe we're done with these this part of the agenda. Did you want to say something? >> Yes. >> Solutions. >> I know I said this part of the >> but these these ordinances will come
before the planning board on January 6th. Matt, can you take a moment just to describe what's happening with each what each of these ordinances does? >> Okay. Um, hang on just a second. Get my notes.
Okay. Um hopefully everybody can hear me. With regard to the Gal Road property, um this was, as I said earlier in my opening remarks, we spoke with um developers from different parts of the town. Chestnut Street, Gothal Road. Both
of those are in Glier because we're mandated to speak with them and decide what they wanted to do. This um ordinance proposes for this site to be developed with town houses um what's called stack town houses or indoor single family homes at a maximum density
of 13 units per acre. Uh the anticipated developer for the site has indicated they would like additional density uh permitting modest increases um may assist with the settlement of the affordable housing litigation which is what we're doing here. So um at it's a
1.62 62 acre site and at 30 to um at a density of 15 units per acre that would make it available for um 24 homes. So this ordinance increases it from what it
is already to 15 units per acre and um allows for town houses development. We have no idea. We think this is going to make it available but certainly this has been reviewed by Fairshare Housing Center and they find it acceptable as well. So
next, >> oh okay, the B2 district. All right. Um, as part of our third round, uh, overlays, we brought into brought into the B1 and B2 districts to have upper
story residential uses at a maximum density of 18 units per acre and a height of 50 ft. The um, this ordinance proposes to increase that density to 20 units per acre. And that's basically what it does. And again, this
has been reviewed by Fair Share and Fair Share finds this acceptable. And then we've got um obviously we've talked at length about the Kensington ordinance and what that means. And then the last one is uh
>> Chestnut >> the TO is that the TO0 district? >> No, CR1. >> Oh, the CR1, sorry. And this um reszones the properties along Chestnut Street and north of Robinson Lane to permit mixeduse and multif family
housing. As you may know, we already have a affordable housing development or a development that provides affordable housing on Chestnut Street. This is in close proximity to the same um uh the density is 30 units per acre and
maximum height of 45 ft. Um except that uh the addition well excuse me the additional architectural requirements are imposed for any building greater than 40 ft in height which may exist and the ordinance prohibits upper story balconies to face
single family residences. Uh there must be buffers and other things that are provided in there and a 12yard I mean a 12- foot minimum rear yard setback uh to any of the homes. So 20% of the homes shall be affordable housing. So it's a
20% set aside. Thank you so much Matt. Before I told you that we needed to feed the beast more. This is what we had to give up. We we submitted our plan. It did not satisfy them. We negotiated
these three additional properties. Again, this is a Kensington problem. This is your neighborhood's problem. It is not just your neighborhood's problem. We are trying to limit it as much as we possibly can, but the beast is the beast. And that's what we have to do.
And so, let's move on. Heather, >> the following resolutions number 25-562 through 25-564 will be adopted by a consent agenda with one vote by the village council. They will be read by title only. Award
contract under state contract bodywn cameras, related accessories, digital evidence storage and management services and tasers for the police department. Authorized settlement agreement with Kensington Senior Development. Authorized mediation agreement with
Fairshair Housing Center. I have a motion. >> So move. >> Second. >> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Parin. >> Yes. >> Whites. >> Yes. >> Wiggrad. >> Sure. Just because there's a lot of process going on here. I just want to make sure there's three resolutions. One
has absolutely nothing to do with affordable housing. It's related to a purchase that's necessary for our police department. And the last two, while the first four were ordinances, this is a resolution that we can show in court to show the negotiations that we've made.
So there's one for both Kensington and one for both fair share. So I just want to kind of slow it down. There's three here, two related to housing, and my vote is yes. Vagos. >> Yes. And with that, we will return to public
comment. Do you need a little bit? >> Good evening again, Ann Loving Ridgewood resident. A lot of people have left. You say that you want to hear from everybody, but a lot of people just can't stay for these long meetings for
various reasons. You purposely and intentionally only allow a certain amount of comments at the beginning and then you say, "But you can stay till the end. You can stay till the end." In a situation like this where you have a huge crowd, which is unusual. I don't
understand. Well, I think I do understand. But why can't everybody who wants to speak speak at the beginning? It's disingenuous in my opinion to suggest that you really want to hear from everyone. We have bells going off
in the middle of people talking. We had the mayor interrupting at least one person who was talking at the one minute mark saying you have to stop when they didn't. And all these people that have left, one gentleman really did want to speak, but he got you got in a shouting
match with him. I think in a situation like this where you have a lot of people and they're very upset and very concerned, you should change this arbitrary rule that we're only going to go for x number of minutes at the beginning and let everyone who wants to
speak speak. This comes off to me as an intentional way of clearing the room so you really don't have to hear from everyone. If you wanted to hear from everyone, you'd hear from all the parents who had to get babysitters, all the seniors who are getting tired and want to get home. All the people who
have dogs they have to get home. You're not hearing from them because you're cutting it off after a certain number of people and they just get tired and go home. And I think it's wrong. >> Thank you. in >> Shelley Rothstein. Um, I wasn't going to
speak again, but I wanted to reply to a few things and I wanted to answer a few questions that some people had that you were unable to answer because you were not at the meeting on Monday with Kensington and Thank you. You were not at the meeting that we had privately
with Michael Rafiti when he said that yes, the county told them they could have an exit onto North Maple and they were told by the village that it was not a good idea. So, I don't know who told
them that, but they did offer to have an exit onto North Maple, and now instead on these renderings, we're stuck um with just a pedestrian entrance. Um, it's a shame about
affordable housing being forced down everyone's throat, but what's more of an of a shame is this loophole that assisted living can be affordable housing. Um, it's ridiculous.
This is not affordable housing for a single mother with three children. The 10% are Medicaid beds. It's a studio room, two to a room. That's what they call affordable housing. And I also
hate to hear it keep being referred to as senior housing. This is not senior housing what Kensington is building. And a few of you tonight did refer to it um maybe unintentionally. Um this is a medical facility. this
facility will operate 247. Um, I believe it was Evan who referenced the possibility of maybe having a 40 sto, you know, 40 unit apartment. Well, I'll tell you that Kensington as an
assisted living medical facility rec requires garbage pickups five times a week, recycling pickups two to three times a week, produce deliveries three to six times a week, food bread deliveries two to three times a week.
You tell me what apartment building would require that? What apartment building has 120 full-time jobs? 15 to 20,000 visitors a year. These are coming
directly from Michael Rafit's mouth, these words. So, do not compare it to a 40unit apartment building. We would actually like that. That wouldn't be bad with what's being placed on the corner now.
And don't keep threatening us with a CVS because the CVS will not go into that spot. There is no parking. No parking at all. And I'll say that Kensington when asked has no plan for overflow parking.
They have 90 spaces and no plan for overflow parking. >> Thank you, Shelley. Hi, Pete Masajuski, Rididgewood resident. Um, you know, I I I'm against this project, but I just want to say
that uh I think I believe the council and that you're doing the best you can under the laws, but the thing that I feel passionate about that brought me down here tonight is that, and I heard it kind of said in some of the comments, this is the state, okay? This is our democracy. This is our ability to speak.
And what I want to say is that in our state is run by one political party, okay? And everybody votes for them and then you want to come talk to local politicians who have no say. It's the state that's pushing it on us. And so Democrats did this. Democrats did this
in passing housing law over years at the state and federal level. And that's wrong. Think about it when you vote. Research it and never vote for them again. But I think that the local politicians are doing the best that they can for us. I certainly I I'm going to
live in fear that in my neighborhood something may happen. The maps that I just saw scared me. But I believe you and what you're saying and I thank you for your service and I wouldn't think you're trying to help the community that you would put yourself through all that you've been through. I watched the public meetings from my house. I think
you guys really care and are trying to help this community. But it is messed up. I'm against all the development that I've seen in this town and I've lived here since 2011. All these highrises, everything. It's terrible. Think about the political party that's
brought this upon you. And look at Jack Chitterelli and he talked about overdevelopment. He lost in a landslide and and you get what you vote for as a as a state. Thank you. >> Thank you, Pete. Dominic Magaliano, Richwood resident.
Back to the affordable housing units, the rentals. A person say I go in, I get a break in my rent. Now, when I leave, does the landlord still has to make it affordable or does it go up to regular market value? >> I'm sorry, I didn't I didn't hear the
qu. Could you repeat that? I'm so sorry. >> Sure. >> Affordable. See, I I bought a building and I have to say I have four units I have to rent to affordable. I know it's got to be below rent, below the market value. Once those people leave,
does my units go back up to Oh, no. So, it stays there forever. >> We can we can answer that. Do you want to I I just did. >> Okay. All right. I just So, then >> I'll answer that when everybody's done and I'll make sure I can Okay. All right. >> That's the only question. >> Thank you, Pete. Thank you.
Hi uh David Lowry uh Bridgewood resident James Avenue. Um I too want to thank you. I think you guys ladies and gentlemen have done a great job of listening of of providing information here at least. Um, and it's not easy and I know that and I think that you guys
are really uh doing your best to try and figure out a lot of difficult things, laws, how they interact, how you can uh meet those demands. So, I I do want to thank you and and that's that's all accurate. Um, I know that uh this is this is a tough thing and then a lot of
us do not like it. Maybe all of us don't like it. Um, unfortunately you you're all in the seat and that uh is that's a tough situation and and again I don't know necessarily what the best thing here is. What I do know is is uh I'm a former um uh CEO of a bank that's
provided billions of dollars for development uh throughout my career. Um I have never seen a developer um not be able to negotiate a deal to get shy of execution with its bank uh with its bankers with with the municipality uh
just to save legal costs on a fight just to save time uh on the financing to make sure that they have their investors lined up and can move forward. Um something is not adding up to me right now. I can't understand what it is, but um I hope that maybe some more
information can be provided or or um there's somewhere I could go maybe that could be listed online where I could find more information with somebody because this doesn't make sense to me that we have opportunities maybe to provide more uh affordable housing, which is what one of the lawsuits would
care about. We have a developer who's already we're increasing our um density already by a certain amount. maybe that increase would cover my understanding is we only needed four units um from this. So I I just
apologize. I don't understand it. I'm not sure that we do. Um and I know that you guys have done a lot of work into it. And I know that um Mr. Rogers, you have a lot of experience, but some of these laws are new, not haven't all been worked through with having the right people to talk to about these things. I
would like to understand what sources you've used and how I can maybe educate myself more to understand better. Thank you. Thank you, David. Anybody else? >> We sure. >> Hi, thanks and thank you for listening tonight and I do appreciate that you all
tried to address. >> Would you just state your name, please? >> Megan Bracken. Um, it would have been helpful to understand what comes next, what steps are next, and what exactly the planning board is within their control to sort of mitigate some of the the impact on the
neighborhood. And I guess if the deputy mayor is the representative of the planning board, if you could, you know, share with us what the process is. And I would say I'm a little disappointed that when you all of you spoke and you talked about how hard this is, nobody made any commitment to the neighborhood to say that you would work with the planning
board or with the developer to try to mitigate that damage. And for the record, Paul, I didn't go over my time the first time. >> Great. And Shelley, just want to make sure what we do is we make sure everybody gets a chance to speak before somebody gets a second chance. So is it excuse me, is there anybody else who
would like to speak? By all means. >> So I I was reminded of this. >> I'm sorry. I missed most of the meeting um as a family thing, but my name is Janette Lorocco, 454 Bogurt Avenue. The one thing I learned at Monday's meeting
is this talks for this place were 18 to 24 months ahead of time. Why were we not informed sooner that you were in talks with Kensington? That I think is very important to note. Period. Because if we had known more, we would have time to
understand what was going on and to rally people. Part of the problem is I'm glad so many people showed up considering it's Hanukkah week and Christmas is coming. And the same thing Monday there could have been more people if people knew about Monday's meeting to hear the presentation. And they seemed
the other thing that disturbed me was they kept saying how positive everything was. never discussing the negatives as if they live in La La Land because they're not showing all the negatives that could happen to our that neighborhood and I don't live there but
that could happen to those neighbors and but I drive through there all the time and to anyone coming into Rididgewood none of that was understood it's like they live in another universe and don't understand we're not a village we're not a I mean we're a village not a city so
that you can't it's comparing apples oranges to compares to any other place where they may have built like white plains. So that's my concern. I need think it needs to be addressed. >> Thank you Janette. >> All right. Before I made a comment name
>> Gary Negridge Rididgewood. >> And forgive me for calling you Greg before. I was trying to find your name. >> That's not uncommon. That's fine. I made a comment about getting more and my friend the ex-banker or maybe
he's not an ex uh alluded to something that I'd like to reinforce. A developer's world is about a clock like your three minute clock. Okay.
So even though he may have Thor's hammer, he doesn't have time. Now it's when somebody wants to build a piece of on a piece of property, as you point out, they got options.
And on the magic day that the deal becomes real, deal will be a room as big as this. And there'll be all those people with their attorneys and you will see contracts signed,
titles issued. The whole thing will happen within sometimes up to 24 hours, I'm sure, but they try to do it in 10 or 12. So everything is floating on time.
And the longer it takes you as the developer to cut the deal, you know what? You got an option on the property. But now I got the property and I know you just sunk $1,000 an hour on a
thousand attorneys and experts and every other damn thing. And I'm going to say, you know what? I think I need an extra five points on that property. And now what am I doing now? I got all this here.
>> Gary, please speak into the mic. Thank you. >> My point is you do have a lot of negotiating power. If you walk in and say, you know what, if we can eliminate all the lawyers, guys, if you can give me this >> speak into the mic thing. >> Think about it.
>> Thank you, Gary. >> Uh, good evening, Mayor and Council. boy a loving Rididgewood resident. Uh Ann asked a question that was not answered and that question is what does the yellow represent on that map on that map specifically? What what does the yellow
indicate? We believe it indicates that there are properties that have a structure on it and a larger structure could be built without any zoning, but if we could just get some some clarification on what that means. Um Mr. Rogers made a comment at the beginning
of the meeting that indicated that uh people aren't opposed to affordable housing, they are opposed to development. I'm not sure if I heard that correctly. I just like you to clarify that because quite frankly, as a member of a minority group, I do find that there are people who are against
affordable housing, thinking that there's going to be an element that moves into the community that they don't like. So, uh, I would respectfully disagree with your comment that there are some people who are only concerned about development and not concerned about affordable housing. I have read
comments in the newspapers from politicians running for office who are running on that platform that they are opposed to affordable housing because it attracts a type of individuals that they don't want in their community. So, again, I would disagree with your
comment if that's what your comment was. Uh, Mr. Mayor, you specifically stated that you have no financial interest in anything that was being discussed tonight or being passed tonight, introduced tonight. Uh, specifically on
4074, that ordinance, I believe that you own properties in the B1 district and one of your properties, at least one that I know of, has residential units in it. So, I don't understand how you have no financial interest when the property
will increase from having 18 units per uh I don't know per acre or per unit up to 20. So, if you could please clarify what your remarks were on there because my view, my personal view is that if you own a property in the B1 district and
there's a change being made in the B1 district that will increase the number of units that you have some financial gain that you could possibly make. Uh, and the last thing that I want to say is that you can talk all you want, but actions speak louder than words. If I
remember correctly, not one of you showed up at the meeting where Shedler was discussed downstairs with Matrix. Not one of you showed up at Monday night's meeting. You represent us. I didn't vote for any of you, but you
still represent us. It would have been nice if one or two of you had showed up one Monday night. You all chose to deliberately stay away. That speaks volumes to me. >> Your comments, your time is up. >> No, it isn't.
>> I beg your pardon. I'm >> listen. I made a mistake. >> Yo, you deliberately made the mistake just as you deliberately didn't show up on Monday night and you deliberately didn't show up with Matrix. You're afraid of us. I think I don't know any
other reason why one or two of you wouldn't have shown up on Monday night or shown up at that matrix meeting. That speaks volumes to me. You don't want anything to do with us. Thank you. >> Hi, Stephen Ritz again. I just wanted to
clarify a couple of things. Um when I was speaking to uh the Kensington representatives, um my sense was that they're open to work with the town because they don't want bad will. You know, they want to have goodwill. The fact that they
actually made some changes um looks like there's potential. I wasn't saying taking over Grove Park, but I'm specifically asking is there similar to not far from there, there used to be a pool, a town pool, I think it's part of Pamis because I think it was over the
border that was converted into residential areas. Theoretically, you could take a section of Grove Park, which should be big enough to handle a facility um even larger than the one that's being proposed between Marshall
and uh because quite frankly, in my humble opinion, for Kensington themselves, um the the green space issue and there's other issues as well, that could potentially be um problematic for them because even though there's they've
determined that there's other um similar places that have like 90% capacity, you know, what are they going to choose? Are they going to choose one with the green space or without the green space because there doesn't appear to be enough room to have green space? Now, the when it
goes to planning and and zoning, um I still have to do some research on this whole process. Uh but I'm assuming that um it's not a done deal until it goes through those those situations. Um now regarding the law, what I was referring
to um about constitutionality was just that the fact that um to me it's negligence where a somebody is uh abusing the law for personal gain. Um and that's where the hammer comes in. Now, that in and of itself, um, whether
or not that is true or what have you, but in theory, um, that should not be the case in in constitutional law because I come from a family of lawyers, but I don't know, uh, because I'm not a lawyer. So, I I'd love to better understand um what the limitations are
with appeal. I I am well aware there's cost associated. Uh, is the cost worth it? Because in my humble opinion, this is a great town. I've loved this town. I grew up in this town. My parents grew up in this town. My grandparents and so on. So,
I've already seen the changes like a lot of the neighbors. Um, and you know, like Paul, like you said, Mr. Mayor, we don't want it to look like Hackinack, but it, you know, there's sections of it that actually do right now, and it doesn't have to be. I mean, does anybody remember that uh you know, we have uh
trolley tracks that run under the you know, these are still down there, you know, like six, eight inches, maybe 12 inches by now, but um and then the turntable by uh Hokusin um that used to be there. I mean, it's it's fascinating stuff. But anyway, my
point is that um it's not a done deal. Correct. Yeah. >> Anybody else? You're good. Shelly. >> Thank you. Just a couple more things. Um, >> please state your name again.
>> Shelley Rothstein. >> Yeah, I know. >> Uh, you had stated, Pam, that you thought this was a good idea, provided diversity of housing, um, etc. The one thing that I want to also uh relay that
came directly from Michael Rafiti is that it's illegal for him to offer any of this housing specifically to Ridgewood residents. So this housing could be for anyone. So um the gentleman
that was online also said this this is great. This is great for seniors. This is great. But there is no guarantee that anyone from Ridgewood will actually be in this facility. Um, so talking about aging in place, you just can't. It's the
first person that walks in the door with $15,000 in hand for that month. That's who's getting it. Um, another thing I noticed on the plan on the ordinance for the Chestnut Street area is that you had included that there would be no upper
balconies that face the neighborhood. And I'm wondering why that this is not included in the Kensington plan. Or maybe it's not too late. And it can be because as Kelly stated, there's two levels of terraces that
directly face the neighborhood backyards. So thought was given on on chest for the Chestnut area. Why wasn't it given on this area? I mean, and this area is incredibly close to the residents. Um,
one other thing I don't know just if anybody has their pictures is that I had to label the loading dock on this. Kensington did not label the loading dock. So, if you looked at this, you just saw a gray square, but they did
point out just how close that loading dock is and how close these terraces would be to the neighbors. And that's just terrible. There's only a fence and a couple of trees. No mention of a retaining wall. No effort at all to
buffer the sound. And I know maybe that has to come down the wire with planning board, but um thought was given on chestnut to the terraces and I don't understand why it wasn't given here. Um and I'd like to thank Boyd for bringing
up that point that truly, Mr. Mayor, if you have properties in town that you own that have residences above them, that you should recuse and that that should be mandatory because you do have a
financial gain in this. Thank you. >> Hi, Kelly Morgan. I would just like to point out to the viewers who are online and those who are in the audience who were not able to attend the Kensington presentation on Monday due to the short
notice or lack of publicity. We have screenshots from that presentation available. We do have a recording available. Um you can go to rididgewood-united.com to see some of those screenshots and you can see just how massive the facility is. The scaledown approach is not very
much scaled down. All of the comparative drawings are there. We have comparative information from what was originally presented as well as the concepts that were freshly presented um on Monday. I'd also like to add that the bell mechanism is a very distracting feature. Not only
does it rattle the speakers at the one minute mark when we still have time to speak, it's it's just interrupting. It's very distracting. It's not a good use. There's a clock that's very clear and visible right up there. So perhaps you want to rethink that and just ding it at
the three minute mark. Mute the mic. Figure out a different way. It's it's interrupted almost every speaker tonight. >> Thank you, Kelly. >> Dominic Magaliano. Question one. Does the town have a rent
audience? have what >> a rent ordinance >> like you have restrictions. >> Oh yeah. >> No. And then the next question is when when the developers come in, they built a new property. Are you guys
forced a fiveyear abatement? A five-year abatement. In other words, I built a property first year I only pay say like 20% of the normal taxes. Okay. Just want to make sure that's all.
Okay. Anybody else in the audience? We have a couple of piece of people online. I'm Robert Donalan. This is my wife, Jennifer. Uh we live right next door to where Kensington's going to be building. Um, we're concerned about the terrorists also like everybody else has said or the
uh terraces. Um, how are you going to protect us from from that, you know, and uh they said in a reading they're going to put a sixoot fence, but 48 ft off our property line, you're going to be 50 something feet high. I mean, everybody's going to look right down on us.
uh you've done it in other places where you're not going to have the the uh patios, you know, why can't they do that here, you know, and and lighting and I mean, we can go on and on, you know, traffic. Uh
yeah, I mean >> hospital, >> if you could speak to the mic, Jennifer, >> it's a 247 hospital. I mean, it's going to be constant all the time. Even Kensington said the deliveries would be going every day. >> Garbage, you know, in the middle of the night >> into the mic. We need you to speak into
>> garbage in the middle of the night. I mean, deliveries. >> Nobody would want to live next to this, honestly. And I've lived here my whole life. My kids are seventh generation Ridgewood. So, it's this is just like traumatizing. >> Yeah.
>> For all of us. >> It's horrible. Like, I can't believe this could move into a neighborhood, you know? It's ridiculous. You guys, I know not one of you would want to live next to it. >> How could we ever sell our house?
How who would want to live next to this? You know, it's you know, I don't What else? >> I I we haven't said anything because I thought you guys would honestly like think of the neighborhood and like I thank God. I feel horrible for the
younger families that moved in, have to raise their kids with this. >> Um, >> on Chestnut, you put no terrace what's uh patios on the back. Why can't we do that here? You know, any holiday that's going to be there. Those are going to be filled with families. I
can't go to my backyard without saying hi to Nona up there. You know, um, >> it's going to be bad. So hopefully you'll protect us in that way, you know, with lighting, greenery, anything. I mean, maybe not having those rooftop things,
maybe putting them on maple would be better. I don't know. So, thank you. >> Thank you both. John Fry, North Irving Street. >> John, if you can get a little closer to the mic. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> So, indeed, just following up on this
whole concept of the terraces and the developments and so on. Uh Mike the other night he explained to us that indeed down in Virginia at their facility that they were they had taken over a Burger King to build their facility and then they put up their
facility and the houses that were immediately behind it. Eventually they all got sold and they have now become all town houses because nobody wanted to live in them as individual houses. So indeed this problem has existed in their properties
before. their solution was put town houses behind it um and knock them down and they just push the problem down another block. So we don't want to see that happen here. Obviously the immediate neighbors it's a real issue but everybody it's going to be and
you'll be doing another zoning for town houses on the next step down. We got to worry about it. That's all. >> Thank you John. Anybody
else before we go to our hybrids? Okay, Rurick, you're up. >> Rurick, you're still on mute. >> Do you hear me? Ror, >> Richard res 56 years. uh two uh comments. Thanks to you, everyone in
Rididgewood and in fact everyone around the world can participate in this meeting by Zoom, which is what I do. Being disabled, it's not I'm not comfortable coming to meetings with lots of people and so I participate by Zoom and people who have to leave early
should not have come and they have participated by Zoom. Secondly, anyone who says you don't care, I say yes, you do care. I've lived in the sun for 56 years and I cannot think of a
village council that has accomplished as much in the last two years as you have. You've accomplished more in the last two years than the last 20 years that was accomplished by other people. I for that I thank you. And so many of your
accomplishments have not been easy picking. I mean, you have Shedler, you have this. These are tough things where you you get support by some and many people against you, but you're doing what is right for Rididgewood. For that,
I say thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you, Ror. >> Thank you. >> Natalya, you're up. >> Hello. Can you guys hear me? >> We can. >> Okay. So, um, just wanted to take another opportunity and reiterate some
of the things that I mentioned earlier. >> Could you just state your name, please? >> Natalia Protovich 370 Goddin. So, okay. So, the couple things that I wanted to and post the fact that you reintroduced the ordinary ordinances.
So, the ordinance or ordinances that are being proposed tonight uh on the face value seem to be meaningfully changing the downtown scale. massing and the visual character and if they are in fact changing character this is contrary to
the public outreach results noted in our master plan. Um if you recall m the 2022 master plan was explicit. The downtown policy must maintain the aesthetic qualities and feeling of downtown and limit further highdensity residential development. visual a impact of any new
development must be must be assessed and clearly it applies here and yes affordable housing is in fact accounted in the master plan contrary to what was stated earlier today. It is noted as a housing element and the question was
from me earlier if whether Ridgewood council taken any steps to bring the Ridgewood housing element up to date without compromising the village master plan. So, what residents expect um here is pause this panic-driven zoning and
related related or ordinances, direct the planning board to update the p and publicly vet a current housing element and fair share plan and only consider zoning that are clearly tied to that plan. But you know specifically uh to regarding this S1 overlay, if this
overlay is truly about compliance, the there are reasonable concrete ways to structure it without locking in maximum density, right? The village could impose a certain strict floor area or building size cap tied tied to the surrounding
neighborhoods. It could require setbacks. It could require density limits. Right? We quoted and it was quoted several times uh today that the Kensington project is in fact in compliance in terms of size to B2 zoning
but B2 zoning is not accounting for the density the residential density that is being amount uh forced on us. So if we can we we cannot maybe change the plan significantly in terms of size but we
can demand the density to be within certain limits to be appropriate for our master plan. So respectfully I know people mentioned before the court response it will not be accepting any kind of deviation from what was already
presented by Kensington. Respectfully, courts do not require municipalities to approve the maximum density possible, which seems to be the case here. They require evidence of good faith planning and the proportional zoning and a realistic path to compliance. Tools like
density caps that I mentioned here, which nobody mentioned, right? Let's review the density cap 120. Keep the building the same. Okay, fine. Instead of 120, keep it at 60. Why? We do. There is no specific limit that we have to
attain to >> set who's am I out of time? >> Yes. >> Okay. So that's what I I wanted to for to stress out. Keep the density plan at limits. >> Thank you, Natalia. And with that, we're
going to close public comment and we will address some of your concerns. Matt, would you lead us off? First of all, I think everybody's I think everybody's got to understand this process that's gone on has gone on
since 1975. There's been iterations of it and similar um proposals with it. Each one having different each round having different regulations and requirements and timing mechanisms. Originally, it was supposed to be handled by the
legislature and when the legislature didn't act between the second and third rounds, someone sued the legislature and the courts got involved and the courts took it over. So, the fourth round is kind of a combination of the courts and the legislature handling
affordable housing and that's why we're in the position that we are in here and subject to court uh time periods and court mandates. Um, so we've got those things. Somebody asked about the units and if you if you first of all all
affordable units which is the only part that gets regulated we the village hires an entity um Pazard Associates to handle applications for affordable housing and if there's affordable housing units
available uh they must apply through a process where they have to qualify and there's a decision made based upon qualifications with regard to someone who wants to qualify for it, whether they do or not, whether it's a space opening, that's handled by a
affordable housing manager, and that's Piaza Associates. We hire them. We're required to have them. It's part of our compliance. If we don't have them, we don't have a compliant plan. That's one of the other aspects of what we've done. But we've already hired PAS Associates. There are deed restrictions with regard
to the affordable units that um if a developer develops property that has a set aside those affordable units have to remain affordable for a period of at least 40 years if I'm not mistaken but that's also a regulation that sometimes
changes but in the same same breath has to be a part of the plan and has to be and that's why Piaza manages that there'll be deed restrictions filed with these units um that get enforced and get get um get looked at by PAZA when they
award these things. Um something's not adding up, somebody said. Um yes, we all agree something's not adding up. And I think that's why many towns sue because it doesn't add up. It seems like a very, and I said this in my opening remarks, it seems like a very
arbitrary process with regard to figuring out what has to be done, how many units you have to have, and how that works. Well, this is a process. It doesn't seem like it's a process that's being fair with regard to the municipalities. Not all municipalities.
Urban areas are being treated the same way. Should that be true? Should urban areas be treated the same way as the suburban areas or the more rural areas? There are inequities in this. Every town has in its master plan. Every town
similar to Ridgewood. All these Bergen County towns all have in their master plan that you want to preserve the character and the type of type of community that it is. And it's a residential community and that affordable housing supersedes that. All
right. And I think you can't keep saying that you're not paying attention to your master plan because there's a constitutional mandate that you got to provide affordable housing and courts have held that it's superseding it. I was just reading an a decision out of
Middletown Middletown Township where there was a developer wanted to de develop a 50acre tract and the town said no, we're going to buy it. We're going to condemn it and make use it for municipal purposes. The court held that the town could not do that. All right.
And they allowed the developer to come in with the development in the 50 acre track. That's a decision that came down back in July of this year. So it's recent. Okay. So it it supersedes the local zoning supersedes those local interests because you've got to do it.
It's a constitutional mandate. Um also you you said working with the the council has to work with the planning board. will we do in accordance with the municipal land use law. We can't tell the planning board what to do. The planning board is a separate body has a
separate council has separate chairpersons. There's a voting member from the council and that's permitted by the municipal land use law but that's the way we work with it. You can't tell them what to do, what should be done or anything such as that. They have to work
within their parameters pursuant to their authority that's given to them in the municipal land use law. Somebody asked about the process from here on in. Well, if we settle with fair share housing and Kensington, that
gets remarked, we get a we then work towards getting a compliance plan. In the meantime, I think probably um Kensington's going to work up and get ready for a site plan application. They can't use that concept plan that they have. They have
to go into greater detail for a site plan application. They have to meet the requirements of our site plan ordinance and the requirements of the filings for the site plan ordinance. The issue issues of lighting, other issues such as
drainage, things such as that. Uh may have people live right next door. McDonald. Is that it? I'm sorry if I got your name wrong. >> Oh, okay. Donnelly. I knew >> Donlin. >> Donlin. >> I knew I knew it was Irish. So, um McDonald might be Scottish, but that's
okay. But the um the issue with the terrace is that's a reasonable request, reasonable type situation. That's something that would be looked at from the site plan connection. So, that's when that comes up. It's got it doesn't have a whole lot
to do with the introduction of the ordinance at this point because that's going to be site plan. And um and hopefully well I'll say at the end I say this with significant trepidation that my office is in town. You can find my phone number for my office on um my
website. If you have a question about this and again I say it with significant trepidation, you can contact me and I'll respond. Okay? Because I want to make sure you understand this thing. This is not an easy aspect to understand. Um,
also clock, you know, somebody brought up the clock and the developers developers time is really money. And I think that was the point that was being made. Well, that's what Englewood Cliffs thought. All right. And the more that you put it out, it's going to cost them more. If
they're going to get the approval eventually, the town's going to pay that. And then not that that's the significant aspect of why we're doing this. The significant aspect of the of why we're doing this is the loss of immunity from builder's remedy suits.
And that case in Middletown Middletown Township that I told you about was a builder's remedy case. All right. And that's why it supersedes municipal action in that regard. Uh, so, um,
oh yes, the yellow the map with the yellow lines, I'm sorry, it hasn't answered yet. The map with the yellow markers is a comes out of a request of our uh, affordable housing planner to show up sites that would possibly could possibly
be developed if we had lost our immunities. It's not that every one of those is getting developed. Um the interesting thing is is that it's based upon size of sites. So those those those are places where there are size of sites. We lose it our immunity. We lose
the presumption of validity of our ordinances. We're stripped of the ability to really control development in the town. Is that feasible? Would a developer want to put a um a multif family house multif family unit building on a prop single family residential
property on South Irving? probably not. All right. But there are some other bigger sites in there that might take place. And somebody even brought up saying, "Well, how about getting the focus over on Grove Park and that could do that could do it." Well, the thing is is we're not forced to put it on Grove
Park. But even if we did, that doesn't that doesn't relieve us of the interest that Kensington has in the property that they're looking for at this point in time. That would be additional affordable housing that the court would say, "All right, you're going to put some there. Great. All good for you.
That's more housing that we're getting. What are you going to do about Kensington back over here on South M on North Maple? That doesn't alleviate that. It's still Kensington's desire to put it over on that site and that's what we're dealing with. Um,
I'll let the council talk about why they didn't show up at the meetings, but I know that was determined that was something we wanted to do because of the comments that were made back in August about this council being in cahoots or in bed or in line with Kensington. And we wanted to make sure everybody
understood that that was Kensington's meeting, not our meeting. We're not supporting that meeting or what they're saying. That is why that was done without any council members there. Um, affordable housing and in fact Grove
Park is not probably a suitable site for affordable housing because affordable housing looks to be close to public transportation, stores, public access, grocery markets, things such as that. That's why you find most of the affordable housing
developments within relative walking distance. Not that assisted living is going to have walking, but relative walking distance of those amenities. All right. Um I refer to builder's remedies as incentives,
but I'm not making a decision on this. I'm just giving advice. Other people refer to it as hammer. All right? because this feels like it's being forced down your throat to a certain extent in terms of having to make a decision about allowing development to
come through. We don't have any rent leveling ordinances. We don't have any rent restriction ordinances. I hope you know that. Um, and that's all I have. I answered as many as I possibly could. >> Thank you so much, Matt. Council, >> sure.
>> Would like to jump in? I have a few things from start to finish. Sure. Um just because we have a lot of people who aren't here. So with respect to public comment, >> by law, each meeting we have requires one element of public comment. We do
two. So initial public comment is capped because we have the order of business. We have professional staff that has to drive and then we have final public comment. So by law, we only have to have one, but we have two. Um we take that very seriously. this council has done a lot of meaningful steps to improve
public comment including the addition of hybrid access um in in both elements. Um so we take that very very seriously. You'll notice on the 14th we'll have three opportunities to speak. We'll have initial public comment for the meeting, final public comment, then each of the
individual ordinances will have a comment period where you can speak and you're a little restricted there. You can only speak to the ordinance being discussed. So, we take public comment. If you've never been here, there's like a lot of rules and rigor with running this meeting because we they need to be
controlled. We need to make sure we get to the order of business. In addition to here, there's a million ways to get in touch with us. We all have emails. We hold council chat. We're members of the community. I've met with, you know, several residents. We're available. So,
while this is wonderful and we love it and you get all five of us, please always know that we're available to reach out. And I just want to be clear, we take that very seriously in all our meetings. And I wanted to define it. Um, with respect to why I didn't go to the
meetings for both Kensington and for Shedler, um, one, we were worried about political assignment that if we showed up at a developer meeting because of some of the public comment, people would say, "You are that developer's person." Um, a little bit of information without
we run in pairs of two because we're not allowed to operate in pairs in three. So on this one, Paul and Pam know more and sometimes we can't find all that information out until we come out here and all take it in at the same point. So one that I did not want to fulfill some
of the assignments that had come at public comment. In addition to that, we were in active litigation with multiple people and in general when we're in active litigation, we are told to stand down. So that was for Kensington. And with respect to Shedler, we're still
there's still a litigation claim as well where many of the people who attended those meetings are on the other side. So for me, when there's litigation, because we're representing the collective interest of the village, we will not go. Um, by no means does that mean that we're inaccessible and there's always a
reason. If you wanted to know why we weren't there, we would have answered that. Um, more general questions. Um during my journey with this I found the organization of the League of Women Voters of which I am a past director and a member. They put together a lot of
thoughtful rigid specificness regarding um all elements of housing, you know, the economic hurdles, the racial divisions, the handicap. So the League of Women Voters, your local chapter, the president's name is a woman called Anne Burton Walsh. They had a very thoughtful
Rididgewood application where they detailed the properties in Rididgewood terms and I thought it was very very helpful. In addition to that, organizations like that um host speakers. This year it was a woman who was oppositional to some of the housing requirements. I would also suggest that
whenever to you know I'm an independent. I go to both sides. I've been to fair share. They they host forums and I've been to people who are fighting you know in the state assembly. Those are great places to go and learn a lot. And I say this and I'll, you know, probably be
made fun of ne, you know, tomorrow. I learn a lot every single round. It is very nuanced. It is very complicated land juice. And I would just encourage people, the league is probably the best spot for you to see who the political players are in establishing these laws.
Um, and I also just want to go back to Grove because on Monday we cleared the diversion. Parkland has serious restrictions. If we were to take parkland and make it housing, we would have to do something like times six somewhere else. So, we cannot that's
actually that there was a park on Broad Street and it created a land issue for the town that we just cleared with the state on Monday. So, when you're looking at parcels of land, they're all good ideas. We cannot take an element of parkland and create it into housing because it'll create something that's a
diversion and the land swap calculation would be times six. Um, I'm almost done. Almost done. Um, okay. I did just want to loosely say about um the senior housing element. So, like many of you,
in addition to, you know, being a resident, I am a daughter. Senior housing and senior housing in Rididgewood is something that we take very seriously with aging in place and I'm a Gen Xer. Um, so senior housing, 25% of Ridgewood's population is over 55
right now. and that generation above me um is getting larger every day. In addition to that, in America, every day 10,000 people become a senior citizen and that number is going to grow for the next 10 years. So, in terms of housing, this is very palatable to think that you
want that element of housing here. with the outside residents. I will tell you as a a local person and someone on here, we get calls at least once a week of I I live here, my parents don't, and I want them to be closer. So, those are some of
the outside residents coming in. Senior housing for every municipality, but particularly for ours is very, very important. And I just wanted to add some of those numbers. When you look at the sheer volume of it, it it's large. and outsiders from outside the district can
be loved ones brought here for that that phase of life. And we get questions about placement and housing all the time. Um, and I think that's it. I just wanted to that's it. And again, if anybody has any
questions, you know, you can just write us a bulleted question. It doesn't need to be a fancy letter with like commas and sentences and just ask us questions because we really want to be available to you and just let us know. That's it. >> Thanks, Siobhan. Who else?
>> Yeah. Um, I'd like to say that the limitation on on public comment of 40 minutes at the beginning of the meeting is not arbitrary. We've talked about this many times and thought about it and
carefully calibrated it to allow for public comment and make sure that we are not voting on critical matters when we're falling asleep up here. We don't want to do that to you. Um
and uh I also wanted to get a little more specific about Grove Park. Grove Park is on our Rossi. It's on the list of our um green spaces. And when you when you sell an uh a
property that is on the Rossi uh for affordable housing, a good public um endeavor, you can spend 15 to 20 years as we have
done as councils have done before us trying to undo that mistake. And I don't want to do that again. Thank you, Pam. Evan, >> yeah, I'll be brief. Um, I do want to thank everyone. Um, you know, the vast majority of folks have actually give us
an opportunity to explain ourselves and I very much appreciate that. I know we're not going to convince all of you, but I do appreciate the opportunity to at least be heard. Um, to my friend Shelley on traffic. So, you know, I guess we could debate whether or not 40 units of housing is worth assisted
living. Um, I'm not an expert on on traffic planning. Neither are you. Uh but the experts that we did hire who advise us on us all told us uh ex you know uh without any doubt that assisted living is less of a traffic impact than retail or commercial would be which is
what current I'm sorry retail or residential would be which is what that's currently zoned for and what they could build as a matter of right there because it's it's zoned for that. Um I will say some of the concerns around the terrace is that's that's those are that's legit. Um, I really hope that the zoning board and ask Pam certainly that
that be heard because that's a legit concern and I I share I shared your concern on that. Um, finally in terms of why we didn't attend the Kensington meetings, I can't speak for the others, but um, I had two reasons. First, um, you know, I'm did not go to Matt, but as an attorney, um, when somebody's suing
me, I tend to want to avoid them. Um, I didn't think that me being there would be good for a good litigation strategy. Moreover, I was concerned that um if I was there that folks would grandstand or would otherwise create more of a disturbance and take away from what I was hoping would be a conversation with them. So, um most of that material was
provided to us separately, but understand that it was probably a pretty poor idea for any of us to show up to those meetings. >> Thanks, Evan. >> Anything Frank? >> No, I think everything's been said, so there's no reason to repeat it. >> Well, everything's not been said because I'm going to address some of the No, no,
I'm just trying to address everyone's questions. Um, uh, I'll go down the list. Um, Shelley, um, and and this applies to a lot of things. Balconies are a planning board issue and and there is a time and a place to address that.
Again, we we can't address it here. It gets addressed there. It's a real issue and and I think that it's something that you will find a a um a listening ear on. So, um, that is something you should
bring up there. Um, as far as the assisted living loophole, um, and I'm not commenting on whether it's right or it's wrong, but let's be clear, you know, you talked about the single mother with three kids. This is designed, and again, not that I
advocate or don't advocate for it, this is designed for the senior citizen who needs assisted living but cannot afford it. So it is a different kind of affordable housing. Seniors need affordable housing
um as much as sometimes more than people who are not senior citizens. Uh let's see. David Lowry, I don't know if you're still here. There you go. Sorry. Um when you said you don't understand this,
you're a really smart guy and you don't understand it. Um, here I'll say Pam's really smart. We didn't understand it. We We went We sat here for a I will never forget it, a 40-minute presentation by Beth McManis, who
explained the whole thing. We did not understand one word she was saying. Not one word. So, we scheduled a 4hour meeting, Pam, myself, and Beth. And I can't tell you the number of times
I interrupted her as we took notes feverishly said, "Wait, wait, wait, wait. What does that mean? This is again, we're both not that this makes us smart because it doesn't, but we do understand legal structure. We are attorneys.
We didn't know anything about this. And it was dense material. It's really thick. and to understand it and again not to the level that Beth understands it. This took us four hours
of going through it. So, um there is no um affordable housing for dummies. Um uh it's it's just that kind of a thing. Um uh Megan, you asked what happens to the planning board. So many of the issues
that we talked about today, whether it's traffic, terraces, um, uh, Jennifer and Rob Donlin, um, lighting, all of these things are addressed at the planning board. We cannot tell planning board members
what to do. We are ethically forbidden from telling them what to do. That's why we have a representative who goes there who expresses the will of the council and that's why on that board we are so
careful to get the highest quality people that we can find so that they can make good independent positions. By the way, the same goes for the zoning board. We can't call them and say, "Hey, you know that billboard? We don't like it.
You shouldn't do it." We are forbidden from doing that. It is a complete ethical violation. Um, speaking of ethical violations and conflicts, boy, let me explain how this works. If
when you make a property uh and you include it in your affordable housing plan that enhances the value of that property whether it is apartments, commercial,
residential, anything doesn't matter that it's that they're apartments or not apartments. Nothing that I have is included in the plan. If it was going to be included in the plan, I would have absolutely
recused myself because that's where the conflict arises. I hope that clarifies that for you. Uh let's see. Going down the list. Janette Lorocco, you still here? Um you came late because
we did cover this ground, but I'm going to cover it again for you because I want you to understand. >> I'm sorry. Yeah. So, um the um uh why we did not inform everyone
sooner. Um, as as I said, um, the 2-year mark, uh, of how long this has been going on, two years was when, uh, uh, from what I've gathered, what when when Kensington came to town, scouting
locations, getting options, and and getting into a position to begin to talk to us. Pam and I began speaking with them last summer. I don't remember the exact month, but it was last summer. So, it has not been two years. It's been well over a year. We are
>> Yeah. Yeah. We are legally obligated to meet with them. Legally obligated. We can't say go pound salt. We have Excuse me. We have to meet with them. And the and when we do,
we negotiate as best we can given the the structure of affordable housing. They know that. And I said it before, they've got a giant gorilla sitting with them at the negotiating table called affording affordable housing because they know they're going to get in. They
know this. So, we're at a slight disadvantage. We nonetheless are able to gain some significant concessions. One of which was pushing them to purchase the third piece of property so that they
are not putting this as you call it a massive development on two pieces of property. It's at least on a bigger piece of property. And the the other thing that came about and and again I credit the community in all of this is
that their initial proposal was not within the current zoning limits. It was too high. It didn't have the the adequate setbacks. They have come to the table not from us
from you seeing the outcry and their proposal which by the way they don't necessarily have to stick to to say that they will the their their current proposal fits within the current zoning box. It is we have a 50- foot height
limit. It is now inches below 50 ft, not including mechanicals, by the way, which is the way the zoning our current zoning ordinance works. They are within the current setbacks. By the way, if we deny them, if we say no that we're not
going to pass this, um they might come back with the original zoning prop the original proposal or something larger. Those things actually happen. So, so that's that's the discussion that's been going on for
again beyond a year. >> Why does it have to be back? >> Excuse me. Excuse me, Janette. Here, I'll answer the question, but please don't jump in now because again and and I and I and I I am grateful to everyone who respects how we do this. I think as
you can see, we don't we're not sitting here trying to avoid your questions, trying to answer them all, but we can't do it back and forth. They chose that and and we answered this question many times tonight. They chose that place. They did. We don't get to choose.
They chose. So that's why it's that place. So I'm going to move on. Let's see. Um Dylan. Dylan, are you there? Dylan, can you bring that map up again
and make it smaller because I think that there's a key on there that says >> Hang on. >> It's greater than 75. Forgive me. I asked that Thank you. I asked that the map be made larger so
that people could see it better. But the key illustrates that those are parcels in town. Some are commercial, some are residential, like residential houses that are greater than 3/4 of an acre.
And that's what that represents. So that is so those are properties that could if we lost immunity residential units in a residential neighborhood that and you say well that's impossible.
Think about the town houses that are within our community where maybe they could have fit on what was once a a a one home residential lot and you now have six town houses. That's what
they're talking about there. And by the way, that does not count. That does not include a developer who might buy two houses next to one another to create a parcel large enough to put half a dozen or more town houses
on. So that's what the yellow represents. Let's see. Oh, and uh the last thing that I have and again all of these terraces, lightings, that's all as I said that goes to the planning board and
there is real opportunity to be heard there. Um last thing that I have is that the the um uh Natalya, you mentioned um that the that the affordable housing plan does not is not consistent with the master
plan. As Matt has said several times tonight, the uh affordable housing absolutely positively supersedes the master plan. It supersedes our zoning laws. It supersedes everything. So with
that, and by the way, I forgot to say I closed public comment, but I did. And um and I believe that we have answered as many questions as we can. And in terms of accessibility, there are several of you in the audience who have my business card that has my
personal cell number on it. Feel free to share it. Give it to anyone you have a question. What I recommend is text me first. That is the best way to reach me. I'm because I'm often on the phone and I and I
guarantee I will return your call. So in terms of getting back to you, please give us every opportunity. I want to thank everyone tonight. This was not an easy night. Wasn't easy for us. Wasn't easy for you.
This issue isn't over, but we know where it's going. And I want to thank everybody because I know tensions run high, but this is how we answer your questions. Hope hopefully clarify things so that we all better
understand. Remember I said before this started I didn't really understand it but I have a it's a trial by fire. So with that thank you all and we will entertain a motion to adjourn our meeting.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> Anyone opposed? Okay. Thanks.