Okay, good evening everyone. Calling to order the Burough Saraveville Planning Board meeting for March 4th, 2026. Beth, has this meeting been advertised in accordance with the open public meeting act? >> Yes, vice chairman, it has. >> Can you please do a roll call? >> Mr. Candell,
>> here. >> Miss Lman here. >> Mr. Mueller >> here. >> Mr. Shaw, >> here. >> Mr. Sataka here, >> Mr. Veosen, >> Mr. Williams here, >> Council President Zabrowski here. >> Chairman Tai, we have a quorum. >> Thank you, Beth. >> Any uh resolutions for memorialization?
>> We have two, but we'll start with the first one. Planning board number 253, Caravan LLC, preliminary and final site plan with C variances, block 277, lots 1 through 5, 13 and 14. >> Thank you. Uh, do we have any uh do we
have a vote on a motion for acceptance of the resolution? >> Accept. >> Take a roll call. Mr. Candell, >> yes. >> Miss Lman, >> yes. >> Mr. Mueller, >> yes. >> Mr. Shaw, >> yes. >> Mr. Sataka, >> Mr. Mr. Williams, yes.
>> Council President Zabrowski, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Are there any minutes for uh approval? >> None this evening. >> Anything on the communication agenda? >> None this evening. Any site plan subdivisions? >> Um we have one hearing. It's the amended housing element and fair share plan
burrow of serville fourth round dated February 26 prepared by Acuity Consulting Services. >> Okay. Who's here from Acuity? >> I am Dan Lean. >> Dan Le. Thank you. Dan Leven, director of technical services uh AICP
for uh >> Thank you, Mr. Leven. Floor is yours on the uh presentation. Thank you everyone. >> So uh good evening everyone. Um today I am here uh to present the amended housing element and fair share plan uh
for the bureau of Seerville. Uh this will be um submitted to the program um and is incorporating um the incorporating all the changes that have occurred um since the first plan was
adopted uh back in June. Um what has changed since the plan was previously adopted um the submission to the program? Fair Share Housing Center challenged the burough's plan on a variety of criteria. Uh Seville was not
unique um to this challenge. Fair share housing challenged virtually every single plan across the entire state. Um following that challenge uh mediation was entered into between the bureau fair share housing um overseen by special adjudicator Beth Mcmanis and also uh
Judge Mary Jacobson. Um the bureau through the course of that mediation process um reviewed its plan and comments um from the uh special master fair housing and also um consultation with the burrow and acuity as planners
um and has made some fairly significant changes to the plan um that is in front of the board this evening. Um the main changes to the plan um starting from the top is the bureau is no longer taking
what's called a vacant land adjustment. So um the obligation of I think it's 240 units that was previously revised down saying that there was not enough vacant land within the municipality. Um after
uh working with uh staff at Sarah um and looking at the potential for there to be uh a larger transit village development, which I'll get into in a moment. Um we realized that there did not need to be a vacant land adjustment. The burrow could
actually meet and potentially exceed its obligation just by redevelopment across the burrow alone. So rather than claiming that there is not a lack of land and rather than having an unmet
need, uh the bureau has eliminated that aspect of the plan and is now going to meet its entire 240 unit obligation um with new construction. Additionally, um there were some comments from the uh special adjudicator
about the feasibility of the accessory apartment program that was used for crediting um for the third round. No units were created um with that program to the third round. We looked at that a little more closely um whether or not to continue that through the fourth round and saw that there were additional
compliance mechanisms um that we think would be a better fit um rather than carrying through that program um into the fourth round and possibly beyond. So that has also been removed um and substituted for additional compliance mechanisms. the MCO site um which was
the subject of uh I believe it was a referendum or at least a discussion on a referendum um from council that has also been removed. That site is no longer needed um again with with the transit village um designation. Um the also the
Raritan Street park and Ride uh compliance mechanism has been removed in part. Um so whereas before the transit whereas before the Ritan park and ride um was one of the mechanisms now the area surrounding that as part of the
transit village designation. So technically it still is in the plan um as one of the sites that is included in the larger transit village but it specifically has been uh removed from this. So now we have the the transit
village which is a large area surrounding uh the Raritton Street park and ride. Um and then there's also a new compliance mechanism, an expansion um at the Gillette Tower site um which was previously an unmet need mechanism now
that's been pulled forward um to a fourth round redevelopment sorry um realistic development potential RDP. uh and also the lake view compliance mechanism which was previously um in the unmet need component of the plan I
believe uh that has also been removed so there's been some some sub substantial changes um so moving into the summary of the obligations so this is the prior round there has been no change to the prior round compliance mechanisms that's established
next slide please at the bottom um Ernston road that is a site um in the southern portion of the municipality um that is a potential redevelopment area. The burough is committing um in within the
plan for there to be a 60 unit um development with a set aside of 20% so 12 affordable housing units. That's two units more than the accessory apartment program. So the accessory apartment program has been deleted from the third round and these units um when built
would be applied to the third round compliance. Next slide. And then this is the fourth round compliance mechanism. So if every single development that is currently within the third round um gets built, there would be nine credits that
would carry over into the fourth round. Um in addition there's Gillette expansion mobility special care that's a new compliance mechanism. Technically the bureau had previously committed uh to do a special needs project. Um we actually found that one had recently
been completed. Um I think it was in 2023 or 2024 uh mobility special care um was established within the burrow. Um it is a uh licensed um special needs facility. um we have the documentation,
we believe it is creditworthy in submitting that to the program. So essentially it's a one forone trade that there is special needs and the bureau won't need to spend uh trust fund money to create those units. And then there's the transit village uh which uh the
bureau is committing to a minimum of 173 affordable housing units. that's at a 20% set aside um from the the larger developments uh that some were I think it was like 800 some odd units um 56 bonus credits for a total of 225
um and a half there must be a rounding there um to meet the entire obligation for the municipality and this this map uh shows it's kind of hard to see from here um but you can see
Farther down there's the Ernston Road site in red and then that large green area to the east of the Garden State Parkway. That's the transit village location um directly south of the National LED site and those are the substantive changes to
the plan. >> Okay. Any uh planning board members have any questions regarding the amendments to the plan? the transit village again. Where is that? >> I know you're saying it's south of the national lead site, but like what street
is it on? >> Uh could be Costa Vie where Yeah. Okay. That's all I need to know. >> Want me to pull back up or no? >> Yeah, if you if you want to pull it back up. Yeah. >> Mr. loving, can you also explain uh because I know you you mentioned it, but
uh kind of explain the the the process and and like the uh the burough officials and the different in the professionals how that were all that were involved in this process because I sometimes I think we kind of lose track that this is a fairly complicated uh process and and it takes a great deal of
study and decision- making to get to this point and and based on I guess it's based on it's based on information it's based on a lot of data that you've you compile along with the rest of that group. Just if you can kind of explain that because sometimes to us it's like
how how'd you get there? >> I will do the best that I can. It's a very Oh, sorry. I'll do the best that I can. It's it's a very very long and uh as you know uh complicated process. Um, essentially from the from the the first submission
um or I guess the the receipt of fairshare housing's challenge um Acuity and Burough staff and uh burough attorney uh Joe Sordillo, we all got together and sort of discussed
how we can best, you know, address the concerns of of fair share housing um and what the position of the bureau is relevant and related to its obligation. Um we had multiple mediation uh
meetings. I want to say at least three. Um and each one was very productive. Uh we met I believe it was Josh Bowers um was the attorney from fair share that we engaged with mediation on and and Joe and Josh um had a very professional working relationship. um
we were all sort of trying to get to a point um certainly to avoid litigation and wanted to essentially meet the meet the obligation within the best interest of the bureau. So we were all sort of discussing working that
together in a collaborative approach. Um the the decision to revise the plan as substantially as it was um was sort of a a lastm minute, if you can believe it, kind of um gift that essentially fell
into our laps with the transit village designation. We had been speaking with Vina um over at Sarah and there had been there had been a a primary issue with the Raritan Street park and rides feasibility. Um there was raised
concerns about whether or not that project was in fact feasible as it related to the re realistic development potential. And as we spoke more with Venus, we realized that it wasn't just the park and ride that they were looking
at. They were looking at the broader area of the transit village. And we asked the question, how big is it? And the answer was huge. Um and at which point it was we can try to piece meal all of this together with all of these
different compliance mechanisms. try to minimize the amount of, you know, um, impact across the burrow or not minimize the impact across the burrow, but try to compile all of these things and try, you know, thread this needle
that would satisfy fair share housing, the special adjudicator, um, the judge, or considering that the municipality was in favor of developing this large area, creating a redevelopment plan for such a large area, area for such high density.
Um it seemed to make sense for all involved as we all discussed it together um to in fact just get rid of all of the different mechanisms and trade them for one. um especially from you know going
through the redevelopment process the feasibility of that certainly satisfied fair share housing um because they it's it's less of reliant on individual market actors and and more a function of the municipality you know declaring the
area need redevelopment and working um with NJ Transit and NJ Transit um has been supportive of this they've submitted a letter of support uh so with that um yeah, we had essentially come to the
decision that we should make these changes um and streamline in a in a a sense um the plan. And the good news for the burrow as well is rather than with a
vacant land adjustment and having an unmet need and potentially carrying all of these non-built units into the fifth round 10 plus years from now. Um the bureau is in a position if everything comes to fruition to actually have
excess credits heading into the fifth round which will reduce its overall obligation. Again, we don't know how everything is going to change between now and the fifth round. Um, but there is uh a real substantial benefit to not taking the vacant land adjustment and
and going about uh directing future residential development in this manner. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Levit. to follow off a councilman's uh question just just for overall for people who may may not be familiar with
this. Are burrows required to um to fulfill a 240 unit requirement from the state? Correct. >> Yes. and and we I won't go into where that derives from. The Mount Laurel case and and legislation and there was a
whole bunch of municipalities who challenged it in court and they went up to the US Supreme Court recently and that was denied. So that this the municipality challenges are over. Correct. Your understanding >> as far as I'm aware. Yes. Um and and
this this 240 unit um this was a settlement between the the burrow and fair share housing. >> That's correct. It was the I think the initial obligation that came out of DCA I think was like 270. Um the bureau came
back and did a um lack of uh land availability, land capacity, that's what it was, was land capacity analysis, challenged that, came in, I think it was at 210 and and the the two parties settled at 240, I believe. >> So yeah, it's it was a settled number.
Fair share wanted us to uh develop 270 plus units. We want it less and it was a a mediation with Judge Jacobson, I I presume, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, so these are units that we have to build. And for a lot of people look at this process and say, well, why
don't you just build 240 affordable units? Why don't you f The reality is that developers don't come in just to build affordable units. It's normally part of a a slew of market rate units and then they agree to provide the affordable units as part of
that. Correct. >> In in part, there are a a number of options that could be done. Um there is the the methodology that you're talking about private developers coming in, they build 100 apartments and then the set side ordinance requires them to build a
percentage of that as affordable. There is the potential to build um 100% affordable projects. CIS has has done one. I believe it's called the place at Serville. Um to build that many units, you need a ton of money or a ton of land. and the bureau does not have
either at its disposal um to meet that obligation. So um and we looked um the the bureau's trust fund is substantial but not substantial enough to provide a subsidy on that scale for that many units and the amount of land that it would take as well. Um the bureau just
does not have that much land to give for 100% affordable developments on that scale. >> And and the amendments that uh your firm uh drafted, that's the most feasible plan for the burrow, correct? To meet this need. >> We believe so.
>> Okay. And just so we're clear, the um the amendment uh it's outlined in your report, the amended housing plan element and fair share plan for the fourth round 2025. But just to be clear, the reports uh establishes that the amendments
consistent with the goals and objectives of the burough's master plan. Correct. >> Correct. >> And that the adoption and implementation of the amendment is in the public interest. >> Yes. >> And it protects the public health safety and promotes the general welfare.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> Uh anyone else from the board? >> Just one more question. Um I would there have been an option to uh use the uh I guess the trust fund to buy credits from
some of the apartment complexes that we have invested >> potentially um market to affordable programs uh like you're describing um there is there is an option the real how
feasible that option is is um difficult um your subsidy for um even a moderate unit apartment is north of $150,000 cash on the barrel head. That does not include your um uh your administrative
costs and other soft costs associated with that. And that also does not include um getting somebody to actually agree um to do that. So, um, we've run or excuse me, I've run programs, um, for
another organization. Um, and we were offering, you know, north of of $100,000 a few, this was a few years ago, you know, just shortly after COVID, um, we didn't get any takers, um, when the
market was was even better. And there's a lot of people who are, you know, shy about the 30-year deed restriction. Um, if they're, you know, owning that they're, uh, they're landlords and things like that. They don't have a deed restriction, which would have to be part
of that. So, um, yes, in theory, it is possible. Um, but the practicality of it, particularly for rental, is extremely challenging. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any more questions by the board? Yeah. The the place that CI is built, is
that affordable housing? >> Yes, it is. >> Is that accounted for in the >> Yes, it's in the third round. >> The third round. Okay. Thank you. >> And and all 88 units are affordable housing, correct? >> To my knowledge. Yes. >> Okay. I I'm just looking
>> there there with with projects like that, there may be a caretaker unit. Um, and whether or not that caretaker unit is included in the count is it it's kind of a very gray area as far as the regulations are concerned. But the the bureau got 88 credits for it in the
third round. We're taking 88 credits and into the fourth. >> Anyone else? No. Okay. I take a uh a motion to open the public. >> Motion open. >> There second. Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I
>> opposed. Okay. Anyone from the public like to be heard? >> James Burns. >> Oh, sorry. >> That's better. Uh James Burns from the law firm of Dembo Brown and Burns. Uh we represent uh the owner of the property
located at 3553 Washington Road. Uh it's also known as block uh 335.01, 1 lot three on your tax maps. Uh you may know it as the former right aid property. Um it's this property is not
at all large. It's not a large prop property. It's roughly two 2 acres 2.4 acres in size. Uh it is also uniquely shaped. Uh it's shaped like a triangle or a pie wedge. Uh which serves to uh
limit the development of that property. Um I With the chair's permission, I have if I can hand out just a land description which I think properly identifies exactly what I described for this property. And maybe we can mark that into the record. I don't know how you want to mark it if it's A1 or 01,
whatever. >> A1. Thank you. So I think I think you could pl plainly uh see the odd pie wedge shape of the property uh and the development limitations of the property. Um that
right aid building that exists there is roughly 14,000 square feet. Um, and it it's our opinion that the property is simply not suitable for residential housing, uh, affordable or otherwise, given its size, shape, and location. Um,
it is, however, a viable commercial property. Uh, and I wanted to make this planning board aware that the property is subject to an existing lease with a company known as SAMX Properties. uh and that as of this morning it is also the
subject of what we believe will be a byite variance-free site plan application uh to convert the right aid building into a fullervice car wash. Um and we look forward to presenting that that application to you uh in the in the
very near future. um wanted to state on the record and was directing my client to stay on the record. They have really have no interest in entering into any redevelopment agreement for the property as called for um under the burough's January 15, 2026 mediation agreement uh
with fair share housing. Uh I do a lot of municipal land use work. I understand what it's like to deal with fair share housing. So my sympathies are with you. Um, but I and I've also been instructed to state for the record that uh my client opposes uh the plan as it
pertains to this property, 3553 Washington Road. Uh, and we're requesting that this specific property, 3553 Washington Road, be excluded from from the plan. Uh, and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I just would
like to leave my uh contact information with your secretary um in case there is the need for any followup. Um happy to talk to anybody that would be interested in discussing it further, but we felt we needed to get this on the record. It is, as I
indicated, a very small property, and we were somewhat surprised that it was even being considered as part of of this plan given its size and location. Um, and uh, with that, I'd like to turn it over to the attorney for the applicant who will
be presenting the car wash application for the property. Thank you, Jim. Tyler Prime, firm of Prime to Vala Miselli. As indicated, uh, I represent Spotless Flagship, which is the proposed user uh, for the right aid building.
Spotless Flagship's model is to first and foremost come where they're wanted. They don't want to fight uphill. This site as presently zoned before the redevelopment or any other overlays is is a conforming site for a car wash. It's zoned commercial. Uh it fits the
bill of what they're looking to do. They repurpose these buildings. They're able to uh make use of the existing building with their new uh car wash improvements. So the uh site plan application was submitted this morning. It does have a few variances. It's they're dimminimous.
for some sign relief and other things, but otherwise uh the site's a perfect fit for them. It from a circulation standpoint, uh they're very excited to be here. It works really well and their concern as a as a lease of the site is that down the line uh as indicated
potential later fourth round, fifth round if it does come to a point where you know this became a condemnation or something like that they're they're worried about investing the sum of money that they need to to do this work and then have issues with the site down the line. So they're also uh we share the
same concern. and we're interested in having the site excluded uh from the plan as you as you've heard that the site owner has no interest in uh participating in the plan. Thank you. >> Questions? >> I mean, how would the exclusion of this
law impact? >> That's what I was I was trying to look. I don't believe that we considered that site in the overall yield. I believe that we had excluded that. I believe that we had considered that to be um left over for commercial purposes for
that exact reason. Um its location um you know awkward shape um I I believe I I'd have to go back and take a look at exactly what we thought the yield would be. My guess is that it was zero. Um so
having that excluded um from you know having a a housing yield assuming that's the case is a non-issue because we didn't consider it in the first place. As far as the larger redevelopment aims and objectives of the burrow, um that would
you know be a discussion between the burrow Sarah property owner there you know for for that those purposes. But as as far as the housing is concerned if there is uh a small impact um it could potentially be absorbed across the other sites um that were identified for
residential. Um given you said it's 10,000 how large is the lot? >> Approximately 2.4 four acres, >> but it's a like a pie, like we said, a triangular kind of pie wedge shape. So, >> yeah, even at at at 20 units, if you did
20 units an acre there, I can't imagine we would have I can't imagine because we were looking at 25 to 30 units an acre across all of the sites and they had to be substantially large enough or to be amalgamated to be that. I I strong I do not believe that that was considered for
residential. Um but even if it was, you're talking, you know, at 25 units, 50 units, 20, 10 units. Um which, you know, could be absorbed across the other um locations um through the increase of
density. Um but yeah, I I don't believe that was the case, but I I'd have to look into that. Yeah. Go ahead. >> Some way we could get some type of confirmation of that because we're in a situation as the property owner where we have a tenant, a nervous tenant that would like to proceed. We could get
something to indicate that it's not being looked at for housing purposes as you've indicated or something that your solicitor feels would be uh something that could be put forward and and presented to us that we could share with the with the tenant that would go a long way. >> Yeah, absolutely.
>> Thank you. Just to be clear, it's not part of the amendment that property. It's not >> the the property is is identified within the plan, but it's not obligated. Um, so the area overall, so for example, you
you're you're spotting an area, but if somebody decid if through the redevelopment process, right, a site comes out, but the overall yield is still the same, um, there's no need to amend the plan. Um, if the entirety of the site were to disappear and would
need to be, you know, uh, relocated somewhere else, then yes, there would be, you know, that be a substantial change. We'd have to amend the plan, everything else. But one site not being included for housing if the overall yield across the rest of it is still the
same, uh, there's no issue with that. >> Okay. So, I guess we have two issues. when I say two issues. We have the amendment that we're uh putting up for a vote on tonight which is the fair share housing and then I guess there's an
issue of whether that property is in a redevelopment area which that's not really before us right now. Correct. You have to go back to Sarah. They wanted to take their property out of the redevelopment area. or we understand the concern but we can approve the plan and
stipulate that that property is not included in the fair share housing element amenities. >> Yeah, absolutely. These things happen all the time. sites drop in and out all the time. As long as um again the the overall number um and was it if through
the redevelopment plan process the minimum yield does not change. There should not be an issue. Just to be clear with regard to our plan to meet our affordable requirements,
the burrow is not going the eminent domain route like some other municipalities try to do, especially, you know, Cranberry with the that's not happening here in our plan. Right. >> My understanding is this is non-condemnation redevelopment. Just to chime in on that, I think the
risk we see is it is non- condemnation now, but the the the mediation agreement contemplates redevelopment agreements with each of these land owners. So, as you go down this list, if these land owners say no, at some point fair share in their courts, I don't know how much available land you have, uh may lose
their patience with that. And that's where the risk comes in. It's come in throughout the states. That's a concern that we see. >> But this is that property is part of the agreement, the fair share of them. mediated by Judge Jun.
>> Well, that that property is included. So, the mediation agreement um I don't I have to look back at it. This this specific site is part of So, I don't I wish Joe was
here like he'd be he would know all he'd know that. Um, I'd have to I have to go back and look specifically at the mediation agreement, but this site is part of the plan that is being submitted, but that does it's not um
it it can't it's not that it can't be it's almost like some a good example, allow me to explain this. Um when we were considering the Macco site, for example, um the entirety of the site was identified as affordable housing, but there was a lot of it that was covered
in flood plane. So not all of that site could actually create the housing that we needed to. There would be a similar situation in in this case where you have a large redevelopment area. um perhaps there's aspects of it that can't be developed or don't want to be developed
or you know should be excluded as we go down this process. That's not going to negatively impact the mediation agreement. That's going to not that's not going to negatively impact the the plan or its acceptance by the program or any of that. >> That that was my concern. We're not going to be in breach of any mediation
agreement or this property out. But my understanding would be that if they want to be out of a redevelopment area, you don't have that authority to move their property out of a redevelopment area. That would be Sarah, >> right? Yeah. And I I I I don't um
without the mediation agreement in front of me, I I don't want to say with absolute certainty, but that being said, I would be extremely surprised um if this one piece were to completely, you know, uh contradict the mediation
agreement. >> What can we do at this moment to alleviate this situation without running foul of the mediation process? You don't often see amended but
>> but it's also hard but I think you know perceive the sense of the uh no interest in this property
and being being part of the housing fair and you know perhaps the board at some point but I'm not sure I'm not sure the court say we are nowing ourselves I
think it has context of a housing fair and had noticed question whether matters whe
I don't think so I think you can carve it out but I guess the question is you're going look like you know I mean actual
take that out are you leading X line of gau I think what we're doing is just excluding that one lot block and And correct me if I'm if I I don't know the process correct correctly, but
this has to be finally the final action has to be taken by mayor and council, does it not? So, can you recommend and and pass this resolution with a recommendation that this one lot and block be excluded and then they can take that step to exclude that property. So,
it would be based on your to exclude it for the reasons we've discussed tonight. size, shape, location. Um, there's no reason At the same time, we need to change that would be acceptable. And then we
have some comfort level going forward that we can you know develop this property for the benefit of not just obviously all of us us but all of you as well. >> Yeah. I I just want to make sure that you know the law of unintended
consequences that we do something here and it sort of triggers a chain of action with fair share and you know agreement that we've reached mediation. I don't want this to torpedo that in any way. I think you know what
the board or at least what my feelings are. There's no intent to you know use any domain to try to force the property for this purpose. I wasn't involved at all
exactly what I guess we know by the council we have question. What do you Uh the most substantial effect would be
there need we need to look at the site suitability for increased density at the other locations whether that be Ernstston Road whether that be the transit village um you know those would be the areas that we would
look to recoup the loss of these units Um, but also it may not I mean we're we're already actually I don't even know we said it was if it was 50 units you're
talking about 10. We're carrying nine. So I I it it would be extremely minimal. Um yeah I mean we're talk again we're talking a potential yeah because we're carrying those nine from the third round
as bonus. Um there should not the the impact of the plan would be negligible. I you could you could a couple of units to be added I think could be done fairly easily. >> Would you have to go back to fair share
and mediator and say we tweak this plan now and then we have to go through this process again. >> Well it depends. Um, if we look at uh, sorry, sorry this the screen locked. I didn't get a chance to um, give me just
one second. I can answer this question extremely quickly um, once I pull up the analysis. Take it out. >> Yes. Okay, let's do that. Thank you.
>> We're going to take a five minute recess so that we can, you know, get our ducks in a row here and get the Okay, back on the record, Mr. Levit, what what did you find? >> So, the right aid site was included in the analysis. Uh, we had tentatively
identified a density of 25 units per acre at that site. um 20% affordable yield for a total of 13 units affordable units rounded up um so to exclude that site
um you're carrying nine so there would need to be four units um applied elsewhere across either the um redevelopment area or Ernston Road or some other mechanism Um,
there are not many sites that I see in the transit village that could accommodate um, additional units. Um,
there's an area. So, the shopping center is currently identified at 30 units per acre. Gowen Street, we had identified that. So that whole area around Gowen Street was also identified at 30 units an acre. Um that
if if you know people want to in increase density within the transit village and not push those units elsewhere. Um then certainly
that's a possibility. something probably beyond the scope right now. I would recommend that you can you know report back to your client want show video this that you know the planning board is uh clearly have no
interest in your client's property uh for the actual use of um you know in the future you can work on minor
to the housing and fair. So just just so I'm clear, if we approve this, it has to go to the or it does go to the council for approval for endorsement, but it's really this board's document. And we're adopting this document simply to reflect that it
uh is compliant with the goals and objectives of the master plan and for the the reason stated in draft resolution. Right. >> Correct. >> Um >> my my apologies. Um if the R if the obligation is 240 units and according to
table 19 the satisfaction to fourth round RDP obligation um the total is 277 units being provided. We're 37 units above we're talking 13 units.
I don't see the exclusion of that having a material effect at all. My apologies for not looking at that more closely, but I I don't see the 13 being dropped, at least from a numbers perspective. To your point from before,
I'd still need to look at the mediation agreement, and if the mediation agreement needs to be revised as a result of that, then that's another concern as well. So in >> in other words, you think the mediation agreement may have recognized and one of the provision is that we're going to have this credit going into the next
round because we're going to >> potentially I can again I can I can look for that. We can take another recess and I can look for that as well. But um yeah I from from a from a pure numbers perspective I we're providing you know
37 above the burough is providing 37 above the 240 >> and this is part of the Barington Street >> transit village correct? >> Yes. So you look at the mediation agreement, it talks about you know the subject property to be declared nearary and need
redevelopment by resolution of the burough council after completion of the preliminary investigation and recommendation by the planning board by March 15th. So the way I read that is they're going to they're going to declare an area of
green redevelopment if the recommendation tonight is and if you find that there is ample as you've indicated additional units that can um be addressed and this property can be excluded. My sense is you can make the uh
recommendation to adopt the plan excluding this property. Uh and that way that recommendation that you're making then goes to the township for adoption. >> It may have been for my time, but I I
don't think that this property has actually even been uh the subject of a study has been the subject of a study by the planning board. So, you know, I mean, there are many many places to
remove it. Um, but yeah, I mean, I don't even think has the planning board been tasked yet with No. So, PL board hasn't even been tasked yet with doing investigation as to whe study hasn't even been done. >> Yeah. So the entire process as >> yeah that's on that's coming directly
from the the mediation agreement and then the bureau shall adopt the redevelopment plan consistent with the density set forth herein by September 30th. So you have time 2026. >> Okay. So I have the med remediation agreement and it shows a fourth round
total of 245.5 units. So they cut some of the um this also needs to be reviewed as well. Um but they cut some of the bonus credits that were being
taken. So to that end, losing those units would would fall short of the 240. >> I think this is obviously probably reasons not to have his
property but um you know I I don't think this is the time for it especially deadline so close being fair housing as we go forward. There hasn't even been
directed by the council uh under housing law uh being an area needed. So uh I think there was better opportunity at that time to more closely focus on
the individual properties and have uh our I think it's a would be you know planner >> correct >> um take a closer look as to which properties may be less suitable than some others be part of that
redevelopment area but I I don't think the answer right now is to move it from housing up to care plan or or give some kind of bonding uh statementally because we would like to send a clean
resolution back to court part of uh adopting resolutions uh implementing ordinances and resolutions at least I I assume Joe mean resolution back. >> Yeah.
>> So I I think that you you've got the sense of what the board thinks about that property. Um you obviously I know it's not exactly what you want to hear. Um, you can show it on this video,
but seems to be showing no interest in that being built for housing. Um, and probably best to work closely with the burough and especially Sierra. We put you in touch with Sierra um with the
community development agent for sale to uh get that property to be excluded from the development. >> Yeah. Um the mediation agreement additionally I just took a look at it includes the accessory apartment program. So I mean we're this is kind of
the challenge with the fourth round in general is that everyone's building the plane as we're flying it. Um I and this is not unheard of even in the third round there were um settlement agreements that were never amended even
though plans were amended going forward. So um I mean it's very likely that the either the mediation agreement will need to be amended or the immediation agreement you know aspects of it won't be relevant because we're not the bureau isn't doing accessory department
program. it's in fact using other compliance mechanisms to meet that obligation. Ernston Road is not on it. Um so you know I you know Alex I agree with you that you know the
today the I think the best course of action is to you know have a clean resolution adopt the plan as is um with the understanding that um this site may very well not be you know suitable and and
can be excluded later um as part of the redevelopment study. have it exclude having it excluded from the redomen study, you know, through Sarah um may make the most sense um going forward and and you know, we can take a look at
exactly how those units can get made up elsewhere. Um but I don't I I don't I don't see I agree that trying to um as as you can see that the challenge that we're all having here of trying to to amend a plan on the fly, I don't think it's feasible.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And I think just for the for your for our purposes as well and your purposes as well, this mediation agreement, I I tend to agree needs to be amended because I don't think you're going to make your timeline required on by the mediation agreement to do your redevelopment plan and the study. That's
March 15th. It's now March 4th. Um and my request would be and I'm request for the tenant would be if that's the case and that that that has to be amended, can this plan be amended at the same time to exclude this property? It is listed there as in in as part of one of
the properties in that rar street village uh parcel. Um if that can be excluded with this amendment that I think solves everybody's problem. Uh, and I think an amendment would probably have to be done sooner than later because you're going to miss this deadline.
>> Can't speak for attorney. So, I have no idea whether or not we're going to get a referral for them or what's going to happen, but I I think certainly
you discuss it with uh the council and obviously your firm is the one doing the plan. So, you know, going forward if if a change is needed
and you know instead of rushing it, I I still think we're better off if a change is going to happen. I don't see why that would be a problem, but I can't be the one to make that decision. Dan can't be the one to make that decision
and and really the planning board on its own shouldn't be the one to make that decision without discussion, you know, with council or at least some council. But I I don't it has to if the mediation
agreement has to be amended or there has to be order standing time or something to that effect. That may very well be >> I can't I can't speak for the council. I can't speak for affordable housing attorney attorney.
that we may want to discuss after this meeting. You know, you guys, myself and Joevel in as well, but I I don't think we can give you
absolute certainty on this. Well, we would appreciate that and I think Mr. Prime has his card as well. If we could set something up sooner than later, that would be helpful because the process will start on the planning side obviously with with you for the planning board for the application as it comes
forward. And um the only thing we would ask tonight is if you know you're going to adopt this resolution that something be placed in the record that we were here and that we've asked to be excluded. And that's something that however you council wants to phrase or I think you phrased it as pretty well as
uh to recognize uh that this property um may be the subject of exclusion or however you want to phrase it or that we've requested it and it's under you know. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I I just wanted to add one person that I think absolutely has to weigh in is the special adjudicator.
And Beth Beth is extraordinarily reasonable. Um and >> work with Beth. I know Beth. Yep. >> Yeah. So I I think just simply asking her a question, what should we do? How do we go about this? And get guidance from her because she's got the most
direct connection to the program. Um, and once we get input from her, we'll know, I think, exactly, you know, how to handle this. >> Very good. Well, that we appreciate your time tonight. Thank you. >> So, are we able to um pass a resolution
along the lines that Mr. Burns suggested, just noting that this uh >> I mean, it is part of the record. Yeah. Everything that I put on, everything that stated here, it's all part of the record of the public hearing for the
board's consideration of the housing on show. Um, so I think you've been about the resolution for you as county on it. That happens. Uh, Uh, and I think
that and adopted as >> and the objections will be >> they're all noted in the record. >> Noted in the record. Okay. >> We have a motion close to the public. >> Okay. Um, is there a motion to close to the public? >> Motion.
>> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> opposed. >> Okay. Okay. So, uh, do we is there a motion regarding the resolution to adopt the amendment to the fourth round
housing element fair share plan? >> Be a motion with the >> No, no, it it it would it's the resolution I prepared is it just uh it does not mention that. It just, you know, talks about how you uh your
professional planning testimony uh and from the public and that uh the amended housing element fair share plan is consistent with those objectives of count and you're adopted and what we've all heard today is part of the record. You
don't have to specific call it out. So, there's a resolution adopting It would be a resolution adopting the plan, the amendment. Um, it wouldn't say it in the resolution, but we know that there's an objection here regarding a piece of
the of the plan, a property that's in the plan, and that u my understanding is that the attorneys for the property owner is going to try to work with our redevelopment council and fair and I guess the fair share, the special adjudicator, >> burough attorney
>> to try to and the burough attorney to try to resolve that issue. But nothing that we do here uh in passing this is going to definitively force that property into a redevelopment situ. There's going to be a separate redevelopment process.
>> Yeah. >> And we're not going to hamstring the property owner by approving this plan because we're simply approving it that it complies with the master plan and and it's and it promotes the public welfare and good, etc. >> Yeah, that that's where you're at now. >> Okay.
>> All right. Motion to accept the amended housing. >> Second. >> Do a roll call. >> Mr. Kandal? >> Yes. >> Miss Lman? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mueller? >> Yes. >> Mr. Shaw? >> Yes. >> Mr. Sataka? >> Yes. >> Mr. Velo. >> Mr. Williams?
>> Yes. >> Council President Zabrowski? >> Yes. >> Thank you. It's been approved. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. Uh, >> next on the agenda is old business, new business, administrative matters. Our
next meeting is March 18th, Justin. Um um we don't have any anything forthcoming. Um so we could take a motion to um cancel the March 18th meeting. >> Is there a motion to cancel?
>> All in favor? >> All opposed? >> Our next meeting will be cancelled. The following meeting after that, I believe, is April 4th. off the cuff, off my thing, but um we'll see at that point. >> So, nothing on currently for April 4th.
Okay. >> Um so, we have to open up to the public again. >> Okay. Motion to open to the public. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Anyone from the public like to be heard by the planning board? Seeing no one, uh motion to close. Is
there a motion to close to the public? >> There a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right, everybody. Have a great night. Thank you.