Good evening and welcome to tonight's meeting of the Sparta Township Planning Board. Thank you to those who are joining joining us here and online. For the record, this meeting is being held on March 4th, 2026 at 700 p.m. in the Sparta Township Municipal Building
located at 65 Main Street, Sparta, New Jersey, and the live stream can be viewed on YouTube at www.youtube.com/spartatwp. Please note that adequate public notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the open public meetings act. No new business will be conducted after 9:30 p.m. and the meeting will end
promptly attend. Let us begin with a 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, liberty, justice
for all. >> Risha, would you please call the role? Bear Bogler >> here. >> Brian Zimmerman >> here. >> Ronda Day >> here. >> Ernie Rexac >> here. >> Vice Chairwoman Janette Burke >> here. >> Chairwoman Celeste Luciano
>> here. >> Deputy Mayor Mike Sylvester >> here. >> Christine Quinn >> here. >> Christine Dunbar >> here. >> Joan Furman >> here. Thank you. >> Moving on to our executive session.
Uh yes, if we can hold off on the executive session until uh the end of the meeting. Uh if any issues come up on the detention center that uh I feel that we should go into executive session, we can do at that time and we can talk
about uh uh diamond ship at that time if that's okay with you. >> If that's your advice, that's my is that a consensus of the board. Should we do that as by a motion? That'll be fine. >> So, may I have a motion and a second to move the executive session to the end of
the meeting? >> So, move. >> I'll second. Roll call, please. >> Christine Quinn, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor Mike Sylvester, >> yes. >> Ron Day, >> yes. >> Christine Dunar,
>> yes. >> Joan Ferman, >> yes. >> Ernie Rexac, >> yes. >> Brian Zimmerman, >> yes. >> Bear Bogler, >> yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Janette Burke, >> yes. Chairwoman Celeste Luciano. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay.
Moving forward to the next section, the approval of minutes. We have minutes for February 4th, 2026. Eligible to vote are Deputy Mayor Michael Sylvester, Janette Burke, Ron Day, Christine Dunar, Joan Ferman, Celeste Luciano, Ernie Ragstad,
and Beer Bogler. Any comments or questions from the deis regarding these minutes? I have one change, please. On page one, uh where it's approval of minutes, um fourth paragraph down, uh I'd like that
to be rewarded. Uh Miss Ferman stated she added limited clarifying items but did not change other previous language. >> I'm sorry, which paragraph was that, Joe? under approval of minutes fourth paragraph beginning with my name.
>> One, two, three, four. Okay. >> And I'm sorry, could you please repeat that? >> Stated she added limited clarifying clarifying items but did not change other previous language. In other words, I wasn't the previous paragraph. I wasn't responsible for drafting the
feelings and thoughts that were um a concern that wasn't mine. Any other comments or questions from the board? >> Hearing none, I would like a motion in a second to approve as amended.
>> I'll make a motion. I'll second. Roll call, please. >> Christine Quinn, >> I can't vote. I'm sorry. >> Sorry. I can't I'm sorry. Deputy Mayor Mike Sylvester.
>> Yes. >> Janette Burke, >> yes. >> Ron Day, >> yes. >> Christine Dumbar, >> yes. >> Joan Ferman, >> yes. >> Celeste Luciano, >> yes. >> Ernie Ragstack, >> yes. >> Big Bogler, >> yes. Okay, moving forward to minutes for
February 18th, 2026. Opening it up to the board for questions and comments on these. Um, I believe you already made the change that I emailed about another member being changed to my name. Correct. Thank you.
And I have one other again concerning my name under updates on the last page that can be changed to Joan Ferman revisited a topic from prior board meetings and requested a legal opinion as to whether planning board alternates
can vote on applications when a seat is vacant and no regular member is assigned to the seat. Okay, so that was Joan Ferman brought up whether planning board alternates can vote on Can you please repeat that? >> Joan Ferman revisited a topic from prior
board meetings and requested a legal opinion as to when a seat is vacant and no regular member is assigned to Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, I skipped a part as to whether planning board alternates can vote on applications when a seat is vacant and
no regular member is assigned to that seat because the way it reads now is when a regular member is absent. That's incorrect. Any other comments or questions on these minutes? Hearing none. May I have a motion in a
second to approve the minutes from February 18th as amended? >> I'll make a motion. I'll second. >> Have a Excuse me. Roll call, please. >> Deputy Mayor Mike Sylvester. >> Yes. >> Janette Bert. >> Yes. Ron Day, yes.
>> Christine Dunar, >> yes. >> Joan Ferman, >> yes. >> Celeste Luciano, >> yes. >> Ernie Ragstat, >> yes. >> Brian Zimmerman, >> yes. >> Christine Quinn, >> yes. >> Berget Bogler, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> May I do a followup to that, please?
Um, since we have before us coming up where we do have votes, um, and they are land use votes. They are the ordinances that we're going to be looking at tonight. Can you talk the mic? >> I'm sorry. Can you These are very
>> having problems with live stream too because >> it's streaming. Let me uh >> testing, testing, testing. >> Yeah, mute. >> The lights are coming on. So >> they're not Yeah, the lights come on.
>> Testing, testing, testing, testing. Testing, testing. It >> It's picking it up and bringing it online. It's not picking it up and transmitting it in the room. >> So, it may just be the speakers in here that are off. >> Oh, good call. >> Is there a switch for them?
>> Oh, testing. No. >> Hello. >> Testing. Testing. No. >> Apologies. >> Testing. Testing. I think it's just the room.
>> Dave, is yours on? >> No. >> No. >> Let me see. >> Testing. Testing. >> All right. So, we apologize to everyone in the room. We're We're going to try to see what we can do about fixing the situation. We'll attempt to be as loud
as possible. I'm usually pretty loud. So, if people can't hear me, >> let me know. >> That is the core of all of this. >> I agree, Captain. We can't touch that. >> Yeah, she's working on it.
>> Jim said the live stream is fine. Okay, I'm telling him I'm trying to call it. >> Maybe it's something. >> All right, so the live stream is okay and we have a lot of business to get through and I'm sure a lot of people here. Oh, yay. >> Just remember what it did for next time.
>> Just when we thought we were going to have to scream. >> Um scared the whole audience >> comment. >> All right. Oh, yes. Let's get back to Miss Roman's question. >> Thank you. So, we have two master plan consistency reviews tonight and um they are both land use issues and for several
months now we've been going back and forth and not really making a decision as to whether an alternate vote um should be made in the vacant class 2 position. Um, so I'd like to put forth a motion based on what
the Hamilton Township Trial Court uh decided. And the motion would be to follow the court's legal opinion that was rendered in the Hamilton Township case ruling that it was improper to per permit an alternate to cast a vote in the place of a vacant position as there
is no absence or disqualification of a regular member. And that's straight from the court case. But I just want to protect us from any kind of legal thing down the road and just get it out on the table and um take a vote. >> So I don't know if anybody's willing to
second that before we go into any comments. >> If you recall board, we had this uh conversation and I thought that we had agreed on administrative functions such as what we're doing this evening that the alternate could vote. I had conferred with Glenn Keen of the board
of adjustment and also the uh municipal attorney Anand D'Ach. Uh the the Sparta ordinance creating the planning board is a nine person board and uh therefore the functions of the Sparta planning board
administratively uh is that we had discussed nine members and the alternate would be able to uh vote. The open issue is if an applicant comes forward under the Municipal Land Use Act. Uh, and I believe the Hamilton
Mercer case was dealing with a uh formal application. >> No, it was dealing with master plan um review. Well, I'm still I'm still of the opinion that the uh the board even as the master plan and ordinances that are
Sparta, it's my professional opinion that it is distinguishable from Hamilton Township. That was my prior opinion. It continues to be my opinion. And as to the misable land use in which we have an applicant, I'm hoping that we will have a class two member by our next meeting.
But I do believe that we've already uh decided that administratively you are nine members and the alternate can vote uh as to applicant work. I'm reserving my opinion until that occurs. So if you want to take a formal vote
again on that there's that is fine but I'm continuing to rely upon that of which Mr. Keynes and Mr. D'Ach uh are in accord with. >> Well we never had a formal vote. Mr. Keynes and Mr. Dash, what they brought
forth was the de facto officer doctrine which is very very different that states that um you can't challenge a person who's been in a position thinking that they were properly appointed. The people that we have as alternates are properly
appointed. So we are not discussing that. What we are discussing is a vacant position and um the law I thought was pretty clear that uh an alternate votes in the absence or disqualification of a regular member. We have no regular member in that seat. We've been kicking
the bucket down the road for many months now. No class 2 has been appointed and that's a separate issue whether they're appointed or not. We have eight regular members. So if there are no regular members absent or disqualified. >> Yeah. Yeah, but Joan, we have nine
members. Uh whether there is a vacancy in class two, I respect and understand the Hamilton Township case, which is advisory. It's not binding on us. And that may be applicable also, but here we have a function. We have a duty. You're
nine members. The public is entitled to nine members. And I think it's proper to have nine members vote. Your point is well taken. and the Hamilton Township case is there. But again, uh I'm of the belief that as far as these
administrative non-applications, so let's say I'm representing an applicant and I'm seeking a variance or I'm seeking a some type of land use site plan. uh I believe in those cases it's distinguished that the uh class two
member should be uh appropriate here on administrative functions things that are referred hiring of the attorney hiring of the uh experts the planner uh that there's nine members here and they should vote as far as the ordinances I
believe that they are referred to us by way of the the Sparta planning board and there are nine members who are eligible to vote here tonight. Again, I respect your position and I'm reserving my opinion as to any formal applications, but administrative functions, I believe
that we should act as nine members. If you want to take a formal vote, so be it. That's no, there's no harm in in getting the >> Yeah, we still have to determine this procedurally whether we decide if this is administrative and we have a person voting tonight, that's fine, but I'd
still want to get it on the table so we don't have to carry this another month. >> So, what are we actually voting on? >> Um, first off, there there may not be a vote if there's not a second. >> So, so there is a motion, but there's currently no second. So we'll we
>> Okay, go through the >> Well, the question is whether or not someone is willing to to second this motion. If there is, then there'll be discussion. If there isn't, then then the discussion ends. So that's the question. There is a motion on the table. Is there a second?
Let me read it one more time then. motion to follow the court's legal opinion rendered in the Hamilton Township case that ruling case ruling that it was improper to permit an alternate to cast a vote in the place of a vacant position as there
is no absence or disqualification of a regular member. So if we get a second we can discuss it. If not, I tried >> hearing none. I think the issue is pretty well decided by Ken's um
interpretation and I'm sure we'll revisit it again. >> And hopefully the uh mayor and council will cure the issue. We won't have an issue in in April, >> but we still have an issue because um this is a procedural issue that I think we need to decide. It should be in our bylaws, and that's another thing that we
should be working on. Um, >> you know, we we should know where we stand in this and not just kick it down the road and say, "Well, let's wait for town council to fill this position because we've been doing that for months." >> I understand. >> That's my opinion. I'll drop it. >> And and so noted, and again, I should
add for the record, our past practice, even prior to me being here was that the uh alternate was voting in that for at least a year since I've been here. So that's another factor that I would weigh
in. But well noted interesting issue and again hopefully the mayor and council will make it moot by appointing a class 2 member. Thank you. >> I think it's now appropriate for us to move into uh the other board business which starts with ordinance 2602
detention center prohibition and land use ordinance >> board. This is an interesting issue. uh uh the your power as a planning board and we have quite a few people in the audience uh today and I'm sure online is
the mayor and council put forth an ordinance and when an ordinance related to land use is referred to the planning board for a consistency hearing with the master plan which is what we are doing today. Now, uh, as to the second
hearing, the fourth round amended fair housing plan, we have a written, uh, opinion from our our planner as to that. As to the detention, uh, center, I have given you an attorney client u opinion
letter. But in in essence, um, if it was necessary, we could go into close session. But the big picture, it's no surprise if you Google detention centers, we have the Roxberry issue and Roxberry is against it. There's an issue
called the supremacy clause in the federal court. Uh the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution is article 6 clause 2 that states the constitution uh state constitution are subordinate to federal uh laws. uh but
then we also look to the 10th amendment to the federal courts uh have to have the power that is delegated to them. So if you talk about immigration, you talk about federal prisons, let's assume that there is uh uh a power that the federal
government has. When we look to state and our forefathers of federalism and the power of the states to regulate their own zoning, uh we look to that because the state and the town knows best what your public health safety and welfare constraints are. uh you know
when you look at a warehouse that has three or four bathrooms in it because that's the type of operation versus a detention center that is now changing that use to impact other issues of public health safety. So the ordinance
that is here before you is is it consistent with the master plan? I would say that uh it's difficult for you to find this issue as we had with cannabis detention centers. When I first started
practicing law in the the late 80s, early 90s, there was issues with go- go bars and first amendments. Towns were uh zoning out go-go bars and the applicants were saying you can't do that because of the first amendment. It worked itself out. And I I think the same thing here
with detention centers. you have competing interests. Uh I do believe that the ordinance is proper for the town of Sparta to give your opinion of whether you're favored or of not. Are you going to find in your master plan
the word detention center? I would think not because it's something that has really just uh emerged in recent years. Is it inconsistent uh in the master plan? uh I don't believe it's inconsistent uh to prohibit
certain uses. So as far as whether it's consistent with the master plan, uh it's my professional opinion that you could find that uh consistency. But those are the issues that have been raised of supremacy and preeemption. And I've
given you the contrary argument of public health safety. Uh and the two have to be balanced. And uh just as the class 2 vacancy seat, I may be wrong. I I could be wrong here of the consistency, but it is here before you
for consistency review. Uh there is no real public review of it. The public review is at the second reading before the mayor and councel and as I've spoken to the chair that if the public was here on the detention center uh as a
professional courtesy if they wanted to give a short position I don't think that's improper but there is no obligation of the planning board to give public comment because all you are looking at on the detention center in the fair housing is is it consistent
with the master plan you give that to the mayor and council and there is a second reading of the ordinance on which the public can be heard before the mayor and council. Uh so that is uh my overview if there's any questions through the chair. >> I have I have one. Um when they're
talking about detention centers, they're not talking about the local police department and their short-term detention. Right. >> Good point. Good point, Ernie. >> I don't know if there's anything in there. >> There's an ex there's an exemption or >> is there an exemption in there in the ordinance? >> Mike, please. >> An exemption for what? I came here. our
police department. >> So again, Mr. P, if I can. So, so the task in front of us is is simple. Is it consistent or not? It's not do you like it? Do you approve it? It's is it consistent with the master plan or not? And we say yes or no. >> Correct. >> Thank you.
And my opinion is you have broad latitude because it's not going to you're not going to find it uh expressly in the master plan as we didn't see cannabis and as we didn't see in years of old co go-go bars and those type of issues.
Thank you. >> Any other questions or comments from the days? just be I would say it's it is consistent because if you take a look at the vision of Sparta and what they want for Sparta, it is consistent with that
portion of it >> and board that that type of testimony is is helpful for the mayor and council. If you find consistency, if you feel it's consistent, I'd recommend to you use statewide uh on the record or there's no obligation to state. You can just vote
yes or no. But that's a good comment, Miss Ferman. >> What vision specifically, Joan, are you referring to? >> Well, I can't state the vision offhand, but um everything we've heard in doing the whole master plan, and what we do have in the master plan is people want
to maintain a rural character, a community sense. Um you know, and and this would not fit into what that vision is for Sparta. I think in addition to that the um you know we're always talking about traffic especially when we're talking about large buildings warehouses a detention center would have
a enormous amount of >> and it would have a 247 >> let me let me just ask a question I guess to Ken are we applying this ordinance to the existing master plan that's in effect in the governing master plan as we speak or
a somewhat in the near future or down the road a a new master plan which I would assume that this is applying to the current master plan in place. >> That is correct. >> If you want to restate or reconsider getting clarification on that,
>> you know, vision is one thing. We got to operate within what's in front of us, right? >> So, >> but it was in our prior vision as well. >> There was some but there was some changes and modifications to that. The there was a there was a previous master
plan that then was revised. >> I I've lived this, right? I mean, >> yeah. Yeah, I know. >> I mean, and then it's dealing with what's in front of us with this master plan. Now, if we want to create and have what we've been talking about over the last several months, year or so with the, you know, re doing a new master
plan, then so be it. But I just want to make it clear that this ordinance at the time we're discussing it is applicable to the current master plan in place. >> Uh yes, it is. Uh the current master place uh master plan in place. Uh I do
also add though that you are well into the new master plan and there has been public comment and there has been uh drafts not that they are uh binding but I do believe that the relevancy of the
current situation uh so we're looking for consistency with the master plan with also as of today the March 4th reviewing of knowledge you have going forward. I don't think it's improper uh deputy mayor to to look at
what your current situation is, but technically you are absolutely correct. You look to the existing master plan. We have not passed the current one. >> Thank you. >> I know Lindsay's been working on this like non-stop here. Do you have the old
master plan by any chance like readily available on your computer or anything where >> I could pull it up on my computer? >> Yeah. Yes, I can pull it up. Just so we're making sure >> you don't carry that in your back pocket. >> Um section five says that the ordinance
shall take effect 20 days after final passage and publication as prescribed by law. >> Correct. >> So after 20 days once it's passed. So then that would suggest that it would be included in any future master plans.
>> It's it's when it's adopted by the council. So it goes from us back to the council for a hearing of the ordinance for and then a vote on adoption and then 20 days after that >> right after final passage. >> I mean Lindsay, you live in the master plan. Do you have any comments in
general on the existing master plan uh and the goals and objectives we're looking at now? >> Yeah, absolutely. So, a lot of the previous master plan um some of the goals and objectives were about maintaining kind of the balance between the natural resources within Sparta as
well as um maintaining kind of the similar residential structures as well as maintaining, you know, that quintessential downtown. um that is continuing into a lot of the goals and objectives from the original master plan are very similar to the goals and objectives that we will be probably having in this newer master plan
obviously updated but um a lot of it is about having sustainable growth having um traffic as you learned from the previous meeting is a hot topic for this upcoming um master plan. The previous master plan obviously touched on traffic but not quite as much because so much
has changed since then. But a big portion is um in the previous master plan is about maintaining the character, maintaining the natural resources uh making sure that there is that harmonious balance between the two as well. Uh and if I could uh chair and
board uh we are very fortunate tonight to have uh in the uh the audience uh Katherine Sarmmed with regard to her efforts uh and her experience with the existing master plan. Katherine, I don't know if you have anything you want to
add on detention centers that could help us. >> Sorry to put you on the spot. >> Do you want me to swear in by the way? >> You're saying swear to truth the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth be God. >> I do. name and professional address, please. >> Katherine Zarad, 26 King George Road,
Warren, New Jersey. >> Thank you. >> Can you help us out? >> Um, so I I agree with um Lindsay's characterization of the master plan goals. Um, and I agree with your background that um, you know, the master plan likely doesn't include that specifically, a specific recommendation
about detention centers or anything of the like. Um, but I do think that a characterization of the goals and objectives that was stated um captures that it's probably something that sort of sparted never kind of wanted. So it wouldn't be something that would be um in in those
uh documents as um something a goal. Um, and so additionally, and I'll I'll talk about it when I go through the the next ordinance is the board is supposed to identify through the MLUL provision of the referral powers whether or not the
ordinance has inconsistencies with the master plan. So, it's kind of like a double negative. You're finding that it's not inconsistent with the master plan and therefore the ordinance and what it proposes is not inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the master plan. Um, and I think hopefully that will be helpful to the board. Good
point. Uh and uh Lindsay, would you mind sort of to tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth shall be God? >> I do. >> And you t you had given some uh testimony about detention center. Is is that's still accurate? >> Yeah, that's still accurate. >> And as far as the uh comments of uh Miss
Armed as far as the inconsistency, can you elaborate on that also that that an ordinance that's not inconsistent with the master plan? >> Yes. So, we are looking at the ordinance this evening as if it was consistent with the master plan saying that
detention centers um are not within the master the previous the comprehensive master plan um or the re-examination reports. Obviously, the use was not a use that was contemplated. Um it's never been implemented in any zoning. Um and in addition, much of the
goals and objectives do not align with um this type of use. And in your opinion, is the ordinance proposed therefore is not inconsistent with the existing master plan in your professional opinion? >> It is not inconsistent. >> Thank you. I have nothing further board
on detention center ordinance. >> Just to add, the 2020 re-examination report um gave some updated um elements and vision and it dealt with controlling some of the things controlling intensity, route 15 corridor, open space. So, just to put it on the record
that it is consistent with those. >> Good, good point. >> Can I have a I have a question. Um, so in the past when it comes to really putting ordinances, especially ones that are sensitive like this one,
to give them the teeth to be able to really be to hold up, right? Um, in the past we had gotten council uh guidance from legal counsel to say instead of putting it in like a land use
component, really focus in on safety, safety and security because if you can pull it out of land use and you can frame it um so that it is a you know it's a safety hazard to residents, it's a safety hazard to the environment or
not even the well you could use that But you could also say to the people that would be housed there because we don't have the proper infrastructure to support it. So my question is is it better for this given the you know to
give it more teeth to be able to stand you know if it is challenged at any point in time to add some of that verbiage in here. I think you know what I'm hearing is and what I feel is this is absolutely consistent with every everything that everyone wants. My
concern is will what can we do so that it holds up if it's challenged. >> Yeah, good good point as your experience as a past mayor and your involvement is is spot on. I would say that we add to the our position and I would uh help
frame this for the mayor and council that in addition to the comments there is a large concern for public health and safety as to the uh hazardous conditions that this would create. So yes, mayor this creates another argument.
>> Okay. Um, and Ken, in addition, we can I can prepare a memo back to mayor and counsel just citing different areas of the master plans and the re-examination reports identifying how this ordinance is consistent with those as well. >> That would be helpful. Thank you.
>> Thanks for the support. I'm just trying to make sure that we can do everything possible to make sure it holds up. >> Okay. >> Any other questions or comments from the DES? just just to pick up on that. So, if
you're going to tighten it up, do the rebuttal of that. Is there has that been challenged in court that in fact the detention center it's got heavy security, heavy XYZ,
working with community police, etc. Does that safety argument hold up or has that been challenged in court? because I've seen it both ways in my research on it and my discussions. I just not debating it. I'm just putting it out there. If that's if we're going to try to change
that to put teeth in it, want to make sure that's been challenged andor we could check the box on it. >> Uh yes, Deputy Mayor, the I believe we've checked the box and we're okay. It's such a hot issue. I mean, Roxberry is on the cutting edge right now. Uh the
there was an issue in Norc and they actually as I understand it settled it. Uh one issue that uh we're also discussing is regionalization of a need. So uh again this goes back historically
the law dealing with uh if there is a detention center let's say in Newton Newton has a county jail that is I understand vacant and available. Does that satisfy the needs of the region? that may be another support for why not
why not Sparta. Uh so uh all great points. I'm not aware of any cases right on point at this time because it's so current. >> Okay. >> And just to make sure that we are crossing the tees, dotting the eyes, going back
to what Ernie was saying, um there really is no carveout in here for the local jails. So, if we're going to be rewriting it or making a if well, we're not rewriting. If we're making a recommendation, I would like that to be one of the considerations that goes in
our report. >> That's we could put if it's not uh very clear in that uh that we will recommend that to the mayor and council in our recommendation. So I think it' be proper uh chair that
if again there's no public uh referral on this uh because it's referred to you for consistency. It's uh I think it's proper to have a vote now on this issue. If someone in the public uh uh wanted to talk about that at the open portion
they're welcome. Uh if the board wanted public comment now but uh you have a a long agenda. It's up to you what you want to do. What are your thoughts now or not? Okay. So, um, as courtesy to the public, since you are all here, um, I will open it to
the public for comments or questions. Please, given the volume of people in the room, be as brief as possible. Um, but this is your opportunity to have any conversation that needs to be had relative to ordinance 2602 specific to
detention, excuse me, to the detention center ordinance >> and not a for or against, just consistency with master plan, >> right? But this is their ability to comment. So, we kind of can't really tell them what they can and can't say. >> We may not be able to answer them. That
may be better suited for for the uh for the council. But I do want to give people an opportunity to speak. They're in the room. >> Okay. >> Okay. Seeing none, we will move forward to a roll call vote. So, Ken, if you wouldn't mind.
>> Yes. >> Fashioning the motion so that we can have a motion in a second. >> Yes. Uh you had before you a referral on ordinance 26-02, detention center prohibition land use ordinance. There was some discussion as to uh consistency uh with the master
plan as as well as that it's not inconsistent with the master plan. There was discussion to make sure that the reference to a local jail detention is an exception. and the uh board uh uh planner Lindseay Knight said she would
supplement uh the determination with a written memorandum as to the same if someone would move that uh motion. >> Second. >> Okay. Okay, so everyone knows what they're voting on. We are voting
>> that the that ordinance 26-02 with those amendments and clarifications are consistent with the Sparta master plan and also found not to be inconsistent with the master plan because detention centers are relatively new uh land use issue.
>> Okay. And making the carveout for the local police department. >> Yes. >> And also adding new components for teeth safety and security. Right. >> Yes. Good. >> Can we have a roll call, please? >> Christine Quinn,
>> yes. Deputy Mayor Mike Sylvester, >> yes. >> Ron Day, >> yes. >> Christine Dumbar, >> yes. >> Joan Ferman, >> yes. >> Ernie Ragst, >> yes. >> Brian Zimmerman, >> yes. >> Ria Gibbler, >> yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Janette Burke,
>> yes. >> Chairwoman Celeste Luciano, >> yes. Okay. Okay, moving forward to ordinance 2603 Sparta fourth round amended fair housing plan for review and possible action.
>> Yes. Uh board, you have before you a second ordinance uh dealing with land use. Uh this one what I'd recommend we have a analysis from uh the professional planner handling the fair housing and uh very stod Katherine uh
uh through the chair and the board has given us a written analysis and if you can present that please. >> Thank you Mr. Porro. Thank you chairman Luchiano. Um so and I just want to the characterization on the agenda is a little bit off because this is not an ordinance related to the amended fair
housing plan. This is um an or a different an ordinance that repeals and replace exist existing sections of the affordable housing ordinance within the township code. Um and so um ordinance number 26-03 was transmitted um by the
uh township council to this board on February 25th. It was introduced on February 24th on first reading. Um as I mentioned before, the MLUL vests um referral powers within the planning board. So within um after it's been referred to the planning board within 35
days, the planning board must must determine if there are any inconsistencies with the master plan in the ordinance and to transmit any of those findings back to the council or otherwise provide um a transmitt back that um includes that the ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan.
Um, so I had an opportunity to review the last two master plan documents that have been adopted, which are the 2020 master plan re-examination report as well as the fourth round housing and fair share plan that was adopted last June by this board. Um, and so in a
review of the 2020 master plan re-examination report, um, it does provide a background of um, basically the master planning history, the master plan re-examination report history and all the elements that were adopted. Um and it also as it relates to the subject ordinance provides an in that master
plan re-examination report an update about the 2016 housing element fair share was a third round housing element fair share plan um which um established the objectives and goals related to affordable housing and um talked about
how the township intended at the time to prepare and present a um a housing element and fair share plan amendment um that would meet the court's approval. And so, um, essentially it was discussing that the township was working towards compliance in the third round,
um, through the 2016 housing out and fair share plan. Um, upon review of the 2025 fourth round housing and fair share plan, um, the that plan was was prepared and adopted with an accordance of the amended fair housing act that was signed
in to law in 2024. um that has certain requirements for housing elements um in order to provide um housing opportunities for low and moderate income housing and um the element that housing element addressed
the particular um amendments to the mun municipal land use law through the amended fair housing act separate from the amended fair housing act um there was a new process established by this fourth round by the amended fair housing act um and also established a administrative direct directive that was
provided in December of 2024 that was called administrative directive 14-24 um that included specific requirements separate from the law, separate from the MLUL that established all of the requirements that are included basically in a compliance package with a housing own share plan. So it notes some of the
appendices which I listed in the review including an affordable housing ordinance that basically sets forth the provisions for monitoring reporting um different u requirements regarding very low-income housing very low-inccome affordability
um as well as annual increases in rent calculation etc. um also requires the adoption of a mandatory set aside ordinance if any and the execution and update of a development fee ordinance. So all of those are requirements that all municipalities throughout the state that
are participating in this process are required to have a compliant housing element fair share plan. And so um as part of that process and by law and that directive, the township is required to update its affordable housing ordinance um development fee ordinance and mandatory set aside ordinance. Um, all
of these ordinances codify various state level regulations that were just updated about uh 3 months ago, mid December. The uniform housing affordability controls were updated, also known as the U-Hack regulations, as well as the um the DCA regulations under the local planning
services, which is now known as 599. Um they're just called the new rules. They're not called the fourth round rules. They're the adopted new rules. Um, and so the the ordinance basically has to codify what are state level regulations. There's really no there's some options for municipalities that
were part of that model ordinance. Um, but for the most part, it's a cotification of regulations that the township would have to abide by anyway, and it's just a local ordinance that then enforces it. Um, finally, the housing and fair share plan that was adopted included um a develop a section
called development fee ordinance and spending plan and it discussed that the township has an existing development fee ordinance and would be updating its spending plan um in the adopted version uh once it was adopted by the council because that is a document that's adopted by resolution by the township
governing body. Um, finally, separate from the master plan review, most recently um the township did receive through um this amended fair housing act process called the um affordable housing dispute resolution program did receive a program
judge recommend recommendation that was on February 5th and most recently yesterday on March 3rd received a program decision and order from Judge Allen. Um and that also has um implications about this ordinance um being adopted as it is part of
compliance and part of that judgment to determine if the township has a compliant um housing unfair share plan. So overall um my findings are that ordinance 26-03 implements the requirements of the fourth fourth round housing on fair share plan which has
been adopted to address the amended fair housing act as well as administrative directive 14-24. Um, this ordinance substance-wise covers a lot of the topics that are already in the township code under section 18-8.4, which is a development fee ordinance
right now, 18 uh-8.5, which includes um affordable housing regulations, and additionally does supersede 18-4.2Q, which right now is under general provisions. Mr. Day brought that up to
me. We forgot to put in the in the ordinance the repealer repeal of that, but the repealer clause at the end of the ordinance does say that any provisions that are basically more up to date uh that would would supersede these. So the repealer clause will basically just repeal section 18-4.2Q
as well um and supersede it. You'll notice if you go to that section of the ordinance if you have time, it's about five pages long. This ordinance is 40 pages long, I think. Um and that is no fault of the township. Um unfortunately at this stage of having
four rounds of regulations, a new adopted U-Hack set of regulations um and the form of ordinance that um the powers that be at the state wanted the ordinance includes 13 to 15 pages of definitions. Um it includes um every
reference or every actual regulatory provision, not just references to the state codes. Um and so it becomes very bloated and very big. But now you don't have to go searching through the state codes. You have it right in your own ordinance. Um albeit that it's very very
long. Um but other than that, I do think that um upon review of these master plan documents that this ordinance is consistent with the town's master plan. And I do want to note that in repealing section 18-8.5,
um there is a provision right now within the township code that does allow for incentive zoning um throughout most of the town center zones. that is also being repealed, which has been recommended by the program judge to repeal the town center overlay zone
ordinance um in an effort to preserve the township sewer capacity for other um other affordable housing sites that were in the in the plan. And so based on a lack of sewer capacity that um has been um recommended by the program judge
allowed and so um it is part of the affordable housing sections right now. So, as part of the ordinance, you also notice it's obviously not in here because it's being repealed, but it's no longer going to be um active. It's no longer going to be a provision of the ordinance any longer. Um and so again,
um to summarize, I do believe that the ordinance is consistent with the um 2020 master plan re-examination report as well as the 2025 um fair share um fourth round housing element and fair share plan. And I would um take any questions from the board and recommend that the
planning board um transmit their findings back to the council. >> If if I could before we get to the board, uh just the catch 22 for us is that the it's an unfair system. And it's an unfair system because the New Jersey
legislation has not acted. So, by the New Jersey legislation not acting, the New Jersey courts got in uh involved. And what I mean by that is that we used to have something called COA, the Council on Affordable Housing. It goes
back way before Governor Chris Christie. And what happened was uh at some point those seats were not filled. It was not functional. It was not operating. The uh courts had said if you do not take action, the court will take action. and
the legislation did not take action and that's why we have in New Jersey our constitution finds an obligation for fair housing that is a constitutional right that New Jersey has found other states have said
you can't discriminate based upon uh gender race and the like but does not require it as a constitutional requirement. So that's unique to New Jersey. And that's why the New Jersey courts have stepped in. We have the
executive branch, which is the governor. You have the legislative branch, which is supposed to be passing laws. And then you have the judiciary that reviews those determination whether it's constitutional or not. Well, the court is unique in New Jersey has stepped in
and said for years, legislation, you have to act. It doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat. Nothing happened. The court now intervened and put these very strict deadlines. And one of the deadlines
before us is March 15th of 2026. And that's why we're seeing the consistency here. The courts want to see good faith. There are what's called land use uh adjudicators that have been appointed throughout the state. Every
town is subject to this. If you do not act with a plan, you are subject to what's called a developer suit. If you come in with a plan, you have immunity from those suits. And it's a very good
process by way of you've heard the third round. This is the fourth round, which is good for 10 years, 2025 to 2035. And then what happens is after five years there's kind of a monitoring to see that things are going the way they
were. So you can change things and then the fifth round will come in 203536. So the important thing to remember here tonight is that the plan that's submitted if it's not passed could affect whether or not you have immunity.
And now let's say the plan says in a particular community there's going to be 40 units in this location. There can be 15 units in another location. If that plan that Sparta has put forth is not passed and you don't have immunity, that property owner could come in and say,
"You know something? It's nice you're going to give me 15, 12 units, but you don't have immunity. I want 40 units. Oh, it's nice. You were going to give me 100 units in that area, but you don't have immunity. You don't have except I want 200 units." So, it's always
recommended even though it's sometimes tough to swallow on the or accept the uh housing plan because you're seeing more units. The alternative is not having immunity and being subject to additional
units. So, that's just my my legal opinion. As similar to the detention center, this matter is referred to you for consistency. You have the written report from our professional planner on the housing. Uh you do not have to uh
let the public speak. However, as you did with the detention center, you have a number of people here. But recognizing the public that we are only here to see if it's consistent. Now remember on the master plan that deals with zoning, it
deals with traffic. It deals with what our vision is for Sparta. One of the elements in the master plan is specifically housing. So, in my professional opinion, it is almost impossible for this board to not find a
plan consistent because any plan that deals with housing is consistent with a master plan element. Now, the plan that's here has density requirements. X units in particular zone. >> Ken, >> yeah, >> sorry to interrupt. This this is just
the ordinance. This is not sight specific. This is not obligation specific. This is simply the regulatory requirements and the monitoring and administration of the units. So, uh I would just limit the the questions to that as it relates to the ordinance
itself. Um because we could go we could go far field with a lot of affordable housing stuff. >> Uh very good point. Thank you for the clarification. So, if you look at what's been sent to us, it's as Katherine is saying, uh, that we're complying with
the new regulations to say that our plan will comply with it. We'll have a spending plan. We'll do what we're supposed to do. And I know that some of the issues in your neighborhood may be at the end of the day, there are so many units in this location. So we are not as
the planner said we are only reviewing today that we are going to comply with the New Jersey laws consistency Kevin >> we will open it up to the deist for questions and comments. Just one comment if I could um Katherine
if you could also have them take a look at section 228. I think there might be some duplication there. 220 >> two-28 >> um municipal housing less >> so there's no inconsistency between the definitions >> okay thank you
>> just to clarify too you're saying that this is not specific to any particular zone this is an open document it'll be refined later on because one of the things that I want to clarify is you know as we all know we are paying for a lot of flow in this township when it
comes to sewer and we are not realizing what we're paying for. So, water's upside down. Um it would be very good if we were getting units in that did not need to rely on having their own um septic systems, the huge big huge septic
systems having to be put in place if they could leverage sewer because what that does is obviously it's going to help us uh reach our flow and it's also going to reduce the cost for the citizens that are already paying it now. So, I I I want to just clarify what you said because it sounds like they took it
out, but for us it sounds like that might be a good incentive for the rest of the residents. >> So, without getting too deeply into the actual housing element, which will be back before this board, um just to give
an update, the the program um decision and order that was issued does give an extension from March 15th to April 30th for the township to act. There will be other items that I will be here including an amended housing element. So we'll get a full discussion on that.
This ordinance is simply like I said not sight specific um largely not even Sparta specific. It is really the it gives the authority for the township to collect development fees and to they go have an active spending plan that will go be able to spend them in an
affordable from an affordable housing trust fund. It empowers the township to have an administrative agent, a municipal housing. it basically the administration and how units get filled and how people get income qualified and how many units have to be very low low
or moderate that's established all in this ordinance. It's basically the rule book for how affordable housing needs to get developed to be compliant with the state level regulations as well as it has how it needs to be continued to be monitored and implemented over time. It is not even plan specific. It is really
about um like I said administering affordable housing as a you know a very global idea. >> So I have a lot of questions that are specific to what's included. I'm going to save those for when you come back. Right. It sounds like >> that's Yeah. >> But I do have one question that I want to clarify with you and that is around
the administration. So there is a I think there's a lot of uh we could we could do a good job with the community here clarifying two things. that affordable housing is not section 8 housing. That's the first thing I think that people that I know for me was big,
you know, aha moment many years ago. But the other thing is as well when it comes to um the area for which this affordable housing is. A lot of people think, oh good, we're going to have 100 units and
and that will be for our seniors or our young people or our whatever. But there's a process of administration behind that and there's a district that we're assigned to. So what district are we now through this ordinance assigned to where they get the notification and
they get the first couple spots before >> um >> you know where it's advertised before it comes to Sparta. I'm just curious because it used to be like Bergen Hudson and Essex. >> Correct. This is Sparta is located in region one. All every county is in a
region. So Sussex County is in region one uh which I believe is um Sussex >> Bergen Payic >> I believe so >> yes and so um it is a lottery process the township has an administrative agent
a very good one they income there's people who submit an application um they have to submit a lot of documentation to income qualify and they get put on a waiting list for you know units that come up and they get to go tour the unit um the unit's marketed and then they go
toward it if it fits their needs for their family, you know, depending on how many kids they have and things like that. Um they uh they they can either decide to to move forward with it or not or get put back on the weight list if they don't. Um and every unit um let's
say it's a two-bedroom unit, it has an income level associated with it, so it's not floating. It is a low mod or very low for the lifetime of the unit. So that's why when someone gets uh put on that weight list, they have to meet that certain income qualification. Now, it's not section 8. It's not a voucher program. These are um income levels that
are determined by the area median income, which in some cases are over 100,000 for the area median income. A moderate income unit for a person in region one, I think, can be as much as 80,000. Um, and it goes up, you know, by the size of the household. Um, and it
probably goes down to, let's say, 35 or 40,000. So, it's not someone who has no income. It's a low and it's a low income. It's someone who has income. it just happens to be lower than the area median income. Um and so uh you know you could think about it as um housing for
you know um teachers or police officers or um single parents things like that. So um that's often how you know I like to characterize it and to kind of quell any misconceptions that it's a voucher or section 8 program. >> Well also for seniors, veterans and also
for um new families coming here, right? um that just get brand new jobs or just get out of college um that hopefully this will keep them here. So, thank you for clarifying because I think that's a big misconception and also thank you for clarifying the region that we're in. And I'm going to save the rest of my
questions, Madam Chair, for the next round. I'm sure you're very excited about that, but I'm going to share them for the next time you come. >> I'll save them. >> So, Katherine, the next round is really the meat and potatoes of what the plan is. >> Correct. Um this is on your report. You
have page three that this is in compliance with the NJAC, New Jersey Administrative Code. I think you call it U-Hack. And basically saying these are the new regulations for Sparta to uh be in compliance and get immunity. We need
to have uh ordinances that comply with the regulations. >> Yes, this is there's a pretty much every municipality is dealing with a laundry list of things they need to get done. Luckily, Sparta was afforded another six weeks um because it's an it's under ongoing dispute um which is outlined in
that um order. But um every municipality basically has a laundry list of you know ordinances they have to adopt, plans they have to amend between the planning board and their governing bodies. So um Sparta's not alone. This is just one step, but it it was a step that gets we get it done and then it's it's out of
the way um and we can focus on all the other items that need to get completed. So again, if someone in the public comes up and says, "In my neighborhood, I hear this development is coming up." That is not tonight. >> Not this evening. No. >> Okay. >> In the future, there will be an opportunity though. >> Okay.
>> Any other questions or comments from the D? >> Yeah, I I have some questions. Um so on under section F low/m moderate split and bedroom distribution it's
>> uh >> yes I >> okay >> and it's not on page number >> um affordable units shall be divided equally between low and moderate income units. Then number two, uh, in each affordable housing development, at least 50% of the restricted units within each
bedroom distribution rounded up to the nearest whole number shall be very low or low income. Then under section four, part two, it gets very specific. Twobedroom and/or three-bedroom units compose at least 50% of all restricted
units. Then the combined number of efficiency and one-bedroom units shall be no greater than 20%. rounded down. Uh then it goes on, at least 30% of all low and moderate income units rounded up shall be two-bedroom units. And then it
goes on, at least 20% of all low and moderate income units rounded up shall be three-bedroom units. Is this a onesizefits-all approach that every single town has to adopt in order to get immunity? And what
does that immunity actually come with? >> Sure. Um, so this requirement is basically for all new construction moving forward um to make sure that uh a project affordable housing set aside
meets certain income and bedroom distribution requirements. And I'll give you an example of why that is. Um, before there were regulations that established this. A developer may have an inclusionary project with an affordable set aside. Let's say it's a 100 unit project and 15 units are
affordable to fit them into the project and have it almost be an afterthought. 15 of those units would be one-bedroom units and they'd make them all moderate income because that had the least impact on the amount of money that the developer would make or lose on subsidizing those units in the in the
development. And so as a way to make sure that three-bedroom units for families got built, that two-bedroom units for families got built, that different income levels like very very low which is 30% or uh of the area median income or moderate income units which are below 80%. To make sure that
that entire spectrum got captured and basically held developers to these requirements, they put them into the what are called the U-Hack regulations. Um and so um there might there might be a deviation or developer may request a deviation. Um I've seen that happen over
time, but the township has an obligation at the you know the overall global plan to meet these income distributions and bedroom distributions overall. Um so that there aren't too many onebs or there aren't too few threebs. Um and so it helps keep everyone in line. Um, as
far as the, you know, what's at stake here and having immunity, um, Ken Ken, um, talked about it a little bit, um, there are what's called builder's remedy lawsuits. Um, and so for towns that do not have immunity from builder's remedy
lawsuits because they don't have a compliant plan, either they didn't participate in the whatever round or they didn't or they pulled out of that process or, you know, they fought the process, they would then could essentially lose their zoning powers um
through builder's remedy coming in where rather than an application coming before a planning board, they would go before a court. So most recent examples in the third round, Anglewood Cliffs, uh, South Brunswick. You can see what happened in
those in those in those litigations. Costly litigation, um, and costly to the town zoning powers, which, you know, every town has home rule and has the power to zone through the state constitution. Um, and you don't want to lose that because, uh, you don't you get
to choose where where what's permitted in zones and how dense things are and all those things. And uh if you lose it, then you lose that power to do so. >> Okay. >> And as Katherine said, the outcome in Anglewood Clif and which Brunswick? >> South Brunswick. >> South Brunswick was not good for the
community. It did not go well. Thank you. >> Can I ask you also, and I know I hate to put you on the spot, but I think it's really important and I think it fits in with this conversation when we're talking. I mean, there's been so many numbers flown around and I really hate to put you on the spot because I know
it's super complex and very confusing, but can you just sort of break down where we are in the process and what number of units we're talking about just so everyone is clear on kind of, you know, there's been so many numbers floating around out there and I know
when you go through each round and then there's you can defer units and you can, you know, we've been negotiating and trying to renegotiate. Can you just give us an idea of what we're looking at here? What we're talking about? >> All right, Katherine, before you answer that, I think it's important to note though that any development, the most
important question is it used to be 15% set aside. Now it's 20%. So, as far as if the public hears a number that you're offended by, it's that's just a number that the formula has determined. It's
the and the municipality takes that number and looks at what is feasible uh based upon your sewer, based upon other issues. So don't be a don't hear that number and just cringe. But go ahead. >> Maybe you're not in a place to answer
that. And if and if you're not, that's a good answer, too, because I don't want incorrect information getting out there either. So, I don't want to put you on the spot. If you are not in a place and you're in in the middle of these, you know, going back and forth, that's totally fine as well. We can talk about
it down the road. It doesn't sound like we need that information for this discussion tonight. >> I I just wanted to make it if if in your community you hear that they're going to have uh 100 units, the U-Hack, the new regulations is a 20% set aside, 80% is
market. If you hear that uh a unit has 10 units uh that you know 20% is two of that. So it really uh what happens gang is that when you don't have a plan these smaller and I lived in my professional
career I grew up in Rutherford Bergen County and there was an application that was there for some 20 units and the town denied it and now there's some hund and some units at that unit at that location because now they have a requirement. So
you have to be reasonable in what is being built in your community and don't take offense by the 20%. Look to the density and the traffic and if that's a reasonable site for it. Katherine go please.
>> I'm going to defer that conversation just to the housing element. I think we can have a, you know, a larger and better discussion when everything's on the table rather than just throw out the numbers of like what the what our third and fourth round obligations are because that's not the full picture.
>> Okay. I I think that's completely fair. I just wanted to ask the question and get it out there. >> You want to >> Yeah. So So Katherine, you first off, thanks for explaining everything and hopefully the public is taking it all in as well. get it gets complicated and
confusing. So, I thought Ken and you did a great job in trying to make everybody understand it. It's a complex issue. Um, my question is passing this tonight uh to be compliant with the 15th which
is now extended was what I heard. Um, gives us immunity. If by chance we don't hit our numbers, does that immunity go away over that period of time that Ken explained? So um if if the so this is one part of
compliance right this is like these are ordinances attached to the housing element the housing element itself will be found to be compliant or not okay we'll get a compliance certification at the end of this process hopefully if all goes correctly by April 30th and we adopt
everything your plan then for the next 10 years um has that compliance certification and that immunity um I believe that the I don't remember if the legislation or you know fair share housing center is a group that's been part of a lot of settle what are called settlement agreements or mediation
agreements through this process in other municipalities not here in Sparta um we didn't get to that level but um they have been putting in a requirement for what's called a midpoint review so it in 2030 or so um you know they it gives them the opportunity to look at what
still presents a what they call a realistic opportunity um which is um not a heavy burden to prove or not because in most cases to have zoning for 3 or four years is not a long time in New Jersey to get through you know regulatory approvals but um they do it
give um if there is a settlement with fair share the opportunity to look at the plan in 5 years but doesn't remove the the township's immunity that this plan if it is adopted when it's amended and you know it gets certification is a 10-year plan is a 10ear plan >> just let me let me just expand on that
then so great we got we're we're in compliance terrific We're moving along. We do our midpoint check. We're lagging. We're not We're close, maybe not close to the number, whatever. Can they uh
affect builder's remedy on to us to accelerate that at that point or is this stick? So I'll >> based on our performance over that 0 to 10 year window can they >> change that im call immunity regardless
of compliance but can they come back and uh effectuate builder's remedy >> so that they cannot take away your immunity um okay but in only one municipality I ever represented happened to be Mount Laurel where all this generated from at the midpoint review
the township actually took the opportunity they had some um mechanisms in their plan that were not feasible financially and they took the opportunity to shuffle some stuff around. But um as far as I think it's going to be very circumstantial in 5 years what it looks like. Let's say um
and not to get again too in the weeds, Sparta is seeking a durational adjustment for sewer capacity. Let's say the whole town gets sewer. That's a change circumstance. That may may change what's going on in 5 years and what our plan looks like. Um not to say that it will happen. But I'm just saying I'm
giving an example >> of an op of something that may happen. So >> I think you answered it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I have a quick question. Um the residential development fees that go towards uh the affordable housing trust fund, what is that and where does that
go? So, the township um probably since I don't know the exact year, probably the mid 2000s, early to mid 2000s, has had what's called an affordable housing trust fund. It's an interest bearing account. It's a separate account. Um it
can be utilized to pay for um affordable housing projects like the actual construction of projects. Sparta has utilized it for a number of um group homes, developmentally disabled um u units um for 100% affordable developments where it helps to subsidize
the construction. Um it also pays for professional fees like in the preparation of some of these documents. It can be paid for up to 20% of administration. Um and has some requirements as far as how quickly it needs to be spent um that it can't just you know sit there. Um but those fees
are assessed off of um when there is uh a residential improvement. It's based off the change in the assessed value. So not the overall assessed value of the home. Let's say the home assessment goes from 200,000 to 300,000 based on the improvements. Um the construction
department and the tax assessor determine um the change in assessment and then they base the one and a half% fee off of that change in assessment. It goes it goes to that fund. Um half of it gets paid at um time of the building permit and half of it gets paid at time of the CO. Um that that trust fund is
monitored through you'll see the spending plan eventually. It hasn't been uh prepared yet, but there is basically a 10-year spending plan. It's not a strong budget. It just basically outlines how the township is allowed to or foresees spending that money over the next 10 years. >> But it goes to the That's really what I want.
>> It's the It's from the developers or residential homeowners to the And it's the township's trust fund. If if I can just add on the resident of Deler fees, it really is a great mechanism. Uh other municipalities uh uh Pamis uh built a
veteran uh apartment complex with their money. Uh South Hackinac put a senior housing building with that money. So let's say you're building a warehouse in Sparta 1 and it's a $10 million warehouse 1.5. That's the the cost of
the the house and the assessment. uh that money goes into this fund and as Katherine said though it just can't sit there. Uh but the municipalities are really good. They you utilize that money. There can be rehab programs of people in need. So the the concept is
very good on the redevelopment. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Could you go over um the local incentives that we had? Um >> are they gone now? the density bonuses, the four stories, >> yes, >> the bonus credits
>> that's been repealed entirely. >> Also gone is the ability to sell or pay, let's say, another community or city uh to take your unit. So, in days of old, let's say NORC would take X dollars from Sparta and take care
of your obligation. The new regulations prohibit that completely. It's >> called an RCA. Yeah, it was basically a transfer of your affordable housing obligation to a to a city uh or an urban area. But yes, uh I should correct my statement. It hasn't it is proposed to be repealed by this ordinance. So upon
adoption, it would be fully repealed. That section would be fully repealed. >> Okay. So instead of four stories, it would be three. >> It would be zero. It would the entire incentive ordinance is entirely repealed. >> Okay. >> So revert it would revert back to whatever the building code is for that zone.
>> Yeah, >> it was an overlay zone. So all of the underlying zones that that um that overlay zone referred to or allowed um basically just takes the overlay and the underlying zone is now the only thing that's permitted. So that was on top of whatever was permitted in the zone. Um
so removing it doesn't change any you know um of the as of right zone allowances. Um the incentives are now just taken away or just gone. So, but if somebody has the four stories, it's grandfathered. >> If they did receive approval and time of application would would uh dictate that
that yes, they've preserved that >> if it's being used for that. >> Correct. If it's being used for that. Um, so since we were talking earlier about misconceptions
about income, um, I pulled up the, uh, affordable housing professionals of New Jersey 2024 affordable housing regional income limits by household size. And Sussex County is in region one along with
Bergen, Hudson, and Pastic. Um, am I correct in thinking that the region's median income is is what we would be using in Sparta? >> It's what's Yeah, it's what the income levels are based on. So, the numbers you
see in that table as you go across are actually the income limit for um each of those categories. >> Right. I'm getting to that. >> Yeah. Um the regional asset limit is 232,836.
So anyone uh qualifying both on the income limit must also have less than that in assets. >> Correct. Um, and the reason why I pulled this was because I read uh this week's
Sparta Independent, and I always love the viewpoints, letters to the editor. And um, this one caught my eye. And at first I, you know, I didn't think it was going to end this way, but I'm going to read it. Uh, article on prices was
misleading by Michael Brinster from Wanage. I am commenting on the second article I've read in advertiser news entitled, "Are prices really increasing?" Including egg prices in this comparison is misleading and skews the results. Egg prices were inflated
because of the bird flu where nearly 100 million chickens were destroyed or culled if you prefer. In the US alone, it has nothing to do with inflation. This artificially increased egg prices substantially. Shame on the author for including eggs in this article.
Conversely, selecting prices on the limited number of items that have been consistent lately also skews the results. And yes, the cost of food is rising at unacceptable levels. No question about it. What about a simple meat and cheese breakfast sandwich where
you now pay $9.75? Give me a break. Everything is out of control. For crying out loud, I recently paid over $29 for a pizza. vehicles, food, snacks, credit card interest, medical streaming, rent, utilities, and
almost every commodity is increasing. And this is the part as to why that prompted me to pull this document. I don't know how the young people can possibly afford rent, utilities, and food today in order to leave the comfort
of their parents' home anymore. So, I pulled up the numbers because I was like, well, what is a moderate income limit for one person fresh out of college, graduates, gets a good job?
A one person moderate income housing limit to qualify would have to earn $67,431 maximum. To qualify for lowincome housing, they can only earn $42,144
and for very low house housing, they would have to earn $25,286 or less. Uh the numbers for a twoerson for a young couple go up slightly, but it made
me think, you know, when these rules were written and you made you said something about 2016 that you also reviewed something from 2016. What was that? In 2016, the township of Sparta um
signed a settlement agreement for its third round obligation. So these are going in 10-year cycles. The third round ran from 2015 to 2025. So that was the third round settlement agreement >> because Sparta didn't meet the
>> in the settlement agreement. I'm sorry. >> I apologize. You have to go back in time. Sorry. In in 2015, there was actually, as Ken alluded to, there was actually no legislative action that um created laws for the third round. It was done by Mount Laurel 4, which is a Supreme Court case that was decided in
March of 2015 that thereafter led to municipalities being given obligations and basically establishing the start of the third round as well as a perspective, a retroactive look at from 1999 to 2015 of a of a need. So um
Sparta had a third round obligation of of 377 that was established by that third round uh process. >> Oh okay. Um well that time period looks so different than anything that has
happened over the last two years, three years and certainly since you know 2016. the job prospects uh and income prospects for people graduating college or graduating high school and going uh out into you know
working as a mechanic good solid jobs. um the outlook is is grim in many ways. And so it prompted me to look at what was the actual cost of living in New Jersey, not just here. And for one
person, you would have to earn, and this is coming from living wage.mmit.edu, edu. Uh, in 2025, you would have to earn as a oneperson single adult before taxes 56,884.
Um, and that number meets the income limit for moderate housing, but it exceeds the limits for lowincome housing. And I have talked to a lot of my older neighbors and they've basically
said that their kids go off to college or they graduate high school and they cannot live in Sparta. They cannot live in in, you know, Sussex County because it's just too expensive and they can't
find, you know, an apartment to rent. So, um, I just kind of want to I mean, I I understand that we have to adopt this and I just, you know, I want to put it out there that this oneizefits-all
approach hopefully when we actually get some actual uh applications in front of us, you know, is there like how how much wiggle room is there? Because I read the document. I read the ordinance and it doesn't really sound like there is very
much. >> So in the in the lower these are these are the minimum requirements, right? So if a developer could do more very lowincome units, which often times they won't. Um that could be something that is
discussed or asked, right, to do more very low income or to do more low income versus moderate income or whatever. Um and I think you know that's that's up for discussion but there are minimums that have to be met so that they don't
get lost right because those very low these these are all units that are basically subsidized by being an inclusionary or uh if it's 100% affordable otherwise um and those income levels matter because the rents are related or the cost of the house if it's
for sale are all related to those income categories and it's on a sliding scale. So, a very low-inccome one-bedroom, let's say, is $600 a month, but for a two bed for a a low income unit, it becomes, let's say, $1,000 a month. And then a moderate income unit, onebedroom
is 1,500 a month. So, it gets closer and closer to what a market rate rent would be for that project. Um, but that scale matters for all of those groups that, you know, have those income needs. Um so I think it is it is tough that it is
regionalized as well as regulated the way it is. Um but it does allow it does provide um at least some consistency across the board for how it can be applied and you know how you can income uh qualify the the applicants for the units >> board. Just so it's clear tonight we're
just looking at consistency on the rules and regulations. Uh the density issue would be another time. Just to really clarify for the public, let's say the obligation in uh Sparta is 300, 400
units, whatever the number is. If we do not have a plan and a developer comes in and we have this obligation, a developer gets higher densities. So again, if the plan says you can have a 100 units at this location, if we don't have a plan
or you uh you don't have a plan, a developer could come in and say 100 is not enough. But I'll put 300. I need additional stories. And whether or not they get it or not, uh that's uh not for tonight. But the important part is that
we have a plan, we have immunity, and we prevent developer suit. And tonight you have for consistency of ordinance 26-03 Sparta fourth round um amendment fair housing plan for review and your planner
has given you the overview and again we're not talking about densities tonight and that is what is before you >> Katherine I think it's important to you know we talk about immunity but what really we're talking about is uh we're
talking about retaining control, right? It's it's immunity from builder's remedy, you know, I think and I think that's the important point here is that we want to have immunity from builder's remedy so we retain local control. >> Correct. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Any more questions from the day? >> That having been said, I would like to open this to the public. Again, given the volume of people in the room, please limit yourselves to be as concise as possible. If you have a question, let's get it out there, get it answered. If
you have a comment, please be brief. >> And again, I don't want to cut anybody off by saying that's not tonight, the density issue. But if you can have a density issue, nothing wrong with saying it on the record. And that's really before the mayor and council. Thank you.
>> Just your name and >> it's Steven Giles and and just you don't have to give your address, Stephen. Just if you live in Sparta. I live in Sparta. >> Thank you. >> I live in Lake Mohawk. >> I have three very quick questions. Um I would like to know when this is going
before the council for final reading because in the ordinance it says the 24th of March, but my understanding is that date may not be correct and it might be uh next week, but obviously there's no agenda out there at the moment. So could I I don't if you know, can I have a confirmation of when that's
going forward? >> I believe it's supposed to be March 10th. >> 10th. >> Next Tuesday. Yes. >> Okay. I see my nod in as well, so that sounds okay. Perfect. This is a clarification of what I think I heard. Um I know we submitted the HFSP
back in June and obviously there's the dispute resolution going in. Um that's ongoing. I think you said there's nothing that's coming out of that resolution program that is part of this ordinance tonight. Is that correct? >> I believe I believe that's correct.
>> Okay. And final question. um when the dispute resolution program is completed and we start getting the readout from that is the outcome from that uh an update to the plan that was submitted in June a formal update. >> Correct. So the um the outcome of that
will be required to be put into an amended housing and fair share plan which will have to be duly noticed uh as a master plan element and will have to be before this board for public hearing and adoption. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. Hello. Uh Jim Mcichael, Sparta. Um just
a question on can you give us some examples if there are any of how you can lose this immunity because there's been a lot of talk about the immunity >> in the fourth round. Um I don't know if any municipalities because the deadline is still March 15th have lost immunity.
Um but I do know that um in the challenge period which ran from July 1st to August 31st first there was challenges that questioned immunity. One municipality that I represented had its immunity challenged by Fair Share Housing Center um on the grounds that it
um was not acting in good faith in the way it adopted its housing element um that it didn't provide you know the opportunities to create affordable housing and therefore was exclusionary. Um so those are some of the reasons that have been thrown out there in the case of the third round. um at least in
Englewood Cliffs um they failed to reach a settlement agreement with Fair Share Housing Center and there was developers involved in that third round process. It was a lot different similar in some ways to the fourth round but um different and um because their unwillingness to um
settle multiple times a judge ruled against their zoning powers and essentially ruled in favor of the developers to strip their immunity. Um and so the you'll notice if you look up the recent program decision by Judge Allen that was issued yesterday for
Sparta Township. Um with the with the um extension of the deadline to April 30th. It also mentions that the township they they recommend the township keep its immunity as long as it continues to negotiate in good faith. um
and as long as the township adopts all of the necessary documentation set forth in that order by April 30th. Otherwise, um it could lose the compliance certifi or the opportunity for compliance certification and also could risk immunity. And that's all outlined in that document. >> So, it is possible if if this gets
adopted and and we commit to a plan, it is possible to lose this immunity that we're talking about if it's deemed that we're not acting in good faith. >> Now, let me clarify. Let's say our obligation is 300 to make it easy and the and uh Katherine puts together a
plan. The mayor and council pass the plan and that's adopted by the court. That is the process. Now you have immunity. >> If for example one of the objectors and that particular property you say that uh we only want a 100 units there but that
property owner says I should have 200 units. So they challenge the municipality says look you don't have the sewer you don't have the uh other issues necessary and that's the density is too much for the community the court could make a determination even if the
because if our obligation is 300 and our plan is only showing let's say 100 or 200 units we are short on our obligation but we are doing the best we can with the plan and if the plan is accepted that's why every 10 years you look at it
again. So the only in my professional opinion experience has been that you will only use immunity if you do not act in good faith and you do not have a fair and reasonable plan. If a developer says I can give you Sparta compliance with
your requirement as set forth by the court and by the formulas of the uh the state of New Jersey. You have to be reasonable with that. So, it's happening very quick. The good news is that and uh most municipalities do
get immunity. Most land use adjudicators are reasonable and most developers to be candid want to be able to develop. So, they want to have a number that that the municipality agrees with and they can come before the planning board as a permitted use versus the board of
adjustment which is a non-permitted use and needing a majority vote. So, I hope that's that's been helpful. >> Yeah. Yeah, that is. So if if we were to commit to whatever the number is 100 100 100 units 200 units and we only deliver 100 like if we deliver 50%. Would that
be from your perspective not in good faith? >> In my opinion the that's why Katherine's so important as a licensed professional planner you have highlands. You can't build there. So >> yeah and I'll and I'll just kind of jump in. um this this process, the fourth
round process that was established was different in that there was a what I called the challenge period. And so that kind of dispute process, the challengers, developers that wanted to get involved had their chance. They had till August 31st. They issued it. That's what the past four months was with this
program was was most municipalities tried to reach a settlement. Sparta tried to reach a settlement. Um, and there are still things that are um, in dispute, but if you read that decision, there is now a laundry list of things that the township has to achieve by April 30th. So, it's more concrete. It's
more firm about what has to be done. It's less about um the township developing those units. Right now, it's about having a plan that zones for and shows what was agreed to as what happened through this program. So, um it's a it's a very that that decision
pretty much gives a very direct list of what the township has to accomplish in order to retain its immunity um and then basically get it for the next 10 years. >> Okay. >> So, to answer your question, the housing element fair share plan that she's going to present in the future will address
how the obligation is going to be addressed, how the numbers are going to be met, and how the number will be adjusted. So, the next meeting we'll have probably answer all of your questions regarding that. Thank you, Lindsay. >> Thank you every >> and and gang, we're very fortunate. We have two excellent planners with Sparta.
We have one working on fair housing and one working on the master plan and they work well together. We have an outstanding uh municipal engineer also who assists on those issues of practicality that if there's no sewer, if there's no water, if there's no So, those are all part of uh your team here
in Sparta. Thank you. Hi, John and Canalupo. I've lived in Sparta for 30 years. My family's been here for 56 years, specifically in Lake Mohawk. I know some of you, you're our neighbors, and uh I just wanted to thank all of you for serving our town. Probably not something you hear very
often. um little nervous I never addressed the board, but my question is sort of basic and I know it's not exactly what you're here for tonight, but I think it's going to be a legitimate question. And that is that the whole theory of affordable
housing has to do with incentive zoning. Basically, the theory that um uh that developers are allowed to exceed certain zoning restrictions. Correct. in exchange for providing
amenities or features and that amenity or feature in this particular case is the affordable housing. So my question is uh kind of twofold. Who exactly decide and it's going to sound very simple but I I think it
requires an answer. Who exactly decides exactly how much that zoning is exceeded by? Who actually makes that decision? And when are you going to make that decision? That's my question.
>> I will do my best to answer it as best as I can. Um without talking too much about the specifics because that will be something coming again with an amended housing element. As I just mentioned, um the the amended Fair Housing Act created
what's called an affordable housing dispute resolution program. I'm just going to call it the program. um which which basically has handled everything that Sparta has submitted to it since last January, including the numbers, obligation, all that stuff. Um and when
it came even to the fourth round obligation, that program basically adjudicated if the township was correct in its assertion of what the number was versus the state's number. Right? So that team had or that program had a program judge who's a retired judge um
and a special adjudicator who's a professional planner similar to myself and Lindsay um who worked you know through the state and they made decisions after the township adopted its plan in before the June 30th deadline um from
July 1st to August 31st anybody I mean anybody could could appeal the township's plan on the grounds that it didn't meet the requirements of the amended fair housing act. Sparta received four four such challenges to its plan. Um Fair Share Housing Center,
Five West Shore Trail, uh Jersey Investors Growth LLC and uh DDG OPS. >> Those are all developers. >> Three of them are developers. One is an advocacy group called Fairshare Housing Center. So that was the process for which uh developers made an ask
essentially to the program said I'm not in the plan or I'm in the plan and I they didn't give me enough density. this is what I need and essentially began a negotiating process from whenever that program set up court basically court settlement case settlement conferences.
Um they called them settlement hearings because the court or the program was looking to settle cases. So their intention and you can ask any of the program judges was to settle meaning they wanted to negotiate most. >> So it was a negotiation. So, if the township says, "We want zero units and
we think this is why, you know, it's got wetlands, it's got this, you can't do this, you can't do that." Uh, the program could respond and say, "Make a little room, do this, do that." So, the there was a planner and a judge who basically were adjudicating 300, 400 of these around the state, setting up these
conferences, and, you know, working at warp speed to settle cases. Some towns had one challenger, some had 17 challengers, some had something in between. Sparta Sparta had something in between. Um and so um I will not say or I'll give you my
opinion that the process was not very kind to municipalities. If the intention is to settle uh then it's not very kind because you're looking you're not looking for for uh just nothing. Someone's going to get something when you're negotiating. You're probably going to meet in the middle. Um and that
essentially was the program's decision. So the program decision and order if a township couldn't come to the table and say we're going to settle most of the program decisions you'll see where that didn't happen either said we're taking it to court to figure we're getting a little more time kind of like Sparta's decision says that um or if you did
settle uh good for you get everything done by March 15th and you'll get your immunity you'll be on your way. So um it was a push-and-shove process um but essentially it was it was adjudicated in in a quasi court through this program uh with a judge present and um that's how a
lot of decisions were made. >> But where does the planning board come in on zone you know exceeding of of of zoning and and the town council. >> So let me clarify the program dictates what the t what zones the town has to implement in order to make those sites
viable. So if a developer X comes in and says I want a 100 units on my property through the program they negotiated 50 and the zoning right now doesn't permit that the township then as a program requirement you know in that order would say zone developer X's site for 50 50
whatever units uh by March 15th. >> Okay. But you're talking numbers of units and and and and I I'm talking more height, >> use, you know, other other features of a specific site, but I'm not going to
mention it because we're not here for that tonight. >> And in most cases, that played into the settlement conversations. And so in townships that were lucky that brought that up and said we want to restrict it to this high, to these setbacks, to this, those get included and can be
included and can still be part of a zoning ordinance. You're going to see, if you look around the state at town council agendas right now, you're going to see almost every town has a has on their agenda a zoning ordinance for an affordable housing site. And it's going to be a typical zoning ordinance that's going to establish bulk standards,
density allowances, uh landscaping requirements, building height, uh affordable housing requirements, etc. Um so that zoning ordinance will not just capture the amount of units, it will capture the bulk standards that regulate it as well. >> So essentially it's the town council through an ordinance that establishes
what the density of a specific site is. >> The program, >> not the plan. the program. No, the town council is the legislative body that adopts laws and so the town council is the one that adopts ordinances. >> But just so it's clear, the state has determined the number of units that is
required in Sparta, >> right? >> Sparta now has to say practicality what's feasible for that number and the objectors could say we can do better than that and that's what uh the com that's where we are now. So, and that
you got a good team. So, >> okay, good. Thanks. Appreciate it. >> You're welcome. >> David Fortunado, Sparta, New Jersey. I want to make sure I understood correctly that the um ordinance 2603 was written in response to the program
decision and the the order from the court yesterday to bring Sparta in compliance with what those two documents had set forth. Is that right? >> It largely follows the February 5th program recommendation
>> um from about a month ago and then that program order that just came out yesterday. I had a chance to look at it and it that follows very much what the re it didn't go in opposition of what that recommend the original recommendation included. >> Okay. So so the recommendation dealt specifically with two properties, right?
Well, two properties that had that Sparta had negotiated a settlement with and a third property that was still outstanding. and those properties have not yet been introduced with zoning at the township council level. Um the only portion that has been addressed is the
um affordable h the more general affordable housing ordinance which is a requirement eventually by April 30th now um as well as the repeal of the TC overlay which has been permitted by that order which is why I brought it up. >> So the owner of one of the properties plead guilty under a federal indictment
yesterday. So, it's likely that that pro that property will be seized by the government and no longer part of the consideration. Can we now go back and rewrite um 2603 to uh revise any provisions that were specifically
directed to that property? >> 230 2603 is not specific to that site. It is no way zones that site. It does not provide any zoning rights to that site. 2603 is a general regulatory ordinance that governs all affordable
housing requirements in the township. Um that that order has um items that have yet to be accomplished by the township council including that property. Um which uh thank you for the news of that and I'm sure it is something that we
will bring up to Judge Allen as we go into the court. Just to clarify, 2603 is in a way DCA had a template that they released that they recommended that every municipality adopt. DC um that ordinance that is
being heard today and we're speaking about right now is an iteration of what DCA had submitted. So the DCA, >> what is DCA? >> Oh, it's the Department of Community Affairs. So it's a state it's a state level organization. So, when you look at this ordinance for affordable housing
ordinance, you can look at Jefferson's affordable housing ordinance. You can look over at um I'm in Norwood. You can look over there. You can see that. And the ordinance is going to be almost identical in most of these municipalities except for in certain places. It's a pretty general ordinance.
The standards that are put in there are the standards that are across the state. So, nothing in there is um out of the ordinary. It's just what is being recommended to be adopted to reach compliance >> by the state. >> Thank you. One final comment. It appears
that um the proposed uh 2603 differs from the current version um in a significant respect um that the current version uh allows for the incentive zoning for properties that are 2 acres or more. the subject
property that I was talking about is a half an acre and the ad the proposed version the proposed ordinance 2603 doesn't have that acreage limitation in it. So it seems to me that it was rewritten to allow for the um the uh
five west property to fall under 2603 and get the incentive zoning. >> Let me clarify um because Miss Ferman had asked the same question. um the incentive zoning ordinance which you just referred to that's under 18-8.5
I or L I believe >> L1B >> L yeah that um that section is being repealed in its entirety meaning the incentives no longer no longer apply not only to properties that are two acres but no properties at all in those zones
that are designated it's being repealed in its entirety. It does not it's not going to exist if this is adopted. The I I believe and you can correct me if I'm wrong 2603 includes a provision under 18 proposed 18-8.5
number four the municipalitywide mandatory set aside ordinance. This requires it's not a provision that gives anyone zoning rights that gives you the right to a density variance redevelopment plan resoning. It simply
says that if you do benefit from those things that you have to require affordable housing and the reason being is that you can choose not to and um you'll see in some cases where towns have fulfilled their full obligation or you know received their certification previously
may have affordable housing developments that have an affordable set aside that have a mix of market and affordable but then thereafter they received certification or whatever it was in the past from from KA that they decided to build full market rate development velments and not require an affordable set aside or didn't have an ordinance
that imposed that requirement. This is not giving any zoning rights to any property. It is not allowing any property. Just saying that if you do become before the zoning board or you seek a redevelopment plan from the council, you have to do affordable housing in your development. It is a requirement that hopefully will benefit
the township in that any additional projects beyond what's in the housing element fair share plan would be required then to to have affordable housing in them and the township would get additional units towards any future rounds or obligations. >> Thank you very much. >> You're welcome.
>> You anyone else from the public? >> Okay, seeing none, Ken, would you mind crafting a motion? Sure. Uh we have before us uh ordinance number 26-03
uh the Sparta fourth round amended fair housing plan which uh we have reviewed and we have a written report from Katherine dated March 2nd 2006 as to its consistency. It is also my professional
opinion that housing in the state of New Jersey in of itself uh is a positive aspect by way of the constitutional right and consistency with the existing master plan and the future master plan. So if uh the board someone would move
the uh finding that ordinance 26-03 as presented is consistent with the uh Sparta master plan and that will be sent to the mayor and council and their consideration at I believe the March 10th hearing uh at second reading in
which public comment will be permitted. >> I have a motion and a second. I'll make the motion. >> I'll second. Roll call vote, please raise. >> Christine Quinn, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor Mike Sylvester, >> yes. >> Ronda Day,
>> yes. >> Christine Dunar, >> yes. >> Joan Ferman, >> yes. >> Ernie Ragstead, >> yes. >> Brian Zimmerman, >> yes. >> Beer Bogler, >> yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Janette Burke, >> yes. >> Chairwoman Celeste Luciano, >> yes.
>> Okay, thank you very much. >> All right, >> that was a heavy lift. Wait. >> I love I I just need to say something before everybody leaves because I know that's what's going to end up happening. I love the fact that this room is full. I love the fact that people are present.
I love the fact that people are paying attention. Please continue to do so. We are working on the master plan. Your voices should be heard and your presence is truly appreciated. I I really I I can't say enough about about how much I
appreciate the people in this room and anybody who's potentially joining us online. Thank you so very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Chair, the uh it may be appropriate now to go into close session. Uh we're going to be talking about the uh pending litigation uh
status and then the room would have to be cleared anyway. >> I move that we move into executive session. >> Yes. Can I have a motion and a second for executive at this stage? >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second it. >> And just for the public, when we go into close session, we will not be coming
back out for a determination. I am only advising them. Thank you. >> And all in favor? >> How about the rest of the agenda? >> Or oppose? >> There there will be public comments. So that's >> Well, why can't we do that before they You know,
>> that was my I was a little confused because I was looking to move forward. I was trying to clear the room. I was trying to clear the room. >> You don't have to leave. >> So, I've been trying to talk to her to figure out because we never got >> right. I I had thought we we had
reserved the right to have that at the end. >> I did. I checked. >> So, we'll have executive later, guys. If everybody wants to stay, >> anybody wants to stay, >> we're going to move executive session. >> Items not on the agenda,
>> please feel free. >> I know. Nobody's not on the agenda. >> Jim Castmore, Spartan, two weeks ago, um, you had a fella here doing a traffic study thing. Uh, you had done any work before in
Sussex County? No. Bergen County. Um, you what's your things? Well, Lynhurst, American Dream Mall. Guy doesn't know the first thing about Sparta and he tells you all about the traffic problems in Sparta. Let's see if
I can get him straight. Northshore Trail, Southshore Trail, Pine Street. In case you don't know where Pine Street is, it's a little cut. It used to be a dirt road. There's only one house on it.
Pine cone lane and Stan Hope Road. Woodport in Winona. Uh what do you think about Route 15? There's not really any problems out there. Sparta Township needs uh
uh we need more walkways, sidewalks, and we need more trails. The guy works down Lynhurst. Lynhurst is less than five square miles. Yeah, that works down there.
Sparta Township's just shy of 39 square miles. I think it's 38.75 if my memory corrects me. And I don't think anybody's going to walk from Edison to the stop and shop on a sidewalk. It was the most poor traffic study I've
ever seen. The man tells you that you should put in roundabouts or rotaries or circles. Ernie, where do you think we should put one? Pool's corner? How about Bedell's Corner? How about long necker corner?
I mean, this is who hired this guy? Who's is is he a part of the family and friends group or what? It was appalling. Poor. There's a police chief sitting right there. You can tell you was a poor
study. What do you think? And I can see the smile on your face already. I just want to tell you that I mean I've lived in this town all my life. For a man to come here and tell you you need sidewalks and trails, you need
roundabouts. Really? I can see a roundabout at Longnecker's Corner. In case you don't know where that is, that's Woodport Road, Stan Hope Road, and Winona Parkway. Yeah, I could see that there. That'll work great. What do you think? Track
trailer coming down. Kill everybody. The other thing, too, before I leave, the planning board needs to look at site plans more carefully. I'm going to give you an example.
The new gas station over on Newton Sparta Road was put there a few years ago. The only way the gas tanker can get in there, he makes a lefthand turn on Perona Farms Road, he has to get all the
way over in the shoulder of the opposite side of the road to get himself back around to get in there. And if you go over and look at the curb, the entrance curb going in that way, it's all busted to heck. There's nothing left to it. I watched the other day
going in there. Half these guys don't know how to drive. Let's face the facts of life. You I've been driving all my life. I've been it's my business. But uh when you start doing these things and the other thing too is with all this lovely Belgium block you have in town.
This winter was the shining example. Where do you put the snow, push up to the curb, pretty soon you're 5 ft out. You couldn't get in the post office parking lot for 2 days cuz it was
all snow. They had to go in and muck it out. Had to muck out the bowling alleys. But that's my thoughts. That traffic study was terrible. Waste of money. I mean, you got a former police chief sitting right there and he's got a smirk on his face. He knows that was a waste
of money. Roundabouts in Sparta, sidewalks. Yeah. Guys from Bergen County. What' you expect? So, that's my thoughts. Thank you. Have a nice evening, everybody. Thank you. Thanks. Hi, Jenny Derek's staff to Sparta. I
just had a couple of questions. Um the So the letter that's on the agenda, that's why you asked if you're going to do the rest of the agenda. >> Yeah, we we were anticipating doing the rest of the agenda, but >> Okay. And I'm sorry if I'm jumping the gun because you didn't get through it. Do you want me to wait? um
ask a question. >> So is this the first time that such a letter has been received by the planning board from DCR asking or extending time? >> Yeah, I can answer that. There are
letters. It's public record if uh that DCR is taking the position they requesting extension of times. It was duly noted and I put on the record in the past that we have dismissed the DCR
application without prejudice because it's in my opinion and the board had determined it was kind of silly for us to just keep it on the agenda uh when we're all awaiting the court determinations. So, I believe that we uh
we are going into close session uh and I will give my advice as to moving forward, but it is not uncommon that Diamond Chip is asking for an extension and this board has continually said we
um dismissed your application without prejudice pending court opinion. So, we're saying the same thing uh by way of outcome. We're all waiting for the court determination. Uh, but we have different interpretations. >> So, you're saying because you said you
said put this on the record before, I must have been asleep. Um, I think I would have jumped up if I heard this. You're saying that you dis that the planning board has dismissed without prejudice that they that DCR can come back. Does that mean they would be subject? Are they out of time? Out of
the time of application rule? >> You can Oprah my letters. It's public record. I made it on the saying you didn't say it. I'm saying I missed it. >> The court, Judge Minkowitz, >> right, told them to come back. >> Told them to come back
>> and they haven't. >> And they haven't. So, as far as my professional opinion is that the trial court has directed them to do something which they have not done. >> Okay. >> Now, they have created their own rule by saying that they have the right to ask
for a continuence. I'm not sure where they get that right. Um, and the sad part with law is there is some gray area. They call it an extension. We're not saying that they can't come back before the board, but we
are not recognizing that they have a pending application because they are not following the last court determination. If the appellet court was to agree with DCR diamond chip and say that they have some type of
vested rights and judge Minkowitz was wrong, then they can come before the board saying they have prior rights. So I don't mean to be confusing. They
are they DCR is saying they have the right an extension. I believe that is contrary to Judge Minkowitz. That's contrary to common sense and we have written in response at least three times that I'm saying
thank you for your letter but the board has determined that your matter is dismissed without prejudice because they could come before the board right now if they wanted >> right with but they would have to come meeting the current
>> correct judge makeit's opinion yes >> just to follow up on that though um we did do all of that and it has not been on the agenda. What caused it to be on today's agenda? >> That was my next question. >> Uh you know something the I'll take a a
little bit of uh uh fault on that. I'm the board attorney since March. It's been one year. So uh thank you everybody. Uh and >> happy anniversary >> and I'm merely given the litigation status. I had said to the chair, it's more than likely this discussion should
be in close session. Uh and therefore I wanted to give the board my professional opinion in close session as to as to the pending litigation where we are. >> But the extension of time letter that we get every single month never makes it to
the agenda. But it's on here now. like I'm not sure what triggered is this going to be on next month and the month after and the month after now. >> Uh no, I requested the chair I personally felt it was proper for me as
your attorney to let you know the status of the pending litigation. So there's no surprise and there's uh again I'm doing my job. That's what I feel. >> Thank you. I did have um a couple of other questions real quick. Um at the uh two meetings prior you had stated that
under your authority as a town um representing the township in the DCR2 appeal that you and Mr. Sylvester and u Mr. Zep represented the township uh in a comp in a discussion. I think you you
characterized it with diamondship um with in in light of the um federal judge uh putting a hold on that case with require mandated mediation. Is it going to be the same team or are there going
to be different people representing Sparta? Uh that that is uh kind of uh a tricky question by way of we have council on the federal matter. I am handling the state appellet matter. The
mayor and council will determine uh who will handle the federal uh mediation. Uh but as far as this is all good uh the property within a community has utility.
So whether that utility is a warehouse, is a community center, is a something else, uh is something that should be able to be reasonably worked out. Uh having a mediator look at it and make
recommendations very positive. Uh if there's an opportunity for diamond chip, and I've said this many times, we're going through the master plan. if they were reasonable and had a reasonable plan and would like to
bring that to our attention, now is the opportunity. So, uh any litigation matter uh in the history of uh law has always settled one way or the other. So whether it settles through settlement or
court determination, I would hope that uh DCR and the municipality are able to settle it either through the federal mediation or the good faith efforts of uh this board. But we the ball is in their court. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Adrien Berman Sparta I've I would like to go back to ordinance 2602. Um we had um the chair gave us an opportunity to uh to comment before but
I couldn't formulate my question quickly enough. When I look at the information about Roxberry and how they ended up as an ice uh facility, it was an existing warehouse that was sold by the owner to
to ICE and is being used for a different purpose than to which it was approved whenever it was built in the past. Now, Sparta does not have any such buildings at the present time. So we cannot sell an existing mega warehouse
to ICE to to serve as a detention center. They were able to do it in Roxberry under the supremacy clause. If we had such a building in Sparta, they might do
it in Sparta under the same supremacy clause. So my question is, is there any mechanism in the master plan current or future? Are there any ordinances that would prevent a developer such as Diamond Chip from obtaining
an approval for a warehouse? turn around, sell it to a different developer, maybe one affiliated with ICE or specializing in the kind of structures they need and be approved under one set of circumstances, sell the
permit, sell the approval to a different developer who then goes arm in-armm with ICE under the supremacy clause and that's how we end up with say a detention center. Um, it is hypothetical, but I'm thinking
of Flush Holdings, which got an approval for the high-rise apartment building and then sold the approval to a different developer who is now presumably building it. Is there anything that we have in our township that would stop such a
mechanism, bait and switch if you will, from from happening? >> Yeah. The nice thing about the master plan is we're giving the portrait of the uh your community. Now, the flush uh application was for residential and was
sold and continues to be residential. So, that's kind of uh true. So here if a warehouse is approved and um like in Roxbury, could the federal government just come in and Roxbury is saying no and the
federal government is saying yes and we'll see how that pans out. But I think the ordinance here by way of the community of Sparta is saying to the world, we don't believe this use works here for safety, for traffic, for a
number of reasons. So you have put out your voice whether or not someone else wants to challenge it in the future. You can't prevent that, but you're sending a loud message that that land use uh you don't believe is permitted here. So, so ordinance
>> 2602 >> 2602 is aspirational essentially >> it's any ordinance that we put forth. Let's say you own a piece of property and it says that you cannot put a bar in that in that zone. Uh but you want to
put a family community uh bar that you think would work in that area. Uh you're going to limit the hours to a certain time. It's not permitted by zone. you go before the board of adjustment and you seek a use variance. So here we are
saying that it is not permitted in any zone but could someone come in and go before the board of adjustment and seek a use variance? They could. Could the federal government come in and say we have the supremacy clause and we don't have to get your approval and you have a Roxberry situation? That could happen
also. But if you are a legislator uh for the federal government or a executive for the federal government and you see Sparta has given a message uh you may hopefully respect that message that land use message. >> Sure. And Roxberry shows that they don't
listen. >> But I don't think Rox Let's see how >> I get it. Yes. >> Yeah. Yes. Um so then I do have a question about the apartment building. Maybe Mr. Simmons knows um is it being developed? Is it being built? And is it being built
according to all the changes that we requested at the approval hearings uh last year? >> That's flust. >> Yeah. The the FLUS building. >> Yes. I I can speak to that because I've seen that uh they had a conditional
approval and the uh they are obligated to provide certain documentation and if they do provide that documentation they can get uh an approval. It's conditional use so they're checking it off. So uh at this
time we're awaiting their compliance but if they do what they said they were supposed to do they will be able to build the project. And will it be built according to all the design uh requirements that we established at the planning board about a year ago? If it
was in the resolution and within the review, whatever was approved, David, can you speak any more to that? >> Yes. where they are right now. Uh we had received uh requests from the planning department in the town uh for regarding
a zoning permit, but they weren't able to issue the zoning permit at this time because they're still as Mr. Porro said uh working on complying with the resolution compliance with all the conditions. For example, they to the best of my knowledge at this point, they
still have to, for example, obtain DOT approval for the access tie in onto Sparta Avenue, which is Route 181, which is a state highway. They have to tie their storm drainage in. They have to tie their sewer in, their water, etc., etc. So there are conditions and that's
just one of them for example that they have to submit to our office so we can review it and then write a letter to the planning department and indicate that at that time based on all the additional in revised information submitted that they could go ahead with the project.
>> Okay. So nothing concrete you have but we're still in the planning in the approval phase. Okay. Thank you. And if they did have deviations, they would come back before the board seeking an amendment and new notice would be given a property notice within 200 feet and in the paper. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Um I'm going to assume at this point we've kind of gone through correspondence. Can we move to updates quickly before we move into executive? This way we can end that portion of the meeting. >> Okay.
Okay. So, we will move forward to updates. Um, deputy mayor, town council, >> the class 2 position as mentioned earlier, um, should be on the upcoming
agenda and the position should be filled. Um, that's the only update I'm going to provide right now. As you know, I've carried the updates back and forth. If there's no other further updates, unless I'm missing something, Ken, I think
we're good, right? >> We will move forward to the Environmental Commission. >> Full disclosure, I was not there, but I did listen to the meeting. So, I just wanted to let you know that we're still waiting to hear back about our sustainable New Jersey grant that is for
um we're asking for $20,000 towards the environmental inventory resource inventory which would complement and be a part of the appendix of the master plan. So, we still have our fingers crossed on that. And um on a lighter note um we're applying for another grant
um from Anjek and that is for um $1,500 and this is for a um a program that would educate the public as to the value of bats. And then we would have money to install batouses in specific areas in
our um Glenn and throughout Sparta upon their advisement. So, and then of course we're still having our our Earth Day on the on the 25th out here. >> If it rains, it's inside. It's inside. We get to move inside. That's That's
pretty cool. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. For subcommittees, um my site plan subcommittee did meet this evening. We do have a pending application. We did not have an applicant in front of us, so there was no resolution to that
application. Um we are anticipating to invite that applicant to our meeting on the 18th so that we can bring that application to resolution. Um and for master plan subcommittee our next meeting is on March 9th. Um and we
intend to discuss the feedback regarding the circulation element uh presentation um and discuss our expectations moving forward. And we're going to review an updated schedule for future presentations which uh has been presented to the subcommittee for
review. And that is the update on subcommittees. >> Question. What has happened with the biner site plan subcommittee minutes that we're going back still to October, November, December? >> Unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity to get back to them yet
given the fact that we're short-handed administratively. I had to kind of set certain parameters in place so that we could keep what we've got moving forward, but it is on my list of things to do. I do promise that it will be I I also know that you're not going to be at the next meeting. So, I will make sure
that there's going to be something there for you to review. I promise that. >> I might be or I could call in. I don't know. We'll see. Um because if you get January through December correct and that was almost correct, I mean it was like almost there then
it's just a matter of clipping out October and November just I understand completely. I just unfortunately personally have not had time to sit with it. So I >> but you shouldn't have to. You're not the board secretary, >> right? But the unfortunate circumstances right now we're short-handed administratively. So in order to be able
to facilitate them, I said that this would be something that I would undertake and and I I unfortunately dropped the ball on this one. >> Not blaming you. >> Oh, you should. It's fine. >> Just ask them where they are.
>> So, yes, I I do I I I will get I will get it done. I I do promise that. Um okay, moving forward. We've gotten through our updates. We've gotten through our open to the public. Um, now we can move forward with executive session. May I have a motion and a
second for executive? >> Janess made the motion. Can I have a second? >> Can we take a five minute break in between? Would anyone mind if we >> three minutes? >> I don't mind at all. I can use >> You want to do the break before the Okay, >> thank you. >> So, we will be taking a fivem minute
recess and then we will be going into executive and gang. I do not need the planner. Okay, we are finally back and we are ready to have a motion and a second for executive session. >> Make a motion for executive session.
>> And I have a second. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Okay. We will be moving into executive session. When we come out of executive session, we will be moving into adjournment. No further action will be taken.
>> Okay. gave us which I didn't really even read yet. It was on the um >> awesome acres. >> The bottom line with that >> that was just upholding the zoning that you're supporting.
>> Count to defend it, but I didn't know what counts one and two were. So we are back on >> motion to enjo come back into open. >> Motion to open. >> I second. >> All in favor? I. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn.
>> Just for the record the close session minutes. uh when we went into close session, I talked broadly about uh litigation rights and then those that were involved in DCR matter who were accused did leave the room and I gave some additional legal advice that matter
and so >> in case that wasn't heard on the microphone on the live stream, Ken Porro uh it excuse me stated that after some basic brief information regarding DCR, those who were accused from DCR left the
room for the remainder of the executive session. We returned upon uh closing of executive session so that we could adjourn. >> Motion to return. >> Second. own savor.