I'm I'm not seeing it on the stream. >> Neither am I. Okay. I'm seeing it. The question is am I seeing it from the beginning or am I seeing it currently? >> Oh, there it is. Okay. >> I see it. >> Are we back? It looks like it's up.
>> Yep, I hear it and I see it. >> Okay, great. >> I just heard Bron. >> So, we apologize for the technical difficulties. You see it? >> Yes. >> So, again, we apologize for the tech technical difficulties. Hopefully, that
will not have uh that will not happen again. Um but, we will pass the ball back over to Lindsay, if you wouldn't mind. >> Sure. Um so, the overall consistency with ordinance number 26-11 amends section 18-4.5H
of the Township Code entitled General Restrictions to prohibit data centers in all zones within Sparta Township. Although, the master plan and re-examination reports do not specifically address data centers by name, the planning documents consistently emphasize preservation of rural residential character, protection
of natural resources, retention of open space, protection of environmentally sensitive land and water resources, appropriate growth management, safe circulation, and compatibility with regional welfare objectives. Ordinance number 26-11 advances those planning objectives by
prohibiting a land use characterized by substantial energy demand, cooling infrastructure, backup generation, utility installations, secured site design, and other operational features that are not well suited to Sparta's land use patterns or long-standing planning goals. Therefore, in my professional opinion,
ordinance number 26-11 is not is consistent with the 1984 master plan and subsequent master plan reexamination report. Um So, I trust that you find that in order, and if you have any questions, I am here for you.
>> So, we will open it up to the dais questions. We will start down on Jones' end. >> I don't have any. >> Okay. Mike? >> No questions. >> Chris? >> No questions. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> No questions.
>> No questions. >> That is amazing, and you've done an a wonderful job. We will open it up to the public for any questions or comments. >> Hi, Mike Devine, Sparta. I'm in a contrary mood tonight, so I'll I'll make a an annoying point.
Sounded like what Lindsey read, first of all, could prohibit almost anything in town. I mean, and a lot of big stuff could have been could almost be prohibited. It was pretty thorough and compelling, I thought. I know there's a tidal wave nationwide and and and or wherever else against
data centers. I just hope we're not missing an opportunity. I think as these things grow and become more present, you're going to find that they become pretty much self-sustained power-wise, utility-wise, whatever wise they got to be.
And they could well turn out to be a relatively low-intensity source and the great ratable we're always looking for. I doubt they have many employees. I don't know what their impact on the town would be, assuming they're strongly self-contained. I'll give Councilman Sylvester credit. I
know in council he keeps saying, "Let's find out a a about these things before we make decisions." I don't know if this falls into that category or not. But let's if if we're going to close it out indefinitely, I think this is a a move to be considered. If it turned out after some further
analysis, and I'm not criticizing Lindsay, I thought she did a great job. It's not inconsistent with the master plan. That's not necessarily the same as being consistent, I guess. So just a thought if it continues in much further, maybe there's a time when
you might want to reconsider the move we're taking tonight. Thanks. >> Yeah, thank you. Anyone else? And Mike, to your point, um regardless of the decision that's made here tonight, the beauty of going through a master plan process is that this is also going to get reviewed again.
So um regardless, like I said, of whatever decision gets made here, it'll be analyzed and it'll be determined as to whether or not that this decision is appropriate, not appropriate, or otherwise. >> And just to add, Lindsay, when you did your analysis, there are the four tiers of data centers, different types of data
centers. This ordinance kind of focuses on the tier one for the most part. Can you want to maybe elaborate on that for clarification? >> Yeah, so there's other um there's other kind of data centers. There's like the co-location data center where there's multiple um services located at there.
This is looking at the kind of the you know, the large data centers that you can unfortunately hear about mostly on on the news, right? The ones that are taking up enough energy for multiple municipalities um that are incredibly draining on the resources. However, there are other
types of there are smaller-scale data centers. There are ones that um are just being used for example, in my experience um working in the Meadowlands, one of the larger banks took an old office that they had and they used it just for their server
rooms. Um so there's smaller-scale ones as well. This is meant to be those large-scale, incredibly demanding on your infrastructure um type data centers. This is not um >> Not pertinent to those smaller entities. >> Yes. Okay. >> Thank you.
>> That having been said, no additional questions. I will be looking for a motion in a second to approve this consistency review for uh ordinance 26-11.
>> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second. >> The second is Was the second Chris Dunbar? >> Christine Dunbar. >> Mike Wallace. >> So, yes. >> A yes is that you're deeming it consistent? Yes. >> Yes.
>> Deputy Mayor Sylvester. >> Yes. >> Ron Day. >> Yes. >> Christine Dunbar. >> Yes. >> Joan Foreman. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, that has been deemed consistent with the master plan, and we will be moving on to the next consistency review, which is ordinance amending chapter
uh okay, entitled comprehensive land management code to amend portions of section 18-4 uh 29 entitled economic development district, portions of section 18-435 entitled PDRM-1 district zone, and
portions of section 18-436 entitled PDRM-2 district zone. Lindsay, I will give the the floor back to you. >> Yes. So, um just to give some highlights on the changes that are being proposed here. Um
there are three significant changes that are occurring within the ordinances from the max building coverage of 175,000 square feet is being reduced to 75,000 square feet. In addition, the max
allowable tenants. So when 175,000 square feet was permitted, you could have two tenants per warehouse for uses and structures over 100,000 square feet. Now there is no requirement for that. So these 75,000 square foot warehouses
could be broken up with more than one tenant. And then in addition, the max allowable number of dock door ratio. So for the previous existing regulation for building 0 square feet to 75,000 square
feet, one per 5,000 square feet of gross floor area for loading dock. For building 75,000 square foot or greater, they require one loading dock per 8,000 square feet. The new proposed amendment is for building 0 square feet to 75,000 square
feet and there would just be one per 5,000 square feet of gross floor area or five dock doors, whichever is greater. So those are the the changes that are happening within these um within these
ordinances. And just to reiterate, my report and my memo is based solely on the master plan and those documents that are within those documents. So the master plan consistency review. So the 2020 master plan re-examination report prepared by Harbor Consultants um
from prior recommendations that remain valid and could continue to be implemented. D, the board through circulation element of the master plan should examine the relationship between land use and traffic congestion, specifically the town center and Route 15 corridor, and develop strategies to reduce the
negative impacts. In addition, it says updating the circulation element of the master plan remains a valid objective of the 2018 re-examination report and still needs to be addressed. Beyond using the master plan as a tool, it is recommended that the development applications before either of the township land use board
shall be required to provide traffic studies for proposed development, especially in the town center and Route 15 corridor to document existing traffic patterns and understand additional impacts. In the absence of an updated circulation element, it is recommended that any findings of these traffic studies, including mitigation strategies
and off-track contributions, be considered by the township board as deemed necessary. So, in terms of consistency, the proposed ordinance, um as it is today, is inconsistent with these recommendations. The re-examination report reinforces the goals of evaluating how specific land
uses affect traffic congestion, focusing heavily on reducing negative impacts along the Route 15 corridor. The ED zone sits directly adjacent to this corridor in eastern and western areas of the township. By cutting the maximum allowable building size from 175 sq ft
down to 75 sq ft, the ordinance relies on the flawed idea that the physical building scale dictates traffic volume. In planning practice, trip generation is driven by operational intensity, not size alone. Rather than limiting traffic growth on an already crowded corridor,
this blanket cap fails to regulate the true driver of congestion and may inadvertently permit high traffic impact generators under a smaller physical footprint. So, in my mind, by strictly limiting the size of the building, you're not limiting the intensity of the
use. Um so, it could end up being a smaller building with a much higher traffic, more people working there. I know, um as stated earlier, right, data centers, although we're saying they're prohibited, may have less employees than a larger scale warehouse where there's a lot more people working there
day-to-day. Um or by the same token, um, traffic generators such as deliveries, pickups, um, fleet vehicles, things like that. Um, the 1984 Master Plan goals and objectives, number two, provide the safe and convenient movement of vehicles and
pedestrians. The proposed ordinance is inconsistent with this Master Plan goal. The changes do not guarantee improved safety or convenience for drivers and pedestrians because shrinking the allowed building size does not naturally limit the total volume of cars and heavy trucks traveling into the ED district
because vehicle and heavy truck trip generation is dictation dictated by operations. A high turnover use capped at 75,000 square feet can introduce severe traffic pressures and logistical conflicts along the Route 15 corridor. Conversely, a 175,000 square foot low
turnover facility might generate a fraction of that vehicular traffic. By utilizing a blanket bulk standard instead of managing actual land use intensity, the ordinance fails to protect the adjacent transportation network or ensure the safe, efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians.
The next is safeguard the tax base, preserve economic balance and provide for a continuing source of employment and tax ratables through appropriate use of existing and potential non-residential land. The proposed ordinance is inconsistent with the Master Plan goal. The Master Plan
emphasizes preserving economic base and securing employment through the appropriate use of non-residential land. By reducing the maximum allowable building size by 57%, the ordinance arbitrarily restricts the zones economic growth, devalues development potential of the ED
district, and and PDRM zones, and lowers the ceiling for future jobs and tax ratables. So, essentially, the municipality is going to lose out on 100,000 square feet of tax ratable space. Further, it limits the township's economic yield while still potentially
allowing high intensity, high impact traffic users to occupy smaller 75,000 square foot footprints. And in this case, it could be multiple tenants within that footprint. This arbitrary reduction restricts robust economic development without offering any guaranteed protection for local
infrastructure, failing to meet the master plan's directive for balanced, appropriate non-residential land use. And then finally, um six, continue to encourage the village neighborhood land use pattern. The proposed ordinance is inconsistent with this master plan goal. While a village neighborhood pattern
relies on keeping buildings compatible with the local landscape and preventing sprawling facilities from encroaching into residential areas. This ordinance treats physical building footprint as the sole measure of incompatibility by focusing on size rather than use and operational impacts. The ordinance fails
to preserve the true character of the village neighborhood pattern as well as the intention of the ED and PDRM zones. Uh so, um in conclusion, the proposed amendments to the township comprehensive land management code modify the maximum building coverage requirements and
eliminate logistic requirements for buildings exceeding the new 75,000 square foot threshold within these zones. While the master plan and subsequent reexamination reports do not explicitly dictate a specific cap on building coverage, they consistently emphasize the vital planning objective
balancing it economic growth with impacts on local infrastructure, traffic circulation, visual character, and natural resources. In my professional opinion, the proposed amendments to these zones are inconsistent with the 1984 master plan and subsequent reexamination reports by
focusing entirely on physical building size rather than the regulation of actual land use and operational factors. The ordinance fails to address the true drivers of local traffic congestion, noise, and environmental degradation. A smaller footprint does not guarantee reduced impacts if the
underlying use is high intensity. Yet this ordinance restricts the probability of seeing complex, well-designed corporate or industrial campuses that generate strong economic activity. Um and finally, I encourage the board to consider these details when deciding as to the consistency of the proposed ordinance amendments and the current
master plan. Rather than a rigid flat cap, the board should consider a framework of tiered site design standards, scaled environmental regulation, and mandatory traffic impact studies that adjust according to a building's actual operational intensity, offering a more effective and legally sound method to
achieve the township's land use, traffic, and environmental goals. >> We will open it up to the board for questions. Birgit? >> Um So, this isn't the first time that the that these zones have been downsized,
right? It used to be like you could build as big as you wanted, and then they went down to 175,000 square feet. >> Mhm. >> So, what makes further reducing it to 75,000
square feet? If that first reduction was considered not inconsistent with the master plan, what makes this second round of reductions or downsizing inconsistent? >> the first piece is the 175,000 square
feet was capped because at that time there was no cap, right? You could build as large as you wanted. And at that time, the town planner also wrote a consistency report saying that the 175 was consistent at that size. So, in addition to her saying that that size is
consistent, I think that the smaller size, now we're reducing 100,000 square feet of ratable square footage that could be used towards the taxpayers, as opposed to $100,000 or
not 100 the 100,000 square feet of ratable that's now being taken from the taxpayer that it now becomes a loss essentially and in these zones, especially the ED zone, which is economic development, we're now looking at reducing ratable. So, how are we
driving economic development while reducing the size of a viable space? >> Okay. Is a 75,000 square foot warehouse considered like mid-sized industrial? >> Well, what we learned earlier is that
earlier today, Dave and I can talk about it, but the for example, 11 and 13 Aaron Way, which was on the agenda earlier this year, was 76,000 square feet. To give you an idea of kind of the the most recent one. Um,
Dave, in your opinion, do you think a 76,000 is mid-sized? >> I would say I would say that was mid-size of the type of uh, site plans we've seen come before the Township Planning Board over the years. And that
particular application on Aaron Drive was actually the combination of two lots as I recall. >> Mhm. >> And it was on the rail dependent area. >> Okay. >> Yeah, and I mean, I think also it's relative to the municipality of is that a mid-size warehouse where as opposed to
maybe in a Lyndhurst, that would be considered a small warehouse. Where there warehouses being built on a much larger scale. >> Right. And Lyndhurst has a much larger population, right? >> I don't think so, actually. It's a much smaller municipality.
>> Oh. Would would a applicant be allowed to come in front of the Planning Board and ask for a variance if they say say, "Well, we need an 80,000 square foot warehouse."
>> Well, they would have to be. So, they would no no as a right be permitted. So, for example, 11 and 13 Aaron Way, which we heard earlier this year, you would not hear them because they are 76,000. They would go to the zoning board. >> Okay. I might have more questions as
>> I >> So, um Lindsay, I agree I agree with everything that you said. Uh just want to maybe add add a couple things so I could. >> Sure. >> So, you know, when you look at the the 175 versus the 75,000, what the 75,000
could encourage is a subdivision of the lot. So, so what happens is instead of having one building of 175,000, you may have three buildings that now add up to that if the lot size permitted it.
So, in terms of cutting the size down just to control the traffic, you know, depending on on the applicant or on the on the use of what goes in those buildings, if they subdivide, it could literally make it worse, much much worse. So, I I agree
with I agree with your point there. The other thing that I want to talk about is when I look at the master plan and and I look at at the um you know, some some of the some of the amendments and the re-examinations, there was a huge
um emphasis on rail use. Um and and you know, I'm I'm not an expert. I wouldn't mind having having your your your opinion on this, but when I think of a rail use building at 75,000 square feet, that really to me almost discourages a a rail use based on
what I would consider a typical rail use size building. So, that also could be another inconsistency with the master plan. Do you have any thoughts on that? And and Dave, maybe if you could weigh in on that as well. >> The The only thing, just going back to
that last development on the end of Aaron Way. >> Mhm. >> That was rail dependent. And if you recall, it did have a siding that came on to the property. Um and I assume whatever they chose to put in that particular
warehouse would be a function of what they were doing and how much of the rail they would use. Uh but again they ended up making a lot combined two lots to have enough area to make a large enough warehouse as you say to make it viable.
>> All right. Thank you. I That's all my comments. >> Um Actually, Ron, you stole everything I >> [laughter] >> thought as well. So, I I I concur with exactly what you said. So, thanks. >> Rail use was a big topic as well. So.
That's it. I don't have more. >> Yeah. And the one is just to clarify. Thanks for keeping it simple. >> Yes. >> I think that was helpful. Um So, you you frame out number two, which everybody's been more or less talking about the size of of the square footage. And then
number seven is the the purpose of the ED's ED zone to begin with. >> Yes. >> And the uh the purpose for the commercial industrial, the ratable, the the offset to >> Yeah. >> you know, given Sparta and our township
the ability to offset our taxes by bringing these types of uses and thus the reason why it was cited in the master plan and and [clears throat] adopted and amended accordingly, correct? >> Correct. >> So, none of these
The just so the ordinance is here they're going to lower the ratables. In in in your analysis, it could lower the ratables. >> You're potentially losing out on a 100,000 square foot. Yeah, and I'm going to I'm going to tag Ken in cuz Ken deals a lot with tax assessment and um
potentially I a warehouse what square footage that could be per dollar could could create a large it could create it could help the tax base quite a bit I think. >> Okay, great. Thank you. And then the other thing is
there were no in in consideration when you see ordinances like this should there be a highest and best use and or a financial feasibility analysis done when you're proposing such an ordinance to again I think you know it echoes what I've been trying to say
this entire year is before we pass legislation let's educate and look at all our different options. So I do want to propose that and maybe can you could jump if there's other options here that could get us to a compromise here based on what I'm
hearing um to make sure that you're satisfying number two and number seven. That's where that's where it's inconsistent, correct? >> Yeah, correct. I think I think there are ways to look at if if the intention is the smaller footprint size or or if the if the intention of
the ordinance is less traffic I don't I don't know because they did not write it. Um but figuring out what the intent what the goal is for this ordinance, right? And then figuring out what mechanisms we can put in place to achieve that goal. So if it's traffic we
explore the uses or the types of warehouses and the trip generation associated with that the types of trucks that are associated with those types of warehouses and we determine you know the area where this is located it can't that roadway the level of service is not
there. We can't handle this size truck or and I think that having those kinds of studies and then making a decision on the uses and the types of warehouses and then you determine if the size is feasible, right? Because you could have a warehouse that's 175,000
square feet that's cold storage or or um I know I I keep going back to you know there's municipalities that just cuz I worked at NJSEA, there are um warehouses in the Meadowlands that are solely used to store
the hot air the the balloons for the Thanksgiving Day Parade, right? And that's not going to have a high volume of traffic, right? There's there are warehousing and types of storages that don't have high volume. You could also have a smaller
75,000 square foot warehouse that is an Amazon facility where you have fleet vehicles just coming and going all day and it's third-party um delivery services where it's someone coming in their personal car, picking up 20 packages, checking in, coming back,
getting 20 more, and just going back and forth all day. So, I think tying the traffic to the use is is important if that's the intention. I think also looking at the ratables and seeing what the true value is of having more or less
coverage or less space and how that does affect the tax base from an economic standpoint would be valuable. >> lastly, when towns in your experience go looking at doing a master plan reevaluation, whether it's 10, 20 year uh re- revals, um they do consider highest and best use use market
conditions in looking at their overall master plan reevaluation. Taking the traffic and all the different things that you mentioned into consideration, but it still has to pass some type of financial feasibility test to see what's the best use. Markets do change. What
could come into the an area maybe a less intense use, more uh favorable ratable use, less intense use. Markets change, right? >> the market of warehousing changes um where you know you have to also take a temp check and is this the size is
75,000 the type of warehousing that's being leased out pretty frequently or is a larger scale one being more in demand for uses and I think it's determining what is the requirement at that time based on those markets. >> Right. I I think that was important for
everybody up here to understand it's not just about square footage in comparison to square foot equals x ratable. There's different uses and different factors that go into it. >> Yeah, absolutely and I think having an analysis of you know, the market of the
uses having you know, even environmental standards that you can put in place >> Mhm. >> that have requirements for retention that have open space requirements. I think those are all valuable. >> All right. Well, thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. >> Christy.
>> Yeah, I I do feel like in this discussion, perhaps we aren't considering another factor and you just mentioned the word and that was the environment. >> Yeah. >> Because this area the PDRM 2 as well as
the PDRM 1 is right up against the preservation area. And when I look at this map that I was given given to us I think a while back by the town engineer um
and planner. Um I'm not seeing any consideration >> can you pull your mic closer? >> I'm not seeing any consideration being mentioned for any type of ecological consideration
such as wildlife corridor. Uh you know, if you look over towards the White Lake area you know, that's a greener area there. And this is one of the goals I believe that the state has and many conservation
organizations is to permit the passage of wildlife through through an area. So you know, so can you give me an idea 175,000
square acres or 7 acres 175,000 square feet versus 1.7 acres 75,000 square feet. What impact, you know, would that have and
should we be placing other considerations such as a buffer across that houses road, you know, area? I mean Yeah, actually you could put buildings in in a lot of different areas that
would be helpful or harmful to such corridors. >> Yeah, so I think you kind of hit the nail on the head with this. Um, so in the PDRM one, right, the it doesn't consider it just dictates the
size of the building while not considering what environmental strategies we could be putting in place. We're amending the ordinance, why don't we consider the location um, near, you know, Germany Flats. Why don't we consider maybe the building is
175,000 square feet, but what can what other items can you put on that property to ensure there's an open space buffer. There are things in place, but we're just considering at this time a change in the size of the building and I think once again it's not dictating like in
the um, in the uh, 2011 PDRM amendment to the master plan, it talks about water quality and by just simply creating a smaller building coverage, it's not looking at things like the
septic size that would be we're just saying the size of the building. We're not saying the intensity of the use, the number of people in the building and I think it goes back to evaluating the uses that are permitted and the types of warehousing, and then also looking at
from an environmental standard, are there additional thresholds we can put in place for our ordinance that protects these really essential areas within the township. >> Thank you. Yes, you can come.
Mike. >> [clears throat] >> So, you said the 175,000 square foot building would harbor two tenants. Correct? >> It could. It permits you could have two. So, you 100,000 and then the 75,000, so
you could have >> could harbor five tenants. >> Yeah, there's no >> There's right. So, that would do a few things. On that same lot, you can put multiple buildings and
possibly have 15 different businesses, you know, and traffic, and shipping. You have electrical utilities in need, and waste utilities, and water utilities
in need, where a larger facility might actually use less. >> Mhm. >> You know, electric wise, and you know, water and sewer utility. >> Yeah. >> So, that's something to consider. How did they get from 175 to 75? Like,
you know, that's uh you know, cut it in half, you know, maybe it's uh some of those buildings that have went up in Aaron Way when, you know, wouldn't be acceptable now. >> Yeah. >> You know, with this new ordinance. So, it's something to consider. >> Yeah, and in my experience as well, when
you have a building where you can have one tenant or one you got the, you know, the larger and more reputable companies that take a lot they also have requirements of maintenance of the site, right? So, you know, they're making sure there isn't
trash all over the lot. They're making sure it's clean. They're making sure when it snows, the areas are paved as opposed to when you have multiple tenants, right? Then that onus falls on multiple people to maintain that. >> I mean, the methodology I think where it came from was we looked at all the
existing inventory that exists currently in Sparta, and I don't I don't know what the exact largest building that we have in town is, but when you look at all the the the total, it's it hovers in equal to or lower than a number. So, there was
some logic in in the fancy council picking that $75,000 benchmark because we haven't even if we had 175 or 500,000, we weren't seeing there was larger size buildings being developed previously. >> Sure. >> So, I think that's where it came from.
>> I'm done. >> Oh. Actually, [clears throat] in the um ordinance that's proposed, it does say the 65,000 um is the largest building that is existing right now. And then the 75,000, I you know, gave it a buffer, and uh we
also have the new building that's 76,000, but that's right in that area. So, there's nothing really bigger than that except maybe the ShopRite, but as far as you know, the industrial um I think when I look at the master plan,
I think of it, you know, what they wanted originally there was something like a Wilson Drive. It continually says campus-like setting, and Wilson Drive is that kind of campus-like setting. So, I think, you know, that is more of the intent of the master plan. You've talked
a lot about intensity uses, and um trying to write things that way. Well, we have that built in in other sections in other ordinances because we do not allow the Amazons, and we do not allow um I forget all the terms, but you know, they're all cut out. So, this is just
strictly talking warehouses. Um the 175,000 I believe was just pulled out of the air. I don't think there was a rhyme or reason to it from what I've heard, but I could be wrong. I know Ron, you worked on PDRM 2 as well and >> Yeah.
That was a couple years ago, so I don't I don't want to go back and and try try to guess the answer, but I can tell you it wasn't pulled out of the air. There were a couple nights where we discussed it. We had legal opinion, we got a planner opinion. It was looked at by our planner then. There was a lot of
discussion to get there. But I think a lot of it had to do with the potential for subdivision. If you want much smaller than that, you you may you know, be careful what you wish for. That was kind of the thought thought process. >> But wouldn't the subdivision be more like a Wilson Drive then? Or like Aaron,
you know, where you're having >> It could be, it may not be. You just don't know. It could be good potential. >> Again, Joan, I I was on the same committee and I remember one of the things that we discussed was most of the businesses on Wilson Drive and you know, Aaron Way, all that area
there, um they're light manufacturing, they're uh assembly uh type facilities. They're not predominantly not warehouses. And if we're talking about rail adjacent, um you know, we're encouraging warehousing,
you know, storage. Not you know, having uh you know, mechanical and does I mean, does that that kind of consistent with the use for rail adjacent is more of warehousing than it would be for actual manufacturing or
>> Yeah, I think especially with the most recent application, right? The predominant use is just storage. >> Yeah. >> They're just bringing things in, storing them, and then taking them back out on the truck. >> What's what's left in you and still intact is you know, there's certain types uses that were prohibited, such as
distribution centers possibly. >> Yeah, that's what I was getting at. >> You you can't have those either way. >> Yeah. >> And but I think that had to do with the size that was was put there was that you know, these 75,000 square foot and less buildings on both Drive Aaron Way and all that are
are are not warehouses, you know, and encouraging that rail adjacent warehousing where hopefully you'd have maybe two or three people working there at any given time. Um was the idea behind that. I I don't know if you know, necessarily 75,000 square feet
is going to be real exciting to warehouse. >> Yeah. And maybe one of our recommendations could be that um be 75,000 if it's not rail adjacent and then come up with something else if it is
rail adjacent, keep the 175 for that. But that could be a recommendation. Um I was also just looking at other parts of the um master plan in 1984. In 1984, you know, nobody envisioned North Village and um
all the traffic, but they did talk a lot about traffic and it said locate future development areas that avoid excessive congestion, parking problems, and urban uh development densities. So, one of the things I struggle with are parts are consistent and parts are not
in are not consistent. So, like if you look at that, it is consistent where the development would not be in that area because of the um the densities and uh interestingly enough, it talked about
commercial buildings um limited sales and showroom facilities back in 19 84 and limitations are recommended on project size and scale. That is in the um master plan. So, it has a little of everything. It just depends which
of the objectives you're going to pick out. So, where do we go when parts are consistent and parts are not consistent, and then kind of procedural question, there's one ordinance that we are looking at that incorporates economic development PDRM 1 and PDRM 2. How do we
come we're going to have to come up with one single recommendation. Correct? >> That's a good question. There is one ordinance before you with the three sections. That's why Lindsay had done three separate analysis.
Very interesting if just a quick overview. If you look at the first page of the Negley report, talks about the New Jersey statute 40 colon 55D-26. You have 35 days to review and give recommendations in the consistency. And
then in Lindsay's report on the ED zone, I think she really summed it up well on page three of five. I encourage the board to consider these details when deciding as to the consistency of the proposed ordinance
amendments and the current master plan. Rather than a rigid flat cap, the board should consider a framework of tiered site design standards, scaled environmental regulations, and mandatory traffic studies that adjust according to the building's actual operating
intensity, offering a more effective and legal sound method to achieve the township's land use, traffic, and environmental goal. And just from the what I'm hearing from the board, that really nails what you've all been saying, the
environmental, the traffic, that is is the right number 75 or is it 75 based upon certain conditions? 175 if it has rail, 75 if it doesn't. So, your task tonight is to say is it consistent?
Uh if you say no, it's not consistent, it's not wrong for you to say it's not consistent because we have concerns of ABCD. Uh so you we've done that before. Uh whether or not the mayor and council of the they follow your advice doesn't is their
decision, but there's nothing wrong Joan. I think you were alluding to as Lindsey said on page three of five on the ED analysis of making recommendations to them. If you found it inconsistent, however, this is why. >> But can we break it up into say this
part we believe is consistent like maybe the PDRM two which I believe when we get to that you say that is consistent. Um you know >> The answer yes, you can. Yes, you can. You can break it up into she gave three separate reports. You could you could
follow three separate recommendations. Uh yes, you can. >> All right. We also do right now require traffic input impact studies and community impact studies and environmental. So that's nothing new. We are requiring it. So
that's regardless of the size. So that part's already taken care of. I [clears throat] guess the bigger question still goes back to the size then and as I said >> I think though the the way that I wrote it was that there should be a higher threshold than what is in the ordinance.
So you know that this is something we should look into especially you know the areas closer to Germany Flats. Like maybe a higher threshold needs to be there for the environmental review that is submitted to us or the environmental standards or I think that there needs to be more of a
emphasis on first of all the three like you said Joan the three separate zones should I think should be looking at independently. Um and then I think as we look at these requirements that they should be additional on top of because we are thinking about you know
something that is pretty substantial that I I think going with what is in our site plan section of the ordinance. I think there should be a higher threshold for these uses. >> Yeah. I'm just struggling with I think some parts are inconsistent and I think some parts are consistent. So, how do
you make a determination? >> Just say it. Just say it. That's what I'd advise you. If you can say there's nothing wrong with saying it's inconsistent, however, it's inconsistent because of these issues and it is consistent. That is a
position. There's nothing wrong with that at all. >> Okay. >> Yeah, or I was going to say like last the last one we did for the C1H, we said it's not wholly consistent and this it because of X, Y, and Z. Is another way to frame it. >> Agreed.
Plus, I didn't hear you talk. >> Well, I was letting everyone finish. Um so, I I'm I'm going to go back to my original point, which is um regardless of what is decided here tonight, we are in the middle of a master plan. This is going to get looked at again. This is
going to get torn apart and and put back together. Um so, I mean, what whatever the decision here is tonight, it it is going to be validated or discredited by the master plan review that that is ongoing and it is going to come back in front of
this board again when we're looking at the land use element. So, you know, I want us to kind of rest assured that whatever, you know, decisions are are made, we're going to do that deep dive and validate that during that process as well. Um with that having been said, I
am going to open it up to the public um for commentary. Uh if there is a question, it must be relative to consistency review. Otherwise, um your your questions are probably better suited for the hearing.
>> Hi, Jenny Dericks, Township of Sparta. Apologize for being late. There was a Board of Ed meeting tonight. Um this reading the ordinance reading on page two the seventh whereas I think addresses pretty closely
um the issues that are being raised to promote an inconsistency report. And that is where it says that it while it finds that reducing building coverage may not produce mathematically proportional
reduction in traffic or truck trips. And I don't have to read the whole thing cuz you have it in front of you. It does point to other important aspects of land use in Sparta which is
um rational means of mitigating uh of reducing traffic impacts, reducing flooding hazards to what Christine was talking about, um protecting the rural character and the visual environment, and mitigating impervious coverage which
increase uh water runoff. And And so the concern about the inconsistency because the intensity of use may be greater with a with a smaller building. Um what we're what we see real lived in
in a as a lived experience in Sparta is that with the largest building being 65,000 square feet currently moving up. No building is going to become um also as a side note, no building is going to become um an incon- an um
I just lost the words. Sorry, I'm mis- mixing my meetings. Non-nonconforming, thank you. Um so we don't have that as a as a concern. Um Joan, you took my comments um campus-like setting or village
type envi- um development. That's what we see um in what we have developed with the smaller sizes of buildings. And so, um I I just because it is noted because
those things are noted in the in the um ordinance itself, they're saying we already know that this there might not be a correlation size to traffic, but we still think there are other reasons why. Um, is that a reason enough to say that
it's inconsistent? I'm just wondering about that. Um And then, I think that's about it right now. We have 7.3% vacancy warehouse vacancy in New Jersey in A, what's considered an A area, which
is your highway areas. Sparta would be considered a B or C area, so I don't know what the uh vacancy rate would be there, but that's something to consider. The math on employees um taking the application for Diamond Chip
rough very very rough math admittedly, 500,000 square feet, they were looking at 300,000 employees. Um, you're looking at 1.83 employees per thousand square feet. My math, feel free to correct me. So, you're looking at 137.25
um employees. Um, if you go at 175,000 square feet. That's a lot above whatever the business is within the building. And then, just to make a comment about the Amazon consideration, because no
um my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong, but because it's on top of the aquifer, there's no hazardous materials allowed. And so, a general fulfillment facility like an Amazon would not be permitted because they don't know what's in those packages. And
so, that is off the table anyway, a general fulfillment-style uh warehouse. That's my comment. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So, can I ask before there other options other I think we >> Can I just ask whether or not there's
another member of the public who'd like to speak? >> I'm sorry. I was >> [laughter] >> Any other members of the public who'd like to speak? Okay, seeing none. Go ahead. >> No, I asked it. Forget it. I have no I asked my question before. >> No, I I think we you're all saying some
very positive things. Uh even the public comments were very well taken. Uh and I I I turn back to page three of Lindsay's report and basically says that she may have some concerns, but here's how you can cure it.
So, I think that uh you can say it's consistent. I think Joan, you're alluding that there's clearly items that are consistent and there's some items that are of concern. >> I would say >> I it's consistent in that it smaller size would promote a more campus-like
setting like uh Wilson Drive and it would avoid excessive congestion and densities, which is also in the master plan, those two things. And also, when you do a 75,000 um square-foot building, it gives you the number of dock doors
and there would only be five dock doors. So, that will limit a lot of the excessive traffic as compared to the 175. And as I said earlier, I think, you know, my recommendation would be to leave it 175 for railroad adjacent
adjacent and um use this for the other. >> So, Board, that's an example of what you could do. >> I have a a quick question. So, Lindsay, would would it be fair to say that um the the ordinance as it stands right
now, right, with [clears throat] 175,000 square feet. As it was deemed consistent as it was approved, is it fair to say that that's that has appropriate setbacks, appropriate, you know, environmental fit facility?
Okay. So, that having been said, um is it also fair to say that the potential for subdividing this you know, this property and putting smaller scale buildings on on these various properties without having put in
those those same fail-safes, does that increase our risk or decrease our risk? >> Your risk for what? >> Our risk for for potential contamination, our for our potential, you know, for for water quality issues,
for infrastructure difficulties, for traffic, um you know, stipulations. I mean I mean does that does that increase our risk with the reduction of size without putting in the additional facility? >> Without restricting the number of
tenants >> Right, without without looking at the the rest of of the sum of the parts. >> Well, I think that I think that's kind of an important piece, right? When you only can have say in the 175, you only can have two tenants, right? So, it's going to be 100,000 and a 75,000, say,
just to make it even. Now you have a 75,000 square-foot warehouse with unlimited amount of tenants. And then it's going to be subdivided, and each one of those now is going to require their own utilities,
their employees, they all require parking, and so it's going to be a smaller space >> with a higher impact. >> With a higher impact potential potentially. Once again, though, it ties back to the use and the type of warehouse.
>> So, to to the point that I was I was trying to make with the reduction in size without looking at the rest of of the the whole as this you know, the sum of the parts. >> Mhm. >> Um it it does not necessarily sound like it makes sense, but we do know that all of this is going
to get addressed again in the confines of of the master plan where we are going to be looking >> Yeah. >> at all of that. >> Yeah, I know one of that that is one of the things that we've spoken about extensively at the master plan subcommittee meeting is looking at the uses, the types of warehouses, the types
of trucks that access the warehouses, and determining levels of service at the roads as well, and seeing the correlation between those to determine what the township feels is suitable and ways that we can restrict, you know, the the larger truck traffic, things like that
that have become a real issue within the municipality that we've seen extensively throughout the public import input portion of the master plan. So, the intention of the master plan is to dig deeper into that and to understand why
what is causing this higher level of traffic, what is causing more larger trucks to be on the roads, and what we can do as a community to have a more agreeable future with this type of development.
>> And and Board, as the chair had pointed out that the that is an option when you let's say you found items consistent, items inconsistent, you do have the option of you're in the midst of the master plan, which is very positive. That's another
good positive thing to refer to in the ordinance review. >> All right. >> I have nothing further on. Thank you. >> So, my biggest concern, or one of my biggest concerns when I was reading this and I was thinking about it is that uh the protection of the agricultural
heritage that we have here in Sparta and in Sussex County and to not stymie that because I was just reading an article in the New Jersey Monitor that just came out on June 16th
and uh it's titled Farmers hope to make New Jersey the hazelnut capital of America. Rutgers research behind effort to return native filberts to the Garden State. And so, you know, there some uh state senators are going after
state funding to the tune of like six or seven million dollars to help people you know, start planting uh these trees and um with the goal of having these
hazelnuts sorted, shelled, packaged uh here in Sussex County. And I would hate to see Sparta miss out on an opportunity that was directly tied to our agricultural heritage because there is a warehouse or there's
a facility that cannot handle the uh the the equipment. >> What? >> The volume that they're going to bring in. >> the equipment, right. That can handle the volume for this. Um
so that's that's like my biggest concern is is making sure that we're not forgetting about the good things that can happen in larger facilities, larger buildings that are
directly tied to the agricultural heritage that we have here and that residents have time and again said that they want to protect and that they want to advance. >> So to echo on that, it goes back to the reevaluation. When this ED zone was
created originally, you know, the the everybody just didn't draw circles on a map. I'm sure there were some discussions, some thought process, some planning, some research, real estate market conditions, and all all the things we've been talking about. Is that part of the reevaluation
process? Will we be doing that as part of the reval reval process? Uh whether it's to grow walnuts and manufacture and or package walnuts or to highest and best use still supports the kind of things that were envisioned 20
years ago. >> That's what that's what the land use element is designed to do. That analysis is is based on, you know, not just what's existing, but what the potentials are for for the next 20 years. Right. So, we're we're not looking to to deal with just the right now. We're looking
to deal with, you know, what's what's going to be moving down the road. Now, do we want another 40-year gap between 1984 and now? No, we don't. But um but the idea is to to the land use element is going to take into consideration the highest and best use
>> that's been discussed tonight. >> for all of those things. I mean, in 1984, the reason why there were 700,000 square foot warehouses was because, you know, Sparta was intended to be largely agricultural. So, yes, when you're dealing with livestock, when you're dealing with farms and and, you know,
moving food throughout the country, that makes sense. It doesn't make sense now. That that's not who we are. That's not That's not where we even evolved to. But the analysis is still going to be there to look forward to the next 20 years. So, that's that's the intention. I mean,
correct me if I'm wrong, Lindsay. >> No, great job. Great answer. >> Thank you. [laughter] >> Thank you. >> Sometimes, Pat Pat, I know what I'm talking about. >> You've learned. >> Um that having been said, uh
we need a motion and a second. >> So, what I I suggest you do is this. You have the ordinance before you is 26-11. Just as if you had an application before you, it is proper to say, "Would anyone move to approve the resolution?" And if
it doesn't have a quorum, then you would go to if there's an objection. So, my point would be that uh you've got an ordinance before you. If you feel that it is consistent in certain ways, I think that that's fair to put that on
the record. And if there is a uh uh quorum for that, you have eight [clears throat] members, so you would need five. Uh and if that fails, then there could be a motion of inconsistency. However, as Lindsey said on page three
of five, it's inconsistent because of certain concerns. Or the third option uh is you feel it's inconsistent, period, and it could be reviewed by again by way of the master plan. So, that's my suggestion. If someone would move first
as far as consistency, and then take it from there. That would be my suggestion. >> Okay. >> I'll make a motion then for consistency for these reasons. Um that I mean, even Judge Minko would said you you have to all you can also look at
rural characters just as important. It's not just intensity. So, I would say that it's consistent because it promotes a campus-like setting. It's consistent in that it avoids uh excessive congestion and densities, and
it's consistent uh because um uh it prepares I'm sorry. A detailed um one of the recommendations was to prepare a block development plan for environmentally sensitive areas, such as
Germany Flats. So, the to me, the block development plan is kind of like the Wilson Drive. So, I think those three reasons it's consistent and um maybe we can add the inconsistent ones to that. >> Well, they just so we would just so it
doesn't get confused. >> to get confused. We're just >> consistent. Now, the only thing Joan I know that you had said if it was rail uh I have in my notes you said that you supported the 170 and I don't put words in your mouth.
>> Can Can I make a motion? >> Ask a question before you do this. I mean, we're getting overcomplicating this. We this is either consistent or inconsistent with the current master plan. I think we have a professional report in front of us. If we want to carve the good out of it, the challenges
out of it, and the questions out of it, then we got to revisit it. But right now, I mean, it sounds like we're we're cobbling together three different scenario ordinances. >> And everything that you know, every recommendation we'd have to agree is that a recommendation of the board or is that a point? >> So, we should be putting this in in
recommendations and presenting that if I'm not mistaken, correct? >> Why Why don't we do this? >> All right. So, leave out the square footage. >> first motion, just so it's clear, is and I'm recommending to you is is it consistent? Period. Do we have a second for that motion? >> Yes, I'll second that.
>> Okay, roll call, please. >> As per this is a yes saying the ordinance as presented is consistent with the master plan. You're saying >> 2612 what we're talking about. >> 26 12 >> No, we're saying >> Uh >> the first round was consistent. If this
fails, it will be inconsistent. >> Yeah, this is for 2612. >> 26 12 >> 2612 Yeah, that's why I got confused. >> This is 2612 that it is consistent with the master plan. >> with the
>> For the ED zone. So, a yes is that you agree that it is consistent with the master plan. >> All right. Well, hang on, gang. I mean, Joan is now saying just with the ED zone >> didn't discuss the other two yet, Lindsay. You didn't even give a report on the other two. That's why I was asking you earlier, are
we going to, you know, make a recommendation for each one or one whole one? >> You have one ordinance before you with three parts. So, if you only want to vote on ED now, that that is if that's the motion.
Joan, that's the motion. >> Um >> 26-12 you >> Well, Lindsay says the others are consistent, so Oh. >> A little different review, but >> Okay, so let's start from >> my testimony as if all three were
because it's one ordinance. Although I did three separate memos to highlight the different areas because they are different zoning areas. >> Right. It's one ordinance. >> It's one ordinance, so I think it It's one ordinance. >> Okay, it's one ordinance.
>> All right, so the vote before you is the one ordinance, all three zones, 26-12. I think Joan has moved that it is consistent. >> Is there a second to that motion? I second it. >> I think Janette >> Janette said did a second. >> Janette seconded.
>> Yes, I did a second. >> Okay, so [clears throat] you you're agreeing to a second to that motion. >> All right, so just so it's clear, a yes vote says that the ordinance is consistent. Okay? That's what with the roll call, you're saying yes 26-12 is
consistent. That's the vote, that's the motion before you right now. >> Say yes. >> So, so we're and we're lumping all three together. >> It is one ordinance. >> Right, cuz it's one ordinance. >> So, motion from Joan and a second from >> From Janette.
From Janette. >> Blake Wallace? >> Yes. >> Stephanie >> Mayor Sylvester? >> No. >> Ron Day? >> No. >> Christine Dunbar? >> No. >> Joan Freeman? >> Yes. >> Ernie Baggett?
>> No. >> Vice Chairwoman Burke? >> No. >> Your ticket baller? >> No. >> Luciano? >> Uh I am actually going to abstain at this time because it's already been uh the vote is already there for it not
being deemed inconsistent. Well, I I mean The point is the vote is already there. I did Well, if somebody abstains, can according to the law, it goes to the side of the majority. Correct.
>> An abstention doesn't go pro or against. An abstention is an abstention. So, the the vote as it is, there was 1 2 yeses, 1 2 3 4 5 6 nos, and 1 abstention. That is the vote. That's where we
>> That was my point. >> So, the the as of right now, the ordinance 26-12 is not consistent. If the board wants to have further discussion on that, so be
it, but you have your statutory requirement has been complied with. >> So, that was my question. Does the board want to have additional conversation with regard to anything relative to inconsistency? >> I think we leave it with that it's
inconsistent and for the reasons in the report. >> Mhm. >> Okay, so be it. >> Are we are we agreed on that? >> Yeah. >> Make that motion. >> Is there a second? >> I second that. >> Okay. All in favor?
>> I think I got to roll I think I got to roll call that. >> Okay. So, we will roll call that. What are we roll calling? >> That you are relying upon your planner's report. You found it inconsistent and you're relying upon the planner's report and as set forth on the record and I know I've
said it three times, page three of the report does give a pathway and there was also discussion of the master plan as a pathway to address these issues. >> Yes. >> So, that's part of the record.
So, the vote now is that you're relying upon the that it is inconsistent, it's reflected on the Negley report and on the discussion of the record here tonight. That's your vote right now. >> Mike Wallace Just called you.
>> That it's inconsistent uh and you're relying upon Negley's report. That's the vote. >> So, yes vote would be inconsistent. >> Yes, inconsistent and relying upon Negley's report and the record that we discussed. >> You. I just said. >> Yes. Yes.
>> Deputy Mayor Sylvester >> Yes. >> Rondeau >> Yes. >> Luciano Yes. John Foreman >> No. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Burke >> Yes. Yes.
Yes. >> Next item on the agenda. >> [laughter] >> Next item on the agenda. Moving forward. Uh I am going to move forward to correspondence and updates, correspondent updates from the town council?
Mike? >> Um that's you. I think we just got our this word out. Uh now just a reminder that there's a meeting uh this upcoming Tuesday on the 23rd and there'll be a budget hearing on nothing
more to add or comment. Thank you. >> Okay, so we are going to move to the environmental commission. >> Yes, thank you. Um we struck out on um on getting a grant. Our ERI grant. I don't know whether you heard. Yeah.
But um they did provide a um a meeting uh to for us to go over a better path and suggestions on how we could use a tool that the Highlands uh council has to create our own. So we're
looking into engaging our grant writer, which I understand that we have to help us with that path forward. >> Smart. >> So that was that was disappointing, of course. >> Yeah, of course. >> Um what else? So we're also have turned our
attention to um you know, and we're envisioning um in the master plan there to be some discussion of envision for trees. And so we're going to be providing um
hopefully a tree ordinance. Um we're waiting for review by our town engineer. Uh it's been in review for quite a while, so we're hoping to hear back from him. Um so there's that. And then um we also
would like to provide our residents with um recommendations um for um plants. For native plants to be used, okay? Um we also are concerned the concern was
brought up that we um it will be time for us to remove our artificial turf. Um and um that's a dangerous thing
because of the of the PFAS and the plastic. So, we're wondering how that might be handled. Uh and we're hoping that we'll consider to be replaced with grass. Uh and let's see. Um
there's a lot of reasons for replacing the the artificial turf. There's more accidents, it's hot for the kids, there's more injuries and in addition to the the plastic. Um Oh, and then just before I forget, I
just want to mention that we're having a a trails meeting on June 24th at 6:00 here uh in the conference room and all are invited. >> 6:00 when? >> I'm sorry. Uh 24th. >> Oh, the 24th. >> Yep.
Coming up next week. Okay. >> As far as subcommittees are concerned, the minus I plan subcommittee um had a one application for a um a
portable sign um which was approved and nothing else on the plate currently. Um as far as master plan subcommittee, we met um on the was it the 9th?
Um there was some question as to uh the grants, there was some question as to how uh how the ball was moving forward and Lindsay, I'm going to unfortunately put you on the spot, so if you wouldn't mind. >> Um we submitted the the initial
assessment to the Highlands uh this week, so >> Right. >> So the ball is moving forward. >> That is fabulous. Um meanwhile, the subcommittee is moving forward on goals and objectives um and trying to get that uh squared away. Um and hopefully we'll be starting to
look at some of the elements that are not going to be supported by the grants um shortly. So, uh that is the status of the master plan at this time. >> I will have those for you tomorrow. >> Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Um so that is where subcommittee stands.
So I am going to open it to the public for matters that are not on the agenda. >> We have other board business? >> We didn't, but do you? >> [laughter] >> Yeah, I guess that should be on here regularly. One thing I just wanted to
bring up is um we used to get those Excel sheets and it had all the um projects on there and the dates that they were submitted, completed, and links, and all of that. Can we get start getting that again? I know we haven't had any applications, but we did have
one or two, but I was I even wanted to get to, you know, some of the things this um uh not floss um whatever they are now, but I I couldn't find a way to get there cuz I we don't have that access. I don't know how to access it at this point.
>> I'm sorry. Okay, so so you're talking about links to to the Google Drive what are we talking about? >> where all of that stuff it you know, we used to be kept up every and we would get um every month the Excel sheet. Mhm. >> through here through the year by and you could click on the link on each
conversation and get all the documents, yeah. I I agree. That was nice. >> All right, well I guess we'll we'll talk about it on Tuesday. >> I could send you a copy of the old one that we used to get. And it's just a way for us to really keep track of things or if we want to go
into it or look up something from the past or um we would have the access to all of that. >> It was a sheet that said, "Here's the application. Is it complete? When it was filed?" >> It had like all the steps >> It was a helpful tool. So, I'm serious on this one.
>> Right, yeah. We'll we'll talk about it at our next meeting. Yeah, I'll forward it to you in the morning. Um and then my other old business, which I even hate to bring up at this point cuz it just keeps lingering and lingering and lingering, but where are we with the Jim Zep letter? >> Yes, the uh I did do some research uh
whenever you talk about a a person, a municipality, there is the uh the Rice Act, there's the Keen uh and and Act. Uh I did speak to the uh bureau attorney uh about that. And I apologize, I did not do a formal written
letter, but it is reflected in your minutes. If the the board would like me to do a formal written letter, I can do I can and will do that. Uh and then requesting that he formally come if the board still would like that to be done. I can do that.
>> Well, that was requested May 3rd, and then we missed the second meeting June 3rd. >> I will take the fault on that. Um I'm I'm behind on my tasks. So, >> Okay, can you tell us if you'll write it this week? >> If the board votes for it and wants it
done, I will do it. So, the the request is to give uh Mr. Zep uh a formal notice if he would come before the board to discuss the administrative land use process. And uh there was that discussion in the past on that. And uh as I just said, there were
some uh formalities by way of the case law of the Rice case and the Keen uh University case. So, if you want me to give him a a formal notice, I will do that, but I would request a formal vote of the board.
>> Would he be coming to executive session or here in public? >> It's actually interesting. He would have the election. Uh that's what the Rice Act is all about, that he could ask it to be in closed session or he could say I want it in open session. >> Okay, so I'm so I'm updated. Is this
just for educational and informational purposes or is this tied to a specific issue? >> issue. This is relative to to minor site plan subcommittee. Joan, you you can explain this better than I can. The minor site plan subcommittee had an application last year
and unanimously determined that it needed a variance and had to be heard before the full board. No big deal, right? Uh instead of coming to the full board a couple months later, we got the same exact application. Again, unanimously determined that it
had to go to the full board because it required a variance. Um the owner of this particular property Well, I won't get into >> Yeah, don't get into me. >> anything. >> Thank you. >> No. Um anyway, based on some
behind-the-scenes thing next thing we know, we get in our minutes on October 29th 2025, Jim Zepp approved the permit. We did not approve it, but it's in our minutes that it was approved by Mr.
Zepp, which is a violation of land use law. If we deny an applicant here that applicant has the recourse to appeal their decision by filing, you know, the um prerogative writ. Um we weren't even told about it. So,
instead of following the proper procedure where he should have said, "Well, go to the planning board and then, you know, let them decide and if not, then you have the right to do it." he gave the permit. So, I would like him to explain why he did that and violated land use law.
>> So, the request is the uh a formal request to Mr. Zep to come before the board. Now, as I have said in the past, you don't have sub- subpoena power. This is a request. This is a request. He could say no. >> Isn't there another way of doing it then?
>> Yeah. We tried. We asked. We tried. Celeste was going to talk to him. >> in my duties as town council representative have an opportunity to speak to him and see if he'd be willing and he could choose whether it's executive session or whether he denies or he wants to do it in public, but at
least give him the opportunity to respond before we start race noticing and or That is a a feasible alternative. >> That's what I thought we were going to do. This is the first time I'm hearing about this. >> to the council and if if if I may, I'm sticking my neck out on this one, but
it's unfinished business. >> Right. >> think, you know, in light of some of the recent activities that have taken place with Mr. Zep and other council meetings. I think in all fairness, let's just Let me Let me bring it back to council. >> I just think it needs to be discussed. It was never brought back to the minor
site plan subcommittee and it just subverted everything that we had done. >> All right. So, if if someone do a >> Vote vote for me. >> uh that the the class two member uh no, class three member, our council representative would communicate uh the
request that uh Mr. Zep uh elect to come before the board either in open or closed session. And again, in my professional opinion, he has no obligation to do that. It would be a voluntary uh method. If someone would move that.
>> I will make that motion. >> Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mike Wallace >> No. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Ron Day
>> My suggestion. >> Yes. >> Yes. Joan Furman >> Yes. >> No. >> Vice Chairwoman Burke >> Yes. >> You can follow >> Yes.
>> Chairwoman Luciano >> Yes. >> Okay. I don't know if we have anything else. >> Uh we're just going to open it up to the public for matters that are not on the agenda. >> Hi, Mike Devine, Sparta. I had three quick points I wanted to
make. I Arguably, they're out of left field, but after hearing some of the conversation tonight, maybe they're a little closer, maybe shortstop or even second base. >> [laughter] >> Shortstop fielder >> Shortstop fielder, something like that. Uh I don't think it's any secret that at
least in my perception over the last couple of years, we've been in a cycle where at least planning board, maybe some other boards make a decision, make a determination. If it's on If the applicants are unhappy, it's a lawsuit. We mediate, we give in, we lose, we spend money, and
all this. I guess my question is, is this an experience in other towns or is there something particularly problematic about the way things are done here? Have our professionals seen this anywhere else? Is there anything anybody can think of that we could do to try to
mitigate this stuff or avoid it, evade it? Uh if it's happening everywhere, maybe it's a sign of the times, but it just seems uh problematic. And if there's any way to try to min- minimize it, it'd be nice to talk about that. >> I just real quick, the master plan is
the answer. >> Yeah. >> Uh, public hearings, property owners' concerns, so that's that's the cure, and you're doing it. So >> Okay. And some of this other stuff could be put on the master plan activity as well.
I think I asked somebody do we actually we talk a little about ratables and possibilities and redevelopment possibilities, etc. Do we have an inventory of developable parcels? Do we have an inventory of
likely redevelopment sites? Could we look at them and say they're optimally zoned? Could we figure out what would be nice to put there? Maybe find out some affirmative way to try to induce those things instead of waiting till somebody comes in and says, "Let me
put up a barber shop or whatever." >> Well, then Lindsay can tell you >> Don't tell me it's a master plan. >> [laughter] >> The master plan. >> I knew it. I'm glad I'm not on that committee. Oh, wait a minute. >> part of the housing element did do a vacant land adjustment, which identifies
vacant and developable land in the township as well. But, um the master plan will have our land use element, which will identify there'll be a couple pieces of it. There'll be one area of it where we look at the existing land uses and look at the compatibility with the
zone that they're in. Um and we kind of do like an analysis of that. Um we also will be looking at vacant and developable lands and having an inventory of that and showing if there's environmental constraints, if the zoning is um if the zoning is going
to, you know, um cause any conflict with the development or what can be developed there. So, there will be a build-out analysis as well. >> I was hoping you'd say that. Thank you. >> Yes, you're welcome. >> It can it go one step further where we say, okay, given all the the zoning and the size of the parcel and everything else, here would be a
perfect fit for that that would be a good rateable would be low intensity, etc., etc. And I know in other towns where I've lived, they found ways to induce people to come in and build what they wanted. Is that possible in New Jersey? Is that something we could consider? >> Yeah, that's possible in New Jersey.
There's different ways to incentivize development and incentivize the development that you want um through the master plan. Obviously, we can say, you know, maybe these areas need to be rezoned to be a certain way and if you build X, maybe you get a bonus and you do incentivize zoning, you do things
like that to kind of encourage the type of development in the fashion that you want. >> Is that All right, thank you. Last one and I know it's I think it's common knowledge that there's some mediation going on with one particular pending development. I'm not sure where it's going or what
it's coming into, but I really hope that whoever's handling the the mediation negotiation can't relitigate what the real use is. We can't relitigate all the doctors and everything else, but I think we can keep in mind the
intensity. The evident intensity of what they when they finally decide what they're really going to build, we can talk about what the intensity is going to be and the new philosophy that you're adopting, which I tremendously endorses. Don't give up on size or number of
occupants, etc., but intensity is an important consideration. If we have to compromise and accept something with a maybe less than desirable intensity, let's get something in return for it. I mean, if they're going to make roads screwed up, they're going to ruin roads,
they're going to make turning impossible for people on 15, I think it's not uncommon for towns and planning boards to require some compensation, if that's the right word. So, I don't know who's doing the mediation or the negotiation, but I hope
they they can try to advance those intentions as well. Thanks. >> Mike, I have a question. You mentioned other towns where you lived, they incentivized? >> Yeah, it was actually Pennsylvania and Virginia. >> It was in Pennsylvania. >> New Jersey. That's why I don't know what you can New York does as well.
>> There are municipalities in New Jersey that do it as well. Yeah, I've seen it in New Jersey. >> Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, the classic example is if you're bringing something with a million kids, you might have to build a school. That's an extreme example. Or if you're going to change the level of service at an intersection, maybe you
have to put in a cloverleaf. I'm not advocating Yeah. I'm not advocating any specifics, but the the intention is there. And it seems to be legitimate, legal, and apparently from Lindsay, you can do it in New Jersey. I just like to maybe explore some of
those thoughts at some point. >> Yeah, they're called impact fees. Impact fees. It's legal, but it's not easy because part of the argument, let's say they have impact on the school system, the argument is, well, if I'm building 100 townhouses and the taxes were
100,000, now the taxes are going to be a million dollars, the taxes provide the mechanism to buy to build the school. That's the affordable housing argument. >> Okay. >> But impact fees, as Lindsay said, traffic lights, sidewalks, that's very commonplace in New Jersey.
>> Yeah, or fields I've seen as well, recreational facilities, things like that. But it has to be I just actually went to a case law session about this, but it has to be tied so Long Branch got in some legal trouble over this, but it has to be tied directly to the project in some
capacity. Yeah. So, whether like a stoplight adjacent to the to the development would be would be appropriate. A stoplight on the other side of the town would not be. >> Yeah, you're hard-pressed to say you get the two million dollar firetruck. >> I understand.
>> That's in the olden days. >> The ShopRite uh development over there. Uh they built a park. You know, it's still in the town. >> Okay, good example, yeah. >> It's direct you know, it's for the people that live there mostly cuz that
it's adjacent to the area, but anyone in town could use it. It and it it now becomes property of the township and the parks and recreation. >> Did they do that as part of the agreement in the approval or Ernie or was that their own decision? >> I wasn't on the board then, but I I'm I'm sure it was.
>> That would seem like a pretty good example. >> It was where they offered it, you know, but it's a you know, it's a park with a playground, a volleyball court, and two basketball courts. >> Yep. >> So, it's a nice park and then there's a like there's two micro parks also in there. In that neighborhood. You know, so it
provides it's providing recreation which doesn't put stress on other recreational facilities because there's now one in that fairly large development. >> Exactly, okay. I just hope that that thought process would be a little bit more in front of
mind than may have been in the past, so. Thanks. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Danny? >> Great job tonight, Wendy. Thank you. >> Okay, uh with that having been said and no one else coming to the microphone, Ernie,
you're on. >> I make a motion to adjourn. >> [laughter] >> All in favor?