Good evening everyone. Calling to order the February 3rd meeting of Summit Common Council. Um, Madame Clerk, would you please read the adequate notice and compliance statement? >> Adequate notice of this meeting has been
provided by the city clerk's office in preparation of the council annual meeting notice dated December 17th, 2025, which was properly distributed and posted per statutory requirements. Please be advised that fire exits are to my right, your left, and at the back of the room. The city has a listening
system to assist the hearing impaired. If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the system at the deis and return it thereafter. >> Thank you, madam clerk, would you please call the role? >> Mr. Ber >> present. >> Mr. Christopholey >> here. >> Miss Calmanson >> here. >> Miss Landman >> here. Miss Lerina
>> here. >> Mr. Powski >> here. >> President Toe >> here. Um, okay. So we >> God bless you. >> Absolutely. Um I'm going to ask Leila Green to lead us in the pledge of
allegiance, please. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> Thank you. Um, may I have Oh, >> would you like me to read the >> Yes. Yes. I've just I'm I was on the wrong sheet on my computer. Um would you, Madame Clerk, would you please read the explanatory note regarding closed
session and the explanatory note regarding hearings and comments? A closed session meeting is authorized by state statute was announced and held prior to the start of this meeting and the known items for discussion were listed on the published close session agenda. Please be advised that council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast
channels 34 and 36 and Verizon channel 30 and rebroadcast on Thursdays and Saturdays on HTTV on Comcast 36 and Verizon 33. When invited to speak, please come to the lect turn clearly. State your name and address. Spell your last name and speak into the podium
microphone so that your comments can be understood by all and properly recorded. Whenever an audience or council member reads from a prepared statement, please give or email a copy to the city clerk at citycler cityofsummit.org. To help facilitate an orderly meeting to
permit all to be heard, please limit your comments to no more than three minutes in length. Unless you are using electronic device to follow the meeting agenda or needed for professional emergency contact purposes, please turn it off. Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. And I'm going to expand a bit on her note about hearings
and comments. Um, and this will facilitate a smoother process, particularly for those watching remotely. So, if you're seated in the first two rows, please remain silent. Anything you say can be picked up by the recording microphones, and it makes it
difficult for those um watching from home to hear the official proceedings. And also, please don't cross at the front of the room. Um, and only use the center aisle to approach the lect turn. The the cameras are motion sensitive and they'll turn away from the speaker to
pick up your movement. The three minute limit on public comments corresponds to a little bit less than a single typewritten page. And if you are leaving your written com your written remarks, please put your name on them and place them in the box near the lectern when you're done. And with that, let's
proceed to the city's business. Um, do I hear a motion to approve the regular and close session meetings of January 20th? So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> opposed. Okay. Um I think it's time for
reports. Will you lead us off, Madam Mayor? >> Indeed. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. I want to start out with a big shout out for our Department of Public Works for clearing our streets in record time after that monstrous snowstorm. Crews worked through the nights um in our central business district so
shoppers could park and support local businesses. YEAH, we're unfortunately not out of the woods yet given the groundhog predicted six more weeks of winter, but um thankfully we have an amazing DPW. Um they work really hard. They're out there while the rest of us are sleeping. So, thank you
to them. Please give them a wave or a shout um if you see them around town. Uh we have a couple of great events coming up that I hope you'll join. Uh this Friday at the community center, um they're hosting a Boston tea party in honor of our country's 250th birthday. There will be a popsicle stick boat
making contest, a make your own teaag station to toss into the kiddie pool, which is our Boston Harbor, and a full tea party with scones and sandwiches. The tea party for adults is noon to 1:30, and the kids tea party is 3:30 to 5 after school. The kids program will
include readings written and performed by Washington Elementary School ideas students on the history of the Boston Tea Party. Registration is free at summit communityprograms.com. Then on Friday, I'm sorry. And then on February 9th, we'll celebrate Black History Month with music performances
and a reading by Jefferson students on the role black soldiers played in the Revolutionary War, including the local history connected to summit. This annual event is a wonderful way to honor Black History Month. I also want to recognize the summit Chinese assoc American association for a fantastic Lunar New
Year kickoff this past weekend. Performances, costumes, and music and food were terrific. And this Saturday, there will be another Lunar New Year celebration at the library and the YMCA. Registration is already closed because these events fill up quickly, but we'll
be sure to share videos and photos on our social media page. So, check those out coming up this weekend. Um, please also be on the lookout for the new Summit View newsletter which has been mailed to residents. It includes an emergency contact sheet you can hang up for easy access to important numbers
along with helpful hints on protecting your home. And finally, I want to highlight a scholarship opportunity for Summit High School juniors and seniors throughout through the New Jersey State League of M municipalities. These are um it's three $1,000 scholarships and they're available statewide through the
Lewis Bay Second Future Municipal Leader Scholarship. And last year we had a Summit High School student um who was one of just three statewide winners and she won $1,000. So we hope we can keep this tradition going. The deadline to apply is March 9th and full details are available on the cityofsummit.org.
Thank you. >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. And now on to Miss Baldwin for the city's admin city administrator's report. T. Thank you, Council President. Good evening, everyone. The Summit Free Market, uh, the next one will be held on Saturday,
February 14th from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the transfer station. Summit residents with a parking disposable permit can attend and browse donated items, take what they want for free, and also donate. There are donation guidelines available at
cityofsummit.orgfreearket. City offices will be closed on February 16th. Um that day is also a parking holiday in Summit with no fees required for on street parking or parking in municipal lots and garages. So hopefully everybody runs downtown. Um trash and
recycling collections are not affected by the holiday. And lastly, a friendly reminder for all residents. We still have quite a bit of winter left, as the mayor said, before we get on to spring. So, when you have a chance, please review the city's snow guidelines that
are available on the website homepage at cityofsummit.org snow. Remember that per the city ordinance, residents have 24 hours from the end of a snowfall to clear your sidewalk. Doing so will help keep our city safe for pedestrians and students
that use these sidewalks to get to school, work, and other places around town after a snowstorm. Thank you for your copy cooperation and hopefully we'll get to spring, maybe sooner than six weeks if we're lucky. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Baldwin. Um, and I want
to add my thanks to the Department of Public Works for their hard work during last week's snowstorm. These these folks are working incredibly hard hours. They're working 12-hour shifts to keep our roads passable. Um, and they really are the unsung heroes of Summit. And so,
please join us virtually this Thursday evening at 7 PM for our Facebook live Q&A. Um, I'm going to sit down with Mayor Fagan and we're going to discuss the process of how we bring issues up for discussion here at our council meetings, how the committees operate, and how residents can reach out when
they have a request for council to consider. It's all virtual, so you can watch from home. If you have specific questions you'd like addressed, please submit it to our chief communications officer at press officeic@city cityofsummit.org. You'll also have the ability to pose
questions in the comments section during the Facebook live and we'll address them as part of our discussion. If you can't make it, it will be posted to the city's YouTube channel the following day. Um behind the scenes, the the finance committee's been working very hard on
the 2026 budget. We've talked in the past about some of those challenges. The plan is to introduce it at the end of March or the beginning of April um with the vote to take place four weeks later. And as always, the budget snapshot will be mailed to all city residents to break
it down for you. Um and finally, next week I have to move my regular office hours from Monday to Tuesday. It's still from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. in the council conference room just outside the chambers to the right as you walk in. So, please stop by or reach out to me to
meet at another time. Um, and now, Council Member Lucer Cena, over to you. >> It's me, actually. >> I'm sorry, Council Member. I've been looking I've been looking at the wrong direction. I'm so sorry. >> Thank you, Council President. Tonight, I would like to welcome Miss Laya Green to
present the historical minute about an important figure in Summit's history and in honor of Black History Month. Ila is a sophomore at Summit High School and an active member of the Black Student Union. I'd also like to thank Mr. Michael Maize, counselor at Summit High School and adviser to the BSU for
nominating Ila for this honor. Over to you. >> Thank you so much, council member. Um, good evening everyone. My name is Laya Green. Um, I'm a sophomore at Summit High School and a proud member of the Black Student Union. It is such an honor to be here today and to speak about an
incredible African-American woman who played an important part in Summit's black history and culture. So, what is a legacy? A legacy can be the lasting impact someone leaves behind through their actions, values, and commitment to others. When learning about the life of
Florence Spearing Randolph, it is clear that she left behind so much more than just a legacy. She left behind a powerful example of leadership, service, and strength. Floren Spearing Randolph was born in Charleston, North Carolina and later spent much of her life serving
the summit community. After graduating at Charleston Avery Norma Institution, she moved to Jersey City to work as a dress maker. While living there, she became involved with the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, a church that supported African-Americans during a time where many were excluded
and discriminated against. As her passion for helping others grew, Florence Bing Randolph became deeply involved in community service and leadership. She worked with many organizations focused on faith, equality, and women's rights. And she even helped establish organizations that
uplifted America African-American women across New Jersey. Through her dedication and leadership, she earned great respect and recognition, including an honorary doctor of divinity degree, making her the first woman to ever receive that honor from Livingstone
College in North Carolina. In 1925, she moved to Summit to become the lead reverend at Wallace Chapel AM Zion Church. During her 21 years there, she helped the church grow and strengthen the community by creating programs and spaces that supported families and residents throughout Summit. Her work
had a lasting impact that can still be felt today. Florence Randolph's life shows us what is possible when someone follows their beliefs and uses their voice to serve others. Her courage, determination, and commitment continues to inspire us to make a difference in our own community. Her legacy reminds us
that leadership and change can start with one person, a mindset that some embodies every day through their events, organizations, and people. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Green. And the next time you pass Wallace am Zion um stop and
read the historic plaque um in in front of the church. It explains some about what you've just said. So thank you. >> Excellent job. I'm the pastor now. So you did good. Um, now we're on to a pre presentation
about um the historic, excuse me, affordable housing plan that that that we'll control for the next 10 years. With us, we have our affordable housing attorney Nancy Holm, our planner, Tom Barren, and backing them up is our land
use official, Austo Delaso. Um, and give me just a moment to set the table here for this because um, our pres our our professionals are going to present the information about our most recent affordable housing plan for the period 2025 to 2035.
After the presentation, um, audience members will will be able to ask questions. We'll all be taking copious notes of all the questions you're asking with the expectation that they'll be developed into a series of Q&As's for the city website. Um, so please try to
make these questions and the threeminut rule will apply once we have finished with the audience questions. I expect we may all be ready for a fivem minute break. Um, and I I am springing this on Nancy and Tom. if there are fast answers
to common questions, they can address them then after the break. Um, and then council members can ask questions. Um, and just please bear in mind this this this can be difficult stuff. We are all neighbors. Um, there are things in here on which we're probably going to
disagree, but we live in community and we all want what what's best for Summit. You know, remember our children attend schools together. We worship, we shop, we enjoy recreation together. And let's bear that in mind. And with all of that, over to you, Nancy and Tom.
>> Thank Thank you very much, uh, Mayor Fagan, uh, Council President Toth, and, uh, members of the council. Um, thank you very much for having us tonight. Um, can everybody hear me? Okay. >> No. >> Okay, then. Hold on one second.
How's that? Is that better? >> Much better. Okay. I'm usually pretty loud when I get going, so um hopefully hopefully that works out. Um so as many of you know um we were before the planning board and
the council in June of this past year uh based on the amendments to the fair housing act for uh what is now round four of uh the affordable housing uh requirements in the state of New Jersey. Um we had to file we had to adopt and
file a plan by June 30th of 2025. Uh that started um that started a series of events where uh the housing plan was challenged by Fair Share Housing Center uh Russo Development Company and Incline
Capital uh by they had until August 31st of 2025 to file those challenges. Uh once that happened, the program took over and scheduled mediation sessions that were confidential. um and the
program uh through the uh special adjudicator and the and Judge Miller who was our assigned program judge. He was uh he was formerly a uh a Mount Laurel judge in uh Somerset County I believe
and uh he is now retired uh but he was appointed to head the uh the affordable housing dispute resolution program known as the program for short. Um, since uh since the challenge deadline,
we mediated pretty much until December 23rd of 2025. And actually, we still uh are ironing out a few a few details in one of the settlement agreements um which culminated in uh my submission to the
program on December 23rd, 2025 uh that outlined the settlement between the city and fair share housing center and also the uh the city and Russo development company. We did not we were not able to come to a medi mediated agreement with
incline capital. However, we have uh using mechanisms that were previously in our June plan as well as uh some new mechanisms uh which we will get into. We were able to satisfy the entire round
four obligation uh of 345 credits. That's important credits. Um we did this uh utilizing once we um got to the point where we knew what we could uh settle with everyone. We looked and saw
that we could maximize our bonus points and satisfy our entire obligation of 345. Um which we will get into uh as we go. Um but I do want to make an announcement that earlier today uh Judge Miller um
recommended that the visage judge uh approve our uh housing our amended housing element fair share plan that would that we will go over tonight um recommended the dismissal of incline capital's challenge to our plan um where
they uh they had proposed a project that is 152 units an acre that is being dismissed. Uh well, it's being recommended that it be dismissed. Um and I just wanted to read what Judge Miller said about the city of Summit and
um really quickly. Um this program member, which is Judge Miller, has reviewed and considered all of the submissions filed in this matter by all of the parties. This member is swayed by the adjudicator's recommendation to approve the plan as well as the city's efforts to reach settlements which the
Russo challenger and particularly the settlement with Fairshare Housing Center, the nonprofit entity charged with representing the interests of low and the low and moderate income community. The program finds that the city's plan, as it will be amended in accordance with its settlements with
Russo and Fairshare Housing Center, and as described in detail in its council's most recent correspondence to the program on December 23rd, 2025, satisfies the city's fourth round obligation along with a surplus toward future rounds. Even though the city did
not fully accommodate the requests of Challenger Incline, this program member's view that the plan should be approved and the incline challenge should be dismissed. Um, as such, this program member recommends approval of the city's housing element and fair share plan and
that its immunity from builder's remedy suits be continued. So, that's um a it's much longer than that, but I thought that was uh that was some of the good stuff. Um so um to move forward um we I did get
notification from Fair Share Housing Center uh as I was driving up here that we have um finalized a majority of the details. Uh he did say that he has a few minor tweaks. So I'm hoping uh that those are very minor and we will be
submitting that by the end of the week this week. Um, and we'll be submitting that to the court so that everything is before the court and then Judge Lindamman who is the Matt Laurel uh attorney I mean Matt Laurel judge for Union County uh will
have everything before him and we can move forward. So um if we we will go through an outline of uh of what Judge Miller recommended for approval now. So if you want to Okay. So, um, those of
you who've been following along this whole time, um, in June, uh, we submitted the plan, uh, the, uh, RDP from the third round, which was a combination of the prior round and the third round. We're in the fourth round
now, um, of 36, uh, did not change. And you'll see on this chart um, that these are all of the credits that go toward that 36 unit RDP. Um, next Excuse me, Miss Home. Could you define RDP?
>> Oh, yes. So, uh, realistic development potential is what RDP stands for. I apologize. I know a lot of jargon, and I try not to use it all the time, but it's hard. Um, so realistic development potential occurs when a city like Summit, who has very little uh vacant or
developable land, can adjust their original number down based on um what's available uh to be developed. So in round three, the combination of the prior round and the third round uh through an agreement with fair share
which was court approved um in round three was third we could develop 36 uh which we did and all of those units are completed. Um and then what is left is uh is called the unmet need. And what
you do with that is you provide mechanisms such as overlay zones um a mandatory set aside ordinance uh things like that that will capture development as it occurs. So um so for instance a mandatory set aside ordinance if there's
a project with five units or more one of those has to be affordable when they come in for approvals. So that's the th that's the difference between an RDP and your original obligation and the unmet need. So as you can see from this slide,
our original obligation for both the prior round and third round combined was 567. Uh and that was adjusted down to 36 based upon the vacant land that was available at the time. So and that was agreed to by fair share housing center
and approved by the court. So that did not change uh from the third round plan and it did not change from the June plan. So um as many people have um have discussed over the years, we have what
we call a 50 new units obligation and that was in our settlement agreement with Fairshare Housing Center in the third round. And what that was was we were to fil facilitate the construction of 50 new units within the city. Um and
there were certain parameters for that. I won't I won't go into it because um you can see it in our plan, but uh we agreed with Fair Share Housing Center in June of this year that these would be the projects um that would contribute to
that 50 unit uh that 50-unit goal. Those did not change. What did change were um were some timing um of some pending projects which is the our house future
group home. Um we the city is um going to work with our house um on uh giving them a parcel which is block 3401 lot 36. Do you remember the
address? address. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Uh 27 Edgewood. Sorry, I didn't have that in the agreement. Um so I don't I didn't remember the It's hard to keep all of these addresses straight. Uh so
27 27 Edgewood. Um so uh our house has not been able to go out and walk the property for weather related reasons. Um but they are very excited um about this opportunity. And obviously, you know, most uh most group home providers look
for already constructed uh home single family homes to rehabilitate. So, um we had to extend the deadlines a little bit so that they could do new construction. Um the other one the other change will
be for St. Teresa's uh there we had to create a new construction timetable um because of some internal church um issues that were unrelated to to the development of this project. um that is moving forward and fair share agreed to
that timetable which is that um our house would be uh would receive local approvals for construction by the end of 2026 and con complete construction by the end of
2028. And then um St. Teresa's um we have a construction timetable um where uh they would receive local development approvals by July 1st of 2027, begin
construction by the end of 2027 and by July 1st of 2028 we would update fair share on the progress of that project. Um other than that the the rest of the 50 unit um the 50 new unit requirement
uh stayed the same. So the next slide um as I said before um we had we have an unmet need from the prior round and the third round. Um that remains uh based on our vacant land analysis. Um, we did
agree that all of the overlay zones were will be amended to have to provide a flat 20% set aside of affordable units. Um the reason that it was 15% for rentals and 20% for for sale units
before was because um it was an incentive to uh provide rental units because we would get a historically a twofor one bonus credit for family rental units. That bonus
credit was removed from in the amended fair housing act. So, it's in the city's best interest to just get a 20% set aside uh where possible. So, all overlay zones, regardless of whether any other changes are made to those uh those
specific overlay zones, uh will all have a 20% set aside um required. Um specifically, um the city agreed with Fairshare to
increase some of the densities in um in the overlay zones. Uh overlay zone one is the Solerno Dwayne uh dealership. Uh that um that overlay zone will be amended uh
to permit up to 30 units an acre with a 20% set aside uh with a mixeduse component optional mixeduse component similar to the MBC zone that currently exists. Um
then the overlay zone two uh that is where incline capitals uh projects proposed projects were included. They are on the corner of Broad and Morris, right? >> Broad and some. Okay. Um, so they're at the corner. It's the gas station, auto
body, and the TD Bank building was their uh challenge. And those those specific sites within overlay zone 2 uh will be um the overlay zone will be amended to permit up to 30 units an acre um up to
four stories comparable to the NBC zoning. um only for those incline capital sites and the rest of the parcels in that overlay zone will continue to permit a maximum of three stories but will be will receive an
increased density of 15 units an acre. Um before that it was 12 units an acre. Um overlay zone 3 did not change except to uh create a 20% set aside. Um and that one we we don't have a slide for that because it didn't change. Um,
overlay zone 4 is the city's CRBD zone. Did I say that right? CRBD zone. Um, because this is the city's historic district, um, it will continue to be limited to a maximum of three stories. Um, however, the density will be
increased to 20 units an acre with a 20% set aside. Uh, overlay zone five is, uh, 25 to Forest Avenue. Um, fair share in the city agreed that
um the the overlay zone will be amended to con uh to allow for the conversion of existing office space uh in the footprint of the building itself uh to be converted into residential development with a 20% set aside. Um or
it can be demolished and built in the current building footprint. um if if construction if that is uh more conducive to creating the uh residential units. So that will also be a 20% set
aside. Uh overlay zones six and seven will stay the same. Overlay zone 7 is the current 12unit Habitat for Humanity project. So that has been uh the construction has been completed on that side. >> Excuse me again, Miss Holm. Could you explain what an overlay zone is? I'm
assuming a few questioning faces in the audience. >> So overlay zones mean that the uh the underlying zoning remains um and then there is um additional zoning placed on top that a uh that a property owner can
choose to utilize to redevelop. And what happens in in unmet need is you provide um incentives with higher densities to in order to entice developers to create affordable units. So that that is um
those are all improvements to our unmet need. Um one thing to keep in mind, the Fair Housing Act as it was amended required that the city evaluate all of its overlay zones and ensure that they continue to be realistic. So, uh, this was a compromise that we had with
Fairshare Housing Center. Um, that, um, that is part of our settlement. Um, now on to yes, fourth round. Uh, so we're there are a lot of mechanisms. So, we
have it split into two into two tables here. Um what you'll see at the beginning is um we have 42 credits that are units that have already been built or units that their affordability controls are expiring this round and we
will extend. Um that is a permitted mechanism uh to ensure that affordable units that have already been created by the city um continue to be rem continue to remain affordable to low and moderate income households. Um so that that is a
total of 42 credits. Um there is the Harmon holding site which was in the plan, the NBC zone which was in the plan in June. Um Weaver Street, the improvements to the housing authority units which is Weaver
Street, Glenwood Place, and 77 of the Veto Gallow uh units for a total of 147. And then a vacant and abandoned properties ordinance. Those were all included in the in the uh June plan um
either in the unmet need or in the RDP that we had for round four. The new mechanisms uh to satisfy the re the remainder of our 345 uh credit obligation is 190 river uh
which is the Russo development company uh site uh the who filed a challenge. Um the little king site I know um uh it it's uh 791 to 795 old Springfield Avenue that is currently pending before
the planning board. Um we're receiving one unit from that. um 180 River Road. the property owner um approached the city uh in between the city adopting its plan and uh the challenge period um
suggesting a uh conversion of the bu the building itself um into uh residential units and then uh a resoning of uh lots in Franklin Place um for town home development and also the Bristol Meyer
Squib uh campus. is uh currently under on the market to be sold. So uh we had agreed with fair share housing center um to create a minimum number of units on that. So uh
before we get into the details, this map um shows where each affordable project is located within the city. Um as you can see it is not it is not all
concentrated in one area. It is scattered uh throughout the city um where developers have come in with projects. So we'll go on to um discuss
the Russo development. Um, as I said before, Russo uh filed a challenge. Um, in their challenge, they demanded 24 units. Um, and we were able
to settle with them for 198 units, 168 of which are market rate units, 30 are affordable units on site. Um there is shuttle service from this property to downtown uh to the train station. Uh
they have provided 25 parking spaces for uh for city use. Um that can also use the shuttle service to go downtown. Um there is a $1 million contribution to the city's affordable housing trust fund. There is also $100,000 in
landscaping improvements um for the municipal golf course across the street from this project, a donation of a 1.8 8 acre site um on Shunpike Road and oh and I said I said shuttle service as well
and um as mentioning Shunpike um Shunpike uh the city has agreed to use uh for veterans supportive housing um supportive housing units are a twofor one bonus uh scenario uh to incentive
incentivize supportive housing units which is a dire need in the state of New Jersey. There is not enough. Um so there there has been an incentive in the amended fair housing act uh to provide such a for such supportive housing. Um
we so all that is agreed to this far is that um that Russo will donate the land to the city um and then a developer will be selected um and zoning will follow the developer
selection. Uh that's up to the city how it decides to select the developer. Um and there are no specific plans for any development there yet. So uh it is merely 25 25 veteran supportive housing
units. Um, next is uh the as I said before the Bristol Myers Squib campus. Um, much of the campus will be deed restricted uh for environmental reasons. However, there will be um a
a decent size uh portion of land that c that could be used for residential development. uh we have agreed with fair share that we will provide a minimum of 20 uh affordable units on that site. Uh
we we don't have given that it's uh still in flux and that Bristol Myers Squib is still considering uh what developer they're going to sell that property to. That's uh the best we could do in that uh at this time and uh
the time constraints that we have. Um and Fair Share was was fine with that. uh with that minimum number of affordable units. Um as I said before, Little Kings uh has pending site plan application with the planning board. Um it's six units and
will include one affordable unit. Um as I stated before, I got ahead of myself. 180 River Road. Um the the property owner approached the city uh in between the adoption of the plan and um
and the challenge period um expressing an interest in converting the existing building itself into an inclusionary residential development. Uh that will yield 37 total units including at least eight affordable
units. Uh Franklin Place um will be a reszoning of block 3401 lots 7 through 20 uh from the R5 zone to a new townhouse zone of
10 units an acre. 10 units an acre with a 20% set aside. Um and those are the new projects that were not in the June adopted plan. Um so just to outline where we are in the
process uh I went over it briefly before um the next phase uh of this exciting formula is uh on February 17th the implementing ordinances will be introduced um and then the plan itself
will be placed on file 10 days in advance the amended plan will be placed on file 10 days in advance of the February 23rd uh planning board meeting uh where there will be a public hearing um and the planning board will consider adoption of
that amended plan uh and it will also consider the consistency of those ordinances uh with the plan and the m which is a master plan amendment. Um and then all of the ordinances will return back to
the council on March 3rd uh where they will be considered on second reading for adoption. Uh and then after that, um I have the wonderful task of filing everything with the program no later
than March 15th of this year. That is a statutory filing deadline and it must be met or you lose your immunity. So um and immunity is from builder's remedy lawsuits. So
um that is the settlement agreement with fair share in a nutshell. Um did I miss anything? No. >> Okay. Um so um did did you want comments from council first or
>> I think from the residents because I know I know this is a lot to absorb. Um this is not the only opportunity people will have to ask questions but um we are here notebooks and and and keyboards at
the ready. So if any if any resident would like to ask a question please approach the podium your name tell us where you live and please give us your questions. Uh, my name is Rick Carbone. I live at
23 Baltasur Road, formerly Pr 14 Princeton Street. Um, I'm a 68y old Summit resident. So, I've seen a lot of stuff happen in this town and
I need more than three minutes, but I'll do my best to state my case. Obviously, I'm here because of the Shumpike Road project. Um, I lived a half a block from where that stable is, and I grew up down
there. Um, so I have a couple questions. One, has the property been purchased? >> So, right now, ask all your questions and then the council or the >> Well, because the answer to my question will lead to the next question. So, good try though.
But seriously, has it been purchased? You all must know. And if it's been purchased, has it been donated back to the city? And it's been donated back to the city. Do you have to develop it? >> It's >> right because it doesn't have to be
developed. I mean, the reason it's being done is because you cut a deal with Russo. Everybody understands that. You w scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. He needed something for River Road. You need a place to put veterans housing. So, I get that in some places it's
called a bribe, but okay. So, why does it have to be put there? Number one, it's one of the few places left in the city, backs up to a reservation, people use it, people walk the trails, and now you want to take it
away and you want to put a veterans housing, hotel, whatever you want to call on it. I mean, there's a million reasons I could go through why it shouldn't happen. Maybe you should put it behind the rec center down below. That's vacant space. Been vacant for 15 years. There was a nice playground
there. It's gone. Maybe you should put it there. Maybe you should put it on the village green. You wanted to put a fire department and a police department there at one time. Maybe you should put it there. You sold the building on Cedar Street. You could have put it there.
Bristol Myers Squivas. Plenty of space. They got that nice green pasture in the front. Put it there. And my question is why Shumpike Road in a quiet neighborhood? And what really what really upsets me is
for two years they we debated the lights at Tatlock Field and you all reached out to people and talked to them and it went on for two years. the people that lived down at that end of town had to find out that this was happening on a document that
this young lady here sent to a judge in Trenton. That's how they found out about this. And I'm sure and they found out about this in January. And I'm sure this has been going on a lot longer than December interesting December 23rd.
Nobody works in train on December 23rd, but we sent it there hoping that nobody would find it, but we did. I mean, I get a notice in the mail when somebody wants to put a 10 x10 deck behind my house or widen their driveway. And nobody in that end of town was made
aware that we could be putting veteran housing on a lot, by the way, that was zoned for single family houses and now mysteriously got zoned for multi-use purpose. >> So, thank You don't have to my answer my
questions now, but >> I listen to I listen to everybody's campaign speeches and we all talk about transparency and being honest and this is not being transparent. Now, you may want you may come forward and do it, but guess what? I mean, the the it's it's
the cat's out of the bag. >> Not right. >> Thank you. Good evening, Council President and Council. >> Andrew Minger, 15 Edgar Street in Summit. Uh the June 2025 affordable housing plan from Summit offered one new
affordable housing unit and that new unit, that one unit was of course way under what we were estimated to need. Other builtup municipalities offered 25% and we offered one new unit. We hear the phrase summit gambled and lost and that
is what that refers to that June 2025 proposal that that gambled and we lost the opportunity to have built much much less across our city maybe even avoiding the entirety of the Shunpike project. My question to Miss Holm is whether this
gamble was based on your advice to last year's council or if it was guided by last year's council majority. There are clues that hint at the answer to that question. First one being that Miss Holm, you represented other cities that did not gamble this way and lose. Those
towns that proposed 25% um of their calculated number instead of way under, but Summit went in a very different risky direction and lost big time. The other clue uh is that earlier in your work with Summit, a couple years ago, you described the 50 units of affordable
housing for Summits round three as a requirement and then last year your language and your opinion of that changed. um and you no longer use that requirement language and I believe the ideology of last year's council majority helped coax you into making that specific language change. So again, my
question is did you advise Summit to Gamble in their June 2025 proposal or did last year's council direct you to go that route? Thank you. Hi, good evening. Dileia Hamlet, 59 New England. Um, I just wanted to say thank you to our professionals. Um, I
currently sit on the planning board, was a council woman before this. Um, I want to submit for the record page 39 of our housing element and fair share plan um, from June. And I want to explain to the public that all of the sites need to meet four criteria. So whether we like
it or not sitting at home, if a site is approvable, available, developable or suitable, we had an obligation to look at that land whether we like it or not. And we none of us want to overdevelop
summit. I ran and I was elected for that. But I want to submit this because this is really why when we had to look at the judge and when we had to when Miss Holmes had to prepare our housing element and fair share plan and protect our city, that was her obligation and her duty. And I thank her and I thank
our planner uh Tom Barren um for the question. I'm not sure if um this council knows, but those two parcels were acquired by Summit East Development. I believe it was in 2023 and I believe they're paying about5 to $6,000 in taxes a year. What that means
for all of you who live down there is that Summit East was not planning on keeping that a horse farm. Uh they are one of the biggest developers. Uh they also developed in the prod zone for Kenview. Um and they also the developer there Russo owns Wells Fargo. And when
we when we looked at our two options, we could have either walked away from the table and everybody still would have had 198 units. But instead, what we did, which the residents should be happy for, is that we we were allowed a
relationship to produce a million dollars to inject into the Summit Housing Authority and that property. With that property in this city's control, we will have more control over what is developed. And I guarantee you that there would have been
able to have been at least 40 units. Tom, you can you've been doing this a lot longer than I have, but um there was going to be something there. And we felt it was the right thing to do for the residents. Um again, this are attorney client privilege discussions. We simply couldn't tell you. I would have loved
to. What I will tell you that piece of property down there does not have a developer, does not need to have zoning in by March 15th, and we could do RFPs from now until a year from now and get the community engaged. And that's what
you should do. Have a great night. >> Anyone else? >> Hello. Um, Carol Pectang, 2347. Um, I have, you know, I'm I'm seeing a lot of this and like digesting it just now. Um, first just clarification question on the
overlay over that building on um, Deforest. You know, that that building has a lot of businesses inside that I can't imagine would want housing on top of that building. So, I I just don't understand what the resoning would do to that building. building. I know JP
Morgan is in that building. It's beautiful. It's like their primary like uh client luxury uh offices. I I don't imagine they would want housing there. And just looking at all the different
buildings that are proposed, my biggest question is um at least on first look, it really seems like Washington school district will be severely um affected by this and we know that the board of ed budget last year had
significant cuts to critical items that the community is very upset about being cut from the budget. So, when we're already cutting things from the board of ed budget and from our school district and things that uh like the PSATs and
summer school, things that uh health services that the teachers union found very critical and upsetting and disappointing that were cut last year, I don't really understand how we are supposed to absorb all these families
moving in and significantly to certain districts over others within the town and you know my other question is how then will the elementary lines be redrawn because I suspect for capacity sake that that's going to be a
significant issue also based on what criteria will these lines be potentially withdrawn and um what is going to be the strategic plan for supporting the massive growth in the school budget of
staff uh support we you know, health insurance costs are going up and so all of these costs are something we're already struggling with as a town. Uh, and districts all around us are also struggling with and foreseeing quite
large increases to just current operating budget. Um, so I I'm very concerned on these issues. Um again from a point of you know building up SpeakUp Summit and we have a lot of things that
we are looking to advocate around but man does this really affect even the priorities we would be looking at to advocate around because um this seems like it's rapidly approaching and it doesn't seem to me as though there is a
strategic plan ahead of time to deal with these costs. Thank you. >> Thank you Dr. back. Anyone else? >> Hi. Um, first I just want to point out that this statement by Miss Hamlet, um, everyone should realize that she was
your name. >> Sorry, Tracy Keegan. I first moved to Summit in 1994. >> Um, Miss Hamlet's statement, um, you know, kind of trying to offer help and advice and everything. I think everybody needs to realize she was on council when this plan was made. She was intimately
involved in the plan. She was now lost the election, was appointed to the planning board, and is now kind of the arsonist arriving in the firetruck. So, I I hope we all realize this. Um, my question is for Miss Holm. Uh, the December 23rd letter to the court seems
to completely reverse Summit's position from June. Were the documents in June and December both driven by your guidance or did council instruct you on what they wanted? Um I think this plan came a shock to a to a lot of us if not all of us were
shocked by it especially um certain neighbors like Shpike neighbors. Um so between June and December why did we have absolutely no public explanation about what was happening? Um we do know that other towns did did reveal um portions if part or not all of their
plan to the public. Um you all had the opportunity to do so any time between December 23rd and when you left office um when you guys all left office you were you know crowing about how great this plan was going to be. So I'm just wondering why did we not hear anything?
Um, between June and December, how many meetings, Miss Holm, did you have with members of council regarding the round four strategy? And I'd like to know if there were only Republicans present, or did you invite the Democratic um minority members of the council? Um, how many meetings did Summit have with
Fairshare Housing, Russo, and Incline? And who attended those meetings on behalf of Summit? Um, aside from Summit, I know you represent a bunch of municipalities. How many other clients were forced to rewrite their affordable housing plan at the
11th hour because of severe challenges like ours? Um, why did you sign a letter last year that disparaged at home and summit a volunteer group of residents who crafted a plan for affordable housing at the former firehouse site? I'm attaching that letter. Did you truly believe
residents sharing their expertise in affordable housing planning is harmful? Or was the criticism of their proposal driven by council's wishes, the former council's wishes or litigation strategy? Were you involved in drafting or advising on the testimony Summit elected
Republicans gave in Trenton, including Miss Hamlet, in early 2024 opposing the 2024 Fair Housing Act amendments? Did you warn them that being among the most vocal opponents statewide could increase our litigation risk? In hindsight, do you believe their testimony contributed
to Summit being singled out for this challenge? And looking back, given the outcome now, what would you have recommended that Summit do differently? Thank you. Good evening. I'm Diego Hoy Naral Court. On December 23rd, 2025, Summit made a
settlement offer to Fairchair Housing and Russo. The content of our offer shows that their challenges had merit. So, the plan we proposed last June did not conform to the law. Fair share only challenged the immunity of 16
municipalities including Summit. More than 430 municipalities were not challenged in their immunity. Arithmetically, Summit's plan was in the top 4% of bad plans. However, even if our affordable housing
plan got an F minus while we debated lights at Tatlock, blame games will only divide us. Right now, we need transparency. Here are my questions. First, on what date did round three
actually become final? On what specific dates did Summit file the documents it promised in the June consent order regarding projects at two houses of worship, construction schedules, development agreements, etc. Number two, what was the rationale for double
counting units towards round three and round four? How much credibility did we lose by adding overlay zones 1 through 7 and Elizabeth RCA to round four? Number three, your firm represented many municipalities in these matters last
year. How many did you represent? And how many of your clients saw their immunity challenged by fair share? Number four, fair share accused Summit of self-servingly misinterpreting the requirement to address at least 25% of a
met need. How many of your clients use Summit's vacant land adjustment methodology to calculate RDP? If the majority of your clients took a different route, why was that? Number five, how was the decision made to include 125 units from the Gallow
building? This allowed fair share to attack Summit's credibility since the statute states a municipality may not satisfy more than 30% of the affordable housing units through age restricted housing. Number six, how was the decision made to
include Lenwood and Weaver since they could not be included per statute because they were built in 1972 and 79? How much money does the city have to spend to make each building acceptable to fair share? Number seven, fair share references a memorandum of the city
website that they accessed on August 18th, 2025, but is no longer there. It cannot be privileged since they are the counterparty. When was it removed? On whose orders, and for what reason? Number eight, what impact did the timing
of the sale of the firehouse lot have on the ability to settle these challenges since the property features prominently in the fair state in the fair share challenge? And finally, why can't the city place all filings in all relevant dockets on its website?
They are public documents. Why should citizens have to go to equ >> I will send you >> is your name on it? >> I will send it to you. Yeah. John Calibri, Yale Street. Um, questions
regarding uh the presentation that was just shown. Um, I reiterate what Mr. Carbone said earlier, you have uh the potential for 25 units down on the Shumpike area, but if you look at the the gross size of the Bristol Squib
campus that's up for development, and then you tell us that you only have 20 units over there versus 25 on a postage stamp. Seems like a little imbalance there. So, I'm wondering what the uh thought process was there and if that could be amended.
Um the uh overlay zone six I believe was by the CBS. Didn't hear how many stories that was. Believe that would have been four most likely. And if it wasn't, what is it? In addition to that, there's a
niceiz parking lot behind that. Given that area and the commonality of the of the density of the housing there, why can't we build underground parking, something like that? and additional housing there to alleviate some of these
other areas. And then the statement was made about um even distribution of low-income housing and the map of Summit was shown and there were colors on it. There were no colors in North or South Summit. It was
all in a spine. Bristol Meyers, Central Business District, East Summit. So to say that it's evenly distributed, somebody needs to look at that again. That's it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions?
>> Um, okay. Well, my understanding is that there will be we we will have location on the city website for additional questions. I mean, as you process this and and and take the time to understand
um what all is in it, I'm sure you will have additional questions and please keep submitting them. Um we'll we'll answer them quickly. Um th this didn't take as long as we had anticipated. Do we have questions from
council? >> Can can we have our our attorney answer the questions for us? And if we have questions, Do you want to take five minutes to to confer and see if it makes sense or
>> I think I um I can answer a few of them pretty quickly. >> Okay then. Terrific. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Ber. >> Um okay. Uh the first question was, has the Shunpike property been purchased? It's owned uh by um a partner in the
Russo Development Company. Um and then um the agreement is that they will transfer they will donate the property to this I'm sorry I'm sorry. Um the first question was has the Shunpike property been purchased? Uh that is
owned by a partner of the Russo Development Company. Um and uh it will be donated to the city uh around when the um Russo will come in for building permits. I believe that's
>> um so it's not it's not immediate. It's uh it's in the future. Um does it have to be developed? It's in our plan. So um it has to be developed. Um Um,
as far as uh a couple people said something about the 25% the interpretation of the 25%. Um, I represent personally 20 municipalities across the state. Um I
would just say 10 of them are vacant land municipalities uh who had the same interpretation of the 25%. Um and many of those uh plans were approved. Uh so it really didn't have anything to do with the interpretation
of the 25%. Um it was not a gamble. It was a um a wellthoughtout plan. Um there was there were way more than one unit being
constructed. If you look at uh the unmet need and uh the RDP together, um it's just our our uh adjustment was uh made rendered it smaller and we did have um
we had excess credits because of the good work that summit has done in the past. Um, that is something that 100% of municipalities across the state, if they have excess credits, they apply it to the next round. There's nothing
nefarious or terrible about doing so. That is part of this process. They are still affordable units and they're still being filled with very low, low, and moderate income households, which Summit should be applauded for having the foresight to do surplus credits, which
you will see in the fourth round. We do have surplus credits going into round five. Um there was no public explanation uh up to this point because we were still negotiating the mediation agreement between fair share housing center uh and
the city. Um, I know that many people in Trenton who voted for the amendments to this Fair Housing Act kept telling everyone how transparent this process was going to be, but everything shut down the second we entered mediation. Everything is confidential once you
enter mediation. Uh, one thing I would like to remind everyone is that all of the challengers to the city's plan were known before the plan was adopted in June. We knew they were coming. uh we
knew that we would have to deal with them and Summit is actually very lucky based upon my experience and I'm sure with uh Tom's experience through this whole process uh I had municipalities where a developer came in with a 350
unit project that they purchased the property on August 1st gave no advanced warning to the municipality that they were coming in with a 350 unit project and basic basically brought a builder's remedy in August and that happened all
over the state. So, the city was prepared because they knew who they were dealing with well in advance of what was happening. Um, I would like to remind everyone that my firm has represented the city of Summit for almost two
decades almost I I would I want to say continuously, but I don't know if that's true. Um we have represented uh Democratic councils, Republican councils and the like. And the one common denominator is that Fairshare Housing
Center has been gunning for the city of Summit since time began. And it has always been an acrimonious relationship. I feel like we've made very big strides with them. I've we've had a very very good discussion with them this entire
time uh through the mediation process. And I feel like we are mending fences for the first time in 20 years with fair share housing center. So um there is nothing that was gambled and lost. Uh I
only represent my municipalities to the best of my ability. They become my family members and I take it very seriously how to protect all of my municipalities across the state.
Um, I'm just trying to find easy ones that I can answer. Um, so forgive me. Um, round three ended um on July 1st of 2025. Um, all documents as part of the
consent order were submitted to Fairshare Housing Center uh on the dates provided in the consent order. uh we did not double count anything. Um what you'll see from my explanation is that you continue to have an unmet need in round three. That's a combined unmet
need for the prior round and round three. Uh like I said before, I represent uh 20 municipalities across the state. Um I did answer that 25% question. Um the Gallow building um we it was very
very important to uh the city that we improve the summit housing authority units. Um I am a firm believer in taking care of the resident the low and moderate income residents that you currently have. I think those
units are very much in need and the best way to do that to allow the housing authority to leverage uh state funding is to include those units in an affordable housing plan. That is question number one on all state
applications is are you in a court approved housing plan? So to set up the housing authority for success, the housing authority units were included in our June plan. I can't imagine anyone disagrees with improving the lives of Summit residents.
Um the decision to include Glenwood and Weaver, yes, they are older than April 1st of 1980. Uh again, that was to help them leverage uh leverage state funding for all the improvements that are needed in the housing authority. Uh those units
will be deed restricted with a 40-year deed restriction. uh once they are uh improved and um once they are improved and the new affirmative marketing is done um and that is how they become creditw worthy
and that was the decision that was made. It was to give the housing authority the best opportunity to improve those units. Um the memorandum on the website uh was removed. I don't know why it was on the website to begin with. Um it was written
before uh the amended the official amended fair housing act was put into place. Uh it was old advice based on what was happening at the time. The fair housing act changed by the hour uh as it
was going through through Trenton. Um the uh I believe I think I wrote down um I believe certain uh summit council people did testify. Uh I did not testify in
Trenton. However, uh several of the partners in my firm did. Um there is about a hundred years worth of experience in Mount Laurel uh in my firm and they are the best people to advocate on behalf of municipalities um against a
law that has been a nightmare to navigate for every every every municipality across the state. I don't care what the people in Trenton said about what they what it was supposed to do. It did not function in the way that it was supposed to and it forced
municipalities to operate in the dark away from the public and it shouldn't have happened that way. It was not some divine plan by me to keep it in the dark. I was protecting the city of Summit and participating in a mediation
process that was confidential. Um the deforest uh overlay zone uh on deforest on the on the building that all the overlay zone does is um if there is an opportunity where that building is is
becomes vacant no longer is able to uh to rent uh rent space to businesses they have the opportunity to convert it into residential. They don't have to. It's an option. Um, I am not qualified to um
weigh in on school district decision- making. So, I'll leave I'll defer to uh to those who are well way more well-versed than I am. Um, let's see here. How many plans had to be rewritten? Um, based upon my discussions
with uh professionals across the state, just about all of them did for the reasons I said below before. um that uh developers came out of the woodwork with no advanced uh no advanced warning to municipalities and they were basic they
were they were under immense pressure to settle with those developers. Um it was a terrible process. Um so a lot of municipalities were are forced to rewrite their plans uh in short order between now and March 15th. Um,
I do not believe that uh the city was singled out because of testimony in Trenton. Uh, like I said, uh, the the relationship between Fairshare Housing Center and the city of Summit has been acrimonious for at least a decade, if not more. Um, I feel like that has
greatly improved this round. Um, I would not have done anything different in Summit. Uh I protected the city the best that I could with the best plan that I possibly could. Um just because the city calculated its realistic development
potential the way that it did did not mean that uh fair share housing center was going to accept it as gospel. Um we used the most reasonable information that we had uh with the data that we had. that doesn't mean um that that
would have been the outcome. Nor do I think that the uh interpretation of the 25% made any impact on how we have arrived at this uh at this settlement agreement with fair share. Um
Uh one thing uh that the city needs to or that uh citizens do need to understand is that many of the developments on our map um those are developers who purchase property and we don't control where they purchase
property and come in with proposed projects. It's whether it accords with sound planning. we consider it and um that's how uh the location of the affordable units um occur. Um I believe
I think that's everything. Is there anything on your list? >> There was the one question um the 20 units at the Bristol Meyers. >> Oh yes. >> Yes. >> Right. Okay. So >> that's just math. >> Yes. Yes. Um okay. So the as you can see on the I mean on the map, do you have
the map? Can you put it up? Um Bristol Myers Squib is a huge campus, right? So um only a fraction of that campus is available for residential development. Uh and we don't really know
the extent. Yes. Okay. Thanks. >> Or the location of what is not going to be deed restricted. So we are waiting for Bristol Myers Squib has uh is entertaining several bids for that for
the residential portion I believe or the whole is it the whole >> the whole the whole thing okay so but only some of it is majority of it is going to be deed restricted for what is there now uh that is due to environmental constraints um there is a
certain amount of land that will not be deed restricted that they've determined determined is not uh impacted um that can be used for that can be developed with residential. I don't know uh more than that. Uh none of us do. Um
fair share agreed that there's no point in um demanding something more from the city when we don't have enough information. So we agreed to as you can see at least 20 affordable housing units. So that doesn't mean only. It's
just at least. We don't know until we know who the developer is that comes in. And at that point, we will have to work on what that residential development will look like. So that we just we're we're doing the best we can with the
information that we have on that one. So >> did I did I miss any any other >> questions? Okay. Ah, okay. Um, >> did you close up? >> Um, well, for you, Reverend, I'll re
we'll reopen them. >> I just had a question. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, council president, and the mayor and to the council. I have a question for Miss Holm. I'm trying to understand because some of you go to church or synagogue, whatever. We sing a
song, we are climbing Jacob's ladder. And then there's a verse that says every round goes higher and higher. So I want to just know if this is round four, round five, round four. >> Round four. >> Uh is there is there a time when the
rounds stop? >> My my question is so next year it'll be round six. It's infinite. It just continues round round. Uh they're 10 unit rounds or 10 year rounds. I'm sorry I it's been a long day. 10 years uh 10
year housing cycles and they they um are based upon the census. >> So there's no time period in a municipality when it is fully developed in terms of um around needing to be addressed.
>> Right? So every so every 10 years um what would happen is the city would evaluate change circumstances such as Bristol Myers Squib if that if something like that would occur. Uh and then they would calculate their realistic
development potential again and um and use whatever whatever credits they have uh whatever developments that um that come through the door uh from developers to create another affordable housing.
>> So there would be in other words the rounds continue. So Kayla six years from now she'd be out of college. should come back to this. It' be around 12 or something like that. >> Yes. Yes. It's every 10 years. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Should we move on to council questions? >> Oh, >> Peter Sabillo, 11 Greenfield Avenue. Um it it's not clear to me on the Bristol Meyers Squib property what portion of that or has it been defined yet on what
portion is going to be available for the housing? I mean that's a big piece of property. I know that >> uh we're we're not sure yet. They haven't told us. >> Okay. >> Okay. That it. Okay. Council questions. We
keep trying. Mr. Powski, >> is it just questions or can we make a statement, too? >> At this point, the idea is we're gathering questions, sir. >> Okay. So, I have a few. Um, just to follow up on the whole 25% question. Um,
you said that we were not the only municipality who calculated our obligation the way that we did. Um so is there consensus among the program judges and adjudicators as to how the calculation should occur?
>> No. >> So some of the professionals that Trenton appointed to oversee this process actually agree with us. >> Yes. There there are several special adjudicators and some judges that agree with our with our interpretation.
>> Okay. And when you go into a law library and you see all those books, right, there's a winner and a loser for every decision, right? >> Yes. >> That doesn't mean it's a ludicrous position or anything like that. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Um and you and you also said that there are
some municipalities who calculated as we did and had their plans approved. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, as to the question of whether the rounds could would ever stop, um, certainly they could pause for a
particular municipality if that municipality has already satisfied their unmet need depending on whether the rules are changed in the following round, right? >> It wouldn't necessarily be paused. Um, so if you I have several vacant land
municipalities who continue to have an RDP of zero because they continue to have no land to build anything and the unmet need just gets bigger and every round you have to re-evaluate your overlay zones and all of the mechanisms
that you've put in place to make sure they're still reasonable. So there would still be, no matter what, a fight with uh and I say that lightly, a a discussion, a strongly worded discussion with Fairshare Housing Center on whether uh what you have in place is reasonable.
And that for me, this experience uh it ran the gamut where they asked for uh huge increases in density in some towns and some towns they kept the same as round three. It just all depended on the municipality because every municipality
is different. >> And why does Fair Share Housing have so much power over what any municipality chooses to do in terms of development? >> Uh they are the de facto nonprofit entity that looks out for uh low and
moderate income households and the Supreme Court in uh Mount Laurel 4 uh define them as such. So they uh they are awarded a lot of difference uh because of the uh community that they represent.
>> And if the state legislature so chose to modify the uh legislation, could it ease the burden on municipalities? >> Yes. Uh the Supreme Court uh in all of the Mount Laurel decisions uh defers to
the legislature on how the fair h fair housing act should operate. >> So think hard about who you vote for. >> That's it. >> Other council questions, >> council president. >> Yes, Mr. Boy.
>> Um so how are these areas chosen? How do how do we even get developers to come in and how how does that process work? >> Uh typically the developer uh gets an option on a property and approaches the
city with a project. >> So so the city's not going out and looking for land to develop on because we're not developers, right? They come to us and that's how this whole thing starts. Um so the area at Shumppike um once this is
signed the city will own that land right? >> Uh the settlement agreement. >> Yeah. >> Uh no it's going to be transferred uh I believe upon uh 190 River Road uh applying for building permits around
that time. >> So at some point though they're going to transfer the land to Summit, >> right? So some will be the owner of that land, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. So can you explain the difference that if
if the developers still own that land, what the city um could say about what they put there, right? So like so if um Russo still owned the property at Shike, they could build an apartment building, right? They could build pretty much if
it's in zoning, right? they could build >> um well we have we have immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits so they couldn't come in with something that's excessively you know dense uh at this point in time that doesn't mean that in
round five they would use that property to leverage the city in some way uh when we do our next plan um it you know it if they had if they had kept that property it wasn't part of our settlement they could have uh gone to the zoning board
for whatever application they would like. >> And so now that the city will one day own the property, um the the city can decide what goes there, right? So for example, right now it's a veterans home. Uh maybe two years from now, the city
may decide that we want to put a group home there for disabled children, right? Like as long as you get the 23 units, right? Is that >> 25? But yes, >> 25, right? >> Yes. Um it it is um because they're supportive units. It would have to be
adults. Um because the Mount Laurel doctrine, it doesn't deal with uh with group homes for children. It deals with adults. Um >> no, that's fine. >> But um but yes, so it would have to be but you would have to at least we're getting 50 credits out of those 25
units. So, um, if you built less, if you if you built something that didn't amount to 50 credits and we had, um, we we had a a disparity in how our credits were aligning up, then we would have to find another parcel to
>> we would have to find another parcel, right? Like for example, Bristol Bristol Myers quote, right? That's 20 units and we have an excess of um 23. >> Yes. >> Right. Okay. All right. So, it's better that the city
actually owns that property because we have more flexibility of what we can do, right? Yes. >> And Shai. Okay. >> As of right now, we are required to build 25 veteran supportive housing. >> Understood. >> Understood. Um the the other thing is uh
Glenwood, Weaver Street, VA Gallup. Look, you don't have to fall in the sword for that one, right? I I will certainly take that. And you know, I I'll tell anybody that um I you know, I every meeting that we've had, I brought it up, right? Like that's that's what
that that's what needed to happen. I grew up in this town. Um I'm familiar with the apartments. Like I've been in them recently. Not like um seen a picture or anything. Like I actually know people who who live there and I go there. Um so
a million dollars right to help renovate um 195 units and the other structure of the deal where uh the city will um provide legal and counsel and try to
get more funds to you know submit applications like the whole process of it right um I I don't think that would have happened without this process, you know, fixing these units. I I think that was that was
one of the biggest wins of this whole plan was renovating 195 affordable housing units, low-income that we have currently in Summit right now that are falling apart, right? This this is an
amazing thing that we did. Um the last thing is uh Westville Westville did a similar type of deal where they got something from a developer to to help offset some costs for affordable housing. Right.
>> So >> I think so. I don't know. So the idea that a this was a gamble um because even the adjudicator said that summit was fair and did everything
the plan was was good. They signed off on it, right? So it wasn't a gamble. Um and the the other idea that um you know there's some uh nefarious type of deal with getting
money from Russo uh is um is is is absurd, right? Like we we're we're really not a part of that that that whole thing, right? I I think I think the great thing is for a
municipality to negotiate and actually get something for a developer who's going to develop there anyway is is a win-win. Um can you explain I know you said builder's remedy, right? But I think the public is maybe and I was confused about it at first too, right?
So you have an arbitrator, you have developers that come to the arbitrator and say we want to develop there, right? And then Summit has to say um you can't develop there for a reason. And then they go back to the arbitrator
and it's back and forth or whatever, but we can't use our our our um our immunity to say no, right? They own that they own that property. So, if you could just talk about that sequence of the city's
attorney, the arbitrator, fair share, like how did that whole circle work? >> Um, I'll do my best. So, um, just for those who don't know what a builder's remedy is, uh, that was created in Mount Laurel 2. That was in about 1985, I
believe, 83. Um, forgive me. Um, there there's a lot going on. um Mount Mural 2. Um because the legislature had not acted uh since 1975 when the first Mount Laurel decision was created, uh the Supreme Court of New
Jersey took it upon themselves and created the builder's remedy. And what that is is if a municipality does not comply and create a realistic opportunity for its fair share of affordable housing in the region, a builder can come in and satisfy that
obligation by presenting a project they are ready, willing and able to develop. Uh usually um nine times nine point nine times out of 10 uh that project that they propose is astronomical. uh it's
very dense knowing that they're going to get whittleled down to a number. Uh what also is involved in a builder's remedy is that if a municipality, it's very rare, but if a m municipality absolutely
refuses to proceed in good faith, uh there is a remedy where the court can take over your planning board and the court master, which is now called a special adjudicator, decides what projects are approved and which are not. Uh that occurred in Englewood Cliffs is
the best example of that. That's the that's the the shining example of what can happen and what the Supreme Court has allowed um courts to do with what they call recalcitrant municipalities. So that's that's the background of what
a builder builder's remedy is and what the what the severe consequences are for a municipality. Um so what happened was uh in order to um maintain your immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits, the amended fair
housing act says you have to meet all of these deadlines. So the first deadline was uh by the end of January last year where you had to accept your number or calculate a new number um and then say you were going to abide
by this. This is your round four number, right? So we did that last year. uh in January. Uh the next deadline is you have to adopt a plan um by June 30th, which was the end of round three. Round
three was the end the last day of round three was June 30th of 2025 and July 1st started round four. So your plan had to be in by that deadline and some municipalities did not do it and their immunity was stripped and their case was
dismissed. Uh Summit, we were fine. We got it all done. Um then um challengers had to review the municipality's plan and file challenges um by August 31st of 2025. That includes
fair share housing center, any developers, any nonprofits. I did have some other nonprofits in certain municipalities uh that are local that did uh we had neighbors. All sorts of challenges were filed. Um, unfortunately the Fair Housing Act says
a developer cannot challenge your plan and say that my project is better. Uh, unfortunately the practical effect was the program didn't dismiss those developers and they got to participate fully in the process and a majority of
the time I was told settle with that developer or we can't recommend your plan. So that's where we were. And uh like I said, I've had I had other municipalities where I had 350 unit projects that had to go in my plan that
I didn't know about until August 1st or no, I didn't even know about till August 31st and they purchased the property on August 1st. So um this did not go the way that I think anyone envisioned uh it would go unless the developers they
envisioned it and this is how it worked. Um so then from August 31st uh through the end of the year uh was the time frame in the fair housing act where all the municipalities across the
state um had to negotiate and settle with any of the challengers if you received any. I had some towns that did not receive any challenges. So um which did include the 25% interpretation that I had and I had no challengers
including fair share housing center. Just want to add that. Um so um so then so that we've been in mediation this whole time and mediation is confidential and that's why we are where
we are. Um, summit has a very has a complicated set of facts and we had several developers. Uh, we had one that we couldn't reach an agreement with. Um, but we we had to do
things we agreed with Fairchair Housing Center on um on how to satisfy our round four plan. Um we received a lot of additional um additional things particularly from
Russo which um which helped with the settlement. We received 1.8 acres. It's not easy to come by 1.8 acres of land in uh in Summit and on which to build affordable units. Uh we have a million dollars that's going to
go toward the housing authority which is much needed. Uh we have improvements to the golf course that's across the street because that will de facto become an amenity for that development. Um and in order to
uh alleviate the congestion created by this project downtown which is already congested. I don't have to tell anyone in this room that uh Russo is operating shuttle service so that those cars from that project are not going to need
parking downtown. Uh he actually because this is a common request across the state because parking is difficult particularly in northern New Jersey where he develops uh usually uh he actually owns a shuttle service because
this is such a often complained about often complained about issue for most municipalities. So he is operating that shuttle service for his developments. Um, and uh, that was something that
greatly affected uh, the settlement in this case. So, I hope that helped. Did I answer your question? I don't know if I did. >> Yeah, it's okay. It's it's a whole complicated thing, you know. It's all good. Um and the the last thing is what
what would have happened if we would have um disclosed all all of the projects that we were doing during this time frame, right? I mean you just name like three different particular periods of the process and the New Jersey
legislature wrote this out, right? So that we couldn't talk to the public. But what happened if what would have happened if we we did? What were the consequences of that? Uh it could have it could have compromised um either of our settlements. Uh it also could have created an ethical issue for me
personally by divulging confidential settlement uh communications. Um you know, usually if you if you've ever been involved in a lawsuit, you'll see confidential settlement communication written at the top so that it's not used it's not a public document. It can't be
used as evidence. Um that is that is a big issue. Um and until we knew exactly what was going to be in that settlement agreement, um you know, things came in and fell out and it evolved just about
on a daily basis. So there wasn't anything to say until uh we I was required on December 23rd to before we had an inked deal with Fair Share Housing Center that was completely finalized. Uh, I had to write the brief
because I was required by Judge Miller to do so. So, >> Miss Landman, >> thank you. Um, hi. >> I have a couple just clarifying questions. First, um, >> so for Franklin Place and Austo gave me
some information about this before, but I think it'd be helpful for the public to have. >> Sure. >> So, when we talk about that development, what's the total number of units, not just affordable, that we're going to plan for that site? who owns those properties today, when is this development likely to occur and like
what are the major gating issues to that proceeding? >> Yeah, I'll try to give my understanding of of that area and how that evolved and and what is going to take place. So, um my understanding is that the total of number of units that could be produced
through new townhouse zoning would be 70. So, 20% of that would produce 14 affordable units, I believe, is the math. I don't have it in front of me. Um I I believe the the total acreage is approximately seven total acres and it
encompasses uh in that block lot 7 through 20. So there's give or take I don't know what is that 13 parcels or so of varying sizes. Um, our firm's been involved with Summit for a while in various capacities as city planner, planning board planner, um, zoning board
planner, worked on the DRRO and and you know, so we've been deeply involved in in zoning and development in Summit for since I've been at the firm and even prior to my tenure. And this was a site or this area of Summit, Franklin Place, has been identified as a as a place uh, sort of a lowhanging fruit, so to speak,
that was ripe for redevelopment. um in part because of its proximity to the train station to the downtown. Obviously, the area we're talking about is about a half a block to a block just from those areas. So, a very walkable part of Summit and on the westerly side of that that block, Franklin Place where
it intersects Summit Avenue are two or three new townhouse developments. So, the sort of the idea, the vision was to continue that development. Uh, and those properties are currently in the multifamilytransitoriented development zone, which in theory we could have continued down this stretch
of Frank Franklin Place, but we wanted to be a little more targeted, a little more sensitive to the um existing property owners that are to the north, uh, which are single family, multif family, uh, on the north side of Franklin Place. And one of the other thoughts is that what exists between
lots seven and 20 is really a hodgepodge of uses. You have um dwellings that include a number of apartments essentially two, three family buildings. You have commercial uses, industrial uses, and just an area that's uh evolved in a peacemeal fashion over time. There
have been a few applications to the I believe zoning board for multi-unit uh projects. There's vacant land there. So again, when when we had to think about places uh where we could produce affordable housing, right? That's the state mandate. That's what we were charged to do. This seemed like a reasonable place to do that. And the
program that we thought would be reasonable for that area is townhouse development at 10 units per acre. >> Right. But who owns those properties today and when are we planning this development in this? >> There are multiple owners of those individual parcels. Uh and again they're varying in size, varying in use. And so
the mandate is to to create the opportunity through zoning to so to create the incentive that somebody can take advantage of that and produce affordable housing. So we we don't have the city, no municipality has to go out and pick a developer, has to has to draw the plans or anything like that. The the
mandate is that you create the opportunity and that's what the zoning is intended to do. >> Okay. So 70 town homes on Franklin Place from it's like Hobart, I believe, over to >> to the corner essentially. >> Okay. And it's only if a developer wants to do it. Okay.
um on the Summit Housing Authority, just to follow up on um Councilman Ber's questions. So, we understand there's a million dollars for renovations. My questions are more about like how did we are there any contingencies with either Fair Share Housing, Summit
Housing Authority, or otherwise about how those dollars are spent? Are there additional dollars we need to raise to meet some agreement? >> Yes. So, um, and just for timing for Franklin Place, um, the, um, we have to
institute the resoning by March 15th. Um, on by July 1st of 2028. Uh, we'll present the city will present written commitment to develop the property from a developer in in accordance with the
zoning or uh, the city will replace the 14 affordable units with another project. So again, if Bristol Mario Squib >> develops with more units, that might be a way that we replace those units if it doesn't if it doesn't come to fruition. So that I just wanted to answer your
question on the timing on that one. Um the housing authority uh there is a uh 1 million according to the term sheet uh that we executed with the housing authority and we will have a more formal agreement uh before the council uh at
the March 3rd uh uh meeting. Um the there is a $1 million uh payment lumpsum payment um that will uh be used uh to start. Is it Glenwood that we have
the Glenwood that we have the Yes, Glenwood. We are they have already done the analysis for what what the costs are uh so that they can get started with the improvements to Glenwood. >> And what is that? Sorry. What does that cost? >> Uh it's about $175 a unit. A $1,000 a
unit. 175,000. Um, but that there's also um they're they're going to evaluate uh the other uh the other properties uh to do the same analysis that they did with Glenwood. Um and then um the city is
going to provide um $180,000 per year um for to the housing authority for specific projects um as we go. So through uh through the round um and then by including them in the municipal
housing plan, they can then go and leverage funds uh through the state uh when they're available um to improve those properties. So uh so that's the that's the plan as far as expending money goes.
>> Okay. Um and then at our last council meeting there were some who suggested we completely reject the plan, vote no on the ordinances, etc. >> So um you mentioned before that we must
do this or we lose our immunity. Can you just elaborate or comment a little bit further on the consequences of that >> suggestion? Yes. So, um, uh, the the amended Fair Housing Act says, uh, like I said, uh, you as long
as the municipality continues to operate in good faith through this process, it will maintain its immunity. So, um, at this point, operating in good faith is implementing what the city has agreed to. Um and specifically there are the
ordinances and uh adopting the amended plan are the requirements uh that and entering into several agreements like with uh housing authority and um uh an amended agreement with our house and a
few developers agreements like that. Um those have to be done and submitted to uh the program by March 15th. There are other deadlines within um the the agreement that we're still until right
before this meeting. We were still negotiating with Fairchair Housing Center and I'm still waiting for their final uh their final revisions. Um there will be deadlines throughout that we have to meet either um construction deadlines or approval deadlines or um in
the case of um the um the veterans project uh we have within a certain I believe it's within 60 or 90 days of the transfer of the property we have to um
reszone uh I'm sorry we have to uh enter into a developers agreement with whoever is going to develop that project. So within 90 days of the transfer of that uh of that parcel um and then 60 days after that we have to amend the zoning so that it can be brought uh as of right
to the planning board. So there are various things. So all of those deadlines demonstrate that the city is is operating in good faith. So, if the city is not found to be operating good faith, whether it uh fails to adopt all
of the ordinances on time and submit them by March 15th, um the visage judge can remove our immunity. >> Okay. So, I just want to make sure I get this right. >> That was a longwinded answer. >> Council has to approve ordinances next
month. >> Yes. that relate to 190 River Road, Harmon, Little Kings? >> No. >> Our House. Little Kings is done. >> Yeah. Little Kings is before the planning board. >> Yeah. >> Our House. >> No.
>> Okay. So, when when does the Our House and Summit Housing Authority any ordinances related to that? There's no time frame >> there. There's no ordinances related to those. Those are agreements. >> And then can you repeat what you just said because I think it's different than what you said to Councilman Buer about the veterans housing at Shunpike. We
have 60 days to do what after we get that property. >> Yeah, let me let me get the exact Let me just find it. So, I'm saying there >> because there are residents from that neighborhood here tonight and I just want to make sure they >> Okay. Yeah, sure. Um Okay. Um,
uh, Russo will donate property known as 47 to 53 Shunpike, uh, to the city for a municipally sponsored 100% affordable veteran supportive housing project. Um, the agreement between the city will require the property be transferred to
the city in accordance with the terms of the mediation agreement with Russo. Um and Russo has agreed that it shall deed Shunpike to the city with clean title uh upon obtaining final unappeal unappealable site plan approval from the planning board. I'm sorry I did say
building permits before, but it's um as soon as they have unappealable approvals from the planning board for their project. Um, within 90 days of receipt of the recorded documentation transferring Shanpai to the city, the
city will enter into an agreement with the developer of the veterans project and provide an executed copy of the agreement to fair share. It will include a proforma of construction costs and a plan for those construction costs. Within 60 days of the execution of the
agreement, the city shall resone the property to ensure that the developer can proceed as of right with a site plan application to the planning board. So th those are the deadlines for that one. >> So we have a very short window if at all to change I'm confused because you just
said we didn't have to put it there. >> I didn't say we had to put it there. I said we have to develop we have to develop >> that property with supportive housing. >> Okay. Yes. But it doesn't have to be the veterans housing. >> It doesn't. But that was the that was
the uh intention. It's support. We have to we have to develop it with supportive housing because I just want to clarify whether or not it's required that we put veterans housing there. >> Um it's not but that was the intention behind it. So
>> okay. >> I think I those are my questions. >> Council president I don't know if you should I'm I'm so sorry. Yes. >> Yes. Council President, >> maybe just a follow up to that. >> Sure. >> Um if one disagrees with the Shanpai
project sighting and use, is there an opportunity to move it somewhere else uh in the city to a different location, a quote better location? Is that something that we have the power to do? >> Um not really. No.
Um this was the agreement that we entered into and we would have to amend our plan >> um and go through this process again. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Please. >> What does that what does that mean to amend the plan?
>> What I'm sorry. What am I when you say we'd have to go through amending the plan? What does that look like? Well, we ha we have an agreement with Fair Share Housing Center. We have a recommendation for an approval for this project.
>> So, no, this is uh >> one person at a time and at this time at this point it's it's Miss Home. >> I don't I don't recommend doing any of that. We'll just put it that way. I don't think that's a good idea at all. So,
>> I'm >> okay. Please don't shout from the audience, >> Council President. I was I I had additional questions, but that >> keep going. >> That's different from my understanding and what I was hearing before as well. So, I I understand if people are confused. >> Uh I I didn't understand. Um
>> but we're all digesting this information, which is very new for all of us. Um, going back to your your question about other towns, why were other towns around us like Westfield, which it's not Summit, but it is a wealthier town. How were they able to
have a more open and transparent process? And what did they do differently um that allowed them to have more visibility and more openness with their community members? Uh I'm not I'm not familiar with Westfields.
>> I don't know all of the details, but I I know uh one of the attorneys that was involved and my my general understanding is that they were able to um resolve the various disputes from the developers interested in certain projects which were my understanding is smaller in scale and a bit more palatable for the
community. So they were able to approve those amicably prior to the challenge process. So um they essentially went into the challenge period basically hand in hair handin-hand with fair share housing center with a plan that worked for everybody at that point. Summit we obviously had a few challengers where
going into the challenge period we knew we would be facing those challenges and at that point had not reached um agreements as far as what the city might deem to be you know acceptable scale of development. >> Okay. A question I think perhaps best suited for you Tom. Um, I'm wondering
whether the projects within the affordable housing agreement are compliant with somewhat's current master plan, especially the 190 River Road project, >> which to me looks to be outside the master plan's parameters. And if you have any information overall and
particularly on that project, >> it's a loaded question. I'll do the best I can. So on on the one hand uh the document that the planning board is going to well the document that the planning board adopted in June of 2025 is the housing element fair share plan which is an element of the master plan
um that's going to be amended this month what is it February 23rd by the planning board um which will include 190 river as a plan mechanism. I think it would be helpful to go back to how that site evolved, you know, as a component of this plan mechanism. Um, how the
developer, you know, came to own the property, etc. So, my my recollection is that Wells Fargo had occupied um this existing office, three-story office building, uh, up until about 12 or 18 months ago. Uh the site was put up for auction and the the winning purchaser
was Onyx Equities who is a partner with Russo Development and and so they were the team that uh at first came to the city exploring medical office and that evolved uh you know through this fourth round affordable housing process which created the opportunity for developers to propose projects like this two towns
um to come to the city with a 250 unit project. um that that development at that time was perceived to be too intense and so there were uh initial preliminary discussions as all towns were engaged in to see if that development could be reduced in scale in
any manner and so there were were several iterations from there. Um ultimately when the planning board adopted the plan in June the project had not made its way into the plan at that time. It had not been reduced in scale enough that the city deemed it acceptable. There were a few public
meetings um at least one where uh Russo's proposal at the time was vetted by the public. I think that was at the planning board um and and the public was able to give feedback and and based on the feedback um the project was not placed in the plan. Um so your question
pertains to you know whether or not the proposal that uh is included in the city's agreement is uh we'll call it consistent with the master plan. So on the one hand uh the process that the state created basically says uh was designed to circumvent zoning was
designed to circumvent um certain master plan provisions that municipalities have that you know basically establish the character of the municipality. So I think there's a few ways to look at this. one is that you had an existing off three-story office building u that was a top of uh two levels of structured
parking and it was the developer's intent to remove the office building, keep the structured parking and build on top of that. And so one of the key points of the mediation as as uh expressed by the the court adjudicator as well as the program judge was, hey, you have this developed site, it's got
700 parking spaces. you know, this developer has a fairly legitimate case as to why this should be developed with some number of affordable units and we worked on what that those number of units should be. Furthermore, um just under the site is I don't know if it's a tributary to the Pacic River or um some
water body that the site could not be demolished and redeveloped into something new. So, people had asked why not just knock it down, build a nice townhouse development, build something else. The fact was that because of modern environmental regulations, you couldn't do that. you couldn't just bulldoze it and do something that would
be more in keeping um you know with the character of summit. So um I I would say that the the current iteration of the pro of the project as uh you know uh shown in in the settlement agreement the 198 units was just uh part of the
mediation process and and again it was guided by the uh adjudicator's comments by the program judge's comments and it was also an opportunity for the city to locate um significant well I'll say some amount of density in an area of the city that might be less impactful than other
sites and other other developments. For instance, an eight-story 300 unit project right in the middle of downtown on the village green. So again, when one had to make choices of, you know, you had to do something, right? Doing nothing was was not an option because if if you did nothing, you would lose your
immunity, lose control of local local zoning entirely. So we had to do something and you know, choosing from the different options we had to work with. that became a site that not only the program told us we had to work with but again once we understood that we said okay how can we um you know make
this something that fits with summit and that we can maximize the opportunity to maximize affordable housing credits and get other community benefits like as discussed the million dollars um the Shunpike site etc. Um so it as proposed
it may not perfectly align with the master plan but again I I think the site evolved through uh rounds of mediations certainly a few uh uh heated conversations uh you know between the city and developer to get where we were and again remember they started at 254
the final product is 198 and when you consider uh the Russo project and the Shunpike projects as a whole package which it is um that represents a total of 200 223 physical units whereby the city is going to get 95 affordable
housing credits. So that that the ratio essentially is that the city will get 46% 46.6% affordable housing set aside out of this 223 unit project. So it from that perspective it was a
tremendous deal that alleviates development pressure elsewhere in summit and that was part of the uh decision-m. >> Thanks for that and we'll be exploring that. I'm the leazison to the planning board. So, we'll be diving into that, I'm sure. Um, but just on that project, it seems that it's a traffic island. It
has two divided highways and and an access road surrounding it. And to think of kids growing up there, it's it's not a place where I would want my kids to to grow up. U, but that's maybe a little too editorial for for a council president. Um, another question. Was the
financial impact on our property taxes, our city budget, schools, and contribution to the county taken into consideration in the negotiation of the plan and the waiting of the different elements of the plan? And related to that is, is there an unfunded liability
to rehab Summit Housing Authority units? We heard the million dollars that's about $5,000 per unit and we've heard the rehab cost is close to $200,000 per unit. Is there an unmet is there a an uncovered cost there that will be absorbed by the city?
>> Uh so I would have to defer to the CFO as far as the the tax uh liability and the schools um would have to go to those who uh those who know better than I do about those things. Um the housing
authority agreement um requires that the housing authority um exercise good faith in obtaining all all uh possible funding applications that they possibly can over the next 10
years. Um and in year eight if for some reason none of it gets funded uh the city would have to bond for it. I find that extremely unlikely. um given that uh housing authorities have been funded by the state for similar projects um in
the past. So um what what the agreement also says is that the uh the city's trust fund will also assist in helping them uh hire a consultant who is uh experienced in leveraging those funds. So
>> that's great. Thanks for that that information. So the the the impact on our tax was not considered as part of the negotiation process or our own strategy. >> Uh I mean all of those all of those arguments are always made. Um if you go back and look at the Mount Laurel
decisions, uh the Supreme Court had and uh judges continually say that doesn't matter because that's what Mount Laurel did uh with its exclusionary zoning was for the purpose of excluding school age children and keeping their property
taxes low. So that's not a viable and I'm not saying it's an excuse. I think it's perfectly legitimate and I think that that's uh silly not to in not to take those things into consideration, but they are not taken into
consideration because of the Mount Laurel one decision. So, um >> by the judge >> by the judge, right? So, we we can >> um I know that um I'm sure that Russo will show uh traffic studies and school
age children studies and all of those things uh when they go to the planning board. There are more public hearings to be had um throughout this whole process. So, uh I believe that they will submit all of those things to the to the planning board when they come for applications. >> Thanks. You've been very patient. One
last question. And what is the total number of units expected to be constructed or potentially constructed with all of the mechanisms? And what would be the total number of new residents or occupants of those units? >> Uh, give me one second.
>> Sure. Um, council president, well, Miss Home is looking for that answer. Can I just elaborate on the question that >> please please do >> with regard to tax implications? Um, I
can't speak to the school again, their budget and and what they need to do and how many school age children might come in. Russo uh developments will give a presentation on that to the planning board on what they think it might be. Um but for the city uh obviously that would
be eratable and we don't have a pilot. There's no pilot being considered for this. So that's where the county comes in and they get an extra 5% if we're giving a pilot. So there's no um tax break given to this developer for this project.
Can you tell if >> if you prefer to answer that offline? That's that's fine. >> I'll get that answer to you. I'm sorry. We'll put that in the frequently asked questions. Thank you. Sorry. I just didn't have that calculated. I apologize. >> Uh I'm sorry. If I may very briefly, uh,
my back of the envelope math, it's about 430, >> but we'll confirm total units. If if everything were to come to pass, including building uh, at at Bristol, Myers, Squib, etc. So, both the projects and the overlay changes were to come to
fruition over the 10-year period, it's I believe uh, over 430 total new units. And you could assume is an average number of residents for those units and come to some number I assume. >> Uh yes. And um that's assuming that the
overlay zones all get developed in 10 years. So they've they've been in place for at least 12 now. >> The overlays. >> Oh, really? Since 2018. >> Yeah. So they've been in place in since
2018. And only two of them have developed. Um and one of them was a was a 100% affordable habitat project and the other one did not develop with the overlay zoning. It was only six units. So um that's assuming if all of the
overlay zones which have not developed yet are developed. So >> did you have a question? >> Yes. Thank you council president. Um, all of my questions really have been answered so far, but I did want to
clarify um something when we're talking about when we're comparing the 20 affordable units at Bristol Myers Squib and the 25 affordable units at Shunpike. The Bristol Myers Squib site is inclusionary housing. Is that right? Yes. >> So, what would that be more like a total
>> uh that would be a minimum of 100 units with with 20 of them being affordable? >> Okay. So the Bristol Myers website is is getting 100 units, not 20 like to >> minimum. Yes. >> Okay. Sorry. Thank you. I just thought there was some confusion there. >> Yes.
>> Yes. And the 25 the Sean Pike would only be the affordable uh supportive units, veteran supportive units. >> Okay. Thank you. Do we have other council questions? Yes, Miss Lera Cena. >> Thank you, Council President. And I apologize for jumping in earlier. Uh I I
don't want to too far uh on what happened in the past, but I do think it's important for us to understand how we got here so that we don't repeat missteps of those who have gone before us. Uh so I want to refocus briefly on
on this issue of the 25%. So there was as part of the most recent amendments to the affordable housing law um this 25% multiplier as a mechanism by which towns could try to reduce the number of affordable housing units that they would have to build over the 10-year period.
Um so on this question of whether the our interpretation of the 25% rule contributed to fair share bringing their challenge against us. Um, I I pulled up fair share's challenge, uh, and it says in part, quote, "The city self-servingly misinterprets the requirement to address
at least 25% of unmet need through redevelopment and fails to meet the requirement." Um, so this was the the prior council's decision to apply the 25% multiplier to the much lower RDP, the realistic development potential of
18, I believe, rather than the much higher unmet need number of 327. Um, so this was a choice that we made of of how to apply the 25% multiplier. And based on what I'm reading in the fair share challenge, it does indeed seem to
have contributed to uh the challenge that was brought against the city. Um but appreciate your thoughts if you take a different view. >> Sure. Yes, of course. They you know, just like any um anyone bringing claims against someone, you have to bring all
of them or you wave them. Um, so, um, I'm going to read the, uh, the language specifically from the statute. Any municipality that receives an adjustment of its prospective need obligations for the fourth round or subsequent rounds
based on a lack of vacant land shall, as part of the process adopt of adopting and implementing its housing element fair share plan, identify sufficient parcels likely to redevelop during the current round of obligations to address at least 25% of the prospective need
obligation that has been adjusted and adapt adopt realistic zoning that allows for such adjusted obligation or demonstr ate why the municipality is unable to do so. uh and they the language that is important is um to address at least 25%
of the prospective need obligation that has been adjusted the that has been adjusted is the realistic development potential that is the strict construction um of that uh my my law firm represents 100 municipalities
across the state uh from uh Cumberland County up to uh Bergen and Payic And we use that interpretation all across the state. Um I like I said I have settled cases where using that interpretation
using the interpretation in summits uh in summit's housing uh element and fair share plan. Um just because fair share argued it doesn't mean that they're right. We have no adjudication on what that stat what the statutory construction means. uh several
municipalities tried to um file motions to have uh the visage judge review that language before we went into mediation and they were all rejected. So it's basically left up to appeal uh to go
through the system after um after plans have all been adopted and uh can appeal um certain decisions. So, no definitive ruling has been made on any of those and there are varying um interpretations of
that. There's at least four separate interpretations that people have used across the state uh on the 25%. So, just because fair share says it is what that is uh doesn't make it so. >> Thank you. Just one additional question.
Um, so, uh, based on the timeline that you set out during the presentation, we received our prospective need number from from DCA, the number of new affordable housing units that were estimated to be needed over the 10-year period of 345
new affordable housing units. Right? So, that to me kind of set the ceiling of the number of new units that we would be uh, obligated to provide over the 10-year period. uh as a result of the June 2025 plan uh the reflection of the
application of the vacant land analysis that uh number then came down to 18 uh as the the RD the realistic development potential kind of looking at what what land is available and and developable. So, we went from the ceiling of 345 uh
and then came down to 18. Uh but then based on what was approved by the prior council in December of 2025, it appears we then came back up to 345
and acknowledging that uh these are not all new units to be constructed, right? Some a large chunk of them are for the rehabilitation of the summit housing units. that we we went from the ceiling of 345 down to 18 and now we're back at
the ceiling of 345. So I guess my my question is that I can't make that make sense really as to what how we started it how we started and have ended up back at the ceiling.
>> Sure. So um the 345 is our perspective need obligation and just because we had adjusted our number down using the vacant land analysis doesn't mean that the entire 345 goes away. It gets divided into the realistic development
potential which was the 18 and then you still have to provide mechanisms um as the city develops and redevelops to um to try to satisfy that unmet need. That's where the overlay zones come into
play for uh the prior round and the round and round three vacant land analysis. And then the same is true for uh for this round. And um and I don't know if it was as articulately stated uh
as it should have been when I um went through this, but what you'll see is if you go and look at the June plan, um a major a significant majority of the mechanisms that are in the current
settlement agreement were also applied to the unmet need. So, um you can go back and see the housing authority units are there. The um uh hold on one second. Um, so what was included in the unmet need uh last
round? Uh, Harmon units, Glenwood Place, Weaver Street, Veto Gallow, NBC Overlay Zone, our house, Brandy Wine, and then um what we did was we combined the unmet need um all of the mechanisms with the
unmet need for rounds prior rounds uh prior round and round three and round four to make a combined unmet need. Um I don't know if uh recalled what I uh I answered a question before for towns that have an RDP of zero, they would
just and let's say they had a 20 unit obligation, right? And they they continue to have an RDP of zero, that 20 would just get added on to their unmet need that they already had. If that makes sense. I I hope I'm making sense. So, what you'll see is um all of the
ones that I listed um are still in the round four plan. We've got um our house, Brandy Wine, um Harmon Holdings, NBC Zone, uh Weaver Street,
Glenwood, Veto Gallow, um and the vacant and abandoned properties. So, and then we added the five new mechanisms um based on uh the number of credits we had, based on the fact that we could um
uh utilize up to 87 uh bonus credits toward our round four obligation. It made more sense um particularly because we could not settle with incline to satisfy our entire obligation in order
to move forward with the process. So, I hope that I hope that answer your question. If you have a followup, >> it does. Yeah. Uh, you know, I think just the the categorization of the units matters, right, across real the RDP, the realistic development, potential unmet
need, uh, and and perspective need because of the the city's obligations vary, right? So, understand that that we had, you know, a large chunk of the units, I guess, allocated to unmet need in the June 2025 plan, but they have shifted now. And like that that's a a
serious change because now the city's obligations ratchet up >> uh because they have been recatategorized understanding that the the total number is still there but the allocation across the different kinds of units has changed which means Summit's
obligations to actually make good on these commitments for the 345 units I >> is greater than than the position that had been taken in the June 2025 plan. >> Yes. And um just to reiterate uh just because the city calculated its
realistic development potential at 18 doesn't mean that fair share is going to say oh this is great we accept that uh r did you have anyone any fair share agree >> in any town I mean first of all fair share challenged over 400 municipalities
and every single town that did a vacant land adjustment just based on the concept that you've reduced your obligation by some amount right? Even though it's baked into the law, the law that they might have helped, right? They they they were opposed to the just the general concept of towns using that mechanism. So, what was interesting is
that throughout the mediation process though, we had these three challenges. Um the RDP address actually wasn't attacked at all and and stand by the math. It was done accurately and it it didn't become a sticking point at any point in the mediation process because they had nothing to object to, frankly.
Um but beyond that, the issue that we wrestled with was that we had still had to deal with that matter of interpretation that was discussed. Um we had to deal with two live challengers that had uh you know, one had an option on a property, one owned the property
that was the Russo site. And um we had to deal with them. So that was um you know what really what caused us to have to move off of the RDP. And part of the 345, you know, if you go through the charts, were the existing credits that Nancy mentioned, I think 147 were summit
housing authority units, which if you go back to the round, the city's rounds uh one and two plans were credited because guess what? They serve affordable housing, you know, low and moderate income people, and they were taken out of the plan in the third round uh because that process was more of the
wild west. It wasn't conducted by CO anymore, and Fair Share Housing Center had an issue with the city's residency preference. So you had credits that were in the plan that were credited, they were removed, and we were able through a lot of negotiating to get those credits back into the plan. So that satisfies a
huge chunk of the 345. So once we started putting these numbers together, as Nancy mentioned, plus 87 bonus credits, you could get up to 25% of the total number with bonus credits, it started to make more sense to just say, what do we already have and and put that all together? Uh, you know, and that's
what came together as part of the plan. Council President, can I ask one more question? >> Okay. Yeah. >> Sorry. Um, just want to go back to Sean Pike for a m moment. If we had not accepted that land, what is it zoned for
today and what would a developer have acquired in order to change that zoning and put in apartments? >> Right. So, as it exists today, it's got a sign out front that's called the Sliden Creek Farm, I think. Right. You notice there's a couple of structures there. There's some uh an equestrian
looking equipment, maybe some construction. >> I know. Yeah, I know it's actually there today. I meant the zoning for >> I'm going to get there and try to help explain what what the uh the likelihood of what could happen there. Right. So, um a few years ago, the PROD 2 zone, which was the old Cellgene East campus,
was purchased by Onyx and partners who were a partner in the Russo deal. They went through the site plan process and got the new Ken View head headquarters purchased and they have other plans for the process for the excuse me for that campus which we don't fully know yet but we expect there to be additional activity there at some point in time.
Onyx and that partner purchased this property. So you have a private entity who purchased private land in the city of Summit. Um we don't know what their intentions were when they got it but obviously it was a strategic decision on their part. they don't they didn't just buy the land for you know to preserve as a farm and and through the mediation process one of their principles told us
as much he said what do you think this is just going to you know remain a stable or whatever you know whatever it is open space so um that and and frankly one of the prior iterations of the onyx plan before it even turned into this veterans thing was hey we understand the city's position that we you know you
think we're doing too much at 190 river how about we divvy it up we'll keep the market rate units on on River Road and we'll put our affordables there and for a number of reasons you can't do that. You can't separate them and have, you know, all the market rates here. It's against the law, frankly, I think is one of the factors. So, we said that that doesn't work. But
it got through the conversation, they they decided to make it available to the city and said, you know what, we understand that you need a site for your veterans housing. Um, we'd like to donate to you and and so it became part of that discussion and and that was the one of the concessions that they offered.
>> Right. But that I don't think that answers my question. What is it zone for? Yeah. So I think it's in the R5 zone which allows for single and two family zoning. Uh again, so what could it be developed if you went uh with an as of right project? That would mean single and two family houses. Um again
uh the developer I don't think was intending on ever using it for those but um you know a lot of things I've heard well what would compel the zoning board to have to approve a non-resident residential development? Fair you know nothing really. Um but the site could have been used um as part of this
process or subsequent processes to say I've got another affordable housing site and with a much larger density. And so again it solved the problem of um you know one finding potentially a spot for the veterans housing uh in an area that's uh where land is highly
desirable. Summit obviously huge demand to live here where availability of land is scarce. So trying to solve that problem was a really hard a hard puzzle. um you had a developer who was willing to make this concession. Um and I think the city moving forward, again, we don't
have a developer, we don't have a zoning plan, would move forward with a transparent process that would allow the community to help design and give considerable feedback in how it will be developed, how it'll be operated. It's so that it fits within the community.
>> And we have an excess of credits now. Yes. For round four. >> Uh yes. >> How many? >> Yes. planned. >> We we have planned uh in excess of 23 credits as of right now. >> Okay.
>> And that's Yeah. Um I typically try to plan for excess credits because properties come and go, developers lose options, things like that happen where you can then you you're not stuck holding the bag and now you're back in
front of the court trying to trying to justify that. And hypothetically, if let's just use Bristol Myers Squib for an example. If for whatever reason that doesn't get developed, uh what happens at some point in the future when we haven't met our obligation or our agreement with
Fairshare Housing? >> Sure. So, um there is what's called a midpoint review and that's done uh July 1st of 2030. that's halfway through the 10-year plan, uh the 10-year, uh round,
and uh we have to report on all the housing activity um above and beyond the monitoring that we have to do every year where um Austo has the the um honor of entering everything into the DCA system
every year by February 15th. Um and um we have to report we we submit a report uh to the court and we make it available to the public on what what projects are built where what the status is of
everything else. And then at that point fair share housing center can come in and file an application against us if they don't think if they don't think that we've met uh our obligation up to that point. um and other developers can come in and say this isn't this is no
longer realistic. Um it's it's a very open process. So um that would be probably the first um huge milestone. There are other milestones in um the fair share agreement on specific
projects. Uh Franklin Place and um I'm blanking. 180 River Road are two that um it we have a midpoint midpoint review that we are to um report on the status of those projects and whether
they've been whether they've been built at that point in time or we and then at that point we can uh exchange them for something else. So, let's say uh those two projects specifically um if for whatever reason they don't
come to fruition and Bristol Myers Squib provides more than 20 units that covers that, we can uh remove those from the plan or find other or we could find another affordable housing site to do those. So, >> um, and then my last question is just,
um, is there a legal reason why the newly elected council members couldn't have been a part of the conversations after the election? Like, could we have signed an NDA and joined the conversation even as listening? >> Um, it violates attorney client
privilege because you're not um you're not you're you're elected, but you're not sworn in elected officials for the city. And that's >> so there was no possibility to sign an NDA and join the conversation as an observer. Okay. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Can we make it brief, please? Council member Powski. >> Well, you know, >> I know it's asking a lot. >> I have some follow-up questions. Uh Tom, I think you said fair share challenge 400 municipalities.
>> Over 400. Yeah. Almost every town that applied 140, I believe. How many municipalities are in New Jersey? >> And how many are immune to this process? >> 62 urban aid municipalities, right? >> Is it that many?
>> I think so. 42 62 somewhere there. >> They're not necessarily immune to it. They don't have a prospective need obligation. They have a very high rehabilitation obligation. So, they still have a Mount Laurel obligation. It's just to rehab units rather than um
provide new units. They can if they want, but they don't. Um, it's a different. >> So, most were challenged. >> All municipalities in the state according to Mount Laurel 2 have an obligation whether it's if you're an urban aid municipality, it's um rehab.
Uh if you're a suburban municipality, uh it's it's rehab and uh new construction. >> But most municipalities were challenged. >> All of them. Yes. >> Okay. Um did Ultimately
putting 345 our entire unmet need in our plan close the door on additional challenges. >> Yes, it did. >> I I had I had asked um did settling for the entire uh 345 unmet need close the
door al to to ultimately agreeing to the 345 number did that close the door on additional challenges? >> Uh yes it did. Judge Miller recommended to the visage judge that Incline's challenge to our plan be dismissed.
>> And how many units did Incline want? >> Uh, it varied. Uh, I believe about 250 units on 1.8 acres. >> And how many stories? >> 350. >> It it evolved. Um, so at one point it was eight eight stories at 300 units.
The final iteration was maybe 225 units on six stories, but even that fluctuated um depending on the week, but um that that was uh for a while it seemed like I'll reserve my comments, but uh
>> it was possible at one point. >> It was I believe it was around 152 units an acre. >> Okay. And what's the traditional density in Summit >> maximum? The highest that we have right now I believe is 30 and Russo will be
45. >> And before that it was about 12. >> You had 20 I believe in the MF multif family zone. >> Okay. >> And then um the NBC zone was the highest density we had which was 30 units an acre.
>> The unmet need number that we were given from fair share in December that we accepted. We don't we don't have an unmet need anymore. >> We rent. >> But that that the the first thing that happened in this process was fair share
gave every municipality a number. Right. >> Fair share didn't. DCA did. >> I'm sorry. DCA. >> Yes. >> Um and how many municipalities challenged that number? >> Uh I don't know. Um I had 20 municipalities and none of them
did, but it varied. It it depended on um it depended on the data that DCA um produced and how they came with the number. I I don't know that number. Do you know? >> There were quite a few that did. Um but
I I'll say that we looked at the factors and the methodology and when that number was assigned by by DCA, I think it was November 2024, we looked at the opportunity to possibly reduce it then and it really it wouldn't have made a difference. there wasn't a strong case to be made as far as attacking the methodology. So, we
accepted that that the state did their math correctly because they did, you know, so the number was 345 and recognizing that the program uh or excuse me, the Fair Housing Act still allowed towns to to conduct the vacant land analysis as the city had for rounds one, two, and three.
>> How many that challenged that number one, their challenge? >> It from my perspective, it became let's make a deal uh and with Fair Share Housing Center. So, it became a negotiating process. >> Okay. Um, back to the 25% number. What
we did was consistent with the statute, right? >> Yes. Um, there are at least four interpretations out there. We use this strict construction um where you don't use outside uh information. You look at the plain language of the stat of the
statute. And that's um that's how we developed that uh that analysis. >> And how was that analysis done in prior rounds? >> There there was no 25% that's new for the amended fair housing act from 2024.
>> Okay. And um is it smart to forego your best arguments just because your adversary who wants something that you don't says differently? Um, no, not necessarily. Um, I, you know, we actually because of how the med
the mediation went, we never actually argued with fair share over any of the vacant land analysis information because we found uh we found that we could meet the entire number. So, it became moot. Uh, so we actually never discussed it
with fair share uh the merits of any of it and we did not discuss it with uh with the program. Thank you. Um, you mentioned before that our clock starts ticking um on what we may or may not have to do at
Shunpike after Russo gets through some planning process. >> Yes, it's um it's based upon um when their approvals from the planning board become unappealable. So, uh, whatever the number of days after they receive
their planning board approval, so long as they don't, um, there's no prerogative writ. So, if if there is, uh, if there is some sort of appeal, uh, it would be after the appeal is over and and they uh, receive their final determination.
>> Can you handicap how long that might take realistically? Well, so my well, so my understanding is that would be they would need final site plan approval, so not just preliminary. Um, you know, I don't know what pace they're planning on pursuing. >> Um, so so it's contingent upon moving
through that process. I, you know, expect that the uh the application review period would probably take multiple meetings. That that's just a guess. Um and then after that upon final planning board approval presumably as an as of right project there'd be that appeal period whatever the statutory
requirement is number of days afterwards. >> So >> it's hard to say >> it it it's hard to say. >> Well the planning board meets once a month right >> it I would say it's not imminent. Um, if that makes any sense.
>> On the affordable H. Back to the uh Summit Housing Authority. Um, you mentioned $175,000 per unit uh rehab estimate. Um, it's my understanding that that number was
obtained when Fair Share Housing was going to require gut rehab for all those units. Is that right? >> Yes. Are they still requiring gut rehab? >> No. Um they are allowing um the city and the summit housing authority to create a
plan uh that that meets the needs of of the housing authority residents um you know and um accounts for all the work that has to be done. >> So it might not cost 175,000 a unit. >> Uh the 175 was was calculated by Summit
Housing Authority. So, um that has to do with Glenwood, Glennwood, Glenwood. Um and that that is um common area improvements, common facilities improvements, HVAC, plumbing. Um so that
it's an average of 175,000 units, not specifically in that unit, but um that that accounts for everything that has to be done at Glenwood. So um we we are developing the same uh wi with the housing authority they are going to
evaluate every uh veto gallow as well as uh weaver street um to make sure to do the same analysis. So it it's approximately I would I would venture a guess that it's probably about the same. >> Okay. And
in terms of the housing authorities's good faith obligation to pursue funding that's going to be the city's going to be involved in that process. Yes, we um in the term sheet uh we agreed to um the housing authority and
the city would agree to uh the qualifications before the RFP for the consultant uh goes out and the consultant has to um communicate uh the funding possibilities to the city and there's also yearly monitoring that the
housing authority has to do um uh on top of all of that that was a requirement by Fair Share Housing Center. They wanted an annual um annual reporting. >> Thank you.
>> That it one more, Miss Lazera Cena. >> Thank you, Council. I'll put myself on the clock. My daughter let me borrow her timer, so I'm going to give myself just a few minutes here. Uh Miss again, I I apologize, but I do want to make sure that we learn our history. Um so with respect to again this 25% multiplier you
mentioned that there were four different interpretations uh with the interpretation that was adopted by the prior council again we went from 345 new affordable housing units um down to 18 and then with the application of the 25% multiplier we went down to five. If we had applied any
of the other interpretations, could we have gotten a lower number or was five the lowest number that we could have gotten based on the four prevailing interpretations? >> I I don't think it was five at any point. What what the 25% represented was
25% of the 345. If that Well, no, actually that goes to a number of different interpretations. So the five I think you mean was the five 25% of the >> RDB >> of the 18 right on top fair share's position was that it was actually 25% of the unmet need. So the difference
between 345 and what we had at 18 at the time 25% of that is what they indicated we would have needed. So even had we settled that frankly we had enough credits to probably make that work. we still had these challenges we had to deal with and also recognized the need to get summit housing authority into the
plan so that they could be uh eligible for the funding >> and there were other another interpretation was 25% of the total number which never really made sense to me but um that the 25% of the RDP is
based on the fact that it says 25% of the prospective need that has been adjusted it doesn't say has been adjusted ed out and that's the reason why um that interpretation was used and like I said uh my that was my firm's position on on that
>> and just another minute on that. So unmet need is a defined term in the revised third round rules NJAC 5-97. It's defined. It says exactly what it is. It cannot literally mean what it says in the Fair Housing Act. It it can't. So there's intention where people
who were involved in the drafting said, "Well, it was supposed to mean that." Well, that's great, but it says this, and by the way, that's it cannot mean that by any stretch of the imagination. Be it as it may, we are where we are. But it would you also have to recognize the pace of this process that the new
legislation was enacted in March of 2024. Municipalities got their affordable housing numbers in November of October 2024 which were formal which were finalized in January. So you have between January and June then to develop
a plan and it was always thought because this issue is ambiguous that there would be more robust debate and opportunity to discuss what it actually means. It turns out that nope, the program went full speed ahead and you had to decide where you were on the issue and in the best interest of some, but we decided that
well, we should amend the plan and minimize impacts, you know, in the in the interest of the city, >> right? And uh unmet need has been a term that's been defined for at least 15 years. And so if the legislature had meant an unmet need, they should have used it. So,
>> I I I appreciate I understand that the the amendments to the statute were drafted inelegantly uh and and open to interpretation, but it sounds like the answer to my question was was no. We took what one might call the most aggressive interpretation of the law to get our number down to make an attempt
to get our number down from 345 to 18 to 5. Uh and then we through the process from uh October of 2024 to December of 2025, we we dispensed with the legitimate mechanisms
to try to get the number of new affordable housing units down to end up back where we started, right? We went from 345 and we ended up back at 345 >> at the buzzer. >> Council President, I have a question.
>> Wait, hold on one second. So um the uh it was not the most aggressive. It was based upon the plain meaning of the statute. Um and that's what the Supreme Court would look at and that's where where the interpretation came from. Um
the the credits that we used evolved over time. Majority of them were already in our plan whether they were unmet need or not. Uh the intention was that the summit housing authority would get the funding that they greatly needed. Um
there there was no uh has to be as aggressive as possible. Our RDP was adjusted using our court approved presumptive densities from round three. Uh we used the plain meaning of the statute interpretation of the 25% and we
proceeded accordingly uh knowing that we were going to be challenged by fair share housing center no matter what we did. uh we were going to be challenged by Russo and we were going to be challenged by incline um and we proceeded accordingly. So
>> I have a follow-up question. Um thank you council president. >> Uh back in June, what was the number that fair share housing wanted? Was it 87 they came? Was that the number? um >> that their interpretation
um is 25% of the unmet need which would have been 82. >> Well, to be clear, we hadn't been in dialogue with fair share how at that point in the process, but if you accepted their interpretation, the minimum number would have been 87. >> But again, that wouldn't have gotten rid
of the of the challengers. >> Understood. So, if you subtract 71 bonus credits um and subtract 147 credits for the Summit
Housing Authority and subtract 31 credits carried over from round three, subtract seven credits for the renewal of rent controls and existing housing, right? Um when you when you clear that all away,
the actual number of new affordable units in this plan is 110. But if you go further, what you provided makes it clear that 23 of those are surplus uh credits.
So, at the end of the day, um, if the objective number for round four was 87 units, then 87 units is exactly the number fair share housing wanted us to agree with
back in June in the first place. Um, by starting at 18, we generated the leverage that was necessary to dictate how those units would be built. had we capitulated
to 87 on day one. So you go in to buy a new car and say what's the sticker price? 60,000. I'll take it. It never happens. Had we capitulated to 87 on day one, as some suggested, um
developers would have realized larger and more dense developments. Does that does that sound right? I know I said a lot, but >> now if even assuming that we
um that we took fairshare housing cent's interpretation, which I do think is incorrect. Um that does not mean that fair share housing center was not going to challenge our plan. They would have challenged 100% would have challenged
our plan. they did in every municipality regardless of whether uh in particularly in as Tom said in vacant land uh adjusted towns. Um I only I have one out of 20 that did not receive a vacant that did a vacant land adjustment that fair
share did not challenge. Every single one did. Um that doesn't mean that fair share thought our RDP was correct. uh that doesn't mean that they weren't going to challenge us to increase the overlay zones or anything else or to um
to try to generate more additional units. So it even if we had had used fair share's interpretation of the 25% we were going to be challenged by fair share. >> Exactly. So even if we started at their 25% their 87 we would have been challenged and we probably would have
had more units right because we started at 87. So starting at 18 and then go through the process of negotiation, we ended up at the same number that they had in the first place, >> right? And there was a justification for the 18. That was our court approved
presumptive density when we calculated our RDP the last time. Um, and that took into account changes within the municipality at the time. Uh we identified the Russo site as contributing to our RDP along with other
uh with along with other sites. Uh we we created a reasonable RDP for the city of Summit. >> Yeah, thank you. Because it sounds like to me um if you started at 18, they wanted 87, we ended up at 87. Sounds
like good negotiation to me. But anyway, >> thank you, Council President. >> Are we there? Okay, thank you. I know we've had city staff waiting for quite a while. Luckily, the business portion is
going to be very short. I say we call a 5m minute break and stretch. We will be back at 10:22 and see how fast that we can get through the business portion. >> We take our seats, please. We've had our
five minutes. >> Yes. You know what he says? >> We do want to let city staff get hold. >> However, >> nobody wants to stay for this one. >> I just wise man just
There he is. Okay, we have no ordinances for introduction this evening. So, let's go straight to resolutions. Uh, first up is Council Member Landman. Thank you, Council President. Um, for the sake of clarity and with permission from the clerk, I'll speak about both
finance resolutions together and then we'll vote on them separately. These resolutions are related to the increase in legal services in 2025. Litigation, property sale negotiations, labor issues, and reviewing OPER requests drove up the expenses above
what we had budgeted. The city originally approved a budget of $250,000 in December 2024, then increased it to $350,000, and now we need an additional 18,500 to cover the legal services for 2025.
We have two resolutions. The first is to transfer money into the account we use to pay our legal bills, and the second modifies the contract with our law firm to allow us to pay for their services. So with that, resolution number 12390 authorizes the city to transfer 18,500
from the finance, salaries, and wages account to the legal contract services account to cover the additional legal expenses incurred in 2025. I move to adopt this resolution by roll call vote. >> Okay. Okay. Do I hear a second?
>> Second. >> Okay. Do we have any comments from the public and starting with our residents? No comments from other members of the public. Comments from council.
All right. Um then um madame clerk, would you please call the role? >> Mr. Ber >> I. >> Mr. Christopher >> I. >> Miss Celmanson >> I. >> Miss Landman >> I. Miss Laroscina >> I >> Mr. Bowski >> I >> President Toe
>> I >> Council member Landman >> resolution 12385 authorizes the city to add 18,500 to the 2025 contract with Clearly Clearary Gakobi bringing the total contract for 2025 services to
$385,500. I move to adopt this resolution. >> Do I hear a second? >> Second. >> Do we have any comments from our residents? Comments from other members of the public.
Comments from council. >> Council President. >> Yes. Council member Boyer. >> I will be quick. I just want to make a statement that um all of these legal fees for uh affordable housing for some of these lawsuits. And I mean that could
pay for a lot of units being rehabbed like $365,000. um upping the cost for our legal fees. Um it's just it's just a man and hint. Okay, >> that's it. We're good. >> Okay. These legal fees are not for
affordable housing is my understanding, council member Ber. But um >> well, these are Jacob's, right? But the ones prior to that was right. >> This is all Jacob's. >> This is all Jacobe. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Okay. Um all in favor? I
>> I >> opposed. Motion carries. Um on to capital projects and community services. Council member Chrisouli. >> Thank you, Council President. As chairperson of the capital projects and community services committee, I will
introduce tonight's resolutions for consideration. The first is resolution number 12388 to amend the professional services agreement for the 2025 affordable housing planner services. additional fees in the amount of $7,000.
This amount was already budgeted in 2025 and this uh approval would close out last year's bill for services. I move to adopt the resolution. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh comments from our residents,
comments from other members of the public, comments from members of council. Okay. Um, all in favor of this resolution, >> I opposed. >> Okay, back to you, Council Member Chrisulli.
>> Thank you, Council President. The second resolution is number 12325 to authorize a grant application submission for the 2026 sustainable Jersey grants program and uh and to the PSEG Foundation to purchase an EV
charging station for the back lot at city hall to hopefully move forward with a component of the Summit community energy plan adopted by the city under resolution 40951 on December 5th, 2023. I move to adopt the resolution.
>> Second. >> Okay. Any comments from residents in the audience, from other members of the public, from council? >> Yes, council member Palowski. >> Yeah. I just want to say I'm glad we're
getting a charging station. It's going to be really important that we have some of these for our infrastructure going forward. And it's my understanding that if we were to put some solar on some city buildings, uh, they would throw in some charging stations as part of the
deal. So, just want to reiterate that we ought to be looking into that. >> Thank you. Other comments? >> All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Okay. Council member Chrisoui. >> Thank you, Council President. The third
and final resolution under CAPS capital projects and community services committee uh is uh resolution 12371 to appoint a part-time plumbing and mechanical subcode official. Uh the close session discussion approved the
routine hiring of a replacement for a city official who retired in December. I move to adopt the resolution. >> Second. >> Any comments from our residents in the audience? from other members of the audience,
from members of the council. Okay. All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Okay. Um, community programs and parking services. Miss Kelmanson. >> Thank you, Council President. This is
resolution ID 12376. This resolution authorizes the execution of a revised agreement with Park Mobile. The agreement originally awarded to Park Mobile on December 2nd, 2025 contained revisions that were not agreed upon. Park Mo Park Park Mobile included a line
item stating that the city would pay an additional 5 cents per transaction in addition to the 35 cent transaction fee paid by users. This revision has been removed from the agreement and a vote is required to authorize execution of the new agreement. I move to adopt this
resolution. >> Second. Any comments from residents, from other members of the public, comments from members of council? Okay. All in favor? >> I.
>> Any opposed? No. Back to you, Miss Calmanson. >> Thank you again, Council President. This is resolution ID 12377 and this resolution authorizes the submission of the grant application to New Jersey Department of Community Affairs Local
Recreation Improvement Grant Program and authorizes execution of the grant agreement. The city is applying for a grant of $75,000 to update the aging playground equipment at Memorial Park Playground. I move to adopt this resolution. >> Second. >> Any comments from our residents,
from other members of the public? from council. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? No. Um, safety and health. Over to you, Council Member Powski.
>> Thank you. Just get to the right page. Okay. This is resolution 12375 to authorize the execution of IT services agreement with quick text for the police department. Our law
enforcement uses an IT management program and I guess uh our last uh our last agreement has come due. We put out uh nine I guess we got nine bids on it and quick
text won the day. So I move to adopt this resolution. >> Second. >> Any comments from our residents from other members of the public from members of council?
>> Yes. Council member >> president. It's a it's an IT contract for the police >> and making sure our our basic systems are working well I think is really important. If just a a quick thumbs up or thumbs down from Chief Peters, is this a vendor that you'd like to
continue with? >> I can speak >> through you council president. Um so uh yes um as a matter of fact has been our IT vendor uh for the last several years. Uh the fact of the matter is actually they've been getting paid through our
contract with Mountain Valley Emergency Communication Center, which is our regional dispatch center, which is in New Providence. Um you guys will be hearing a proposal on possibly moving that uh dispatch center back to Summit uh at some point over the next 12 to 18 months. So in anticipation of that, it
was in the best interest of everyone for us to now re re um acquire those services and pay for them directly before that contract is up. That being said, QuickEx is also the IT vendor for the city of Summit as well. Um, so we did go, they are not on state contracts, so we went out the bid through a request
for proposal. I think uh, Councilman Palowski was correct and when he said we had nine responses and Quick Text came in as the most uh, costefficient and again they're very familiar with our systems. They've worked with us regularly for several years. So we are very comfortable with this contract.
>> Anyway, any other questions? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments from council? No. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Back to you, Council Member Powski. >> Thank you. This is resolution ID number
12393 to appoint a new police officer. We interviewed a fine young man named Marvin Valerie. Uh he'll be coming to us from the Irvington Police Department. He's, like I said, an impressive young
man and I think we're lucky to have him. The mayor and members of the safety committee all like him. So do the police and we think it'll fit in very well here in summit. >> With that I move to adopt this resolution. >> Second.
>> Any comments from our residents, from other members of the public, from members of council. You look eager, Mr. Boyer. Or am I misinterpreting it? No, I you know I was just going to say that uh you know those Essis County uh
you know municipalities better be careful because we're taking all our police in Irvington and Newark and East Orange you know some good police out there. So I told the secret Peters I told the secret. >> Okay. >> Any other comments? No. >> All in favor?
>> I >> opposed. Okay. Um All right then. I believe city staff, you are free to >> We have consent agenda first. >> Oh, they have to sit through the >> No, they don't have to, but if you >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, let's let's move on to the
consent agenda. Hopefully, this won't take long. Um, do I have a motion to pres to um >> excuse me, to approve the consent agenda as presented. >> Council President, for the finance part, do we have to take a roll call vote on that?
>> No, we do not. Council member Boyer. So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. Thank you. Any comments from me from our residents in the audience? >> From other members of the public,
>> from members of council. >> All in favor? >> I >> I Oh, I'm so sorry, Miss Calmanson. You were about to say something. >> I I was It was just It was just um a quick for anybody who was looking at the um packet for the permissions granted. Um there was a there was a typo in the
Junth flag. Um it is it is it said June 19th through um I think it said 1 and or 11 and I no it's I'm I clarified with David Guida it's June 19th through 21st. So if anybody's looking at those and wondering when the Junth flag is is
going to be um up those are the dates. >> That's all I have. >> Okay. Thank you. So all in favor >> opposed. >> No. Okay. Thank you. And good night city staff. Thank you for waiting it out.
Okay. So, at this point in the meeting, members of the public have an opportunity um to comment on anything. Um and I'd like to start if we have residents who'd like to make comment. And remember,
we've got a three minute limit. Um, we do have a resident waiting to make a comment, sir. >> Oh, is just relax. Relax. The >> All you have to do is ask. >> Sir, the the request is just that residents go first. >> Can you back up? Can you please just
give me a little distance? Just relax. >> Lead or leave? >> What I need to say is you can ask and I'll honor your request. Would you please allow the resident to to make her comment first? >> I always let residents go first. >> Thank you, sir.
>> So, you ask. It's not enforcable. That's the whole point. Thank you. First, >> just for the record, that that is the council woman's request that residents be offered the opportunity to go first and then other members of the public. >> Thank you.
>> Tracy Keegan, I've been a resident of Summit since 1994. Excuse me, I moved to Summit first in 1994. been back and forth. The round four plan resulted in the most serious challenge Summit has faced in decades, one that will shape our town for generations. And for the
last two years, council was controlled by Republicans who put Summit at risk. So to Mayor Fagan and the Republican majority, the from last year, this outcome did not happen to you. It is happening to us because of your decisions. You often say that you're
just volunteers, as though that excuses your accountability. If you trusted the lawyers without question, why? And if you believe they were giving you bad advice, why didn't you fire them? There are over 500 municipalities in New Jersey. Many are run by volunteer
councils. Many are run by Republicans. And yet only 16 towns had their immunity challenged in the way we did. Even my beloved hometown of New Providence, Republican controlled for decades until last year where we elected one Democrat, managed to comply without being sued.
You now blame Democrats in Trenton, but Mount Laurel has been settled law since the 1970s and is cemented in the New Jersey Constitution. Disagreeing with the law does not excuse ignoring it. You had years to plan. Instead, three of you went to Trenton and made outrageous
statements that made national news. For two years, you held the majority. You had inside information. You spoke with developers. You knew the risks. In June, you gambled on a plan so aggressive and flawed that fair share housing dismantled it. An improper vacant land
analysis, double counted units, ineligible credits, basic math errors. By December, you reversed course and abandoned the vacant land analysis you relied on months earlier. And now we're looking at several hundred new units. You removed the residency pre
preference for our housing authority, pushing aside Summit and family, Summit families and seniors who have waited their turn. You are using the affordable housing trust fund to pay for renovations that could cost many times more while hurting the very families that we should be protecting. We know
you guys know how to raise money. You guys, you raised a million dollars for Tatlock overnight, but instead you traded Summit Residence, the Summit Residency requirement for a million dollars from Russo, which won't anywhere near cover the cost, 175 per unit. A
million divided by 175,000. What does that get you? We all remember what you said while you were still in the majority. That you worked hard, that the community would be pleased, that you protected Summit from irresponsible growth, that builder's remedy warnings were fear-mongering. Those all turned out to be empty promises. So don't hide
behind lawyers. Don't blame Trenton. Don't blame your Democratic colleagues who were either in the minority or not even elected when you created this mess. If this was the best you could do, it's malpractice and some deserved better. >> Thank you. Um any other residents?
It's quite painful. >> Um, Carol Pactang, Summit, uh, 234 Summit Avenue. Oh, sorry. >> Um, by the way, I I will be reaching out to the city clerk because I think
there's um I I have a invisible mic. >> Oh, sorry. I have an invisible disability of long co and um staying this late standing to speak and um the lighting in here is quite difficult to deal with. Um
so I came to thank those um folks here that uh came to our vigil at St. John's church the other week. Um including President Cla to uh Michelle Camson,
uh Jackie Laroscina, and um also Assembly Member Vinnie Carney also came to our vigil. Um past council members including Marjorie Fox, Greg Bartan, Andy Mine, and Susan Harrison also were in attendance. Um, I highlight these
elected past and current elected officials because I think it's very important that our community see that our elected folks are coming to support them because our residents are scared. We um I heard some quite alarming
stories in addition to those that I've already heard of summit residents being taken advantage of, intimidated, and harassed by both ICE and also by um lawyers that are coming to say they're helping
residents deal with immigration issues um yet being taken advantage of financially in these situations. Um, you know, I I really urge we we're going to have some upcoming other events that are focused on actionoriented events and
events to make our community feel safe. And I really urge all of you to try to be in attendance. Um, and really am inviting you to come. Um, especially Mayor Fagan, I think it I would really love to see some sort of statement made
by you because our community members are very scared and legitimately so. And this is not political. This is about taking care of our community. This is about um addressing the needs of our community. This is about protecting our community again, which is all the things
that you all are elected to do for our community members. Um and so you know we were going to be planning multiple events that are focused on ways uh you know I have had
like 20 plus community members that have reached out to me personally and that's just an end of one folks that have reached out to me of how do I help? How do I volunteer? How do I donate money to this effort? Um because they are recognizing that our community is
hurting. Um, I would like to see that effort publicly being made by all of you in some way, shape or form because I think that that really sends a message to our community that all of you are thinking of them in this time. Uh, that is very difficult for so many folks here
in Summit that are being directly affected and I I think that would go a really long way towards our folks here in town feeling that you guys are addressing their needs. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dr. Pang.
Um, any other? >> Good evening. Uh, Diego Hoy, Argal Court. >> Mhm. >> Council President Toth, are you carrying your passport or your birth certificate today? How about you, Mayor Fraan? Councilman Ber, are you carrying your
passport or your birth certificate today? >> Um, how about you, Chief Peters? Bob, Michelle, is anybody carrying any proof of citizenship today on their persons?
Uh, you're all elected officials. I presume that you all know that we have uh first amendment right to speak and communicate in whichever way we please. um including for example speaking in
Spanish, speaking in French, speaking in whatever language you want to communicate uh with each other, with our kids. This nation has had a very unfortunate
history of racial profiling. Is that correct, Reverend Hariel? The reason I bring these things up is is because the way immigration enforcement has been handled for the last couple of months
is not just a threat to people who are illegally in this nation. Now, illegal immigration is a civil crime and it needs to be dealt with. Criminal aliens, of course, they're criminals. They need to be treated like criminals.
But we're right now in a situation where none of you carries your passports or your birth certificates for the simple reason that you're not afraid that somebody's going to ask you to show your papers like it happened in Nazi Germany back then.
We used to make fun of the scenes where people were being asked to show papers. Now, individuals who look the wrong way, who speak the wrong language in public with their kids are being detained and being treated as guilty unless they
can prove their own innocence. I want you to think about that for a moment. And for what? For the crime of speaking in a different language to their kids. We've had Native Americans in the
western states being detained on suspicion of immigration violations. Think about that for a moment. We have the, you know, many of you have last names that are definitely not
Native American last names. Claire is an example. Bob is another one. Michelle. So what happens if say whoever was Mr. Palowski who came however many generations ago
was actually >> Thank you Mr. >> I'm out of time but think about that because we're actually having issues in the way citizens are being treated. >> Mr. Hoy, >> any other residents?
John Caliby's uh Yale Street. Um I had something prepared to speak tonight. >> I'm glad nobody else is here. Um but I'm really hoping that this statement fosters more communication about what's
going on at East Summit right now. So, I'm here tonight to voice some concerns about the proposed low-income and/or veterans housing project at the formal farm at the former farm located at the end of Shumpike Road in East Summit. As with many people who spoke here tonight and at the last council meeting, my
family has lived in East Summit for generations. My grandparents immigrated here from Italy during World War II and settled on Orchard Street. My father and I were both born and raised on Orchard Street. Our kids were born and raised on Orchard and Yale Streets, all a few blocks from the proposed project. To say
I have a vested interest in East Summit is an understatement. East Summit has a certain fabric to it. The houses have a look to them. Some from the early 1900s, some from the 50s,7s, and 80s. All one or twotory houses with decent setbacks
and backyards. This is what should be built on the former farm lot. Modest houses to match the fabric of the area. maintaining the same lot coverages, setbacks, and building heights as the rest of the Ivy area houses.
Please do not shoehorn a huge multi-story monstrosity into our lovely community just to satisfy a state requirement so a developer can get top dollar across town. I do not mind low-income or veterans housing as long as it blends seamlessly into our
neighborhood. I do think it's a little tonedeaf that veterans housing be put within earshot of a gun range that is operated spring, summer, and fall. Please keep our community involved and updated as you can and before any permanent decisions are made. And while
I'm discussing projects in each summit, I would like to ask about the status of Brian's pond dredging project. Is it complete? Was what was the scope of the work at the moment? It looks awful and half completed. almost like they ran out of money and
walked away. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and everything you do for Summit. >> Thank you, sir. >> Um, yeah. other residents,
other members of the public. Good evening, mayor. Good evening, council. I will be remaining anonymous. All right. So, one thing I want to It's only three minutes, so I'll tackle one issue. Um
so one one issue I want to mention is um the Supreme Court in 200 uh 24 I believe it was um Link Lind Key versus Freed um was a case that um
you know says the social media platforms you know um when you represent yourself in your official capacity um it's considered a public forum from um Ratcliffe O' Conor versus Garnier is accompanies
with that. That's another case. So, council president, I noticed throughout the week that you shut comments commenting off on your Facebook on your official Facebook page here. Um
it's bad enough. I'm getting Rosa Parks get in the back of the bus. Um, but I let residents go first anyway. So, so yeah. So, you're violating the first amendment by doing that. And you one post here it
says talking about the live Q&A with the mayor. Um, I welcome the opportunity to meet with residents and look forward to hearing your questions, concerns, and priorities, but not on the post. because commenting is shut off,
you know. So, I mean, the way this would be fought out in court in terms of it's a public forum. So, when you originally allowed comment in and then you decided that you're going to shut them off, it becomes a
liability issue for the town, you know, because you're could possibly be held liable in court for violating the First Amendment. That's the way I would if I was a lawyer. That's how I would argue it because it originally was on. So
content neutral viewpoint discrimination, it's like oil and vinegar. They go together, but you know, you originally had it. You originally allowed it and then you shut it off.
We have another post here. picked out a couple favorites. Um, live virtual Q&A. I hope you tune in, ask questions in the comments, but there's no commenting on the post.
So, you know, I think if it if it was to go to court, you would lose because you originally had it on. It was originally on and then it was shut off. And it's not content neutral because
you're doing that on certain posts where there originally was commenting. So, I would do the right thing and restore the people's first amendment right to redress their grievances with government
when they're representing themselves in their official capacity. >> Thank you, sir. Do we have other comments from members of the public? >> Comments from council. Seeing Oh, Mr. Powski. >> Sorry.
Okay. Uh, affordable housing. I have a few comments. So, I see there's a bunch of folks back from the Ivy League again tonight. At the last meeting, people from that neighborhood seemed pretty certain of two things. one that
the city was planning to build an apartment building and two that we were going to be voting on zoning at that meeting. Just want to say that neither one of those were ever true and whoever provided that information was ignorant
of the facts. Um, and I I'll just add that at least the reason that I pushed so hard to get that plot of land during our negotiations is to prevent a big apartment building from ever being built there and not the opposite.
Second on affordable housing. Just want everybody to know when we're talking about transparency that there's a difference between what happened in round three and what's happening now in round four. People on social media have been very
critical of the process and the lack of transparency that we've had with it and rightly so. We as a council have been hamstrung with what we could say. Broad Street West, to contrast,
was a voluntary project. Council took it upon itself to make something happen there. We're to try to make something happen there. We were told things like we couldn't possibly satisfy our round three obligations unless we do Broad Street West. And after a changing of the
guard, new council rolled up its sleeves and finished off round three with scattered sites around the city. And we even ended up with a surplus to help us in the future. Then there came new legislation. Trenton
created a judicial process called the program. Confidentiality attached and we couldn't share as much as we would have liked. This is not unique to Summit. The same calls for transparency can be heard across the street state. Who's to
blame? I'm sorry, Miss Keegan. Trenton uh and the affordable housing industrial complex. You see, public engagement slows down development and delays profits. And while it breaks my heart to to have
unwanted development forced upon us, the plan positions summit well for the future without or at least with less of a spectre of builder's remedy or such stout requirements going forward.
Three. My third comment on affordable housing goes to Claire's statement uh council president to statement on affordable housing. I didn't comment on it at the last meeting because
I thought that others covered the points that I would have made very well, but a number of residents have asked me to personally share my views. So, here they are. Given where we were in the process, I thought that the statement was
unnecessary if not reckless. criticizing our initial plan in the midst of our negotiate negotiations didn't sit well with me. Council President Toth's statement that we are building 345 new affordable units was false. As Jim
Bennett calculated for us and Councilman Ber did again tonight, we're really talking about 87 new affordable units. the balancer credits for existing units or bonus credits for units for veterans,
special needs, and the like. A third point on this, I keep hearing from from my fellow council members a desire to develop a positive working relationship. And I think blaming the Republicans, which also was in that
statement, for some its affordable housing woes, uh, goes is directly at odds with that concept. So is exchanging safety related emails without copying the safety chair, Miss Calmanson. And so
is changing up the historical minute without even telling the person who made it happen for the past couple of years. So is removing committee agenda items requested by a council member on that committee without telling them Miss
Laroscina and so is changing a summit housing authority appointment without consulting all council members or at least telling them. So I hope all the talk about wanting to
have good relationships among all of the council is not just talk and I look forward to fostering a more productive cooperative environment going forward. As for the genesis of all the force development, we all know who's responsible. You've probably seen riding
the train from time to time the big sign uh in Trenton that says Trenton makes and the world takes. And I say that indeed Trenton does make ludicrous legislation on affordable housing and the developers in the affordable housing
industrial complex certainly take and municipalities choke. Maybe they should change their sign. We haven't talked much about the budget yet and I know it's a huge lift and it's
always a work in progress. I haven't gotten many updates and I know again it's a long and complicated process, but I urged the finance committee to keep the Uptown cameras on the safety budget. When I campaigned, I heard a lot of talk
about technology. Technology is the future of law enforcement. We need technology and technology costs money, but it's something that we've been talking about for a long time now and I'd hate to keep kicking that can down the road.
Strategically placed cameras uptown are an important piece of technology. Again, we've been planning them for some time. And god forbid, just imagine a fire call during rush hour while Maple Street is closed for outdoor dining. Don't we want
our professionals to be able to identify the inevitable traffic jams before they leave the station? Another budget issue is the dog park. It was in a preliminary budget. I don't know if it's going to make it make the
final cut, but before that hits the cutting room floor. Uh please read all the comments that we received. It was a big hit and it helped to foster new friendships and bring the city together. And my last comment is go see Big Fish
at the high school February 25th to the 28th. They put on a great show and it's a great story. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Any other council comments? >> Thank you. Um I would like to address
comments tonight from Dr. Pacttang and Mr. Ho as well as others who have reached out to me privately. Many of us are feeling unsafe and scared and uncertain about what to do. Upstanders that I know are afraid of calling attention to our city. Neighbors
are unsure how to talk to one another about whether they're in need. And kids are scared to come home to find an empty apartment. And you know amongst my family and friends we are talking through various scenarios with our spouses and kids and
evaluating scenarios of what would we do if dot dot dot everyone has a different answer to those questions because we all have a different set of circumstances and responsibilities and risks that we're managing. But I want to say that if you or someone you know needs help please
reach out to us. We can and will share accurate information to the extent that we have it. We will connect residents to trusted legal and social resources and stand firm in protecting the safety, due process, and basic human rights for everyone who calls this city home. Thank
you. >> Other comments, >> council president. >> Yes, Mr. Ber. So, I want to take a moment tonight um to recognize uh the real and meaningful win for the
summit. Uh through the efforts of Congressman Tom Kaine, federal funding has been secured for long needed sidewalk improvements along Glennside Avenue. Uh two years ago, we we did some
photos there and with um uh with Congressman Kaine and a bunch of neighbors and uh last year it wasn't approved. I think it was about $500,000. >> Yeah, $500,000. Uh it wasn't approved
last year. So, the neighbors kind of lost hope. I kind of lost hope a little bit. Uh but um Congressman Kaine got the funding. Uh this isn't a abstract policy. These are real sidewalks on real
streets serving real people in our community. Uh what's what makes this especially important to acknowledge is that this support came despite years of political attacks
aimed at Congressman Kaine by local Democrats. And yet, when East Summit needed help, when Glennside Avenue needed an investment, he didn't hesitate. He didn't ask who voted for him. He
didn't he didn't condition support or or party loyalty. Uh he most certainly didn't do that with me when I talked to him. He just said, "Mr. Bor, what do you need?" Um but you
know, sidewalks are not a partisan are not partisan. Uh public safety is not ideological. Infrastructure does not belong to a party. It belongs to the residents who rely on them every day.
Here in Summit, uh obligation is simple. Do what's best for the city. Do right by every neighborhood. We work with anyone, Republican, Democrat, or independent, who is willing to put Summit first. And when someone
delivers tangible results for our residents, especially for communities that too often wait the longest, integrity requires that we acknowledge it. So tonight, I want to thank Congressman Kaine for the partnership
and for recognizing the needs of East Summit. And by the way, um, if Congressman McCain was a Democrat congressman, I would recognize him tonight as well. If I had picked up the
phone, called, and he got a half a million dollars to put sidewalks on Glennside Avenue. I don't care what political party you from. You helping the people. Who cares? So wrapped up in the politics. Um, I know as a politician, I'm saying that, right? I
can't stand it. Um, Summit housing authority real quick because people would get up here and just say all kind of nonsense. So, there's 48 um there's 48 units or residents that we
did not remove the residency requirement for in the senior building. Why? Because if you actually know Summit and know the people who live there, there is a transition that happens when you live on
Glenwood or Weaver and you raise your children and they leave high school. The transition typically is you go to the senior building. We know that. I know that. So, I'm not going to let that happen. Right? So, those 48
seniors who are looking to get into the senior building, that's intact. didn't touch it. Now, the family resident requirement for Glenwood and Weaver, I don't know one person that's ever seen the waiting list. Nobody's seen it. I don't even know if
it exists. I asked for it, didn't get it. I know commissioners who asked for it, they didn't get it. I know people who've moved in to Glenwood and Weaver Street that's never lived in Summit before.
So to say we're going to we're not going to give you a million dollars and all this other aid so that you can fix all the units up because of a a residency requirement that you don't even know that's being um upheld.
That's that doesn't make sense. That doesn't make sense. I mean listen, give credit where credit is due. All right? 195 units being rehabilitated. That's a big deal. Stop. We We got to stop acting
like it's not. That's a huge deal. If there's one thing that I did up here, I would be happy if this happens. That means that we I did my job, hooked up the place where I
came from. What better responsibility than someone being on council, living in those areas to now on council to remember where you came from and make that a priority in your life. Um Bob talked about the cameras. I'm big
on police and security. Uh to not have cameras in a certain section of our town is irresponsible. Uh if that's been taken out of the budget, um that that is ridiculous. Uh the dog park,
listen, all you have to do is look at all the surveys for the dog park in Summit in the summertime. There's not a lot of people around, right? That dog park had brought many people like happiness, happiness. It was a meeting
place. People would go there, they get coffee at the Village Green. U most people had bags so it you know it lifts up shopping and the village green is supposed to be a gathering point right and how much does dog park cost 50,000
how much is our budget 16 168 million is that is that something like that all right I think I I think we can afford a dog park so hopefully um we can get that
uh Uh, so the whole I hear gamble a lot like we've been gambling with the the fair share housing. Um, just want to tell the public that people can get up here and they could say like
whatever they want. It doesn't have to be true. You can say anything, right? That's that's that's how America is. Thank God we're, you know, Americans. So, you can get up there and you could say just whatever you want. Don't believe everything you hear. Do your own
research cuz I'm sorry to say, right, but people lie and they lie a lot, you know? Um, because a lot of this is about winning elections and it's about politics, but it's not about telling the truth. Uh, it is Black History Month and I did have
something written, but I'm not going to go through it all tonight because it's 11 uh 12. But I will say that um I want to give people a different perspective about how others think, especially black
folks. Uh there is a professor economist Glenn Lowry. Last name is spelled L O U R Y. First name is Glenn. He's born in
Chicago 1948. Uh he is he was the first um indigenous black American to be uh a professor at Harvard University. He's an economist. Um he has a YouTube channel.
Uh he brings a really different way of thinking, but it's very open dialogue. Some of his quotes, dignity is not negotiable. Judge policies by results, not by rhetoric. I like that one the best. Uh
and we can argue without hating. That's a second runner up. Um, I probably have a lot more to say, but since it's late, thank you, council president. >> Thank you. And I'm sure you'd want a larger audience. Um, do we have other
council comments? >> Miss Lucerena. >> Thank you, Council President. I will put myself back on the clock here. Uh, we are celebrating kindness month here in Summit. Uh and this week we are encouraging people to be kind to our
neighbors. Uh even just the simple act of saying hello to someone you don't know can boost their mental health and actually boost your own mental health. Uh so more suggestions coming out over the course of the month. Uh as has been noted, we are celebrating Black History
Month. Uh and I want to just lift up a really great opportunity. Uh the Summit High School Black Student Union is having uh an art exhibit and fundraiser on Friday, February 20th at 6 PM in the Summit High School. Uh student
contributed art will be uh available for display. Uh it's just a suggested donation of $10. Uh and the funds will benefit both the student union as well as the Make Makea-Wish Foundation. So again, that's Friday, February 20th at 6 p.m. at Summit High School. um
appreciate very much the comments that have been made uh made this evening on um on immigration enforcement. uh everyone spoke very eloquently and uh I have been struggling to find adequate words uh with respect to what's going on
in immigration enforcement in our country to to speak to the fear and the loss that people are feeling um to speak to our need to protect the children of our community uh to want to protect our
neighbors and our local businesses um because I think there there really aren't adequate words right to speak to the moment that we are in um but as has been mentioned there is opportunity for action uh and we we are taking steps and we should continue to take steps to help
our neighbors in whatever way is needed. Um so if if you know someone who is in need or if you are in a position to be one of the helpers uh of providing school supplies, groceries, whatever the need may be, um please please do come talk to us. Um and we will
confidentially help to to try to address the need to the best of our ability. Uh Summit is a beautifully diverse community. Uh and that diversity is a strength that we hold dear. Uh, and it is part of our our job to protect it and
that's what we're here to do. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else? >> Miss Galmanson. >> Thank you. Thank you, Council President. Um, regarding ICE, um, I know a lot of the community doesn't feel safe right now and what
we're witnessing happening in the country is heartbreaking and I understand why people don't feel safe and that's one of our most important roles is to make sure that our community is safe and that our community feels safe. Um, so we need to talk about this in the safety committee again um, and
try to identify some ways that we we can make the community safe in this moment. Um, I don't appreciate the accusations that um, we are not working with Councilman Palowski.
Last year we were in the minority and council president Toth and I, we didn't know what was happening a lot of the time until the last minute. You know, I mean, information was gatekeeped from us and there there was there was there was
a time when I got a phone call from Councilman Palowski and he was asking me what I thought about something and I was thinking about I said, "But my vote doesn't even really matter. You already have the votes, right?" and he said, "Yeah." So, tell you what, but it
so so we went from a situation last year where a couple people felt like uh we we felt like we weren't we were being kept out of the loop and that nobody wanted to um really inform us until the last minute
about things. And now, you know, um I think it's it's a different feeling when you're in the minority, I guess. Okay. Um regarding the dog park, I um I DCP
doesn't have those comments. I um resident feedback and I um I um I asked if they had them and they said no. So, I'm going to try to um get them from Aaron because I haven't seen any of the the feedback. Um and that's all I have.
Thank you. >> Okay. >> I can't speak for anybody else but Claire and Michelle. You know that I called you and told you about things and talked to you about things all last year. >> Can Okay, I
Let's just put put a lid on this for now. Thank you, Mr. Chrisulli. >> Just one last word, Council President. Thank you. Um, I really appreciate the comments about bipartisanship from Bob
and from Jamal, and I won't get into it into a tit for tat on anybody's behavior here, but none of us is perfect in this front. >> I'm hearing it from residents all over Summit. Um, I agree that we should respect each other and we should stop making up lies that get repeated and
amplified and repeated again and again and again, even from the campaign on social media. In terms of partisanship, there are voices that are trying to blame me as the new guy for this affordable housing settlement. On that point, we simply
need to set the record straight. As we heard tonight, nearby towns that are similar to Summit took a different approach and had far more favorable treatment and their residents enjoyed greater transparency and ability to make public comments. They were not
blindsided as we have seen here in Summit. So, that's really what I'm saying. I want to have bipartisanship, but it's a two-way street and what's said by ourselves uh matters and the way we conduct ourselves matters. Thank you. Okay. So, we can each move first to be
bipartisan. >> Council President, >> has anybody Has everyone else made a first round? Yes. >> I find it funny that we say, um, let's let's not be political and let's
not throw stones or whatever. and you made this whole speech and then you just say, um, there were all these towns and the Republicans messed up and you the blindsided and like I mean, if you're
going to make a speech about not being political and and and nonpart and be nonpartisan, just make the speech about brotherly love. But then you throw daggers in the second half of the
speech. It doesn't work like that. I think people have ears. They can hear. Like just because you talk nice doesn't mean that you ain't throwing shots. Like come on. >> Okay. >> You're just telling the truth, Jamal. That's all. >> Thank you, gentlemen. >> You just said that you weren't going to lie. So,
>> thank you, gentlemen. >> Um, okay. I'm affirm I am just calling council member comments closed. I am just going to say thank you for sticking it out as long as you have everyone who is still here. Um this is a discussion.
It isn't over. Um and do I hear a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> In favor? >> I opposed. Good night.