everyone uh to this uh non originally scheduled meeting of uh the common council. This is our third meeting of July and it was called to specifically um uh be be done so we can uh comply with our round four Mount Laura
obligation. So I welcome everyone who made the effort to come out on this very warm steamy afternoon uh to to talk if if you so choose. Um there is uh well I'm going to uh actually um have our Matt uh clerk call the adequate
notice of compliance statement please. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by the city clerk's office in preparation of the council special meeting notice dated May 30th 2025 which was properly distributed and per post posted per statutory requirements.
Please be advised that uh fire exits are to my right and your left and at the back of the room and the city has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired. If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain it at the system at the day and return it thereafter. Uh thank you so much. Uh
roll call, please. Mr. Ber, present. Miss Hamlet. Miss Cmonson here. Mr. Pilaski here. Mr. Smallwood here. Miss Tores McTen present. All right. Uh, well, I didn't ask anyone to lead us in the pledge. Uh, Diego, would you please
lead us in the pledge of allegiance if you'd so choose? Thank you. Aliance 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, Diego. All right. Um, at at this time, uh, Madame Clerk, would you please read the explanatory note regarding hearings and comments, please? Please be advised that council meetings are broadcast live on
Comcast channel 36 and 34, as it will be today, and Verizon channels 30 and 33 and rebroadcast on Thursdays and Saturdays on HGTV on Comcast 36 and Verizon 33. When invited to speak, please come to the lecture and 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 and permit all to be heard, speakers shall limit their comments to three minutes. Unless you are using an electronic device to me to follow the meeting agenda or need it for professional emergency contact purposes, please turn it off. Thank you. Thank you
so much. Um, so today is a different than our normal uh common council meetings. We have one resolution that we're going to be voting on uh today. That being said, we're going to follow a normal procedure. The resolution will be introduced. Uh there'll be a public
comment opportunity. uh then council be able to weigh in on that and uh as well and then there'll be a vote. Um just so people are aware, I watched the planning board meeting last night. I see a lot of you were there which is awesome and I'm
happy that you came uh again today. Um today's vote um we've got it kind of boils down to a binary. we pass this and we have uh build a remedy immunity going
into July and then we will see what happens to our plan over the next couple of months as it will probably be challenged and uh you know and be adopted and amended. It's a plan as our um solicitor has always told us. So
plans can be changed and I would fully expect ours will probably change. That's part of the process that we go through. Um, that's one alternative. The other alternative, this gets voted no. And if you're asking us to vote no on this, then you are asking us to open ourselves
up to build or remedy lawsuits. So, I would just ask when you come and make your comments around this, there's always ways to improve the plans, etc. But that is what we're voting on uh this evening. Okay? So, I just want to be pretty clear so everybody understands what uh this is all about. Okay? Um, so
with that, we have one resolution on the agenda. Um, one from Capital Projects and Community Services, uh, Councilman Ber. Thank you, Council President. This is resolution ID number 11975.
Uh resolution of the common council of the city of summit endorsing the fourth round housing element and fair share plan. Uh I move this for a final adoption. Second. All right. Uh at this time are there anyone from the public who'd like
to comment on this resolution? Good afternoon. Um, not good evening. I'm Diego Hoy Aral Court. Um, if you'll excuse me, council present a moment. I would like to thank um, Michelle and Jamal as they are in safety committee.
This is not related to the topic at hand, but I'm not sure when I'm going to be able to do this again. We will just so uh, great question Diego. I should have mentioned this. There will be a public comment section after our resolution just as normal. This is a normal council meeting. Yeah. Um so there'll be an opportunity for people to comment on things that aren't on the
agenda, which is this one resolution, but but I I know I didn't mention it. So go ahead, Diego. I'll take a moment to to thank them for um the as members of the safety committee, they recommended some flashing speed limit signs uh near Argal Court and Springfield Avenue. And
I know everybody in our group chat is very happy with that. So thank you very much. Um I have two simple questions. Um last night our um our attorney um our mentioned that uh Melbourne got into hot
water for changes to their plan and I wanted to understand a little bit further how any changes to any element that's presently in the plan any projects currently in the plan um if we were to take out one of those projects
what would happen with that? um would we open ourselves up to a build to a challenge and related to that I understand that there's challenges and builders remedy lawsuit with this we're getting immunity from builders remedy
lawsuit comment you should vote for it but understanding that um if we lose a challenge are we in the same space as if we lose a bill as remedy lawsuit um um that's that and oh one one one final
question. The project on Ashwood um by Recomers Flowers, are both lots zoned business or is one of those lots zoned residential? And does that mean that the project would have to go before zoning before being approved? Thank you.
Thank you. Other comments. Hi, Shantal Lamman. Beman Road. I would like to address the council regarding process, communication, and public input. Some of these comments are a repeat of my comments to the planning board last night, but not all. The deadlines associated with the affordable
housing plan shared on June 13th and being discussed tonight were not a surprise. The city has known for many months, arguably years, that this deadline was looming and that a comprehensive, credible plan was required. Yet, no plan was shared with the public for input until 11 days ago.
In April, one of the city's planners said they will present a draft at a May planning board meeting. In May, the review of the draft housing plan happened in close session at the planning board, not with the public. Obviously, the public has a lot to say about this plan, especially regarding
the proposed development at Broad Ashwood and Morris. In order to meet the deadline, you will vote on the plan tonight, meaning there's no chance public comment will be incorporated into the plan because there's just no time to do that. We need a real commitment to listening from our planning board and
council consistently, openly, and without delay in the future. Last night, the planner confirmed there will be a challenge period through August. So, what is the plan for this period, and what role will council play? When will the planning board present a revised plan to summit residents that
incorporates public feedback? Will we have multiple opportunities to revise the plan? Will the planning board and council have an opportunity to change the plan after August? Let's not make this challenge period opaque and rushed as we just did with the step concluding tonight.
The planning board's role is to make recommendations, but ultimately it's the council that's accountable for the decisions and you are accountable to the residents you serve. Please take a more active role in this process as we move into a phase of anticipated litigation, spending of taxpayer dollars, and
decision-making that will have a tremendous impact on our community. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Dennis White, Tulip Street. Um, I spoke last night at the planning board. I'll make some additional comments. Um, you
say it's going to be challenged. It doesn't have to be. If it was done properly, it wouldn't have to be challenged. But by going into it done improperly, there is going to be a challenge and we are going to lose control of the process. The plan will be determined by a judge, not by the city
and by an arbitration litigation process, not by the city. So this plan is really flawed. I said that last night. It's cynical in outlook and irresponsible in the execution. It effectively signals that the city has no intention of complying with New Jerseys
housing laws. And in essence, it says, "We're not going to create any meaningful amount of housing. Go ahead and sue us." As you just said, challenge it. The plan interprets the new housing law in a way that invites a legal challenge. It guarantees a legal challenge. And why would the council
approve something that guarantees a legal chancel challenge? You, as you said, you have no choice because of the way the process was. Many surrounding municipalities, Berkeley Heights, New Providence, Westfield, Chadam, even Milburn have applied the 25% rule
correctly. Milbour, that is, they do a vacant land analysis and RDP, and they still commit to facilitating at least 25% or more of their perspective need. Summit's plan addresses only 10%
of the prospective need at the most. Inadequate. It takes an adversarial stance and adopts an interpretation that would require the creation of only one new unit to meet our RDP. One new unit to meet our RDP. That's really sad. The
plan refers to some additional units that may or may not happen, but the total amount of new units in the plan is 11. four at Harmon holdings, which is probably the worst development site the city could have ever selected, and seven
at Broad Street and the NBC overlay zone. Is that really what this common council thinks is needed? 11 units over the next 10 years. 11 units. The city just concluded six months of litigation with the Fair Housing Center,
resulting in a consent order that required the development of 27 affordable units in a specific location and in a specific time frame because Summit didn't comply with its 2016 settlement agreement. That's what
happens when you don't comply. A consent order and litigation with fair share happens and that's what's going to happen with this one. This sets the stage for more litigation, likely years at significant cost to Summit taxpayers. No longer can council's fees be paid
from that affordable housing trust fund. They'll be paid by Summit taxpayers. So, by going into a challenge, we're accepting that the city will be paying for council's fees. Over the past year, we've suggested a better approach. Could
you wrap up, please? Yep. using the firehouse site to do 50 to 60 units would which would meet about 75% of the city's true perspective need. It's a better plan. Thank you. Other comments from the public, please.
Yes. Um well, thank you for your hard work. I I know that this is not easy and there are a lot of issues, but I do want to uh echo what Shantel said about, you know, kind of engaging the public in a more engaging the public in a more
proactive way, you know, within a a reasonable time frame. You know, we're just hearing about this and obviously we're not too happy. I'm a Summit resident. I'm an East Summit resident. I have lived on both sides of town, but um
it's very uh it's disheartening to me because we've seen overdevelopment in Summit, East Summit specifically, for quite some time where, you know, it's zoning laws be damned. We're just going to cram in as many houses as we can, generate more revenue. I understand all
the stuff, but you know, the impact on the local community is uh is pretty extreme, and it's getting worse and worse all the time, and it's going unabated. And this is this feels like the tipping point to be honest. Um you know I I
you know what really surprised me about the proposal honestly is that we're going to put four units or we would like to put four units well 20 units four affordable housing units on the worst intersection in Summit. That's all of
Summit not just east. And uh we apparently have the ability I don't know, but I would think we would have the ability to add an additional four on the old uh firehouse site. So I I'm just wondering why that was not a viable
plan. I we never heard that. We never heard an explanation for that. So um I'm just I'm just kind of uh a little baffled. I'm sure if there had been more public input, we might not be in this situation because you're going to have a
lot of pissed-off people here in in East Summit. I'm just, you know, so that's all I'd like to say. Thanks for your service. Thank you. Um, just could you give your name for and your address for the record, please? Uh, no one else had to do that. Why me?
Oh, okay. My name's Fritz Alam O L. I'm at Nine Russell Place. Thank you very much. Sure. I've got you, Diego. Hi, I'm Rhysa Gorlick. I'm at Nine Russell
Place. I spoke last night. I was really angry. I'm still really angry. I'm trying not to be angry in how I present. I know that this is a hard job. I appreciate that you're all volunteers. I know you
make no money doing this, but the choices and the decisions that you're making affect our lives. And once you put up a building, it's going to be there for a long time. My big concern is safety and the timeline that you've given us to
look at this. I'm an academic. I'm really good at deadlines, but this needs to be revised and resubmitted by your deadline on 6:30, which is you've got another week. And I'm hoping that you will see it in your hearts to say that this was a poorly planned project
at a really terrible intersection with serious environmental concerns that a quick Google search would have yielded tremendous results. as to the types of
uh remediation that will be needed for a dry cleaner to put apartments above this. As I mentioned last night, the chemicals in dry cleaning fluids last for decades, if not hundreds of
years. It's in the soil. It permeates the air and the water. and it's a forever chemical that you cannot get rid of. So, you're gonna put 20 units on a really terrible intersection in a not really pretty part of town. Well, I
don't know why anybody would want to live there, but that's another story. Um, in a in a building that really doesn't look like an architect designed because I have an architect school at my university and I used the architecture library yesterday um at NJIT.
That just doesn't make any sense. And like it it it needs to be rethought. You can't put people on top of this. There's going to be lawsuits because people will get sick. And then what would the city do? Uh the mayor is a doctor.
These are serious concerns. The chemicals are carcinogenic. I want everybody to be safe. I want to live a happy life in Summit like I have the last 16 years. We we've been here long term. Um, my husband's been here
longer and this just can't happen. You have to have input from East Summit. You can't keep redeveloping and putting in high density housing in East Summit. 50% of all the, you know, of all the redevelopment is happening in East
Summit, which is a really small sliver. I brought a map yesterday. I I left my stuff at home today. I brought a poster instead. Um, please, please, please reconsider this. think about the safety of the residents
and do the right thing. We want you to make the deadline. I know that's important, but there's going to be lawsuits regardless because people will get sick and and we need to we need to come up with something better. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.
Hello, Julia Connley, Pearl Street 25 Pearl Street Summit. Last night I also had a comment and I asked the question about zoning. You apparently have to change the zoning to implement this plan.
And from what I understand and from what I was told last night, the zoning really has not yet been changed. So my question is how can you approve a plan where the zoning has not been already changed? That's one of my questions.
Then on the, you know, questioning on the safety from what I could see on the plans, the um exit is going to be on Broad Street, which is a county road, and
they're proposing two feet. That doesn't make sense to me. Then you turned down the project on um Broad Street West because of the in uh the in um how in dense it was the
and this project it seems is going to be double the density. So all of this doesn't make sense. So as everybody's asking you really have to go back and consider what we're doing here. It doesn't fit
the neighborhood. It's going to hurt the neighborhood tremendously, the school, the environment. So, we really have to decide what we're going to do here before we move forward. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Good evening. Thanks for your service. Um, I'm Steve Escott, 13 Ashwood Avenue. I have an adjoining wall with the proposed uh the proposed uh building. Um first of all, I'm not here to be political or anything
like that. It's um more comments and questions asking um um as far as the adjoining wall, what assurances will I have from the council that you'll hold the builders accountable so that there's no
disruption to my business? I'm I'm my head's in the sand working all day long and I never do this, but I you know I need to uh make sure there's no disruption to my business and um I wondering if I can give you guys Well,
you already have that, but that's the adjoining wall. And this is a picture of the inside and those frame samples are going to be rumbling when they started construction. And um I'm not against the project. I'm not for it. I'm just looking out for
myself. So that was the number one concern was uh um that you know my business is not disrupted. Um the number two concern is uh the environmental issues that could arise.
Um how I I feel like I should have real time. I I'm like 3 feet away from that wall for 8 to 12 hours a day. I need to make sure I'm not exposed to anything that might be in the ground when the dust starts to uh come up. You know, I
got to look out for myself. So, um those are the two um issues that I have questions. Like I said, I'm not being political about it. The the building right now is in disrepair. It's It looks terrible. It's
been in disrepair. Even when the cleaners owned it, it was a disaster. it. Something's got to be, you know, built there and I'm not against it, but I just want to make sure that you guys look out for the small business owner next to it. Thank you. Thank you. And
can you leave your uh photos up here for us? Thanks. Thanks, guys. Thank you so much. Uh good evening. Um I'm a resident at 26 Russell Place. Madame Mayor, honorable council members,
the main reason why I'm here is pretty much I'm agreeing to everything that is going on. Maybe a devil's advocate. I'm very pro development. I think that dry cleaners looks very bad, but this plan
needs to be revised. We have an issue in Rosupo Place. We can't even get out of our driveways anymore. I am there for over 30 years and it gets worse and worse every single day especially school
time. It take us five minutes just to get out of a driveway. It's horrible just getting inside of Maurice and Russell and by the grace of God no one has crashed me. People tend to park their cars in Roso place and leave them
there all day long. We need to do something. Yeah, we need to we need to comply with the 25% a body for housing requirements that the city needs to come up to. We need to take care of that. But this 20 units is not
reasonable. You need to revise this plan. We had the recreation center. Children walk through that street all the time through Roso Place. Roso Place is a cut street to everyone. You had Dunkin' Donuts in the
corner of Ashwood and Broad Street. Don't forget about the traffic or the gas station. Getting to the school is horrible. I'm here over 30 years. I'm a real estate broker. I work all over the state of New
Jersey. Roso Place looks like any street in Arlington and New York and East Tish but has beautiful places. His daughter does not allow anyone to park overnight. That used to be like this in summit. Now cars are left overnight.
There's no respect for the citizens in it summit. When it's not about a Democrat issue, a Republican issue, we are taxpayers like the rest of the citizens in the other side of summit. A project like this will not be putting
in a mansion area. We are taxpayers. I pay my taxes on time. So yeah, someone needs to pay for the 25% affordable uh responsibility. But you need to revise the plan. 20
units do not make any sense. I see in other locations they putting buildings in a 20 by uh 80 lot. You cannot allow this in this beautiful city. We not like the rest of the other places. This is why people come to live
in Summit. I raised my children in Summit. I made a sacrifice working two and three jobs to make it here to Summit. You had to listen to us. You are here to represent our interests.
We elected you to look for our interest, not the interest of developers, not to make any side deals to anyone. Take care of us. Thank you. Are there public comments? Good evening, Dennis and Harry, 140
Broad Street in Summit. Uh, like Council President McTurnon, I watched the uh, meeting last night and found it to be interesting. uh was impressed with the knowledge of the
attorneys and uh Joe Boris and others that that spoke and uh although I did not understand all of the I should say everything that was said um I'm glad that I watched it and what
struck me um in a very concerned way was uh the difference between the what Dennis White said
uh and what Joe Boris said in that there was a difference of one unit and 18 units. Uh that's a wide gap. Uh I think Summit can do better than one, but I also think Summit can do better than
18. For 36 years, I've been in the forefront of advocating affordable housing and summit and I've seen progress and uh from COA to the uh judicial
judiciary and all of and in between. But I I guess my my concern is that is there a possibility for the council to include persons like Dennis White who
brought out a PhD uh presentation I consider because and Joe Burrus brought out another PhD presentation but they were both different in terms of the number of units. My question is, is there a
possibility that this council can have Dennis White and Joe Burus and other uh attorneys, Nancy Holm and others sit down around a table and come
up with a compromise that will result in Summit gaining the most affordable housing units in round four. I think what has happened over the years is that we rely on the professionals uh who are paid but we have
nonprofessionals who are very knowledgeable. There should be an opportunity for those two parties to sit down together, present, compromise, talk, put their heads together, and then present that to council for you to
consider both approaches because you cannot just do it in a public setting like this. U some questions that are asked, we never get answers to because we you don't do it that way. So, I'm I'm encouraging you and asking you to bring
those persons together so that you can come up with a plan that will provide the most affordable housing units under uh round four. This plan has to be revised. It has some weaknesses. It has some strengths, but I think the
weaknesses uh override the strengths based upon what I heard last night, what I'm hearing today. Thank you. Thank you so much. Other comments from the public. All right. Uh comments from council. Council like to make comoman
councel first. Thank you council president. Um I have struggled a lot with this vote coming coming into this evening. I've struggled quite a bit with this. Um, ultimately I can't support
this because of the input last night. Residents came out about this um this building on Ashwood and Broad and they came out and they said, "You don't understand the struggles that we already have. You don't understand what this is
going to do to us." And I can't I cannot support this after listening to um you know to all of the comments. I was really compelled in in this evening as well. Um I think that I could be supportive of this if we can put um you
know if we can take this project out. I have a lot of concerns about this project in general and this project being in our plan. Um and I think there were some questions that some other people had regarding the zoning um that I was interested to hear as well.
Um, that's that's my comment. Thank you. Thank you. Other comments from council? Councilman Smallwood. Thank you, Council President. Um, I I watched the the meeting last night as well and, you know, I'm against overdevelopment,
period. East Summit, downtown, West Summit, North Summit, South Summit. um when you only have so much land, you can only build so much and it it it seems like the the odds are
against us because if you can't go out, they want you to go up and we're an urban town. Most people moved out of New York City, Hoboken, and Jersey City to live in a suburban town.
Unfortunately, our hand is being forced. We talk about stopping overdevelopment, but yet we talk about building more affordable housing. You can't have one without the other.
And it's unfortunate that our hands are being forced to this. We have the veto gala billing and Glenwood and
um Weaver. Weaver Street. Thank you. Uh there's so many so many thoughts going through my head right now. uh that I've it there are apartments that we are neglecting from an affordable housing
standpoint. I'd much rather renovate those build those apartments when we build you know we I agree with your signs over to stop
overdevelopment I really do but from my understanding and Nancy please correct me if I'm wrong right now 2thirds of that lot is currently zoned for them just to build whatever they
want right now. Correct. Um twothirds of it approximately is neighborhood business which um has no setbacks uh retail in the bottom floor with residential above. Correct. So 2/3 of that lot. Yes. They could tear down
the current lot right now and within twothirds of that lot they could build retail on the bottom and residential on the top. That's correct. Mediated. Right. Concern. Please I understand. I I understand that. So even without us
including in that plan that builder who owns that land can do whatever they want with it within the zoning laws. Correct. Yes. That it is currently zoned for them to tear down the current building, build retail on
the bottom and residential on the top. Yes. for twothirds for twothirds of the property. For twothirds of the property. Yes. One one lot is in the R5 zone. Correct. So that's going to have to be remediated anyway with even without this being in our plan. Our firehouse lot. I don't
know if most people understand this, but we have diesel gas tanks underneath that firehouse that will have to be remediated once we bu once we decide to put something there. So when when I bought my house, we had an
oil tank in our front yard that needed to be remediated. I'm sure there are going to be more stricter guidelines in a commercial area when they remediate that portion. Correct. Yes. And this has residential, so it has to be remediated to
residential standards uh in accordance with the D and they will be involved with this remediation. Yes. And it'll be at the developer's expense. Correct. Okay. So, even without us including in this in the
plan, as it stands right now, the owner of that building could tear down the building, remediate on twothirds of that land, and still build a residential on the bottom, retail on the bottom, and residential on the top. Yes. There's nothing we could do to stop that. That
is correct. on um I I'm not a planner but on um very few setbacks where this project will have setbacks and and scales. So um please guys, this is not a hearing. You guys have had your chance
to speak and I and we respect that you're listening. Please, I know everyone's passionate about this. I appreciate your passion. I'm just trying to I'm just trying to bring up the point the fact that even if we didn't include this in our plan, the developer the owner of that property could still develop that property.
There's no there's nothing that we could do about that. Yes, that's correct. And we do have a mandatory set aside ordinance. So, whatever density that they can build at, they will provide uh either 15 or 20%. Okay. Affordable. Uh there was one question uh by Mr. White.
If challenged, would legal fees be paid by the trust fund or taxpayers? It will be if it is through the program, it will be paid through um uh through the administrative portion of the affordable housing trust fund. Okay.
That includes challenges. That is um incorrect information. Okay. Uh and our challenge period is basically the month of July and August. No, the challenge period begin well the there's a deadline for uh developers uh interested parties
uh fair share housing center etc. Um they uh they have until August 31st to file a challenge with the program uh that states with particularity that our plan violates the Mount Laurel doctrine. And does our plan violate the Mount
Laurel doctrine? It does not. Okay. If we are challenged during that time frame, do we have to respond by August 31st or does that extend past August 31st? No. Is the deadline is for filing on August 31st? Um, so there is there's about a
two-month window where if uh there are other projects that we would like to include um either swap out or include uh or just add to the project, we can do that in the next uh in the next two months. Um, and just for clarification,
I know someone said there's a week left. Uh, we can change the plan. A plan has to be on file for 10 days in advance. So, the per the time period is over. This there is no more time. Okay. So, uh, and there was one more thing I wanted to mention. Uh, you'd mentioned
that there is overnight parking on Russell Place. Okay. I already I already notified the chief and I asked him to look into it. Okay. So look into the overnight parking on over there last night. Okay. Other comments, Mr. Smallwood. I
That's it for me. Thank you very, Council President. Thank you. Uh other comments from council. Thank you, Council President. Um you all beat me to Russell Place. I think your husband was on the force with my
cousin. Yeah. Yeah. So I I Yes. Yes. Um, so I can't help but think overdevelopment. Like none of us, well, let me speak for myself.
I don't want any of this. I think East Summit is the dumping ground for, you know, for developments. I think it's a horrible thing. I think when when this plan came up, I was like, "This this ain't going to be good because I, you
know, I know my folks down the hill." Um, but you know, excuse me, some some folks come up and you know, I don't know your political party or whatever, but you know, we you vote for the governor, you vote for these legislature
legislators. They're the ones that enacted this stuff, not us. This cascaded down on us. We're not We We didn't ask for this. We have to sit here and be rushed into this and
forced into this without the residents, you all, who've made decisions over the years from Weaver Street, Glenwood, Vita Gala. The government didn't have to force Dennis Place. Government didn't have to force us to do that, right? But
now we we're forced to do these things and threaten with lawsuits. But these folks are voted in and this is what happens. These are the results of this stuff. Um secondly, you know, the one thing that I
do feel strongly about is Glenwood Vita Gala in Weaver Street. I have been advocating for those places since I was elected and even before that. And there was a comment last
night. I said, "Yeah, well, we can just wait till round four, round five, 10 years from now and then we can address Weaver Street, Glennwood, and VA gala." It's like, what?
I mean, those places haven't been rehabilitated, renovated, floors, cabinets in 30, 40 years. I have family members that have been there for 30 years. So you wait another 10. You going to tell them folks, well
wait another 10. I am so glad we put those areas in our plan. And one of the reasons why some folks don't want them in the plan is so that there's this big conspiracy that we want to count them so we can't build
affordable housing. So they shouldn't be in the plan. So we should just let those areas just be like that, right? Nobody comes up and talk about that. I mean, some folks, you know, they see people who live there every
single day, and there are certain folks that come up here and advocate for affordable housing, but have yet said anything about rehabilitation in those areas. Not one word.
We talk about um disclosing and not having enough time for the public. I listened last night, too. They had three months to put this plan together.
Again, it's your fine government at work. Three months. And then on top of that, and Joe Burgess said it last night, he said, "You know what? Because of litigation, councils weren't even
allowed to talk about it. As soon as I found out about this, I wouldn't have let you all know. I don't care about this. No, there is no conspiracy. I don't care. I'll let you know about anything. I It doesn't matter
to me because the thing about all of this is that we don't decide. We're not going out and seeking builders and picking out how homes are going to look and properties are going to look. It's not us. These
folks come to us and say, "Hey, you have a property here. This is what we want to build there." That's how it happens. It's not We're not deciding that. We're not going to pick out people. There's no backroom deals with developers. I don't know any developers. I don't want to be
involved in the development plan at all. If they didn't come to us, there would be no harm in holdings. I do want something there. I drive by it all the time. It looks area looks crazy, right? But I don't want that. I agree
with you. Question for you, our esteemed attorney. So if we pass this, does that mean that we have to do
anything that's in this plan? So if we say yes, fair share, this is our fair share housing plan, and then a couple of months from now, as we're getting feedback from the residents, we
decide as a council, you know what, we don't want to do that. What what is the what would be the outcome of that decision? Do you have a spec as in removing a project? Is that what you mean? Or removing a project. So we passed this
and then in August maybe September, October, um we decide as a council, you know what, we don't we're not going to do harm holdings. Then what is the repercussions of that? Uh it depends on what the plan looks
like at that point. If there's new projects that you switch it out with, um the thing is um like we've all said, it's very likely that what they want to
build there would be allowed um as of right anyway. So um it's really it will probably get built anyway. Um this and as you said, this is a developer who purchased the property
and wants to build there. So this is not um something that the the city is, you know, said we want this here. They came to us like you said. Um so just to give a timeline of what's um of what's happening, I know Joe went over it last
night, but it was at the beginning and it was a very long meeting. So um so what happens is if there if there is a challenge to uh whether our plan violates the mount mount Mount Laurel doctrine which is a distinctly separate
issue from I want my project in there instead which we might get some of those too. That's no one really because this is all brand new. We don't know how this is going to operate. We don't know how the program judges are going to um
um are going to handle how the challenges go. Um once there's a mediation session, once challenges are received, uh there's a mediation session with the program by December 31st of this year, the city um will let the
program know whether it is uh amending its plan based on the challenges or whether it's moving forward with the plan that it adopted. So, uh, basically we have until December 31st to make adjustments to our plan in one way or another. Whether that is, um,
suggestions from Fair Share Housing Center, um, whether that's, uh, a new project comes in, um, that doesn't necessarily challenge our plan, but comes in uh, and proposes a new project. Um, whether um, we don't know. I mean,
if the remediation can't be can't be done to residential standards on Harmon holdings, we don't know. Um, if we keep Harmon Holdings in, um, the city, you asked at the beginning, do we have to do our plan? Well, if if Harman Holdings
stays in, um, we would have to reszone for it so that the entire parcel is as of right for that project so that they can go directly to the planning board and not go to the zoning board to get variances. Um so that's called creating a realistic opportunity for the
construction of affordable housing. So um generally speaking um and I believe um sorry I always want to call people mister but I know that Diego I only know your first name. I apologize. Um uh he did say um Milbour made changes to
their plan. uh Milbour made unilateral changes to their plan and just refused to do one of their projects and got sued by Fairchair Housing Center. That is a completely different scenario than saying, "Hey, we're, you know, we've
decided we're not going to do the MBC overlay zone. We're going to switch that with something else over here." Um that's completely different. um that's part of the negotiation process with the program with fairshare housing center
with uh housing advocates however through this process it is an evolving document so um I hope I answer that question but if I didn't ask me another pointed one so so
so basically I mean that's not the Harman Holdings is probably not a good example because they purchased the land already. Correct. So, another developer can't come in unless they purchase the lands from them and say, "I want to develop something here." So, we can't really swap out that land because we
don't we don't own it. No. If we So, let's say that we had two um so like we have the NBC overlay zone. Okay. So, let's say um something comes up and we can't develop there for whatever reason. Let's say
there's remediation. we can't we can't fix at the firehouse and we can't remediate it to residential standards. I've had this happen where we found out that a 100 years ago there was a landfill underneath this area in one of my towns and it cannot be it cannot be
re remediated to residential standards. It was in our plan. Well, now you have to go and find something different. So, and maybe there's a project that comes in that's uh you know between now and August 31st that fits and and we take the NBC overlay zone out and we switch
it with whatever. I'm I'm just using it as an example because it's something we own, right? So, we have control over that parcel is what I'm saying. So, that would be a situation where we could we could swap something out that either would likely yield the same amount of units or more or whatever. So that would
be that would be an instance where we could change our plan. Last question. Um last night there was a comment about the Summit Housing Authority and them not knowing that they were going to be on this plan or or not.
Um first question is we have been in discussions with them and I've been an advocate of that. We've had conversations about that. Um, and for the record, last year went a whole entire year
with without them coming to the city. They didn't want to come to the city. Ask them all the time. Didn't want to come. Don't know what that was about, but hey, we can only we can only assume. But would there be any reason not to put
those developments, those units, Weaver Street, Peter Galla, and Glennwood in our plan? For the benefit of the people who live there, no. Um the like I said last night, um I do have experience with
housing authorities and going for 9% tax credits to substantially improve uh housing authority units. um they are availing themselves of 9% tax credits. Um there's there is a lot of money out there that they can use. Um
and I believe um the former executive director was was trying to um move before he left um was was working on that. And um I you know I think the city wanted to make sure that um and like I
said last night, this is a 10-year plan. It doesn't mean that it has to happen tomorrow. Um, I know that they're they're definitely, you know, um, a very conscientious group and they do want to make sure that they know exactly what improvements they want to make and how
much it's going to cost. um if year five they want to move forward with tax credits, I want to make sure that they're in our plan so that at least one box is checked and then at that point the city all the city would have to do is two resolutions and they could go for
it. So that's that's why they're in our plan. It's to make sure that there's no impediment. Um I mean everyone's seen this process, right? We would have to amend the plan. We would have to put it on file for for 10 days in advance. We'd have to have a planning board hearing.
We'd have to have a council meeting. Then um because we're amending our plan and the program, I have to send it to the program to then be approved by the program in order for them to go for their tax credits. I'd rather do it right now. Um and I think the city would rather do it right now so that someday
year 8, nine, even 10, they're in a plan that now they can go and leverage money that's available to them. um because that is a requirement by the HMFA to that you're in an affordable housing plan. So um it was never meant to leverage them in any way. It was more to
um to make sure that they had a leg up in the process. Thank you, Nancy. Yes, you're welcome. Other comments from council? Oh, Councilman Palowski. So, I'm not sure if this is going to come out in the most logical order
because I've been taking down a lot of notes here, but um on the Harmon site, I heard a question asked but not answered. What how many units under the current zoning um would they be allowed to put there?
I'm not a planner, but um I believe it was up to um I'm trying to remember what um Tom Baron said last night. Said 24 24,000 square feet. So if you average I think that's right 24 about 24,000 square
feet. So that would be about 24 units because you average about a th000 square feet a unit. Okay. So um so and and that was my understanding from what his comments were last night as well. So that with the current zoning, Harmon could do something similar, maybe
with a little less square footage, more units, less parking, and no setbacks. Correct. And um Okay. So, um you know, and and we can't can we can we create like exposing
to prevent them from doing so from doing that? I I don't recommend it. because I I don't like the idea of big developments either, right? Like if I had my way, they'd build like three nice residential homes here. Um and um and
and we would we would do a lot more of that um in town. Um the at home development um or proposed development, I had thought that it was 40 units, but I heard Dennis White say tonight it would be 50 to 60. So, that's even denser than
what I thought was too dense previously. But I think what everybody needs to to realize about that is we're talking about a multi-million dollar parcel that the city would give give every penny of our entire trust fund to go towards that
and the city would be on the hook for any overages uh with, you know, like I said, unprecedented density. There are reasons that the council declined uh to go with
with that development. Um when we were uh going through the process, you know, we we only had a few months and a lot of people are saying, "Wow, that's a long long time." But um
one of the main things that was happening during that time was that the city was disc in discussions with builders. Correct. Yes. There were several uh builders. They're they're in the rejected development site. Um that came from So one of those was Broad
Street East. Which one is that? I'm sorry. 88 88 88 eight floors and uh you know 200 Oh Incline Capital. Yes. 200 units per acre. Yes. Um, the Wells Fargo, I think after much a lot of back and forth, uh,
the lowest that we got them to was like 45 acres a unit or sorry, 45 units an acre. 45 unit acres a unit would be awesome. Um, become rural. Yes. 45 units an acre. Yes. Okay. And then and then Harmon, which got us down to
approximately less than 20 units an acre or about 20 units an acre. It's a little more than that. I don't have the density. I can probably find it. And those were the possibilities that we had those three and um especially given the
fact that they could probably do something denser um without them being in our plan. You know, to me that's the most appealing of the three if we were going to include any of them.
Um, I think we covered the um potential environmental concerns, but you can't build um residential units on a polluted site. That's correct. And so this council
doesn't have the ability to say, "Well, you you can go ahead and build on this super fun site because you're in our plan. We we can't do that, right?" No. Okay. Um, let's see. Um, so, you know, it's I I love all the
public comments. I really do. And it's interesting to see who comes up and who says what. And um it it seems to me that there are a lot of advocates who come up and they're pushing for what they would like to see
rather than what the community as a whole necessarily wants or what we are necessarily required to do under these laws. people come in. You know, I I I see folks sitting here today who I think if they had their way, we'd we'd add a
thousand affordable units in the next uh in the next couple years, right? You know, I mean, you know, uh this isn't Hoboken or or Jersey City. We are a suburb like Councilman Smallwood said, and that's why people that's why people
move here. Um, what I'm also hearing a lot of is, and I'm I'm paraphrasing, you know, I'm putting this into my own words, but what a lot of people seem to be saying is we better go ahead and overdevelop Summit on our own terms so that we don't have to overdevelop Summit on somebody
else's terms. And you know what I say to that is, how about we do everything we can not to overdevelop Summit? And and I think that's what we're trying to do. It's what this council's
trying to do. Um it's what I think that we should do and it's what I think that we are doing. Um I don't have a crystal ball and um neither does anyone else in particular the fear-mongerers and there are some
zealous advocates um who are are bolstering their advocacy with um predictions of builder's remedy lawsuits. Now, if we pass this and file it by the 30th, we will be immune from builder's remedy lawsuits, right? That's
correct. But if this council votes no and we don't pass it, and I know Miss Calmanson's going to vote no, but if we all did that, we would immediately be open to build lawsuits. Um July 1st. July 1st. On July 1. July July 1st. Yes,
we have till June. Well, um, we have 48 hours from last night to I think the one thing that everybody on every side of this that I've ever heard speak agrees is that we don't want uh to open ourselves up to that. So, I'm going to be voting yes for this. Um, but I do
think we we have some time um to to change the plan if we want to. Um it we can't really go into what we talk about during close session, but I know that I've had conversations along the
way. Um and many council people have. When can we start sharing? When can we start getting public input on all of these things? Um this isn't the way that we wanted to do it, but our hands were tied by Trenton as usual. Um, but I do
think there is a real chance that we can can continue to to get and incorporate public feedback um before we do finalize whatever plan we go with. Um, I heard somebody else say uh tonight
we should do the most possible um to to add affordable housing and I I agree with that, right? like we need to do it but in a sensible way and even if we are ordered to do something
or if we agree to do something we can always do more right absolutely fairshare is not going to sue us and say wait a minute you said you were going to build 50 and how dare you try to build 75 right fair share would be thrilled so a question that I have for people who
want to raise our the number that we put in our plan as high as possible is what why on earth Would we want to obligate oursel to liability unnecessarily? Um, I know why the advocates would want it because it would help them get what they would want. Um, but we as elected
officials have an obligation not to do that. And if after the dust settles and we know what our obligations are or what we've agreed to, um, we want to do more, we can. And I think it seems like we have done more, especially if Mr. White
is right that uh if according to our calculations we only have to build one unit because we've overbuilt in the past um then I think that's a good thing and we can we can continue to to build more
than we're required to if we want to. Um let's see uh six months ago fair share housing filed a motion to enforce litigance rights. Yes. Right. And so, uh, you know, how how how much time have we spent litigating that for six months?
Not much at all. Trial, right? There wasn't I read I read their motion, so that was about it. All right. Yeah. Um, yeah. And that and part of the function of that was um our sadly our um our court master passed away several years ago. Um, so there isn't the the 50 new
units would have been monitored differently in the past if if uh Mr. Kaden had still been still been with us. So that kind of left it left a hole in how this was, you know, how this was monitored over the years. Uh because we
didn't have that person from the court checking up on everyone and keeping everyone uh keeping an open dialogue going on. But at the end of the day, Fair Share agreed that we Yes. fulfilled our obligations under the settlement agreement. Yes. Yeah.
No, we we worked really well together over the last six months on it. So, um yeah. Okay. Um and I I do want to say um a lot of the narrative around this ever since 1975 has been that municipalities
are terrible and they don't want to do their obligation. Um yes, there are some municipalities that do that. I did say last night that the reason Summit has so many credits is because it has never uh avoided its affordable housing
obligation. Um we you know we satisfied the 50 new units to fair share housing centers uh satisfaction. Um we had excess credits to um to apply toward
round four. Um I there were even more credits that you can see in the unmet need because we have so many affordable housing units in Summit and some of them as M as Councilman Ber said are in in
pretty big need of renovating and so that's why they're in our plan is to make um to make sure that those units um are improved during the next 10 years. So, um I think you know it's it's always easy to get down on on a municipality to
say you need to do more, you need to do more. Summit has done a very good job that over the years with the little amount of land that they have that they have created as many units as they have. So, um they should be commended for it, not um not brought down. Um I did want
to address one thing because I thought it was a good uh it was a good question from Miss Connelly. Um she said, "How do you approve a plan without changing the zoning?" Um so the the new statute um that was adopted last year for round
four uh says that the housing plans have to be submitted and um and then ordinances will be adopted by March of next year. Um and that's because there may be some tweaks to it and it is a you know ordinances are a process. You have to introduce them. they go to the
planning board and they come back and thankfully the one thing that they did take into account in Trenton before they before they passed this was that that's an awful lot to do in uh from January to uh to June. So um so they they are uh
proposed ordinances. I believe we we have the um general bulk standards. Um uh we're also working with uh Harmon holdings on the final outlook of that um of that ordinance. So that's um that's why it has not been adopted yet. It's
it's part of the plan, but the requirements are that that they're in draft form to go to the program. Okay. Um I just have two more um things. trust the experts, right? That's a a popular refrain that we often hear. And
I'm my point here is just so that people can realize that there are political aspects to some of the things that you're reading on social media on social media because you know some people who have sang that refrain of trust the experts change their tune all of a
sudden as soon as the experts say something different like they did last night. Um, so at the end of the day, we still all have to think for ourselves and um and come to our own educated opinions and try to do what's best for the city. Now, the folks on social media
don't have a duty to do that to do that. Um, we up here do and I think that's what we're doing now on the Summit Housing Authority. And this is this is not exactly related to um to the resolution that's before the council,
but what I heard last night and we've had conversations is that there are millions and millions and millions of dollars out there that can be had to renovate um our low-income housing uh developments here in Summit.
but that the days of being able to get that kind of funding um and maintaining residency preferences at the same time are gone. Those days are gone. Yes. And so uh I'd like to get
some kind of a meeting with the Summit Housing Authority because I I want to understand why we're going to keep maintaining the preferences. I like the preferences. Don't get me wrong, in particular at Veto Gallow,
okay, which is is for seniors and you know, the way property taxes in this town keep going up, even though we pay half of them to the county. Um, uh, you know, the way they keep going up, people are getting priced out of their homes. I mean, once upon a time, Summit was a
place where people came to and they lived out their days here, and they're not doing that anymore. Um, and and that's a shame and and I'd like to see that change, but if if that's not going to change, I do like the idea of having a residency preference. Um, but,
you know, we're going to have to figure out another way to fund and it's not cheap to renovate these buildings. I mean, it'll cost if we wanted to renovate all three of them, and they probably all need it to some degree, we're talking 30, 40, $50 million.
Um, and so, um, from what I'm hearing also on the subject, even if we got rid of the residency preferences, it would still be mostly Summit residences that um, would come off of these waiting lists, and nobody
who's in there would be removed from Summit um, from those from those units uh, as a as a result of that change. Um, you know, when when we were campaigning in 2023, Jamal and I thought we had this
great epiphany that we could redevelop the firehouse area to be affordable housing for uh people who work in Summit, right? We have um police officers, firefighters, teachers, first responders that are just an integral
part of the fabric of our community. And um we were told that we were naive idiots and we were apparently because we're not allowed to do any of this. Uh I I I even said black people like no. Um but you know I never called you that
just so that everyone knows. Right. Right. Um well and so you know another question that I have is you know is it is it possible does anybody ever think outside of the box on these things? Right. Could you affirmatively market a
development like that to non-Summit residents, right? And then continue to do that, but also have the requirement that they work in some. Um, and so I'd like I'd like you to think about that a little bit
because uh, you know, if if we could do that and guarantee it for for our first responders and our teachers, I'll be the first one knocking on your door, Dennis, uh, to put something good together um, and get that going. But as it stands, we
can't we can't do that. And so, um, you know, what better service could we give to the people who take care of us on a daily basis than to put in affordable housing like that? I can't think of any. So, that's all I have to say. And, and as far as um what you said about the um that it would mostly go to Summit
residents, I don't know what the what the waiting list currently looks like. So, I can't tell you how many. Um, I just know from past experience that usually it's uh many times uh there are people that live that either grew up in Summit, want to
come back um or um are Summit residents uh who are looking for affordable housing in Summit. That that happens very often uh just throughout the state because obviously you you want to live near where you work or where you grew up. Um so that does that does happen
often. So people have roots. Council President, I just have one question for Nancy. Please. Um well, first real quick, I be when we were campaigning, I thought, you know, um the Mount Laura doctrine that we could do 100% affordable housing for the historically
oppressed people and just all black people, right? And we can boost up the the numbers in summit like our little ink well again. But apparently um yeah, you can't do that. So, um can you can you explain the difference
uh between moving forward with immunity and moving forward without immunity? because I want residents to understand that um approving this and keeping our immunity is
and maybe you maybe you can shed some light on it's more beneficial than voting this down and not having any immunity. So if you can un uh explain that because I really think people should should understand that. Sure. Um,
so if you um if you don't have immunity from exclusionary lawsuits, and that can be a builder's remedy, that can be fair share housing center coming in and um and suing you to force you com to comply. Um then a builder or fair share
housing center can come in and say, I am the catalyst for change. Approve my project. which is usually about three times two to three times what uh is reasonable on a particular parcel. Um I'm providing a 20% set aside. Judge, I
want you to order that they build my that they reszone so that my project gets built. Um and that doesn't happen just once. That hap that could be three, four, five, six uh developers coming in at the same time. Um, and so
I'm sorry I lost my train of thought. Excuse me. Um, give me one second. Haven't it's been a very long six months. Um, forgive me. This is my 20th affordable housing plan. Um,
okay. So, um, now if they, so then they they become the catalyst for change. So then now the judge becomes the one not the planning board, not the city council is the arbiter of whether that project is
reasonable um and should be built. And then it's by court order. It's not through a collaborative process with the developer making sure that it fits, making sure that it conforms with the community. It's an order. Um so that is
a builder's remedy. Um, I believe Diego asked the question, "If we lose a challenge, is it like losing a builder's remedy lawsuit?" No, it is not. Um, like I said before, um, if you have immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits, you move forward with your plan. There there may
be tweaks to your plan, you may a project may fall out of the plan because for whatever reason, it's not suitable. It ends up not being suitable. I've had that happen where, you know, the wetlands buffers have significantly increased over the last 5 years because of D and now a project is completely
unsuitable. You have to take it out and put something back in. Um, you have the control over that. And just because a project falls out doesn't mean that now you you know now a builder can come in and um provide a more dense pro project
just because that one project fell out of the plan. you have control over how the city uh amends its plan uh and how it moves forward with the plan. So if that makes sense. So and um and in this process like I said the challenger has
to show that our plan has violated the Mount Laurel doctrine not just their exclusionary I want my project built which is what a builder's remedy is. So uh I don't know does that answer your question? It does. So, in short, um, we vote this down and Harmon can come back
in and say, "You know what? I want to I want to build 50 units there now." And we have no say in it. The judge could say, you know, I mean, we'd fight them. So, but, you know, but yeah, but yes, you started a different number, right?
Then we don't have our immunity. It's harder to fight in court if you can at all. the judge may. So, so it's that liability that you put the city in, too. That's correct. Okay. So, all right. Thank you, ma'am. Council President, I I know you I know you've been trying to
get get to the mayor. Uh I I just want to have got a lot of I be very very quick. I I I was remiss. Um and I wanted to say something before he left. Mr. Alcott. Um Ascot, I'm sorry. I wrote I can't even read my own handwriting. Um,
I'm sure we do not want to get into the same situation that we did with uh Ashwood Court and Habitat for Humanity. So, I'm going to put him on the spot and make sure that Augusta will make sure that that does not happen if and when a project does go
adjacent to your property. So, um, right, Austo, we're good. Work together. All right. Thank you. That's all I have. Council President. Yes. Oh gosh. Mayor, council Councilwoman Council, thank you. I I have a follow-up question about what
Harmon holdings can build currently. Yes. Um you said they could build 24 units on what they have now that's zoned for um mixed use. Yes. Would they also be able to accommodate the parking for that? Would that be like 36 spaces?
Uh it it would have to accommodate that. Yes. So they can they could accommodate the parking and 24 units. Uh I I'm not a planner so I'm not sure. Um okay but yeah but it would but any sort any plan
any conforming plan would have to meet the parking as well. So okay because right now we're reszoning or the plan is to reszone a residential lot for the parking for additional park. Yeah, I believe that. Yeah, and I believe they
have more than RSIS standards with that uh with with the addition of the residential lot. So, it's more than what would be required of the um of the project on the NB zone parcels. Okay. So, that's my understanding of it. Okay.
All right. That's right. Yeah. Okay. All right. Madame Mayor, I'm not going to jump in front of you. So patient. I feel I really will keep this quick. Um, actually, um, Councilman Palowski, I'm going to piggy back on something that he said because I just want to be clear
that this plan, if we adopt this plan, it does not preclude us from finding creative solutions like we are doing currently to create affordable housing. for instance, the United Methodist
Church with the Bergen County United Way. Um that is a great example of an opportunity that um I think addresses the affordable housing desires of our community without changing even the
landscape. So and and so it it does protect us from overdevelopment. So, um, I sort of want to piggy back on what what Councilman Palowski said about, you know, sort of let's put in the number that we believe appro to be appropriate and afford ourselves the opportunity to
be thoughtful about where and how we create affordable housing in Summit. Um, so that is something I'd like to comment on. Um, I also think that that allows us to uh in the same way be thoughtful about less dense and more integrated affordable housing within the community,
which has always been a desire of this community. And I think that that's um a fitting for Summit. Um, and then the last thing I want to say, well, no, that's that's a lie. Um, I did visit Madison, thank you, Mr. McBride for making the introduction um to tour some
of their 100% affordable um housing uh sites that are smaller um and are neighborhood based uh and and it was very eye opening. So um I think that there's there's an opportunity um to do something similar here. Um but let's
keep Summit in in charge of how that looks and how that happens. Um and I do think that Madison has done an incredible job and I and I think they we have a lot to we could learn from from them and they are open and willing to to share their their insight. So um that
and then lastly uh again not lastly um process uh if if this plan gets approved the process after uh after that in terms of a project. Can you sort of walk the
public through it's not like this plan goes through these projects happen it's goes through a process of ordinance development and adoption and then the project itself would have to go before the planning board and I just want can
you speak to that please? Um so after after the challenge period if we if we have a challenge then we'll mediate that. Then by December 31st we tell the program we've amended our plan uh either to
um add sites uh keep it as is etc. Please approve our plan. Either way it's program please approve our plan. Um then um the program will evaluate our plan, make recommendations to uh the trial court on whether uh the trial court
should approve it. Once we get that approval, um we will have until March of 2026 to adopt all of the implementing ordinances, if there's resolutions we have to pass, etc., etc. So, we have um until in the statute, it says March
2026. Um a lot of this has taken a lot longer than than everyone thought. So um that that deadline um if I recall correctly can be extended based on where we are with the process. So um once the
re once resoning um occurs then um we'll just take Harmon because it's the topic of most of the conversation today. Harmon would be reszoned so they can go as of right to the planning board. The planning board process is exactly the
same as it would be for any other project. Um so they would have to bring in a conforming plan. It would go to the planning board. The planning board does their planning board thing and they would get site plan approval. They would have to amend certain things whatever
that whatever that may be. Um there is a restriction on um cost generative features. Um so you can't say that everyone has to have a gold toilet or something like that. you you can't make the project more expensive because they are providing affordable housing which
does which does cut into uh the the profit of the of the building. So you there there can't be cost generative features, right? So um so once it goes to the planning board, they get site plan approval, then it's it's like any other development. So but um but they do
have to uh if there is remediation that has to be done, it has to be done to D standards. uh and that is all the cost uh is borne by the developer. Um I'm sure the planning board would require that you know that they give phase one possibly a phase two whatever and any
sort of letter um that has been remediated before you know so whatever the planning board requires. I'm not a planning board attorney, so I don't want to speak too far into that, but um anything that would be required of any other development in town from the planning board is also required for any
for any project in our plan. So, thank you. And so, and lastly, I just want to sort of reiterate this by asking this question. So, so to be clear, if we say yes to this and and the votes to submit
this plan, which can't be revised at this point, at this point, but by June 30th, no, we can't revise it. So, it's either yes to this plan or no to this plan. Those are your choices, right? Um, if we say yes to this plan, we maintain
our immunity, which you're recommending because that protects us from scary big builders coming in here. Um, or and if we say no to this plan, we are subject to as many developers as want to come knock on our doors to build wherever the heck they want if they own the land.
That is correct. Yes. Okay. So, I'm going to summarize that by saying that I believe that it would be irresponsible not to adopt this plan and endorse this plan today. Thank you. Wow. Thank you, mayor. Sorry, I was more longwinded than I expected. All right, Councilman
Palowski, I thought I Thanks. Um, so, um, Mayor Fagan mentioned inclusive development, right? And so if we had a 20 unit obligation to to create
20 affordable units, we could do that by building five separate 20 unit developments with four affordable in each, right? Yes. But we also making me do math, but yes, it's fine. But we also could build some smaller 100%
affordable. Yes. And we've done that in the past. Yes, we have. Yes. Okay. Um and I I think that's preferable. then you can and and even though it's 100% affordable, if it's in a um a neighborhood that's not right, then it's inclusive.
Yes. Okay. Um and then the second thing is I just wanted to mention um that I'm glad that um the parcel on Ashwood Court is not a part of this plan. Right now it's serving as uh just some public
space and a path between Ashwood Court and the Habitat for Humanity site. But um you know it was people call it the postage stamp. Um but I think the in a prior council they wanted to build at least two affordable units there to to
try to chip away at it. And you know, I understand wanting to chip away, but um on that street in that particular spot, the size of it, uh that would have been um a real shame. So now I'm really done. You start talking. All right. Um anybody
else? All right, let me just wrap up. So um I'm thinking about where we are in in this process and um it's it kind of dovetales with where a lot of our kids are. If you have a fifth grader, an
eighth grader, a senior in high school, or a senior in college, you've just gone through a process of graduation. And graduation is a time to celebrate your achievements, but then you look
forward to what's to come. And that's kind of where we are right now. We are ending round three. Round three officially ends on June 30th. We have a lot to celebrate. We did it.
Not only we did it, we surpassed our numbers. And you know, people can argue whether it was a hard number or not a hard. The reality is I have opinions about that, but it doesn't matter. We overachieved.
That's epic. And a lot of people in this room have a lot to do with making that happen. And we should be super super psyched that we were able to do that. That is awesome that we did that and we have our
professionals to thank for that as well. Um, uh, people up here. And what's fantastic about that is we did it and we kept the character of Summit. The character of Summit.
We have a master plan. People like to throw that out there all the time. It's a super important document. It's the thing that our community has the most input in. Hundreds, if not thousands of people have input into this thing. We people
move here because they love the community and there's this always this siren call, you know, we need more housing. We can't do it. Let's build a monstrosity on Broad Street West. let's add huge
amounts of density. And I'm glad the community said no. But that doesn't mean they said no to affordable housing. And I'm super super proud of all the people up here. It's a win and we should celebrate it. And I know a lot of people
love to chip and, you know, tear it down and it's not a real number and all this kind of stuff, but fair share thought it was a real number. and we should celebrate that. That's awesome. And that's part of graduation.
Now, when you graduate, you move on to the next phase of life. And the next phase of life has a lot of uncertainties. It's a lot of things you don't know how it's all going to work out. If I do well, I like my classes. What am I going to do? And that's kind of where we are
in round four. Anyone who can tell you exactly what's going to happen in round four is lying to you because nobody knows. Hasn't been done. You don't know how these court masters are going to act. We can't even agree
how to interpret 25%. And that, you know, goes back to the part of this legislation. There's tons of things about this legislation that I don't like. And I heard somebody waxing lyrical about what well- constructed legislation this was. That was the only
thing I really said really when I was watching last night. It's complete opposite. If you've listened to me over the last 6 months, I've had nothing good to say about this process and how this legislation has played out and how it's supposed to allow public input. It
couldn't have been farther from the truth how this thing was crafted around allowing all this stuff. And people can score points by saying, "Oh, we didn't know." You know, we you, as Councilman Boyer says, you get you get what you vote for, and New Jersey voted for these
people, and that's the legislation that we got, and we got to live with it. And and so we and and we will we will um I I do take um
you know um I I object to uh this view that we're trying to skirt by and we don't we're trying to do the minimum amount that we can do. That's not true. We want to comply with the law. We want
to promote affordable housing. We want to do it though in a way that's consistent with the character of our community. And some people may not like that because as again you have this thing where you know people have a and I
applaud them. They they want their number one goal in life is to create affordable units. Great. That's passionate. I love that. But as elected officials, we also represent everyone who lives here and
moves here. And we've got to think about uh creating affordable housing in a way that, you know, people don't want to live in Hoboken or Jersey City. They moved here for a reason.
And and so I like I said, I I can only speak for myself. I want to have affordable housing in in this town, in this community. We just proved that it's possible to do and we're gonna do it the right way.
Um and so um and and so on that um like I said, I I've I was quoted around, you know, saying we're going to be challenged. I I try and live in the real world. We will be challenged. any world where a
housing advocate thinks our number is one and our our professional who's been doing this for 30 years thinks it's 18. I I can't that's okay. People can have differences of opinion. We will be
challenged. fair share challenged every single community who just said, "You know what? The our um our unmet need number, I think you calculated it incorrectly." Blanket, they sued every single town.
They're advocates for this stuff. That's what they do. They're passionate. God bless them. But I I'm not going to be able to change that. I have to live in the real world where challenges are going to happen. And we have to work hard enough to create a plan where our
plan holds up to what we think is the law. Now what we think is the law, we have professionals. I'm not a affordable housing attorney. We write checks. Uh so we we get this thing and and she does a
fantastic job for us. We write checks to Joe Burgess. And it's easy to, you know, to sit on Facebook and say, "I think this is the interpretation and you're not doing this." All right. Well, you have the luxury of if you're wrong, not having to deal with the consequences. We
have to deal with the consequences if you're wrong. And that's a big responsibility. And so, we have to take that seriously and we have to create a plan that we think is in the best interests of our community that will create affordable
housing. But it'll do it as again I'm going to broken record in the character of the town that we all love and we chose um to be in um the development in East Summit Harmon.
I'm against overdevelopment. The first uh iteration that we saw I just don't tell them to come back when they're serious was was way way too big. And they did come back and they came back again and they came back again and we
had a lot of negotiations around it. The fact is it is right kind of where the current zoning is and to to remove them when they were what looks they could make an argument and I'm not a lawyer that we were trying
to be reasonable. They could come back in August and say you know what we want the 35 units instead. and judge would say, "Well, you know, it looks there. You know, where's your other developments in there?" And we'd have 35 units on that spot instead of 20. That's a possibility. And you have
to weigh risks and how you're going to do these things. And I completely um am sympathetic to the traffic in that area. We have to study that. Um it it it's anyone who lives in Summit knows
that it's a tough spot, but they they own the property. I can't take the property away from them. I don't have that power. So So we have to live with what we we have. And but that being said, all those concerns
that are incredibly valid around property remediation and all that kind of stuff, because they're part of this, they don't get a pass on any of that. They have to remediate the property to get their building permits and such. They have to comply with building codes.
So, um, Mr. Escott, you you you will have they will get fined. they will do everything if they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing. They don't get a pass on any of these things on what we all have to do around development if I'm correct. So, so you
know, you have to look at this thing and say, you know, this is kind of what we're going to have to do and we'll have to figure out the traffic. It's not ideal, but it's the world we live in. this is the law that we're we're we're dealing with and we have to live in the real world and and what we've been the the
hand that we've been been gotten. Um the last two things I'll say, one is um there's been some these suggestions uh you know about the Broad Street West and um about building all these
exclusive affordable units there and 50 to 60 or what have you. Um, it's been mentioned, you know, one of the things around Mount Laurel since its inception. We are required to uh create affordable
housing units and we've done that. What the law has never said that communities need to do is it has never had to be tax taxpayer funded. Never. No community's been told you need to raise taxes to build affordable housing.
It's not our system. That's why we have developers who are in bed literally and figuratively sometimes um with housing advocates who both want the same thing. Developers want density because that's how they
make money. That's all they're in it for. They're not philanthropic because they care about affordable housing. They want to make money. And the affordable housing guys get something out of it, too, because they get 20% affordable units. Um, that's how affordable housing
gets done because for the most part taxpayers don't fund it. And I am against any plan in Summit where we're going to ask our taxpayer to provide affordable housing. We ask them to do it all. It's too expensive already.
And that project on Broad Street West, you we're giving away a taxpayer asset for free, which is the property value. It's free. That's not my property. It's all of your property. It's the taxpayers's property.
And there's tons of things in our town that need investment. You know, the the Tatlock fieldhouse is falling apart cuz council kicked that can down the road for decade. The tier garage sadly is falling apart. We're going to have to pay millions of
dollars to fix that thing. infrastructure costs money and giving away city property is basically you got to find the money somewhere else. So I I have a very hard line around um that that's a no-brainer. Now that doesn't
mean our plan can't include smaller um developments as the Methodist Church is a great example. I was supposed to meet with someone 45 minutes ago to start talking about someone else giving money into our town to do an affordable housing project and I'm going to be
late. There are lots of opportunities to do smaller um all affordable things and we will figure that out. Do I have them all in the back of my pocket right now? No. But we have 10 years and I think if you look at our track record on what
we've done, we have done it. And so for people who want to poo poo and say, "You're not serious. You don't care. You're not going to do this." I I take offense at that because our track record says that's not true. And I know I'm going to
work hard for the next 6 months at least cuz I'm on the thing, but I I'll continue to be involved in this to so we can provide affordable housing in a way that we can all that is fitting in our community. Um so that's why I'll vote yes on this
as well. The last thing I want to say, Madame Mayor, you said it correctly. As elected officials, I don't have the luxury to hope that some other people bail me out if I'm going to vote on a very narrow issue. You have to look at this vote and say,
what are the consequences? If I decide I, you know, to a point that property has too many problems on harm and holding, I'm going to vote down the plan. and say somebody else decides to do that too, we will have no plan
and we can be sued starting in July. That is, as my perspective, in my opinion, completely irresponsible and a dereliction of duty as an elected official because you are opening up lawsuits across the entire town,
including the little parcel of land in Harmon holdings. And you can't do that as an elected official. It's just not it's not right. Um we have a binary option here. We didn't make the law. This is what we
have. And you have to do what's right for the entire community. And and with that, I'll end my long-winded statement. All right. All right. So, do we need a roll call for this? I think we should, I think we should, too. Okay.
Mr. Ber I. Miss Calmanson. Nay. Mr. Powski. I. Mr. Smallwood. I. President Octo. I. All right. Motion carries. Okay. Uh, we're now on to our public
comment section of our meeting. If there's something that was not covered, you want to talk about something that wasn't on our agenda, come on down and make a comment. Make a comment. What? Breathe first. Okay, I will
breathe first. Do I need to be saying my name again? No. All right. You know, I have it. You know who I am. Thank you. All right. Um, I'm disappointed. I understand. This should have been brought to us much sooner, so there was time to revise and resubmit. You've got
to do better. Councilman Ber, Councilman Smallwood, you both represent me. I live in W 2. I've never seen you in my neighborhood. I don't think any of my neighbors have seen you in our neighborhood. Um, I'd really, you know, my neighbor Mark Coler
last night invited everybody to come and tour the area. I'm happy to have him. I'm happy to go with him as well, uh, to have you tour the area with us. Um, I'd like to see you in our neighborhood. You represent us whether we voted for you or not. Um, my vote is private. When I go
into a ballot box, you all represent us. You are the mayor for everybody. Democrat, Republican, independent, non-affffiliated. You are the mayor for East Summit and all other parts of Summit. We don't see you there. We need you within to come
and see us. You need to see what we want. You need to hear our views. and you need to consider putting some affordable housing in other parts of the town. There's not an estate that goes on the market that you say, "Hey, let's put up a big building in one of these
neighborhoods." It would never happen. Yet, it happens all the time where we live. We are hardworking individuals. We take pride in our properties. We've beautified Russell Place um an awful lot since we've moved in 16 years ago.
We love living in Summit and we deserve to be treated as full class Summit residents. We pay taxes like everybody else. Please respect us. Please come see us. Please talk to us. Please return our phone calls when we make them. Thank
you. Thank you, Council President. I'm sorry to interrupt, but as the person who writes the checks and pays the bills or can we allow our professionals to go since Oh, yes. You guys are on the clock, so go. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Nancy. Thank you, Austo. I just have a question. Um, were there contingencies on the the Morris Ashwood property when it was sold to um sold to Harmon?
I mean, in other words, was it contingent on this zoning change to accommodate the property or or is it um because right now there are two parcels that they I presume they own both,
right? Three. Okay. Three parcels, two of which are zone sort of, you know, business retail, one of which is single family. So was the deal done, you know, with the with the understanding that
this would be reszoned so they could build this big or or was this just, you know, kind was that post sale? Just a question. I'm curious. I don't I don't know if anyone here can answer it, but
can just to clarify, they own the property. I mean, we're not privy to whatever the negotiations would have been with. Okay. But do you mean if they just bought it like purchased it outright, you know? Yeah, they just purchased it outright, you know, with the existing zoning or or did they
purchase it with the understanding that this would be reszoned so they could build this big I mean, it's because, you know, one of those properties is single family housing, right? Yeah. I mean, I'm just asking a good question. They they did not
Well, um I don't think you can correct me if I'm wrong, they did not purchase the property with the understanding that the city would reszone it. Whether they had a contingency agreement with the seller that says if they don't ultimately do it, we can back out of the deal. I have no idea. That's a private
transaction, right, that the city has nothing. I was just wondering if if there was any insight there. Okay. Thank you. So my main issue and you mayor mention it you know our situation in Roso place which is the parking issue. I had not
seen the master parland. Uh I don't even know how many parking lots the you the new this project is going to have but it's just the traffic study and getting off the subject but is part of it. what
what exactly can you do for us with this parking situation that we go through every single day, especially in school days. So now we're going to have this this building coming out, which is fine. I told you I'm pro project. I just wanted to see maybe a smaller instead of
20 units, maybe 15 or 10. It's going to be mixed use, which is wonderful. But what can you do for us? What can is there something that you and all of you can do for us in Roso Place which reiss
over 30 years uh this where be you've been there less than me but we like we like a family we are have created a neighborhood watch we all communicate everything that goes on. I know they
want to do want to bring this to a a lawsuit or maybe we can get to a resolution. We are going through all of that because we do have to meet the requirements of affordable housing. But please, we need help with this parking. You need to do something. There's
sessions in other towns where people need a sticker to park for two hours the most. I have a brownstone in downtown Newark in James Street. There's no one that can park there. You people used to come and park and leave the cars there.
That's not allowed. You have to have a sticker. There's couple of locations in New People come and leave their parks in the street in our block park all day. Just help us with that. We just need help
with the traffic. that will really alleviate half of the problem that we go through. So, just keep that in mind for us. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Again, I asked the question about why can't this project be moved down to the
um Broad Street West? I just don't get that that, you know, because it's so big, you know, why can't it Yeah. Why can't it go down? Why can't they have a develop? You know, they fought that that that it was too it was in congruous for that area. That big project they wanted
to do. It didn't work out and that because they said, you know, it was going to be, you know, the density was ridiculous. This is going to be double the in density. I cannot imagine where they're going to put the parking. As this lady just said, oh, we have such
parking problems now. It's a nightmare. Yeah. I I would say that that it is not going to be double the density of the Broad Street West proposal. It's roughly 20 odd units. I'm not again not a planner. I don't want to speak out, but but well, I got my information from somebody that is and it's Yeah, but it
it conforms roughly with the zoning or two of the three lots. We're going to have to see. Yeah. No, I agree. I agree. And again, not a planner and I don't want to and that's a concern. We have a very big concern because you're talking 20 units and I I say 40 cars and then
plus the res the uh business area is going to need parking. You can't park them Ashwood. You can't park them broad. How big are these? We know they're all going to park. You guys already I mean that's a big concern. It's a very
big concern and it's you got to get down to the area as the resident said and see I mean you cannot overnight look we have the police working with us because Summit had put in a bot system and these
residents that have no place to park were parking all over the Russell place Pearl Ashwood illegally using the bot system and it's a nightmare. So, what's going to happen when you put in a big monstrosity as this? It's not going to
work out. So, we're gonna really have a big issue here. Thank you. Thank you. Hopefully be a relief I'm speaking on something different. That's one point. Um,
Diane Leotaa, 606 Springfield Avenue. And good evening to everyone. Sorry, I feel like this is sticking right at me. Is that better? Okay. Uh, our home is on Springfield Avenue and we have an easement for a
county pipe that leads to the salt brook. There are three catch basins that catch the rainwater that feeds into this county pipe that are located close to our home. one um right at the top of our driveway, two on the opposite side of the street of a home that was abandoned
for close to 25 years that has finally been completed, has been on the market, and not one uh unit has sold. So, we continue to still clean the catch basins from across the street and at the top of our driveway. Um we have maintained our property that
borders the Saltbrook to minimize the erosion. And we have also maintained the three catch basins as I said and clear the debris on a regular basis. The pipe that leads into the brook on our property appears to be made of clay
and part of that pipe broke off before we purchased the home. Uh and our home was purchased in 1992. Um we keep very large rocks around the pipe to stabilize and support what is remaining so that it reaches into the
brook. We are noticing that the pipe does have cracks in it though. We would like our pipe and property to be part of the stream stabilization project of the resolution that passed last uh week on the 16th and it was
adopted by this council. Um I appreciate that Councilman Ber stated that we needed to stabilize the entire Saltbrook because I am along that part of the Saltbrook that has not been discussed. And um I also appreciate that you've already begun the process by having
conversations with uh Congressman Tom Kaine and the Army Corps of Engineers. And thank you for recognizing that it is not only just one property so that other homeowners can receive the same level of intervention as the property that has
received so much attention. Thank you all for your concern and knowing that the broader systemic issue of our watershed and aging and lack of infrastructure reflects a problem that affects many residents. Um I know that you live around the corner from me so
you're very familiar well your property is not on the brook but how the um brook will flood at the time of the intense rain. Um, as a matter of fact, I believe that
um, uh, our our engineer had discussed the same thing that it does flood in the time of intense rain, but it can almost look like it's dried up within a few days. So, there was quite a bit of things that
were being mentioned last week that had to do with liability. Um, the amount of property that was lost on the home that has been so has been discussed um um primarily. And can you
just wrap up please? Am I over by three minutes? Just Oh, excuse me. I feel like I've spoken less than anyone that came up here this evening, but um I that's okay. Okay. I can bring it back for another meeting if my three minutes is up. That's fine. I've submitted to you the the notes. Okay. Thank you very
much. Thank you for your comments. Other comments from the public. All right. We'll close public comments. We now have council members comments and new business. Council president, remember we have a meeting on next Tuesday. Jamal, I know. Well, while it's
while it's fresh while it's fresh on my mind, um uh Miss Connelly, we we Miss Connelly was dealing with a problem that was going on for I don't I don't want to overexaggerate, but like seven years, right? And we got that figured out. And
um I I run down Russell Place all the time. I got friends on Russell Place. I'm in your neighborhood and you you're like a rock throw for me, too. So, we you know, we we're neighbors. Um, but let's connect and I have a safety meeting after this so we could talk about the whole parking thing because if
you're dealing with parking issues, parking overnight and everything, we we can we can work that out definitely. Um, the second thing is just just a reminder. I I you know I I just want you
to understand and I hope that you're you're hearing us that um not voting for this opens the door to Yeah. So I just you know I want to be clear about that. So um okay we're just not happy that it
took you this long to get us something so that it can't be revised and Yeah. I mean listen I'm not I I no I I'm I I get it. I understand and I'm not happy with this process either. Trust me, I think it's ridiculous. Um, the other thing is,
oh, so the Salt Brook, I was at the top of the Salt Brooken school the other day and I mean there is like so much debris in in that in the gutters up there. It was re I mean it is it is unbelievably
ridiculous. So, Brighton School at the top runs all Salt Brook runs all the way down to New Providence, right? I've as a kid I used to walk the Salt Brook and everything. And um I'm wondering is your is that a county pipe that you have? So,
we'll we'll we'll we'll talk right um and the So, we've been maintaining our property so it doesn't erode that. No, no, I I understand. I I understand. I think um fundamentally though um with with that property on the corner um that
was a different situation that that pipe is like it's not even there. there's a huge pipe and um you know the county but the the the thing about it is those conversations about the entire Saltbrook
started like two years ago and um the the main goal is to get the whole Saltbrook you know taken care of and we had we've started those conversations me and council uh member Hamlet. So, um,
that is that's not going away, you know. So, that's still a focus. But, uh, that's it. Thank you. Other comments from council? Councilman Palowski? First, I know for a fact Councilman Ber is, uh, right at home in East Summit, in
particular, Russell Place where he spent a lot of time on various issues, including the park line, um, and otherwise. Um, second, parking on Russell Place. We will also talk about this in the parking uh committee that
I'm on with Councilman Smallwood. And one thing for you to think about and discuss with your neighbors, and we ask this um often uh when people complain about uh too many cars parking parking for too long is would you ever consider single side of the street parking or single side of the street? Alternate
side of the street parking. It's single side of the street. It already is. Yeah. It's only on our side. It's only the odd side of the street. Okay. All right. Well, then it's probably an enforcement issue, but um we will look talk about that at our next meeting as well. Parking too. What's that? If people park
there overnight, they just neighbors cars local businesses, you know, employees park. I I would suggest Why don't you guys talk after? Sure. Okay. Um, the plan for the Harmon Holdings uh uh
project is on the planning board website. I think it's been up there for a few weeks uh since they came or since we were allowed to present it for the first time. I'm not sure what the date of that planning board meeting was, but um May 29th. Yeah. And then uh on the
Salt Brook, M Miss Leotta, we I the second I got your email today, I forwarded it to um Director Shrager, our city engineer. Um and you know, my comment was
that while the county is going to come out to deal with the one pipe, it should come out and deal with yours as well. Um, I'm glad that your uh uh property is currently stable, but who knows how long that can last. And I think the big problem is when it breaks further in,
right? You're saying that your your pipe is cracked. When it when it breaks, you know, 10 20 feet in, that's when all havoc uh uh is released and you lose twothirds of your property, like your neighbor a little further up uh the ravine. That's what we always called it,
the ravine. Um but uh that's it. That's all I got. Other comments. I have one really quick thing. Yes, madam mayor. Just um right now I ran out because there are some power outages. So if neighbors are concerned about power outages, JCPNL is on their way. They are
in Summit currently fixing one. There are a couple of pockets. There are some transformers that can't handle the heat just like we can't. So um just so you know, I just want everybody to be aware that that's happening. Thank you so much. Of course. Any other comments? All right. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? So
moved. Have a second. Second. Second. All right. Uh we are journ