Good evening. Welcome to the planning board meeting. Uh we are going to start with the pledge of allegiance. >> Pledge allegiance 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. >> Okay. >> Can we have the adequate notice statement, please? >> In accordance with New Jersey statute 10:4-10, adequate notice of this meeting has been
provided to the newspapers of record and has been posted here in city hall. For the benefit of the interested public, this meeting is being livereamed to the city's YouTube page and also broadcast on Summit's government channel, which is Comcast channel 34 and Verizon channel 30. Any hearings on applications for
development in this [clears throat] meeting or quasi judicial proceedings. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Please note that fire exits are to my right, your
left, and at the back of the room where you entered. The city has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired. If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the necessary equipment here at the DEIS and return it immediately after our meeting. >> And we'll now do the roll call.
>> Chair Balsson Alvarez >> here. >> Vice Chair Hamlet >> here. >> Miss Bowen is expected but not yet present. Council member Chrisoy is excused. Mr. Dalmaso >> here. >> Mr. Fel >> here. >> Miss Morrison >> here. >> Mr. Salah is excused. Mr. Stern is
expected but not yet [clears throat] present. Mr. Stuntton >> here. >> Mr. Golden >> here. >> You have a quorum. You may proceed. >> Thank you. Okay. >> Mr. Martner. >> Yes, Madam Chair. It's my understanding we're going to proceed with a closed
session. I do have we have a resolution uh for that purpose. I'll uh read an abbreviated version. It is a full resolution memorializing that we're going into executive session. Uh under the open public meetings act there's exclusions from the public for certain circumstances including pending
litigation as well as personnel matters both of which will be addressed in this executive session. Uh the pending litig litigation matters under 12B7 uh will uh be the Tatlock Community Preservation Association versus City of
Summit and Planning Board matters. Uh Union Law 4748-25 and Union Law 3186-25. Th those are the specific pending litigation matters that'll be discussed. uh as well as personnel matters,
specifically the selection of a planning consultant to prepare a master plan re-examination report. Uh the executive session minutes may be disclosed to the public upon the determination of the planning board of the city's summit that the exe executive session minutes are no longer the subject of pending or
anticipated litigation or other confidential matters. Uh and this resolution shall take effect immediately. Uh, as all as with all resolutions, of course, Madame Chair, if we can have a motion, second, a roll call vote, please. >> Yes, please.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Thank you. >> Vice Chair Hamlet. >> Yes. >> Mr. Domo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Felmmet. >> Yes. >> Miss Morrison? >> Yes. >> Mr. Stuntton? >> Yes. >> Mr. Golden?
>> Yes. >> Chair Balsson Alvarez? >> Yes. So, do you want to go in the other room? Let's do that. Okay. So, we'll see you in a little bit. We have to do it this way. >> That's right. But, uh, for the public, when we, uh, close our close, we will come back, reopen our open public
meeting, and proceed with the other public business on the agenda. Do we have to do a motion? >> Yes, we did. >> Yeah. Motion to close and close. Open the open and >> motion to
>> any back. Sorry for the delay. Um had a lot to go over. Anyway, we're back and we are up to master plan consistency reviews for two items. Do you want to go over that, Mr. Warner? >> Sure. A master plan consistency review as the board knows under section 26
uh is a determination as to after we hear from our planner, Mr. Burgess, and his opinion. Uh it's not a public hearing, but it's a determination by us as to whether the zoning regulations that are before us, we have two, uh are uh not inconsistent, our favorite
negative, double negative, not inconsistent with the master plan >> because substantial consistency is all that is required. Uh we'll hear from Mr. Burgess in a moment. But to as always to facilitate the process so we can move it into one step as opposed to two. We have
resolutions uh uh that you can adopt uh whether or not you find the uh ordinances to be inconsistent or not inconsistent. We write them as not inconsistent uh because more often than not that's the finding of the board. >> Right.
>> So but uh the chair can call them each out one at a time please. >> Yes. So, uh, we have an ordinance, uh, from the city of Summit, um, for changes to development rags for the prohibition of
uses for detention centers, um, and also one for the prohibition of AI data centers because we they don't believe that it's consistent with the master plan and we're here to decide. Um, Mr. Burgess, do you want to share
your views on this? Certainly. No. The first, let's take each one separately. Now, the first one regards detention centers. When you read the municipality's master plan as well as the 2016 re-examination report, you know, the policy of the municipality is
clear. It talks about protecting the residential character of the community. It talks about prohibiting intrusions of highintensity, incompatible or inappropriate land uses and detention centers. as we've all been reading in
the newspapers recently uh um team to characterize all those features that I just mentioned um the master plan, the re-examination report and the zoning ordinance have all prohibited this use
in any event. So they're not allowed today. This ordinance is simply def designed to reinforce and reaffirm that prohibition. So, it's safe to conclude that consistent with the municipal land use law wording, this ordinance is not
inconsistent with the master plan of the community. >> And if I may, Madam Chair, and so to be clear, Mr. Burgess, there are already nonpermitted uses. >> Correct. >> But this is calling them out to clarify or further reflect that they are
actually prohibited uses in effect. Uh the same thing if you wanted to have this use you would have to go to the zoning board of adjustment to get a D1 use variance in order to have it. Correct. >> That's correct. And that would be you know if this gets adopted by the
governing body tomorrow. It would be the same as if the regulation was not into effect as of this moment because they can't do that right now. But they would perhaps it makes it clear a little more definitive that it's not only
lacking from the list of permitted uses, but it is explicitly >> prohibited >> missing from that list because it is affirmatively prohibited. perhaps removes all any doubt >> if there were any that this is a use
that uh is not permitted in any zone if it's adopted in in the city. Yes. And again our for the members of the public if I may mad chair to be clear >> our job is a limited role of jurisdiction. We are the gatekeepers of the master plan as the planning board.
So when the ordinance is introduced, any land use ordinance is introduced by the governing body, they have an obligation under section 26 of the municipal land use law to refer it to us for a limited review. Essentially, is it inconsistent
with the master plan or is it not inconsistent with the master plan? That is effectively all we are considering. >> Uh and that's why we don't have a public hearing. It's not a public hearing that's done here. a public hearing would happen in front of the governing body on second reading. So we don't ne
essentially address the merits of the ordinance. We're focused on whether it's consistent with the master plan or not inconsistent with the me I should say or >> inconsistent. So that's why it's a limited role we play. >> Right. Joe, what else would you like?
>> One other item. Um just to make it clear, there is one exception to that rule. Uh the ordinance does exempt municipal detention facilities. That's basically and it identifies that as a temporary detention in a municipal
police station. >> So it's clear that that >> small scale >> that function will continue. >> It can continue. >> I'd like to open it up for folks to ask questions of Joe or discuss the this particular topic.
No questions or questions. Okay. >> Um >> my understanding is that federal government, state government, I don't know about county that if they own property, they can choose to build one
of these facilities. Is that correct? >> That is essentially correct. However, you know, we were the planner. We're planners in Roxbury where I'm sure many of you have read. >> Is there anything going on in Roxbury? [laughter] >> Pardon? >> Is there anything going on in Roxbury
with respect to detention center? >> Um, the whole process has slowed down thanks to all the protests. >> There you go. >> And now they're contemplating trying to sell the property. >> And that was on county land for Miss Morrison's question. >> That was on private property.
>> Private property. Um, but it shows you what vocal residents can do. >> This is a democracy after all. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Mr. Stern, >> probably more for Steve and for Joe, but
from a legal perspective, the explicitly including the use for civil immigration detention. I guess there was some case in 25 >> core civic. Yeah. Yeah. I think carceral already includes that.
Like or do we have any additional liability by including that language? >> Because then the feds conceivably uh they they struck down a state ban >> as targeted regulation of it because we
it was specifically called out. >> Is that is the city opening itself up for a potential legal you know legality? My my advice to the board with respect to whether or not
the ordinance if and when adopted uh uh uh uh uh would be preempted uh by federal government under uh the supremacy clause uh or otherwise
uh is not for us to opine on. uh and uh the governing body will proceed with its ordinance as the governing body and common council sees fit with the advice of the city solicitor. Um and I don't think it would be prudent for us as a
planning board to go beyond our jurisdiction let alone potentially uh in an open session question uh uh the legality. Certainly assuming argu there were uh any immunities or any
preeemption of this stat uh of this ordinance if and it went adopted. Hypothetically uh regardless there would be in my opinion no liability of the planning board for weighing in on whether or not the ordinance is consistent or not
inconsistent versus inconsistent with the master plan. And I would advise to leave it at that. >> Okay. again limited role. So any other questions? Yes, >> one question. I believe I know the answer, but I'm going to ask the legal
land use expert in the room. We do have in summit a mental health facility. Most of the patients there are voluntary patients. Some of them are involuntary committed patients. So I just want to make sure that this does not this cannot be construed to somehow affect that use.
>> What do you think Joe? Uh, no. Is it that's a se a whole separate category to begin with in terms of law? >> Good question. >> I'm sorry. It's a whole separate category. >> In terms of law, they are not being detained as a corporate a corporal
issue. They might be detained as a health issue. >> Health issue corporal >> different use >> being because it's medically related. >> Pardon? because it's mental health facility versus a a you know a >> police facility or something like that. [clears throat]
>> Okay. Any other >> Okay. So, do we uh do you want to >> ultimately uh we have a resolution of finding the ordinance not inconsistent with the master plan >> consistent I guess with the advice of our planner.
>> Um if you agree it' be a motion second and a roll call vote to adopt that ordinance. >> Do you have a motion? So move >> second. >> Second. >> Thank you. >> So we're saying it is not inconsistent.
So we say I >> just have to make sure we get the double negative correct. >> It's a yes to adopt the mo the resolution. >> Okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, >> Vice Chair Hamlet. Oh, sorry. >> Yes. >> No, I was say it's a roll call. >> It's a roll call. >> Vice Chair Hamlet. >> Yes.
>> Miss Bowen. >> Oh, she didn't make it. Oh, sorry. Mr. [clears throat] Damaso. >> Yes. >> Mr. Felman. >> Yes. >> Miss Morrison. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stern. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stuntton. >> Yes. >> Chair Balsson Al. Oh, Mr.
Mr. Golden. >> Yes. >> Chair Balsson Alvarez. >> Yes. >> Should have eight, right? I think. >> Okay. The next one. Joe, would you like to give us your wisdom on the next one?
>> Yes. this regards uh data centers and in some respect it's the same things that I said earlier in terms of you know protecting neighborhoods and regarding intrusion of highintensity uses in this particular instance the
focus also is on the issue of the adequacy resiliency and functionality of our utility infrastructure >> and the definition ident set forth in uh section 357.2
two for AI data centers specifically talks about a use that meets or that generates a total peak >> hour load in excess of a specific well in this case 20 >> you'll be able to get the information >> megaww or has a measurable and distinct
impact on water utility uh consumption um is considered an AI data center and this ordinance specifically prohibits that particular particular use. This definition and an accompanying
definition on computer centers makes a distinction between nonAI data centers and that is important because that often exists and will continue to exist as a separate kind of activity that simply
does not have those kinds of impacts in terms of utility infrastructure that the AI data centers have. And I think the two definitions make it clear. So what we're prohibiting and what we're continuing to permit. >> Yes. >> And if I may >> and accessory and and smaller and just
supportive. I thought that was too. Yeah. >> Having said all that, the conclusion is the same as for the previous um the ordinance is not inconsistent with the intent of the master plan. >> Correct. Did you want to add something before we
>> just for clarification? Uh the um you aptly pointed out the distinction between what is being defined as computer center as opposed to AI data center in the ordinance. Uh it's my understanding, please correct me if I'm
wrong, Mr. veres that the computer center is indeed a permitted use in certain zones including uh at a minimum the prod and prod 2 zones pra [clears throat] correct
>> that is that is correct yes >> but some of the the language that was particularly helpful for the computer center the smaller center that's supplemental and accessory to in a proud zone for example you know that it's it's
not primary and that it is um not large scale. You know there there are certain key differentials that I thought were well done >> and also in terms of employees as well >> which is mentioned in the definition. >> Why why is it just AI like what about if
it's a cloud data or co collocation data center or crypto data center >> is it a broad enough term included? >> I think a lot of that >> it should just be a hypers scale. >> No but a lot of what you just mentioned is in the definition. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But I think AI you're limiting something that is that's not broad
enough. >> The definition includes crypto. >> No, it talks about >> mining. >> Well, let's take it let's take it for another I guess a let's let's just go more than medical use. So we we obviously know that BMS has their
data centers down there right now, right? Um, my one question is, do you know what? >> I was just gonna say, do we know the power? >> Do you know the power megawatt? >> It's not. Yeah, I didn't think so. >> And now we're calling it a computer center instead of a data center. >> I mean, I mean, if you do this for a
living, like 20 megawatts is it's a decent size data center. >> You wouldn't put it on 96 acres at Crystal Mequip. That'd be a two or 300 megawatt data center, >> but it's still large, right? Yes, you're
right. >> And I don't know if 20 is the right number or not. That's obviously not for us to to >> Is the sum of factors included in the definition for AI data center enough to put a board in a position where they could make a determination or a zoning official could make a determination that
uh regardless of the uh you know a difference in the power wattage to utility consumption to the type of the principal use of the structure they could determine ah yes this is an AI data center therefore it is prohibited >> as long as it's minimally 20 megawws. Yeah that's I know that the the the the
fear is coreweed, right? Coreweed doesn't just do AI, they do cloud-based computing. >> Yeah. But those components are also mentioned in this definition. >> Yeah. I just think that the title of it >> title the title is what you're concerned about. But but but
>> it should be hypers scale >> from a legal pers there's an optic issue there certainly to the extent it's relevant from a legal perspective for interpretive purposes. Um, you know, you could call it a Joe Smith Center as long
as it's properly defined. And here the AI data center, I grant you it. Not my ordinance, by the way, but I'm just looking at it first time as as you are. But the the the uh and we're focused on mass plan consistency review. But but I agree with Joe from a legal perspective
uh that calling it an AI data center but then saying as commonly known as sometimes referred to as artificial intelligence data center, internet data center or cloud data center and any and all functionally equivalent but differently named uses, structures,
facilities means and then getting into a long definition um >> the fact that it starts with AI data center as its overall name to distinguish it from computer center. Um
we might not have to worry too much about that because it clearly includes much more than that from a legal perspective. >> Okay. I had another question like um for example on like some of the big property the couple big properties in town if
there was multiple tenants that each did 20 megawws right and they were like for example BMS sold to and a number of parties were leasing space and they all put 20 megabyte 20 megawws centers in a
certain area. How does this ordinance stop that or does it not? 19 >> that >> well yeah let's say there's 19 and there's 10 tenants um they're in a 88 acre area >> they're just leasing it then still >> if it's all on the same >> if they're not then they have to have
lot >> if it's on the same track >> there's also no way that JCPN will be able to supply 200 megawatt of power >> I also believe >> any lot lines comes to us >> if they were to put regardless they would have to apply for variance relief
for the use anyway uh is that the That is correct. Yeah. >> Okay. So it' be stopped by a number of mechanisms. >> Yes. And also just to give you all an idea like the prod zone I think the setbacks are enormous right now currently in the zoning something like
100 ft you know. So that's that's another just our in our existing zoning because it's already there. So, but with regard to the subject matter at [clears throat] hand, when you think about our master plan and you think about the goals of the master
plan, >> is this inconsistent or is this consist not inconsistent? >> Not inconsistent. >> That's what I think. Okay. So, do we have >> fortuitously we have a resolution to that effect. Yeah. If you wish, someone
wishes to move second and roll call vote to adopt that resolution. You would be finding this uh introduced ordinance not inconsistent with the master plan so that it can proceed to to secondary public hearing before the common council. >> So I have a motion. So move Mr. Stern.
>> Second [clears throat] first. Well, you got >> Thank you. >> Just couldn't tell which one of the you did. Okay. All right. So roll call vote, please. Vice Chair Hamlet. >> Yes. >> Mr. Daso, >> yes. >> Mr. Felmmet, >> yes. >> Miss Morrison, >> yes.
>> Mr. Stern, >> yes. >> Mr. Stuntton, >> yes. >> Mr. Golden, >> yes. >> Chair Bolson Alvarez, >> yes. I have one little bit of, uh, just news update. Um, uh, our Melissa sent us all some our old
DRRO changes. We're going to add a few more and then you all do your homework and read read it, work work on it and we'll see you in three weeks and try and send that up to city well city council. Okay. So, please go over it and there
going to be some additions to it >> and please forward to the board secretary. >> Sorry. >> Forward that to the board secretary if you make any resolution for Joe. >> Oh yeah, the resolution for Joe. Yeah. Sorry. Thank you. [laughter]
So, we have a resolution, Mr. Mr. >> Yes. Well, uh, >> where'd it go? I had it a second ago. Thank you. >> All right. So, we all went into executive session to
talk about um hiring our planner to do our re-examination and we all agreed to continue with Burgess Associates and um we'd like to
approve this resolution. Right. Do I have a a motion to approve? >> So move. >> Thank you. A second. Second. >> All right. >> And >> congratulations. >> We did. Well, it is a resolution. We have to roll call vote to make it official. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Hamlet. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Domo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Felman. >> Yes. >> Miss Morrison? >> Yes. >> Mr. Stern? >> Yes. >> Mr. Stone? >> Yes. >> Mr. Golden? >> Yes. >> Chair Bolson Alvarez? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate the confidence you've continued to show in our firm.
>> Absolutely. >> And we'll get started on that right away. very wellqualified planner in the state of New Jersey. Miss H has a question. >> I guess should we should we clarify to the public what we just did because they may >> Sure. >> Um you you go ahead. >> We're going to do a master plan
re-examination which is required every 10 years and uh Mr. Burgess is very well qualified to do so and uh we had to go into an executive session because uh we bid these out and we look at other planners and Joe is uniquely qualified
to pursue this for us and he has done an excellent job so far and that's why we are sticking with Joe and >> that'll be followed by the master plan. Yes, >> good. Um Joe, I did have a question that's not related to our agenda if this would be a good time. Um the planning board extended uh Bristol Myers Squib's
general development plan until I think June of 2027. With that pending sale, and I talked with uh Steve a little bit about this with the pending sale of that, my I have two questions. One is uh does Bristol Myers Squib or the potential new owner
come back and revisit that GDP? Do they request that? I'm assuming >> it goes with the land, not the owner. >> So it goes with the land, not the owner. But as we're in the process of looking at that entire property down there, what is in your opinion, you know, how does that process
work for the planning board and and the Mount Laurel committee that's been established by common council? Um, assuming we are finished with the fourth round housing plan and there's still I know a few questions about that, but assuming we are finished with that, that
property if it were to be considered would be considered as sort of our fifth round, I would strongly suggest that while we do this what I'll call a brief re-examination report so we get started on the full-blown master plan very soon.
um we will be looking at that property. You know, we have our own designers on staff that will try to come up with a reasonable approach to see how that site may be redeveloped the way the municipality wants to do so
um before we start talking to the property owner. >> Yes. Do we know if any of the potential buyers have reached out to see what they can develop on? So, so >> I guess without compromising attorney client privilege, I guess what we're
working on right now, and I guess Austo can speak more to this, but the Mount Laurel committee, which was uh done by resolution from the common council, is currently looking at Joe, do you want to what's the right word? We're looking at just some draft. >> I go ahead. I guess >> I would recommend
>> I would [clears throat] recommend a separate >> right >> uh discussion. I don't think that the planning board's the forum >> at the moment. Um and if if our affordable >> we have no application in front of >> no application no >> so it's all done through the mount Laurel committee right now
>> right >> okay >> my question was more just will that be how will that fit into the re-exam I guess >> uh well the re-examination report is simply designed to make sure we stay legal over the next three or four months
because that's the time frame we have to adopt the reacts and then that gives I said longer a much longer period of time to work on the ma the full-blown master plan. I would suggest that that master plan process will probably take a year
and um >> the full-blown one after the master plan re-exam right the reex [clears throat] if it takes eight weeks that should be more than sufficient time to wrap that up and then we'll start with the full-blown master plan and
that's when you know a lot of the background information has already been put together because we just finished the housing element and fair share plan where we did land use and demographic data and environmental data so we could jump right in on some of the larger
tracks remaining in the town to look at how we want to see those develop. >> Good. Thank you, Joe. All right. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? >> Okay. Thank you.
>> It was unanimous. >> Thanks, Joe. Thank you.