Good evening. The welcome to the planning board meeting. Uh shall we all stand for the pledge of >> allegiance? Are we are we to on video? >> Okay, we are. Okay. All right. Just making sure. We stand 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. >> Madame clerk, can you do the roll call, please?
In accordance with New Jersey statute 10 col4-10, 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 meeting are 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 a 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. Chair Bolson Alvarez here. Vice Chair Hamlet >> here. >> Miss Bowen >> here. >> Council member Chrisoy >> here. >> Mr. Domo >> here. >> Mr. Felman >> here. >> Miss Morrison >> here. >> Mr. Salah
>> here. >> Mr. Stern >> here. >> Mr. Stuntton is excused. Mr. Golden >> here. >> You have a quorum. You may proceed. >> Thank you. >> We have Mr. Soies here in for our council today.
>> Hi everybody. >> Uh Mr. Warner's out and we had Mr. Burgess and I guess Marie's not here today and that's fine because we don't have an application. So, welcome everybody. The first thing on our agenda is talking about the master plan re-examination discussion which is due
in November and Mr. Burgess is going to talk to us about that. >> Okay, thank you. Hello everybody. Um, we had submitted a memo summarizing the information and sorry it was late but it dawned on me that there's a number of newer board members who were not part of
the process that we discussed back in 2024 I guess it was. So I put together this memo. Um, the municipal land use law requires that minimally every 10 years you have to do either a master plan re-examination report or a new
master plan. Um the municipality, the city has prepared its last comprehensive master plan in the year 2000 and the last reacts was in 2016 in November of 2016 where they
reviewed both the 2000 master plan and the 2006 re-examination report. There is a typo on page two of my memo where I said the last master plan was in 2006. The last REX was in 2006 before the 2016
document. Um there had been discussion back in 2024 uh about the need to do a new full-blown comprehensive master plan. And the reason was the reason for that was the fact that that comprehensive master plan
was then 24 years old. It's now 26 years old and so many of the rules have changed. So many of the not only on the local level but on the state level as well. So there was the belief that it was time to do that update. The dilemma
that we have, the 2016 master plan re-examination was partially a re-examination report and partially a master plan document, but it didn't contain all of the components required of the
re-examination statute of the municipal land use law. and it didn't also include all the requirements of a master plan. So we have that dilemma to to deal with because we have a short time frame in
which to do everything. What I was s what I suggested in this memo was that we do a what I call a quick re-examination report. We could do that in four to five weeks or thereabout. And
at least that way if you adopt it, you are then protected for 10 years. And it gives us the what I'll call the leisure to do a comprehensive master plan, which without having to feel rushed to do it,
the full-blown master plan. Um I know there had been discussion with the chair about, you know, adding a component. It's not required in a re-examination, but because there's always so much public interest here in the city that we
add a component as part of the reacts to include a a public meeting to discuss some of the planning issues that the municipality faces and that's fine. Um, but at least this way we get to do the full-blown document shortly after the
react is completed. As I said, it should be a rather quick process because we start out in the stat in the memo the statutory requirements and the basic underlying provision that oversees everything is at the end of the day in a
react you make a recommend you have to make a recommendation as to whether or not you want to amend the master plan or not or provide for a whole new master plan document. And if at least based in the 2024 discussions, uh it appears
that's what you you wanted to do a full-blown master plan. We also spelled out um the content of a full-blown master plan. You are obligated to do a land use element and a housing element
and fair share plan. We have done that second document and there's a whole host of uh optional elements that we identify u most but not all uh that's in the statute and the reason why we eliminated some some of them just simply don't
apply to some like a form land preservation program that sort of thing. Um, the one significant change from your 2000 master plan, one of the significant changes, but probably the most significant one is where we spell out on
the third page, uh, the climate change related hazard vulnerability assessment. This is something relatively new in the statute. Um, whenever you do a new land use plan element, you are obligated to do that. So, we will we have to do that
at this at this stage. And I guess I'll have a discussion with both the board in the future as well as the governing body who funds a master plan as to what additional elements above the land use plan and the climate change vulnerability assessment that you may
want to do, but the statute is very clear in terms of the re-examination report. >> Great. Thank you. Questions? >> Uh Joe, just a couple of questions. Thank you for your um where do we stand with Union County and the state plan? A lot of those smaller requirements were
required by the state plan and and I've mentioned this before whether it's with the county or with you. Um especially when it comes to surveys, right? We were required by the state. What was the the state? Uh give me the name, Joe. I'm blanking on it. >> You mean the state plan? >> Yeah, the state plan. Right.
>> So, I feel like I lost traction because we were supposed to get the board of ed involved. We're supposed to get all these entities involved and I don't want to see us I don't want to see the city of Summit paying again for surveys that we had to do for the state, etc. We we've done I looked at city council bills for three years and I I see how
many surveys we do and how many times we you know willingly pay you for your wonderful work. But how much of that I guess has been captured within the state plan. >> Okay. what what we will be doing for the react none of that applies >> but for the master plan um we will be
gathering up all that information to see what we can use is to include in the current master plan so we don't of course there were not duplicates >> I guess my question though is did we ever have to submit anything to the state or did it fall apart >> I believe things had been submitted to the state >> okay I can't remember
>> the state being the state >> right >> um in the 40 some municipalities that we represent we didn't get responses about >> regarding any of them. >> Okay. >> To add to add to that, um my office we did receive various notifications about
uh state planning commission constantly rescheduling meetings with the purpose and intent of reviewing the cross acceptance response templates. >> Okay. >> So for context, thank you cuz in the works >> it's the planners and both the administrative side which is not
catching up on at the state level. >> Got it. Okay. And then my my only second comment, Joe, would be I just want to impress upon the board here that although it's just a REX, there's some real value to doing a proper REX and it's going to protect the city of Summit
legally. Um I'm a I'm a huge advocate of the fact that we've done all the right things. We've done our overlay zones. We have an amazing plan created by Nancy Holm and our planners. And I think we need to get into the minutia on the REX around what we've done and how
successful uh we have been at advocating for affordable housing. Um and I I think that should be taken very seriously from this board because the REX will protect the city. When Joe says 10 years at at the minutia level, it's a really really big deal and I would just impress upon
you to um take that as you always will but very very seriously because we've spent a lot of time and energy on that. Yeah, we want to make certain that it's done legally and properly. You know, or I was saying that, you know, the the true focus in the end is going to be the comprehensive master plan, but we have
to do this first step first because we just don't have enough time to do a comprehensive master plan in six months. >> So, sorry, I might have missed that. Quick question. When would we focus on doing the comprehensive? >> Immediately follow it. We would just go right into
>> the city council decision, too. But what's the guidance and the hope for >> it's not due for 10 years after >> right >> but it could be done as soon as we want to do it. >> Yeah I I will say as soon as we begin it a a solid comprehensive master plan
again depending on how many elements you want to include typically will take about a year or so. >> That's helpful. Yeah. Yeah, I was just curious based on comments that Dia made and the comprehensive nature, not the legal nature, >> would we potentially be going on the long end? I know it's a council
decision, but just curious. >> There are different facets to it, different elements to it. And because our housing element was just done and virtually wrapped up with a bow, >> that very meaty part of our master plan is is up to the minute. So, you know,
when we do do a meteor master plan, at least that's just been done. So, and that's great. >> That'll carry us forward. >> For for example, in back in 2000, in addition to a land use plan element, you did a historic preservation element, you
did a community facilities element. Uh, since then, the statute has now included uh a sustainability element and a lot of municipalities are incorporating that into their new planning. And then there's this climate change vulnerability assessment that we have to do.
>> We're going to pay for it. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Is climate change going to be part of the re re-examine or can we can we avoid that on the re-examine? >> No, you do not have to do it as part of the react.
>> Joe, just for clarification, um just to be clear on the record for who's the this board is solely responsible for the master plan. So >> yes, >> do you want to be very clear? We decide when the re-exam is due. we decide when the master plan when we will do the master plan that's just so just can you
you could speak more intelligently about it the city council certainly for the stat that's council has to be willing to pay for it but we will recommend strongly when we think it should be done >> right that's the only reason I mentioned
it we don't have the money we can't do it >> yeah you really need to start the reex soon because November is our deadline date and as I spelled out in this memo know if you are late on your re-examination report beyond that
10-year period, uh if someone were to sue you over any development application, all of your ordinances are presumpt are considered to be presumptively invalid and you're the ones that now have to defend all the regulations rather than a developer
having to prove why there's a problem with your regulations. So it's very important to have this done by, you know, by November. >> Right. >> Right. Which really means we want it done by October so that we can >> if not sooner >> and hopefully earlier so we can start on
>> you know the real heart of the matter. >> Yep. Yep. So does anybody else have any questions on the process? >> Chairman >> Joe I'm curious what that step what does the arc of that process look like between here and November October. uh
what are the options? How do we guide that process? I think >> okay, >> you know, we want to have some level of public consultation as possible. What does that look like? What would you recommend? >> Yeah. Um my recommendation um we start off with a report from our
office identifying how the six these six requirements spelled out in my memo are being addressed. And I'll do that in like a summary fashion initially and then we could have a public meeting um and make probably a design cheret as
part of that where we talk with the public about not only how the go the problems that existed back in 2016 have been addressed or not but what problems do we face today and talk about that to get the public input because that will
in turn help us when we do the comprehensive master land. Um, typically the way we do design cherettes, we'll have a series of boards distributed around the room with different issues and people have like stick them tags to
identify which problems they feel are really appropriate for the city and you know which have been resolved or not. Um, and it's a pretty freewheeling discussion. Usually what our office does, we have two, three or four
planners from the firm come to handle different boards to have, you know, those kind of robust discussions. So one person's not trying to talk to, you know, 50 or 100 people at once. It's a pretty successful process.
The process for the reacts, you know, I had initially said four to six weeks. It might be longer than that if we have those kind of sharetses as part of the process, but I would like to wrap it up no later than sometime in the summer or
the end of the summer. Certainly, it should be done. Um, following that, this board will hold a public meeting where they will formally adopt the document and then presumably we'll be able to start the comprehensive master plan
immediately after that. And as I said earlier, that process should take about a year. And the way we handle that is for each component, you know, some of the background information, say on existing land use, we'll identify, you
know, um how every property in the municipality is used and mapped and text form, talk about areas where we think are problematic and might need adjustment, and have a discussion with the board and the public on that. And then when we talk about demographic
information and talk about the changing nature or the aging character of a municipality and what that means to the municipality, we have a discussion on that. We also have separate discussions on all the environmental issues and
health certain regulations are changing. The one that I think most people are familiar with is just fairly recently DP required engineers to evaluate flood plane areas and estimate what it's going the town would look like in the year
2100 rather than just the 10 or 20 year period like it had been previously. Um, so there's a lot of discussions and that's why I said the master plan process could take about a year or so.
>> So follow-up question to uh Ian's question about climate change. Storm water is the most visible manifestation of that that we have now. >> Yes. >> And I think the city would benefit from some uh incorporation of the storm water
assessment into a pl a planning process. Is that something that would make sense to incorporate this year or is that a bigger topic? >> That will be a bigger topic and we would work with the engineering firm on that. That's more their belly wick than mine, but they're required to prepare at some
point a storm water management plan for the city. So, >> and second concurrent >> or separate. >> Thank you. Uh, so second following question, historic preservation very important topic for our town. We're
losing important structures. Structures that are inappropriate to neighborhoods are being sort of thrust into lots that are too small. Um, that's an important issue for me and I think many people. Is that would that be a component of this analysis or would that be also a separate issue?
>> No, that that could be a component of this analysis. As I said, it was important enough to be included in the 2000 comprehensive master plan. And I would think knowing some as I know it that it would be important to include as an element today
>> of the re-examination, >> not for the re-examination, for the comprehensive master. So, so we're streamlining this with the re-examination and keep it as as comp compact and not complex as possible. So,
we buy the extra time. >> That's correct. The the only reason we are even doing a REX first is because you are obligated to have a master plan document or a REX completed by November.
and there's just not enough time to do a a comprehensive master plan in seven six or seven months. So that's why I'm suggesting we do this rex first because that then buys us actually 10 years from the date that that document is adopted
to complete a master plan process. >> What is our minimum requirement to have public input when we when we've completed the re re-examination and pres ready to present it? That's or do we have to have public input during the process? >> I would suggest you might want to have
public input during the process because otherwise it looks like the public's being handed a document is a fatal complaint. Um you do not have to have any public input you know in terms of the statute but a number of
municipalities will ensure that the public feels part of the pro becomes part of the process. I think it's always beneficial and knowing summit is an interested public here. So yeah, it would be the way to go. >> The bare the bare minimum legal requirement on that front is when you
have the public hearing on the master plan, you have to it's a public hearing. So you have to get members of the public ability to come up and speak their piece about it. But beyond that, basically up to this the discretion of the board. >> We want to get it earlier rather than later. That makes >> so incorporated into
>> even though it's a skinny react, we want to get that. >> Yeah. feedback >> and you know based on the need to address all these six points. It's not necessarily going to be a skinny document. Um you know one example though that will
make it larger but is already done just this past year. We did all this demographic data for the housing element and fair share plan. We're not going to redo all that. We're just going to lift that from that document and insert it here. >> And
>> yeah, a lot of work done there. Um we can always add topics >> like historic preservation if we so choose. >> Yes. Uh if you look at the list of uh
items that are part of the analysis under item number three on page one, the significant changes in assumptions. Um you you could include whatever you want to regarding historic preservation in that section. this year.
>> Yes. But that would be not in the form of a a master plan element, which when we get to that stage, we'll detail for you what the statute requires of you for a master plan historic preservation element, which is a lot more
comprehensive and complex than what we would do for this. >> Okay. Y >> and the only thing I want to caution you on Yes. >> based on the conversation already, >> we don't want to make the react lead as if it's a master plan.
>> And we don't want it to be late. >> We can't have it be late. >> Yeah. A react is just what the title suggests. It's just re-examining your master plan to see if it addresses these six provisions in the statute. >> Statement on historical housing could be
we're we're we're read we're saying our commitment to historical housing that we said in the past is still part of the the re-examination. >> Yeah, it could be a simple statement like that to identify the fact that you
want to make every effort to protect uh historic homes and make sure that homes that are built in the vicinity of historic homes uh reflects a certain character. Mhm. >> Recognize that other than the fact that
you have to adopt it within a 10-year period of the previous document, it really has no ax has no legal weight. And I'll leave that to the attorney to if you want to talk about that a little bit. >> Well, you're essentially right, Joe. I
mean the master plan itself is has more legal weight than the re-examination but you know >> because it's the master plan that's >> the formal policy statement of the community. >> But are we going to get guidance? We don't want to say anything in the re-examination that's going to preclude
us from doing something different in the uh >> Oh well that's the whole point of re doing it every 10 years. Things change over time. >> Yeah. But, you know, I I'll be working with you hand in hand to make sure >> we don't run into we don't run into >> and often these documents are they're
continuum, you know, and reflecting back and and footnoting, you know, things from prior master plans and ma prior reaxes so that it's more of a continuum than a stop and then a new start, you know. So that >> actually somebody in another
municipality recently said, "Oh, it's like a report card and in a large measure." I guess it is. >> Yeah, that's interesting. >> Okay. >> So, uh, on that note, I assume the next public hearing for the planning board would be the time to start then. >> Yeah. Well, I we have to get a proposal
to the governing body >> and uh then we'll >> got to clear the funds. >> Yeah. It's got to be paid for before we do anything. At least we >> at least set the funds aside. >> You might want to see parts of it before you pay me, >> right?
>> All right. So, are we satisfied with everybody >> asked what they wanted to ask? Okay. So, we have this to look forward to. Thank you, Joe. >> Okay. >> Now, we have to go into close session because do you want to talk about why we have to go into close session? >> Uh, I don't want to say too much, Madam
Chair, because it is executive session, but we do have >> confidential matter. Exactly. Uh going the board would be going into executive session discuss to discuss some active litigation. As you can tell by the agenda, the matter is the Broad Street West managers 1 LLCV summit for city of
summit at all uh litigation under do number UN-L-2057-25. And I do have a resolution that I prepared for the board to go into executive session which I do need to read into the record. Um and I'll do that now. Whereas NJSA104-12 the open public meetings act permits the
exclusion of the public from a meeting in certain circumstances and whereas it is necessary for the planning board of the city of summit to discuss in a session not open to the public certain matters relating to the item or items authorized by NJSA 104-12B7 and designated below. Now therefore be
it resolved by the planning board of the city of Summit County of Union State of New Jersey as follows. Number one, the public shall be excluded from the discussion of the here and after specified subject matters. Number two, the general nature of the subject matters to be discussed are matters falling within the attorney client privilege. Specifically, pending
litigation entitled Broad Street West Managers 1 LLC v City of Summit at all docket number UN-L-00002746-23. Uh, number three, it is anticipated that the executive session minutes may be disclosed to the public upon the determination of the planning board of the city of Summit. That the executive
session minutes are no longer the subject of pending or anticipated litigation. And number four, this resolution shall take effect immediately. And that's it. So, we would need a motion and second to enter into executive session and adopt the resolution that I just read into the record.
>> Second. >> Thank you, Vice Chair Hamlet. Yes, >> Miss Bowen. >> Yes, >> Council Member Chris Foley. >> Yes, >> Mr. Dalmaso. >> Yes, >> Mr. Felick. >> Yes, >> Miss Morrison. >> Yes,
>> Mr. Salah. >> Yes, >> Mr. Stern. >> Yes, >> Chair Balsson Alvarez. >> Yes. >> So, can we ask the tele off or >> uh audio visual should be shut off? We have to ask So, we got to
>> Are we back or Yeah, >> I think we should open the door back up, too. >> Thank you, Mr. Stern. You're back out of the executive session. >> Each of you open one door. >> Yeah, I'm meeting two.
I think I'll >> Okay, just opening the door. >> I think we'll just read I'll just read this. >> That's fine. Self-explanatory because >> that would be good. >> Whatever you're allowed to say. >> Yeah, this is going to be called This is going to be called back. So, we don't Yeah, less is more. >> Okay. >> I don't know why J.
>> Okay. >> Okay. So, we are back on the record. The >> council's going to proceed now, >> right? So the uh the board just uh exited executive session by a due motion. Um next on our agenda, Madam Chair, is the uh resolution authorizing
the execution of the Broad Street West Managers LLC, the city of Summit at all uh litigation settlement agreement, which I will read into the record. I believe it's pretty self-explanatory for members of the public to uh understand what's going on here based on what I'm about to read. And again, this is a
public document. Uh whereas on August 21st 2023, Broad Street West Managers One LLC filed against the city of Summit, common council of the city of Summit and Planning Board of the City of Summit in action in leew of progative rits and complaint seeking declaratory relief and other judgment in the Superior Court of New Jersey law
division, Union County. uh also titled the action with such action being assigned docket number unn-2746-23 and whereas all parties to the action including Broad Street West managers the city the common council and the board now wish to resolve the litigation by way of mutually agreeable terms which
are set forth in a confidential settlement agreement also known as the settlement agreement and whereas the board consulted with its attorney about the settlement agreement in a duly entered executive session held during the board's regularly scheduled meeting on April 27th, 2026. It finds that accepting the settlement agreement
would be a prudent method by which to resolve the litigation. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the planning board of the city of Summit, County of Union, state of New Jersey, on this 27th day of April, 2026, that the board chairwoman or her designate is hereby authorized to execute the settlement agreement to
resolve the above reference litigation. So, that's this the uh the resolution in its entirety before the board. We would need a motion, second, and then a vote to adopt said resolution. >> I move to approve this resolution. >> Second.
>> PJ the second. >> Vice Chair Hamlet. >> Yes. >> Miss Bowen. >> Yes. >> Council member Chrisoy. >> I. >> Mr. Damaso. >> Yes. >> Mr. Felmmet. >> Yes. >> Miss Morrison. >> Yes. >> Mr. Solo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stern. >> Yes.
>> Chair Balsson Alvarez. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Excellent. Okay. So, our next item, our resolutions. Um, we took care of that one. Now, we're up
to 791 795 Old Springfield Avenue. And we have a resolution before us. And I have a few edits, but I can go last. Who else has some edits? >> Miss Hamlet. >> Yes. Uh just to correct a couple things
and a couple questions. Uh first change is first page in the title. It's just should be consistent that Springfield Avenue throughout. Uh in the top it says Springfield Road. Not a huge deal. >> I think it is road, isn't it?
>> Uh I think it's Avenue. >> Oh, is it Avenue? >> Whatever it is, it's got to be >> Old Springfield Avenue. >> It's avenue. I don't know how we got there. Okay. Um, all right. >> Page uh
13, we refer to township. Obviously, it's city >> uh the top first paragraph. Township's master plan. >> Oh, yeah. M H I I sent a revised version to Jessica later on today. You might be >> Yeah, they cleaned that up. So, I
apologize. >> Come three days ago. It's Yeah. Not >> Yeah, we have that. We have that fixed in the latest version. Um, page 19. >> Do do item number actually because people print them out. >> Okay. >> That that helps.
>> Um, >> okay. >> You know what I mean? >> It's the Roman numerals, >> right? Okay. So, sorry. I'm just I'm not in order here. Um, okay. I just had a question on on page
19. Uh what's this page one? >> They I guess in the conditions. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Was it 11? So you're in section 12. >> One of the top >> it says the applicant's lighting plan shall be subject to further review and
approval of the board engineer. >> Yes. >> How how much substantive things can I wasn't at this meeting. So, I guess my question is, can we add? So, to give you an example, the reason why I'm asking this question is this thing gets built and sitting on city council, it gets
built and everybody around there all of a sudden starts calling you and says the lights are too bright. So, how do we trigger the lighting? >> Oh, >> like how do you trigger that further review? How how does the public notified? >> Item 13 right below.
>> Property shall be subject to a six-month post construction lightning study. >> Well, that Okay, I like that. So, that's my question though. So, >> who does it happen no matter what? >> Marie does it. >> Yes. >> In six months. >> Okay. So, so my question is this. >> That's the the the board engineer.
>> It will be >> is there some sort of checkbox for the engineer to say I need to circle back and I need to make sure that they did this. It would be part of the resolution compliance process after the fact. So >> all of these conditions are supposed to be in the building department and
they're supposed to be checking them off and they can ask engineer to do it as >> So can we just get a copy of that just for our own education like >> a copy of what >> the compliance process. >> Yeah, we can have a procedure just outlined so that everyone's aware how it
works out. Yeah. >> Great. how the conditions are >> because I think it's confusing as you know it's going to the city engineer or the board engineer and like sometimes I'm just worried it could get lost. >> Well, that's why some of these are >> described the way they are like it's going to and I'm adding some of those
because certain things might fall through the cracks. I hear what you're saying. >> Okay. And then the other only have other two more is on page 18. >> Uh I guess it's number three. um everything that I've said. So the last paragraph I think should be deleted and
we should not they should not be allowed to uh sorry they should not be able sorry page 18 the applicant shall provide one designated and deed restricted affordable housing unit residential unit on the property and record the requisite
deed all of that is fine I think the last sentence should be deleted noting that such condition does not forstall the applicant from seeking relief from common council I believe under the new requirements that that opportunity does not exist to go to common council and seek relief for that.
>> Yeah, we discussed that. We discussed that when we left that in if they if they can't go before common counsel, they didn't get they're going to have to do the affordable housing, >> right? So, I think asking for >> I think we were advised by council that
we weren't allowed to take that out that they still have that right to to go to council. But you think otherwise? What do you think? >> I would agree with that. But if that's what Steve said, I'm >> That's why I mean we we discussed this. >> That's what I wanted to ask Joe while he was here. Um >> right. Um
>> so under the terms of our excuse me, under the terms of the city settlement, the fair share housing, we can't change. >> We can't change it. >> Right. So that's the reality of it. So creating false. >> So even if this is here, so >> no, but we can't. >> But according to the ML, that's you don't you think they can't? We
>> the attorney said they want to go before council, you know, knock yourself out. We said I mean, >> yeah, >> right. I also make sure you're using the mic, by the way, so people can hear you at home. Um, >> so it's I believe my understanding is
that per the MLUL, the municipal landing law at the state level, >> applicants have the right to go to common council. >> Yes. >> And that's why it's in there, >> right? Whether they'll get anywhere is another thing because we just entered into a housing element and fair share plan. >> We should nip it in the bud going
forward because it's right it's part of our fair share plan. We can't Austo maybe you can >> um as the MHL I'm just aware that the new fair housing act uh 2024 would not allow that. So just procedurally
um unless it's something reached specifically through some form of settlement agreement with a developer redeveloper or other circumstance um they cannot they can request >> to submit a payment in lie. >> Exactly.
>> But um the city likely should not accept a payment in lie uh or the DCA would have something to say to the city about that. the Department of Community Affairs and Fair Share Housing Center, right? >> You know, that's accepting payments in L is not exactly the intention of this
round of affordable housing as they've told every town in New Jersey. >> But as far as the planning is concerned, we're requiring the unit and we were advised by council that we had to write that they this doesn't preclude them from seeking
relief from the common council. Whether they'll get it or not is another story and sounds like they won't. But I don't think we can cross it out. >> But can we just get a formal response from your office >> in coordination with our municipal land use employee so that we never have to
talk about this again because it's just taking up way too much. >> It's going to come up again, right? So >> I mean that's if it's black and white, which it very well might not. >> Yeah, it might not be. But again, >> yeah, I'd have to look I don't want to speak out of turn without looking at it. That's fine. from everything that Dan
and Austo and we've all been talking about, it's not an option. So, >> yeah. >> Yeah. >> It's quite off the table for the city under the terms of our agreement. And I would hope that the land >> adviserss that we have are aware of that, >> right? Good point. >> But that doesn't mean that at the state
like while city council may never agree to it, right? That's not >> they still have the ability to come and ask for it, right? The answer to be no, >> but they have the ability to ask. And I think the legal question is the planning board cannot preclude them from going to city council. We don't have that authority. >> No,
>> that's why it's in there. >> Exactly. >> I think it's an abundance of caution perhaps. >> But anyway, we can ask again and we'll get clarity. >> I only have >> I think it's just confusing to the to the landowner. >> Yeah. To >> Well, I mean, it used to be common practice, right? And then with this
latest fair share plan, they're highly, if not not allowing it at all. And obviously city council's taking the stance that they're taking, but there's been a bit of a shift in over time on what >> municipalities have been able to do, but
this round with fair share has made it pretty clear that >> the payment in lie of affordable housing is not something that >> that's correct >> is acceptable. >> That's right. There's no affordable housing. >> Yeah. Was was it our place to tell their
attorney that that they you know you're wrong sit down you can't you know >> and it's not just regarding housing it's regarding anything they can they can seek relief from the count city council on planning board matters >> the last one I had is uh I might have
one more but is uh >> what Roman numeral >> is number seven >> on page 18. >> Yeah page 18 I think that should end with planner >> instead of board engineer. Yeah, chair one also. >> Uh, the lighting is usually the engineer >> actually. >> Wait, number seven.
>> Wait, is this the one I'm reading? This screening >> on the previous seven. >> Yeah. >> No, this >> Oh, >> you gave me this one already. The um for the automobile. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that makes sense.
>> Okay. >> All right. So, when I do my edits, I hope I'm on the right page, but anyway, >> the pages didn't print on this one. >> Who else has edits? Anybody? >> I I sent a bunch to Jessica. >> Yeah, I got them incorporated, Mr. Snack. We're good. >> Okay.
Um, under section three, >> number five, in the conditions. Yes. >> Yeah. Roman numer numeral 5. It says the the screening proposed with the roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be subject to post construction sighteline
study and I'd like to add to be required and I mean reviewed and approved by the board planner. >> Yep. >> Yep. designate someone >> and then the one immediate under it which is the applicant shall provide one course of stone bulkhead across the
front of the exterior of the first floor of the pros building sample to be reviewed and approved by the board planner. >> Okay. >> And then the next one which is number uh Roman numeral seven the applic shall provide an alternative means of
screening. You all remember this and rather than board engineers planner which I >> might have just done. >> We got it. Um, and then just a little bit lower, uh, number 14 where it says, "The proposal shall be subject to the review and
approval of the city fire official and the applicants shall comply, and I'm changing it here, with all requirements and reasonable recommendations offered by the city official for fire safety
>> because we're not just making recommendations about fire safety. We're the requirements." Was anything submitted by the fire department? >> I asked Jessica and so far no. >> So I mean that's that's sort of where we get stuck, right? Because >> well I understand that if it's a substantive change when when because
they must review this for fire safety, >> but he got it originally. Did they testify? >> Well, now now it's part of the condition that they they have to look at it and our applicant has to comply. So if he ends up if the fire chief says for example that you know the back is too
close to the hillside or you need more side setback so I can get fire trucks there. I don't know if that would happen, but if let's say hypothetically it does, then that might be substantive enough that they might have to come back to our >> right like we spend like 45 minutes talking about I saw
>> if ands or buts about how the the fire >> fire company would department would be able to handle a fire like how about we just ask the actual people who are going to put out the fire if they see a problem. Exactly. >> Because we are not qualified to figure that out. >> Right. >> Right. And so but the point is follow
>> right is >> I think uh Miss Hamlet's concern is followup and and enforcement. So you know at a it might be you know sprinkle this part differently it might be something that's very doable within the
envelope but if the envelope changes significantly then I think it comes back to us. >> Yeah. >> It's ultimately the fire official and up to the applicant. Like if they disagree with the reason, you know, if they just say it's not reasonable recommendation >> or not require, >> then we have to come to the board and we'd have to kind of sort it out from
there. >> Right. >> Right. How does that get checked Austo? How do we know that someone from this developer is going to check in with the fire chief? >> Well, ultimately the it's the fire chief's job to check in on this when he reviews it for buyer safety. So if he's
not doing it, that's >> that is correct. >> That's why we added this condition. >> Yeah. from that con from that perspective to >> your point should paint the picture on how it happens >> just to paint the picture on how that would happen is effectively uh after
this resolution comes out the approved set of plans would make its way to get finalized eventually into a set of myars and for signature for the board. After that uh it then gets referred with the applications to the various departments
and part of that review throughout the process of uh both plan review and construction would be referral to uh the fire department, municipal fire inspector and all the other sub codes zoning etc and engineering. Uh they
would conduct their own inspection. So all of that occurs throughout uh the plan review period after their submission. >> Uh and then it is on the onus is on the municipal departments to know I have a
set of plans in front of me which are attached with the resolution. uh they should review those conditions and then they will be prompted to follow up and you know uh if it's a rubber stamp approval to say yes this both meets the requirements and here are some recommendations
>> uh that's that's how it works generally. Um, so it's a part of the bakedin plan review after after this >> because we don't usually do this, but because we didn't get the fire chief's um review and also um because we had
specific concerns, normally it's pretty cut and dry. We don't have concerns, but that's a strange lot. So, >> we doubled down. >> Unique application. >> Yeah. And the only other thing is I have on 15 was the applicant shall install a stop bar and I mean yeah and stop sign
>> and stop sign. >> Yeah. >> Got it. Okay. >> Does anybody else have any edits? >> The only other question I I watched the meeting. I wasn't there for that one. Um I must have been completely bored. But um I didn't notice anything about the soil test. I guess my question would be if they do the soil test and it doesn't
perk like we didn't I didn't see anything in the conditions. So, how do we >> I >> I think we talked to the engineer about it. >> That was a gas station, right? So, there was concerns around the soil quality. >> She said she had >> So, they're going to put a dry well in, but what if the soil doesn't perk? Then,
what happens with the >> They need to comply with the the storm water requirements. They need any relief from that. So, >> yeah. >> I mean, that's part of the city code now, right? They have to test. >> Okay. Okay. So, it's all >> they have to do the percolation test and if it doesn't they have to figure out another
>> they have to come back >> means to get to the same building. >> Okay. >> Quite much much like the fire department >> review kind of I think I think part of her answer correct me if I'm wrong everybody that she said that they had to do some remediation and then she was going to be able to get the soil test. >> Okay.
>> That was part of the discussion, wasn't it? >> Got it. >> Anyway, there was some delay because of that. I think that was it. >> All right. Anyone else have any edits? >> No. Okay. >> Not usually this time. >> No. Sorry. Trial got fired tonight.
>> All right. So, do we have a motion to approve? >> Could I just read the eligible members real quick? >> Oh, sorry. You you do. >> Okay. So, the eligible members to vote are Miss Bowen, Council Member Chris Foley, Miss Morrison, Mr. Salah, Mr. Stern, Mr. Golden, and Chair Balsson
Alvarez. Could we get a motion? So move. >> Second. Miss Bowen, >> yes. >> Council member Chrisoy, >> I. >> Miss Morrison, >> yes. >> Mr. Solah, >> yes. >> Mr. Stern, >> yes. >> Mr. Golden, >> yes. >> Chair Balsson Alvarez,
>> yes. >> Okay. So, what do we have next? >> Subrove. >> Okay. So, this is 34 Dogwood Drive and 22 Hobart Road. This was a lot line change. Um, everybody pull up your resolutions.
Does anybody have any edits? >> It is forest with two Rs. We quadruple check that >> with the deed and everything. >> Okay. Yeah. So, I don't think I had anything on this one. >> Was fairly relatively straightforward, at least compared to the uh the other one.
>> I'm good. Does anybody else have anything? >> No. All right. So, do we have a motion to approve this resolution? >> Same eligible members as the other one, correct? >> Uh, this one is a little bit different. >> So, we have Miss Bowen, Council Member
Chrisley, Mr. Dalmaso, Miss Morrison, Mr. Salah, Mr. Stern, Mr. Golden, and Chair Balsson Alvarez. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Could we get a motion? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. >> Miss Bowen. >> Yes.
>> Council member Chris Foley. >> I. >> Mr. Mr. Domo, >> yes. >> Miss Morrison, >> yes. >> Mr. Solo, >> yes. >> Mr. Stern, >> yes. >> Mr. Golden, >> yes. >> Chair Balsson Alvarez, >> yes. >> All right, so we're up to minutes.
Okay, so the minutes for February 9th, does anybody have any changes on that? >> Edits. >> I had a question. Um, I had to recuse myself from the Ashlin Road
project. I didn't see that reflected in here. Oops. Yeah, this is Yeah, this is the Ashlin Road one. I didn't know if it needed to be reflected in the minutes or not. >> I think it usually is. >> It is. >> I wasn't at that meeting, but
>> um, in the update I added it under in the section here. I don't know if you can see. >> Oh, okay. I have result mover seconder eyes and recused I have you >> gotcha great >> okay >> I just have one thing on uh under reorganization it says miss thing then
called the nominations >> miss >> miss one >> yes that's also been incorporated into the edits >> that's it >> Jessica I just like to say I don't know if you do this normally but I like how you put the YouTube link in here I think it's helpful for just reference I don't know if that's something new or maybe I just never noticed it but thanks for
doing that >> you Super helpful. >> Yeah. >> Rather than searching for it. >> Yeah. I'll be sure to keep adding. >> Yeah. It's great. Thank you. Good work. >> Are we good on this one on the minutes for February 9th? >> Did we definitely memorialize the
minutes for September 29th? >> We did. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Miss Miss Morrison, I would just recommend that you recuse yourself from voting on the minutes because you were even for part of it. >> Even though I was Yeah. Okay. Yeah. >> Better safe than sorry. Okay. Okay. Okay. The eligible voting members for
February 9th are Miss Bowen, Council Member Chris Foley, Mr. Dalmaso, Mr. Felman, Mr. Golden, Miss Hamlet, Mr. Salah, and Mr. Stern. >> Could we get a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> And a second. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> Any? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> The extensions are moved. >> Okay. and the March 3rd minutes. I wanted to let it
just wear it. Um on the second under new business, uh motion to adopt the March 3rd 26, 2026 affordable housing round for amend amended housing element and fair share
plan is 2025 to 2035. The five is missing. Yes, that has been incorporated as well. >> Okay, that's all I have. >> Okay, anybody else have anything? >> Nothing from my office.
>> Okay. Okay. For March 3rd, 2026, the eligible voting members are Chair Balsson Alvarez, Vice Chair Hamlet, Miss Bowen, Council Member Chris Foley, Mr. Domaso, Mr. Felmet, Miss Morrison, Mr. Stern, and Mr. Golden. Could we get a motion to approve?
>> So moved. >> Second. Second. >> All in favor? >> Any opposed? >> Thank you. >> I think we're finished. Are we not? >> I just have one quick comment. >> Okay. >> Um just about uh the Tatlock like
litigation. Uh as I mentioned earlier, I have asked Mr. for Warner to provide an update uh because I think it's important um to my knowledge unless there was uh I'm not sure uh what's going on with the lights, but I think since we are named in that lawsuit that we should receive
an update. Uh I believe public knowledge could potentially say that the zoning board was dismissed, but I don't think the planning board was. Um, but I think it's uh important that since the lights are not on that we get an update and just understand what's what's happening.
>> Yep. I'll uh I'll let Steve know plan for an executive session on that next week. >> Okay. Thank you. So, do we have a motion to adjurnn? >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? >> I
>> Thank you. >> Thanks, Chris. Thanks Jessica. Thanks Austo. No problem.