All right, wake up, Joe. All right, good evening and welcome to the April 28th, 2025 meeting of the city of Summit Planning Board. My name is Steven Spur and I have the privilege of serving as chairman of Summit's planning board. Uh if first you'll please rise and we'll
begin with the pledge of allegiance. [Music] I 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. It's not fair. I'm between the two tallest people. I have the short hair. [Music] All right. Thank you everyone. In accordance with New Jersey statute 10 col4-10, adequate notice of this meeting
has been provided to the newspapers of record and posted 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. Uh
any hearings on applications for development in this meeting are considered quas quasi judicial proceedings. Um 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.
Uh we ask that you maintain that decorum though there are no hearings scheduled for this evening. So uh please note that fire exits are to my right your left at the back of the room where you've 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 after our meeting. Uh, Miss K, will you please call the role of the members? Vice Chair Balsson Alvarez, yes. Miss Bowen, yes. Mayor Fagan, yes. Council member Hamlet here. Mr. Delmaso here.
Mr. Felmmet. Mr. Formicelli here. Mr. Stern here. Mr. Lejoy here. Mr. Solah. All right. Wonderful. Well, we certainly have a quorum. And off we go. Um, in addition to Miss Kativa, we have Alex
Fischer this evening serving as the planning board's attorney. Uh, Mr. Fischer will advise board members on matters of law and serve as a key interface with any applicants attorney for which again there are no applications this evenings. Uh, Mr. Fischer will not vote on any applications or other matters formally considered by this board. Uh, Miss
Kotiga is a city employee and is the planning board's interimm secretary. Miss Katiga assists applicants in preparing their applications, planning our agendas, and keeping meeting minutes. Mr. Kika also does not vote on the applications or other matters formally considered by this board. Also present is uh in addition to our
attorney is one of our board professionals uh who is contracted annually by the board to provide input to the board. Uh that would be Mr. Joe Burgess of none other than Burgess Associates. Uh Mr. Burgess is seated at the table to the right of the board, the public's left, and does not vote on applications or other matters formerly
considered by the board. As a reminder, our board consists of 11 members. All members may participate in any hearings or formal action this evening but a maximum of nine can vote and in the case of any applications they would require typically a simple majority. I will spare you then all the other detail on
hearings um and we can jump into our agenda for the evening. Uh first uh of our list of things to accomplish is approval of our March 24th, 2025 meeting minutes. Anyone have any questions or comments before we entertain a motion? I
have a comment. Oh, a comment. Yes, please. Under DRRO discussion, the last sentence it says review with certain projects and I think we were talking about municipal projects potentially. Just started that discussion. Okay. Y
change it to municipal. Yeah, if you can just say certain municipal projects or you just say municipal I'm wondering if we should say municipal BOE or do we need not need to drill down that far? Sure. Um we t talked about it. I mean that was kind of why I left it. Yeah.
Municipal covers the whole city. The one question is sort of how do we and we can talk about this a little bit later but how do we hold ourselves accountable from a lighting standard whether it's a board how do we hold ourselves accountable from a lighting standard whether it's a board of ed
project or a city field. You know, I think the residents are looking for some clarification because a lot of these are um consistency review projects. So, we're just wondering if we can just put some more teeth into that those DRRO ordinances so we can we can the
consistency you addition Mr. Loy. Yeah. I just wanted to make a comment on that. Yeah. Go ahead. And then we'll have Mr. Burgess entertain the two. Whatever order you want to go in. No, go ahead. you can your thought and then
we're just by as a matter of law I believe council confirm this the city's not obligated to be uh compelled to follow its land use regulations if it's in the public interest to do otherwise. So Mr. Burgess
would you like to pull together these two comments? That is correct. Uh these municip uh the municipal land use law provides for this consistency review and it's technically relating to the use of land more than anything else because it's a consistency review with the
master plan not necessarily the all the specifics of the zoning ordinance itself. So the broad category of consistency is is the application generally consistent with the goals and objectives of the master plan. Now uh
the summit master plan has some reference to lighting u but doesn't provide any definitive statement about it's more general I believe it's in terms of um to make certain that there's no
adverse impact on the surrounding residential environment and I think we did that as part of our consistency review. I think we were talking about cooperation and trying to just get things here earlier and some other ideas just because I think they
were collectively a little clemp when it comes all done and there's really nothing to be said. So back to the specific question which is what word we should include within the minutes, right? Jennifer, you started us down this rabbit hole. How would you like to see it represented in
the minutes with concurrence from our city council? Uh I had float and municipal just because it sounds broad but but you wanted you wanted to see BOE kind of encapsulated within that to the extent
that that's appropriate. So perhaps we can include reference to municipal and board of education projects or Okay, that'd be wonderful. Thank you. Wonderful. All right. Any other comments on the minutes of March? No. with that one revision then. Anyone
care to motion to have that approved? So move. All right. Second. A second. All right. All right. Nicole, you can pick who who jumped at that opportunity. Just any money. There we go. I don't believe we need a roll call on this. This is
just a voice vote. So, all in favor? Any opposed? All right. Wonderful. And we'll just let the record show that Mr. Salah has joined us. Welcome, Mr. Salah. Um, did we already dial in Ryan, by the way, or No, I wasn't sure when you would want
him. Um, what's a question? I think we we can have him, not to disrupt the flow of the evening, but if we want to try to dial him in now, he can at least kind of listen listen along. Yeah, for sure. Let me let me give you
that. Oh, I'm certain he would love that. A reward of service, right? All right. Please hold, friends. 743. Mr. Felmet's undergoing some medical treatment tomorrow.
Couldn't join us this evening, but as a testament to his commitment to the city, wants to join us over the phone. And if you can't read that, that is all right. All right, we'll pause a moment to see if we can get Ryan on the
phone and then we can go from there. Mr. Felmet. Hi, Nicole. Uh, you are on speaker phone with the planning board uh during our planning board meeting. Welcome. Thank you.
Can you hear us fine? I can hear you very well. Okay, perfect. All right, let's give it a shot. Okay, proceeding then uh further into our agenda. Um there's a number of discussion topics and then just for a
sense of flow to the evening uh we'll move through these four uh public facing discussion topics and then the board with our professionals will um will recess into close session uh where we'll have some confidential discussion of the housing element and fair share plan. But
we'll talk a little bit more about what we're going to be addressing within that close session um and how it'll be informed by the public portion of the agenda. Um so moving uh towards that the first step in this journey is an update on DRRO review and revision. Jennifer is
there anything you care to share? Sure. Uh Mr. Lejoy has graciously um volunteered to look into storm water management, drainage mitigation and uh
potential maybe tree or any anyway associated clear cutting of sites for construction and see if there's anything we can do to um bolster that in the DRRO because it seems as though we're having a lot of
issues with that and um it may not be sufficient. And we're going to start with our engineers who have a nice laundry list when you do have a variance and see what we can maybe incorporate into the DRRO because things are changing. Um and Mr. Formachelli is
going to do a deep dive into lighting for us. Um and we have several other things that we are talking about that we talked about last time. I'm going to talk to the zoning officer just to see if what he is uh observing and if he has
any ideas to change or problems or edits that he'd like to see. Wonderful. That's it. Anyone stumble across anything in their travels this last month they'd like to bring to Jennifer, Paul, and Peter's awareness? No. Any good ideas in
Bermuda? No. Well, um, in that case for storm water management and mitigation, um, I believe that there, uh, were early drafts of what the engineering division had proposed to
reflect county and state standards that could be shared. Um, it was just never got to the point of completion given the number and quantity of projects, but I can go ahead through my office and speak to the engineer and uh send that over to
you uh for review. Mr. Leejoy. Yes, absolutely, Mr. LJOY. Um, with regard also to if you're looking into clear cutting lots, uh, a good place to start would be chapter 29 protection of trees ordinance. It is quite robust in its enfor enforcement and so if you want to
expand on that. Yeah, I it was something that Mr. Ljoy mentioned and I feel like we have it, but maybe it needs to be looked at. Absolutely. Yeah. Um and I think that's about all I have. Thanks. That' be helpful. I had one thing. I I'm
not sure when and where this should be discussed specifically, but I want to bring it to the board. Um and Augusta, you can probably speak a little bit to this. Um there was some discussion about maybe looking at fences on commercial properties adjacent to
residential properties and if there's a you know some if if we should look at or consider a differential a differentiation between that kind of property and a just purely residential property um for fence height
specifically. But um maybe Augusta, do you want to speak to that at all? So it has been referenced to our office that um there are certain properties in the city to where nearby residents abuing
residents would be in favor of higher fences. Um I won't get into that, but it is a topic that has come up and is a possibility for consideration, especially you know if we have various offices in town. Exactly. Right. Um uh
so that is in the realm of possibility for review. Okay, good. Makes sense. Wonderful. Thank you. All right. Any other additions here? And now you always know of course where to find Jennifer something strikes you. Um but other than that the objective generally that we
have is to now kind of continue the cadence we began last year which is compiling for the benefit of the governing body a summary of our recommendations transmitting it to them um so they can do uh undertake their own examination and hopefully adopt some or all of our recommendations. So thank you
Jennifer. Uh next we'll move to the ever popular cross acceptance. um on cross acceptance I this evening will will largely bring our work to a uh to a quiet calm I don't know say a stop
um because I suspect we're not entirely concluded with cross acceptance I don't know Joe if you have any updates on the cross acceptance process generally Tom has been the one working on the cross acceptance report right uh it is due I believe
the first of the month. So, uh, we will be delivering, he'll be sending out a draft to everybody next couple days. The question or the comment that I would like to make is that with this new state plan,
um unlike the previous state plan which had a lot of weight to it, at all the individual county meetings, the state planning commission is actually telling everyone that this document does not have any weight to it. It is simply a
series of suggested suggested goals and objectives and some policy statements. But for those municipalities that don't want to adhere to any single one or anything in the document, as they put it, that is fine, too.
Now this is a problem because under the last state plan which was a massive close to 500page document, it had a lot of weight and the state made it clear that if you want funding for example and
a number of other things um related to planning issues uh and with assistance from the state, you needed to follow the state plan. But that does not apply with this new document unfortunately. So a lot of people a lot of municipalities
are questioning why are we going through this effort if in the end it doesn't mean anything. And interestingly enough with the state plan the ones that most often dealt with it was the your zoning boards of adjustment. And I say that because planners and attorneys would
often argue for use variances that their application is in fact adhering and in fact affirming a number of the goals and objectives and policies of the state plan and they would use that as basically a special reason in support of the
application. That's not the case anymore. So we will be finishing the document but you recognize that it doesn't have the weight that it once would have right so I think to connect
that may be perhaps unfortunate in a sense aim right that it won't have the same effect and same significance moving forward as its predecessor we still though as certainly board membership will recall invited public input at our March 24th meeting and then also via
email on the most substantial subjective question of the questionnaire for which the state through the county had solicited information on demographics, ge geography, what have you, and to help understand how they could amend the development of the plan. That one
question was um how what our community's three most important local and regional land use planning goals and priorities were. Um so pretty broad-based. We had a lot of um thankfully a lot of interesting points of reference to draw upon. Again, we had emails and the opportunity for the public to speak the
last meeting. We have the opinion of our professionals, the input from our board and city staff. Um, and the board will have an opportunity to review that completed form before it's submitted. Um, but what has emerged from that is um really three particular points of focus.
Um the first of which we've characterized as uh empowering local stakeholders to ensure residential, commercial, and other development. Uh respects the unique character of each individual municipality. This case summit um as a planning goal or priority. Um seeking to anticipate,
understand, and mitigate negative environmental impact on both local and regional levels that may arise from rapid or intense development. And then third and I think a nice complement to those prior to is connecting people, organizations and places within the individual municipalities to shared
regional resources through planning and investment in transportation infrastructure. So what we kind of consistently had heard and in discussion both publicly and privately is development is a significant point of focus um for the state, for the region and certainly for the municipality. Um
so when it came to shining a light on these planning priorities um being able to speak to the significance of local stakeholders, the importance certainly of the environmental impact and consideration thereof and then leveraging the local resources, local
connectivity with regional uh resources were important to hopefully instill some sense of collaboration across all the entities. So we'll package that all together. You'll see a draft of the form that'll go to the state through the county and then we'll see what they do with it and hopefully get a couple more
at bats before it's finalized. Quick question, please. Yeah, just two quick questions. Have we submitted the cart is the first question? I'm not sure if we submitted the that would be my first question. The second question is I know there was an there was an infrastructure needs assessment that was going to be
done for I think it was the board of education properties and some municipal all of municipal buildings. Has that been complete yet? That that has not. Um I'd have to check with Tom to see where that is. Okay. I just I think it's important to involve the board of ed in
these conversations. Um if I think if we go through this process and we don't include them, it'd be a failure. Um because we share a lot of assets. Um I talk about it all day with, you know, rent fieldhouse or portaotties sitting down there or stadium lights.
So, I think that it'd be important to engage them in this. No, I know he's had conversations with the board of ed. Okay. Um but I just don't know if he's finished that section yet. Okay, cool. Any other comments? Otherwise, we're going to put cross acceptance to rest for now.
Okay. Wonderful. All right. Uh moving then to the final two items of the public agenda. Um both related to housing element and fair share plan. Um so what we're doing in this evening and frankly for the next two the next two
meetings to follow is focusing our primary energy on the development of the housing summit's housing element and fair share plan. Um that is driven not necessarily by the timeline with which we may want to drive it but this that is mandated by the state. So we're playing along and being good partners in that
respect. Um what we are seeking to accomplish is two things in parallel is soliciting public input for which there's an opportunity this evening in May and then also when we anticipate to adopt the housing element fair share
plan in June. So, three particular um properly noticed opportunities for the public to input. And in parallel to that is there's work being done and this is why we've carved out time for a close session this evening to allow for the planning board and confidential discussion um to review the elements of
the housing element and fair share plan that's coming into form but again needs to be properly informed by the public guided by the program and all kinds of other interesting inputs. So, as we have in prior meetings, we will always invite Mr. Burgess to give us a general update
as to how the development of housing element and fair share plans across the state is evolving, how that's informing summit's process, um, and then to the extent that's appropriate, bring us up to speed on what's happening here in summit. And it is our aim to allow those points of reference to guide the
public's comments. Um, inviting you, of course, as part of the your public input, reflecting upon round three, what your hopes and ambitions may be in round four. Um, again, all very helpful and useful points of reference. But Joe, if you'll start us off with a general update and then we can go from from the
30,000. Start us at 30,000 feet. Yep. We'll start with the fact that a total of 443 municipalities are participating in this process. Um there had been objections filed by either fair share housing center or the well the builders
association had filed 159 objections to 159 housing plan determinations of obligation. Uh fair share housing center uh filed objections to 68 municip 68 or
69 municipalities. some overlap between those two. Um so you can't add them and say that's all the municipalities have been objected to. Um what is interesting is the reaction
to this process because you mentioned the time frame. Um in years past under prior realms preparing a heling element and fair share plan you know the process took a full
year and the end result was something that everybody was very understanding of. This process seems to be a bit rushed because the state has given us only a short period of time in which to determine what our housing number should
be and then preparing the plan. The scheduling is such that we have to adopt our housing element and fair share plan no later than the end of June. If you do not adopt one by the end of June, you lose all your immunity in terms of
protection against uh inclusionary zoning litigation. Uh we have selected, you mentioned there's two dates. Uh the end of May, I believe it was May 29th is when the uh we will be back or Tom will be here because I'm not available that
night, but Tom will be here to give the overview and what presumably will be a final draft. Our scheduled public hearing is June the 9th, I believe. It's not yet finalized, but thereabouts in terms a
few days. We're fighting for space here. Yeah, we're still trying to nail that down, but yeah, thereabouts. Yeah, we've given you a couple days of our availability. Um the governing body then subsequently has to adopt a resolution endorsing that
housing element and fair share plan. and then it gets filed with the state. If and for the purposes of the municipality, you have to understand that when the plan gets adopted, you are obligated to file it
within 48 hours. If you do not, you lose your immunity again. And maybe just to pause you there, Joe, for a second for folks that are maybe not keeping all those dates in their mind, we've uh gone so far as to publish these dates on the planning board page of the
city's website. So you can see uh when are April, May, and then we will update it to with the final date for the anticipated adoption of the plan as well as reference to the governing body's concurrence. I don't know if that's the appropriate word for it, but endorsement. Endorsement. There you
endorsement. Um so that's available. will remain updated on the planning board's website um so folks can follow along and participate again on the largely statemandated timeline for which we're we're adhering to. Now the the truly relevant issues that always come
up as one's preparing these housing plans is you know the site selection more than anything else site selection the density or intensity of use that you're going to permit and building heights because those are the things that typically generate the most
interest and and comment and all that is reflective of an issue that's really true focus of this new fourth round in all its regulations. And that's the issue of risk mitigation. And I say that because the way the new
rules are structured um and unfortunately the way the legislation is written, there's a lot of ambiguity in a lot of the new regulations. So, it's it's really not going to be clear at the end of the adoption process
as to what some of the some of the legislation actually means and how it's going to be interpreted. Now, we fi we have to file by June 30th. Between July 1 and the end of August, the um any interested party or
objector can file an objection to your plan. And once that process begins, eventually someone's going to sue to get the answers from the courts as to what some of the legislation actually means.
And the single most complicated provision that everybody is pointing to is a section for all vacant land adjustment municipalities. And we are one because we're seeking a vacant land adjustment from our full obligation
because of lack of developable land. Um and that provision in the regulation says that for vacant land adjustment municipalities, in addition to determining through your vacant land analysis a realistic development potential
number, you would then have to consider or incorporate into your planning for 25% of the adjusted perspective need number. They do not define what adjusted prospective need number means. And
there's three schools of thought as to what that means. But the two most commonly held ones is that you either will determine your RDP, realistic development potential, and take 25% of
that number and add it to the RDP number. So for example, if your obligation is 100 and your RDP is 10, you take 25% of 10, that's two and a half, add that to the 10 and your
obligation is 13 units. A separate school of thought, the one that Fairshare Housing Center, for example, adheres to, is that you take 25% of your unmet need. So in that example, our unmet need would
be 90 and you take 25% of 90 and add it to the 10. So you can see how it becomes a much larger figure. Now for summit, our established number is 345 units. Now
I will tell you that under the third round we had a number of in excess of 500 but through that vacant land adjustment we came up with an RDP of 36. We're going to have in all likelihood a reduction that's you know
even less than that. So let's just make up a number for the sake of the discussion. If our full number is 345 and our RDP is 20 say that would mean that you under the
fair share formula we would be taking 25% of 325 which is a give a lot different than if we took 25% of 20. So that's totally
um up in the air right now because everybody's arguing over what the you know the method should be and the appellet division or the Supreme Court is eventually going to tell us what that means.
Why am I here? So, um, you know, later this evening, I'm sitting down with the planning board to review in close session what our options are and what the RDP is becoming. We haven't quite
finished that analysis yet. Um, and we'll be talking about that later this evening in close session. That's right. Okay. So yeah, I think maybe Joe as again a helpful point of reference for the public is when we talk about the composition of the housing element and
fair share plan in simple terms and then correct me or refine what I'm saying. It's the RDP calculation, the number that we're targeting. It is then site selection. So in a sense how we as a municipality envision meeting that
obligation over the 10-year period. And then the third component is draft ordinances which is essentially dry powder to enable those sites that are identified to help meet that need over the 10-year period. And is that a way to think about the composition? Let me
explain one part of that because the regulation says we have to adopt a housing element and fair share plan that identifies the sites and the densities and whatnot. Um we are only obligated to
prepare draft the the legislation says draft ordinances. Um some people are uh interpreting that to mean as simple as just identifying area and bulk requirements
in a table and not a full-blown draft ordinance. But that's another thing that the statute is unclear on. So, right. And we're we as a municipality will rely upon Joe and his team, Nancy Holmes from Serenian, our housing council, um
usually Steve, Alex this evening, um and many others that are are participating in this to help ensure that the municipality to the extent possible understands and is projecting forward something that is realistic, defensible, and can serve as a foundation for us
over the 10 years ahead to go and and meet at least the affordable housing obligation for which we will be mandated um to to meet and then from there perhaps you know with the energy of the public you know extend beyond it but at least kind of set that as a as a floor and the two critical dates in terms of
the adoption of things is the June 30th date for the housing plan and we will have until mid March of 2026 for the governing body to adopt all the ordinances to actually implement the plan. Okay. So I offer that just as
point of reference for the public for the the the body here the planning board membership um to focus your effort and energy on understanding how the RDP calculation is coming about understand there is uncertainty in that um and we'll altogether come to a decision
about summit's best approach for inclusion there um consider site selection and how we're going to likely proceed um with meeting those obligations and then finally consider the draft ordinance is what's going to be necessary to to finally meet that obligation over the period. If I could
add one last 30,000 foot thing. Um, as I think the board may know or most of the board members now know, you probably seen it in the paper. uh the township, the burrow of Montil in Bergen County
has led um some litigation against this process. And just the other day they filed in federal court um arguing the issue about how the 62 municipalities that do not get the
urban aid municipalities that do not get an obligation attached to assigned to them. But what their numbers were assigned get redistributed to all the suburban and rural municipalities throughout the state. Right. And they're
arguing that that is not a fair approach because the legislation the the original Mount Laurel litigation talked about how you have to deal with your individual fair share obligation and their argument basically you could correct me if I'm
wrong but their argument seems to be why are we undertaking Asbury Park's obligation or Hackinack's obligation or Hoboken or Montlair to municip municipalities that everybody's wondering why are they
considered urban aid municipalities because of the way they're they have now redeveloped. Oh, you know if you don't have much success in state court, go to try again in federal. That's uh that's what's happening there. Yes, maybe those you can speak for a
moment because the target number is important. I read an article in the in some publication today about it was Monmouth and Ocean counties and the various municipalities had that had challenged I believe is unmet need that calculation and how uh largely through
mediation they were able to kind of meet in the middle from what they had envisioned and what was calculated and then I believe it was Tom's River and apologies to my friends in Tom's River if I got this wrong um they went into the actual court system and had almost I
believe entirely the um the calculation presented by DCA by the state um accepted as their number. Yes. So the courts the state courts here don't be don't appear to be particularly favorable um to deviating substantially from this perhaps less than imperfect
legislation but this new approach and that's why it was just said go to the federal court. I mean, what you're seeing a lot of is the Mount Laurel judges for each visage understandably accepting the special
adjudicator or the um the judge uh report from the dispute resolution program which usually comes from special adjudicator um doing planning work to review the
municipalities um resolution, right? And It's it's unsurprising that with all this work being done by the dispute resolution program special adjudicators that um the program or the mal world judges are
largely just accepting what comes to them. Right. Well, if I could comment on that because that was special adjudicator for all six of those judges and special adjudicator was charged with looking at the number and per the
legislation. It said to determine if DCA properly filed the pro that followed the process that was spelled out in the requirements. Right? So it was a very limiting focused review by the special adjudicator. You either follow the
process or you didn't. Right. And um so that's why the judges in large measure went along with DCA. Right. And I just I offer that example because where in prior rounds there may have been I say flexibility necessarily but an
opportunity to plead the uniqueness of individual municipalities. Um and and don't show don't pity us by any measure but this is much more formulaic. It's much tighter time frame. It is substantial this process is substantially out of the hands of the
municipalities. Um and that's causing challenges as anyone can imagine. So as we try to focus the planning board and ultimately the governing body's attention on feeling good about the calculation of the target, feeling good about site selection, how we'll go about achieving that and then the necessary
deviation potentially deviation from the existing zoning to accomplish that. There's very few actual levers for us to push and pull um and see Summit stand, you know, substantially out of sync with what the formulas are driving, what the
program is calling for. Um, so there's pros and cons to that. Everyone can have an opinion, but that's certainly there's a change in tenor to this process. Prior rounds. However, yeah. You know, selecting the number that's your obligation is one thing. You're still entitled. Sure. To follow the vacant
land adjustment process, correct? Yep. That's right. Okay. Well, that was just kind of our general diet tribe on round four. Um, and we'll look forward to the next monthly update from Joe or Tom, whoever it may be. Um, to keep us surprised as to what's happening because we're certainly watching around the
state, you know, looking to Alex and Steve and others to keep us a prize for what's sticking or not in the courts and, uh, want to be as as cutting edge as we can be to best serve Summit. Um, so with that, I would just may offer maybe the planning board membership any opportunities to ask Joe or Alex
potentially questions. Um, it's appropriate for again public consumption. We'll have a separate close session to look into the work in progress um here in the city of S. Any questions? No. Very thorough. Okay. Wonderful. All
right. Thank you, John. Um so with that, and again this will be the first opportunity of three, April, May, and then June at the time of the anticipated adoption of the housing development fair share plan. Uh we would welcome the public to come and to speak. Um, I won't
offend you as I know I have been personally offended at the board of education, for example. I'm sorry. I love those guys, but I'm not going to put a three-minute clock up here for you. I'll ask for you um to be respectful. Try to stay focused on the subject matter that's relevant to what the board is considering. Try to avoid
duplication if you can. Uh we appreciate there is strength in numbers, but uh you know, there's there's work to be done here. Um and we would invite you otherwise just to come forward, reflect on round three, give us input on round four. Um, you're welcome to present questions from maybe what you've heard
here or read elsewhere. Um, this won't be a dialogue this evening, but if necessary, we can prepare a FAQ or something to post to the website and we'll find a way to keep folks um informed as the process develops. So, we'll give you a moment to collect your thoughts or pick your batting order and then you're welcome to
come forward. We'll ask you to state your name and your address for the record and then you certainly can uh can speak this evening. Thank you. In the interest of brevity, I wrote it out. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. We'll make sure this gets a gets made available to the board.
Thank you. Before I I read this, I just reflected on Mr. Burgess's comment about the number and the goal and the and the and the obligation. And I guess my point that I want to really focus on in my few
comments is that whether that obligation turns out to be 25 or say 100 shouldn't matter to you. The reason is because in the last 30 years you've produced exactly 1.2 affordable housing units every year for the past 30 years. your
performance has been so far below par for so many decades that I can't imagine that you'd want to produce 25 units when in fact 100 units is really where you ought to be. So that's my sort of reaction to uh your comment about what
the actual target will be established at. Um prior to my retirement, my name is Mark McBride and I'm from Madison, New Jersey. I live at 49 Prospect Street. Prior to my retirement, I was involved in affordable housing as a financial officer for most of my career
and at the request of my friend Dennis, I volunteered to assist at home and summit in promoting affordable housing here in Summit. We worked on a proposal to create 42 One second. Mr. Right, could you speak into the mic? Sure. Thank you. Um, let me see if I can do it
this way. There we go. Yeah. I can't read and do it at the same time. Um Dennis and I put together a proposal to produce 42 100% affordable family oriented units at the vacant firehouse site on Broad Street. Um I believe that
Summit is actually at a crossroads right now. Um you have the option to develop an aggressive strategy to create more affordable housing. Housing that we all agree is much needed. Right now that responsibility falls almost solely with this planning board. Members of the
Summit Common Council, or at least a majority of them last year, indicated that um uh protecting Summit's taxpayers by minimizing the amount of new affordable housing is the problem that they gave priority to. Their focus more
on the needs of current taxpayers at the expense of creating this housing is a mistake. I think that mistake was made because it addresses actually the wrong question. The Summit Planning Board's definition of the problem is very different. It is actually quite simple.
How do we add 345 new deed restricted affordable housing units in Summit over the next 10 years? In considering this problem, the planning board's obligation in this matter expands far beyond the borders of Summit. It incorporates every
household in every community within the region of New Jersey. That includes Union County as well as the three adjacent counties. So you can see that you as a planning board have a very different focus than in fact the the the city council. Um after taking into account the shortage of suitable
development sites in summit that number will be reduced probably to about 100 units primarily units that are suitable for families with children by which I mean two-bedroom and three-bedroom units. I'm sorry two-bedroom and three-bedroom apartments. This
challenging goal emerges in parllet from the almost complete absence of such affordable housing production over the last 30 years. How does Summit reach this goal? Let's talk about the Broad Street Firehouse proposal and concept plan that Dennis and I presented last
year. Members of the Common Council would like you to believe that the Broad Street Firehouse site is not an option for supporting a significant amount of affordable housing production in the next 10 years. The truth is that the firehouse site is an option. I think that it is the only option and this is
because it produces affordable housing on scale and in a way that is completely consistent with sound urban planning and design. The site is very unique in this attribute within the city of Summit where there are few affordable housing development sites.
The common council unfortunately purposely attempted to take this site off the table last year before the planning board had the opportunity and their planner to objectively consider it in the context of the round four planning. The common council's attempt to exclude our proposal from the
firehouse site from consideration is completely contradictory to the vote that they took this past January to proceed towards round four compliance. This was an end run by the common council that violates both the spirit and the letter of the law that they have
pledged to follow. The planning board has both the right and the duty to reverse this action by the common council. Then you can take a serious look at the concept of building most of Summit's round four affordable housing on the firehouse site. The round four
rules include an explicit mandate that redevelopment sites should be considered by the board in the event that vacant land opportunities are quite limited, which they of course are in Summit. Statements have been made by members of the common council against our proposal for the firehouse because it would
result they believe in the concentration of affordable housing units on a single site which would represent a poor housing choice for the prospective residents. Contrary to these statements, every housing planner in the state of New Jersey, including your planner,
would support without any reservation or or hesitation the inclusion of our firehouse site proposal in the round four housing element. This site is ideal for the proposed use and the statement that the prospective tenants would be unhappy with this housing is completely
incorrect. A very limited amount of affordable housing has been created in Summit in these past 30 years. someone has repeatedly kicked the can down the road and the burden now falls on this planning board to finally address the problem. This is perhaps the most consequential matter that each of you
will address during your time as members of this board. In this matter under the law, you represent the broad interests of low-income households throughout the region and it is your decision that counts. Please choose carefully. act in
the best interests of these hardworking low-income families. The opportunities for these families to live in Summit and enjoy its many benefits are limited solely to those opportunities that you make happen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McBride.
Dennis, good evening. Good evening. Dennis White, 137 Tulip Street. Um, you know, my remarks are kind of a little bit all over the place since we haven't seen the draft of the plan yet, but I do appreciate uh Mr. Mr. Burgess's
uh comments on how the number will be developed. Um, the 345, how it will be adjusted. So, we're really looking forward to seeing that at the right time so we can comment uh on that. Maybe I'll back up and start with round three, which is just wrapping up right now. um
as you all know um although we don't know yet you know what summit will claim they've created uh in round three uh in February at the common council meeting there was a presentation made by Nancy Holm the attorney uh and that report was projected up on the screen but there's
no hard copy of that report available yet to anybody um there was a draft and Miss Hamlet I'm thank you for meeting with me and talking about that uh but there's no plan that's been shown to the public yet so we don't know, you know, what the city uh is claiming on the production for round three, which is
important because the round three carryover goes into round four. The numbers we've seen on round three have been all over the place. Some projects have been included and taken off the list and put back on the list and taken off the list and put back on the list. It's it's actually um a little
disconcerting because I would hope the city would have better uh staff support and and I don't you know I don't think it's a council issue but staff support in producing an affordable housing report that the public can look at to see what's been accomplished. So that's not been available. Uh I'd also comment
on the uh trust fund the housing trust fund. There was very detailed housing trust fund report prepared through 2022 um by the previous housing liaison very comprehensive report showed how the dollars were all spent uh and I think
this planning board should be concerned about this because again this all falls under the housing element fair share plan but there's been no accounting of trust fund dollars for the last two years again quite disconcerting we can't see how the monies was spent what projects were funded and things like that so again I would ask the planning
for it to reinforce to the city and to the common council that these reports need to be made available which they are you know as part of the housing element fair share plan reporting is a component of that and the city has not reported as obligated in this uh in this um uh
round. Um, so thinking about round four a bit, um, Mark did mention, you know, you need to prioritize family housing. There's been an emphasis on senior housing, uh, in the last round. And Mount Laurel is really all about family housing, not senior housing. Uh, the
United Methodist Bergen County project that's under review is senior housing. The Our House is a particular kind of housing. Uh, it's great housing. I'm not going to be critical of it, but we need family housing. And anything this body does, whether it's zoning changes or
other modifications, need to emphasize family housing. In fact, almost 100% of whatever the number is should be family housing. That's two, three unit uh um developments. Um round three used overlay zones, right? But not one unit
of housing was created through an overlay zone. So, I hope that's not repeated. Uh again uh own overlay zones do not work. They have not worked here uh in summit. So again just the word as we look at these um a little bit what
Mark said when the city I'm not trying to repeat it but when the city entered the program in January by accepting the obligation of 345 units they entered the program round four program and at that point the firehouse site the 1.6 acres as we'll call it the whole site was
available. They entered the program and this site is available at that time. This body has an obligation to include that site which is still available and has been made larger with recent common council action has an obligation to include that site in their calculation
in round four as part of the development potential as part of you know a site that can accommodate at least 40 units of affordable housing. And the reason it's so critical to include that is you get all kinds of bonus points, right? So
those 40 units become more. You get bonus points for being near transit. You this is when you finance it. You get bonus points for using city land. You get bonus points for using land that hasn't previously been used as multif family housing. So again, it's it's
almost, you know, if the city wants to be creative and smart and leverage, this is still the ideal site for a development. So again, it should be part of any kind of analysis and and that's why it's so critical that we see how this is done to make sure it is part of
that. And I I would say if the city does sell that before June 30th, I mean, that's a real misstep and opens up the city to all kinds of um you know, other issues and and difficulties. Um so you know those are my comments
right now in general. Um again we look forward to seeing the calculation. Uh the 345 number I know there is some I I share your view as you look at it how that number is adjusted but adjusting that 345 some number could be 86 units
uh which again is you know uh not 345 but it's still a significant contribution. uh 345 86 new family units would be critical here in summit. So, you know, we look forward to continuing the dialogue and to being uh looking at the
the plan as it comes out and appreciate the opportunity to comment and review it. Thank you. Thank you. Excellent. Any other questions or comments? No. Okay. Well, thank you Mark and Dennis for joining us this evening. It's
helpful for us to understand as the public looks and participate in this process what may be missing for you to see as complete a picture as you can help inform the board to the fullest extent possible. Um as while I suggested there is significantly greater constraint as compared with prior rounds
there are still decisions for us to be made. Um so appreciate the comments you've shared and we'll certainly carry those forward um into the close session tonight and then all the work that's occurring behind closed doors. Um, with that I will I'll ask for what do we
need? A motion to move to close session. Need to read a resolution. We need to read a actually real resolution though. Typically yes. Typically yes. Do you have one? Normally what happens is we just reference
um that it's um litigation and attorney privilege matters under NJSA 10 colon 4-12 point B that's regarding the housing element and fair share
right okay so that that is again the focal point of the close session this evening um and it will help again be a complement to the public discussion that occurred previously. So, we'll ask for a motion to in a sense exit public the public session, enter close session, but
recognize that when we do return from close session, there will be no further public business conducted and we're going to head home and go to bed. So, uh with that, do we have a motion? So, moved. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Thank you. We probably do need a roll call on this. Yeah, let's do
a roll call on this. Vice Chair Balsson Alvarez. Yes. Miss Bowen, yes. Mayor Fagan, yes. Council member Hamlet, yes. Mr. Delmaso, yes. Mr. Felmet,
yes. Mr. Formachelli, yes. Mr. Stern, yes. Mr. Loy, yes. Mr. Salah, yes. Chairman Spur, yes. All right. So, we'll take just a moment to recess. Just make sure doors are closed, cameras are off, mics are off.