Come on people >> gabling at you Mr. Warner. Keep on It's amazing how many pages we generate. >> All right, friends. Amazing. All right,
there we go. Good evening and welcome to the September 9th, 2025 special meeting of the city of Summit Planning Board. My name is Steven Spur and I have the privilege of serving as chairman of this august body. If you'll please rise, we will begin first with the pledge of >> allegiance.
I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Thank you very much.
In accordance with New Jersey statute 10 col4-10, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to newspapers of record and has been posted here in city hall. For the benefit of the interest of public, this meeting is being livereamed to the city's YouTube page and also broadcast on summer 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 decorum appropriate to a judicial proceeding
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. Miss Ans,
will you please call the role of the members? >> Chairman Spur >> here. Vice Chair Bolson Alvarez is excused. Mayor Fagan >> here. >> Council member Hamlet >> here. >> Miss Bowen, >> yes. >> Mr. Dalmaso >> here. >> Mr. Felman is excused. Mr. Loy
>> here. >> Mr. Solo >> here. >> Mr. Stern is excused. You have a quorum. You may proceed. >> Excellent. And I would just note that our vice chair couldn't join us as unfortunately she had an unexpected loss in her family. And we express certainly our condolences uh to the entire Balsson
Alvarez family. Um, with that, Mr. Warner sitting to my right is the planning board's attorney. Mr. Warner will advise board members on matters of law and serves as a key interface with each applicant's attorney. Mr. Warner will not vote on any applications or matters considered formally before this
board. Uh, Miss Sans to Mr. Warner's right is a city employee and the planning board secretary. Miss Sans assists applicants in preparing our applications, planning our agendas, and keeping our meeting meeting minutes. Miss Sans also does not vote on the applications or other matters formally considered by this board. Also present
is uh a repeat offender, Mr. Tom Barrens from Burgess Associates. He uh is representing us uh the board today as our planner. So we're grateful to have him and you'll meet a number of other folks as we move through our agenda this evening. Um I'll skip the application um
page and a half or so of procedure only because um this evening being a special meeting uh you would expect there to be some special items included. Um there are no typical land use applications. Uh what we'll be addressing this evening are three matters and the agenda has
been updated as these matters have uh come come to clarification over you know these past couple of weeks. Uh the first section under new business is our Morris Broad's crossroads resoning consistency review. You're familiar with this. Um it's been discussed the governing body.
It's been discussed here. Um it's included in our housing element and fair share plan. So uh nothing new there. Um so that'll be the first item we want to address. The second is our historic preservation ordinance uh an amendment to DRRO chapter 35. There's a consistency review here. These two items
are grouped under new business as uh there is no public comment offered for consideration of those two items. The public comment is offered at the second reading of the governing body. The governing body had introduced each of those items. They send it to us to appine upon and then we send it back to
them uh with our reflections and that's where the public comment is intended to be captured. And then third is the public hearing on uh Tatlock field lighting project courtesy review. Um that is noted under public hearings. while not a traditional land use application as most folks are familiar
with it um that is uh we'll have a public comment section so we'll make sure to carve out time necessary for the public to share their thoughts on what's shared this evening before we jump into Morris Broad's crossroads uh the housing element in fair share plan is top of
mind in the community uh not just because it's a heated election season but because once every 10 years we have the opportunity uh to look forward as to how affordable housing will incorporated in our community. So, it's the intent of this planning board has been for now
many many months as well as the governing board to continue to engage the public on information as it becomes available. Uh, this process will really pick up speed as we head into the end of the year. Um, so thankfully we have this meeting today. We had a governing body meeting on the 3rd where council president Mieran and others shared an
update and we'll have another planning board meeting on the 29th this month. So, um, you're welcome always to attend here. s our intent to provide you updates in this forum. Uh but there's also a wonderful land use at cityofsummit.org email uh that you're welcome to direct questions uh comments
to and what we do uh what really the city staff does is collects those questions or comments shares them with the board professionals so that we can anticipate and address those as part of these meetings. Uh what I wanted to start with um is a statement prepared by the city's affordable housing attorney
um in consultation with the other professionals to address some of the concerns um some of the questions that had arisen. Um so we hope that this provides some additional clarity and if you'll bear with me um I'll read it mostly straight through. I want to pause at uh one section just to elaborate a little bit. No riffing. If I start to
riff give me a nudge um but I want to just be as complete as we can in answering these concerns. uh the in quoting uh the March 2024 amendments to the fair housing act created the program which is governed by the administrative office of the courts AOC. In order to
participate in the program, the city of Summit like every municipality in the state had to file a declaratory judgment complaint by the end of January 2025. This is the only lawsuit filed related to the city's current affordable housing plan and it is filed by the city. It's a
lawsuit because the Fair Housing Act created such a scheme. And in order to participate, a lawsuit had to be filed. In accordance with the requirements of the FHA amendments and the rules created by the AOC, anyone seeking to challenge the city's affordable housing plan had
to submit a challenge by filing their challenge on eorts no later than August 31st, 2025. uh uh those challenges had to be filed in the docket that create that created that the city created in January by the deadline. So this was the filing
deadline for objections. The city received three challenges and council president mteran referenced these on the September 3rd meeting. Uh one was from fair share housing which filed uh who filed 400 plus challenges throughout the state. For reference, 460 municipalities
applied to the program by filing a complaint in January. And two developers, Russo Development, Incline uh Capital were the three were the three challenges. This is where I'll step out of uh Miss Holm's comments just to refresh and remind everyone with regard
to those challenges. Uh fair share housing is a housing affordable housing advocacy group in in the state and as you can see has a broad-based um approach and position that runs counter to the vast majority of municipalities. So um that will play out as it is. Uh
what I did want to remind folks on and if you haven't already printed up a copy or reference it regularly um we have the housing element and fair share plan that was adopted and endorsed at the end of June first here at the planning board then at the governing body. In the housing element and fair share plan, we
identify rejected development sites for which there were three. Two of the challengers, surprise surprise, align with those rejected development sites. I will read just a brief excerpt just to remind folks what the decision of the planning board and the governing body in consultation with the public and
professionals were um just to help remind folks what we said no to where we drew a line for the purpose of preparing the plan. Uh the first objective that I' I'd reference is uh Russo capital uh or Russo development rather. Um this is referred to in the uh housing element
and fair share plan as Onyx and Russo development. This was contemplated as a 198 unit inclusionary multifamily development which would include four stories of residential units above the existing two-level parking deck resulting in a proposed building height of at least five stories. The building
would have a floor area ratio of 151% and density of 45 dwelling units per acre. So you can read the full description certainly when you reference the housing element fair share plan. The second developer objector uh was incline capital. Um that was uh that was is a
development contemplated at the corner of Broad Street and Summit Avenue uh very near maybe playground and the village green the summit train station. Um that's described in the housing element plan as a development to accommodate an eightstory eightstory 300
unit mixeduse development on a 1.46 acre tract. Uh the proposed density for that development was submitted at 250.5 dwelling units per acre nearly 100% building and imperous coverage and a floor area ratio of appro approximately
650%. So those were two developments that again the planning board, governing body, others in consultation decided uh were not appropriate for inclusion in the plan. So just to keep folks familiar um these are the these are two of the counterparties um to the mediation that's coming. Um so let me pick up a
little bit back in my Nancy Holm voice just to complete her thoughts. Uh while fair share and the developers have challenged the city's plan, that doesn't mean that they are correct in their arguments or they have even stated the facts correctly. The challengers have merely filed their issues with the
city's plan by the statutory deadline and requested any and all relief that would be legally advantageous to their position. Nothing more, nothing less. In any legal proceeding, every party lists and lists any and all relief they want. It does not mean that such relief is appropriate or will be granted. To be
clear, there are no additional lawsuits against the city related to its affordable housing plan that have been filed. Challenges have been received in the normal course of the program's procedure, and that is all. As we have seen since the deadline has passed, challenges have been filed across the state by the deadline is the rule and
not the exception. Because challenges were filed, the program now moves the city and challengers into the mediation process outlined in the statute and AOC rules. Unfortunately, because the city will be in mediation, the process will largely confidential for a period of time. As any information can be publicly
shared, the planning board and andor council will share that information. Uh we'll publish this statement to the city's website uh in case you didn't follow entirely uh with my reading of it. But we hope that addresses a number of questions, concerns that uh residents have had about the process, where we
stand in the process. I can tell you in terms of mediation uh meeting scheduling is underway. That process um has begun with great haste and the intention per the statute is uh all mediation all question on these plans will be resolved by the end of the year. So, uh, lucky
lucky special adjudicators and the program judges. Uh, thank you for your service. Uh, but we'll have a busy couple of weeks and months certainly ahead of us here. >> Is it okay if I ask a question? >> Yes, please. >> I'm a slow learner. So, I've been reading all over the internet today that the city of Summit
has received three lawsuits. So, I just want to break it down. Okay, let's take it very slow. Okay, so let's talk about challenges versus lawsuits. So, we just heard from our chair the advice from our affordable housing trust fund attorney, Nancy Holm. And just for a matter of
record for round three, this council is receiving immunity because we did scatter site projects. This council, right? So, I want to explain to the public the difference between a lawsuit and a
challenge. And I know Steve, you did a great job explaining it, but I I want to be very clear. I think it needs to be repeated a little bit. >> Go ahead, Mr. Warner. >> Oh, did you want to repeat? >> Yeah, I think it's important, right? Because >> he's just ready to jump in.
>> Yeah. I think I think it's important for the public to understand what is a lawsuit and what is a challenge >> because on on January 31st, we had to file, right? We had to file, >> right? all municipal. I'm not the affordable housing council, but I am elsewhere. And I am the planning board
council. And as our chairman stated and as our council woman is stating right now, yes, uh virtually all municipalities uh challen uh in order to any municipality that wanted to participate in the program uh needed to
institute that participation by way of filing a declaratory uh uh complaint. And so it is the city that initiated the lawsuit as required in order to participate in the program. Our lawsuit, one and only lawsuit,
>> right? So, so that initial January 31st, just to break it down, anybody who challenges us gets in that docket or whatever the lawyers call it, you get in that docket. That doesn't mean we have three lawsuits. Okay? Now, I didn't go to Harvard. I didn't go to law school.
an army transportation officer. But that's as basic as it is, right? That's it. >> Only one, >> right? Only one. >> And the city filed it, >> right? I didn't go to Harvard, didn't go to Georgetown, didn't go to Ivy League school. I just want the public to understand and I want to dispel the
rumor that there are three lawsuits out for the city. It's simply not true. It's not good for the city and it needs to stop. Thank you. >> Excellent. Uh so again, as I referenced early on, as you have questions, concerns, our elected officials are
always available. They welcome your emails, telephone calls, texts, please reach out to them. They're wonderful and tremendously responsive. Uh and if you want to direct any questions to the planning board, land use cityofsummit.org is a wonderful place to send those and we will be sure to
address those in the meetings in FAQs. We'll find a way that's necessary to keep the public informed. Um so with that uh we have a housing element fair share plan uh that we adopted that was endorsed uh that we are proceeding uh to to act upon and the first step or one of
the first steps in that process uh is addressing the Morris Broad's crossroads resoning. Um this is the first item of business here in our formal agenda. It's constitutes a consistency review. Yes, please step back.
as part of our fair share housing plan. We referenced this project um Ashwood Road effort Ashwood program. Um can you just lay out the fact that so far there are no approvals there are no >> Sure. You're referring to the Harmon
holdings project. >> Yes. And speak briefly about what as of right construction means in that context for a portion of that. >> Sure. I I'll be happy to defer that question. I don't know if Tom or maybe Austo is the better person to speak to kind of where that stands as a brief
just as a brief. >> Yeah, I could start >> if I may before we go any further though and for confirmation uh that is not any uh is that an aspect of our fourth round housing element and fair share plan. It is >> it's a mechanism. >> Yeah. Because just to keep in mind that
it is a pending litigation >> uh and there are challenges uh within the one and only lawsuit that we filed uh as a city as we were required to do in order to participate in the program. Um but it is an ongoing pending
litigation. So uh uh we should be circumspect in what we say. We want to be as transparent as possible but in the context of litigation uh one cannot be uh completely transparent because one is subject to attorney client privilege litigation privileges because I think
they say it on TV sometimes anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law. Um so you wet blanket Mr. >> Can I can I ask one question? >> But but so leave it to the attorney to be the wet blanket as always. >> Um can I just ask one question? So, can
can Tom give a little bit about the history of this as far as technical review process, how long it's been sitting with the city of summit? I think it was 2023. I can't remember. Um, it's not like this just came 4 months ago. >> I I think historical information is is
fine and and frankly uh I know Mr. barrens well and I know I trust his judgment as to what can be shared and what can't be or shouldn't be uh for for purposes of protecting the city and its residents in the context of a pending litigation. >> So that that gives you the the the
yellow light, Mr. >> Proceed slowly with caution on on in the best interest of the city and its residents. >> All right. So fair I I think I can offer a few uh clarifying comments. How about that? So I think the first question pertain to process. So where are we in the process and how can this site
actually be developed? So what the fourth round legislation required is that housing plans had to include draft draft ordinances um for any site that it included or that any site that required reszoning as as a plan mechanism to address a portion of a municipality's
affordable housing obligation. So, the city's fourth round housing plan that was adopted in June of uh this year includes a draft ordinance for the Harmon holding site. The city is actively working with that developer to finalize the details of that ordinance.
So, so nothing set in stone at this point. Um what we can confirm are the details that are included in the housing plan that it that it will be a mixeduse development um with no more than 20 total residential units. So I I think one term that I hear is that this is an affordable housing project. It's
actually a mixeduse project with inclusionary residential housing with up at least four affordable units. So >> and just for explanation for benefit of the public, exclusionary, excuse me, inclusionary uh means uh that there are market rate units together with a
component that that is affordable units. Correct. >> That that's right. That's right. And so the legislation requires that municipalities finalize these resonings no later than March 2026. So we believe we're on uh the right trajectory to have that happen. Once the ordinance is in
place, uh the prospective developer would be required to submit a complete site plan application to the planning board. And so both at the ordinance implementation phase as well as the site plan review phase will be opportunities for the public to review the details of the ordinance. again it's not complete
fully complete at this point um that means the same thing I understand um and also review at the planning board again to really look at the uh the site plans the architectural plans and understand um what impacts if any there will be and the planning board as it always does will look for ways to refine the project
in the best interest of the city >> that's pretty good Steve what do you think >> um as far as procedural history um again this was a developer proposal this was not summit looking for sites the developer came to the city um even before the fourth round legislation came
to be which was in March 2024 which was when the fair housing act was amended um had come to the city informally um proposing an idea of redeveloping the site these three parcels in question which have frontages on Ashwood Avenue I think it is right broad street Mars
Avenue right it's uh it's about.7 acres in size it's got about an L-shaped configuration and their original proposal was for a 33 unit all residential ial development and over time um that evolved into the uh zoning framework that's included in the housing
plan and yeah this took I don't know about two years at least three years >> yeah I think more like three I think um when we talk about 33 100% residential I want everybody to understand that that had zero setbacks right >> it well it was a much bigger building
more intense development >> right right >> and and so you know discussions evolved um to the extent that this the city you thought the first proposal made no sense. You know, it was just too big. Um and then over time that version of the plan had been whittleled down. But there
were also months in between of radio silence where we were waiting four or six months from the for the develop excuse me the developer to come up with the next iteration of the plan. Then there'd be back and forth and really didn't get to the point of being able to be presented to the public until it was featured in the plan and it was brought
in uh into greater conformance with the city zoning. And at this point, it is very much consistent with the underlying um or existing NB neighborhood business zone designation except for a few what I'd call minor deviations. Hence, it was put in the plan where you heard from the
planning board chairman that the projects that were rejected for from my perspective obvious reasons being somewhat out of scale. And I think this is where I'll stop so I don't get go if I may though that the obligate the the obligation of the municipality as with all municipalities in the housing
element fair share plan was to explain why sites were included as well as why the sites that were excluded were excluded. So the city did its job, did its job right. And uh as I understand it and then frankly I as I was witnessing it, um our chair when he explained uh
about two projects that were excluded uh uh that are challengers in the uh uh uh in the program uh challenging the plan within our one lawsuit that we brought. Uh the um uh he was reading verbatim
from the uh language in the housing element fair share plan as to why they were excluded, not sharing anything beyond the plan and hence not uh staying uh uh within the parameters of the litigation privilege. Uh this is
information that's publicly available. >> There you go. So when you get a chance, take a read. I think it's only 196 pages document. Light reading. That's right. But available for the public to review. And again, as you have questions, comments, land use at cityofsummit.org.
Jessica is who you're going to be probably connecting with. So, thank you, Jessica. All right. Uh, I'm going to slightly close that can of worms. Uh, leave a little bit of a crack because we're actually operating still within the housing element and fair share plan. Um, so we have Morris Broads Crossroads Reszoning Consistency Review. Um,
perhaps Steve, I'll ask you though, just to set the stage for this. Um, what is the what's the purpose of a consistency review? uh what is the planning board opining on this evening? Um and then we're going to hear a little bit from from Mr. Barren uh to as to the details
of what we're considering this evening. Certainly as the as the board is wellversed having done this many times with any zoning land use ordinance uh as the chair mentioned earlier uh the process as required under the municipal land use law is that after the ordinance
is introduced by the governing body there is a referral to this body the planning board as the gatekeepers of the master plan as I like to refer to us uh to review that ordinance to ensure it is at least not inconsistent. Double
negative uh with the master plan and the board can uh uh uh uh share other recommendations uh even beyond the inconsistency or consistency of the proposed uh or I should say the introduced ordinance uh its consistency
with the master plan. Albeit the primary job of the planning board is uh is it not inconsistent or is it inconsistent with the master plan. we hear from our planner. It is not a public hearing. Uh there is a public hearing in the process
that happens later on after this review and referral of the report of the planning board back to the governing body our our uh common council. They will then I presume on second reading uh
prior to the adoption of the ordinance uh if it is to be adopted uh will have a public hearing as is required under the municipal land use law at that period of time. So that in short there is a public hearing. It's not tonight. It's at the at the common council before a different
body on a different night when they have second reading and and uh adopt uh excuse me public hearing on the adoption. Uh so that's probably a good segue to uh turn it over with the chair's permission of Tom Barren, our planner to provide our board with a
professional opinion as to whether or not the proposed excuse me the introduced ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan and why >> do we need to do swear >> and I well well you know what we'll do it uh the it's not a public hearing not necessarily required. You're qualified.
You're accepted by this board no doubt because you're our planner but please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you. If anybody ever wants to be sworn in, I'm happy to swear to So, I'll never say no.
>> All right, Tom. To you. >> Thanks. >> All right. Well, thank you for the that introduction, Mr. Warner. Just to provide a brief brief background of the ordinance. Um, in June 2024, the city created the existing Mars Broad Crossroads, also known as the MBC over overlay zone to replace the prior Broad
Street West redevelopment plan for block 2706, lots 1, 2, 3, and four. These four parcels include the old firehouse site, the existing Chestnut parking lot, an office building, and privately owned Finger Lot, which is uh lot two. Um the
total track comprises a land area of about 1.5 acres and the site has frontages on Mar excuse me on Broad Street, Mars Avenue and Cedar Street. The existing overlay zone um created a new mixeduse zoning framework for the site which established permitted uses
and development requirements based on years of community input. Um and the overlay zone was designed to achieve several community goals um as a result of that input, including uh one to repurpose the site given the known relocation of the fire department. Two,
to generate revenue from the sale of the property uh to a prospective developer and and generate annual tax revenue. Three, to satisfy a portion of the city's affordable housing obligation. Four, to maintain existing public parking. And for the adjacent St.
Theresa's Memorial Hall as the Chestnut parking lot uh currently provides. And then finally to develop the site in a unified uh design theme that's consistent with the character of Summit and complements surrounding land uses. So the current ordinance was introduced
by the common council on September 3rd of this year. That's ordinance number 12144, which is intended to repeal the existing Mars Broad Crossroads overlay uh zone to be replaced with a new MBC zone uh
designation for the same four parcels in question. The new NBC zone is being implemented for two primary reasons. The first being to um adjust the bulk criteria or dimensional requirements uh to account for the land swap with the owners of lot 2. Um and the purpose of
this is so the city can control the entirety of the track. So just to give a brief explanation on that, three of the four parcels in this tract um are owned by the city and one is currently owned by lot 2. That's what's been known as the finger lot and that lot two is associated with the adjacent funeral
home and has provided parking for that funeral home um since based on a prior uh land use board approval that goes back uh several decades is my understanding. And so in order for this city to uh retain control of this parcel in particular, which bisects the
property without it, um it was important to uh work out a deal essentially with uh the owner of lot 2, similar to what had been contemplated um in prior deals uh with with that uh particular property owner. Um and that's been
resolved uh with the council. We believe that'll be completed in short order and again the city will be able to control the entire parcel. But the land swap um uh included conveying a portion of the existing tract to lot 5, which is the funeral
home parcel. It's about 2,900 square ft, which reduced the land area of the total tract. So again, we had to adjust some of the bulk criteria to accommodate that minor reduction in land area. And finally, the second primary purpose was to uh modify this uh zone from an
overlay zone to an actual zone, which will strip away the underlying Bzone designation and and make this NBC zoning the only possible uh developable frame zoning framework um that a prospective developer can utilize. Um the new NBC
zone is intended to keep the original vision and zoning framework of the O overlay zone. Again, we're really talking about a few what I would describe as minor tweaks um that will stay true to the intention of the original ordinance. Again, based on lots of public input uh just to give a summary of the ordinance modifications.
They include uh slight slight tweaks to the density and F to really get back to the original development yield. So meaning just slight upward ticks in the residential density and slight upward tick in the floor area ratio just to get back to the maximum 48 residential units
that were originally contemplated just to get back to the approximately 80,000 square ft. That would be the maximum floor area yield. So again, nothing's changed in that regard other than the land area of the site has been reduced by a a small amount. Uh we've provided
some clarification um word choices in the ordinance that we thought could just be cleaned up. Uh we've provided greater flexibility with the parking requirements and we've adjusted the threetory height requirement to allow for an office building, meaning that office floor
office floor building uh plates require 14t heights from floor to ceiling. And one of the possible development scenarios is that the site may include an office building. And to allow for that, we'd have to allow for these 14t floor to ceiling heights. So the threetory height uh allowance has been
increased to 42 feet, which we believe is uh reasonable, and it's also less than the maximum height requirement currently allowed, which is 46 ft uh being increased to 48 ft in the zone. As Mr. Mr. Warner mentioned the purpose of the planning board's uh involvement in
this is to identify any inconsistencies of the proposed ordinance with the city's mass adopted master plan documents and offer any recommendations for the governing body to consider. Um to begin that review I note that the site is specifically included in the
city's 2025 housing element fair share plan which is a plan mechanism to address portion of the city's affordable housing obligation. As I mentioned earlier, this zoning is very similar in many ways, identical in many ways to the existing overlay zone that was previously deemed to be consistent with
the the city's master plan by the board just about a year ago. Um, and in addition, uh, we reviewed several of the city's relevant master plan documents, including the 2000 master plan, the 2015 downtown improvement plan, and 2016 re-examination report. Um, I've included
the the specific relevant sections of the master plan in my memo dated September 6th. I don't think it's necessary to read all of those. They're part of the record. But I'll just give an overview of the general master plan themes which I believe are relevant and not just not inconsistent, but that are consistent with the uh proposed
ordinance modifications. Um these include consideration that this this particular site is a gateway to the downtown and serves as a transition between surrounding neighborhoods and the CRBD. Um the master plan in general encourages a balanced development pattern which we believe this ordinance
achieves with its mixeduse configuration and just the promotion of mixeduse development in this area of the city is is another goal of the master plan. Uh the master plan encourages residential densities and development at appropriate scales and densities. We believe that's achieved with this ordinance. And
finally um we believe this will be a significant um aesthetic enhancement to the site which the master plan also promotes. So without further ado, I will turn it over to the board for any questions or deliberations. I'll note that I I did not find any inconsistencies in my review, but the
board is welcome to offer any. >> Mr. Warner, any thoughts to complete? >> That was good enough. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Uh questions first from the board before we perhaps opine on consistency or inconsistency or not inconsistency.
>> Peter, any thoughts? >> Your microphone. So you looked deep in thought there. So I'm sure it was about Morris brush crossroads. >> The the thought I had is by um adopting the ordinance in addition to the
development reasons um is that this assures that the affordable units that are constructed will be counted towards the city's obligation. And I think that's very important. Okay. important to know and and so process-wise where we this is one of the final steps so that
the city can go out to sell this at public bid in the near future. That's our expectation. >> Excellent. >> I have a question. >> Yes. >> Um can you just give us in broad strokes what the land swap is and what property of the funeral home the city will be
taking on? >> It's actually the opposite where existing lot 2 is what's been considered the finger lot. It's the only privately owned parcel in the tract. And as part of the negotiations, in order for the funeral home to retain its existing
parking count in accordance with its prior zoning board approval, the city um is conducting a a uh lot line adjustment is really what it what it is to give 2,900 square ft at the rear of lot two
to be conveyed to lot five, which is the funeral home parcel, so that they can maintain their existing parking. Okay. >> And it squares off the lot. It actually works out better in some ways. >> Okay. Any other questions? PJ, Austo,
you guys are good. >> Okay. Perhaps I'll invite the >> I think this is great news, right? This is like we're finally getting these properties up for sale. This is what the residents fought for. This is this should be the headline tomorrow, right?
residents banded together to stop the Broad Street West monstrosity and now here we are and the properties are going up for sale, right? >> That's supposed to be the headline tomorrow. >> Okay, >> so great job. Yeah, couple more steps.
But >> yeah, >> maybe just for the sake of the record, uh, and to utilize a little bit more of Tom's good work in preparing the board, I do would want to draw attention to some specific callouts from the master plan, a master plan re-examination. Um, that particularly compelled me to
believe that, uh, this ordinance is proposed is not inconsistent with our master plan. Uh with regard to the 2000 master plan, I found particularly compelling uh reference in that document to balance growth and development opportunities uh with which establish uh
a pattern of development and existing uh infrastructure. So we think about where this this configuration of lots um sits within our our downtown center. Um I think it is absolutely primed for growth and development and uh this is a very responsible way with which to move
forward with private developers advancing any construction uh but reflecting very serious and deep reflection by the community on what they want to see occur there. um further within the 2000 master plan uh to support upgrading of substandard
properties. Uh the old what is now the old firehouse I think could fairly be considered um substandard u reference in the 2000 master plan is to code enforcement efforts, education ordinance amendments um and other initiatives. Um so there's been great discussion about
whether or not those tracks of land today are full fully utilized to their potential. Um and I would argue that uh the current utilization a shuttered old firehouse is not the highest and best use um for those lands. And then on a g again on a general basis um encouraging and promoting economic development and
revitalization. This is a poster child for new investment. New investment that's guided by what the uh what the municipality its residents especially see as most viable uh but also uh responding to what the market uh is interested in actually seeing
development uh developed. Um, further to that, uh, in the 2016 master plan revision and re-examination, um, there's reference to guiding development to maintain and enhance the character of Summit, uh, building economic resiliency by supporting reinvestments, um, zoning
changes that strive to maintain and strengthen an appropriate transition between residential neighborhoods and downtown commercial zones. Um, and building economic resiliency by supporting reinvestments. I think we can see this as a positive step forward. I won't go so far as to write headlines
for local publications, but a positive step forward uh towards achieving these goals. Uh and you know, I'm for one very proud of the work that our governing body has done um that the residents of Summit have done um to help guide everyone that has a stake in the success
of that site's development. Uh see where it is today. So I'll add that really just for the record. Thank you, Tom, for giving me all those wonderful words. Um Steve, anything else you want to clarify or done? Then uh it's time for the board uh to uh decide whether there'll be a
motion to find the ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan or otherwise and a second and a roll call vote. >> Any further >> and we will compare the appropriate resolution >> uh to constitute the report back to the
governing body of this planning board's findings. >> Wonderful. >> Any further comments from the board? All right. Hearing none. Do we have a motion to find this ordinance not inconsistent with the master plan? >> So moved. >> Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Jessica, a roll call if you will. >> Chairman Spur, >> yes. >> Mayor Fagan, >> yes. >> Council member Hamlet, >> yes. >> Miss Bowen, >> yes. >> Mr. Domo, >> yes. >> Mr. Loy, >> yes. >> Mr. Solo, >> yes.
>> Okay, it passes then unanimously. Congratulations fans of the Morris Broads Crossroads resoning uh consistency uh that you'll see this next at a future governing body uh meeting where uh this consistent the findings of this consistency review will be shared
and taken in consideration along with public comments um as to the appropriateness of approving that ordinance. Uh next under new business is historic preservation ordinance consistency review. Um so this takes us out of the housing element and fair share plan for but a but a brief moment.
Um this follows the same procedural pro same procedure as uh as was described for the immediately preceding consistency review. So I'm going to pitch it to Mr. Tom Barren just to set the stage and we'll similarly discuss the merits of this proposed ordinance.
>> Very good. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um, as you suggested, the common council introduced uh ordinance 12049 on September 3rd of this year uh to repeal the city's existing historic preservation commission section of the revised general ordinances to be
replaced with a new historic preservation ordinance that will be located in chapter 35 development regulations, excuse me, development regulations. So, um, by way of background, since at least 2019, when the city adopted its first iteration of
the new development regulations ordinance, it was always contemplated that a new historic preservation section of the code would would be located in chapter 35. Took a little time to play out um, you know, to resolve some of the details of of that specific ordinance.
Co happened in between. So, you finally got to the point where there is a uh an ordinance that that everybody seems to agree upon. Um puts things on the right track for the city to u preserve historic landmarks and sites in
accordance with the master plan as as I'll get to momentarily. Um the new ordinance maintains the historic preservation commission's advisory status which I think is an important point. so that they'll continue as they have uh in the past to be able to offer
advice and recommendations but not will not necessarily be approving anything, issuing uh certificates of appropriateness or denying developments or anything like that. So they'll continue to be resources for the planning board, for the zoning board, for the common council, um to provide
public education, and um now they'll have the opportunity to review and comment on certain types of building permits for u relevant types of uh improvements to pro uh buildings and structures that are deemed to have historic value. Um
the review uh that the HPC will uh be conducting is generally limited to the exterior buildings and really um where these structures can be seen from the street or the front. So the HPC isn't so much concerned with somebody building a deck in their rear yard. It's about
maintaining the um historic fabric of uh properties in Summit as can be observed by the public primarily and by by adjacent properties. Um the HPC um again is a resource that will provide education. Um they'll be able to review
uh applications for demolition um to perhaps discourage the the uh demolitions of historic buildings as well as the removal of um the aspects of of historic buildings. So for instance, if somebody has a certain facade treatment or architectural elements,
they can educate that home homeowner about alternatives. Um, there is a a document entitled the 2004 historic preservation design guidelines, which is pretty thorough and talks about how homeowners and and different property owners can improve their property uh in
a way that's historically sensitive and in within the character of their um architectural uh type u that the building has. Um, I'd offer that the ordinance also has some new administrative procedures and requirements uh to guide the HPC's
review u of these different types of applications. And the ordinance does uh finally designate historic sites and districts that are identified in the city's 2000 historic preservation element of the master plan. Um I'll I'll get to those in just a moment. Um, but
I'll note that again the uh this ordinance does not reduce the ability of anyone to improve their lot or property any way or strip anyone of their development rights. Again, it just it simply maintains the Historic Preservation Commission's um ability to offer advice and recommendations for
relevant types of development and formalizes or formally recognizes um these historic sites and districts that exist in summit and some of which have been identified since the 80s and are referenced in the 2000 master plan. Um and and again, the HPC will consider
continue to serve as a resource for the board. So, as the board's task, we we've heard previously, is to review the extent to which the ordinance is uh has any inconsistencies with the master plan. I'll refer to our memorandum uh dated September 6th, which is offered to
uh guide the board in its review. It includes a number of relevant master plan provisions mostly from the 2000 master plan which includes a historic preservation plan element um uh that the city adopted as part of that
effort in 2000. Again, without reading all of those u goals and objectives, I will note that the historic preservation plan element recognizes the list of landmarks in 12 districts that are included in this ordinance um which again were identified as early as the
1980s as being historically significant. The master plan recommends the designation of these these districts and uh what were then 44 historic sites, but has been reduced to a lower number given the uh demolition of some of those structures. Um the recommendations also
include review and comment uh of building permit applications by the HPC and it also suggests that the HPC should continue to function in an advisory capacity which it will do. So um in consideration of all that's included uh in our review, I would offer that this
ordinance is very much consistent uh with the city's master plan that the master plan actually tees up this ordinance. That's the way the process is supposed to work. Master plan then ordinance. And in my review, I did not identify any inconsistencies with the master plan. And I did look just it's not something generic that I say. We did
take a look and could not find anything. >> Thank you, Tom. Questions from the board for Mr. Barren. >> No questions. Go ahead. Yeah, please. Peter, >> Mr. Barren, isn't it correct that one of the reasons for this is that uh we've
had circumstances where applications for de demolition permits were just granted? Um while we put a lot of effort into scrutinizing uh expansions and extensions and additions, uh demolition permits were
just granted uh as of right and properties were just torn down before there was any input from anyone. Is that correct? >> That's right. So, if somebody was uh demolishing a historically significant
building or structure, um there there would be nothing that would trigger the need for HPC review. And that's what this does because if it was as of right in accordance with the ordinance, it was lawful for them to do so. Didn't require any review or approval from the planning board or zoning board. So, this will
create an opportunity for the HBC to review and and give its input in those cases. >> I just have a quick question. Uh would this how would this have changed? Now I know when we talk about the Morris um sorry the Ashwood project, the Harmon
holdings, >> if if this would have been in place at that time, >> would it have given us any more opportunity to not knock down that house, that historic home? I can't remember if it was completely historic or not, but would it have changed that reality at all? >> I I'm not sure that. First of all, I'm
not sure it's within one of the the designated districts. >> It might not be, right? Well, it may not be and let's say that it was. Yeah, let's say it was. At this point, again, the HPC's role would be advisory. I think they could have talked to that homeowner. >> Um they they would have given them options. You know, there are available
uh grant options for historic preservation. Um but they might have also looked at the structure of the home and and in some cases just because the home is old, it doesn't render it uh worth preserving. So, >> you know, I I didn't walk through that building. I didn't know what it looked like. It could have been that it was time to be redeveloped and that, you
know, >> uh, woodframe structures don't last forever. I'll say that much. >> So, um, I I don't think it would have prevented it. I think that's the right thing. >> Again, I know this doesn't really give it just more of an advisory, but um, >> it's a step in the right direction. >> Right. Yeah. Right.
>> But the hundred years slows the process down, right? Right. >> That's the idea. >> Well, it creates a a clear threshold. So, one of the questions is always, well, what's deemed historic? So now we have a list of specific landmarks and designated districts and we have that threshold date of 100 years from whenever the reviews occur. So we know
exactly what it means to be historic >> which would trigger the need for HPC review. You >> have something to say. >> I was just going to comment on sort of the impetus and you the duration the the length of time it took to sort of get to
this point. I think Augusta could probably speak to it a little bit as well. Um, it's been pretty thoughtful and I think, um, to Tom's point, it's not to say you can't do with your property what you ultimately wish, but it's an opportunity for the Historic
Preservation Commission to say or um, to say, "Hey, there might be an alternative here. Um, you moved here, and I think a lot of us moved here because of the character. We talk about the character of Summit a lot." Um, and so I think this is this is a move to kind of
preserve uh preserve that character. So I just I think that's, you know, it's important to kind of have that context and and uh understand that it's not an it's not to say you may not demolish, but perhaps you could think about it a different way. Perhaps you could use some of the maintain some of the facade.
Perhaps you could, you know, there's there are alternatives. So I think that's the that's the idea behind it. >> Well said. Can you speak to um other municipalities that have perhaps gone further than what is contemplated here and what in practice that has meant
because this has been characterized as a a incremental step as a balanced approach respects property ownership rights while encouraging education of historic preservation. But you can go further. So maybe you can speak to what you know of those experiences. One of the reasons um this had taken so long to
finalize was because there were discussions of of um what the HPC's role should be and and responsibilities and power should be frankly. And so municipalities in New Jersey run the gamut from not regulating historic preservation at all to all but picking
out the curtains and the rugs. and and so um I I think the city was reluctant to go the curtains and rugs approach and found this this sort of middle of the road approach which again is informative, slows down demolitions um and is a step in the right direction. >> Yeah, I'm encouraged by this uh
ordinance, not just because our esteemed vice chair is a former member of the HPC or my wife was a former member of the HPC if she's watching this evening. uh but because HPC members are among the most passionate volunteers we have in our city when they ascend uh to this
August body they make themselves known and they really leave a positive impact. So um what I like about this ordinance is it maintains HPC's advisory status um gives them an opportunity to really you know share their knowledge their passion for historic preservation. Um the review
is limited um but less limited more focused I think to help address a fundamental question uh for which neighbors may be seeking clarification. Is that historic? And the same thing for the homeowners. Is that valuable for us to invest in preserving? Uh but really
if anything raises awareness and educate stakeholders. The question uh that Councilwoman Hamlet raised to the Ashwood property is sadly like that property or or others that may fall within certain historic districts is we'll never have had that opportunity to
done the to do the research to have on the record whether or not those properties were in fact historic uh available and able for uh for preservation. So, um, this is, if anything, really sets a standard moving forward that, uh, we want to learn, we want to kind of improve, uh, our
standing around historic preservation and as Councilman Palowski referenced in his introduction of this ordinance on the 3rd of this month. Um, it's intended as a pilot of sorts. Um, we have been laboring behind the scenes um, to get it exactly right. Sorry to break the news,
it's probably not perfect. uh but we as residents uh members of the city administration, elected officials, others will all have the opportunity to uh continue to suggest further refinement over time. So um it's a wonderful first step and I'm grateful uh for all the hard work that's gone into
it and for all of those reasons uh feel it is not inconsistent with summit's master plan. Anyone else like to add anything? >> Just two quick things I would say. First um I would like to say thank you to Austo and his staff. They have
been amazing. Uh Austo has more on his plate than probably any human being in the city. And uh I will tell you he we went back to the drawing board specifically because of him and his staff. We didn't want to create more of a burden for them. We value his opinion,
his professional advice. And I think Austo, I didn't ask you this before the meeting, but I think we've got you there. >> We'll see how he votes, right? >> Um we'll see how you vote. Um, but I just want to take a moment to truly thank Austo and his team for, you know,
for trying new things. And the the second thing I would say is I lived at 89 Kent Place a long time ago. And as a new homeowner, I didn't know what to do with the house. Like, it's old. It's historic, but he had maintained it amazingly. Um, but it was tough. It had a tiny backyard, not a tiny backyard, a
tiny living room. But what what this also does is it gives families an opportunity to engage with our historic preservation committee. We've got, you know, typically we've got some architects on there. We've got some people with some really good ideas. So, we want to give them an opportunity to say, "Hey, maybe maybe you don't want to
knock this down." It's it's more of sort of a, hey, this is you've got this at your at your fingertips here. Maybe you want to take another look at it. Maybe you want to keep the front of it or, you know, so I think it's an opportunity for the the public to become educated. We're not taking any property rights away because that'll be the headline
tomorrow. I know it. >> You got to stop writing headlines. >> I know. I just know what I already I know what they're going to be. Um but I just want to thank my my main goal is to thank Augusto and thank you Tom uh for spending the last two years on this. I think >> um and thank Caroline King who's been so
passionate about this as well and Bob Powski. Yeah, it's worth maybe just pointing out as well in terms of the burden that comes with this uh $50 I believe is the fee associated with it. >> It's an administrative review. >> Administrative review fee and the time with which can maybe Tom speak to that
the time with which the HPC needs to respond. >> I believe they they first within a short amount of time have to determine whether or not it qualifies for HPC review. Uh that might be a twoe period. I don't >> just get it right. >> Oh, Augusta. Um,
so the first step is for the HPC to determine whether they want to review your property. Um, and they have a period of 7 days to respond in the affirmative or the negative. Um, if they respond in the affirmative that they will be conducting a a review. There's a
period of 30 calendar days for any uh resident to receive their review signed and completed with all of the content that they have prepared to educate you on your property. And I do want to stress the fact that this is an advisory
and educational document on your property that provides just an opportunity for you to maybe preserve your historic home. Um this is not it wouldn't be an approval. It's not a denial either. But um those are the
periods you can expect reasonably. >> Excellent. Other comments before we entertain a motion. >> Okay. Thank you Austoa. Thank you Tom. Uh with that I'll ask for a motion to find this proposed ordinance not
inconsistent with Summit's master plan. >> So moved. >> Have a second. >> Why do we say loud? And a roll call if you could, Jessica. >> Chairman Spur, >> yes. >> Mayor Fagan, >> yes. >> Council member Hamlet, >> yes. >> Miss Bowen, >> yes. >> Mr. Domo,
>> yes. >> Mr. Loy, >> yes. >> Mr. Solo, >> yes. >> All right. Thank you very much. And I will note for fans of Morris Broad Crossroads Reszoning and historic preservation ordinance, you will have the good fortune to hear the second have the second hearing. So, the second
reading of this where public comment will be solicited um at the next governing body meeting on the 16th of September. Amazing. All right. Uh with that, uh we've been sitting for about an hour. Let's maybe just take a quick fiveminute recess, stretch our legs, and we're going to come back for Tatlock
field lighting project courtesy reviews. I don't believe A couple more members filter in and then we will begin again. >> All right. Welcome to the public hearing portion of our evening. Uh within this
public hearing portion is the TAT lock field lighting project courtesy review. Uh we will speak to the scope of this. Steve's going to share a little bit about what in fact is in in front of the board. Um Tom Barrens will speak uh a
little bit provide a little more detailed context as to how we should think of answering that question. And then we have a number of members of city staff here who are generously sharing their evening with us um that are available to answer questions. Um so maybe Steve, I'll invite you to just
talk a little bit about courtesy review and then it's my understanding that there is an attorney present representing an objecting party. Everyone's welcome at the planning board. Would welcome you this evening. Um, and we're going to allow you to address the board with some of your
preliminary concerns which Mr. Warner and others uh this evening will help us uh resolve together. So, just a little bit on the courtesy review and then invite Mr. Simon forward. >> Certainly. Uh, I'll start out by saying this is similar but different to what we
were doing uh previously. Uh, the master plan consistency is involved in the process. Uh, but this is under a different uh municipal land use law provision. This is section 31A of the municipal land use law which authorizes the planning board to conduct a master
plan review and courtesy review of uh projects such as this. It's my understanding this is a city-owned uh and uh land and city project uh that is uh coming before us. Uh the MLU at 31A
stipulates uh provides that whenever the planning board shall have adopted any portion of the master plan which we of course have uh the governing body or other public agency having jurisdiction over the subject matter that would be this planning board uh uh over this
matter uh before taking action necessitating the expenditure of any public funds. I'm sorry that was the governing body. before the governing body expends uh any public funds incidental to the location, character or extent of such project. Uh
they must refer shall must refer uh the matter uh involving such specific project to the planning board for review and recommendation in conjunction with such master plan and shall not act thereon without such recommendation or
until 45 days have elapsed. So, we get that 45day referral period as it's referred to uh to weigh in via the courtesy review process. So, we do allow for uh uh uh questions and comments uh
from the public including uh any potential objectors and their through their counsel. Uh the questions at least through their council um in that process. Uh so that that's essentially the process. Um with the uh chair's
permission uh uh it's my understanding uh that we do have counsel for an objector uh who may have uh we may wish to weigh in on potentially jurisdiction andor other matters to the extent
jurisdiction may be something he wishes to weigh in. Jurisdiction is a predicate matter. Uh so it would be appropriate in my opinion uh for us to hear what he has to say with respect at least to jurisdiction initially so that we can resolve that uh given that it's
predicate it should be at the beginning not at the end. So, with the chair's permission, we can hear from council. >> Come forward, introduce yourself, the party you're representing, and uh Steve, give you guys a bit of a preview perhaps what we'll hear. But your words, >> I figured, >> please.
Uh first of all, uh of course, ladies and gentlemen of the board, good evening. I'm always good to be here before the planning board in the city summit. Uh my name is Rob Simon. I'm an attorney with Herald Law. I'm here on behalf of Tadlock Community Preservation Association, New Jersey nonprofit
corporation. Um and my understanding is that the matter before us or before you this evening as was announced uh was a public hearing on the Tatlock field um as a courtesy review. Um as Steve the
chair uh Mr. Spur pointed out um I I do want to and I and I feel it's uh the right thing to do and my obligation to do it is to um at the onset onset identify um certain issues
strictly pertaining to jurisdiction of the board to conduct uh this public hearing. Um certainly I have other comments. I have a uh professional planning witness. um look forward to participating in the process if the process uh proceeds tonight. Um but I
feel constrained to raise some issues on behalf of my client. Um just so uh that it's it's out there and and as I told Mr. Warner before the hearing, I didn't want to just sort of sit on my hands and you do your thing just to find out that I have all these questions and you say,
"Why didn't you get up, you know, way back when?" So, um as Mr. Warner appropriately uh pointed out to you. Um this is a a courtesy or or at least um identified as a courtesy review hearing
um presumptively pursuant to section 31 of the municipal land use law. So under the municipal land use law um a couple things to note that first of all that not only does section 31 um apply to
this proceeding but also section 10 of the municipal land use law applies which covers public hearings and not only are applications for development public hearings. Not only are master plan
hearings um public hearings but courtesy reviews are identified in the municipal land use under section 10 is public hearings. What does that mean? That means that um adherence to all the things that are required for a public
hearing need to happen. Now under section 12 of the municipal land use law there are provisions for public notice for certain types of development applications for master plan uh amendments and the like. Um courtesy
review hearings do not fall under the rubric of section 12 of the municipal land use law. meaning that um the city of Summit, I will um contest, does not have to send out any public notice
within 200 feet to to neighbors for a uh duly constituted section 31 public hearing. However, there does need to be public notice of this hearing because it is a public hearing. And that then
relates to the need to comply with what's called the Open Public Meetings Act. um section 10 col4-8 um of the New Jersey statutes u which deals with adequate notice for even for any type of public hearing. There's a
couple things you need to do. First of all, if you're having a special meeting like you are having that you need to ensure that you're providing uh notice to to newspapers at least 48 hours prior, etc. Um I'm not sure and and and
some of my comments are not necessarily accusatory. It's that you know you always want to get it right. Right. Mr. Warner and maybe some of you know I'm a board attorney in a number of communities represent towns and you know you want to get the jurisdiction right
always. Um so um I uh inquire as to whether um adequate notice is provided under uh section 10 colon 4-8 under the open public meetings act. I did also notice and was also pointed out to me by
a client representative that the agenda um description had changed um at least a few times over the last couple of business days. And I believe it was not until literally yesterday morning or maybe even this morning um whereby it
was identified that this was going to be a public hearing for a a courtesy review. So um you have that um you have an issue as to the fact that the um
address of the property was not mentioned on the agenda. It doesn't mention on the agenda who owns bless you. Who owns the property or what this tatlike tatlock field um courtesy review. It's a public hearing
tatlock field courtesy review. What that necessarily uh entails, let alone the fact that entails two lighting of two fields. Um the application materials, which I'll get to in a second, um unlike other matters uh
and hearings before this board were not uh posted, at least to my knowledge, and I apologize if I'm wrong, um on the municipal uh website. Um so, um we certainly didn't receive, you know, literally until yesterday morning, uh
any at least from my office, any notice about uh this this particular hearing. Um, I also, as some of you may know, um, I have not only uh corresponded with the, uh, city attorney regarding some of
these matters regarding Tatlock Field, um, as early as back in July of 2025. Um but I've also on behalf of my client filed a complaint in superior court uh relating to certain uh bond ordinance and related uh zoning site plan capital
review uh related issues that's pending and despite any number of people knowing that I I'm involved in this um I just so the record's clear did not receive the courtesy of any notice heads up anything about the fact that
this matter was was scheduled for for tonight. Um, additionally, and I have a number of things to say, but I think I I want to kind of break it up in courtesy to to this board just to make sure we're we're streamlining
things in in term and I just want to stick to notice and jurisdiction for a moment. So, you know, why do we provide notice? We provide notice so that the public has a full and fair
opportunity to be informed of the nature of the matter that is going to be heard. so that they can not only come and appear, but that they have a full and fair opportunity to
go to town hall, review whatever the application materials are that are on file so that when they come to a public hearing that they can intelligently participate in that public hearing, ask
appropriate questions that are um appropriate for them uh based on the issues that are before uh the planning board uh in this case. So what was submitted here um as part as I found out
today um as part of an application uh for this public hearing uh was a an advisory opinion submitt checklist as well as a public agency application form. And I will respectfully contend
without pointing any fingers that both the checklist as well as the public agency application form are respectfully woefully deficient in a number of respects. And again, this just goes to
jurisdiction, providing the public with full and fair opportunity to be prepared to to participate meaningfully, intelligently um in a public hearing. Uh so one of the first checklist item is there's uh a submission of a complete
submittal form. Well, we say that that's not accurate because the for for example um there's no submission of DRRO or development regulations ordinance inconsistencies that are required in the
application form. Um the description of the project is is inaccurate. Just for example, it contemp it says that it contemplates upgrading the lighting at Upper Tatlock Field, which is uh we contend a mischaracterization of what's
going on actually that there's three or four lights that are currently um that are not uh intended to be used to to light practices and games and they're only on the third of the field away from the houses on on Butler Parkway. Um
there's no submission. There's some calculations, but there is no submission at all as the basis for any of those calculations, uh, uh, coverage calculations, setback calculations. It's all missing. It's it's not there. Um, it's not shown on a plan. It's not shown
on a zoning table. It's not otherwise verified in the application materials. And, um, there's statements contained in there without any um, support. Um the the plans that were submitted were
respectfully fuzzy and vague. You you couldn't read I couldn't read one number, one letter um on those plans. Uh those plans did not contain and then if you go to the actual checklist um there
was no survey submitted, there was no submission which was required. This is just checklist items. Um, submission of proposed circulation, signage, drainage, landscaping, fencing, lighting, including any phototrics, grading, and
other features such as parking and other proposed improvements for not one but two fields. None of that's included. Nothing. No elevations of any of these light poles or stansions that are proposed here. There's no sub and these are just these are not my opinion. These
are on the form right for for purposes of complete application under section 10.3 of the municipal land use law and to allow an applicant even the city of summit to fully and fairly come before a land use board such as this uh planning board. There's no submission of an area
map with any graphic scale block or or lot information or zoning information. All that is required on the checklist. Um, there's also a requirement for a key map showing the entire development. What
is shown is a tax map, an aerial that appears to be coming from from Google, um, a one-page Musco equipment layout map that is respectfully, and you can tell me I'm wrong, completely illegible.
So again, those are just matters that go to whether this we contend whether this board can hear can conduct a public hearing with
regard to this courtesy review. Number one, we talk about the notice under the Open Public Meetings Act. And then number two, what's the notice intended to do is to allow you to go and give you information so that you can learn about the project that is being presented in
that public hearing. And we contend that um it's not even close in terms of providing the information that is required to even uh commence this hearing. So, I'm going to, you know, I have many other things
to say about the nature of capital review and what that means for purposes of this project, but I'm going to maybe take a little bit of a a pause unless the board wishes that I continue. I I sense that you do not, and I be respectful, of course, and so I will
back up. >> Thank you for your courtesy, and I suspect we'll hear from you again, so we'll continue this conversation. Uh, Steve, do you have any opinion on what Mr. Simon >> Before I actually had a question for Mr. Son, Mr. S, is it your contention that
well, what specifically is your contention with respect to the public notice for this meeting? For example, it's my understanding that was sent to the official newspaper in a timely fashion. Do you contest that? >> I do. I mean, I I checked, Mr. owner.
You know, I I what I do I I I went on New Jersey public I went on New Jersey public notices like I do for all applications and any type of public hearing. I checked to see if there was any notice of a special meeting. I did not see any and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong,
but I didn't see any notice of any type of special meeting that was noticed to the public. Is it your contention that it it must be published by the newspaper or is sending it to the newspaper for publication for a special agenda for an
open public meeting sufficient in your opinion? my opinion that it needs to be published um because the whole point of the open public meetings act and I'll quote it is the reason why you said it's in the
newspapers um because they have the greatest likelihood of informing the public within the area of jurisdiction of the public body of such meetings one of which I'll be the official newspaper um
etc etc is it contention that notwithstanding what you just quoted >> because otherwise Mr. Warner there's no notice right and and it's not that so the public did not receive because there's no requirement of any notice
which I contended under section 12 of munuse law that is why adherence to section um 104-8 is is important for matters like this so that the public has you know I'm going
to use the vernacular of fighting pants in terms of participating meaningfully in a public hearing. And is it your contention that an open public meeting cannot be conducted if it is if the notice is sent
in a timely fashion for publication but if the official newspaper does not publish it in a timely fashion? >> Yes, for for for this type of matter I Yes, I agree. And on what do you rely
what statutory or case law authority do you rely that this would be distinguished from any other business of a of a board on a special uh uh special agenda for an open public meeting other than the fact that if there were a land development hearing there would
have to be separate notices of course under under section 10 and 12 of the >> Yep. Um it's it's statutoily required which two two newspapers. Okay. And and the fact that there's no public notice for this hearing
that's published. We're not talking 10 days prior. We're talking at all. Check. I checked today just to double because it's when I found out about it. Check today and it wasn't there. >> Can you sip for me from the statutory authority you're referring to? one
requires that the the newspaper publish the the uh notice in order for a courtesy review to take place as opposed to in this hypothetical the uh notice
being aware sent and perhaps not published in >> am I aware of any case law on point in terms of courtesy review public hearing I said 104-8 I I didn't right 104-8. And can you >> and and its progyny in terms of those
other statutes in terms of the open public meetings act. >> Okay. And can you read 104-8 if you don't mind? >> Yeah. >> If you have it. >> Yeah. Mailed, telephone, telegram, or hand delivered to at least two newspapers. Which newspapers shall be designated by the public body to receive such notices because they have the
greatest likelihood of informing the public within the area of jurisdiction of the public body of such meetings? One of which shall be the official newspaper. >> Right. Right. delivered to the newspapers. >> Yes. >> Which doesn't say anything therein about the newspapers having to have published them on a timely fashion as far as what
the municipality's obligation is. Correct. >> I believe that the municipality needs to ensure that the publication takes place at least 48
hours prior to the hearing. It's just two days. You're saying it has to be I'm sorry I'm I didn't hear you. Did you say it had it has to be published by >> means written written advanced notice
of at least 48 hours given giving the time date location and I'm reading from 10 col4-8 I think D under the definition of adequate notice and to the extent known the agenda of
any regular special or rescheduled meeting. Which notice shall accurately state whether formal action may or not be taken? And I don't know because there was no notice that I saw.
And again, if you can demonstrate it, I stand down on it. I'm not trying to, you know, be difficult. >> We we want to hear your position in its entire entirety. Hence, hence my asking you the questions to clarify your position.
>> Correct. So that's that's the the notice in terms of the newspaper notice. I understand >> the the notice in terms of the public the agenda notice >> as I stated was that my understanding is
that it wasn't until maybe yesterday if not this morning that the agenda was changed to identify which is less than 48 hours that a public
hearing was going to take place regarding Tatlock Field Lighting Project courtesy review. >> And I believe that until yesterday it was called consistency review
which is not accurate um because it's not an ordinance that you're as you appropriately stated u checking for consistency review. If I may on that subject, you would agree, would you not, that the fact that
it is listed on the agenda under public hearing, not under other business or you know, master plan consistency reviews, which are not public hearings, but under public hearing. Uh you would agree that that's an appropriate location on the
agenda. Correct. >> Um today it is, but yesterday it was not. I believe the under the agenda it was always listed under the public hearing column number one but number two
>> also a you would agree would you not that a courtesy review >> is primarily focused on >> pursuant to section 31A the consistency with the master plan that's a primary obligation of the board to to look into in the context of a
courtesy >> a a it doesn't well a it doesn't reference >> section 31A in municipal annu law. I'm looking at the agenda. >> No, but I'm saying section 31A. >> That's not >> courtesy reviews focus on consistency
reviews. Correct. >> I'll I'll break it down. >> I'm breaking it down, Mr. Simon. >> Courtesy reviews. >> Courtesy reviews involve consistency reviews. Correct. >> Involve master plan consistency. Correct.
the specific language in section and I'm going to get to this a little later but since you raise it it does not talk about consistency what it states
is and I'm reading section 31 One, refer the action to the planning board. I'm reading verbatim for review and recommendation in conjunction with such master plan.
Okay. The public doesn't know. I know admittedly, but the public doesn't know what is meant by a courtesy review in what context pursuant to what statute
for what purpose. Number two, it does not say consistency in section 31 anywhere as opposed to section 26 in municipal annuity law that talks about inconsistency. and and this board just a
few moments ago said that a certain ordinance was not inconsistent with the master plan in terms of the historic um ordinance. So, and furthermore um the Tatlock field
lighting project consistency review as it was stated in the on the agenda was listed not as a public hearing until today. but rather under new business.
>> So it did not indicate on the agenda that the >> review was intended to be a public hearing. >> My just my understanding is that it was always listed under public hearing. My
and beyond that, my understanding is that it always and currently uh uh refers to it as the Tatlock Field Lighting Project, not an ordinance like the Mars Broad Crossroads ordinance or the historic preservation ordinance, but
the Tatlock Field Lighting Project, a project, not an ordinance, uh and that it was under public hearing. So I understand your contentions with respect to the agenda description.
Uh candidly I don't find it compelling uh that that particular contention. Um it's not for me to find anything. It's for me to advise. So when I say I don't find it compelling,
I'm signaling where my advice may go may go. Um but but beyond that, we've probably beaten that one a bit. Uh do you have any other objections with respect to the notice for jurisdictional purposes other than the in
>> publication and the and the content of the agenda? >> Um no, I believe that I um addressed just in terms of pure notice. I think I I addressed what I intended
to. Um and again, the purpose of this is to as a an officer of the court um identify these things for the board. >> Mr. Actually, I have a question.
Is there any case law on this? >> Executive. >> I'm sorry. What was the question? >> Is there any case law on this? >> Yeah. Yeah. Is there any case law on this? >> Is there any case law on this? >> First of all, in fairness, I should have the chair >> recognize your question. It's not my job. >> That's okay.
>> That's okay. To the extent that that question is relevant or you can >> um I I know there is case law on it because I just found out about this literally yesterday. Mhm. >> Um I have not in all fairness had an
opportunity to to do any um review of applicable case law, but I felt again that and I and I believe that all of the contentions that I've raised here have merit and are appropriate frankly um to
uh advise the board of our our position on it. >> And if the board wanted me to brief it, of course I would. And if I may, your your what would your contention be if I know 45 days since the introduction
uh uh well since the referral has not taken place, but what would be your contention if 45 days since the referral took place uh uh um expired that period of time expired without the board having had an opportunity or having conducted for
whatever reason a courtesy review? What would the be the result in your opinion? >> My legal opinion is that the board that the board clearly
intended to conduct a public hearing as a courtesy review. Whether that's right or wrong, I don't doubt the intention because you're here, right, instead of home doing other things. So
that I that I um agree with that there's an there's an intention to conduct this hearing because the hearing in our respectful opinion cannot be conducted because of
uh errors. Not to point fingers at anyone, just things happen all the time. They happen in my office every day. that because of that that there should be a rescheduling of this hearing
um properly noticed, properly put on the agenda and that the in this case the the city of ST summit because of the error should not and the intention to have a public
hearing um as a courtesy review should um the project should not proceed until after that hearing is recheduled. If you take into contention that section 31's applicable here, which we'll get to
later, Okay. The the um and uh we you may have another question from a board member. >> Mr. Chairman, >> Mr. Loy, you're recognized. >> I apologize for not directing my question through you. That's okay. >> Um when was this referral first received
by the board? Do we know? >> I don't I don't have that immediately on my hand, but >> the Yes. Discuss that. >> Well, I'm sorry. We we should just make sure maybe from uh our clerk or our oro
or or our board secretary, whoever would have that information >> to make sure it's an accurate answer coming from the appropriate official. I believe the statute requires that the referral come from the governor. Right.
Correct. >> So I'm curious as to that because if we don't act within 45 days from the referral date then it's moot. >> Correct. Well I wouldn't say it's moot.
uh the opinion may be that um we have a 45day period within to which to conduct a courtesy review and if one if that period expires without doing so I don't believe the governing I believe the governing body can proceed with the public expenditure
>> uh uh so because our 45day >> referral opportunity would have expired >> so I'm trying to get a handle on >> it's a good question as to when it starts can I chime in just for a second >> it's up to the chair always Absolutely. Thank you. >> Okay. Um so
what I do have um in terms of my comments as to the public agency submittal to the planning board that's dated August 27th, 2025. >> I'm sorry, 27th.
>> August 28. It says 827 25. >> We can hopefully double check that. So that's 12 days ago. >> Okay. I think there's any number of matters of law for the board to discuss
with our council. >> Yeah. What what I'm with the chair's permission uh and August can continue to check that if there's no further inquiries from the board at this time of Mr. Simon, I think it would be not only
appropriate but prudent uh for us to go into executive session since there is pending litigation uh so that I can advise the board accordingly with respect to the objections that have been raised and the impacts thereof uh and so for that reason and uh I
usually have a resolution I'm sorry did you >> you could ch you could sit as far as I'm concerned the the the the uh I would normally read a resolution. I I don't have it handy, but uh I can certainly
from memory do the material points. Uh so uh what I would ask is for a motion and a second and a roll call vote to go into executive session uh for purposes of the uh open public meetings act uh
exemption under 12B7 uh for uh threatened or actual litigation uh or attorney and I'm paraphrasing attorney client privilege uh uh uh communications to be made in order that the uh attorney may abide by
his obligation, his or her obligation uh to provide uh attorney client advice to the board. It's one of the explicit exemptions to the open public meetings act permitting us to go into an executive or closed session for me to
provide that legal advice to the board based on the information I've just been provided. uh and then after which we would come out that uh minutes will be taken of the executive session uh and the results and the minutes of that
executive session ultimately will be made available when the reasons for maintaining the confidentiality no longer exist. I'm doing what I would grade as about a C++ on paraphrasing uh uh the statute from memory. Um but those
are the material terms uh of uh a resolution to go into executive session. Uh so with that uh and the as always the board's per uh chairman's uh permission uh we should have a motion second a roll call vote to go into executive. >> We have a motion to enter into executive
session. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> And a roll call vote. Jessica if you can. >> Chairman Spur. >> Yes. >> Mayor Fagan. >> Yes. >> Council member Hammet. >> Yes. Miss Bowen, >> yes. >> Mr. Donaso, >> yes.
>> Mr. Loy, >> yes. >> Mr. Solah, >> yes. >> Okay. All right. We're going to ask the public to exit the council chambers temporarily. >> Is that how we're going to do? Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, I don't know. Jessica, is there a room available? >> We could go in the council. >> We can go back here.
>> Want me to rather? Is that easier? Have everybody else stay put? >> I don't know if there's a room available. I don't want to use >> We can use council. Then we would have to kill all the uh we would have to turn off all the >> audio visual >> audio >> and then put it back on again after. >> Correct. >> So hopefully someone other than myself
does because I don't have that. >> I'm an attorney. I shouldn't touch anything. >> We have we have someone >> there's a guy there's a guy shutting down the stream for now. >> Yeah. >> And just confirmed that we are in executive session. >> You want to turn off the stream. Is that
it? Uh we're going to black out the stream and the audio for executive session and then we will return into an open session. >> So we have come no one should be able to see or hear anything being discussed in this closed session amongst this. >> Then I have then I have to completely
stop this stream. I can't just like turn off the cameras. But >> are you able to then turn it back on again when we go back into open public session? >> Yeah. >> Okay. If it's not too much trouble, that looks like what we're going to have to do. and and that includes Yeah, this is only
for the board members and the board professionals. >> Uh city solicitor can stay uh because