We're here. Good evening and welcome. This is the City of Summit's June 23rd planning board meeting and I'm Jennifer Ballson Alvarez and I'm filling in today for Chairman Spur who has been excused from this meeting. Um, now let's all please rise for the pledge of
allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Okay.
Uh, acting board secretary Sans, can you please share the adequate notice statement? Absolutely. In accordance with New Jersey statute 10 col4-10, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the newspapers of record and
has been posted here in city hall. For the benefit of the interested public, this meeting is being livereamed to the city's YouTube page and also broadcast on Summit's government channel, which is Comcast channel 34 and Verizon channel 30. 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. Great. Thank you. Um, can you do the
roll call now, please? Miss Chairman Spur is excused. Vice Chair Balsson Alvarez here. Mayor Fagan here. Council member Hamlet here. Miss Bowen here. Mr. Delmaso here. Mr. Felman is
excused. Mr. Formachelli here. Mr. Mr. Ljoy here. Mr. Salah, Mr. Stern here. We have a quorum and you may proceed with the meeting. Great. Thank you. Okay. Um, I'd like to take one item out of order. I'd like to uh
propose the resolution to appoint our acting board secretary as our official board secretary. So, do we have a motion to uh And if I may, Madam Chair, we do have a resolution that was distributed to the board. So we could go right to the uh motion to adopt that resolution if it's
accurate. So move second. Thank you. All right. So we need to do a roll call vote for that. Vice Chair Balsson Alvarez. Yes. Mayor Fagan. Yes. Council member Hamlet. Yes. Miss Bowen. Yes. Mr.
Delmaso. Yes. Mr. Formachelli. Yes. Mr. Loy. Yes. And Mr. Stern. Yes. Great. Congratulations. Welcome. All right. We have a new board secretary. Yes. Okay. So, um I'd also
like to introduce our public board uh planning board officials uh and consultants. So, we have Steve Warernner here, our planning board attorney. Joe Burgess and Tom Brennan's here tonight, our planners, and Miss Holmes, our uh
housing attorney uh for this special meeting. And um thank you for being here. Pleasure. Okay. Um we're now going to turn to the next item on our agenda, the round four housing element and fair share plan hearing. Our city planner, Mr. Burgess
will present information on Summit's proposed housing element and fair share plan. After his presentation, the planning board may ask questions followed by the public question and comment period. At the conclusion of the public question and comment period, Mr.
Burgess and Miss Holm and if we have other officials that want to chime in, we'll address all questions asked. So, take it away. And Madam Chair, if I may swear Mr. Burgess in uh 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. So help you God. I do. Okay. Thank you. And please feel free to provide your credentials and and make the presentation. Certainly. I have a master's degree in city and regional planning from Rutgers University
uh some time ago. Um I'm licensed by the state of New Jersey as a professional planner, license number 2450. um certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners and a member of the American Planning Association.
Burgess Associates was formed back in 1988. Um over the course of all those years, uh we have represented in excess of 100 municipalities throughout the state. Uh at present, we represent 43 municipalities
uh doing affordable housing issues. There are others that we're not doing affordable housing issues for. Uh in addition to that I have a special expertise in the issue of with the issue of affordable housing. I was special master for quite a number of judges
throughout the state. you know, when that process began and with the fourth round when the state created a new process and they established what what's called the affordable housing dispute resolution program, they had appointed seven
uh retired affordable housing judges to oversee the the initial steps of the process. Uh, one of those seven um had to vacate the position because of an illness, but of the remaining six, I was serving as special adjudicator for all
of those six judges, reviewing plans and helping mediate disputes between the affordable housing numbers that they received and uh what the judges recommended to the individual visage uh
affordable housing judge. very well qualified. Okay. So, uh what I'd like to do qualified. Thank you. What I would like to do is spend about 30 minutes making a presentation going around the state as I have especially
over the past few weeks as town started to have their public hearings on their housing plans. I found that in the audience as well as with the board boards um there are some people that are very knowledgeable about the issue and on the other hand there are some that aren't. So I thought it might be
beneficial to take a few minutes uh to present some background information and data uh on the overall affordable housing issue and explain it in some detail and then we'll get into the specifics of Summit's plan. Um, as had
been indicated, this is the public hearing on the housing element and fair share plan. This is a statemandated document and it is an element of the city's master plan. The municipal land use law identifies over a dozen uh
separate elements that can comprise a master plan. But the two elements that every municipality must have is a land use element which we have and a housing element and fair share plan. And without a housing element and fair share plan
the way the statute is worded uh a municipality cannot have a zoning ordinance. So to make sure we have a zoning ordinance for a variety of other reasons as well uh it is important to adopt a housing element in fair share plan. Now, this affordable housing issue
is not a new issue. Um, it goes back to 1975 when the Supreme Court of the state of New Jersey uh approved the original Mount Laurel one decision. At that time, the Supreme Court ruled that every
developing municipality in the state has to provide for its uh constitutional obligation to address its fair share housing needs. And in a second decision in 1983, they refined that decision to say that every municipality has such an
obligation. And the only distinction that they were making is that those municipalities that were in the develop developing area of the state plan had a greater obligation that those that were not in the developed developing area of
the state plan. But they also said that while every municipality has this obligation, they felt it was incumbent upon the state legislature to adopt legislation to really address the issue and take the bull by the horns. And the state did that in 1986. They adopted the
Fair Housing Act. And then the following year, they created the Council on Affordable Housing, commonly referred to as COA. And the following year after that in 1987, KOA published housing need numbers for everybody, every
municipality in the state and adopted the regulations that we had to follow through. Initially, um, every housing round covered a six-year period beginning with the third round that changed at some point in the
early 2000s to a 10-year period, but that's neither here nor there. Um we are now in the fourth round of affordable housing uh responsibility and with this round the state has substantially modified
the process and the timelines under which we uh are to act. Now you had heard me mention earlier that the state had created this affordable housing dispute resolution program. This was the very first step in the process. Uh, and I'll
get into the timeline in a moment, how that all fits in, but that's that's the creation of that entity with the se six retired affordable housing judges was something new and never a part of the process before that. And we'll get into
the time time frame in one moment. But what I would like to do is review the timelines for action so everybody understands, you know, what these timelines are, what they're about, and why they are important. I will then describe what New Jersey has defined as
affordable housing so we understand what it means and what more importantly it doesn't mean because quite often when I go around the state, there's this impression that we're talking about the hardcore poor and clearly that is not the case. And I'll explain that in a
moment. Then we'll discuss what our affordable housing number is, including what the state originally has given us or DCA, Department of Community Affairs, has given us and then how we are entitled to adjust it based on the fact that we're a fully developed
municipality. And I'll talk about that process and then conclude with what our plan is all about. I would like to highlight a few simple facts at the outset. DCA, the Department of Community Affairs, has established
the initial determination of need. And they did so by initially calculating statewide what that need is. And they had determined that statewide New Jersey needs about 86,000 affordable units over the next 10-year
period. That period would start July 1 of this year and go through June 30th 30th of 2035. Um the state is broken up into six different housing regions and they distributed that number amongst those
six regions and then took those numbers by region and distributed them out to the individual municipalities. Now DCA has initially determined that summit has an affordable housing obligation of 345
affordable dwelling units. Now, I would venture a guess that if I asked for a show of hands, virtually everyone in this room would probably agree that that's an excessive number given the fact that you're a fully developed municipality. And you'd be right u because of that
fact. But having said that, I know that some of you have questioned why back in January Summit accepted that number to start the process. And it we accepted that number for a very simple reason. It's because
the legislation that was enacted by the state legislature limited the assessment as to whether DCA properly applied their methodology uh whether they applied that methodology properly. It did not talk about whether
or not you agreed with the methodology and they did. Our review of the methodology for for some it indicated that they applied the methodology correctly. However, that does not preclude the municipality from seeking a
vacant land adjustment to reduce that number consistent with certain very specific regulations. And in our resolution where we identify the fact that we're accepting that 345 unit number, we did specifically state that we will be seeking a vacant land
adjustment and what's called a determination of our realistic development potential uh based on the regulations and and also based on the fact that in the prior rounds we also had received a vacant land adjustment. And we're just going to continue with
this with that fact. Now, it was actually a good thing that we did and I'll tell you why. Because those towns that attacked the methodology um did not fare very well in this process. In fact, those towns that
attacked the methodology had objections to their determination uh with the provide with the understanding that they used an improper analysis that was inconsistent with the legislation. And those objections also indicated that
the reality was in many instances that the their number should actually have been increased rather than decreased because the methodology actually called for a greater number. I always cite one municipality in particular that sought their number to
be reduced by about 25 units because of the fact that they felt the methodology was improper and their assessment suggested a slightly lower number. The response by the objectors was that that was improper but also that that town's
number should be increased by 202 units. We avoided all that. We accepted the number. We've now prepared a plan that deals with the vacant land adjustment and have come up with a much lower realistic development potential that
we're comfortable. And by avoiding all that, you avoided the expense of that fight and you're going to end up in the same place where you would have ended up anyway. So the only other background information I want to highlight is that
I said there are four housing rounds. The first one was between 1987 and 93 and then the second was between 19 u they extended it to the first combined first and second round. So it was 1987
through 1999. During that time the council on affordable housing established the numbers they established the regulations beginning with the third round um at the end of n beginning in 1999.
They changed the rules of the game and they changed it dramatically and consistently people objected to their methodology and consistently coel lost. And that third round, although it was supposed to go for a 10-year period,
it turned out it dragged on for a 16-year period. went from 1999 um for 16 to 2015 when the Supreme Court finally ruled that COA had become so dysfunctional that the courts were
taking over the process and that's where we are still up until this now fourth round. So let's talk a little bit about our first slide where we talk about the program and the timeline. Now, DCA was
required to publish um preliminary housing need numbers for every municipality and they did so by late October of 2024. Now, since then, there is a time frame for the month of January that
municipalities could look at that number and determine whether it met the method, it was done consistent with the methodology or not. And that was done and had to be completed in a resolution filed by the end of January of 2025.
In the month of February, anybody could object to that number and many municipalities had objections. Department of excuse me, um the New Jersey Builders Association, for example, filed 159 objections to plans.
uh fair share housing center uh was a little more discreet than that. They filed 68 objections to individual plans and there was some overlap between those two entities. In other instances, individual developers filed objections to plans and
in a few other instances just interested citizens filed objections to the way the towns were determining whether the methodology was done properly or not. And it wasn't until after February 28th when we learned that no
one had filed an objection to Summit's determination. That was a good thing. So, beginning with March of 2025, we began to seriously review with the with the governing body and periodically
with the planning board and subcommittee that was formed uh reviewing what our analysis was beginning to show in terms of what our need actually was through a vacant land adjustment process and what our realistic development potential was
going to be. Now that process was spelled out in the in the legislation. It was somewhat similar to the prior process but also had some other significant changes and nuances. So for example uh you would first have to look at and map all vacant land in the
community which we did and then you overlay on that map all environmental constraints that are spelled out in the legislation. So we looked at wetlands, we looked at flood planes, we we looked at wetland buffer requirements, flood
plane buffer requirements, seaw stream buffers and their buffer requirements. And we determined out of all the vacant land in the community, how little of that vacant land was actually developable. and that helped lead us to
our RDP, our realistic development potential, which from now on I'll refer to as RDP. Um, and through that process, we then began to put together the plan uh working with this uh subcommittee in town and then
informing the governing body and occasionally also meeting with the planning board. We are now at that point where the statute mandates that we have to file a plan by the end of this month. Why is that critical? It's critical
because the legislation says that if a municipality does not file by June 30th, you will lose your immunity from any exclusionary zoning litigation and any developer could come forward and sue you. That's why that is so important.
It's the last thing you want to see happen. Now, I know there are some people that are upset with the idea, they hear this statewide, that towns are meeting in the month of June to adopt the plan, and that doesn't give
the public that much say in the matter. The reality is however that we can amend the plan anytime we want to amend the plan and depending on what we hear from the public for example this evening you might choose over the summer to amend
the plan. Now the other important steps is that beginning July 1 and through the month of July and through the month of August anybody can file an objection to your plan. And it's the same cast of characters
that I mentioned before. Fair share housing center, the builders association, developers, or just interested citizens can file objections beginning in September. The six judges that I mentioned earlier
come back into play because they will get to evaluate these objections. Now they are obligated by the legislation that once they begin the review of a town's obje objection to a town they have 10 days to make a
recommendation to the individual vicinage affordable housing judge because remember these people are retired judges. So all they do is make a recommendation to the affordable housing judge and
that's when it we we believe this process is going to slow down a little bit just like in the first step of the process where these affordable housing program judges were supposed to have
everything completed by the end of March. That just didn't happen. In the large measure it did, but there are many municipalities that didn't get their number until, you know, sometime in April, sometime in May. I had, and
again, they make a recommendation to the court. I had one town where we had our public hearing a week and a half ago and the affordable housing judge decided last week as this beginning of you know
last week that the number that was selected they did not agree with and they actually called for a a lower number the number that we had actually recommended initially that the affordable housing retire judge didn't agree with. So now we have to go back
into in uh July and amend our housing plan to reflect that lower number which only helped them. So that's where the process has slowed down a bit. So the process you know will continue the judges were going to make their
decisions whenever they make them and make a recommendation to the affordable housing judge. And at that point, and I had said this before in a public meeting, in all likelihood, the one that loses that decision will probably go for
an appeal. And then the appeal could take place through the winter or even into the spring, I'm being told. Um, before all of this gets resolved. The reason why I bring all that up is there are certain provisions in the
legislation that were written in such a way that it leaves a lot for interpretation. There's one provision in particular. The statute, excuse me, the legislation says that for vacant land adjustment municipalities, and we are one,
uh, you are obligated to provide 25% of your prospective need as it has been adjusted. That's the quote. And there's multiple interpretations as to what that actually means. We have taken the position that we're taking the words as
they are written and historically when you talk about an adjusted perspective need number that is RDP. So we would be taking 25% of our RDP which is 18 and then add that onto the 18 and have to
deal with that number um through and that additional number gets dealt with through redevelopment. Fair Share Housing Center has gone on record as saying it's 25% of unmet need.
Well, if our unmet need is 327, they are suggesting that our uh plan has to address 61 additional units. That's roughly what 25% of 327 is. Um, it doesn't seem likely that
that's a correct interpretation only because if you've already proven that you don't have enough vacant land or land to enable that level of development, why would the legislature then turn around and say, irrespective of the fact that you've proven your case, we're going to
throw a lot more units at you. And in that instance, it's not just 61 because typically you do inclusionary development to meet your obligation. So it would be 61* 5 or over 300 additional units in your municipality that just has
there's no room for. So we're comfortable with our interpretation, but it's one of those issues that's not going to be decided, you know, for quite a number of months yet. So, one of the questions we often get
asked is what is the income limit that qualifies one for affordable housing? And I don't know if anybody could read that here. I have a I know I can. Yeah, I
have a Thank you. So for our housing region, we are in housing region uh number two and uh for example a moderate income
threeperson household can have an income of $97,400 in income qualify for affordable housing. a twoerson um lowincome household could have an
income of $54,50 and qualify. The regulations actually go from a household of one to an eight person household and they have a broad range of incomes based on that. But I always talk about a threeperson
household is a good s gives you a good sense of what the numbers are would be. So, the way they've defined affordable housing, um, if you have 80% of your
region's median income, that qualifies as affordable housing and low-income housing is 50% of your region's median income. I don't think I'll need that. So the housing document that we have
before us is broken up into two basic sections. There's a housing element and then there's the plan. The housing element I'm not going to spend any time on. It's a lot of the statistical data from the census. Uh it provides information on you know population. It
provides information on employment and provides information on a whole host of 2010 and 2020 census data. Uh which may make interesting reading for some people but if we talked about it here I
inesticize everybody in the room and I don't want to do that. Um there is one thing I do want to bring up though because it's kind of funny. Um, for the the regulations also ask that you try to bring forward to is a more
current date than the 2020 census. And you use the American Community Survey to do that. And these are projections of what increases in population or housing stock and the like would be. And if you look at a table where they talk about
what your household, your housing types are about, whether it's single family, two family, multif family, or the like, there is a reference to the fact that Summit has 370 mobile homes. Now, we do point out in the text that that is
obviously a mistake. Um, they obviously carried that over from some other town, but um, you know, mistakes happen. And that's the most glaring one that that we found. And I just wanted to bring it to everybody's attention. If they saw it and were wondering what that was all
about, it was clearly an error. Now, in terms of the next slide, um, how were the various or the most recent housing period round addressed in the third round,
which ends this weekend, I guess. um they had projected that your obligation was for four 567 units. Now through a vacant land adjustment like I had described earlier,
we had reduced that to a 36 unit RDP suggesting that our unmet need in the third round was 531 units. Now, the city in a settlement agreement with Fairshair Housing Center agree to provide for that
36 unit RDP and also um address at least 50 units or facilitate uh the provision of 50 units of our unmet need obligation. And on the chart before you, again, it's really unfortunate that it's too small
to read. Um all the 36 units are identified in that slide that were used to address our RDP. It include a series of groups group homes. It included the uh sunrise assisted living facility and
the Medicaid beds that are associated with that. It included a Habitat for Humanity project on Mars Avenue. It included a Tiger Baron project on Mars Avenue. and a palm
place inclusionary development. Uh in each and every one of those instances, the projects are built and completed. So we've addressed the entirety of our third round RDP obligation. Um there also two projects um regarding
Summit Place and Franklin Place that were also addressed. That's a combined RDP for prayer round and third round. Just make sure you say that. Oh yes. Um and in point of fact that does regard both the first and second round obligation as well as the third round
RDP. The next slide shows how we are addressing the 50 units of unmet need. Um this is also part of the consent order with Fairshare Housing Center which they agreed to. It includes a 100%
affordable senior project. Um and there has been a memorandum of understanding with BCUW and Methodist Church on that regarding that site. United Way. Correct. H BCW Bergen County
United Way. Correct. Yes. Um there is no formal plan for that site, but it's a the possibility. This enables the possibility of it happening. At 412 Mars Avenue, there is a one unitit
affordable um affordable unit that's occupied at 146 Mars Habitat for Humanity constructed and has filled the 12 unit project. At 123 to 127 Summit Avenue,
there's a three units of family affordable units which are occupied. At 557 565 Mars, there is a 46 unit project of which seven affordables are there. Um that has been approved but not yet
built. Um there's a our house uh project contemplated as a future group home somewhere in the municipality and we have an agreement with our house uh for them to find such a site for special needs housing and then we also
have in the planning phase St. Teresa's 100% affordable project of 11 units uh which is I said in the planning phase. Now that leads us to the fourth round obligation. Now as I had said our
perspective need number was for four 345 units. We have reduced that to an 18 unit RDP through the vacant land adjustment. Um, in addition to that, we have a rehabilitation obligation that was set
at 59 units, but through a structural condition survey with the construction official in the municipality, we have reduced that to a 10 unit obligation, which we are dealing with through our housing trust fund. Now, because the
city has received a vacant land adjustment in the third round, we are entitled to rely on that established RDP, we don't have to recount any vacant sites or any of the sites that were included at that time. So, for the
fourth round, we just have to look at any changed circumstances. And for the RDP calculation itself, uh we uh looked at a site, a vacant site
on Fry Tuck Circle. Um we looked at a site at 53 and 47 Shunpike Road. We included the Summit Firehouse site. Uh 190 River Road we included at the change circumstance. And we also talked about
the Harmon's holding site. Now, we used a presumptive minimum density of anywhere from 6 to 12 units to the acre consistent with the regulations and came up with, you know, what that total was.
And you take 20% of that figure to figure out what our RDP is. Now having included these sites in our RDP calculation, we are not obligated to zone those particular sites. We could take that number and distribute them
anywhere we see fit and that's what we have done. Now for context because I know there's always a concern about you know how is this RDP calculation being used around the state or around summit. So we looked
at all the adjoining municipalities in Summit. There are seven municipalities that abut your border and in one instance Berkeley height Berkeley Township and they did not ask for a vacant land adjustment but in all six
other municipalities they have asked for substantial vacant land adjustments. For example, Chadam Burough was assigned by DCA a1 unit obligation. Their RDP is for five units.
Chadam Township, DCA gave them 156 units. They had a 4unit RDP. Um, Milbour had a 550 unit DCA number that was reduced to a 7UNT
RDP. Mountainside Burrow had 171 units assigned by DCA. They have a zero RDP in their housing plan. Uh same with New Providence. They were given 210 units.
They have a zero unit RDP. And Springfield had 284 units given to them. They had a 13 unit RDP. So if we just look at those six towns that reduced their number, they were given by uh DCA
a total of 1,552 units of obligation. And that was reduced to 29 units in total. That's about a 1.9% portion of that total obligation that they were initially given. On the other
hand, where we've reduced our 345 to 18 units, that's about a 5% 5% of the total 345. Just to give you a sense of where we fit in. Now, in terms of satisfying that RDP,
we've identified five different projects. We have on Summit Place, the Summit, excuse me, at uh 708 to 710 Springfield Avenue. Um there are constructed and occupied and approved by
the courts a 4unit family project. Secondly, at 785 Springfield Avenue, there's two units of family units. We get one bonus credit for rental housing. So, we're getting three credits from that that is also constructed and
occupied at 545 Mars Avenue. Uh we have five units of family units there which are constructed and occupied, but they're rental. So, we get two rental bonus credits for a total of seven credits. At 86 Park Avenue, there is two
units of family units. the rentals, you get one bonus credit that's also constructed and occupied. And then there's Harmon's Holdings at Broad and Ashwood and Mars Avenue. Now, there we're talking about
a 20 unit project with four units of affordable housing in it. Now, that site already has an overlay zone attached to it. And that overlay zone, Tom, correct me if I'm wrong, is designed for about
23,000 square feet of space. Well, just to clarify, it's not currently an overlay zone, but it has existing zoning that would allow Excuse me. Right. The existing zoning would allow uh as of right essentially mo much of the project as proposed from
a density perspective, from a height perspective, from a bulk standards perspective. Okay. Thank you for that, chair. So question. Yes. Can we I just want to make sure that the public understands um the as of right the 23,000. I just want
I think it's important to to educate the public on on that number zoning of that property allows you to microphone please. Right. So um majority going to swear you
Mr. Barren as well. Do you swear to God affirm testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. And and I know you're a planner as well, licensed in the state of New Jersey. You're our planner along with Mr. Burgess, and you work with them together. Correct. That's right. Thank you. Please proceed. Very good. Thank
you. Good evening. Tom Barren, a planner with Burgess Associates. So, uh to address the issue of the Harmon holding site, right? So, a portion of the site is located in the NV zone, which is the neighborhood business zone, which allows mixeduse development. Um, it allows non-residential uses, a list of
non-residential uses on the first floor and residential above as of right. So, somebody could build there today using that zoning framework. And as far as the actual dimensional requirements or bulk requirements as we refer to them, they tend to be fairly relaxed as they currently exist, meaning that there are
no setback requirements. So, the building could be as close as zero feet to I believe it's the front side and rear lot lines of uh that particular site. In this case, the development has actually pushed the building back in some respects to allow for um some space
uh from the residential units to the west, I believe it is, and to allow for some landscaping in in certain areas. Um I believe the building or excuse me, the development as proposed is also significantly less from an impervious coverage standpoint. Um it uh provides
sufficient parking to accommodate the residential units and the the uh the non-residential aspect of it. um the the building at least the concept. So first of all there's no plan per se. There's a zoning framework that's included in the plan. Right? So the subsequent step is that there'd be an ordinance that would
be adopted. Then based on that ordinance the developer would go to the planning board which are both public processes um with a formal plan to vet the actual uh how the site would be constructed. So um the concept that we've built the zoning
framework around has the building set back at least 47 ft from the residential property to the west. So so it was taken into consideration that you know we try to minimize any impacts to that uh adjacent uh you know corridor of single
family homes that exist there. Um, and really the only deviations from the existing zoning ordinance are uh a bit over on the floor area ratio by uh a few thousand square feet as well as the building coverage really to uh facilitate the parking necessary for development. I would also acknowledge
that the original proposal was for 33 units in a 100% residential project and that had been modified over time because the feedback originally from the mount the city's Mount Laurel subcommittee was that that it was way off um not even close to the city zoning. So, the thought was, you know, why don't you try
to see what you could do to come back uh closer to the city zoning. And when we finally got their last offer as part of this uh fourth round vetting process, at that point, it was uh brought to the public's attention for for comment. And that was the last meeting. And again, that was the point at which the city had
received the developers really last offer for consideration as to whether or not it would be included in the plan. So again, we've gone from 33 units to 22 20 units, which is almost a 50% reduction in the number of residential units. If the building were to be built as of right today, you'd get a little over
23,000 square ft, which if you translated that to about a,000 gross uh thousand square feet of gross floor area per unit, you could build about 23 units as of right. again. Um, and I would also offer that by limiting the amount of non-residential use, often those those
uses as listed uh as permitted in the zone tend to be more intense, meaning that they have higher rates of parking turnover. Um, and because the list is so expansive, you you could have uses there as of right that might be less desirable, frankly. Um and I believe
that at least based on the conceptual um designs that have been presented as part of the process that the developer uh is interested in constructing a building that's uh that's fits with the character of summit and in accordance with the development regulations ordinance.
Thank you. Well, uh the only other item that I want to talk about is the components to address unmet need. As I said, that's the difference between 345 and the 18. It's 327 units. We are not obligated to
address the entirety of that. This is historically been referred to as an aspirational number and you have to identify the fact that you're trying to achieve some component of that. The experience historically has been a towns are
usually dealing with about 30% of that number if that. Um in this instance we have a number of sites that have been um identified as potential. Uh probably the most significant one is we do identify
the fact that the Summit Housing Authority property uh was included in this list. The reason why we've included it in this list is if the Summit Housing Authority ever wants to relinquish the residency preference that
is now imposed, um they could then apply for state funding and be if they would then have access to literally millions of dollars of potential funding. Um, putting it on this list does not change
the status of the residential residential uh, preference, but it certainly facilitates uh, the ability of the housing authority if this were ever to change that they would have immediate access uh, to some
significant funds. Um, as it stands now, the state does not give funds um without being part of a housing plan. Theoretically, the plan could can be changed in the future to designate it as such, but as
I've said to other municipalities in similar situations, do it here while you can because you don't know who's going to control things tomorrow. or in this way at least you've given the the housing authority as much flexibility as possible.
So um with that um I do want to talk about the next steps because as I said at the outset you are obligated if you want to protect yourself from any potential affordable housing litigation
you are obligated to adopt a document by the end of this month. Um the governing body is also obligated and I believe they're scheduled for this tomorrow uh to simply in adopt a
resolution endorsing uh this plan um throughout the state that is not the subject of discussion because the housing plan is a planning board document not a governing body document.
Um so typically there's no public discussion on the endorsement. The public discussion takes place here and we'll start I guess when I'm finished. Um, as I had said previously, following that, there's two months where we have
to wait to see what objections may arise. And then beginning in September, the the retired judges come back into play and start reviewing any disputes. And presumably, I'll be working with
them on on towns that I do not represent. So, I won't be doing that for you. Um, and that's basically the plan. Um, it's fairly straightforward. I think you're in a good position. I would like to to say that our vacant land
adjustment and RDP analysis was done in a conservative way to make sure that it should pass critical assessment by others and we're comfortable with the numbers that we have uh presented. Um,
will they hold up in the end? you know, they might get adjusted a bit. That sometimes happens. Uh, but we're very comfortable with the process as we've dealt with it. Thank you. You're welcome. So, what I would suggest, unless the board has
questions, I would open it up to the public, uh, I will be taking notes as to the questions they or comments they make and then I may come back and then respond. Okay. You can say that. You want to do public uh question? Oh, I think I think we're
going to start with planning board. Well, that's what I thought, but you just said something else. The the the the uh and as I understood it, Madam Chair, please correct me if I'm wrong, but planning board members may have some questions for Mr. Burgess andor Mr. Barren andor Miss Home. That's right. Um uh and the remote possibility of uh me
as well. uh the the the the the um and then if I understand correctly from our discussion prior uh the process would be uh maybe after a short break uh that members of the public uh will be sworn uh individually uh so that you have the
opportunity to ask questions and or make comments whatever you wish one the other or both uh and in an efficient and uh uh effective way uh Mr. Barren excuse me Mr. Burgess and Mr. uh you know we'll keep track of all the questions all the comments as will the
board members and I understand the chair will be directing as appropriate uh the vast majority if not all the questions to Mr. Burgess for response because he is the planner. It is a planning document and that is what is being adopted by the planning board this evening. Notwithstanding the fact that
it has implications for the city as a whole and the city as a whole is responsible for the constitutional obligation to satisfy the prospective need obligation for the 10th round. So that's my understanding of the process. Would that be accurate madam chair?
Thank you. Yes. Good. I got it right. Do any of the planning board member Mr. Stern Joe can you educate the public on if we don't file a plan by the 30th
what are the ramifications of losing immunity with the state? The ramifications are drastic. Um in other instances where that has happened, developers who may have proposed a 100 units in one place came back to propose
two or 300 units. I think the most critical case was the um Englewood Cliffs case where they not only lost um their ability to uh prepare their own
housing plan that they turned it over to a special master who prepared the plan for them. And because they were so deficient in the way they approached the issue that the court also took away their power to even review the site
plans for those sites and it was the special master that reviewed those plans and approved them on behalf of the municipality. Um it's a critical step you know especially where we have certain sites that we included for RDP
purposes as we are required to do so um but did not include them in the plan. um such developers you know are I'm sure will be taking a very critical look at how you proceed and if you don't do things according to the legislation you
know you may see them come back with much greater project size projects than they initially even contemplated I have a question for Joe and maybe Austo um do you have any experience with other towns releasing their residency
requirements for their low-income housing and what has that done to turn over or what effect does that have to someone who already lives in that unit? I'm assuming none, but I am only familiar with one other municipality
that had a residential preference and they eliminated it because they wanted access to that money that I referred to. um the the residents didn't move weren't forced to move out. They could stay, but
when they moved out, then those units had to become available to the housing, you know, the region. Um so was there more turnover than you would expect? Less the No, there was there was not a lot of turnover at all because those that had that original preference
weren't being forced to move out. it was just when they moved out that the unit would become available to you know the region at large. Um there's been a limited number of such units that had been that had turned over and it was a
mixture of local residents who got the unit anyway and I would say it was about a 50/50 split between the handful of units that became available that were still continued uh when the changeover occurred continued to be occupied by the
local town residents versus people from outside the town. I think Miss Holm, you wanted to add to that? Uh, yes. So, um, and just for the record, I'm not going to swear in Miss Holm. She's an officer of the court. She's the affordable housing attorney for the city of Summit. Please. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Um,
so I have I, uh, represent the city of Hackinack uh, where we actually had this uh, approved by the court in round three. Um, the Hackinack Housing Authority. Um we made we entered into an agreement with them that at a date in the future because you have to advertise
the units. Uh so we picked uh four months in the future from the date of the agreement. Um we advertised uh that these units were going to be were going to become available effective let's say it was October 31st of whatever year that was. Um I don't remember the date
though so I'm just making one up. Um what happened between the time that we executed the agreement and October 31st was it was advertised. Everyone that's already on the list uh for the housing authority stays on the list. Um they
just don't get automatically pushed to the top of the list anymore. So what happens is everyone who's on the list who's was a majority of residents uh in Hackinack um stayed on the list and then it was advertised so new people could
apply for those units. Um then they take the list and they randomize it so it's a lottery. Um and what happens is any vacancy after that date in the future so let's say November 1st if there's a vacancy on November 1st all you do is
use the new randomized list. So no one no one's removed from their from their unit if they already live there. It's a matter of when when that turnover occurs. And historically I I don't know the turnover rate within Summit, but
it's you know it it takes a while. So um but all that was required was that we just now use this new list and that's the only that's the only difference that uh would be the removal of the residency preference. But no one gets kicked off the list. They just it may be that they
get jumbled up and it's they're no longer number one. They might be number five or they might be you know so that's that's how that process in simple terms the preference is removed. Correct. But not the people. Correct. Yes. Did anybody else have any questions? I
have Joe if you could just touch base on a couple of things. Uh looking at your timeline, I just wanted for matter of public record to include uh we did have two uh listening sessions which were I think it was April 29th for the planning board, April 25th I think it was and May
29th. May 29th. So just for matter of public record, we did have two um public listening sessions for those. But can you talk a little bit about how other municipalities have been handling this process? It be and this has been expedited. I I will tell you you are unusual in that the fact that you had
those two. Most municipalities the first time the public is learning of the plan is when it gets filed for the public hearing 10 days before the hearing. Right. And coming to the planning board for the hearing is the first time they've ever gotten a chance to uh talk
to the board about it. And the reason for that is that when the courts took over the system, it became a legal issue. And I'll let the lawyers in the room talk about that. Always blame the lawyers. I love blaming the lawyers. Um,
but all of a sudden it became a legal issue with the potential for litigation. And once there's the potential for litigation, that's when boards had to and governing bodies had to go into close session because you had to discuss litig potential litigation and that was
the problem. So the fact that you had two open sessions before the public hearing uh in my experience and as I said we were doing 43 of these things for towns. Um no one's done that. No one's had that before. Right. And I
think that's important for the public to understand that that these matters were of litigation and and as Mr. Burgess said, you know, that is why these discussions have to happen with with May I supplement that answer? Yes. Having uh similar a little less than 43 experience
myself and other municipalities. I would concur with Mr. Burgess that the city of summit has been exemplary in the in the magnitude and the frequency of getting all stakeholders involved including most important stakeholder respectively uh
well everyone here just about a resident the residents of the of the city of summit. So, uh, and I will not name all the other municipalities that I'm involved in, uh, having now said that the city of Summit, uh, stands above all the rest. Um, but then hopefully they're not watching. I'm in trouble. But, but,
uh, the the elsewhere at least, but but, uh, but it is a fact. So, and and they'd have to recognize that fact. And I'd say it's also, as I think we're all too painfully aware, it's not just the fact that it was litigation, but also the fact that the statute required quite a
bit of the municipalities as well as even the judiciary uh to do quite a bit uh in a extraordinarily if not ridiculously compressed time frame. So when you hear things like in Joe's
example earlier this evening of another municipality, they actually didn't have their order from the court establishing their number in time. They got it after they adopted their plan to satisfy the
number. Uh literally uh it was uh the cart came before the horse. Uh so uh the legislature did what the legislature did the way they did it. Uh and the municipalities and the judicial system
frankly uh had very little if any uh ability to do anything other than abide by it including these arguably draconian compressed time frames. Yeah. If I could just add to that because I've always said that a housing element in fair
share plan will typically take six to nine months to prepare. The state gave us three and basically three and a half months to do that. And on top of it, they then turned around and said, and every municipality in the state has to do it within that three and
a half months period, which you know, we've got a lot of planners on our staff, and I would say everybody was working six and seven days a week since April. It's been an experience. I'm sorry for the interruption. I didn't
even ask for the chair's permission, so I apologize to everybody. No, that's okay. Council, do you have any other questions? No, not right now. May I just I want to just correct that I think the dates um for the listening sessions the April date was the 28th just to be
correct and May 29th. Okay. I heard 20th and Yeah. Yeah. Um any other questions? I have a question. Um so you mentioned that we could um
still change the plan after the 30th. Correct. Yes. you know, your your strong advice is keep your immunity. This is a compliant plan. You know, we understand that is the single most critical thing I could try to impress upon everybody
adopt this plan and then based on what we hear from the public, you know, it may be that we in over the summer, you know, whenever we'll we could amend it if need be. Right. So, that's my question. Can you share the process and and how do we uh modify the plan? Maybe
it's very simple but to know what we can do if we you know we're going to hear a lot of good ideas tonight probably and although this is a great plan you know it what how do we make any changes if we want to do so after this it's very simple it's the same process that started this process you know we would
evaluate what's being said you know when when I'm back um you know we'll talk about you know what made sense and what might not and then you'll decide which ones you might want to include food in the plan that are not now in the plan.
Then you have the 10-day notice requirement. You might want to have another session before you adopt to have a public discussion about it. But then once you notice, it's a 10day notice requirement. Then you have your public hearing and it would play out just like
this. Great. If I may also, it's dovetailing. I didn't bother to mention it specifically. Uh it's in the record though. Uh we did of course uh provide uh at least the requisite uh notice both via publication as well as submission to
the adjoining clerks, the state office of planning advocacy in Trenton and the Union County Planning Board notice and and an opportunity to review as well as copies of in most cases uh the plan. uh and there'll be a formal process uh
after action by this board thereafter involving those same parties. So since Mr. Bur just mentioned the notice, I didn't want anybody to wonder uh it's been proved proofed and we have the affidavit and all the documentation of sufficient notice for this public
hearing this evening. Thank you. Great. Okay, so do you need a break? I'm going to take a few minutes. Okay, so let's take a five minute break. Well, is five minutes sufficient? No, I think we should just keep pushing public comment, right? Do you want to do public comment and then Well, we're gonna we're gonna I
thought you were going to take a five minute break. I just Joe's been on his feet. Oh, yeah. Just give I just I thought the public was going to come up and ask their questions. That's Yeah, we're going to do public comment and and public questions after the break. Is that okay? Yeah. Okay, great.
Oh, I have to do this. All right. Okay. Oh, we're doing a quick roll call. Is there a charger up there anywhere? Okay. Vice Chair Balsson Alvarez here. Mayor Fagan here. Council member Hamlet
here. Miss Bowen here. Mr. Delmaso here. Mr. Formachelli here. Mr. Lejoy here. Mr. Salah here. Mr. Stern here. Great. Now we're going to do the public question and comment period. And uh our
board professionals are going to take copious notes while you say whatever you'd like to share and your great ideas and then at the end we will answer them as best as we can. Um anything else? Yes. To be specific what I'll do is uh
uh each individual when you come up to which mic are we using? That mic. Well, that mic right in the center. I I'll swear you in. that gives you the opportunity to not only ask questions but also make comments and since this is a public hearing your comments will have
the weight of testimony which is appropriate uh that uh for for any public hearing. So I'll swear you in uh and you could ask any and all questions uh make any and all comments with respect to the plan. Uh and then I
anticipate uh that uh when we are concluded uh the vast majority if not all of the questions will be answered by Mr. Burgess uh perhaps with assistance from Mr. Barren because they are the planners presenting the plan. So, uh,
I'll leave it to the chair, but I assume one at a time is the most appropriate way. Roughly three minutes, but we're not picky. Okay. So, if you could just give your name and address and then I'll swear you in. Good evening. Dennis White, Tulip Street.
Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. This proposed housing element fair share plan is deeply flawed. It's cynical in
its outlook and irresponsible. It's cynical in its outlook and irresponsible in its execution. It effectively signals that the city has no intention of complying with the spirit or letter of New Jersey housing laws. It
in essence the message is we're not going to create any meaningful amount of affordable housing. Go ahead and sue us if you want. The plan interprets the new housing law in a way that invites a legal challenge and turns it over to the courts. Many surrounding communities,
Berkeley Heights, New Providence, Westfield, Chadam, even Milbour have applied the 25% rule correctly, meaning that they take their prospective need, subtract the RDP, and then apply the
25%. And what that does is it creates an affordable housing obligation that's in the range of 25 to 30% of prospective need. What summits approached is creates a housing obligation that's just 5% of
perspective need. 5% where all the surrounding communities, yes, they do a vacant land analysis and an RDP, but it comes out to 25 to 30% because they do it a different way, the appropriate way. In stark contrast, Summit's plan takes an adversarial approach and adopts an
interpretation that will require the creation of only one unit. One unit in 10 years. Your RDP is 18. 17 of those units have already been created in round three and round two. One new unit.
Is that really what the planning board, the mayor, the council wants for Summit is one new unit in the next 10 years to meet its obligation? That's it. One unit. The city just concluded six months of litigation with Fair Share Housing
Center resulting in a consent order mandating the development of 27 affordable units in specific projects in a specific timeline because Summit didn't comply with the 2016 settlement agreement. This housing element in fair
share plan is sets the stage for more litigation likely years at significant cost to Summit taxpayers and under the new legislation legal costs cannot be paid from the affordable housing trust fund. They'll be paid by summit taxpayers. Over the years, we've
proposed an alternative approach, one that is aligned with the intent of the legislation, minimizes legal exposure, leverages state and federal funding, and most importantly, delivers a meaningful number of affordable housing in the
community that needs it. Here's what a smart, responsible, and housing element would look like. Summit would apply the 25% rule correctly. Its prospective need would then be about 80 units over the
next 10 years. By applying the 25% rule correctly, Summit avoids challenges from both local and statewide housing advocates, builders, and developers, and saves on attorney and planner fees. And more importantly, the city does what's
right. Then Summit uses a low-inccome housing tax credit and other state and federal funds to facilitate the construction of 50 to 60 units on the firehouse site with bonus credits. This one development would meet 75% of the fourth round
legitimate fourth round perspective need. 75% one project. a few more smaller projects around town, some inclusionary, and we would have met our real prospective need obligation of 80 or so units without any largescale
developments and that would burden our infrastructure and require more dense zoning. Summit should also start preparing for the fifth round. The Summit Housing Authority we just heard about has 195 units. In 10 years, they'll be ready for
a complete rehabilitation. There'll be new federal rents available in 10 years and those units if renovated would have a new useful life and could meet the entire fifth round obligation. So by doing the firehouse site taking the housing authority not doing anything
to them now because if you encumber them in any way now with any special deed restrictions they cannot be refinanced in 10 years. This is a smart way to plan for affordable housing. Long-term strategic utilizing city-owned land that
would leverage state and federal funds to create a meaningful amount of affordable housing without mega developments and ongoing litigation. Or you can adopt the housing element before you and look forward to more litigation, overdevelopment, bad press,
and possibly losing control over how affordable housing is created in this city. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else want to come up and make comments or questions? Hello.
Make sure the mic's really there because the mic not very good at home. Just so they can hear you at home. Hello. Hello. Okay. Name and address, please. Rhysa Gorlick, nine Russell Place. Dr. Dr. Rhysa Gorlick, 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? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. The city has known for months about the June 30th deadline and chose not to discuss this with the public. I spoke with my neighbors last night on Russell Place. No one was aware that this project, less
than a block from our homes, was being discussed tonight. The assumption is the planning board would push this through quickly as it has on previous projects in this area because there's a special council meeting tomorrow in order to approve a plan for five to to be approved at 5:00
tomorrow. According to the city website, over half of the affordable housing in Summit is in East Summit. East Summit is a small portion of the map of Summit. It's in the pink.
50% of the affordable housing is in this area. This is unfair, an undue burden, and it must stop. My neighbors and I are tired of overdevelopment, especially in East Summit, where almost every single family
property or vacant property that becomes available in the market is redeveloped into multif family homes. The only way we hear about these homes before they are built is that they need to have a number of variances approved by the zoning board first. In the past
few years, there were variances pushed through quickly for among a number of places including seven Russell Place, the large lot by Jefferson School and the Summit Pool, Habitat for Humanity, the large multif family building on Park
Avenue, butressing Broad Street next to the laundromat. Six town homes built on two single family lots on Ashwood, which is caddyy corner to our backyard and now blocks our sunsets. Sunsets aside, no one has looked at
traffic. In the 16 years I have lived on Russell Place, they've never had a traffic study. Russell Place is a cutthrough to and from Jefferson School. Additionally, the traffic lights on Morris Ashwood and Broad Ashwood are
impossible to get through at this point. Adding 20 additional units with probably 40 or more drivers will impact the area's traffic in a negative way and make our daily lives harder to manage for anyone who needs to drive through
this part of town. It is unsafe. Adding more multif family units will increase traffic and create more safety hazards. But the biggest safety hazard issue, the biggest safety issue to me is the
environmental impact of the chemicals used by dry cleaners, many of which are carcinogenic, and the remediation that would be required to address this issue along with the costs. Remediating a former dry cleaning site can be particularly complex due to
legacies of chlorinated solvents, especially PCELPC, [Music] which often contaminate soil and groundwater. So I ask, has anyone done an environmental study?
If so, we need to see this and we need time to review it. Today I researched at NJIT where I teach and I found, quote, "If you live on the first or second floor of an apartment building that is above or next to a dry cleaner, you may be exposed to dry cleaning chemicals
which can affect your health." Additionally, I learned, quote, "Improper handling of these chemicals and equipment can lead to leaks that may pollute natural elements on or near the property. This contamination may outlast the shop's existence and can make it a
challenge for the land to be redeveloped for other uses. End quote. The dry cleaner on this property has been there for decades. Nobody knows what has been dumped. According to nyc.gov's website,
quote, released into the ground in quantity, dry cleaning solvents contaminate the soil and groundwater for a long time. The contamination can last tens to hundreds of years. Tens to hundreds of years. The vapors
from these solvents can also intrude into buildings. Dry cleaning solvents can threaten human health mainly by contaminating indoor air and drinking water. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has a dry cleaner remediation program. Have they
been contacted? A few months ago, Summit made the national news when it proposed arresting those who were unhoused for sleeping on benches. The optic did not play out well for one of the wealthiest towns in New Jersey. I'm sure I'm not the only one
whose friends called me and said, "Hey, don't you live in that town that I saw on the news that wants to arrest homeless people?" Now, it appears we want to build housings, only four of which are affordable, over what could amount as a potential super site. I can see the
headlines now and the news stories will will say summit is at it again. I urge you not to approve this project. Go back to the old firehouse site which was already vetted for such a project and can accommodate way more than four
affordable units and build something there where there is infrastructure already in place. It is near downtown and the train lines, so it will impact traffic less. And most importantly, it won't be built on what is most likely a contaminated parcel of land in a already
overdeveloped East Summit. I believe the mayor and the Republican party are are are running this campaign on not to overdevelop Summit. Stop doing it in our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you.
Hello. Hello. Name and address, please. Mark Coler, 13 Russell Place. I'm sorry. Last name again. Coler, like the toilet. K O H L E R. Every time you flush, I get a nickel. If only. You want to wait five minutes?
I'll Okay. The the the uh and I'll swear you. It's not going to cost a nickel. I promise. It's not even a penny. 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? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. Um, as I said, I live at 13 Russell Place. I don't like
to call it East Summit. Um, to me, it's divisive. I like to say just down the hill. Um, to me, we're all one city or one town, and we can find solutions together that suit all of us. Um, with the deadline a week away, as I learned tonight, I just learned about the
project yesterday. Um, as I've heard tonight, the deadline is a week away. It sounds like this plan is going to be approved. Um, but at the same time, I'd like to implore each and every single one of you to please, um,
as we were told, you can revisit after the fact, and I think it very badly needs to be revisited. Um, as Risa was just saying, we have way way overdeveloped our part of town. Um we
are a a town of if I'm correct by Mr. Google told me 6.04 square miles. Um a lot of the development that's taken place has been excuse me my phone just shut off on me. Um has been down by us. Um I think that we can spread that out
some. Um I think first off the space that they're talking the Harmon Holdings project um has many issues. I I just heard tonight that the developer originally wanted 33 units instead of 20 and actually laughed in my seat. Um I
don't know if you're familiar with the space. Um it is sandwiched between Mars going up and Broad going up the other way. Um it's a small space. If come down and look at it, I'll gladly walk it with any any of you. I don't see how they're going to fit that development there with
the commercial space with all the units with parking. There is no parking. If there are commercial spaces, there's no parking on the streets anywhere near there. If they can't fit in that lot, I don't see where they're going. Um, more than that in this area, there is a lot
of traffic. Um, on many school days, Ashwood Avenue heading to Broad Mars is backed up all the way to Michigan Avenue. Uh, Ashwood goes right up to Jefferson School. I walk my son to school every day. I see the traffic every day. If it's rush hour, if parents
are dropping their kids at school, it's four to five blocks that cars are waiting. And yes, they do cut through Russell Place as a as a as a a way around it. And that'll be backed up many days, too. So, you're just going to have the construction, you're going to have the building, you're going to have cars
backed up. It's going to just exacerbate a problem that's already bad. Um, as you continue up Mars past Ashwood, the next turn is Glenside. Glennside is the road that takes you to 78, right? It's another cut through. The cars come
through town, they go right up Mars, they turn on Glenside, and they head to 78. On any day that there's an accident, if it's 24 or 78, you're not moving in that part of town. The cars are going down broad, they're going up Mars, and
they're bumper to bumper, and it will take you forever to get through. And once again, that development is sandwiched right in between those two roads. Um it with construction going on, I could imagine just that in of itself is going to be a nightmare. Um now,
um I'm not sure if mentioned, but at the intersection of Ashwood and Mars, there have been several accidents in the past. Um there was the house on the corner there had hedges in the front when I moved in about 7 years ago. those hedges are now gone because of cars colliding
at that intersection. A couple of them went right into the hedges. Um it's just that much more with these additional units that's going to make it that much harder for people to navigate. Um now also today, as most of you probably know, was the first day of camp at the
community center. So you had 200 people dropping their kids off at the community center for camp today. One more traffic issue in that area that we're going to have to deal with. Um, Ken View is now open and people are working there. That's another issue. More cars that are
in the area now. Uh, this development is going into a very small space. It's being squeezed in and it's just it's going to be bursting at the seams. There's no way to get around it. Um, now the other issue is the housing
developments. Again, we're 6.4 6.04 square miles in town. I'm all for affordable housing. We have a unit at 7 Russell Place. We're bookended on the other side by a unit uh 31 Russell Place. I believe you said earlier. There are two units there. It's a perfect
place for it. It's next to the old train tracks. There are two units. They fit in very well. Now, what's happening here is again I see that that this developer wants to do this. He wants to put in his 20 units and says, "Okay, I'll make four of them affordable." But even I don't
care if they're affordable or not. It just does not seem like the right place for it. And again, right across the street, we have Habitat for Humanity almost exactly across the street from where these units went. And you know what a fiasco that was last year when those units are going up with the neighbors on Ashwood Court. I don't
think we need that again with another big development going in there. So, I'm just going to implore you again, come down, look at the space, take a look at it, and see for yourselves. There's just no room. Come during rush hour. You might not make it there too soon. Um, but I'm more than I'm more than happy to
welcome you. If it's a day like today, I will make lemonade. I'll have my son sell it to you for a quarter. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. Hello, Bonnie Morrison. Rotary Drive. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm testimony you're
about to give is the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed. Okay. I just have a couple of questions. I as the gentleman right before me as well as earlier in the presentation. Um I just want to confirm that if this plan is approved
tonight, there will still be an opportunity for the Harmon develop potential development on Ashwood to uh go before the planning board and have a formal public hearing at least
planning or zone andor zoning. I'm not sure if we could just get more clarification on that, I'd appreciate that. Uh, second question, we've many of us have heard been hearing about Milbourne for a couple of years and all that they've been going through. And I just
want to get um a little clarification how Summit is different for Milbour in dealing with builder remedy lawsuits and how this plan, you know, affects that one way or the other. Um,
what else? And with this plan, do we feel that summit can remain control of our de development destiny and be able to stop overdevelopment?
That's I guess that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Excuse. Pull the mic up. Yeah, there you go. Just gonna hold it. Um, uh, Tom Zeber, 768 Springfield Avenue, apartment A3.
Uh, I just Please raise your right right hand just in case. Any comments? Uh, do you swear to God affirm testimony about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Uh, just two questions. Uh, it's been my understanding that if the city files its plan by June 30th, it'll have immunity
from builder's remedy lawsuits. Uh can you clarify whether my understanding is correct? Uh and assuming that I am correct, I understand that while Summit would be immune from builder's remedy lawsuits by filing that report, the plan could still be challenged by an interested party. Can you explain the difference between a builder's remedy
lawsuit and a challenge to the city's plan? Actually, I guess it's three questions. I have one one other one. Um and also, can you confirm how many and what developments were excluded from the housing element and fair share plan? uh the density of those projects and why
they were excluded. I think that's everything. Thank you. Thank you. This uh sure um the second question was just assuming that I am correct about um my understanding that this that the city would be immune from
builder's remedy lawsuits by filing by June 30th. Um I was asking just if you could explain the difference between a builder's remedy lawsuit and a challenge to the city's plan. He he asked what all can they still be
can the plan still be challenged even though uh and what's the difference between those filing the plan by June 30 maintains the immunity and then the difference between the two thank you for sure and how many developments were considered you got that and excluded and
why writing it could be worse Joe you could be trying to read my writing so Welcome. Please. Uh, okay. I was going to take your name and address prayers. Julia Connley, 25 Pearl Street. I appreciate the desire to be sworn in. 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. Please proceed. So, my question for you is, do I understand I don't know if they'll hear you at home if you're not a little closer. I have it. Little closer. It's a terrible mic. Okay. Yeah.
is do I understand it correctly that the zoning has already been changed to this M the MBC it's already been done that's we have that's new zoning in that area well if you're referring to the firehouse site that zoning is in No I'm
referring to where we are the Harmon holdings that that zoning has not occurred at this overlay zoning the overlay zone is not done yet NBC I don't well I just said the firehouse site um is now
I'm sorry madam chair one question at a time from the person I think we're collecting questions if you don't understand the question then you can comment and get clarity on the question but right now we're just going to collect them all and then you guys are going to make sure you have I
guess I should say then currently it's a it's a a neighborhood business and an R5 zone that's what I know it as now so you're talking about the Harmon site Yeah. Yeah. Yes. So, you're looking to change the zoning and it's the new zoning already. Is that correct or no?
No, the current zoning is NB and R5. Okay. So, when you you know change I just don't understand if this is I looked at a chart and it doesn't seem to me like this is in compliance with that zone. So, that's my question there. Um,
so we can talk to the zoning changes. It's not in compliance the differences. Yes. Yes. And then just on the heels of everybody else, I mean, I live in this neighborhood and talking about the traffic, it it you can't talk about a nightmare. You can't you're there 20
minutes. I take my grandchildren to school and it's a nightmare. You can't get in and out. And currently, we have another situation where there's overcrowding and people are parking, not which you're not allowed to park on the street, but we have that issue that
we've been trying to deal with the city. Yeah. and there they have no place to park. So, you're going to build another site where this I just can't imagine on the main street coming in a you know uh go leaving out and going onto a county
road. It's just it's inongruous I think for the neighborhood and as everybody said that the um all the low income not that I'm have any problem with it but it's all in designated and relegated to one area in
town. So, I don't think that the site really works for where we are and with the intensity of the um building, it's just not going to work. So, that's my feeling. Thank
you. Thank you. Okay. I'm uh Fritz Alam. I live at Nine Russell Place. Reese is my wife. March my neighbor. Uh, would you raise your right hand, Mr. Olm? Do you swear to You You got it right. 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? I do. Thank you. Please proceed with your questions andor comments. We're not The folks at home won't hear you if we don't get closer. I'm sorry. Let me raise it, too. Yeah. I uh I don't have a whole lot to add other
than, you know, if I had to pick a site in East Summit, sorry to use East Summit, uh in East Summit, a worse site to put something like this. I'm not sure I could come up with one
because I mean, you know, you've heard it, the traffic's awful. There hasn't been a traffic study there. I don't know if there has ever been any sort of traffic study, you know, any sort of impact study with all this overdevelopment, all this multi- family
housing that's gone in there. Add add that the environmental issues associated with a 60-year-old or 70-y old dry cleaning business. I mean, I I'm not sure you could pick a work site. So, um
I like the plan that Mr. White presented earlier. I mean, we I I'm really interested why on any of these uh charts that we saw, the old firehouse site is not even in consideration
evidently. So, I'm very interested in understanding why that is. If we have this obligation, we've got a place to put them. I don't know. I it just I'm I'm I'm interested in
the feedback from the planning board and the council and the mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Hello. Rick Whipple, 30 Garden Road. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm testimony about to give is the truth? the whole truth or
nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Please proceed. All right. Um, as mentioned, I'm Rick Whipple. I serve as the vice chair of the Summit Housing Authority and as the SHA liaison to the Summit Affordable Housing Committee. Uh, first I wanted to thank the planning board and the city for the hard work putting this plan together. We do think
it's appropriate that SHA be involved in the plan and appreciate the city including us to help preserve our flexibility in terms of future funding channels. uh SHA and the city have worked together for years and we thank again thank Summit for the $700,000 in rehabilitation funds in 2022 for new
windows for our family units. Uh for clarity, the plan being discussed tonight includes 170 of SHA's 195 units in the round four unmet need table representing 60% of the city's 327 unit
gap. Um at this point I'd like to raise a process concern around the plan. Our first notice that our unit would be included was when we saw the plan publicly posted on the city website. I'd have expected the that our chair or executive director would have been contacted in advance, especially given
the history of the city erroneously including SHA units in prior published affordable housing reports. Um I'd like to stress that we've been in direct discussions with the city over the last few months. On May 20th, uh we had a joint meeting and reviewed each party's interests and many of the angles
associated with potentially including some of our house our units in the city's counts. Um but for clarity, at no point in at no time in that was there any discussion of the majority of our units uh being included in the plan and multiple city attendees went so far as
to say their focus in these discussions was on improving conditions for the residents rather than on the fair share numbers. Um the removal of the SHA residency restriction was not raised as either a priority or request in our discussion. Um after the meeting were provided for specific options for the
city's consideration. Um city has yet to respond. No agreements have been made, but we're still working uh together to come up with ideas. I'd like to close out my comments tonight highlighting two explicit concerns with the report. The first is very straightforward. On page 41, the report states that the city has
collaborated with the SHA to create two TI tiger baron affordable housing units. Um, we're not sure who the city worked with, but the SHA has not been involved with these units. So, this is a factual error that should be corrected. Um, secondly, the plan emits some very relevant details such as the fact that
any a SHA units included in the city's fair share counts would no longer be eligible for rehabilitation credits. It also implies that the city and SHA are working together to remove residency restrictions across all our properties. While this is something that's been raised, it's never been seriously discussed and is not something currently
being worked on. Um, as Dennis White just mentioned a few minutes ago, uh, we need to consider our long-term funding needs, including an update to our RAT agreement in 10 years, 2035 aligned with the end of round four. Uh it would benefit the city to also take a long-term view and work with the SHA to
meet our mutual needs and be strategic in our actions, including any removal of the residency preference andor and any potential distribution of affordable housing trust funds. Um the SHA does have a vested interest in increasing and improving affordable housing and summit and we're committed to partner with the
city in doing so. That said, the plan inaccurately represents the state of our discussions, fails to consider certain vital interests of the SHA or acknowledge ne some negative implications of the plan's recommendations, and contradicts information that was verbally provided to the SHA in prior discussions. Uh,
thank for hearing our concerns and for considering appropriate updates to the plan. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Hi, Shantal Landman. Beman Road. I'm sorry, one one more time. on Landman LD a man on Beakman Road. Okay. Can you
please raise your right hand? Do you swear to God or affirm testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Okay. Good evening. I would like to address the board regarding process, communication, and public input. The deadlines associated with the plan shared on June
13th and being discussed tonight were not a surprise. The city has known for many months, arguably years, that this deadline was looming and that a comprehensive, credible plan was required. Yet, no draft plans were shared with the public for input until 10 days ago. If you refer to the
minutes, the listening sessions that you referenced in April and May were not met. In April, Mr. Baron said the planners quote will present a draft at the May meeting. In May, the board shared two quote conceptual building developments which were not shared in advance with the public. Review of the
draft housing plan happened in close session that night. In order to meet the deadline, you will vote on the plan tonight, meaning there is no chance feedback from the public will be considered in the plan. We will submit to the state because there's just no time to do that. We need a real
commitment to listening consistently, openly, and without delay in the future. So, what's the plan for the challenge period? We all know the dates. So, when will the planning board present a revised plan to summit residents that incorporates public feedback? Will we
have multiple opportunities to revise the plan? Will the planning board have opportunity to change the plan after August? Let's not make this challenge period opaque and rushed as we just did with the step concluding tonight. Finally, can you explain how to develop
a 100% affordable tax credit building at the firehouse site and provide examples of similar projects? Is this a good site for this type of tax credit development? Thank you. [Music] Hello. Hello. Uh Blake Scollette, uh 105
New England Avenue. as obliged. 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? So, help me God. I do. Thank you. I anticipated same. Thank you. Uh I have a couple of different
questions. Um I have two actually about the part of the plan that fulfills the third round obligation. It was part of the um that start right the the first things you fulfilled that had how we were going to finish that all up. Um there's a third round and now we're talking that we're going on to the
fourth round but part of that was in this document and I right so the the one that I had the biggest question I'm curious about uh the 11 units with the St. Teresa property that's in the planning process. I'm just curious what level of planning I mean is the arch dasis kind of nodded and said yep the
cardinal thinks it's a good idea. I mean I'm just curious by planning process what does that mean? Is this someone is it an idea? Is it likely to happen? What might we know? Um and if it were to fall through knowing that St. Teresa doesn't own that property outright, you know,
it's owned by the whole arch dasis. I know that no one's more complicated than the Catholic Church. Uh when it comes to anything, um we Lutheran learned that when we wanted to ask a few questions. Um 500 years later, we're still waiting. Anyhow, um just curious if that were to
fall through, how what about those 11 units? How then how do we how do you actually fulfill the the full requirement? How does that happen? Um there we go. Um then looking now toward the fourth round, uh the future, I had a few questions. Um,
I I heard the whole explanation, but I'm just sort of flumxed uh that such a incredibly small amount of new housing in this plan. We're proposing we could build it. In the 12 years I've been in Summit, we seem to be constantly building and
rebuilding and redeveloping, but that we can only imagine that that's the that's all we're going to be able to add to the affordable housing stock in a decade. Um, just it I I fully admit this is not my expertise. Um but my issues is sort of to advocate for um the moral
obligation of our citizens, right? And I regularly meet with uh people of all economic status, including those who are really struggling to live here. So I just want to make sure that we're doing our best effort to live up to the law uh and and do everything we can. Um so to
that question of how can this be, you explained it, but I'm still struggling with it. Um that we got such a small amount. uh how is it that the the one plan that would be all affordable is amongst the rejected ones um on a site that we do
have um or something like it. I guess I'm just struggling to see how how we couldn't see how that would something like that might have got us closer to that obligation. I'm just I'm just ignorant I guess and I want you to help me understand so as I'm a good citizen I
can understand this. So thank you. Thank you. My name is Tanisha Valerio. I live at 65 Broad Street. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm the testimony about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do.
Thank you. Please proceed. In addition to the comments of those before me who have expressed concerns about the Ashwood Broad Morris location, I would like to voice a concern about the strain all of these additional units are putting on the Jefferson school. Class sizes are up significantly from 10
years ago when my oldest child was at school there. Um when class sizes were typically around 18 or 19, um it was commonly known that they were smaller than average at the other elementary schools. primarily because we had a
higher percentage of ESL students and students who had special needs. Um, as far as I know, we still have a higher percentage of ESL students and students with special needs, but our class sizes are now in the 23, 24, maybe even 25
range, which is not an insignificant jump. Um, class sizes were intentionally smaller, as I said, because of those ESL and special needs students, which is causes complication and and additional
requirements for the teachers, the staff, the building, all of it. Um, and those smaller class sizes helped that to be more manageable. Um, when so many single family homes in our school zone are being knocked down
and turned into multif family units, that impacts the number of students that are coming to our school. It's already significantly higher than it was 10 years ago. How are units in addition to the Habitat for Humanity location and
the other multiple many many um locations in East Summit that are zoned for Jefferson? How are we going to accommodate for that? How are we going to not have that negatively impact our students, our teachers, all of the staff at Jefferson? Um and that was just my my
question my question. I guess I have that major concern in addition to the other concerns about that location which there are many. Thank you. Jacqueline Laserina L A S A R A C I N A
I'm a resident of Summit. Please raise your your right hand is already raised. Uh 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? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. I share the concerns that have been uh
shared about the Ashwood property. I believe it is imprudent and unfair to try to squeeze in additional units in an already overdeveloped, heavily traffked part of town. But I'd like to focus on another issue that I have with the plan that's been presented. You all have
chosen to interpret the state law, this 25% rule, in what I'll describe generously as an odd way. We are standing with a small number of other towns, a meaningful minority of other towns across hundreds in the
state. Uh as Mr. B just shared uh back on April 28th and again here tonight. Our interpretation is very likely to be challenged in court. We are inviting it seems this litigation. So my question is
kind of a philosophical one. If that happens, how will you respond? You know, over the past few weeks, there's been a lot of reflection on Summit's history when it comes to affordable housing. How India has passed. Summit has honored its commitments and opened its doors to
working families and working individuals. And that got me thinking about legacy. When you are faced with the decisions over the next several months about how to respond to a likely legal challenge, whether and how to amend the plan, I
urge you not to worry about the headlines that may appear the next day, the next week, or even in five months. Instead, I would urge all of us to think about legacy in 50 or 80 years from now when people look back on this moment.
What do we wish them to say? That rather than doing the hard work and advocating to change the law in Trenton, that we decided to take it to court and make a bet. That summit went the way of Milbour and got locked up in a very expensive
multi-year lawsuit with the potential for a judge to make development decisions rather than our own community. And for what? To pretend to fight over development. We can do better. And I hope you will
lead us down a better path. I hope that will not be our legacy. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Hello. Uh, Diego Hoy, can I go to court? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Um, first, you must adopt the plan. I mean, we cannot miss the deadline. That's my comment. But I have a bunch of questions related to that. One of them, as many have alluded to, why are we having this
discussion so close to the deadline? Why not have had preliminary discussions earlier uh as the plan was taking shape? Second, it is now clear and out in the open that the third round was actually indeed 50
units. And looking at the units that we have for the round three, we're actually very fortunate in summit to have a Methodist church and a St. Theesus Catholic Church that provided at the very last minute
almost half the units of an obligation so many even weeks ago were denying we had. So I have a similar question what to what the gentleman had which is what is our commitment as a community to build
those 23 units. What are your our plans to build them? How are we going to justify putting those numbers and saying this is a good honest fa an honest good faith effort when we have gone um it seems very publicly against um
m the doctrine the mural doctrine which it's my understanding I'm not a lawyer I'm not even born in New Jersey and maybe somebody can clarify but it's my understanding that the montal doctrine was crafted over the decades by justice is there were both Republican and
Democrat appointed by both Democratic and Republican governors. So we are going against settled law and we are hoping for a hail Mary pass. I am very concerned about removing the residents preference for 195 units.
Why? So when I talk to lawyers for my affairs, I ask what is the numerical percent probability? I'm going to ask you that. What is a numerical percent probability that we will prevail in court to prevent the 198 unit building
that was proposed for the Wells Fargo site? Because it seems to me that if we lose that, we will end up without the residents preference and with a 198 unit building that nobody's talking about today
because it's off the plan. but somebody a builder who understood that we were getting close to the deadline proposed. So what is our numerical probability of not being sued and if we are sued of prevailing in court on the one on the
Wells Fargo site related to that what's the plan to alleviate traffic on river road given the 46 unit development plan for the corner of Morris and River Road which has been approved it's my understanding
also traffic related Ashwood and you know the the area with the dry cleaners My kids went to Jefferson uh primary center. I was in that traffic jam for two and a half years. I'm so
happy not to be in that traffic jam ever again. Um nobody should be in that traffic jam. People live in that traffic jam. And finally, you must have some idea of changes you're already considering for this plan
because it was built at the very last minute. And I think it is only fair to share with the community what those anticipated changes might be sooner rather than later. Thank you.
Good evening. I'm Katherine Marx. Live on Pearl Street. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm testimony you're about to give? I do. Is it true? Oh, sorry. It's okay. I've said it so many times this evening. I You anticipated the rest. Now I'm going to have to start
all over again. Do you swear to God or I only learned it one way. 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. I still do. Thank you again. Please proceed. Well, thanks for your time. I just have a few questions about Speak. Sorry. I have a few questions about the
process. So, I just learned about this proposed um building, Harmon. Is that the right name of it? I think I just learned about it either last night or at some point today from a neighbor, some of the neighbors here. Exactly. And um
I'm a little puzzled because it seems like the worst possible location in summit given what all of the other speakers already said, traffic, the dry cleaner site. I understand you're the
subject matter expert together with your um colleague here on the other side. Is that the best that you were able to come up with out of the choices that were made available? I don't know what the other choices were. I would like to see what else was made available. What else
was discussed? Have you all and I assume the the planning board members all live in summit as well, right? Are you familiar with a corner? Did you ever walk down there? I'm I'm surprised. I mean, you have not made your vote yet, but I'd be
surprised if you agreed to pass this. It's impossible. It's it's it's one of the worst traffic spots in in Summit currently, right? And by building this, you would make it just a lot worse. So, I just don't understand how that can be the best choice, the one suggestion that
we're discussing tonight. And I would like to yeah, could just get some answers on that. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else have a question or a comment? Hi, Ellen Boland, Tulip Street and
Summit. Do you swear to God affirm testimony about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. So, I I'd just like to um state at the outset that this attempt or what's supposed to be
gathering public input really does seem like a pretense to me. You're clearly adopting the plan tonight. There is no opportunity to incorporate anything that people in the community have to say. Um it's certainly not good governance to
vote on a plan and then make changes based on what the community thinks. Um, so that's um what I have to say about the timing of this. I think it's really anti-democratic and not responsible on your part. I have some questions for Mr.
Burgess about the 25% rule that he has um proposed and that you are now adopting. Um I have a couple of questions. One is um given uh how intensive the legislative
process was to adopt these amendments to the Fair Housing Act that are now governing the process. Um how much people participated in that process? There were people in support of it. There was a great deal of opposition. Um
it was a thoughtful process. Um and the the um system that was set up through that process is a very comprehensive system for determining pro prospective need and then for resolving
any disputes that may come up any challenges may come up. So this is like a very wellthoughtout piece of legislation and process. How can it be that the legislature intended that municipalities actually do
less than they did before the law, which is what you are proposing with the way you read the statute, that we actually do less under round three. I mean, we had a vacant land analysis. We had an RDP of 36 as you said. Um, these are not
new concepts in the new law. They're old concepts. Um but even after the RDP, the settlement agreement provides that summit has an obligation to build 50 new additional affordable units. RDP is not
the end of the discussion. A municipality has to take steps to meet the ongoing unmet need. And what you're proposing is that no, RDP is the end of the story. There is no more obligation. And that's what the legislature
intended. that is incomprehensible. I'd also like to know um well I'll go back to you gave the examples of all the communities in the surrounding area that had even lower RDPs than Summit. None of those municipalities are interpreting
the law the way you are. they are taking 25% of prospective need that was given to them by um the DCA and that 25% is what they are now going forward with as their affordable housing obligation.
They didn't take 25% of their RDP because they realize that is not what the legislature intended. Um and then my final point I think is how is it that you can recommend that summit
take a course of action in this plan that you yourself said uh in April is going to be challenged and is going to lead to litigation and won't be resolved um until it reaches the appellet court level. So, you're recommending that we
go down this path that is going to be expensive, that's going to take time, and that it's not a winner, and I'd like you to explain how that is. Thank you. Thank you.
Anybody else want to come up and make any comments or ask any questions? I'm not seeing anybody else. Oh, you are. You are. You want to come back? Okay. Come back. I thought maybe you were heading out. I just had a couple more questions. Is that allowed? Sure. Discretion of the
chair. Okay. Um, in previous uh affordable technically just have to give us your name and address. Bonnie Morrison. Thank you. Rotary Drive. Don't need to be reworn in, please. Over the last couple years, we've talked about there's there was a potential of two
additional affordable housing units on Ashwood Court in a to tiny postage postage stamp area. Just wanted to know if that was still on the table at all. And finally, can we again um get an
explanation of why this has all been so last minute? It seems every surrounding town is going through the same thing. If you look at tap into all of our surrounding towns, they had like 10 days notice and these hearings are this week,
last week, whatever. So, just to so we could all understand why it is last minute and that's it. Thank you very much. Okay. Um, I think we should probably give our professionals a couple minutes just to
collect their notes, see if they can read them like Joe. Um, no. I'm just kidding. I know you can. Uh, five five minutes and then we'll come back and answer all the questions. Okay. Thank you. 10. 10. Okay. 10 minutes. Say five. It'll be coming. All right.
All right. We're back. There's a lot of questions. We understand there's a lot of questions. A lot of good questions. Okay. So, oh, I did hammer it. You missed it.
Hammer again. We're back. Okay. Thank you, board professionals. Who wants to go first? Well, we're going to break it up. Okay. Um, you know, in listening to all the comments, you know, we really tried to break it down into categories and
probably the most significant category was Harmon holdings. Yeah, there's more comments about microphone. Yeah. Get it closer because people at home won't hear loud. How's that? Much better. Much better. So, as I started to say, I think there's more discussion about Harmon
holdings than any other property. Yeah. Um, the way the process is required to play out, you know, anybody that comes in and presents a plan, um, the a municipality has to entertain that concept. And
that's what happened here. Um the discussion revolved around a couple different things, but probably most significant was the fact that under the current zoning, a developer was pretty much able to do what was wanted, what was proposed in
the MB zone. Yeah. Not quite twothirds of the site is zoned to permit that. the remaining portion um is not like you know a good portion of the property is the concern that we had
was under the current zoning there's virtually no standards as you heard from Tom earlier front side and rear setbacks are zero so somebody could really just place the building on the entire property and that would not be good
planning at all um so we felt in large measure. If we can create a set of zoning regulations that would really be beneficial um reduce the scale of the project, ensure that the right amount of parking be provided on site.
Um get some landscape amenity on the property, have a parking lot design that gets examined as part of the site plan review process. And also um with respect to the dry cleaning issue,
only through a site plan will we get to clean up this property and it will be required to be cleaned up to residential standards. So this is the one and probably only way that you would be able
to get that site environmentally cleaned up. And Joe, if if the site were to remain in the plan, uh there would be zoning uh appropriate uh to to proceed with a potential
project. Correct. Yes. And and then there would be a site plan application at a minimum for the planning board prior to any approvals and development uh ever occurring. Correct. Correct. And and they would be conditions of approval including all environmental
uh right but even before that Steve what h what will happen is this plan has a set of zoning regulations as a table to identify how the site could be zed that will be refined obviously as we would go
down this road right the obligation at this stage is to have draft ordinances for implementation to subsequently Yeah, and the ordinance doesn't the ordinance doesn't have to be adopted until March of 2026
potentially. Um, so that gives us plenty of time to work that out. But what will happen to the public understands is when we prepare a draft, the full draft ordinance, there will be a public discussion with the planning board. Um, it will then get referred to the
governing body. Uh, when they introduce it, it, you know, in final form. It comes back here for a consistency review with the master plan and at that time also there will be could be a public comment and then when
the governing body holds its hearing on the ordinance there's public comment. So there's plenty of time for the public to get involved in the ordinance preparation itself as well as the site plan site plan application process
subsequent there too. Right? Because at that point, that's where an applicant will have to present, you know, the engineer, a landscape architect, probably a traffic consultant, and a planner to justify what they are proposing to show
it's consistent with the ordinance or not. Right. And um and phase one environmentals as well. Right. Right. Correct. Correct. Phase two. Possibly phase two. Yeah. Can you can you clarify that the owner
would pay for the fee? Uh yes, it's the owner that does does that clean, not the municipality, but it is the one way that that site can be environmentally cleaned up. So, um
was there anything else on that site that we wanted to bring up? No, I I think you described it well. I would just add that if you That's going to have to be a lot closer. Sorry. Sorry. I thought I was compliant. Um I I would just add that um as the
site exists, there's three parcels. One is essentially vacant. It had a single family home. One exists as a paved surface parking lot and one is a one-story dry cleaners. And I think just driving by, which we've done over the course of many years, you look at it and you could you might think it's underutilized, let's say, or or in need
of revitalization or any, you know, words like that where you could you'd have a vision of what it could be. Uh, and again, this was a developer proposal that we required by law to consider. And again, we started in one place and it was brought down to the proposal that is uh included in this plan in draft form.
Um but again in consideration of the other uses that are permitted in the NB zone which has been the zoning designation for that property for at least a couple decades is is my understanding which allows mixeduse development up to three stories. Other uses that are allowed are retail sales
and services personal service professional offices, dance schools and studios, restaurants, financial institutions and adult daycare among others. So when you think about the realm of you know possible uh development scenarios for this site as
proposed I would offer that it actually is less intense than some of the other development scenarios as far as how the site could be developed as of right. So we talk about things like traffic and impacts to surrounding development. This would seem to be a lower intensity uh proposal that's included in the plan.
Certainly something that we considered and again we did try to work with the developer to scale it back as much as we possibly could in a way that was uh presented in the plan. So less or evil that's the best we can do did not say
lead just so just so that people understand as of right means as of the current zoning that's been there for decades this 23 units could have been built plus retail you know that that's as of right currently. So that's what what Mr.
Barren was just talking about. So um it's a good comparison to what is proposed. But um anyway, I just wanted to to make sure that people understood that the plan that we're doing is broader based just like a master plan
but a little more specific. And then we're when we say the ordinance we're talking about the zoning ordinance so that people understand that there's a process. So can you talk a little more just to we have the the plan that we're talking about tonight. Then we have the ordinance which is our development
regulations ordinance where we have to put details in. I don't want to talk too much, but can you just explain that, you know, part of it because I think that gets lost in the lingo, you know, what we're actually talking about. And then once you have it in zoning, then the applicant comes before, you know, and
they're all things that, for example, the ordinance isn't due until March of 2026. So that can be um affected between now and then with public hearings and public input, right? the uh typical typically zoning ordinances will have a
whole host of area and bulk standards. And by that I I'm talking about a minimum lot area, minimum front side and rear yard setbacks, a building coverage limitation, a pave surface limitation, building
height limitations, and other standards as well for landscape amenity and buffers and what have you. The current ordinance doesn't have much of that at all. And so that's why I when I was saying they can basically build on the
entire property, you know, that's a truism. Uh in contrast, uh what we have done and why we were able to whittle this down from 33 units down to 20 is that we were we suggested
very specific setback standards. for example, so it reduce the size of the building. We have building height limitations which don't don't exist uh currently. Uh we have parking standards uh which are there sidewalks.
There are sidewalks that Okay, please. Um there are sidewalk requirements as well. Um there's a whole host of additional standards that don't exist today uh which will add to the
overall character of the design and um I think improve the situation in contrast to what could occur right now with an application to one of the boards. Um okay so um that thank you. Um, do you
want to talk about at all the the zoning process, the the ordinance process just real quick so they get the difference? Well, since you point to me. Yeah. So, um, the plan is just the first step and the plan is supposed to inform the zoning ordinance which is is essentially
uh development regulations which uh dictate how land can be used and how it can be developed physically as far as the dimensions, the height, the setbacks, building coverage etc. So this is really the first step in the process that the site is identified as producing some number of affordable housing units
in a mixeduse inclusionary context meaning that it's it's mixed rate uh mix market rate and affordable housing units. The subsequent step would be assuming the plan gets adopted and certified at some point that the governing body would have the opportunity to introduce an ordinance
which would effectively amend the city's current zoning ordinance or development regulation ordinance as it's referred to which is a public process starts at the governing body comes back to the planning board for master plan consistency review then the ordinance gets adopted by the governing body once that zoning is in place adopted with a
after a public hearing for the governing body. Right. So once that zoning is in place, the developer is then entitled to submit a site plan application to the planning board um with all the development details, architectural plans, site plans showing the specific locations of where the building will be,
what it will look like uh in elevation or three-dimensional form, where all the parking will be down to where where all the bathrooms will be in the units, frankly. So a very detailed plan will be the the final step, which is also a public process. Um and so the public will have the opportunity to review this
as it moves through that process and the applicant would have to meet their burden of proof with respect to uh getting the site plan approval and if there's any deviations be they variances or site plan design waiverss they would have to meet their burden of proof the positive negative criteria for same. So
there are multiple steps in the process all of which involve uh full participation of the public uh obligations of the applicant and uh criteria they must establish in order to proceed. Okay. So sorry I interrupted. Sorry I interrupted the interruption. Keep
going. Okay. Other no I'm saying it looks as though you know Miss Holmes and others have other things they want to the second issue is the 25% factor and N you want to do that one
next. Okay. Um so there was um some discussion about the 25% um uh language. Um so that language is Nancy microphone please. Sorry I know I'm terri I'm very loud but I'm not that loud. Sorry. I apologize. Um that
language specifically is any municipality that receives an adjustment of its prospective need obligations for the fourth round or subsequent rounds based on a lack of vacant land shall as part of the process of adopting and implementing its housing element fair share plan identify sufficient parcels
likely to redevelop during the current round of obligations to address at least 25% of the prospective need obligation that has been adjusted and adopt realistic zoning that allows for such adjusted ed obligation or demonstrate
why the municipality is unable to do so. Um statutory construction and the judicial review of that has been uh long established by the United States Supreme Court as uh a strict construction of
what is actually written, not what any one person thinks that it should be. Um the term unmet need has been around for close to 25 years now. uh and that was not used um in any of this. Um Fair
Share Housing C Center's um interpretation of this is 25% of the perspective need that removes that has been adjusted out of the legislature. Um the perspective need obligation that has
been adjusted is your realistic development potential. That is the strict construction of the legislation. Um to say that this was a very thorough and thoughtout comprehensive legislative process
is ridiculous. It was it was um proposed right before um right before Christmas and the legislature tried to pass it before New Year's. Uh it got slowed down because of public
outcry. Um, I know that, uh, one question was, um, what are we doing to advocate for ch to change the law in Trenton? Um, I know that at least three of the partners in my law firm testified at every public hearing on behalf of the
100 municipalities that we represent out of the 566 in the state. I know that many other uh attorneys did the same and jumped up and down screaming that there was not enough time uh for public input. There was not enough time for all the
municipalities to have the same deadline across the state. There are very few attorneys and planners in this state that are as well-versed as there's nobody as far as I'm concerned as well-versed as Joe Burgess in affordable
housing, but there are very very few um planners in this state that can draft these and you can see are very comprehensive significant plans. They um they basically the legislature um is at
fault for why this is so last minute. And that is where your anger should be directed not at the planning board, not at the city, not at anyone else other than people who tried to shoehorn this process into less than three months for
a 6 to9month affordable housing plan. It was not comprehensive. It was not well thought out. They did the those who are who orchestrated this have no idea how municipalities operate. Um have no idea how few people practice this area of the
law and who practice uh planning. Um so this was not a wellthoughtout process. My I know my firm begged to have this done, have the uh the process at least extended to the end of the year so that there was public input and it fell on
deaf ears. Um so there is an election coming up of legislators who voted for this. So just want to keep that in mind for everyone. Um so stat strict statutory construction I just read the
statute to you. There is a term for unmet need. There is a term for perspective need. And that is not what is written. Um and that is why um there are at least three to four interpretations of the 25% rule. Not
two. Not um it is not dangerous for us to take this position because that's what the US Supreme Court would take. Um and it's not us versus fair share. this will be litigated whether uh no matter which of the four interpretations summit
uh summit decided to take so um and it is not the minority view um it at all so um the next question is I'm sorry before you finish with the chair's permission if I could just follow up question or two maybe the the 25% of the prospective
need as adjusted the operative phrase uh it's one of the viable if not the most viable interpretations would be as it's interpreted by the city in this plan. Correct. That's correct. And that's a plan that is that's an interpretation
that has not yet been judicially determined one way or the other yet in any court in the state of New Jersey. Correct. That is correct. So it is is a and it's a viable one and it's shared uh as a position being taken by many municipalities uh currently and will continue to be
over the next week or two. Correct. over the next few years. Yes. Well, I meant over the next week or two in the plans are adopted. Yes, absolutely. By June 30th. That is correct. Uh and it, as you said, it will be litigated regardless. So, might it arguably be imprudent if this city took a position
that required it ultimately to have an obligation greater than that which it otherwise would have had. Uh not to say that if you have an obligation that is lesser, you're free to create more affordable housing. But if you have an obligation that is greater, you are not
free to create less affordable housing. That's correct. That's correct. Uh so arguably, if not beyond argument, uh it would be imprudent for the B uh city of Summit to take a different position than the their interpretation than what it's taking right now. Yes, that is correct.
And otherwise, uh it's pending litigation uh and it's to be determined uh prospectively. So, uh, we should probably leave it at that. Yes. Thank you. Um, and then I can move on to, uh, the difference between a
builder's remedy and a challenge to our plan. Um, thank you. A builder's remedy was created by, uh, the Supreme Court in Mount Laurel 2, which was around 1985. Um, that was uh, allowed so that uh, builders would be the impetus to to
force recalcitrant municipalities to comply. Um, typically what happens in a builder's remedy litigation is a builder comes in where there's no housing element or fair share plan adopted. Um, there's no immunity from builder's remedy uh lawsuits. A builder comes in
for typically two to three times the density that they're actually looking for. Uh, or that's even um a a precedent in the municipality. um saying that they're the one they're the catalyst for change and they're the ones that are
going to make uh a municipality comply. Um if you have immunity um builders are prohibited from bringing in um such excessively large uh projects. Um in this uh if should the planning board
adopt the plan tonight, which I recommend that it does to satisfy the June 30th deadline, um you will have immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits. Um there are several um as it states in the plan there are several uh projects
which I know um Joe and Tom are going to get into uh there was a question about what was rejected and why um that could that are waiting to see whether you adopt it tonight and um so that they can they could file builder's remedy
lawsuits. It's a likelihood that they would. Um, a challenge to your plan has to meet uh specific uh requirements according to the administrative office of the courts who created the directive for the program which is the affordable
housing dispute resolution program. Um that they must state with particularity uh and it's also in the statute, I'm sorry. um they must state with partic particularity uh how the city's uh housing element fair share plan violates
the Mount Laurel doctrine. It doesn't mean I like my project better than you than what you've put in the plan. That is has the city complied with the Mount Laurel doctrine. Um that doesn't mean I don't like how
you've credited certain things. It's looking at the uh the case law, the statute, COA regulations, um and all of the other requirements whether the city has complied uh with that doctrine. So that is the difference. Um according to
the AOC directive, if you don't meet that standard, your objection will be dismissed. So um there is there is more protection for the municipality moving forward if it adopts the plan. uh if the planning board adopts a plan and we file it with the uh with the program. If I
could jump in with the question, Madam Chair. Yep. Uh and if that if and when there's uh we we adopt the plan and proceed if and when there is a challenge to the plan, we still maintain our immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits during the resolution of that challenge.
Be it by settlement conference or be it by session, i.e. litigation in the affordable housing dispute resolution program in the superior court. Correct. Right. Thank you. That is correct. So we don't lose the immunity while there's a challenge. Uh so it is much much
different than a builder's remedy lawsuit. It is very different. Yes. Um I think can I ask one question? So that was Miss Holm going to ex explain the challenge. I think I was just looking at my uh because you were going to compare the builder's remedy which you just
explained very well to the challenge that we're going to have the challenge period. So you explain yes the challenge is whether the challenge would be an objection that's states with particularity how the city has violated the mural doctrine and that's the extent
that's completely different that's the whole yes we maintain our immunity during that process. That's correct. Yes. So there you cannot be sued with a builder's remedy lawsuit, nor can a developer bring in a builder's remedy style project
um against the city. And to clarify, if just for the public, if a builder brings a builder's remedy lawsuit to the city, regardless of any zoning regulation that's on the books, they could potentially build whatever they want.
You could get a 600 unit property in the middle of Summit that you can imagine what would do to this town and we'd have no protection. Is that right? That's correct. Yeah. Gives them a lot of power. It does. It's
um unfortunate. Yeah. So, yeah. Um I think Joe, I think we're up to rejected projects and why. Right. There there are two that are notable. Uh the first one is the one at uh Wells Fargo
um 190 River Road. Um the applicant or an individual initially came in with a 254 unit development application on 4.4 acres. That came out to about 45 units
to the acre. Um we had a series of negotiations to negotiate that project downward and I think the last uh alternative that we s seen from them was for 198 units if I'm not mistaken
198 um but in the end and that was the subject of a meeting here on that was the May 29th meeting where a lot of the public spoke out vehemently against that project And then for on the basis of
that that's why that was rejected in the end right there was a second project of a 300 unit project on 1.5 acres that putting aside for a moment that
excessive density um it was also being proposed over the public right of way and for that for those two reasons the excessive density and the fact that they were using public right ofway to to
build their project. That project was rejected as well. Quick question. Those those are all the projects that that came to if I recall that correctly. Okay. Well, I just have a quick question. Can we just drill down a
little bit on density for the three projects? So the incline uh the one project at uh the 300 unit I believe was a was it 250? What was that per acre? It was it was actually about 205. I just did the math. Okay. So so so project
number one was 205 per acre. 300 units divided by 1.46 acres is the math. Okay. So that was so because I think it's important to everybody to understand what the density of these projects are, right? Eight stories, 300 units. The second project which was um the Wells
Fargo was uh that 45 an acre. Initially came in at 45 and then it was reduced down to 190. So just just for for educating the public the current density per acre is 12. Well, that's the presumptive density.
So, actually that site does not permit that site does not permit residential development today, but as as a basis or a reference point, other zones that allow multif family development are generally at around 20 units per acre except for the NBC zone which allows 30. So, that's the upper limit of what some
neighborhood and I do stand corrected when it was 254 units on 4.4 4 acres that was 57.7 to the acre and when they reduced it down to 198 it was still at 45 to the acre. Okay. So still more than
twice but we comparable quote unquote correct and for those reasons that was and then the firehouse the at home the uh the firehouse the at home. Okay we're going to talk about that
separately. Um we well we could talk about that one now. just talk about technically that wasn't a project that came forward. Correct. Required consideration under the act uh for inclusion or exclusion, but it's a I'll
let you speak to it. I I guess it's a possibility that 42 unit project was on 0.8 acres and that nets out to a d it grosses out to a density of 52.5 to the acre.
Now the parking for that site was one parking spaces per uh one parking space per dwelling unit. That was what was being proposed. 42 parking spaces for 42 units. Um the resident the state's
residential site improvement standards. There's two standards I want to talk about. The conventional one, they they break out uh requirements based on onebedroom, twobedroom or threebedroom units. But as a general review, they
talk about two spaces per unit. Um, the other standards are for one bedroom, it's a 1.8 parking spaces per unit. For two bedroom, it's 2.0. And for three bedrooms, it's 2.3 spaces per unit. But if you just use two as a general rule of
thumb, there's a required bedroom distribution. And then anyway, that would basically require something of approximately two units on average. Yes. And that would be so that's the line of using the two unit average and that would be 84 parking spaces versus the 42
that were being proposed. Now I will also point out that around uh train stations uh is often used as the standard is often used as 1.5 parking spaces per unit
recognizing that people will be using um mass transit to a certain degree. But even at that standard, that would suggest that they needed 63 parking spaces to meet the needs of that facility and they were coming in with 42
parking spaces. That's a heck of a shortfall. And it was for that reason, for those reasons that we were having discussions with the developer and talking about a quite a bit fewer number of units on the site. And when they
chose not to reduce the number, we suggested maybe we could look at another site or they could look at another site and come back to us. But they stayed pushing this one property. And I know there are some fiscal implica financial implications as well that were of
significance. Right. And before I I get into that, I just looking at the big picture. So, the the site in question um which had been the Broad Street West site originally is four parcels, three of which are city-owned currently. Uh lot one is the Chestnut lot uh the
public Chestnut parking lot. Lot two is privately owned. Um it serves as parking for the firehouse uh as well as a driveway and parking for the adjacent funeral home. Lot three is developed with the what is now the old firehouse and lot four uh is developed with an
office building. So again, three of the parcels except for lot two are city-owned and anyone that's been following uh development issues in Summit um is is probably aware that this site has been studied extensively for the last 10 years or so. There's been various proposals and various iterations
of zoning frameworks. The most recently of which was adopted last year for the new Morris Broad crossroads overlay zone which proposes mixeduse development of the site which includes a multif well residential component with the minimum requirement of seven affordable units. So that's the current zoning on the
books. I would offer that through those 10 years of of analysis, not necessarily done just done generally, um I believe the city articulated what its vision was for the site based on a number of themes and factors. Um and this is based on the
input of of I believe it was thousands of people in summit. Thousands of residents gave their input as far as what they wanted to see. Obviously, not everybody had the same exact vision, but I think there were general themes that one that were articulated through the process. One is that the site serves as a uh a gateway to the downtown. So it's
on sort of the western boundary of of the gateway. Another was that the site should be developed comp comprehensively. So all four parcels in total comprise a land area of about 1.6 acres. So the city and and its residents that were involved in the process wanted to see a comprehensive design for the
whole site that in some way would also um give back to the city recognizing that it it would result in a loss of public parking. So there was a desire to see some public parking. There was a desire to see some green space. Um and beyond that there are there were certain
financial financial implications as part of the consideration. So on the one hand I believe the at the at home and summit project would have depleted the entirety of the uh the city's trust fund. So I I think it was about $2 million. Um not only that the city purchased lot four,
which is the office building, and I believe still owes a note of about $1.4 million on it. So it was always the intent that the site would be developed by a private development entity working with the city as a partner um and that there would be some revenue generated both at the point of sale and also
annually as a tax ratable. So as proposed the the proposed development would have cost the city a few million dollar. We don't we actually don't know the exact figure and that was sort of part of the problem is that the city would also have been on the hook for any uh funding shortfalls as I understand. So again, it's a difference of seven
figures uh really undefined at this point. So it's hard for the city to commit as as a one of many considerations um as to why this project as proposed was was not selected for that site. If I may real quick on that note, note no pun intended, but the the
the uh there would have been a significant municipal obligation over excluding the potential to have to bond and or find otherwise finance should the low-income housing tax credits not come through because they're
competitively sought and millions of dollars often do not right come to fruition. There would have been is that correct? Right. A commit. So an undefined amount in the seven figures on top of a a defined amount in the seven figures. Correct. The shortfall there.
Right. And and also the city's third round plan which was court certified and based on a settlement agreement with fair share housing center indicated that the city would find scattered sites throughout the municipality. So, it would not put all of its affordable housing on one site um that would that
would stand out essentially and and that again it would come up with different projects um or sites as this plan does in the form of group homes, inclusionary development, senior housing, assisted living. It's all in the plan. It's all on the charts, all these different sites. Um and we heard that there's only
one new unit being developed. I I don't know how that math was arrived at. I calculated very quickly in a span of about a minute that at least 45 new units would be constructed that don't exist today and possibly more through overlay zoning and other mechanisms. So to say that summit will only create one
unit in 10 years is just not accurate. Um and again it's all I made that comment. No well he chair it it's not a it's madam chair it's not a back and forth. I understand. Got one slide up. Excuse me just a moment. Let them go
through everything because there were so many questions. Let let them get through everything and we'll see where we go from there. I could we'll get to it when we get through. Anyway, I'm I'm almost done with So So anyway, in when the city considered this site, it considered the best interest of all 22,000 plus
residents in Summit. And by the way, it never closed the door to at home at Summit to come up with another site. That was always a possibility. And when this idea was first brought up that in that very first meeting which I was a part of, we said, you know what, we appreciate your experience, you know, we
we'll vet the project. We'll we'll run it through the appropriate channels. And I believe it was even vetted in public at one point. There's all sorts of comments both for it and against it. And there was always the conversation that listen, if it doesn't work out here, we'll try to find something else where we could do something. Nothing else was proposed. We this was had gone on for
over a year. So, for some reason, there was a focus on sticking with this site. And again, for all the reasons I I just sort of laid out that Joe laid out, it wasn't put into the plan. So, that's not to say we could never the city could never work with at home and summit, just that the plan that was proposed doesn't
work for these two lots at this publicly owned site, right? And currently that is zoned for residential combination mixed use, right? where it's a minimum of seven affordable, but it would likely be
more like eight, nine or 10. Correct. For that lot for the for that property. Probably around the seven mark given the density control. I mean, in theory, it could be more, but um and and well, so it it's there. It's been zoned to have
that 8020 mix. So hopefully Well, a guaranteed minimum is one way to think about it, right? You'll have at least seven units, right? Got it. Okay. What's next? Do you want me to do a couple of small things? Okay. Get the mic, please.
Um, okay. Uh, there was one question. Um, and I do want to thank the public. There were excellent questions and excellent comments. Um, Ashwood Court um was brought up by uh Miss Morrison. Um, Ashwood Court was part of a settlement
um with the neighbors on Ashwood Court and uh Habitat for Humanity on the Italian former Italian-American club. Um, they gave the city the possibility of creating two two units there. Um,
after investigating it, it does not look like it's large enough to handle um a an affordable housing uh project there. So, that's why it was taken out of the plan. So, but it was thoroughly investigated for several years after this settlement agreement came through. Um, as far as
St. Teresa's goes, um, St. Teresa's uh approached uh the city and wanted to um explore all of its options for um for um creating affordable housing, which we um we greatly appreciate. Um, right now it
is just in the conceptual mode. Um, I know that Fairshare Housing Center does appreciate I I did appreciate the the Lutheran joke. That was very funny. Um, uh, I did say to them, you know, this is the Catholic Church. It doesn't exactly move terribly fast. And they said they
were okay with that as long as we get, um, a letter of intent from them. Um, so um, Fair Share was excited about them, uh, with the possibility of creating affordable housing there. Um, and I do want to thank the Methodist church as well. um for being very generous with
their education building. Um one correction that does need to be made and it's my fault. Um that that project may create up to 13 uh senior units, but we don't know because the engineering is being done right now. So um so that's that's something there there be another
created unit. Um and I know there was an issue um going back to saying that um there's 17 units have already been created and one and only one unit's being created for the RDP. But that also
uh ignores uh the units in the unmet need. Um, it also ignores the fact that the reason that they're already created is because Summit has never been exclusionary and they've created units to the point where they had a 13 unit surplus from round three from the prior
round in round three. They have created units uh as we've gone along. Um, yes, Fairchair Housing Center filed a motion uh in that was alluded to that there was litigation for 6 months. There was no litigation. and they filed a motion and
I we worked with them cooperatively for those six months to make sure that we came to a resolution of that in time for the round for round three to be over and I do thank fair share for um for their input and we collaborated together so it
wasn't an adversarial um issue so um we just wanted to make sure that we um you know we we satisfied round three moving into round four um and And I just want to make sure I get all the little there were a couple. Um,
how is Summit different than Milbour? Uh, Milbour had a settlement agreement that was court approved and they removed one of the main projects from their plan. Oh. Unilaterally. Um, Summit has never done that. Summit,
like I said, has created affordable housing for many, many years, many decades, as a matter of fact. it has never removed a project from its plan uh that was court approved. Um so Milbourburn got sued by Fair Share
Housing Center. Um and you know that that's my understanding of what's going on. Why Milbour is doing what they're doing in their round four plan. I have no idea. I don't know if they if their settlement with fair share was encompassing their fourth round plan. So I can't comment on that. I don't know.
Um uh just want to make sure that I get all the legal questions. Forgive me. Um oh uh Summit Housing Authority. Um as I uh spoke about earlier about the
removal of the residency preference. Um, I have I have several towns worth of experience uh with housing authorities um and ensuring that they can leverage uh funding uh if if necessary. Um, one
of the main requirements for um, pursuing either N uh, low-income housing tax credits or DCA funds or other uh, funding sources is that you are included that a project is included in a housing
element and fair share plan. Um, that was done not to upset Summit Housing Authority in any way. I I think we all wanted to set them up for success. Um it's a lot easier to get that get a an
approved plan that and I have to remind everyone this does not have to be done tomorrow. This is a 10-year plan. So if uh we wanted to give Summit Housing Authority the most flexibility possible that when they decide what they want to
do, they are set up for success. Um it has nothing it's had was never an intention to leverage them in any way to foreclose any further discussions or um not continuing to be collaborative with them uh in the future. It was meant to
ensure that at least one box was checked that they could then um move forward uh with any plans that they had funding wise. Um there's lots and lots of money available um particularly this this round. Um, and I know of several uh
housing authorities that are moving for low-inccome housing tax credits right now um to improve their their units. So, that was the only reason it was with the best of intentions. So, um and look forward to working with the housing authority in the future, right? Um
I think I those are all the questions that I listed. Do you have any more? Uh yeah, one or two. Um, there was a comment about the concern with the strain on the school system and I'm going to tie that back to the vacant land adjustment in the RDP analysis.
Okay? Because as I know the board has heard me speak in the past that planning is a balance of a lot of competing interests and on the one hand we do want to accomp accommodate affordable housing and that does tie in with you know
greater densities and then that means more units and the vacant land adjustment process and the RDP process that's spelled out in the legislation acknowledges that there are those municipalities ities that are fully
developed and are entitled to a significant reduction from what their DCA original number was. And when you look at our analysis, I believe you'll find that is completely consistent with the rules and regulations spelled out in
the new legislation. And that's what resulted into that into that 18 unit RDP number. Now, there was a suggestion that the RDP should be 80 units. Um, in no way, shape or form would the RDP
methodology and the vacant land adjustment methodology result in 80 units. Could it be 20 units rather than 18? Yes, there is some minor and I'll stress minor flexibility in how you interpret certain things, but there's no
way this is jumping from 18 to 80. And if it were 80, you know, that would result in the very strain that that one person was talking about being concerned about on the school system because that would generate quite a number of additional
public school attendees. um not just from the affordable units because in all likelihood you wouldn't be dealing with 80 units through 100% affordable projects. First of all, the municipality's position historically has
been you want to see it done through inclusionary development. So even if we were to assume half of that number and let's say 40 units were through inclusion or redevelopment that would mean an additional 200 units in the
municipality plus the other 40 for the other 40 RDP units that were suggested. Um, so when you take all that into consideration, I think you could understand why the RDP calculation is so
important to you in terms of impact, not just in terms of public school attendees, but in ter in terms of traffic generating potential and impact on recreation facilities and all the other infrastructure aspects of the municipalities that make
it worthwhile to live there. Mhm. And that's why we're very comfortable that we did the process consistent with the regulations and result in a housing plan that um should pass muster.
Thank you. Do we have anything else there? There is one more correction that I forgot to mention when we were speaking of the housing authority. Can you hear me? I'm sorry now. Sorry. Yeah. Um it there is a typo uh that only 100
of the veto Gallow apartments um are included and that should be 20 125. So um it's it's supposed to encompass 100% of the housing authorities units. That was just a typo. You'll have to forgive
us. We've been doing a lot of housing plans across the state. So, so those two typos would be not substantial sufficient to be modified. Well, actually, they could be incorporated in any adoption even this evening because they've been referenced. Okay, that's
what I'm correct. Okay, that's correct. Yes, that's that's one. Now, it's two lawyers opinions. Thank you. There's probably a punchline there, but please don't. It's too easy. So, quick question. Yes. Uh Nancy, can you
just take the the mentioned lawsuit with Fair Share a little bit further and make the public feel a little more confident? Seems like there's still some questions on whether or not we were in a six-month lawsuit with Fair Share. Can you just expand upon the motion filing? Oh, sure.
Yes. Um so uh fair share housing center was in contact with us in October um related to how uh this the city was um how how the city was progressing with
its 50 new units um term and its its settlement agreement. Um unfortunately my kids were sick for about three weeks off and on off and on. I missed their last email. Um and in and then they filed a motion because I did not respond
to them. It was my fault. Um so immediately after they filed the motion, we began uh speaking with them. Um, and we went back and forth and we discussed uh we discussed all of the um
documentation that we had, all of the projects that that we were counting and um we've gone back and forth for 6 months. There was really no adversarial other than the motion being filed. Um, we had already reported that we uh had
enough credits to satisfy the 50 new units and um we worked out a consent order with them. Uh that's uh as of today um sitting on the judge's desk for a signature. So I know there's a question about whether or not I think um
maybe Diego had mentioned uh the gotcha moment of well we had to build 50 or we had to get to 50. Can you just talk about that versus 36? Oh, right. So, um, no, in the settlement agreement, we had to facilitate the construction of, um,
of 50 new units. It didn't say that we had to. It didn't say that we had to build a 50 unit 100% affordable project. Um there there were disagreements between us and uh fair share as far as what exactly that um that number meant,
but because we had enough projects and enough units to satisfy the 50, both sides compromised on what that uh what that language said and in an interest of um of settlement um we came up with the
consent order. So um so nobody nobody won. We settled. So, okay. Any other Okay. Can you remind us what the other typo was because we want to we want to um Oh, it's the 125 for veto
gallon. What was the other uh was there what was the other typo? Oh, the tiger baron. Yes. Thank you. Um the tiger baron was a different um I think it was mistyped in the master plan, right? Is that where you got the information
for the It was definitely referenced in another master plan. Oh, as far as being sponsored from Summit Housing Authority, the 2008 or 1994 master plan will talk about how that site came to be. Um, okay. We could take a look at, but as far as
the substance of the plan, it's irrelevant. No, I don't I don't know if we we can even that I think we're going to offer that later any other grammatical uh or even numerical errors that are clearly just errors where those numbers and references are stated clearly elsewhere
and it might be in one place that it's this you know so even the 125 for veto gallow that's already fixed like it's it's in the narrative that we that we inactive so there's a site description which indicates it's 125 units
Okay. It just referenced incorrect. What do you think? No, it's fine. Okay. So, we we won't edit it tonight because it's it's in there correctly once. Okay. And we all
Okay. Anything else? That's it. Just want to double check just to make sure we didn't miss anything. Uh, oh, there's a question about how to alleviate traffic on at Tacono Park, I believe. Was that um the other project
on River Road? Is that I believe um that also has to um did it not have a traffic study, right? No, we didn't. No. Okay. I don't I don't know the answer to that one then. Um I couldn't hear that. Was there a
traffic study done by Russell and East Summit? Well, you're dealing with uses that are permitted in the zone at relatively similar densities as as what's already permitted. So, as far as an impact to traffic and whether or not that development would warrant its own
traffic study on the one hand, traffic issue, traffic and parking related issues will be vetted at the planning board level. So, it's a bit it's a bit premature to review those at this point. Um and again they're they're permitted uses and generally permitted intensity of development that they're commonly
presented at applications right traffic studies right y was there an environmental study done on the site in order to be that would be a subsequent step in the normal course of development it won't be allowed without that was addressed earlier as was one of
the many things that has to be done in the context of a site application by the if not prior to to a site uh approval applica site plan approval application and done so by the develop prop uh prospective developer on their doc just
for the record a few other clarifications just a few other typo clarifications um so they could all be incorporated in whatever is adopted right and and um again I'm not sure they have any bearing anyway but let me just do a quick math here sorry
so the actual just to so there's There's no doubt the RD the unmet need uh would be 327 not 328 as stated in one or two places. So it's actually 327. It is stated correctly in a number of places but I know in at least one place it's
327. Okay. Um St. Terres is St. Terresa's is spelled with an H should not have an H. So thank you for that. Uh bear with me. Page 36 is a narrative.
Page 36, right? It says unmet need of 37 and not 327. So the number is 327. Difference between 345 and 18 is the unmet need. 327. Okay. So we'll be sure to Yeah, that's his department, right? So
yeah, make sure that the typos are fixed. An updated version post adoption that has all these incorporated. Exactly. Right. Okay. Assuming adoption. Okay. Yeah. All right. I clarify my comment that Tom
Mr. Baron's just to set the record straight. I pointed out not supposed to. I pointed out all these typos. Can you make it really, really, really short? Let's clarify. So the RDP 11:05 Everyone's getting tired, but yes,
there's a quid proquo for all the typos you get. Yeah, I gave all the typos. So the RDP is 18, right? That's at our RDP. There's 17 units that are already occupied by people and they're built 17 units, right? Yes. So, in order to meet
our RDP, which is our obligation under the plan, right? I'm sorry. Yeah. How many more units do we have to build? Well, there's also the unmet, but you don't have to do those. You have to. How many to meet our RDP? How many to meet RDP do we have? Sir, you were going to explain it, but you weren't. I did. If
you put the chart so you we got we got how you got to one. Yeah, I think everybody got it. Why don't you let Mr. Burgess the professional answer the question beyond that? As I said in my direct testimony, there is an unmet need. In this case, it's 327.
And well, that's an aspirational number. U in the course of the events of this process, uh you do have to show how you're addressing at least a segment of that number. And that's where the additional numbers that Tom had
mentioned about 45 come into play. But do any of those have to be built? Will we be under default under the plan if we don't build those? They are planned for it. Anyway, I it's one I I think if we ask Fairshair Housing Center if we could
get away with not building any of them for the next 10 years, the answer you're going to get is not sure. Go ahead. Well, I mean, what we're get you're going to build 18 and that's obviously going to get you in trouble, too. But, but I think I think everybody understands the difference. So, also,
just to clarify, um like I said before, um because Summit has been proactive in creating affordable units, just like 100% of the municipalities in this state, if you have excess credits, you can apply it toward your next round. Fair Share Housing Center consistently
agrees with this position and there's nothing that the city is doing wrong in doing so. Isn't it correct that they you can go back and you can be you could have a deficit or a surplus. You can look back and even potentially avail yourself of bonus credits in subsequent
rounds. So there's correct nothing wrong that's correct morally, constitutionally or uh mathematically uh with uh with with with potentially having more units in a round than you're obligated. That's correct. Yes. At a
minimum and and every municipality in the state uh brings forward excess credits for every um for every round. So well I think we're done. We're correct. I want to thank everybody and the board. Not done the meeting. Not done the meeting. Don't worry. Done with our
board professional comments. Um and I just want to ask does the planning board have any other questions before we Okay. So, um hearing none, we will now um I I draft resolution, Madame Chair, in
the event uh uh I take that back. uh council for affordable our affordable housing council and I co-drafted a resolution I didn't make to mean to to take all the uh uh all the responsibility uh for any credit um the
uh in the event that the board is of the mindset to adopt the plan as proposed this evening uh I could there are three there be it resolved uh paragraphs very simply be it resolved that the board hereby by adopts the fourth round housing element fair share
plan uh and recommends mayor and council endorse same and implement same another be it further resolved that the resolution and the fourth round plan be filed with the superior court within 48 hours of adoption by the board but no later than June 30 2025 my math is that
within 48 hours would be sooner than June 30 2025 and uh I will not be the one filing the plan if it's adopted but that is the statutory requirement that be done so uh within that time frame and copies be sent to the state office of
planning advocacy and the union county planning board uh within 30 days. So if the board is of the mindset this evening to adopt the plan as proposed you can go right to a motion second roll call vote on adopting the resolution adopting the
plan. Got it. Council I think there was a 2015 not 2025 2015. Yes. On the second whereas should be 20. Yep. Good. Okay. So, just confirm that. The second where should be July 15th. No, it should be
July 2nd, 2015. 2015. It just says 2025. Is a typo. 2025. Oh, okay. July 2nd, 2025. Hasn't happened yet. God willing it will. That's right. Couldn't come soon. Okay.
Are we ready? Can we have a motion to adopt the round four resolution for the housing element and fair share plan? Um, with the edits that are typos,
do I have a motion? So moved. Okay. No, no, there was a tie, so it's up to standing. Well, we have we have nine members, so everybody's regular this evening, so to speak. So go anybody can move and second. Everybody can vote. Yeah. A second. Second. Okay.
So, you have the honor of doing the role. Miss Sans. Vice Chair Bolson Alvarez. Yes. Mayor Fagan. Yes. Council member Hamlet. Yes. Miss Bowen. Yes. Mr. Delmaso. Yes. Mr. Formicelli. Yes. Mr.
LJOY. Yes. With a thank you to our consultants for all their hard work. Mr. Salah. Yes. And Mr. Stern. Yes. Motion carried. Thank you. Okay. So, we do have minutes to approve.
Um, anybody have any edits to the minutes? Okay. So, do we have a motion to approve them? Second. Second. I'm sorry. Who moved? You did. I second. Second. Say it again. I second. Okay. You You were present
that night, right? Yeah. To be present. Yeah. May 29th. Yeah. I was there and I think we had You were not there. That's right. You can't do it. That's right. So, I'll make a motion. I watch these things. This is what they pay me the big bucks for. Completely. So, mayor, would you move it? I would motion to. Okay.
And who's seconding? Someone else second. Okay. I think Miss Sans has the correct list of those who were present. So, yes, those are all your eyes and your abstensions are those who are absent. So, Mayor Fagan, I
Council member Hamlet. Council member Hamlet. Hi. Miss Bowen. Hi. Mr. Delmaso. I. Mr. Ljoy. I. Mr. Salah. I. And Mr. Stern. I. Motion carried. Thank you. Okay. That concludes our agenda today.
Uh, do we have a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Second. Second. Second. Second. Seconded. Okay. Good motion. I mean, yes. Motion is uh what what's the word? Go. Yay.