Did you email it to us? >> I'm not sure if it's on the website, but I Welcome to the planning board meeting. Uh let's stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. And now our secretary will read the adequate notice statement. In accordance with New Jersey statute 10
col4-10, adequate notice of this meeting has pro been provided to the newspapers of record and has been posted here in city hall. For the benefit of the interested public, this meeting is being livereamed to the city's YouTube page and also broadcast on Summit's government channel which is Comcast
channel 34 and Verizon channel 30. Any hearings on applications for development in this meeting are Quasi judicial proceedings. Any questions or comments may be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision in decorum appropriate to a judicial
hearing must be maintained at all times. Please note that the 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.
>> Thank you. Okay, so we have a little change in the agenda today. Mr. Weber, would you like to come up and uh we have an application that was originally scheduled for the snow day. Uh, pardon. >> Oh, roll call. Sorry. Roll call first.
Sorry. >> Chair Balsson Alvarez >> here. >> Vice Chair Hamlet >> here. >> Miss Bowen >> here. >> Council member Chrisoy >> here. >> Mr. Damaso >> here. >> Mr. Felman >> here. >> Miss Morrison >> here. [snorts]
>> Mr. Salah. Mr. Salah is expected but not yet present. Mr. Stern >> here. >> Mr. Stuntton is expected but not yet present. Mr. Golden >> here. >> You have a quorum. You may proceed. >> Thank you. Sorry about that. All right.
So, Mr. Weber, we had an application and uh you'd like to carry it to the next meeting. >> Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. James Weber of Alfonso and Weber on behalf of Carolyn and Adele Boros regarding property located at 791
795 Old Springfield Avenue. And yes, we're requesting an adjournment to March 23rd. And we would request that if the board considers that it not be with further notice. We would extend the time within which the board may act on the application.
>> And you're okay with that? >> Uh if I may, Madam Chair? Yes. But very quickly, uh the time to act extension will be through the end of the month of April. >> That's a that's sufficient. Yes. >> Thank you. And uh we can should the board so desire carry it without further notice because this was previously
scheduled. I found the content of the notice to be sufficient and timely served. We were scheduled the last at on for the >> February was it 23rd? >> 23rd. Thank you. >> Uh and then we did have Yeah, we had a a
second storm. We actually had a state of emergency uh declared by our governor and we were constrained and could not have the meeting that night and therefore uh this meeting has been noticed uh pursuant to the open public meetings act published in two newspapers, the Star Ledger and the
Union County Local Source. So we can proceed tonight and thereby among other things we can carry this matter without further notice to March 23rd 7:30 p.m. >> Yeah. uh even though we're a little earlier tonight uh at the same location
should the board so desire. >> Okay. So, do we have to do >> don't have to be formal. You can >> uh take it by acclamation. >> A motion. I'd like to motion to adjourn the hearing until the March 23rd planning board meeting. >> Thank you.
>> Second. >> Second. >> And all in favor is fine. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Great. >> Thank you. See you in a madam chair. there's anyone here interested in the application, I'm available to speak with them in the foyer. >> Want to add one? >> Great. >> While while we have, if I'm not
mistaken, were you also the attorney for the resolution that was on tonight for Lynden Place? >> Yes. Has been carried to the right. I just wanted, >> but we want to tell everybody. So, that's the other item. I didn't know you were the attorney for that one, too. Yes. The resolution we're going to carry as well. So,
>> to March 23rd at the request of the applicant for more time to review the draft that was provided. Thank you. >> You got it. >> Y [snorts] >> Okay. So, now back to our agenda. Let's flip it back over. We have new business. We have a public hearing tonight to
adopt the amended housing element and fair share plan. And we have our esteemed colleagues here, Miss Holm, and Mr. Barren, who are going to share with us all there is to know about this. And
uh this was brought to us by city council. They forwarded it to us. So, we are now considering it for adoption and I think you should just take it away, but I just want to share just rules of the road. They're going to present what
they have to share. Then the folks on the planning board will ask questions and then when we're finished asking questions, then the public can come up and do both comments and questions together, which I think is much easier. Um and then we'll have a little break so
they can collect their thoughts and answer you as clearly as possible and then we'll vote >> just very quickly procedurally if madam chair >> three minutes roughly is suggested. >> Yeah, the the I'll swear everyone in
when members of the public come up so you're free to question andor comment both without having to worry about that. And uh it is a public hearing and it was properly noticed pursuant to the uh municipal land use law more than 10 days advance of this evening both by way of
publication and the appropriate service. I don't know if uh Miss Home may be getting into some of that as well, but I just want to make sure procedurally the board and everyone knows that uh pursuant to municipal land use law, we we are entitled to proceed with the public hearing this evening. The one other thing I wanted to share just for
the public's understanding because everything sounds kind of the same when you're not in the weeds with it. The master plan is a broaderbased document and the housing element is part of our master plan and then we have a development or ordinance that um has all
of our ordinances our de development DRRO is what we call call it and that's where you codify a lot of the aspirations and things in the master plan. So, the public hearings about the adoption of the housing element and fair share plan and then we'll have just
consistency reviews for the ordinances that were forwarded to us from the city. >> Take it away, >> Miss Holm. >> Uh, good evening, Chairwoman Alvarez, members of the Summit Planning Board. Uh you are here to consider for adoption
the amendments to the city's fourth round housing element and fair share plan which was originally adopted by this planning board in June of 2025 and filed with the affordable housing dispute resolution program also known for as in short as the program in
accordance with the amended fair housing act. The [clears throat] city's June 2025 plan was challenged by Fairshare Housing Center, the Russo Development Corporation, and Incline Capital by the statutory deadline in August of last year. Russo and Incline each proposed
inclusionary projects of their own in their challenges. the city of Summit and the challengers with the assistance of program judge Miller and [snorts] special adjudicator Christine Kafone uh participating in over three months of settlement negotiations which culminated
in a settlement with Russo and Fairshare Housing Center. The city was unable to come to a meeting of the minds with incline, but it did ultimate but the city did ultimately decide to encourage reasonable inclusionary development on Incline site with an increase in density
similar to the NBC zoning which was included in the city settlement agreement with fair share housing center and program judge Miller's recommendation to the court to approve the city settlement agreements. The court approved the city settle settlement agreements and continued immunity from exclusionary
uh zoning lawsuits conditioned upon the city's amendment of its June 2025 housing element fair share plan to conform to the terms of this in the settlement agreements the settlement agreements and in in the implementation of that amended housing element and fair
share plan which involves the adoption of ordinances agreements and other administrative documents by the council. All of this must be accomplished by March 15 of 2026, which is the statutory deadline in the amended fair housing act. The planning board tonight, in
order to effectuate the city's settlements, must consider the adoption of the amended housing element fair share plan. As the city's special affordable housing council, I strongly recommend that the planning board adopt the amended housing element fair share plan that implements the settlement agreements tonight after the public
hearing. The consequence of not adopting the amended plan tonight or by the March 15th deadline, which we're out of time since it's March 3rd, will be that the court will strip the city's immunity from exclusionary zoning lawsuits, and the city will essentially lose control
of its planning process and allow for developers and [clears throat] the courts to run the show. As you will see from Tom Baron's presentation tonight, the city has fought hard to ensure that its amended fourth round housing element fair share plan accords with sound planning
principles for future growth of the city as well as significantly impacting and improving the lives and living conditions of the summit housing authority residents. I want to thank the tremend thank the Mount Laurel subcommittee for its tr tremendous hard
work past and current members of that committee subcommittee made up of city affordable housing professionals the mayor several council members including past and current council president the planning board chair andor vice chair a
zoning board member and the municipal housing leaison. This subcommittee met weekly throughout the program planning and mediation process as well as spend additional time reviewing concept plans, agreements, zoning ordinances, planning documents, and ultimately settlement
proposals and agreements to bring this before the planning board tonight. This was a monumental effort by city professionals, staff, and your friends and neighbors who hold elected or appointed positions to ensure that the city's best interests were protected as much as possible in a system that was
designed against the municipality's best interests. To say this process has been frustrating is an understatement. The frustration that the public feels, that the planning board feels, and that the council feels is felt by all of us, especially those who served on the
subcommittee. This is a top-down Trenton directed process that can only be improved by the legislature. I urge each person here, whether you're in the public or on the deis, to contact your state legislators and advocate for improvements to this process. However,
none of us can do anything about that tonight other than to protect the city of Summit moving forward in the fourth round by taking the necessary first steps of adopting the amended housing element and fair share plan tonight so that the city can move forward with pursuing a certificate of compliance
with its affordable housing obligations. I will now turn the presentation of the amended plan over to Tom Barren, the city's planner. >> All right. Good evening. Thank you for that uh introduction, Nancy. Uh >> excuse me just a second. Our attorney wants to
>> generally uh since it's a public hearing, if maybe out of an abundance of caution, I can swear in uh our planner. I'm not going to wad him as qualifications are more than sufficient. 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, Mr. Warner. Uh again, good evening all. Uh my name is Tom Barrens. I am a planner with the firm Burgess Associates. We represent the city as its affordable housing planning consultant. I [clears throat] am uh along with Nancy Holm, the uh the city's uh affordable
housing attorney are here to assist the planning board with the public hearing on the city's 2026 amended housing element and fair share plan dated February 12th, 2026. Uh a digital copy of which is posted on the city's website. Um, this plan amends the the
summit's housing and ele housing element and fair share plan that was adopted by this board in June of last year, which addresses the city's fourth round affordable housing obligations for the period of July 2025 to June 2035. I'll
note that we did provide an update at the council's February 3rd uh public meeting to give the the public an overview of the plan changes. I'll note that there have been no changes to the plan since that uh presentation was made on February 3rd. Um as Nancy has already
given sort of the pro procedural history on all this. I would just note that again since we last met in June and the plan was adopted um the next phase of the process were those uh challenges uh which the again the deadline was August 31st 2025 we received three of the
challenges were able to work out two of them which included fair share housing center Russo development uh but we were able to reszone the incline site just not to the level that they had hoped for. I I would also note that with respect to the fair share housing center challenge, they did also challenge over
400 municipalities throughout the state. So, we were not unique in that respect. And because we were able to um reach mediation agreements and modify our plan, as we'll get into momentarily, we're able to get favorable recommendations from the various Mount
Laurel judges and and ultimately uh a court order approving the plan subject to adoption of this plan as amended as well as the adoption of implementing ordinances which the council will be reviewing later this evening. And now we uh are at the point of amending the plan
in accordance with that order. Um so before I jump to the plan I would just state that the nature of the changes um generally relate to a progress update you know where we've come since uh June of last year some modifications to how we've uh dealt with the obligation
itself again an obligation uh given by the state um some new plan components that satisfy that affordable housing obligation and then finally some supplemental information >> without further ado getting into the various plan changes I'll note that this
is actually not a change but just a a quick reference to the city's third round uh fair share plan and obligation. The state had assigned summit a third round fair share obligation of 567 units but had a combined uh obligation of 702
units if you look at the first, second, and third rounds combined. But again, by virtue of not again, but uh the city was able to to utilize what's known as a vacant land analysis as it had in rounds one and two, was able to do that again in the third round um and reduced or
adjusted its obligation of 567 to what's known as a realistic development potential of 36. And you could see in the accompanying chart how the city satisfied that number of 36 um with all of those various plan mechanisms which include a group home, assisted living
facility, uh several 100% affordable developments and inclusionary development, all of which are completed and occupied. Moving on, also included in the city's third round plan was a an agreement to satisfy 50 units of new construction is
how it was phrased. Uh essentially of the city's unmet need obligation. Um you're going to hear some some jargon and terminology. I'll do my best to >> Oh, that's interesting. >> I have not had this happen before. Is it superimposing to images?
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. And it didn't switch the >> See what happens. >> I This happens every time. And I don't know why. >> That makes it That's a winning That's a winning shot. >> That's not what my screen looks [laughter] like. I'm just saying. Uh
this is this is bizarre. Let me try to troubleshoot this. Glad there's nothing too embarrassing. >> No. >> Adorable. >> Okay. Where? >> That looks much better. Okay. >> Okay. >> I like the first one. >> Bit of a detour. [laughter]
>> It's okay. Where were Okay, so back on track here. So again, a a new another component of the city's third round fair share plan uh was this again obligation to satisfy 50 new units and that was achieved by uh the mechanisms shown on this chart. They include uh conversion
of an existing chapel space at the existing United Methodist Church for 12 senior units. Uh 412 Mars Avenue which produced one affordable family unit. Uh the 12unit Habitat for Humanity project at 146 Mars Avenue and and a few other
projects that are listed there. Uh and again these total to the 50 units of new construction uh which are component of the city's unmet need obligation. And as I I was getting into before we had the PowerPoint mishap, there there are a few terms I'd like to just clarify. So
again, first there's the state assigned obligation, [clears throat] which is the perspective need. That's that larger number. And in this case, that was the 567 units from the third round. That number was adjusted through what's known as a vacant land analysis, where you look at all the vacant land um in the
municipality. There has to be a certain acreage or lot area threshold, which happens to be 0.83 83 acres which is the the threshold at which five units or more could be developed and you're able to extract land that's environmentally constrained. So by doing that analysis
we were able to in the third round reduce the city's obligation from 567 units to an RDP of 36. That doesn't mean the difference of the obligation goes away. That difference becomes what's known as unmet need. So state number minus realistic development potential
equals unmet need. Again, it's that remainder, that leftover. And what the state has required is that towns are supposed to address that number, not necessarily in full, but to to the extent that you can. And the city in the third round committed to these 50 units uh to of new construction as indicated
on the chart. Then we have some additional third round plan mechanisms to address the the city's unmet need, which I just referenced. Um, I'll note that the fourth round regulations, which are established by amendments to the Fair Housing Act that were enacted in March
of 2024, um, had a new feature which required municipalities to do what was known as a look back. So, you had to look back at your third round mechanisms to see what worked, what didn't work, and you were supposed to adjust in some cases where you could um, some of those mechanisms to incentivize the
development of affordable housing. So in the case of summit the four plan components highlighted in we'll call it orange um were further revised uh based on that look back again they they had a certain development framework a certain density that in working out our
mediation agreement with fair share fair fair share housing center we agreed to adjust just those uh four overlay zones which happen to be overlay zone one two four and Five. Moving on to the the reason that we're here is to address the city's fourth
round fair share plan. And this is uh done in in two charts. So um I'll note that um as you see in in in the two charts that 13 of the 19 plan 19 plan components uh used to address the city's
fourth round obligation were already in the June plan. So, we only have six new new plan components that we're we'll be discussing this evening. Um, I'll note that of those 13 prior plan components again that we had identified in June, those totaled 197 credits at that time
without bonus credits. Um, I'll also note that at that time we were still working with the Summit Housing Authority to try to address the issue of the residency preference and to figure out how those unit the rehab of those units could be funded in a way that would make those units creditw worthy.
again where they had been creditw worthy in rounds one and two in negotiations with fair share housing center in round three it it came to be that the residency preference was a sticking point they had to be removed in order for them to be credited again so we were hoping that it would uh play out where
we would be able to recredit um those Summit Housing Authority units I would note that those are existing units and because we were able to uh come to terms with the the Summit Housing Authority uh for how those units could be rehabilitated to take advantage of state funding we were able to take full
advantage of those credits. I'll also note that um in working through the mediation process, it became perfectly clear that uh we would have to include in some form or fashion the 190 River Road project. That's the Russo development project which was uh at a site that was determined to be unique in
that it was 4.4 uh acres in area that it was essentially surrounded on all sides by roads. It was, you know, existed as almost an island at the very northern end of the city and and was developed uh with a vacant what could be perceived to be an obsolete office building. Um and
so where the developer back in June had proposed a a larger scale development, the city wasn't able at that time to include the development in the plan. The developer then became a challenger and through the again the mediation process um that component made its way into the
plan and because we were able to get certain concessions um from that project one being I'll get into the concessions but um I'll note that they donated a property on um Shuntpike that uh 53 and
47 Shuntpike about 1.8 acres that in total generated 95 affordable credits. So when you take the 190 River Road project, 95 affordable credits in total, again including Shunpike, the 147 uh Summit
Housing Authority units, as well as 79 bonus credits, those were 321 affordable housing credits out of the city's total fourth round obligation of 345. So it became clear that we were almost there. And I I my intent was to address the
question that's come up a few times of well back in June the city had what was called an RDP again an adjustment to its perspective need or took the state obligation of 345 did a vacant land analysis and said well our obligation should be 18 units again
the unmet need never went away that difference between the 345 and the 18. were able to address the 18 units um in full and a portion of the unmet need. Again, there was a total of 197 uh credits at that time. Um so again, the
reason we modified our approach in this case was that we just frankly had the credits and and it made sense to do so. >> [snorts] >> Um, I would also note that to achieve the same number of credits just from those three projects I had mentioned, again, the bonus credits, Summit Housing
Authority and 190 River Road would have required a total of just over 1,600 new units where those three mechanisms just yielded 223 units. So, quite a um [snorts] uh, you know, an effort to
minimize impacts to the city at large. Um, moving on, I I'll just note that this first table again, these are all components that were shown back in June include ex existing inclusionary development. That means a mix of market rate and affordable units, group homes, uh, assisted living facilities as well
as extension of expiring controls, meaning you can take existing affordable units and have those uh, deed restrictions or controls continued through the duration of the next round and and generally uh, 30 or 40 years into the future. [snorts] that without
building any further units, >> without building new units. Right. Exactly. Right. Um I'll also note that six of the nine units shown on this first part of the chart are are constructed and occupied. Um the part two of the fourth round compliance chart highlights the new
mechanisms. Again, there are six in total, six out of the total 19. They include the 190 River Road project by Russo Development, which I mentioned. That's um total of 198 units, 30 of which will be affordable. There's another one known as Little Kings, which
is um on Old Springfield Avenue, essentially across the street from the Kings Supermarket. This is what we refer to as a spontaneous affordable housing development where the [snorts] property owner has an active planning board application um in which one unit of
affordable housing could be created. There is also 180 River Road um which is across the street from 190 River Road. There is the veterans 25 unit veteran supportive housing project on the Shan Pike site I mentioned earlier. There [snorts] is also the Bristol Myers Squib
campus uh which I I believe is about 90 acres in the northern end uh of the city which um we didn't know was going to be made available back in June and it's been our understanding that the properties for sale but that only a certain portion of the property of an acreage to be determined may become
available for residential development. There has yet to be a developer or [snorts] a new owner selected for the property, but um it's our understanding that we were able to um anticipate that we could build at least up 100 units there, 20 of which would be affordable.
And then finally, there would be there's a proposed reszoning of Franklin Place for townhouse development, which yields a total of 21 affordable housing credits. And you'll notice that at the bottom of the chart where the city's uh fourth round affordable housing obligation is 345 units as proposed,
this yields a total of 374 credits which is a surplus of 29 affordable credits. Um and now I'll just get into the specific sites after I I go over this um map of the city which shows the distribution of affordable [clears throat] housing throughout
summit. Uh this includes existing and proposed sites uh throughout the city. You'll notice they're they're sort of scattered from top to bottom. And again, I'll provide an overview of the new plan amendments or the new sites in the plan. So this is um a rendering
of 190 River Road. Again, it's going to be developed with Russo Development in partnership with Onyx Equities. It'll have a total of 198 units in an inclusionary development which means again a mix of market rate and affordable units. So in this case 30 of those units would be affordable. Um they
will have 25 of those parking spaces um available for the city. Um I should note where the existing office building will be demolished. Um the ex the existing parking structure with about 700 spaces will remain. So 25 of those spaces will
be allocated for city use. They're also providing $1 million to the city's affordable housing trust fund as well as $100,000 for the adjacent municipal golf course. Uh they've donated again the 1.8 acres at 47 and 53 Shunpike Road. And
then finally, they've agreed to providing shuttle service to the Summit train station to alleviate traffic and parking uh demand in the downtown. Then we have the associated um Shunpike site where it's anticipated that there
would be a 25 unit uh veteran supportive housing development. Um [snorts] you could see the site highlighted in yellow. Again, it's two parcels about 1.8 acres. There's a small sliver that's impacted by wetlands. Um I'll note that there has yet to be a developer selected. There is no ordinance in
place. Um and that the zoning for the site will follow a uh a forthcoming developer selection. We don't know exactly when that will happen because that's contingent on the progress of the Russo development at 190 River Road, but we we expect there to be uh a lot of
collaboration with the public as this moves along in terms of identifying the developer uh taking a look at what could be built there as far as concepts and then working on an ordinance for the site and then finally a site plan application before the planning board.
So there's a ways to go before we one fully fully know what's going to be built there. Um and opportunities for the public to participate every step of the way. And we believe that ultimately the outcome that'll be that'll be developed there will be um [snorts]
uh I'll say minimize impacts to the to the neighborhood. And you could see just by looking at the aerial image of the site um to the rear of the site is the existing Ken View pharmaceutical campus. To the right is the uh municipal boundary with Springfield, an existing Knights of Columbus. There is an
existing single family dwelling to the west and a single family neighborhood to the north, but the site itself is at the end of the road and otherwise um you know adjacent to undeveloped areas. Um we then go to the existing Bristol
Meyers Squib campus which is at the north end of the city. Um, I mentioned that the campus is currently uh up for sale and there are a number of biders that are looking at it. We don't know who the exact who the developer is. Again, we don't know exactly which part of the property is going to be made
available, but we anticipate that whatever [snorts] does become available if and when could produce at least 100 total units, 20 of which could be affordable. um a as that process moves along um again we're not at the stage where we have an ordinance or anything like that in place. So the public will
be engaged to help determine what the future of that site um or or how the future of that site should uh play out as far as development. We have what we've referenced as the Little King site. This is 791 and 795 Old Springfield Avenue. Um, this is a
site that's developed with a a one-story building and surface parking that would be demolished to accom uh uh accommodate a three-story mixeduse development, which would include six total residential units, one of which would be affordable.
We then have 180 River Road, which is just across the street to the west of 190 River Road. Um and this uh forthcoming ordinance contemplates the conversion of the existing office building uh to multif family use. So where across the street the existing
office building would be demolished to make way for a new residential development. It's anticipated that due to the dimensions of this office building it could be converted to a number of residential units. In this case that happens to be 37 total units, eight of which would be affordable. The existing parking structure would remain.
Um, and this project came about uh by a letter of interest from the property owner who indicated that this was um uh an interest of theirs. So, um we we ended up creating an ordinance um that we'll we'll get into a bit later this evening that would facilitate that
conversion. I believe this is the last one. This is the uh proposed resoning for Franklin Place. Um it is for uh parcels in block 3401 lots 7 through 20 which are currently in the city's R5 zone. Um
what's contemplated is a reszoning of those parcels to a new TH3 townhouse zone where town houses could be built at a density of 10 units per acre. This site is immediately adjacent to the city's downtown within close proximity to the city's train station. You could see from the aerial image there's
already existing townhouse development on the westerly end of Franklin Place. Um the the way that the ordinance has been crafted requires uh front yard setbacks uh coverage requirements and other bulk requirements that are intended to uh complement the
neighborhood. Um [snorts] and the reason this one of the reasons the site was selected because a lot of the existing development actually doesn't adhere to the existing R5 zone. There's a uh a variety of uses some some of which are non-residential including commercial and industrial uses as well as a number of
multif family uses again many of which don't actually um comply with the existing R5 zone. So this reszoning would create an opportunity for the for townhouse development and a certain number of affordable units. In this case if the whole um zone were developed it
could produce 70 total town houses 14 of which would be made affordable. Tom, the front yard setback just to give people a visual >> for the R5 and the new townhouse is the same. >> It's going to be the same. >> I believe it's the same, right? So, so we did try to keep intact what we could
from the R5. >> Streetscape feels compatible. >> It would be compatible, right? And again, across the street from the existing R5 zone. So, that's the last site ahead. As as I mentioned, there are a number of sites that we're currently still working through that don't have ordinances. We'll we'll get into the
actual development ordinances uh later this evening. So there there is still very much a public process to go through for each of these sites that are in various stages. So in some cases we are looking at the ordinances tonight but in every case they still have to go to the planning board for site plan application. In some cases we're still
at the phase of selecting the developer um crafting the ordinance and then having to go to the planning board. So again there's still plenty of opportunity for the public to be engaged. Um, as far as process, uh, Nancy mentioned that, um, we're at the point where the planning board has an
opportunity to adopt these amendments to the housing element fair share plan. The council has a meeting just after this one on March 3rd, uh, at which they could endorse this plan if they were so inclined, as well as adopt the various uh, affordable housing implementing ordinances, which have to be adopted no
later than March 15th. Um, and then finally, a few of the plan amendments that I haven't mentioned that are not sight specific pertain to supplemental information in the appendix. I'm just going to list those items off brief uh quickly. They include the mediation agreements with Russo and Fair Share
Housing Center. They include the vicinity judges court order approving the city's fourth round housing element fair share plan. They include the city's spending plan. They include the ordinances that will create the AH1,
AH2, AH3A, and 3B and TH3 zones. Uh, it includes the ordinance to amend the overlay zones. It includes the amendments to the city's schedule of space regulations contained in chapter uh 35, the development regulations
ordinance. Um it includes a new general affordable affordable housing ordinance uh which are [snorts] uh regulations that are provided by the state as far as um when a new development is proposed. There's they're supposed to have a
certain number of affordable units that meet income requirements, phasing requirements, etc. So that ordinance is based on a state model ordinance. Um there's also an abandoned property ordinance and finally the zoning board approval for the Turano Park application. So,
that sums up the amendments to the plan. Um, and at this point, I'd be glad to entertain any questions from the board >> or public. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Tom. >> Yes. >> After
tonight, here council March 15 seemingly if it gets >> Oh, get your mic so people can hear you. >> Um, so if things go according to plan, it gets approved. common council after this. Um what then happens with the
state? Is it is there another round of review? Does another program judge have to rule on it? Like what? So um once we submit everything by uh March by the March 15th deadline, which March 15th is a Sunday, so it's March
16th, um it uh what's going to happen is it will then go to the uh Union County visage judge. There's um since the Mount Laurel 2 decision in 1985, there has
been a um a county judge um that is called a Mount Laurel judge. So they process anything that didn't go through COA it would or it went through the courts, a builder's remedy, etc. Um there's a Mount Laurel judge. So that Mount Laurel judge will now review our
um our documentation and then um he has already approved our settlement agreements and our plan subject to amending in ter in um conformance with those agreements. So, he's going to determine whether they conform to those agreements
and then we will then the city will get a what's called a certificate of compliance. And that is um basically it's replacing what COA's KOA's stamp of approval. We'll put it that way. That it's replacing KOA's stamp of approval. It means you've done what you were
supposed to do constitutionally. So long as you implement continue to implement that plan, you will be immune from builder's remedy lawsuits until we come up to round five. >> 2035 June July 1, >> right? July 1st of 2035. If we don't do
this fabulous process over again, uh then you then the city would lose its immunity on July 1st of 2035. >> Okay. So, since you brought it up, can you describe what uh a builder's remedy
lawsuit would look like if we lost our immunity? >> Sure. Um, so a builder's remedy lawsuit is um a mechanism created by the Supreme Court in 1985 in Mount Laurel 2 um where a builder can force a municipality to
comply with its affordable housing obligations. And in turn, what happens is a builder would a developer would come with a project and say, "Judge, I'm ready, willing, and able to provide affordable housing. Approve my project." And
I would say 10 out of 10 times that project is extremely dense. Um, and then at that point if um the judge would then say, "Okay, builder, you can um you can build your project." So
basically the court would become the planning board and say you need to implement this project and you have a court order to do so >> and zoning is not considered. Correct. >> Correct. >> There's no >> there it is considered to a point but if
this person is if this developer is ready, willing and able to provide it and um a court master says that it's in accordance with sound planning principles >> generically. It's yeah it it's basically
adopt uh adopt zoning that allows this project to move forward and your planning board better approve that plan and then if they don't >> then the court master becomes >> in like real term real time terms right so as an example we did not pass this
plan and we were subjected to builder's remedy if incline capital came with that plan >> on the village green >> on the village green with what was originally conceived what was it 300 and something units >> I believe so it was about eight stories
300 units in the middle of town >> almost 100% certainty that that's what will be built there >> it's it's entirely likely yes >> in those circumstances would it be limited to just them but in the future would another development like that come up around town >> it could be whoever ultimately um
purchases Bristol Myers Squib it could be someone who hasn't who may own property propert at Franklin Place. It could be somebody who owns property somewhere else within the city that we don't know about. It could be anyone. Literally anyone can come in that we
don't even know about. >> Apologize for the interruption, Madam Chair. I think Can we recognize on the record one of our board members joined us just now? >> Absolutely. >> Welcome. >> And and however, for the record, uh since you were not here for the entirety of the hearing the vote, uh you will not
be voting on the adoption of the housing element fair share plan this evening. uh apologies but just the legal requirement. So >> feel free to ask any questions though. [laughter] >> Yeah, we want to hear your voice. Ask as many questions as you want. This is the time for the board to be asking
questions then we're going to have the public ask question. >> I do have a follow-up question to that. So, uh, hypothetically speaking, in the future, if a developer were to come and gather an assemblage of various lots in Summit and they did not have the city did not have immunity to builders remedy
lawsuit, could they follow in the same fashion that Incline attempted to do before? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> If they did, if we do not have immunity. >> Yeah. If we do not have immunity, >> that is correct. And if just to follow up, if um if a developer does get a
builder's remedy and comes to the planning board and for whatever reason the city denies that application, um what can also happen, which is really bad, is that the court master, now called a special adjudicator, can become
the planning board and approve projects. And that has occurred once. It was in Englewood Cliffs. M >> um and I I do believe that the the court still has control over their planning board. >> They do >> as of right now. >> So that is the extreme remedy. Um
however, builder's remedies are fairly extreme by themselves. So >> can immunity ever be recovered? >> Uh eventually yes. But whoever um kicks the door open uh if you don't have immunity will likely get their project
approved. So >> any questions on >> just to reiterate if we were to if we were to bite um on March 16th Incline Capital the door is open for Incline Capital or
Russo or whatever to say we're going to do this on March 16th. I just want to make it clear that we're not pro I am not prodevelopment. I am pro following the laws that we have
to follow. So yes, so if if for some reason the city of Summit does not comply with the March 15th deadline, then developers, particularly those who have um have filed challenges and fairer housing
center will request that the court strip our immunity. >> Right. And then I have another unrelated question on Franklin Place. That property, that group of that assemblage is owned right now by different individuals or companies, right? It's not yet owned by one.
>> I I correct. >> That's that that's accurate. And um as the state assigns affordable housing obligations, the point is to modify zoning such that it can produce affordable housing. Right. So, um, in this case, as you mentioned, the
different properties, as far as I'm aware, are owned by different entities, but the zoning would encourage assemblage so that future development could be cohesive in a way that could generate affordable housing. Those those properties and uses can persist as they do now. Just future development would be
in the form of townhouse development. >> But if the private property owner doesn't want to sell, there's no mechanism to force that. >> Nothing forces them to do anything, right? and and if it's an existing commercial, industrial or residential use, they can continue on using it. So there's nothing being taken away. It
just any future development would have to adhere to the new zoning. And there's always the opportunity for somebody to propose something different and go to the zoning board and request relief there. >> And that also applies to all the other overlay zones, correct? That are privately owned. >> It's slightly different in this case
where this is a reszoning, which is distinct from an overlay zone. So an overlay zone becomes a second zoning framework or an option where the existing zoning remains in place. >> The the issue with that is that an overlay zone can only address unmet
need. It can't address the the um the perspective need or realistic development potential as it relates to summit. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much for that presentation. Uh, regarding the Shunpike project, what
is the timing expected for the Veterans Housing to be developed? Uh, you you laid out some of the steps that are tied into the Russo development, >> but what is the expected timing of that and what are some of the potential conditions that it could could occur and
what flexibility is possible to allow input from the neighborhood to help shape that project? >> Sure. Um so in our agreement with fair share housing center and with Russo um so the fair share housing center
agreement governs how we reszone it a little bit. Um but the the Russo agreement governs when we receive the property if that makes sense. So um a partner of the um with Russo Onyx
equities um it is a is a partner in the the shop hike site right so they first have to purchase it outright from their partner right and then um the way that fairshare housing center wanted the
fairshare housing center wanted to speed up the process we said we agreed with uh Russo to they had to transfer it at some point before they come in for certificates of occupancy on 190 River Road. Um, Fair Share wanted it transferred sooner. The the intention
was that it would be transferred sooner, but we gave them until uh certificates of occupancy. Um what the what fairshare wanted um and which is an amendment for the council tonight to this the Russo settlement um is that once Russo comes
in for their planning board approvals and those approvals are um no longer appealable, the appeal period has expired, um then they will start the process of transferring the property to the city. Um
then um once once the property is transferred um then the city has I believe six Hold on. Let me look it up. I want to make sure I have >> I'm sorry Nancy. What what is the time period for the appeal process? What are the what are the ranges?
>> So once so RUSA would have to file their site plan approval with the planning board. You would have your hearings. I assume it's it's a large project, so I can't imagine that it would um happen over one uh >> one hearing, unless you guys are really fast. I don't know. That's not my my
forte. Um then um once they receive their approval, they have um a certain number of days where a prerogative writing an appeal. Um and then once that appeal period expires
>> um I believe is it 45 days? Is it 45 days? Okay. I wasn't [clears throat] quite sure. [laughter] I don't do I don't do planning board things. Um there's a 45 days from when they receive their approvals. So then 45 days once that expires uh then that would be the shortest amount of time
where they would then transfer the property to the city. So then um one within 90 days of receipt of the recorded documentation. So it would have to um be transferred and then uh the
deed to the city would have to then be recorded and we receive it back from the clerk's office. So that takes some time as well. >> Uh within 90 days of receiving that back from the deed back from the the clerk's office, the city will enter into an agreement uh with a developer for the
veterans project. Then um after that agreement, the city then has 60 days after the execution of that agreement to reszone the property for the proposed project by that developer.
So that's we're now at 150 days from the transfer, the receipt of the deed from the clerk's office. Um, so that it gives a I would say the earliest they could do it if you guys are very fast at
um at [laughter] giving Russo um approvals wouldn't be until sometime next year would be probably the earliest that the property would be transferred to the city. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> And what what was your you had another question and I'm sorry. >> Okay. Sorry about that.
>> So the second part of the question. So what uh possibility for local input from the neighborhood? >> Oh yes, >> exists in that process. >> Uh >> a whole lot. >> There are multiple time periods is a good question. >> Site plan application is a process for the public. It's a public hearing. >> That was one of my questions to Tom,
>> right? But he's talking about >> drill down on that. But that's >> but he's I think he's you're talking about Sean Pike for the Veterans Project. Yes. So um there's a lot um we can start right now. Um, we can, uh,
submit an RFP or request. We can do a request for proposals for all, you know, developers who specialize in veterans housing and have them make public presentations and solicit input. Um, you can hold town hall meetings, you can
have suggestions, you can have surveys. We can start right now uh, with all of that process. Um there is no other than making sure that 25 units fit on that property for veterans and they're deed
restricted uh for affordable housing. Uh the sky's is the limit there. So um there it can be a very >> veterans >> um that's what I think was preferred. But um the the reason that veterans were
picked uh was because supportive and special needs units are basically one of the only mechanisms left where you can get a two for one bonus credit. So supportive and special needs housing creates fif 25 supportive and special
needs units creates 50 credits. >> So what other things could be supportive housing that are not veterans? uh group homes uh DDD group homes um other uh medical >> so for example I'm just sort of spitballing here but for example it
could be something like a sober living home maybe >> sober living is a little different >> oh never mind it could be some other >> like a group home some sort of group home whether it's a medical medical needs group home or um DDD is the is
probably the [clears throat] it has to conform to the definition of supportive and special needs units in the statute which is very particular great >> type of unit. Tom, can you follow up on any of these uh developments that may
come about because of our new housing element and fair share plan? The the different steps where there's public input, where there's ways that we can ensure that these developments are compatible with each neighborhood so that there's some comfort and
understanding that this is kind of broad brush and then we drill down with ordinances, with site plan approvals, with our design guidelines. Can you speak to some of that to give some understanding of how we can make these projects compatible? >> Sure. An overview of the of the process
and and I would offer that we're at the very beginning of that process and you had mentioned earlier that the master plan sort of provides the overarching land use policies and goals and then then it's the zoning ordinances or development ordinances that implement those goals on a sight specific basis. So I'll I'll just point to the Shuntike
site since we are on it. So, we're at the point where the site has merely been identified in the plan. Um, as was mentioned, the next step would be to select a developer and because the city would own the property, there's a lot of um discretion in who that developer would be and that could be a public process. The second step would be based
on that developer and concept an ordinance uh to implement that development would be adopted by the governing body similar to similar to the process that we're involved in tonight where the governing body would introduce an ordinance the planning board would conduct a master plan consistency review then that ordinance would be adopted.
>> The final step would be the developer submitting a site plan application to the planning board for review. So it's a multi-step process. Right. >> We're at the very beginning of that process >> and things that can happen at that site plan discussion are >> I you review anything
>> massing setbacks materiality all of that can be >> sure at that point hopefully we would have baked in a lot of that you know required buffers the scale of development >> well if you own the property but other other sorts of uh >> well sight specific things right parking and traffic what the building looks like
where the building's located what type of building it is how many units the the nature of the units etc. So the very sight specific development specific details would be >> so for Shike we have even more more input because we're going to own it >> for other sites that we don't own. >> Yeah.
>> Then right then we will have still a lot of tools in our toolbox. Can you talk a little about the design guidelines? >> So the city when >> you're referenced in all the ordinances by the way. >> Right. So, so when the city adopted a new development regulations ordinance in 2019 that was amended or replaced in
2020, it included um development design guidelines which talk about uh things like massing uh building orientation design requirements etc. And every application that goes before the planning board and zoning board are supposed to adhere to or acknowledge those design requirements. It's up to
the board to consider those. you know, the extent to which the development is consistent or not consistent with those criteria. >> And the neighborhood >> and the neighborhood. That's right. That's part of it. >> Did you have a question? >> Yeah. I just want to um Well, first of all, thank you both for all your hard work and Austo. Um you guys have spent
so much time and dedication. So, um I guess number one, I just want to say how important it was that we were able to get um the Summit Housing Authority in this plan. Uh it was a herculean effort and uh I see Mr. Gallow back there in
the back. Um it's really important for Summit. We have uh those units for our Summit families uh are in terrible terrible shape right now. Um Mr. Galla was here. They were in pristine shape and over the years um you know they've really gone downhill and you know my
children go to school with these kids and it's it's sad. Um, so we were just really lucky to be able to get the Summit Housing Authority and I just want to say thank you. Um, thank you to the council members who worked so hard with uh with the housing authority, Rick Whipple, Raz, um, for making that
happen. It was just probably one of the most historic things that nobody's ever even going to realize that happened over the last 6 months. Um, and we didn't know if we were going to get there, right? We really didn't. Um, it took a lot of education to get the Summit Housing Authority there. Um because what that means just so so if you're in the
public and you don't know they'll be able to access a lot more funding. They probably need 15 to20 million dollars of of funding um from from HUD. So that'll open that up. So I just want to say thank you for that. Um that's why this plan there's a lot of people who are angry uh at you know because there's
there's sites on here that maybe weren't on here before and and a lot of them called me and they said well where was the transparency in all of this? and I explain to them or maybe Nancy you can explain um how we were in mediation and how we had to keep these discussions uh confidential until just recently
and then also just talk a little bit about how Shunpike would have been developed with a much higher density project down there. Uh yes. So um and I I do want to uh actually thank Fairchair Housing Center and the special adjudicator. um we they
worked very collaboratively with us to figure out how to improve the housing authority units using the rules that are in place now. And that was a lot of work. [laughter] That was a lot of work. And um and the housing authority and
their attorney um we've all worked, you know, it we had some contentious times, but we we worked it all out and uh they were very good about working with us and they still are. Um so that that is probably one of my most proud mechanisms
in this plan is to be able to uh to improve the housing authority units. Um as far as give me your second question. I lost it. >> Transparency the density of Shunt Pike. >> Yes. >> Had we not taken control. >> Yes. So the way that the the Fair
Housing Act set up um this process um it's a it's we set up as a declaratory judgment action in court. So it was litigation um and through that process we then entered mediation as soon as we had challenges.
Mediation requires confidentiality uh between the parties until there is an agreement that is a meeting of the minds that can be shared with the public. Um and unfortunately that took us until 2 days before Christmas to um to get to
that point. Um and even then we did not have an officially signed settlement agreement with Fair Share Housing Center until midFebruary. So it is very difficult to be able to bring things to the public when you have a confidentiality
uh requirement for mediation. So unfortunately and that was that was one of the major things that um that our office did testify in Trenton about that it was not a transparent no matter how much they said it was. Uh unfortunately
that's the case. And then uh Sean Pike, say it one more time. >> If we just just explain to the public the density of >> uh when we learned that, you know, Go ahead. >> I'll read my mind. [clears throat] >> The um Yes, same thing. Um well, the
site was owned by a private developer who happened to be a partner of the Russo development. And this was a savvy development entity who also uh was a partner in the Kenview property that was adjacent to this what what exists as the Sliden Creek Farm site. uh 47 and 53
shuntike. So I they expressly stated it was not their intention to keep it a farm. And so because they were able to donate the property to the city, the city was able to retain control of that site to determine its its future. Um and at some point uh I think it was over
last summer um after this the city had adopted its June plan that one of the iterations of the Russo development was to put all of their affordable units on this particular site. And so they would have developed it in a manner that they would have deemed appropriate. Um so again by the city retaining ownership of
the property we can determine uh the development fate of the site. Uh again we we have veterans housing in the plan for a couple of reasons. One it's a segment of the population for which there's a need. Um there's a considerable amount of funding available for that. So it would be at [clears throat] essentially it it if it
if it went well at no cost to the city. Um, and also it it it's housing that wouldn't impact the school system, which was important. We understood that some of these plan mechanisms have a number of family units and that the schools are already stressed. Seems like that's a theme in any municipality in New Jersey,
but that at least these 25 units could be provided in in a way that doesn't further stress the school system. >> Thank you. >> Hey, >> any other questions? I don't have a question, but I know I don't know how much I know we probably can't make any changes, but a couple of like nits in
the um on like page 60 of the amended plan. Uh sorry, not 60. Uh 58, it says that there's 23 surplus credits. I think that should be 25. >> We will correct that number if it's
inaccurate. So, you're on page 60. >> Uh 58. >> 58, excuse me. And then on 68 in N, it says the extension of the expiring credits from July 2025 to June of 2025. I think that's supposed to be 2035.
>> Yeah, 2035. Yeah. >> And if I may, any changes like that are not substantial changes. I'm sure Miss Home would agree. And the governing body can still proceed to adopt the ordinances and the planning board can still proceed to adopt this housing element fair share plan. It's generally
recognized those things are just uh done uh uh uh in an arada uh and can be double checked after the fact and it doesn't change anything because it's not substantial as uh so we can proceed with that. >> Okay. >> So if there's any further questions for board >> any other questions from the board
>> okay >> yeah just on one of the sites [clears throat] uh the BMS site for example you talked about procedural steps that will take place in general from now until site approval right and so on and so forth. So it's called out and planned. I think it's 100 units 20
and a minimum of 20 set aside, right? So being that the sales still going on, how will how can the public think about uh what will be the next steps the sale happens, does the developer then bring a plan to who and how does it get um
vetted for density? Obviously the it's currently zoned for commercial from my understanding. Um How will that change and who will oversee that those changes and you know how can we think about the range of of decides and or will that
come during part of that process? >> Well, I'll I'll take the first step. Correct me. Correct me if I'm I'm off the rail. So, um a good question. So, it it's obviously a private transaction, right? So, you have a private entity, Bristol Wire Squid, that's selling it to some prospective developer. At this
stage, I believe there's a small pool of competent developers that can manage a site of that size. Um again that that one parcel or combination of parcels is about 90 total acres and it's my understanding that the vast majority of the site for a number of reasons will remain non-residentidential but there's
an opportunity to potentially reszone a portion of it approximately 10 acres or so could be more could be less don't know the exact location of that but if it's possible to develop residential development there they may make a proposal to the city which could take the form of a number of I mean you could
speculate any type of residential it could be single single family homes, town houses, mixed use, multif family. So, it depends on who ends up with the property, um what they find to be marketable. It may be that they propose a number a number of options for the city to consider. I would offer that by
by virtue of adopting this plan and preserving our immunity, we have more control over what goes on there so that we can't have some mega project, you know, occur. Not at least that we don't have a say on it. And it may be that the city um would like to see some level of development or ratable there, but but I would anticipate that would
very much be a public process where um I don't know exactly how it'll play out, but conceivably there could be concepts proposed to the public. There could be an ordinance created because as you mentioned, it doesn't allow residential development as of right. So, in order to uh accommodate that, there would have to be a zoning change there and and
hopefully it would be a win-win situation where the developer and the city are aligned. Okay, >> that's the hope. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you. Oh, sorry. >> Yes, just to follow up on >> Sorry, Dan. Mr. Mr. Golden hasn't had a chance. >> So, so on Franklin Place, we make the
zoning change. >> If a developer never comes forth to develop it, do we still get credit for those units or are or are we it fail in 2035 if if they never get developed? So the requirement is to create the
opportunity by zoning and and you'll notice in a lot of these cases we don't have developers selected. We don't have ordinances at this stage. You're supposed to create the zoning to create the opportunity. Uh and again in this case it's an R5 zone that would become a townhouse zone. To answer your question more directly um if it doesn't get
developed u I suppose the city could revisit that in 10 years and either modify the zoning, replace it with something or or or some other option. There's a five, >> but we're still in compliance with with fair share whether it gets developed or not. >> This was signed off by fair share
housing center by the court adjudicator by the various judges and approved essentially by the court. >> Yeah, >> there's a midpoint review after 5 years as part of the process >> 2030. >> Council that. >> Yeah, hold on one second. And then also
um in our agreement with fair share we do have to um we do have to look at certain zoning that we do at the midpoint review and if if necessary we we can change the mechanism as well. So um
>> I just wanted to add that >> is privately owned I mean so I mean correct force development >> no correct >> create the opportunity is the operative >> realistic opportunity that's that's the >> that's great um at the last council
meeting I had the honor of introducing these ordinances that we're discussing tonight >> and I noted that for the second one which is now number 26 3369 N the this is um for the overlay zones. Uh
O6 is mentioned in the title of the ordinance, but to my eye it didn't appear in the body of the text. And I'd sent an email around, but I'm not clear on where we landed on that whether that's a nit or whether it's actually intentional and that there's no mention
of the that particular zone in the text. So all of the overlay zones except for uh overlay zone 7 which is the habitat uh project which is uh fully built um they are increasing their set aside from
15% for rental and 20% for sale to 20% across the board. So that that is the only change that's happening to overlay zone 6. It has been developed with six uh or I'm sorry, six total units, three
two family units. So they did not um utilize the overlay zoning in that in that overlay zone. It has been developed recently and they did not use utilize the overlay zoning. Um but we agreed with Fairshair Housing Center that we would increase the set aside and keep it
in place. So that's why I believe that it was um included um in the title. >> Okay. Just like to confirm that there's not an edit that needs to be done. >> Yes, we have to answer that. Yeah, >> we'll certainly review it. U to my knowledge it the reason that it's
referenced is for the reasons stated. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Are we ready for public comment and question? >> Board members, I had three quick questions. >> Oh, you do? >> I thought after all those you would be you wouldn't need any. >> No, these are these are for Tom Barren real quick. So we can get to the public
the uh set aides you mentioned and that is a portion of the of the inclusionary development that has market rate plus affordable in it. Uh 20% is the presumptu presumptive set aside and the developers and fair share have been holding close to 20% not allowing
municipalities to get more than 20% so that you would have less units uh total constructed uh for the same amount of affordable units. But here the city got more than 20% in multiple uh with respect to multiple sites. Is that correct?
>> In several instances we exceeded that 20% which which means fewer units globally >> in total to to cover the affordable housing obligation. That's >> substantial number. Correct. >> Yeah. That that's uncommon in the fourth round. I can speak to that. Okay. >> Uh so that's great. Number one. Number two, the extensions of affordability
controls and the bonus credits. Uh they uh exceeded 80 some odd units of the uh total 300 some odd unit. So that's more than 25% of the obligation is satisfied without constructing ever even potentially a single unit. Is that
correct? >> That's accurate. And just to be clear, the bonus credits did not exceed the 25% cap, but combined with the extension >> with the extensions of affordability controls. >> And again, we were able to reertify the Summit Housing Authority units, 147, which means that fewer uh number of
total units, you'd actually take that number times five >> to arrive at at the number the same number of affordable units. So a small fraction of units potentially would be created to than would have otherwise had to have been created uh had the city not done the job it did in this in this
matter. Correct. >> That's my understanding. >> That's correct. Uh and then the third question I have is with respect to the vacant land adjustment and no unmet need. Uh the fact that we have now uh moved without uh a vacant land adjustment and have no unmet need. Uh if
this project if the plan goes through and and the ordinances are adopted this evening and and the plan holds and the ordinances hold uh then in essence or in fact for the next 10 years no developer can come and say I want to build this
you have to let me build this because you have an unmet need you have not met the entirety of your need for the fourth round so that's one of the benefits significant benefit that the city got by foregoing a vacant land adjustment investment and being able to actually
satisfy the entire fourth round with these mechanisms. Would that be correct? >> That's absolutely correct. >> Okay. Another plus for the city. I have nothing further, Madam Chair. Thank you. >> And and one thing to note, um which we did say at the February 3rd meeting, um
42 [clears throat] of the units that um are being credited toward the city's uh fourth round plan have already been been constructed. So, it's because of um prior administrations
um being proactive with their with affordable housing that the city was able to already have a surplus of credits moving into round four and now we are also setting up the city for round five to have an excess of credits as well.
>> One more question just real quick. Um Tom, can you just talk about when we looked at the challengers um and we looked at Can you just explain to the public how we had to look at those projects? It wasn't because we hadn't planned for affordable housing. It was because they were developable, approvable, suitable. Um just help the
public understand sort of how that process worked. >> The the new fourth round process was designed so developers could essentially pick sites and have towns settle or negotiate against themselves and arrive at a settlement agreement. basically where in the past you would have
builder's remedy lawsuits occur at the end of the process after a town adopted its plan. All of this happened at at the beginning to essentially streamline the settlement process. So um in these cases the sites that were selected frankly had some merit as far as being development opportunities. So it was hard to uh say
they didn't right and and at the same time there were sites that if you had to pick a site in Summit they kind of made sense right 190 River Road. and that it just came down to the details of what that development might look like. So, we agreed that the other site, the Challenger site for uh Incline
Development, which is the corner of Broad Street and Summit Avenue, uh did have some opportunity to be redeveloped. We just couldn't come to terms with the the scale of that development. They were on one end of the spectrum. We um a agreed to reszone it to something that was more in keeping with the character
of some >> correct. All right. Are we good? [clears throat] >> Thank you. the public show that be great to show that we have an initial picture of that project. >> Oh, would the public like anybody from the public like to come up and make
comments and questions or either or? >> I'll swear you in so you have the ability to do both. When you come up, just give your name and address. >> Come on in. Yeah, sure. [clears throat] >> Hi, my name is Joseph Reella. I live at 10 Kenneth Court in Summit. I own.
>> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God affirmed testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth? >> Nothing but the truth. >> Please proceed. Questions, comments, whatever you like. >> Okay. I'll try to keep it brief um in fear of what my father always told me. Don't ask a question you don't know the answer to. But um could you put up
Franklin for me? I own uh 8 Franklin, which is lot 304, 341, lot 20, which is the very last one on the end. It's approximately 1.8 acres. It currently has a single
family house. Before Sandy, it had two houses on it, but it was only 8 Franklin. There wasn't a separate address. Um Sandy, a house, a tree fell on the house during Sandy. I didn't own it at that time, but when I bought it,
the city asked me to tear down the house because it was and I saw it was not inhabitable. So, I did. Uh so it's an empty lot right now which is but it's also part of 8 Franklin. Um my plan uh
as I see is that uh now you changed it to a TH3 townhouse zone. Does that mean I cannot rebuild a home there if I wanted to? We're going to collect all the questions and and then come back and answer them all at the end just because it's more
efficient and that way you can comment and ask questions all at the same time. >> Yeah, the single family home I have there now is a rental. I was hoping to subdivide the property in half and build two homes. >> One for me and my wife [laughter] and one I would sell. Um, but
the topography of my land is very difficult. It goes downhill in a hurry. only a small piece is in the wetlands. So I think it's [clears throat] usable for the most part. I have not researched it yet. I haven't gone any further. So
um I think you mentioned sir that there was 10 units per acre there allowed on Franklin. >> Correct. If if it were developed with the new zoning. >> Okay. So I guess that theoretically I could put 18 units if it was 1.8 acres. So that's uh exactly not what I wanted
to do, but it could be. I guess now. But um so that's my question. C can I subdivide it and still put two homes there instead of putting up to 18 town homes? >> Got it. Thank you for your question. >> Thank you.
>> Hello. >> Hello. >> Uh Dennis White, Tulip Street Summit. >> Please raise your right hand. You swear to God or affirm test. You're about to give us the truth. All truth and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Thank you. Please proceed. >> Uh I know it's a little feudal to make comments because this does have to be passed, but I just thought in the spirit
of providing a little history and alternative view, I just couldn't resist. >> A little less than a year ago, the planning board passed a really flawed housing element. >> Speak up just a teeny bit or in Thanks. >> A little less than a year ago, the planning board passed a really flawed
housing element in fair share plan that's been dramatically modified by challenges, mediation, and judicial review. Instead of interpreting the 25% rule as intended, the planning board and city took an antagonistic approach and basically said the city had almost no
obligation to create any new affordable housing. This approach has been completely repudiated now. And now the revised plan, the city will be obligated to build or or facilitate the creation of 345
new units over the next 10 years or 345 is in the plan. The smart approach, as I said, would have been to apply the 25% rule correctly, commit to creating about 80 to 100 new
affordable units through scattered site, affordable, 100% affordable, which would have minimized overdevelopment, school crowding, traffic, and would have prevented the Russo challenge from prevailing. The modified housing element fair share plan the planning board has
before it today is incredibly challenging plan to execute and does promote overdevelopment especially in the Washington school district. [clears throat] This plan and the carryover from round three allows for
525 new units of housing, a growth rate in excess of 6% over the current number of housing units in the city. uh and it has taken Summit 35 years to grow at this rate and now it will do it in the next 10 years. Of these 525 units, 72%
are in the Washington school district. So I think if people say it doesn't promote development, you can ask our neighbors in Washington school district if 525 units and I think probably our friends here in the panel are wondering what those 525 it's the Russo Bristol
Meyers 180 River Road 557 565 Mars which hasn't been built. Those four together are all this the ones that will be in the Washington school district. The public should also be aware that the city's affordable housing obligation
from round three has not been put to bed as some have claimed, but has been rolled into round four because the city did not meet its round three obligation. The Summit Housing Authority is an integral part of the revised housing element and fair share plan, which is
mostly a good thing, but it puts a real burden on the housing authority to renovate 147 units over the next 10 years. The city has committed to helping to raise these funds, but if the funds are not forthcoming, the city would be
on the hook for almost $25 million. The renovations will likely include a low-inccome housing tax credit financing, which will require the housing authority units to come under the ownership of a non a for-profit entity. structuring needs to be done properly so
that the units revert back to a nonprofit entity at the end of the tax credit compliance period. Finally, this plan will be carefully scrutinized, as mentioned, by housing advocates and developers at the 5-year mark. If the city has not met its obligations at that
point, the city will once again be bargaining from a position of weakness. I really do wish the city and the staff and especially the new council luck in implementing this plan. Uh it'll be a challenge and and the five next five
years people have asked what will happen. Uh there will be a lot of people looking at it to see how it has been accomplished but I do wish them good luck. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comment. Hello. >> Hi. Uh, Chris Senelli, Harvard Street
Summit. >> Do you swear to God or affirm testimony about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Please proceed. >> Uh, I guess just to kind of get the ball rolling on the community input on on the Shumpike project. I was curious how much environmental concern has been taken
into account with regards to that that plan. Um, I think it's more than just neighborhood testimonials about people losing land down there from from the creek. I'm just not sure. And and I have some maps to back it up how buildable that land actually is. Um, it's not only
listed as high priority for um conservation from these maps that I can give you guys, but uh it's smack dab in the middle of a flood plane as well. So that's just something that, you know, I thought should be taken into account if it hasn't already with regards to
building there. Um, and with regards to any sort of community input into that that location, um, if it is in fact not buildable, which it, at least according to the stuff that I presented, [cough] doesn't seem like it is, is there any
option to move those 25 units over to Bristol Myers Squib? Instead of having 100 units there, bump that up to, you know, 125, 150, whatever it is. Russo still gets to build. They still make their their money. um we still meet meet
our need and and all of that with regards to the veterans housing and affordable housing and and Shumpike uh remains, you know, properly conserved. So, um that kind of seems like a win-win for everybody and something that that I thought was uh was worth sharing. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Welcome. Good evening. Justin Victoria, 82 Franklin Place and Summit. >> Do you swear to God or affirm testimony about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Please proceed. >> Thank you. Um, just first point, not a
challenge, maybe just a a caution, the adequacy of the notice. I received the registered mailing at home and um block 341 lots 7 to 20 is probably second nature to all of you but to us uh mere homeowners and residents it means
nothing and so I referred to the map uh that talks about and the map shows a portion of it does not show the section in in question. So I had to go to the plan on the website and I discover that um which was surprising to me. Um so
just something about the portion of the notice. Um couple of clarifying questions I think was um uh decided tonight um that we're talking about 70 units there. Um elsewhere in the plan it talks about on page 186. It
talks about a 2acre site. Um but it apparently is a 7acre site. So two acres would translate to 20 units. 7 acres translates to seven units. Just want a clarification on that quick. Um, please. >> Yes. Okay. Yes. Sorry. Okay,
>> that's okay. >> Do you want him to uh for Justin to repeat that? >> Just >> Can you say that again? Just say that again. >> Just say that one statement one more time. I just want to make sure I got >> the plan here says that it's going to be 70 units, which translates to a 7 acre
site. Whereas on page 186 of the plan and chart C1 talks about a twoacre site with 10 units per acre which would translate to only 20 units. So again it's probably the 70. I just want to make sure um that there's no inconsistencies there.
>> Um the building heights on page 185 it indicates a maximum building height of 35 ft and on page 188 it talks about a building height maximum of 40t. Again, I just want to get a clarification on which which it is. >> Um,
>> it may be a pertinances. >> Excuse me. >> It may be a pertinances. Sorry. >> Yeah. >> I don't know. >> And lastly, this may not be appropriate tonight, but I'll mention it. Um, if we do wind up developing Franklin Place, there's an issue with flooding on Franklin Place. The storm water
management system is just not adequate. Anytime there's a heavy rain, the street floods, overwhelms the curbs, goes into the driveways, and creates damages in the units. So, it would be something for the planning board to consider in conjunction with any development on Franklin Place. >> Okay.
>> And thank you for the clarification tonight. It's been very helpful. >> Thank you for your comments and questions. >> Anybody else from the public want to comment or ask questions?
Okay. Doesn't look like we have any. >> You want to give them a couple minutes for >> We're going to take a break. I just wanted to see if everybody on the dis was happy. I think we've asked enough questions probably. Okay, so we're going to take a a quick break. Not very long. How many minutes?
>> Five minutes. >> Five minute break. So, we'll be back at 25 before the hour and we'll answer all the questions. Thank you. Ouch. We're back. >> Okay, everybody. >> Back to their seats. Okay. Are we ready
to address the questions from the public? Comments from the public? >> I think so. Questions? Um well we'll start from the top was a sightsp specific question about development options resulting from the ordinance change. Um I I think that's that's
probably a personal thing we could probably discuss offline as far if that person was willing to have that conversation. We could give them their options and you know paths for developing the site which I think he expressed that okay under the new zoning he might have some townhouse development option but he might want to do a
subdivision with single family homes. So we could help him work through his decision making and certainly any >> is he allowed to do two houses? I think he wants to know first and foremost. >> Any advice that might be given would not be legal advice provided to that individual. They're free to get their
own attorney to and and professionals to give them legal advice, but certainly from the city's perspective, you can help them out. >> Yeah. So to address the specific zoning, again, the site's in an R5 zone that would be replaced with a new townhouse zone. So, I mean, the value of the property would be increased, but to
answer the gentleman's question, he would not without a zoning board application be able to subdivide the property and be build a new single family home. The existing single family home could remain, but to create a new single family home, it would it wouldn't be permitted by the ordinance because the idea is to facilitate townhouse
development on that stretch of Franklin. >> Yep. Because it's not an overlay, it's a zoning change. Um, and also I think we'll just go with the the Franklin Place questions just to since we're already [clears throat] on them. Um, so that would be Mr. Victoria. I think I
got your last name right. I apologize if I'm if I'm wrong. Um, it the flooding would be um, you know, there there are significant storm water management regulations uh, with the D. So any development would have to uh conform to that. That would be a
planning board consideration. Um and then clarifications on the charts I'm going to leave to Tom as far as building height and all those. >> So just to address that onedimensional question um confirm that the maximum building height would be 35 ft for that
townhouse zone on Franklin Place. Um with respect to the question about the unit yield. So just for clarification that whole zone I believe is 7 acres at a maximum density of 10 units per acre. If you did the 7* 10, that's where you get the 70. The two acres is the minimum
lot area threshold for which you could develop townhouse development. So, you could do small, you don't have to do a 70 unit project. You could do a smaller project if you have the two acres assembled. >> Got it. >> Thank you. >> And as far as um the developability of
Shunpike, that would be left up to the engineers um at a later date. Um and as as and as far as moving it to BMS, it would it would depend on um what the what the developability of the of the site would be and we don't we don't know
that right now. So that would be a question that can be answered at another time. >> Okay. Okay. Um >> for a quick clarification if I may on a followup to that Nancy and Tom that uh nevertheless fair share and all parties agreed and
the program judge found and the Mount Laurel judge found that that particular site was suitable uh the four criteria under suitability uh including notwithstanding any environmental constraints that it was suitable for the proposed zoning. Correct.
>> Yeah. Is it >> as a baseline? Yes. Yes. there. >> Okay. >> They have to be further explored like any other any other affordable site whether it's inclusionary or not. Um >> at the site plan stage, >> right? Exactly. Um like uh like the
chair uh the chairwoman said, this is a you know 30,000 ft view and then we get down into the nitty-gritty from here over the next 10 years. Um I I did speak for a very long time on uh February 3rd
about the 25% interpretation uh that that has not been adjudicated by any court. Um I've had it accepted. Um I represent over uh 20 towns uh in uh the state. My firm represents um a little
over a 100 municipalities in the state. Uh we kept that interpretation across the board. Um, and I had plans approved with that with the same 25% interpretation um, that Summit used. Um,
and we have a we do not have the vacant land analysis anymore. So, it's really a moot point. Um, that doesn't need to be emphasized again. Um, and uh, I don't see how improving the lives of the Summit Housing Authority residents uh is
a problem. So >> I'm not sure what uh to add to that. So all all I can say is um with respect to that questioning of how the housing plan evolved to say that it was flawed. Well, one I would I would argue that it it met the statutory requirements. There is
that matter of interpretation for which there were four interpretations and we could agree to disagree. I'll note that in my estimate, I haven't calculated as far as I know, nobody's calculated, but there are a significant number of towns have interpreted uh the 25% interpretation as we have and as Nancy
mentioned, it turned out that we had enough credits where it became moot anyway. So, frankly, it's irrelevant at this point. I don't believe that our approach um was antagonistic. If you look at the plan again, there was already 197 credits satisfying the fourth round out of 345. That's that's not a small amount of of credits. Uh
again, we had 13 of the 19 plan components in this plan already shown in June. Uh it just came to be that we got to the point of recognizing we had so many credits in hand that it made more sense to maximize bonus credits again, identify summit housing authority, etc.
Um beyond that, taking a zoning approach where we did small scattered sites without developers, I don't believe would have trumped the uh developer sites. Uh specifically the 190 River Road. I don't think there was any way out of it. There was just there's so many unique circumstances um that made it a development
opportunity that I I don't think um they would have gotten out at short of achieving the the the total obligation of 345 units. Um again, we were successful in one uh mediating with well premediating with Harmon, which is a
site that we uh had a developers agreement with prior to June where they originally proposed 33 units. We negotiated down to 20 units in a mixeduse format. And there again, as was alluded to earlier, there was another challenger site that was eight stories and 300 units, which you'll you'll note
is not in the plan. So, um you know, we did our best with the cards we had um with things stacked against municipalities. Um we think it's a balanced plan. While yes certainly there are a number of units that that could be that will be developed over time, it's certainly a lot less than the state
would have called for where again if we simply developed the the 345 unit affordable units in an inclusionary development setting that would have yielded 1,700 total units. And the actual number of units that could be generated from this development from from this plan if fully built are
significantly less or less than a third of that number. And uh the the three challengers that we had were known to us the entire time. Uh that would not have stopped Incline, Russo or Fairshare Housing Center from
challenging our plan. Again, 100 I'm sorry, 460 municipalities uh went forward through the program and Fair Share Housing Center um challenged about 440 of those. So, uh, the odds are
ever in your favor that Fair Share Housing Center is going to object no matter if you agree with every interpretation of the statute that they have. >> That's quite a stat. >> Are we Oh, you have another question? No. Um, are we ready to close? Are you
finished with your questions? It sounds like you are. >> Thank you. >> We're going to close one. >> Yeah. I I just like to add um along those comments, I think having sat in on those mediations with Nancy and Tom as a
council member um 100% the city operated in good faith the entire time and um if you're a resident here, you should be proud of our professionals. Uh they are as as good as it gets and and Summit negotiated in good faith all along the way.
>> Thank you, Nancy and Tom. Madam Chair, we have a a resolution if we're at that point in time. >> I'm going to close the public hearing portion and see if we have a motion to adopt. >> And just to be clear for the benefit of
the board, it's we uh have a resolution that if there's a motion, a second, and a roll call vote to adopt the resolution. By this resolution, you adopt the housing element and fair share plan as amended uh as a city. and then we can proceed with the master plan consistency reviews of the ordinance and
then the governing body can proceed with adopting the ordinances. >> So those are the operative operative provisions of the resolution. So I'm sure the chair will call for a motion second a roll call vote. >> Yes. Is there a motion to adopt? >> I'll make a motion to adopt housing a second.
>> Second. >> Was there a tie there? Well, Jessica's up to you. [laughter] >> Vice Chair Hamlet. >> Yes. Sorry. >> Miss Bowen. Yes. >> Council member Chris Foley. >> Yes, >> Mr. Dalmaso. >> Yes, >> Mr. Felman.
>> Yes, >> Miss Morrison. >> Yes, >> Mr. Stern. >> Yes, >> Mr. Golden. >> Yes, >> Chair Balsson Alvarez. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Carried. >> We're next moving. >> All right. So, next on our agenda is the
consistency reviews. These are ordinances the city forwarded to us [clears throat] and we are now just going to do consistency reviews. These are going to be part of our development regulations and we are charged with telling you know advising the city as to
whether they're consistent with our master plan. So here we go. [laughter] >> Yeah. The municipal land use law requires that all development regulation ordinances be referred to the planning board for consistency review after introduction by the governing body and
prior to adoption >> uh by the governing body which is scheduled to occur in about an hour. >> Yes. >> Uh this evening. So that which there will be a public hearing on all of these ordinances. That is why there is not a public hearing here. The public hearing is here in about an hour or so. Uh so am
I allowed to uh ask the board if they have questions on any of them? >> Well, let me go through one by one. >> No. Well, actually, uh Mr. Barren, our planner, who does not have to be sworn in, uh is going to give his professional opinion to the board, okay, as to
whether or not these six ordinances, if I recall correctly, are six are uh substantially consistent, not inconsistent, that's the bar, uh with the master plan. He'll do that as I understand it all six in one but then you will vote separately a motion second
roll call vote on each resolution finding that corresponding ordinance not inconsistent with the master plan. >> Thank you. >> One presentation six votes. >> Okay. >> Thank you John. >> Thank you. So I I'll just give a very high level summary of of what those ordinances are. I actually have seven in
my account but in any event >> okay I believe that >> How about I explain what they are? Go, go, go with all go with unless I count it wrong, which is entirely fine. >> No, I think it's >> um >> except for the >> the plan is the first one we did. >> I think you're thinking of the
>> I'll tell you what as one >> 3367 is a plan. >> Okay. Well, I'll I'll tell you what I have. And maybe it's because one doesn't require one. But in any event, >> is it about the >> right? >> Well, you know, let's let Tom do his seven or seven. We'll do seven. >> I I have I have six. I had the abandoned
property ordinance as needing mass plane consistency review. But apparently that's not the case. So I'll move on then to uh we have ordinance number 26-3368 which again is the general affordable housing regulations which are not sight specific but it's based on a state model ordinance which prescribes that when and
if affordable housing is developed it must meet certain criteria as far as phasing the mandatory set aside meaning the portion of non-resident nonaffordable to affordable uh in income requirements. Um the ordinance uh also prescribes the collection of development
fees that are used to support the city's affordable trust fund and how those fees might be expended. So that again that's ordinance number 26-33 uh68. We have ordinance number 26- uh 3369 which amends existing overlay
ordinances excuse me existing overlay zones 1 2 4 and five. Um, I'll note that uh existing overlay zone one is the Serno Dwayne Auto dealership on Broad Street. Um, the only modification to that overlay will be an increase in
density consistent with the uh uh MBC zone that is in similar proximity to the Summit downtown and train station. There's also a modification to overlay zone 2 which has frontages on Broad Street, Summit A, Summit Avenue, and Industrial Place. the uh portion of the
site that was part or subject of the incline capital challenge is being increased uh with zoning consistent with the MBC zone given its proximity to the downtown that that would allow for uh development up to four stories, 30 units per acre. The remainder of that that
zone or overlay zone uh would have a minor increase in density uh up to 15 units per acre. We then have an amendment to the existing overlay uh zone 4 which essentially encompasses the CRBD with the central retail business district at the center of town. That
would provide for an increase in density of 20 units per acre. Then finally, we have uh a modification of the existing O5 overlay zone which pertains to 25 to Forest Avenue, which would require any or allow for any future residential
development of of the site to occur within the footprint of the existing um office building. Ordinance number 26-3370 is the creation of the AH1 affordable housing district. That's the Harmon site that was referenced earlier. That's for
block 4 008, lots 8, 9, and 11. That site has frontages on Broad Street, Ashwood A, and Mars Avenue. As I mentioned earlier, the city was able to reach a settlement agreement with the developer to facilitate a 20 unit mixeduse development, uh, which it would include four affordable units. That
ordinance prescribes the zoning requirements for that that specific development. We then have ordinance number 26-3371 which is the creation of the AH2 affordable housing district that is for
block 1911 lot 5 which encompasses the existing United Methodist church. The uh contemplated development for that site is the conversion of the existing Reeves uh chapel which is developed on the site for the development of 12 senior affordable units within that existing
building where uh the majority of the existing exterior of the building would be uh preserved uh and most of the improvements would be interior. The site would have to be subdivided uh as a result of NJHMFA funding requirements, but the existing church can remain. And
again, this is intended to facilitate the conversion of the chapel space. We have ordinance number 33 uh excuse me 26-3372, which is the creation of the AH3A and AH3B affordable housing districts. Those
pertain to 190 and 180 River Road, which we discussed earlier in our presentation. U the AH3A zone is for that 198 unit uh development that that will be done by Russo Development at 190 River Road. The AH3B zone would
facilitate the conversion of the existing office building at 180 River Road. And then finally, we have ordinance number 26-3373, which is the creation of the TH3 townhouse zone, which um again is for
block 341, lots 7 through 20, which are occurs along Franklin Place, which we've discussed a few uh times this evening. Um so th that's a summary of the six ordinances with respect to um the master plan consistency review. will note that
all of these ordinances are referenced in the housing element fair share plan. They are ordinances that implement the housing element fair share plan which is a component meaning the housing element fair share plan is a component of the the city's master plan. And so from that perspective that these ordinances and
developments are specifically identified I would offer that they'd be considered consistent with the master plan by virtue of that alone. We did take a look at the city's existing adopted uh 2000 master plan or more specifically the land use plan element as well as the
city's 2005 CRBD downtown master plan and 2016 re-examination report. They include a number of themes um include I'll take off a few including uh balancing growth and development within the established pattern of uh the city
um to provide for uh sub uh upgrades to substandard properties in the city to encourage residential development in locations and uh at densities which are compatible with existing development. um [snorts] pertaining to the downtown plan um provides a provision to incorporate
upper story residential uses where practical and promote the vibrancy of the downtown. And then finally, the 2016 master plan re-examination report talks about guiding development to maintain and enhance the character of Summit, maintaining a dynamic and vibrant city, promoting mixeduse and residential
development in and near the downtown. Um and then finally, promoting a variety of housing types. So while these documents are lengthy in as as far as the number of master plan goals and provisions, these are uh provisions that clearly support these ordinances which again are
consistent by virtue of being specifically identified in the housing element fair share plan. I would offer to to the extent that there are any inconsistencies identified in any of those plans, we are required to look at this on balance and so that if any inconsistency was identified, it
wouldn't render any specific ordinance or provision um inconsistent because of that single provision. Um and therefore it's my recommendation that at at a very minimum these ordinances would not be inconsistent with the master plan. Did I use that double negative right? You got
to be inconsistent. Yeah. And again that's with respect to all six ordinances. >> The second part of that is that the board can offer any recommendations they want pertaining to any ordinance >> and we uh and madam chair as uh
previously mentioned we have as we must a separate resolution for each of the corresponding six ordinances. >> You've heard the professional opinion and advice from our professional planner. the board did. Uh so uh as when you're ready, Madam Chair, we could have
a motion second roll call vote uh to adopt each resolution finding each of the corresponding ordinances not inconsistent with the master plan. >> Right. First, I want to hear if anybody has any commentary about consistency or inconsistency with the ordinances.
>> Hey, Tom. >> Yes. >> I just found two little scriers errors. >> Okay. >> Throughout all six of them. Please. Uh >> uh one on um uh ordinance 263369. >> Yeah.
>> Uh on page four, Broad Street is has an extra E in it. Okay. >> And then I think on um on 263371 on page two in the first whereas I think that should be 2024 not 2025.
>> [snorts] >> when fair hip share housing act was amended. >> You're correct. Yes. >> 2024. >> Correct. Thank you for those clarification. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> I just wanted to point out one thing that's in all of them that is uh again
to consistency, compatibility with neighborhoods and some of the tools that we will have going forward with these developments. Um for example on um the overlay zone that's uh 263369
on page six there's a section called supplementary regulations and everything in our DR every section references um the development regulation I mean the um design guidelines in our it's consistent with the rest of our development regulations and it's here as
well where um it says all proposed work shall be in accordance with the design requirements set forth in the development regulations ordinance and consistent with the development design guidelines. Um this is something that helps us to make sure that future development is compatible with each
neighborhood, each site. Um and they're in each ordinance. So I just wanted to mention that >> and we can rely on them as a planning board at the time of site plan application for any or all of these developments if and when they get here. >> Exactly.
Exactly. So, are we ready to uh proceed with >> we we can go down the list, Madam Chair? Motion, second, roll call vote for the uh I I can read them. I got them in front of me if that makes it easier for you. >> Yeah. >> Um but this is coming from the chair [laughter] with the chair's discretion.
>> That's fine. I'm happy for you to read them. >> Resolution 2026-2 finding ordinance 26-3368 not inconsistent with the master plan. Motion second roll call vote. Do we have >> So moved. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Thank you. >> I know. >> All right, >> Jessica. >> On point. >> Almost forgot where she >> Yeah. >> Vice Chair Hamlet. >> Yes. >> Miss Bowen. >> Yes. >> Council member Chris Foley. >> Yes. >> Mr. Damaso. >> Yes. >> Mr. Felman.
>> Yes. Now on this if he's in the if he's in the list. >> He's in the U. Mr. Felman. I'm sorry I didn't hear you. >> Yes. >> Y >> Miss Morrison. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Stern. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stonton. >> Yes. >> Chair Balsson Alvarez.
>> Yes. >> Okay. One down. >> And uh next would be resolution 2603 finding ordinance 69 not inconsistent with the master plan. >> Motion. >> So moved.
>> Second. >> Vice Chair Hamlet. >> Yes. >> Miss Bowen. >> Yes. >> Council member Chris Holey. >> Yes. >> Mr. Damaso. Yes, >> Mr. Felman. >> Yes, >> Miss Morrison. >> Yes, >> Mr. Stern. >> Yes, >> Mr. Ston. >> Yes, >> Chair Balsson Alvarez.
>> Yes. >> And the next would be resolution 2026-04 finding ordinance number 26-3370. Not inconsistent with the master plan. >> Do we have a motion? >> Okay. >> Second.
>> Vice Chair Hamlet. >> Yes. >> Miss Bowen. >> Yes. Council member Chris Foley, >> yes. >> Mr. Domoso, >> yes. >> Mr. Felman, >> yes. >> Miss Morrison, >> yes. >> Mr. Stern, >> yes. >> Mr. Ston, >> yes. >> Chair Balsson, >> yes.
>> And the next would be resolution 2026-05 finding ordinance number 26-3371 not inconsistent with the master plan. >> Do you have a motion? >> So moved. >> Okay. >> Vice Chair Hamlet. >> Yes. Miss Bowen,
>> yes. >> Council member Chrisley, >> yes. >> Mr. Domo, >> yes. >> Mr. Felman, >> yes. >> Miss Morrison, >> yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stuntton, >> yes. >> Chair Balsson Alvarez, >> yes. >> And the next one would be resolution 2026-06
finding ordinance 26-3372 not inconsistent with the master plan. >> Do we have a motion? >> Motion. >> Second. >> Okay. Vice Chair Hamlet, >> yes. >> Miss Bowen, >> yes.
>> Council member Chrisoy, >> yes. >> Mr. Domo, >> yes. >> Mr. Felman, >> yes. >> Miss Morrison, >> yes. >> Mr. Stern, >> yes. >> Mr. Stonton, >> yes. >> Chair Ballson Alvarez, >> yes. >> Okay. >> And last is resolution 2026-07
finding ordinance number 26-3373 not inconsistent with the master plan. Do >> we have a motion? So >> second. >> Okay. >> Vice Chair Hamlet, >> yes. >> Miss Fen, >> yes. >> Council member Chrisoy, >> yes. >> Mr. Domo,
>> yes. >> Mr. Felman, >> yes. >> Miss Morrison, >> yes. >> Mr. Stern, >> yes. >> Mr. Stonton, >> yes. >> Chair Balsson. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, the next thing on our agenda, the minutes, and we're going to do it
next time. >> Okay. It is >> very few people read them. So we are not going to do that. >> So that >> had other things on our plate. >> So >> I I'd like to >> We're done with the agenda, are we not? >> Yeah. Move to adjourn. >> Oh, good. [laughter] Way ahead of me. Second.
>> 30 minute break before your next meeting. >> All right. So thank you all. I guess I do this. Say thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry. I wanted to formally thank you before I did that.