All right. I almost said good morning. Good. Good morning. That's right. Wow. Day is beginning. Good evening and welcome to the July 28th, 2025 meeting of the city of Summit planning board. My name is Steven Spur and I have the privilege of serving as chairman of Summit's planning board. If
you'll please rise, we will begin first with 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. Thank you. Uh, in accordance with New Jersey statute 10 col4-10, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the newspapers of record and has been posted here in city hall. For the benefit of the interested uh for the benefit of the interested public, this
meeting is being livereamed to the city's YouTube page and also broadcast on Summit's government channel, which is Comcast channel 34 and Verizon channel 30. Any hearings on applications for development in this meeting are quasi judicial proceedings. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues
that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and a quorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Please note that fire exits are to my right, your left, and at the back of the room where you entered. The city has a listening system to assist the hearing
impaired. If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the necessary equipment here at the deis and return it immediately after our meeting. Miss Sans, will you please call the role of the members? Absolutely. Chairman Spur here. Vice Chair Balsson Alvarez here. Mayor Fagan here.
Council member Hamlet is excused. Miss Bowen is excused. Mr. Delmaso here. Mr. Felman is excused. Mr. Formachelli here. Mr. Lejoy here. Mr. Salah is excused. Mr. Stern here.
You have a quorum. You may proceed. Thank you. Uh Steve Warner to my right is the planning board's attorney. Mr. Mr. Warner will advise board members on matters of law and serve as a key interface with each applicant's attorney. Mr. Warner will not vote on the applications or other matters formally considered by this board.
Jessica Sans is a city employee and is the planning board secretary. Miss Sans assists applicants in preparing their applications, planning our agendas, and keeping our meeting minutes. Miss Sans also does not vote on the applications or other matters formally considered by this board. Also present are two board professionals who in addition to our
attorney are contracted annually by the board to provide professional advice. Tonight we have our board engineer uh Carl O'Brien standing in for Mario Murray Rafé from Collier's Engineering. Also present is planner Tom Barren from
Burgess Associates. These experts are seated at the table to the right of the board, the public's left. They do not vote on the applications or other matters formally considered by this board. Uh our board consists of 11 members. All members part can participate in the hearings tonight, but a maximum of nine can vote. All
applications require a simple majority to be approved. Bear with me. I'm going to read the whole proper introduction as we actually have an application technically on the agenda this evening. Um each application begins with the respective applicants attorney providing an overview of the application process to date and the variance relief
requested. We then hear from any expert witnesses the applicant may have to help explain their application and why variances are requested, the variances requested are needed. The board members may ask questions of the applicant, their attorney, and their expert witnesses. Once the board professionals at the invitation of the chair and then
board members have completed their questioning, the public will have an opportunity to ask questions. This is not the time to tell us what you think about the application. That opportunity comes at the end of each hearing. Before you ask your questions, please clearly state your name, spell your last name, and provide your address. It is important that our stenographer be able
to keep a clear and accurate public record. After all witnesses have been heard, members of the interested public have their second opportunity to speak. And at that time, you may express your opinion, positive or negative, about the application. The board attorney will swear you in so that your comments have a full weight of sworn testimony, just
like those of the applicants witnesses. Then the public portion of the hearing is closed and we enter into deliberations where board members discuss the application and then vote. You'll be able to listen to our deliberations, but you will not normally be able to participate. The city zoning officer has asked that we remind all
applicants that they must read carefully the resolution that documents the planning board's decision and to pay particular attention to conditions, the conditions contained in the resolution. For example, if a landscaping plan is required, you must obtain one and submit it to the city's forester. If a grading plan is required, you must have one prepared by civil engineer and submit
three copies along with the application fee to the city's engineering division. Failure to satisfy all conditions in a resolution will result in a delay in approving your application as it will cause extra work for city land use staff. The resolutions documenting the board's decision will normally be available one month after we have
decided the application. Uh so with that, just a refresher for anyone. We haven't seen an application here at the planning board for a good couple of months. So, uh welcome back to that. Um before we jump into the actual agenda items, I did want to take a minute just speak to speak to what we will be addressing, what's included in the
agenda. And there's one bonus item here tonight. Um for those that are going to hang in with us to the end. Um so first, if you're following along with me on the agenda, uh we'll have we'll address one application for 68 Valley View Avenue. Um is there anyone here aside from I see
Hillary and I believe we have an objecting attorney. Anyone else here from the public for that application? No. Okay. So, as as always, council shows up. Thank you for being here. Um, we're actually going to we're going to hear from them first as there's just a bit of a procedural question to address.
Um, not to spoil the surprise, but it looks like we'll likely be carrying that to a future meeting. So, um, hold on there. We're going to address that one first. Um, next on the agenda, we'll address the resolutions. Uh, we're going to swap those. These are largely administrative matters. Uh, we'll hear first the GDP extension matter from
Bristol Myers Squib. Uh, and then the Rossi question, which both should be relatively brief to address. Um then we'll address the meeting minutes for approval. Um and the bonus item um ahead of the closed session, so kind of at the end of the public session uh will be an
opportunity for public comment. Um and I had heard kind of rumblings um out in the community that there was actually a there's a bit of a confusion about whether or not the board has a standing invitation for uh public comment on non-aggenda items. Uh and wanted to kind
of use this as a quick opportunity um to address that. Um the inclusion of this tonight is really a departure from our from the certainly from the agenda. Um but as a general rule, public comment is solicited as part of formal hearing hearings of formal applications and then
only when expressly included in the meeting agenda. We don't have a standing invitation for public comment on non-aggenda items uh given just a practical matter how packed our agendas typically are. Uh we'll make an update to the planning board web page. I think that's where the confusion was was coming from. There was some language that suggested otherwise. Um, but I
wanted to use this opportunity to plug our wonderful city land use staff, Austo, Jessica, and there's a whole team standing behind them. Um, we as a plane board typically only meet once a month. Um, which is probably enough for us, but not enough for some folks that have questions on non-aggenda items. Um, so
if you do have any questions in the interim, be it over email, on the telephone, or you can actually even go to the window and uh, knock or ring a bell, whatever they have there for you, uh, reach out to Augusta, reach out to Jessica. Naturally, if it's something that's relevant to the board, uh that information gets transmitted to the
board professionals to myself as chair and we can include it in a future uh future planning board agenda. But it's not typically again the practice for the board to kind of carve out time for public comment on non-aggenda items. So, we'll make an exception. I'll pause this evening in case anyone was confused and
uh did come prepared with a a lengthy show of their paying close attention and being highly engaged on items um that are kind of off our radar. Um but it won't be typically again moving forward an item that uh we'll entertain. Um so with that, let's move to 68 Valley View
Avenue, the first public hearing. I'll invite Hillary perhaps to come up and tell us why you're here and what's what's going on. Excellent. Okay. Good evening. Evening. Um, Hillary Als from Dempsey Dempsey and Sheen, attorneys for the applicants, Kishen and Cara Manglani,
owners of 68 Valley View Avenue, block 30001, lot 4, um, in the R15 zone. Um, as stated in a letter that was filed with the planning board earlier today, the applicants are requesting that their application be carried to September 29th
um, without any additional notice. The applicants were basically made aware at 3:00 on Friday that Mr. Simon had been retained by neighbors. Um so this allows them an opportunity to have some preliminary discussions with those neighbors and um to also weigh all of their options available.
Great. So I think that's positive to hear, right? That there'll be some dialogue going on at least between the applicants and the identified objectors and like anyone else else of interest. Perhaps Mr. Simon, uh you you're the instigator of sorts. I mean that in an affectionate way um of
the notice question. Maybe Hillary, if we could, we'll hear from Mr. Simon briefly and then let you kind of you respond. Mr. Warner has also naturally studied the subject and we'll see how we want to proceed. Uh just for the record, uh ladies and gentlemen on the board, my
name is John Kaplan. I'm from Rob Simon's office. Um yeah, we submitted a letter. I I don't feel the need to read it. I feel everybody can read it. Um you know, our main objection is we don't think the public has the full understanding of what is going to happen
in this application. And for the record, we put our objection on the record. Uh, you know, the extent of the deviations, the sections of the uh township development ordinance, the fact that there's a historic building on this piece of property that may need to pro be protected. It's just our objection
that the notice is not sufficient for the juris for this board to have jurisdiction. That's just our only argument. And Okay. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Kaplan. Hillary, if you like I don't know if there's anything you like to expand upon. Ju just for context. The request for the
adjournment was a request specifically without correct renotice. So uh it's incumbent upon the board to resolve that issue so applicants can know how to proceed uh with or without renotice. So certainly it's uh certainly it's
appropriate to hear from both parties council. Uh so uh why don't you proceed with the chair's permission? Sure. So um in order for just hold for a moment uh welcome to the meeting. We're happy to have you. You're unfortunately obstructing the view of another member of the interested public. If you keep the signs down during the
meeting, uh there'll be an opportunity. Keep the signs down. That's up. If you keep the signs down during the meeting. No, we were told we can keep them off. We'll have an opportunity for public comment. Afterwards, okay, that's on TV. Well, would you mind at least moving
over so you're not blocking anyone else's view here? All right. Wonderful to have you. I'm sorry, Hillary. That's okay. Please proceed. Um, okay. So, um, the notice needs to comply with the statute and, uh, Mr.
Simon was actually nice enough to, um, put in his letter what those requirements are, which are the date, time, place of the hearing, which we comply with. Uh, the nature of the matter considered, which we stated what we plan on doing. Um, an accurate
identification of the property, um, which is the street address. We included that and the block and lot as well as the location and times at which um any maps and documents for which approval is sought are available. Those are also included in the notice.
Um they did reference that we did not include the extent of deviations. Um we did not define average lot width. Um, we did not cite the specific section of the ordinance or the specific section
of the municipal land use law. While those pieces of information can be included in a notice, they are not required to be in a notice and in fact it would be improper for this board to not hear this application because of that. All we have to do is comply with the statute and that's what we did. Um
their final point states um that this is a historic structure that we needed to state that in our notice. Um this is in fact not a historic structure. It has not been designated as one. It's not listed in the master plan as one. Any re-examination committee as one. It's
not on any register as a historic structure. So it would be inaccurate for us to say that this was a historic structure. Okay. Thank you s chairman. happy to anything we need to expand upon for this or some context additional context for the board.
Well, I I could weigh in based upon the arguments of council having reviewed the notice and just one quick question uh uh for John and uh and that is uh there's no objection to the timeliness or or
addresses from which were served. It's simply the content of the notice that is being ob objected to and challenged uh by you and your office on behalf of your clients. Correct. That's correct. That's our only argument. Thank you. And I guess technically we should have your clients on the record.
Who are your clients as objectors? Uh last name Muellers and Jeff. They're both uh residents and property owners of Valley View Road within the 200. 6874. 687. within the 200 foot. Correct. Okay.
Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. Just for that confir with that confirmation, Mr. Chairman and board members, my advice to the board is as follows. While as council for the applicant uh mentioned, those things can be in the notice. They are not specifically
required. Uh the notice is in compliance with the statutory requirements under MLUL uh section 10 and 11 uh and is sufficient uh to apprise uh to well to provide the date, time and
place of the hearing. uh the nature of the matters considered to sufficiently apprise uh uh neighbors or anyone reviewing the notice as to the uh what is that issue sufficient to further delve should they so desire or show up
at the hearing uh should they so desire to find out exactly what is that issue even further than what is set forth in the notice. Uh it's an accurate identification of the property proposed for the development by street address. Has the block and lot as well. Has to have one or the other. Has both uh and
the location and times at which any maps and documents uh for approval uh uh is sought are available. Um the uh the notice does not it's the MLUL does not require the notice to specifically state
the extent of a deviation. It does not require the definition of terms utilized in the ordinance or in the MLUL. Uh it does not require that the notice of state the specific section of the ordinance from which the deviations are
sought or the specific sections 70C. Well, for us it would only be 70 C. We're not allowed to hear 70D variances. Uh so only 70C variances. Uh you don't have to say section 70C variance or bulk variance is sufficient. Um and uh with
respect to historic property, I don't believe that even if it were historic property, it must specifically uh uh uh delineate as such. But certainly in the absence of any definitive evidence that it is historic property, um uh and the
uh uh the representation is that it is not uh there certainly does not need to be any reference uh to that possibility uh uh uh being being the case. Simply put, when I teach about notice, uh, I
teach it this way. Uh, it's a pass fail course. Uh, so whether a notice would get an A or an A minus or a B and no grades need be provided, it simply must pass. It must be sufficient under
section 11 and the applicable case law, the Pond Run case, the Pearlart case, and their progeny. Um this notice, the content of this notice meets those minimum thresholds uh such that it is
sufficient notice and it would be beyond the scope of our authority in my legal opinion uh to require someone to go beyond what is required for their notice. Um so uh if applicant is content with the notice uh it's my advice to the
board that they can and in fact should uh uh allow the matter to be carried without further notice as opposed to with further notice. Thank you Steve. Thank you for the lesson. Sorry it was quick you draw. Go ahead Peter. Two questions. Just pull the mic in front of you.
Yeah. Do we have copies of the notice? Because I'm not sure I saw it in the packet. And where where was it published? Oh, the uh the notice was published in the local source because I didn't see it. Was it published this past weekend?
Um I have an affidavit from them. It was published last Thursday, so 11 days before today. Yes. said it does uh it does have the board, this location, this date, time, and place for this hearing, the
applicant, the address by street and block and lot. Uh the fact that it's a subdivision into two lots, uh etc, etc. uh and requires subdivision approval variance relief. Uh and uh it gets into
what type of variance relief is the regulating average lot width for each lot and for the disturbance of regulated steep slopes on each lot and then it has what we call the catchall phrase together with all other etc etc and the location and times within which one can
review the maps and documents. Um, that's an abbreviated version, but hence my determination. That's fine. I I was doing some traveling, so I probably missed it. I would ask that the board be provided with copies of the notice at meetings going forward.
We can do that. Yeah. Thank you, Peter. Thank you. Do you have a question? Um, I was just wondering, uh, because it's two months, I know sometimes in the past, not that often, we would renotice when something's been shoved forward in the in the schedule for the for the public.
And so, we have done that in the past a long time ago. C. Certainly if matters were carried protractedly and the like or for you know either either o over and over again or for long periods of time uh I often advise that it's prudent. Frankly
applicants generally recognize their client's vested interest uh in an approval being uh if it's obtained in being done procedurally properly. So they will uh without uh uh the request or suggestion of the board renotice. Um
but this is a a first notice and as I understand it the request is to be carried to the next meeting if it can be adhered to the request. So I don't frankly see the need but that's a policy decision for the board. I'm curious because it's middle of the summer. It's going to be two months. I
just didn't know if this was one of those situations. It's going to be I'm sorry. It's a two-month. Okay. We're not going to go to the next planning board doesn't meet in August. So, it's in September. So, that's not next meeting, but it is the next meeting. I didn't realize I had the day off night off. Good news.
That's right. Yeah. Again, I that's a separate policy issue, but it's not a requirement by law. Okay. Any other question? I understand that. I was just curious because I know we've done it under weird circumstances. So, wanted to check in.
Other questions from the board besides kind of taking all the attention, all the limelight. Austo Paul, you guys are good. Okay, I think with that, um, and if for whatever reason there's additional carry in future meetings or kind of other procedural questions that need to be addressed, uh, we could certainly entertain renoticing, but I'm
comfortable at least certainly with on the advice of council uh, proceeding to entertain a motion to adjourn this application to the September 29th meeting uh, without further notice. Do we have a motion to that effect? Okay. And and and if I may that and and I would just want to put on the record
well assuming that motion passes uh that indeed it's my opinion that the content was sufficient. It was timely served and published uh served certified mail July 14 published July 17. That's the date. I had it right here. Uh both at least 10 days in fact more than 10 days prior uh
to this evening. Uh so if we can incorporate that within the motion I just want my advice on the record. I'll move it and incorporate uh your advice, the language. Excellent. We have a second. Second. Second. Okay. Roll call vote.
Chairman Spur. Yes. Vice Chair Balsson Alvarez. Yes. Mayor Fagan. Yes. Mr. Delmaso. Yes. Mr. Formachelli. Yes. Mr. LJOY. Yes. Mr. Stern. Yes. See you in September. Perfect. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Kaplan. Okay. Uh this is a bit of shuffle in the agenda. So we're going to hear first uh or we'll address first I should say um the resolution of general development plan extension number 2556 Morris Avenue
BMS. Good evening. My name is Christopher Costa from the law firm of Stevens and Lee. I represent uh Bristol Meyer Squib and Summit West Sellgene LLC which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Burmeers Squib. Uh the
property in question is the Bristol Squib campus 556 Morris Avenue. Uh it's uh block 701 lots 92 93 and 94. Um the property is titled in Selgene. I'm sorry it's titled in Summit West Selgene. Um
that company was purchased by BMS in 2021, November 2021. Uh this evening, we're seeking an extension of the general development plan um for a 2-year period uh to June 30th, 2027. The plan actually expired, you know, after this
uh application was submitted. Um, accompanying me this evening are uh two gentlemen from BMS, Peter Kosa, senior director of global facilities. Um, and Ryund Navoa, uh, associate director of global facilities.
Uh, and, um, they may or may not need to give testimony. Steve, do you want to swear them in? Uh, well, I'll swear them in just in the event they do. Um and then I take it you're going to provide a sort of an overview of uh the factual and legal basis for the extension request
including uh the issue of the 20 years and when things started and what have you. So with that I'll I'll chair's permission. Uh if you'll both as well as our board professionals raise your right hand. Both gentlemen who may testify. Do all of 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 did. Thank you all four. Okay. Ready? And I have a I have a handout from which is just a page from the GDP that I've marked up to show the work that was done. I'd like to pass that to the board. Mark that as exhibit A. Yes, one.
I will do that. Yes. Thank you. Got a bonus one. [Applause] Did you get one? I don't know.
Coming our way. There's a whole bunch more coming. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I think I had some I think I had some extra. All right. Thank you. As a preliminary matter, I I'd like to confirm, Steve, that my notice passed. Yes. Wonderful.
I won't uh speak at such great length as to mind if we avail the public of any extra copies. Absolutely. I don't know if anyone's interested. Bonnie interested. You want a copy? No. Okay. Would you guys like a copy? No. Okay.
Why do I not have the notice of firmly here? You have an extra copy. It's not in here. Everything including the several hundred page GDP. Struggling to find it. Thank you.
Okay. Notice sufficient in content timely published and served. Published uh star ledger July 15 and served. The reference date of service by certified mail is July 10th. Yes, sir.
Correct. Okay. Very early. Uh yes. Notice sufficient in time s has jurisdiction to hear the extension request. Thank you. So the first GDP for this campus was approved in 2006 by this board. Uh that
plan was um amended on multiple occasions in the suing ensuing years. There was an amendment in 2007, 2009, 2010, 2013, and an amendment early in 2015. Uh the GDP was fully rewritten in
two late 2019 or I guess mid 2019 and approved by this board and memorialized by resolution in July uh 2019. That GDP in 2019 uh we we really view as a new GDP. It covers all the bases of a GDP.
It wasn't simply a tweaking of the prior GDP. It was a full full reimagining of for the public's benefit. What is a GDP? Uh general development plan. Um and it is intended it really helps both the
board and the applicant. It sets forth the plans for the future development of a large property, sometimes residential property, sometimes a campus like this. And basically land use approvals run out in about 5 years. Um and so a GDP allows
for a longer track for development. Thank you. Um and um this rewriting of the GDP included a number of changes and basically it was a um little bit of a shrinking of the development plans for
the site in terms of the overall employee population, the lot coverage, the building coverage and the F on the site. Um and it also um involved different technology and newer types of buildings that were proposed. One of the
key portions of the GDP is that it um its master plan was to weave in landscaped areas, pedestrian paths across the campus in order to encourage employee and interconnect use and interconnectedness of the buildings and amenities. And that's actually one of
the statements right in the middle of the sheet that I gave you. Um, in terms of specific projects, uh, the sheet that I gave you lists the plans under the GDP. The ones that are in bold were the new ones that were brought in by the
2019 GDP. Um, the ones that aren't bold are the ones that had been contemplated in earlier plans. Um and these plans were conceived to be completed by 2023. Um unfortunately as as we all know a lot
happened after 2019 that that slowed the world down a little bit. Um and so um many of these plans were not completed but BMS and prior to BMS Cell Gene actually um pretty assertively pursued the plan. And the way I've tried to show
that is by basically marking the the projects that were completed in green on the plan. So anything that's shown in green has been completed on the plan. So they've completed a good deal of the work on the plan. Um you know including
the demolitions, the infill and S3. They did the Morris Avenue relocation. Um the S11 building and S12 building is now uh BMS's modern gene therapy building and so um S11 certainly is notow anymore. Um
in addition I put S2 in uh yellow just because it had a a different history than was originally contemplated. Um that was demolished um and that fitness center has actually been moved into S11 um where the cafeteria is as well. Um
there also the S16 was constructed for warehouse and office use and the S6C modular chiller building um was also completed. Um the roadway expansion, which is a bottom item in yellow. Um the
roadway immediately next to S6, was not turned into a two-way yet, but the roadway that connects into that two-way, which was previously a um just a a fire lane has been turned into a two-way road that's below S13.
So there's been significant effort by BMS um despite the uh you know challenges brought on by the the pandemic and other changes in in the economy related to the pandemic and in recent years in general. Um so they've moved forward with this plan and it's
still a very vibrant and vital plan. Um there's still plans to complete S14, S15 and S6D. those still match the the overall plans for the campus. Um so you know we do
believe that uh the 2019 uh GDP is still valid. There's not a need to replace it. They're still following the plans that they set forth in that GDP. Um, and for that reason, we're seeking the extension under NJSA
40 45, I'm sorry, NJSA4 55D-45 and 45.1. Um, and specifically 45.4 four allows the board to adjust the proposed timing of a GDP
um to extend it taking into consideration economic conditions prevailing market conditions and the anticipated actual needs of the campus and and as I as I've alluded to there were significant economic and uh societal obstacles in the development of
the campus and the plans still remain valid. Um one other place I wanted to touch on is the interconnectedness of the campus has also been significantly advanced um particularly in the last few years by BMS. Um they've put together a
um lighting plan which covers the entire campus um which helps the employees traverse from building to building more safely. Um they've also added solar panels to the parking areas which um is one of the sustainability goals that was
set forth in the GDP. Um and they've um added plantings within the exterior perimeter of the campus which I know was a significant issue for the neighbors. uh they were hit by the um ashtree dieout and so they they uh they had to
uh put you know several millions of dollars into landscaping. So there was significant effort put in those areas as well to be a better community member both for the internal um employees and also those living around the site.
And uh I think Steve Steve asked me to address the length of the GDP. And I I I mentioned that in the introduction to my comments, but just to be more specific about it, a GDP is um intended to be a
20-year plan. Um but we view the 2019 general development plan as really a new plan. It is a full plan. And so we think that the 20 years really starts from that that period. uh doesn't mean this board needs to agree in the future to
have it last 20 years, but uh we don't feel limited by the fact that the plan was originally put forth in 2006. Okay. Maybe I'll ask Tom or Carl if there's anything that you wanted to raise as questions or just to highlight for the
board. I think he gave Mr. Kasa gave a pretty good overview. They're entitled. Um, I think we heard a pretty good overview of the reasons for it. Um, they're entitled to request an additional extension. So, it's it's up to the board whether or not to grant the
extension. Okay. Carl, you're here. Any questions? From an engineering perspective, I have nothing at this time. Okay. Steve, was there anything else? Um, it may be prudent for Mr. Cas to just have one of his witnesses, if nothing else, confirm the representations he made as counsel. Uh,
so that it's factual testimony from someone with personal knowledge. Uh and and then I can weigh in. Okay. Um and I did swear a minute. So KZA Peter Yes. I I do.
Let me just ask if if you look at exhibit A, um I I made various representations as to the completion of these projects. Um were those correct representations from a factual perspective? Yes, they were. They were all completed.
Excellent. Well done. Can we ask one question? The the the witness or Yeah. Members of the board and members of the public questions from the board. I think it's a good sign to I Peter. Yeah. Go ahead. I just want to comment for the folks at
home that the general development plan is part of the municipal land use plan. A lot of people don't know that and it's effective throughout the entire state. This is not just a summit project. Okay. Any other questions?
The only other thing to corroborate for Mr. Warner's Mr. Cota uh you'd have to go to the mic. Can you confirm that uh you're following the plan as far as future construction and the plan is what what you're just
going with. You're not changing the plan. No, not changing the plan. Thanks. Okay, let's see if there's any other questions over here from these board members. No, it's all I guess you guys are good. Steve, what else you got? It's it's questionable whether it's a a public hearing per se or not, but so I defer to
the chair if you wish to have any want to ask any public questions. We're here. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant is correct with respect to this with respect to request for GDP extension two years. There's only two other people here. So these two as well
doesn't appear to be okay. Wonderful. Very complete. Anything else you Sorry. Uh if you're done Mr. Costa with your presentation. Just a couple of things for the benefit of the board, members of the public. the uh yes, a general development plan
uh is sometimes I think of it as in between a master plan and uh a uh an ordinance specific site or site specific site plan because it is for a larger tract of land to be developed over a
longer period of time. As Mr. Costa stated the um the uh standard for an extension under 45.4 before the MLUL board has discretion to approve the modification of a GDP timing schedule
upon consideration of prevailing economic and market conditions anticipated and actual needs for residential or non-residential units and space within the municipality in the region and the availability and capacity of public facilities to accommodate the
proposed development. Uh the last extension was if I recall correctly and I'm cheating because I'm looking at the resolution I drafted. So, I do recall correctly uh back in the summer of 2023 was a two-year extension uh and it was
commensurate or with a request for preliminary and final major site plan approval. It was a part of a a larger application. This is simply the two-year extension. In particular, the 20-year reference uh uh was addressed by Mr.
Casta because uh of uh some not to say he wouldn't have otherwise. Um but I did pick up on the fact that 45.4 has an outside date notwithstanding the fact that you could have multiple uh two or more year extensions uh that this
board can grant. Uh it is not to exceed 20 years. That's an outer limit for extensions. Hence it was important to confirm as uh I believe Mr. Costa did and I'll leave it to you to make that determination through his witness as well that indeed this GDP did not start
in 2006 because I did the hard math that only took us to 2026 and not even the summer thereof but uh but actually 2019. Um I'm comfortable that uh that it was in effect a new GDP so to speak or a
full GDP, however you want to view it. Um but ultimately that determination will be made by the board. Um but if so then you'll weigh it with the uh uh evidence provided as to you know as per this the standard that I gave you and decide in exercising discretion whether
you wish to grant uh for another two years uh the extension and that would take us to what was it September July date? I forget Jul June 30th 2027. Oh okay it's it's expired since but the application was made before it expired.
Uh, I'm sorry. So, June I'm sorry. June 30. 30. Yep. Uh, 2026 is 2027. 27. 27. So much for the being able to do the hard law, not the right. I told I told you it was hard for me. Uh, so so that would be that's the
request and it's for the board to make that determination now that the presentation has been made. Steve, can I ask one other just one other point on the um the GDP from 2019? It was actually adopted using different language than other amendments. The prior amendments were just viewed as
amendments. The 2019, you know, the July 2019 adoption was adopted under the statute for new GDP. Um, so it's it was called amendment and it certainly incorporates some of the old ones, but it it is it's a it was adopted as a full document.
It's true. And that was part of the reason I at least came to my legal conclusion that I was comfortable that they were within the 20 years. Uh but again the ultimate conclusion is the boards. Okay. Uh I I'll avoid kind of reciting what Mr. Warner, Mr. Costa had said and
generally agree with uh granting the extension for the two years, but I'll invite other members of the board to offer any comments or before we move forward with a motion. Can I just ask a question? I I think if I heard you correctly, the plan is to continue on the with the scope of
development as it stands here. And I just wanted I'm curious as to um if the property were to be sold or change hands is that does how does that impact this? I mean a new owner could certainly come
back to this board and seek changes. U but we think for the development of a research facility these are the next logical steps. Thank you. Any other questions or comments before you vote? Mr. Yeah, you know, I've been
following um BMS's staffing in other parts of the state. Uh and I know there's been various reductions filed with the state of New Jersey under the law. And I was just curious what the company's investment intent is in our community going
forward. My understanding is that the property is potentially up for sale. So that that is a potential that it would sell it but that it uh BMS will remain as the anchor tenant on the property. It will continue to use many of the buildings on the property.
Okay, that's fair. Anyone on this side questions, comments? No. Okay. Uh with that then I'll entertain a motion to grant the extension as requested. Any other language we add to that? That's more than enough. Look at that.
Uh do we have a motion? So moved. Thank you. A second. Second. Thank you. We'll do a roll call vote for this, please. Chairman Spur, yes. Vice Chair Balsson Alvarez, yes. Mayor Fagan, yes. Mr. Delmaso, yes.
Mr. Formachelli, yes. Mr. Lejoy, yes. Mr. Stern, yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Costa. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Okay.
the mark. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Custom. Okay, next uh we're going to I'll invite Mr. Barren to speak to this perhaps. Um the review and signature of
the Rossi is the council resolution. I don't believe we're voting Steve on this. I don't at least execution by the chair on behalf of the board of the document, but please I'll defer to you as to the actionable item that's requested, but um as I'll
explain the let me just give the brief overview and we'll get to what the board was asked to do. So uh good evening. So on June 16th of this year, the common council adopted resolution 41642, which amended the city's recreation and open space inventory, commonly known as
the Rossi. Um and really the amendment pertained to a a clarification of a mapping error due to a prior amendment um specifically relating to block 401 lot one uh which is commonly known as Martinsbrook Park on the north end and
Tat the Tatlock sports complex on the south end and the mapping error related specifically to only the Martinsbrook Park portion of the lot having been included um uh as a Green Acres designation where the program, meaning
the Green Acres program, uh, which operates under NJT, required that the entirety of the lot be encumbered under Green Acres, um, and was withholding funding for some other, uh, sites and and projects. But in any event, it was their position that the entirety of the
lot, um, which has long been, uh, used for open space and recreation in the community, should be within, uh, the Green Acres designation. Um it had the effect of including 15 acres which are undeveloped and 15 acres which are developed uh as the Tatlock sports
complex. So 30 acres total would now have this designation. Um and in that resolution the council specifically asked that th this the resolution be forwarded to the planning board forformational purposes but also for the board's review and signature. That's the
specific request. So, uh, so I have it here to sign. The question is, do you want to slap the pen out of my hand or not? I don't see a reason for it. I I would offer that the the amendment's already been made and and I think the gesture is just that the board is aware
and and agrees that uh the change has been made. Okay. So, you've been duly informed. Does anyone have any questions? This was a mapping error. Do you need a consent? It's it's more or less. There were just a question. Well, there's a board member had a question. there was a discrepancy in in
various maps that were available at the state level and municipal level and uh also relating to a spreadsheet and ultimately the green acres program concluded that the entirety of the parcel should be in encumbered. So that issue the mapping error became moot when
it became the whole lot. So instead of saying oh it's five acres here six acres just put the whole thing in and that resolved the issue. This is just the resolution and it and it does avail the city to some amount of funding that's green acre specific now that the lot is uh
okay within the program. Thank you. Okay. And then Mr. LJOY's question is consent a vote just consenting to this appropriate. Yeah. I mean I I would say just a motion second and uh uh roll call votes. Well, if if we're just being informed,
why are we voting? Well, I'm reading now hereby certify that this Rossy comprising seven pages is a complete and accurate listing of all lands by the local government unit uh as of this fifth day of February 2024. That was the last year's amendment. That was last year's amendment. Okay.
So, it's being updated to include uh the second one. My apartment. Uh still same date. The Rossi is being submitted to Greenacres as part of the project entitled Summit Marvel Plummit. May maybe Right. Maybe this maybe playground
playground improvement project, right? And then later on it has Monday, June 16, 2025. Bottom line is is that the the chair is being asked to sign it along with I guess the mayor who had already signed it. Um acknowledging receipt basically
I it doesn't seem to me to be doing much more than that. Uh I don't think we should vote on acknowledging receipt though. That just seems Yeah. It's just that he's he is being asked to sign it and it does have a certification. I hereby certify
this rec this recreation and this Rossing inventory is a complete and accurate listing of all lands held by the local government unit. Uh mayor signed it as well with that certification uh for recreation and conservation purposes at the time of receipt of green acres funding. Uh so to
the extent the certification needs to be signed by the planning board chair for that purpose certifying it for green acres funding um maybe green acres requires that I'm stepping out may to me
I would feel more comfortable certifying something that is correct my understanding is that the only update to the Rossi which was again amended and scrutinized about a year ago was that the entirety of uh block 401 lot one which had already been on the list the
spreadsheet okay was just being amended to say instead of five acres and change it would be 30 acres that's that's the whole and the total obviously would change proportional to that increase this sounds like clean up the clean up five the spirit of the full
board join me in this resolution so we can have a voice vote I'd entertain a motion to uh compel the planning board chairel Got a a motion to authorize. Authorize. There we go. Motion to authorize. Authorize you to sign it to sign this piece of paper.
How about a vote that we we acknowledge that we got it? And we Well, he's going to be signing. How about you give him the comfort to sign it that the planning board's behind him. How's that? There we go. All right. Since I already signed it, I'm going to move to got you to sign it, too. A second. Thank you, Peter. Peter
second. We have a roll call vote, please. Either way, you want to do a voice vote? All right. Yeah. Just do I. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? It's not a resolution. So, fair enough. I'm going to sign up to me. I'll sign that before exiting the building. Why are you the
All right. There we go. Fun. Fun. You have to sign things. Um, all right. So, we've moved through our public hearing, our resolutions. Um, let's address now our minutes for approval. This is June 23rd. uh our esteemed vice chair
Jennifer Balsson had done a wonderful job uh providing some uh comments really cleaning up some language um verb tenses and all kinds of good stuff here really very thorough proof reading but is there anything you want to draw particular kind of substantive attention to
um everybody has it in front of you correct okay um and uh Tom went over it as well after I tried to put in just it's such it was such a technical meeting, you know, for a per poor secretary to
have to start her minutes. In fairness to Jessica, she watched the whole meeting and and there was a a debate within the land department of how detailed to be or not because if you you ran the risk of not including some important information or and otherwise you'd have a full transcript
and that's not the purpose of it. So she I think she did her best to capture the essence of everything and we I reviewed the comments, the edits you made. I generally agree with those changes. So I think you have a a good set of minutes to consider this even because it was such a technical meeting.
We just wanted to put in some of the key vocabulary, key items, you know, just to to flush it out a tiny bit. Um so rather than going through every change, why don't you all just take a minute to take a look at the the red lines and if you
have any objections, let me know. Let us know. This is not the whole minutes. is just the part that we're ahead of changes. Should there when you talk about acting chair, vice chair, should we just be consistent throughout? Right. Right.
Maybe just say acting chair false. Well, it was it was chairman and it was various other things and I just we changed it to chair after that or it could say I don't really care. But Steve uh Mr. Warner said to
me, "Well, today you're chair." So I was like, "Okay, fine." You know, once you say that you're acting as chair, then you're just chair through the whole thing. I would think chair is charis whatever. Um, following
attorney guidance there. All right. Has everyone had a chance to examine carefully? Balls furled. Brow is nodding. Okay. Okay. Jessica, did you have any questions that you want to address here while we're all together? Or you can
actually always reach out to our former acting chair all these changes because I can just make all the changes. Yeah, I think so. Yeah, I bet that'd be great. Yeah, I'll send it to you. Awesome. Thank you very much, Jennifer. Thank you, Jessica. Uh, now we can approve as editor. That's right. So, we'll ask for a motion
to approve the minutes as revised for June 23rd, 2025. So, moved. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Okay. This is a voice, right? Voice is fine. Yeah. Okay. All in favor? I. Any opposed?
Hearing none, we have accepted these minutes for approval. Excellent. Okay. Uh, next on the formal agenda will be close session, but as I noted at the beginning of the meeting, there was some con confusion about whether or not um
the the public has the opportunity to uh speak regarding non-aggenda items. Um, so with that, we'll pause for a moment here, invite any members of the interested public who are in attendance this evening um to make brief comments or question offer questions. Um, the board or board professionals won't
naturally be responding. Uh, but we welcome you to to come forward, offer brief comments or questions for the board uh before we're going to break into close session. I think Bonnie's probably good, but Fritz, if I remember your name correctly. Yeah, Fritz Alam. Nine Russell, please. If I need to do that this week.
I'm sorry. Last name again. I'm sorry. Alam. O L L O M as in Mary. Thank you. Please proceed. Yeah. Uh, first, thank you for your service. I mean, that's important. And I
know it's not easy. So, uh, I just I have one question. Well, I have a couple of questions, but one question is, are any of you do any of you live in East Summit? We're not going to be answering questions from the board, but welcome to
close the hypothetical if you like. Yes. The the you know, okay, I'll just I'll just, you know, statement I'll state a few things. Thank you. Okay. So, I live on Russell Place. Ashwood is right behind me. Over the
last several years, we've seen significant development in that area. I mean, we've we've got, you know, nine units on Ashwood, four to six Ashwood. We've got the the uh Habitat for Humanity
project that I know was rough. We have, you know, on two single family lots, we now have six units uh on Ashwood. Uh down the street, I know you guys just appro or approved a
uh on a single family lot, you know, three new buildings, you know, both duplexes or all duplexes. and and it's it's kind of getting to the point where, you know, sort of death by multiple
paper cuts, you know, the traffic is increasing, parking is a pain in the ass, safety is becoming an issue. Backing out of my driveway, you know, I'm Yeah, it it's getting really bad.
So, a question that I have, you know, obviously a 20 unit complex in the worst intersection in that part of town, perhaps in all of Summit, is just going
to exacerbate all these problems. So, the question that I have is really about planning. It's like, you know, I think the last master plan was approved what, 2016, you know, what's going on here? I mean,
is there going to be a revision? Is there going to be anything? Is there any input from East Summit on the planning board that, you know, it's it's just kind of uh it's very frustrating, you know, and a lot of us, you know, unfortunately, not too many have shown
up here. We were hoping for more, but it's the middle of summer. It is the middle of summer and we do have and you know I mean as as uh as council person said at the last council meeting, you know, summits like or e summit's like the garbage dump for
summit. You know, you throw all your problems down into East Summit and we have a power outage right now. So, you know, it's like uh it it's just sort of, you know, part of the deal. So, uh, all I do is urge you guys to do something,
to do something, to actually advocate for our neighborhood, you know, I mean, not our micro neighborhood, our full neighborhood. And, uh, just haven't seen that out out of this planning board. It's it's it's actually very frustrating. So, I just wanted to go on
record saying, man, you know, you guys got to throw us a bone sometime. Thank you. Thank you very much. Risa Gorlick Russell Place. That was my husband. Um, thank you for your service, but I agree with my husband that you
need to pay more attention in a positive way to East Summit. I am still deeply concerned that you plan to put 20 units of people living above a former dry cleaning site and the toxicity of the area. Um, in New
York, you are not allowed to build housing over a former dry cleaning site. So, I don't understand why we would be able to do it in Summit because it's it's not safe. And you can't tell me that it's going to be safe. And
the mayor is a doctor. We're all civic-minded enough to want to live in a safe and healthy environment. Um, the traffic is awful. I believe that there's been a lot of postings from last week. Um I garden at the Overlook
Hospital YMCA plot. Um trying to get home at 4:30 last week. You couldn't get down Broad Street. You couldn't get down Mars Street. It took me I live a half a mile from the hospital. You could see the helipad from
our backyard. Could not get home in 40 minutes. There's a hospital there and a fire station on the other side. God forbid there was some type of an emergency. It's one lane each way and you couldn't
get through. There are no sidewalks in this area for children who walk to to and from the middle school and Jefferson School. Um, it's a terrible location for
a redevelopment project and I'm begging you to figure out a way to move it somewhere else. Thank you. Thanks for being with us this evening. Okay. Um, Bonnie doesn't want to say anything, so that kind of exhausts the
public. Thank you again for being here. I hope your power comes back on soon. That's no fun on a night like that. We also don't We also want Can I also ask one more question quickly, please? I want to know why you're discussing this project in a closed session rather than an open session because I read my mind because
that just it's really I feel like everything is we didn't know anything about this project until literally like 24 hours before the last planning meeting. Okay. Which you were at speak to that just and and it's just it's we feel like you're
you're not being transparent with us or the city and we are taxpayers. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um so with that and that's actually a decent decent enough transition not as I had planned it at least. Um the next portion of the agenda
um is our is our closed session. It's noted here as house housing elements and fair share plan next steps. Um in this portion of the meeting the board expects to discuss matters related to pending litigation associated with summit's fourth round affordable housing obligations. Um, we've set this as a
closed session discussion. This confidential confidentiality is required for our board attorney to fully exercise his ethical duties as a lawyer. Um, as a reminder, uh, Summit's planning board adopted its housing element and fair share plan at the end of June. That's why we scrutinized so closely these last
minutes set of minutes. Um, that plan was then endorsed by the governing body and put on file with the state as required to avoid the loss of immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits. uh per state statute, challenges to duly filed housing element and fair share plans may be made by any interested party before
the end of August. So that clock is ticking. Um after which resolution of any such challenges uh are are expected to be resolved through mediation or potentially litigation uh before the end of the year. That's the rough timeline. That timeline has not changed. Um but that clock kind of keeps ticking. Um so
as the d as the dust settles over the challenge period and again we expect that uh we we know that to conclude at the end of August uh the planning board will look for an appropriate time to share an update with the public, solicit relevant input and work together to submit our community's plan for the generation of mandated affordable
housing over the next 10 years and everything that comes with that. Um so uh unless there's any questions um from the board that uh or comments that you want to wrap the public portion of the section um what we'll do is we'll take a
vote to move into close session for the discussion of housing element and fair share plan as noted on the agenda as outlined in the resolution that Mr. Warner has provided. I don't know Mr. Warner if there's anything you'd like to add before we break into close session or take the vote and then break into.
Yeah. Well, I was just going to very quickly read the actual resolution to go into executive session and just to really sum it up uh but I will still read it very quickly. Uh is it's pending litigation the affordable h the the housing element fair share plan and the
entirety of of what uh the city is will may do may not do with respect to affordable housing in the fourth round is a pending litigation right now. Hence the requirement the obligation of the board to meet to discuss uh uh many of
the items in close session uh other than those items that are public hearings such as the adoption of the housing element fair share plan itself which was a public hearing that already took place. So because of that whereas the open public meetings act permits the exclusion of the public from the meeting
in certain circumstances it's necessary for the planning board to discuss in a session not open to the public certain matters related to items authorized by uh 10 col4-12B7 that's one the seventh exception to the open public meetings act requirement. Uh
now therefore be it resolved by the planning board of the city of Summit County Union state of New Jersey. The public shall be excluded from the discussion of the here and after specified subject matter. The general nature of the subject matter to be discussed uh falling within the attorney client privilege to the extent
confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise its ethical duties as a lawyer. Specifically pending litigation related to the fourth round affordable housing obligations of the city. It's anticipated that deliberations conducted in closed section may be disclosed to the public
upon the determination of the planning board that the public interest will no longer be served by such confidentiality at a later date and the resolution shall take effect immediately. A motion second roll call vote. Okay. Uh with that, I'll invite a motion
to enter into close session as outlined in Mr. Warner's resolution. We have a motion. So moved. A second. Second. We'll do a roll call vote here. Chairman Spur, yes. Vice Chair Bolson Alvarez, yes. Mayor Fagan, yes.
Mr. Delmaso, yes. Mr. Formachelli, yes. Mr. Loy, yes. Mr. Stern, yes. Okay, we'll take a few minutes break here to let the public exit and wish everyone a good night and we'll continue
our deliberations. Thank you.