uh as passed by the uh as passed by the legislature. The whole point of it is to create these I'm I'm going to call them arbitrary deadlines to force us to do it uh in not necessarily the way that we want to do it or on the time frame that we want to do it. Um but the state
created this program that takes it specifically out of our control because their fear is the state's fear is that if we do this uh these affordable housing uh programs, you know, agreements on our timeline, they will never get done. And so the whole point
is to take it out uh by to create this program that makes the courts the bad guy. Uh they create these arbitrary deadlines that make the court the bad guys. Uh and it's that way, you know, we don't in theory we don't have to be. Um it is intentional not by us but by the again by the the entire design of this
program by the legislature. It is not fair. Uh it is not our fault and it's our fault I mean that the the mayor and council. It is not your fault or you know Mike Ash or my fault that we were doing this or under this time frame. Um because that's just the intentionally the way this whole thing is set up. Uh,
I know of at least half a dozen other municipalities that I've personally talked to their lawyers in the last day or so where they are doing the exact same thing either tonight or tomorrow night, Christmas Eve, uh, or later this week on Friday, they're holding their special meetings just like we're doing
right now to try to approve these these settlement agreements uh, with either Fair Share or whoever else is objecting to them. Uh, if you want to blame someone over this, you know, I would suggest looking to the to the to the legislature, looking to the state. They're the ones that came up with this and we just we just all have to live
with it unfortunately. Uh I also know that there was a lot of frustration about how much of this has taken place beyond behind closed doors. Uh I know at the last meeting obviously I was not there for it. I was in the middle of trial. Um but I know there's a lot of frustration at the fact that the council
has had to do a lot of this in close session without the public being present. Uh again that is it is not none of us are happy with that. None of us want to be doing it that way. We all want to be as transparent and open with the public as we can. But at the end of the day, Tene is being sued by fair
share, by the by the developers. And as with any litigation, for us to have attorney, you know, for Mike Ash and myself to have attorney client privilege and to be able to properly advise the council, we have to do those uh some of these some of these uh meetings behind
closed doors. Um otherwise we are I mean literally would be giving away the playbook of what our plans or strategies of what we're trying to do to the exact people who are trying to sue us or not trying to who are suing us. And so that's why we've done so much of this uh by you know in close session. Again it's
not you we don't want to be doing it that way. Not everyone here I know everyone on the council supports transparency. We want to be doing in public but there's there are limitations because of the nature. Again it's the setup of the program. They set it up so that way all these people are suing us. So now we we don't have a choice but to discuss, you know, as with any
litigation in close session. Um, so that said, I'm going to turn it over to Mike, uh, who has, uh, been working to try and come up with the settlement agreement or some agreements, I should say, who's going to walk us through some of the specifics of of what's in there. >> Yes, thank you. And and and just to add
to what you said with that intro, every municipality with some limited exceptions um were qualified to participate in this program. This program under the amended fair housing
act was voluntary by all municipalities. Municipalities had to opt in. The alternative of not opting in was losing immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits
which would be extended through December 31st of this year. So towns had to be forward-looking over a year ago decide they were going to opt into this process.
Tene did opt into this process uh by adopting a resolution back in January and then filing a declaratory judgment action uh in Bergen County Superior Court under docket number 776-25.
Teneck like other municipalities followed best practices of the law and planning to opt into this process because again the alternative is loss of immunity from builder's remedy
lawsuits. The loss of immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits means a judge will decide when a developer asks where a project should go and what the zoning should be
with the sole priority being the creation of affordable housing units. Not what is an appropriate height, not what is an appropriate density. no other control on the zoning other
than a judge deciding that affordable units should go where a developer says they should go. That's what the loss of immunity from builders remedy lawsuits brings. It brings a loss of zoning control of home
rural zoning by municipalities. And there have been municipalities throughout the state that have lost that immunity and are being sued, have been sued by developers for projects that that don't fit in the
context of zoning or the neighborhood or communities. and those municipalities who lose those lawsuits also get the privilege of paying for all the costs and fees associated with that litigation.
So, there have been uh a number of significant hoops for Tene and other municipalities to jump through in order to comply with this fourth round obligation. Scott and I and our planner topology um
with with Gula and and Graham um have provided an outline of this process in public session, in close session um starting in January of this year and have educated and updated each step of
the way in order to get us to substantial compliance with our approved plan and a settlement with fair share and the other intervenor
defendant property owners who provide uh an actual uh realistic development potential to build the affordable units that are required in T-neck under this program.
since we filed that housing plan in June. um that incorporated a number of project sites from property owners and developers who came to Tene
under this process and said I will build a certain number of affordable units in a inclusionary market rate project because these property owners came forward they were included in our plan. The
alternative would have been not to have enough units and to have been sued by these property owners to build a project with that number of units. The uh approved plan was
filed with the court and under the time frames in the program, Tene received challenges from fair share housing and from the property owner defendant interveners
who sought uh asurances that the projects they proposed not only are included in the plan, but that Tene would actually adopt zoning and or a redevelopment plan to
bring the project to fruition. Fair Share also intervened again to ensure that Tene was going to comply with the approved plan. and compliance
means generally adopting zoning. Since those challenges were filed at the end of August, um Tene has participated in what the fourth round calls
quote the program. The program is a uh a mediation process that is um administered by a retired superior court judge.
The judge assigns Tene was judge Ronnie Bookbinder and Judge Bookbinder is assisted by what the program calls a special adjudicator. Special adjudicator is a planner uh by trade and expertise
who is essentially the judge's expert and to to give substantive um and subject matter expertise and opinions to the judge where planning issues are in dispute or are debatable.
Special adjudicator assigned to Tene is a planner named Nick Graviano. For the past few months, we have been in mediation sessions um with Judge Bookbinder, with special adjudicator Graviano, with our planner,
with fair share housing and council for the intervenor property owner defendants. And the sole issue here is can we find a settlement where Tene agrees
to effectuate the zoning in its approved plan to satisfy its fourth round obligation. The program is is extinguished under the statute as of December 31st.
Judge Bookbinder with the assistance of Mr. Graviano has to make a recommendation to the Mount Laurel judge in Bergen County as to whether or not Tene has complied or not. If we comply, we have a
certificate of compliance and immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits is extended through the fourth round. If we don't, the recommendation will be that Tene lose immunity. And as of
January 1st, if we lose immunity, we can expect lawsuits from builders. Again, lawsuits would mean that these same property owners would essentially receive the same zoning. um but we would have to pay for their
their costs and fees and we'd have limited control over what the zoning of those projects would look like. So after negotiating uh multiple rounds and going back and forth with both fair
share and the property owner intervenor defendants, um on the agenda are three settlement agreements that if approved will allow Judge Bookbinder
to file a report with the superior court that we have complied. that Tene has complied with its fourth round obligations and to issue the certificate of compliance. If we don't adopt these agreements,
um, and we have to report to Judge Bookbinder tomorrow morning at 8:30 for our final program session, uh, there is a substantial risk that we will not receive a certificate of compliance
and we will lose immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits. >> Okay, Mike, thank you very much. That Mr. Ash, that was a report, correct? I didn't want to interrupt you. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um I believe and maybe Mr. Solomon, if you can um let us know, there's certain things on the agenda
that we could table and certain things that we can't table. And I believe, if I'm wrong, the things we cannot table the fair share. I believe there's really consensus townwide on that and councilwide on that. And the items which may not have consensus, which may want
more input, are okay to table. Can you just clarify that so the council could potentially move forward and let people celebrate their holiday? >> Understood. So I think um at this point the the most important part of uh what we move ahead on is again this is for the from the you know the court's
perspect the court's perspective for the program's perspective is the settlement agreement with fair share. I understand there are some um some issues with some of the the the details of the uh the uh the um the one with the crossroads and
the the resolution. I don't have the numbers in front of me, the resolution numbers in front of me. The uh here we go. The 348 2025 is the resolution related to the selling agreement with fair share. That's the most important one. 349 2025 is the one with crossroads
and 350 20 20 to 5 is the one with 143 State Street, Hill Street Realy 54 West Anglewood uh and vision 23 um if we were moving it I I will say I ideally from a legal perspective we move
ahead on all of them but it's the most important for the courts uh the court and the program is that we move ahead with the fair share one. Can I ask a question? Of >> course. >> Scott, can I make a motion now to approve 348? Can we vote on that now?
>> Council can can do what whatever wants on >> I'd like to I'm still speaking. I'd like to make a motion to move 348 so that we're not um we're we're making we're approving our deal with fair share without discussing
any of the particular um developments in Tene um before good and welfare but I'd like to take care of this before the mayor gets on the plane. I'll second that motion. >> And again, this is just for the fair share of settlement and nothing to
relate to the specific other developments. >> Can we go in order? It just be easier if we go 347. >> Yeah, I would agree. Let's go in order because we only >> That wasn't my motion. And 347 has nothing to do with the lawsuit or the
deadline. 347 was thrown in there without being council listed, without being discussed with three members of council. It was only discussed with four and um that's why it's in there, but 348 is the meat and potatoes of this and I I would love it if as a council we could
approve that >> point of information. >> Yeah. >> Um Scott, um does doesn't the impact doesn't 347 impact 348? >> Um I I can answer it does not.
>> Yeah, >> it does not. No, >> not not from the courts the the you know from the uh the program's perspective from you know whether up to you guys whether or not it affects your decisions on that that's up to you but not from a
legal like from a court's perspective. >> Okay. Although it doesn't um impact from um you know one doesn't seem that it goes with the other. I I would recommend that, you know, we would amend uh deputy mayor uh
um proposal to to include to vote on 147 um in conjunction with one uh 347 in conjunction with 348. Um I think that that um it is important that we uh we do the settlement that we we all I think
are kind of wanting to do this because we're wanting to get this behind us. But uh 347 is a very important uh resolution that I would uh ask that we would amend the um the motion to include 347 be voted on
first. >> Second. Can I just be clear on what the 347 is because um Scott, I can't vote on um 51 West Anglewood because it's too close to my property. >> You're recused on 347. So, there was a
motion. It was it was amended and it was second on the amendment. So, I believe Scott, we're voting on 347 and 348 right now. Is that correct, Scott? >> Well, there was there was the motion to amend and that was seconded, but then we need a mot we need a vote on that motion to amend first. Can can I just make a
comment? I think that we should have good and welfare first. I think that we're voting on things which I don't have a problem voting on them together, but I think procedurally and just transparently, we should have good and welfare first. Let the residents speak if they have anything to say. >> I think transparency sailed a long time
ago when we never saw this 347. But Mr. Mr. Salman >> Yeah. Mr. Salman, what do we um what is your recommendation, please? If there's a motion, is there already amended motion? I believe we have to have a roll call on that, please. There's a mo because there's a motion to amend motion. We need a vote on the the motion
to amend first. >> Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, please call the role on to vote on 347 and 348. >> Yes. Again, this is just on the making sure I'm unmuted. This is just on the amendment
>> of the motion. Councilwoman Goldberg, >> this is Wait, this is the amendment to vote on it before welfare. >> Yes. Well, is the amendment to include 340 to vote on 347 now as well >> now versus after good and welfare. I just want to make sure I'm voting. >> Yes. >> Before good and welfare. No, I want to
do good and welfare. >> That's not the motion. That That's not the vote. The vote is the to include them both. My amendment was has nothing to do with good and welfare. It has to do with 347 and 348 being voted together.
>> Yeah. >> And the vote was called now. Correct. >> You're amending Yes. You're amending my motion, which is to vote on it now. So, it is to vote now. You're just voting on both now before Good and Welfare instead of voting on the settlement, getting it out of the way before the mayor gets on
a plane and then you can talk about the rest of it after Good and Welfare. >> So, wait, let me just jump out a sec. This is I know this is getting confusing. So, the vote if if this vote passes, it would be then then you will need a vote on the substance of 347 and
348. This is just about to uh to decide if you if you are only looking at 348 now or if you're looking at 347 and 348 now. Does that make sense? >> But before go to welfare is my question. That's my concern. Go to welfare. >> Yes, that is the motion. Council gober. Correct.
>> Okay. So I I want to have good to welfare. >> So your vote is no. Mr. Clerk, can you please call the roll call? Councilman Goldberg is a no to vote on it now. >> Councilman Pagan. >> Yes. Councilwoman G. >> Yes.
>> Councilman Catz, >> I just want to be clear. Can I because it's a double motion and I'm not an abstaining on 347. How do I do this? Scott, >> you can vote on whether or not it's going to be heard now, but if you're abstaining, you can't vote on the the next vote, which would be on the
substance of of that one. >> Okay, I'm okay voting for now. We're not. >> Councilman Catz, Deputy Mayor Belair, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor Oregon, >> no. >> Mayor Schwarz,
>> yes. >> Okay. So, now it's a roll call for by Mr. by the clerk on 347 and 348. >> Well, no, I think it's uh I don't know. You don't need to do them as one vote for the two of them. You just need to
you were just going to have votes on 347 and 348. >> Okay. All right. Mr. Clerk, please call the vote for 347 and 348. Those are being voted on now and Councilman Katz is not voting on 34 is recused on 347. >> Thank you, Mayor. So, first up is 347.
Is there a motion? >> I'll make the motion. >> A second. There was a first from Councilwoman Goldberg and a second from Deputy Mayor Belchure for resolution 347. Councilwoman
Goldberg, >> yes. >> Councilman Pagan, >> yes to 347. >> Councilwoman G. >> Yes. >> Councilman Catz, >> sorry about that. >> My fault. Debbie Mayor Belure.
>> Yes. Debbie, mayor, Oregon. >> No, because this was never discussed publicly under good and welfare or in closed session. This was thrown on and is a surprise. >> That's a no. >> Mayor Schwarz.
>> No. 347 passes. Call the role, please. On 348. >> Is there a motion on 348? >> Motion. Motion Schwarz on 348. >> Thank you. >> Second. Thank you, Councilwoman Goldberg. >> Yes.
>> Councilman Pagan, >> no. >> Councilwoman G. >> Yes. >> Councilman Catz. >> Um, yeah. Just confirm. Yeah. Scott, just confirm. I can vote on this one. >> This one? Yes. Yes. Well, you tell me if
you think you have a conflict, but you haven't mentioned one. One, >> only the conflict of 51 West Angler. >> Yeah. Then then you're fine on this one. >> Okay. Says yes. Councilman Katz, yes. Deputy Mayor Belure, >> yes.
>> Deputy Mayor Oregon, >> yes. >> Mayor Schwarz, >> yes. That 348 passes and I believe we have a settlement with fair share, Mr. Assama. Is that correct? >> Taken. >> We have a fair share settlement. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. How would you like the rest of the
meeting to go, Mr. Salman? So, we comply. Where are the next steps, please? I think at this point I would suggest we move to um unless anyone else has any comments, we move to good and welfare and then you can vote on the rest of the the remaining two resolutions. >> Excellent. Um I'm just going to turn the meeting over now to deputy mayor to run
it, please. >> Doug, you got this. >> Yes. Good. And welfare is indeed open. Everyone has three minutes. I see a couple hands here. Bringing in Gail.
>> Hello Gail. You have three minutes. >> Okay. Hi, I'm Gail, a T-neck resident. I've been trying to follow this whole thing about the affordable housing and it's very complicated
but I have to say that I think we're lo losing sight of the the issue of whether housing is going to be affordable. Now, I I think none of what I've heard is whether or
not we are making units affordable. Now, what are we talking about? It's it's so frustrating because I don't think I don't think the intent of the state legislation
is being um honored and I think it's being uh twisted by all the interests, the housing development interests, the the profitm
interests are being involved in this and we're getting away from affordability. I don't think any of this really deals with affordability and it's just just like caught up in all
this verbiage and it's it's crazy. It's absolutely crazy. And I think we need to step back and say, "Wait a minute. Are we really trying to make housing in
Tenef affordable? From what I've been listening to, no, it's not whether we want affording to be a house uh housing to be affordable. It's about how can developers make the most money and how
and how um citizens are not going to be able to afford the affordability housing. So that's what I feel and I really really
am frustrated by all this discussion. >> Are you finished, Miss Gale? >> Yes, I am. >> Thank you so much, Miss. We have a couple other hands here. Deputy Mayor Oregon, I am bringing in Paula Rogivan.
Hi. Um, it's a shame that you're putting good and welfare after your vote. Um, yeah, it's a real shame. Uh when I heard the report from Crossroads a few weeks ago, the engineers spoke about some
proposal to send floodwaters from north of Cedar Lane under Cedar Lane down bending here and there down American Legion Drive and then uh perpendicular at Kip into turning the corner at Kip
and then dumping the floodwaters into the rail. the they said the conrail tracks. Now when I heard the word conrail from that engineer my I was rather surprised because it hasn't been Conrail since 1999.
It is CSX line in that area. Uh what? Well, whichever it is, I have spoken to people in CSX and they are furious about this proposal to dump floodwaters into
the rail track areas. It's it's uh it will destroy the tracks. It will destroy the trains. The other thing is there's a state law that requires approval for any kind of flood
uh a plan to deal with flooding that that has to be approved by this New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. And because it go pipes would go under Cedar Lane, which is a county road, there will have to be
approval for any pipe going under Cedar Lane. So, we're talking about years and years of dealing with the flood plan, getting the the this any flood plan approved, and you know that CSX will not
I mean, I talked to them today when the law was just passed to uh uh uh the hazardous material safety law was finally passed today and I was in at in talks with CSX while I was in Trenton
and they don't want this. They don't want it at all. They're furious. You will be hearing from them. Um, and I know that the people in our community down in in in Kip Street area already get flooded. They're at the bottom of a
hill. You may not all know that, but they're at the bottom of the hill. They get flooded. And this would make it even worse during a a major storm. Um, so many of us not only in the southwest
of T-neck near Crossroads Development are opposed to this plan, but people throughout T-neck are opposed to this plan. And I hope that you will uh think again about this.
I'm done. >> Thank you, Miss Paula. I'm bringing in Melanie. You are free to unmute, Melanie. You have three minutes. >> Good evening. Um, I am a T-neck resident and I was rather wondering if you could
provide the actual addresses of the lots that you were talking about because I don't have a clue as to where that would be. Um, so it's a very simple question and I hope you can provide it. >> Is that all Miss Melanie?
>> That's it. >> Thank you, Miss Bringing in Susan. Hi, my name is Susan Mayor. I live on I live Oh, I I live on Bell Avenue
and I am speaking on behalf of the northwest of Cedar Lane Neighborhood Association leadership team. We request We request clarification of the
following aspects of the proposed Bever American Legion Drive settlement agreement. We ask the council to clarify which of the following concerns are fixed in tonight's settlement
agreement versus which can still be addressed during implementation. The first thing is Bell Avenue flooding remediation requirements as they relate to the Beverly Road parking lot development.
The second, setback distances from single family homes and alignment with previously stated distant distance distance requirements. Third, adequate space and location for the farmers market. Four, traffic
mitigation at the Cedar Lane Garrison intersection, particularly regarding the garage entrance exit. Five, impact on future Cedar Lane business district development opportunities between Garrison and Windsor.
And finally, overall alignment with the goals and remedies in the master plan. We fully support TX's affordable housing commitment and want to ensure that that commitment is met with thoughtful planning that addresses residential
growth, business development, infrastructure concerns, and preservation of community character. >> Are you done, Susan? I am done. Thank you. >> Thank you so much for sharing. I have a
Vicky Costa. Vicki, you are free to unmute. You have three minutes. Vicki, you are free to unmute. You have three minutes, Vicki. Are you with us, Vicki? Vicki might be having some technical difficulties.
One more shot. Vicki, are you with us? You have three minutes. You're free to unmute. You're free to unmute, Vicki. >> Doug, let's move on. >> Sorry, Vicki. Feel free to email counsel. >> Anyone else? Uh I see only two hands
here but I believe that they are individuals who already spoke. We get one shot during good and welfare my friends. >> So with that uh good and welfare is closed. >> I have one hand here. It's Mr. Chuck Powers
bringing him in. >> Thank you Mr. CL clerk. >> No problem. You know, I I believe this entire enterprise is in violation of the rules which would establish a basis. We have no idea who called
this special meeting. There's no and the only newspaper account of it appeared not 48 hours before this meeting but in the um in the um record yesterday.
I believe there's some clarifi need clarification about who who it is that our attorneys are the attorneys for. I believe it is for the majority of the council and not any individual person. We have no idea
who it was that created or authorized the inclusion on this agenda, this probably illegitimate agenda of the LA of the either the
crossroads with its unbelievable mis um new version of the of the redevelopment plan that basically um throws away much of what it was that
Crossroads claimed it was going to be doing. I'm also very interested to know who believes that they are legitimate voters on the crossroads matter tonight since two members of our council, our mayor and our deputy mayor
have received $2500 from them. And this any vote for the agenda item, I assume that will come before this council would in fact suggest that the town is a agreeing and
so to a to a a process for deciding pilots which clearly are inconsistent with what it was that the Crossroads said they were going to be asking for.
But more important than that, they are would be participating in a vote for a a uh contributor who had contributed far in excess of the reportable amount of
money allowable in the when they accepted a contribution last October uh in in last October's election. I hope people are very clear that putting the
town in jeopardy of litigation with people voting when they are not allowed to is something that this township cannot afford in this crazy process in which it is engaged tonight. Please table these two additional amendments.
Let's get on with the task of trying to figure out what the hell is going on with affordable housing in the context of what it is that the planning board and the and the township council have a right to determine. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you very much, sir. Deputy mayor, I see no other hands. >> Okay. So, with that, we can close good and welfare. Um, let's have everybody who wants to speak speak in the order which we do in chambers. So, Councilwoman Goldberg.
>> No. Councilman Pagan. Nope. Uh, Councilwoman G. >> Um, yeah. Just really quickly, I want to share with the public that this timeline is not normal. We are moving way faster than we typically would want to due to the um the the deadline uh that we're
quickly approaching with fair share and the deadline given to us by the judge. So, I just want you all to know that this is not by choice. We do not like moving at this pace. Um and I I just want to be clear that we are being pushed by this deadline that we have no control over. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Deputy Mayor Katz. Um, >> no. Deputy Mayor >> Deputy Mayor Belchure, >> I just wanted to to um let the public know uh residents know that uh we are uh under a a tremendous amount of um
things that we have to consider when it comes to making sure that we protect our township from litigation. uh as well as to stand up to our obligation for affordable housing and we are making every concerted effort to
ensure that we get it right. That's all I have to say. >> Okay. Um Mayor Schwarz, >> no. Okay. So with that, um let's close good and welfare for us and move on. Uh,
resolutions 349 and 350. I'd like to make a motion to table both. >> Second, >> comments, >> Doug. >> That was a motion to table. Correct. >> There are 349 and 350.
>> And that was a second from Councilwoman Goldberg. Councilwoman Goldberg. >> Yes. >> Was that a yes? I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> Councilman Pagan. Yes, >> Councilman G. >> Yes,
>> Councilman Catz. >> Yes, but I'm abstaining on 350. >> Deputy Mayor Belure. >> Deputy Mayor Belure. >> Denise. Uh, yes. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? >> Yes, I can hear you. >> Okay. Yes, that was a yes.
>> Thank you. Sorry about that. Deputy Mayor Oregon. >> Yes. >> Mayor Schwarz. >> Yes. >> Do you have a date, Deputy Mayor? >> Um, it's we're going to have to look at the resolutions again, so they may have
different language. So, we'll we'll see what the attorneys come up with for January. Um, can we have a motion to adjurnn? >> I'm sorry. Just before we the motion adjourn, just I have to say the members of the council members of the council have some strong strong feelings about this. If any of you have specific
comments, we obviously ask that you guys pass along as soon as possible just because the holidays, you know, the the sooner we get them. Any any specific comments that, you know, we appreciate it >> and and just a thank you to Scott and really to Mike uh and Golda for all the work that you've done for us to try to
keep us on track with this. I know it's a little bit like hurting cats and so we appreciate you a lot. Um, and happy holidays to everyone. Can we have a motion to adjurnn? >> I make a motion. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> Happy holidays everybody. >> Thank you. Thanks. >> Good everyone. Bing.