Yeah, I know. I know. question. >> Okay. >> Good evening everybody and welcome to this regular planning board meeting on February 26, 2026. Will everyone who can please rise and
join me for the pledge of 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. Madam Secretary,
can you please read the Open Public Meetings Act statements and take roll call? The notice requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act have been satisfied with respect to this meeting of the Township of Verona Planning Board, which
is being held in the ballroom of the Verona Community Center located at 880 Bloomfield Avenue, Verona. Specifically, the time and date were included in the annual notice of meetings. This information along with the meeting agenda was posted in the municipal building and on the legal notices web
page of the township website and sent to the official newspapers of the township, the Verona Cedar Grove Times, and the Star Ledger at least 48 hours preceding the start time of this meeting. The agenda and public handouts for this meeting can be viewed online at the township's website. Instructions on how
to comment will be provided at the appropriate time. Those wishing to speak during any public comment period should only provide their name and municipality. Street addresses are not required. Please be advised that should a member of the public choose to state their street address, it will not be
redacted from this recording. Mr. Magaro >> here. >> Mr. Day >> here. >> Mrs. Parker >> here. >> Mr. Lily >> here. >> Mr. Kim >> here. >> Mr. Freski >> here. >> Township manro Sullivan >> here.
>> Deputy Mayor Makavoy >> present. >> Mayor Tambbor >> here. >> Vice Chair Heinman >> here. >> Chair Pearson >> here. >> Or attorney Misera >> here. >> Miss Mish zoning official >> here. >> And myself.
And also joining us this evening is Dan Halbin and Sanio. Um before I go public participation, I just want to remind everybody to if you haven't reply to DD
regarding the May 19th meeting movement because there'll be early voting in here during the regular scheduled meeting. So we're rescheduling. So anyone who hasn't replied to her, please do. Also remember
that March 3rd our meeting starts at 700 p.m. Um and now DD you can >> This is public participation on anything not on the >> Anyone from the public wishing to speak
on any matter not on the agenda, please approach the microphone. Once recognized, clearly state your name and township of residence for the record. You are not required to provide your street address. However, if you do, please note that these meeting recordings are public record and addresses will not be redacted for any
purpose. You will have four minutes to address the board. There will be no cross dialogue during the public port this public portion. After everyone wishing to speak has been heard, the board may address your comments and questions. It's an item not on the agenda, right?
>> No. There is there another time for >> Yes, there there sure will be. Okay. Seeing no participants for items not on the agenda, I will close public participation. Thank you. Has everybody
received the meeting minutes? No. Did we for Friday? No, we didn't. >> Yep. >> Trick question. >> We're going to table the meeting minutes. I was like, no, >> we have it. >> Yeah. Me, too. Uh, however,
Greg and Rocket like like a rocket got us two resolutions from our last week's meeting. Has everybody received the memorialization resolution 20268 finding 176 200 Bloomfield Avenue redevelopment plan not inconsistent with
the master plan? Um, if so, I will entertain a motion on this. So moved. >> Uh the mayor makes the motion. I will entertain a second. >> Second.
>> Mr. Day. Um roll call vote. Um yeah, roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Magaro? >> Yes. >> Mr. Day? >> Yes. >> Mrs. Parker? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lily? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Kamoodi? >> I will abstain as I wasn't in the meeting. Mr. Fesky. >> Yes. >> Manager Sullivan. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Makavoy. >> I recused from this.
>> Yeah. Can >> Vice Chair Heinman >> I was not at that meeting. >> Uh, Mayor Turo. >> Yes. >> And your person. >> I recused.
Uh, the motion passes. Um, uh, the second resolution on our list is resolution 20269 finding the amendments to the TC zone not inconsistent with the master plan. Can I get a motion to approve?
>> So move. >> Second. >> Mr. Fresky seconds. Was that you, the mayor? >> Yes. >> Okay. Mayor made the motion. Can we get a roll call vote, please? Mr. Magarell, >> yes. >> Mr. Day,
>> yes. >> Mrs. Parker, >> yes. >> Mr. Lily, >> yes. >> Mr. Kamudi, >> I'll abstain. >> Mr. Presky, >> yes. >> Township manager O Sullivan, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor Makavoy, >> yes.
>> Mayor Timuro, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Heman, >> abstain. >> And Chair Pearson, >> yes. The motion passes. Um so those are good. Okay. So the next portion of the meeting are
consistency determinations. Um, and this I I am going to make a a a quick change to the order of everything just because TCMU zone amendment is in
the purview of SAND whereas amendments to article 19 and 21 are under DAN. So, um, let's start with the redevelopment plan for 420 Bloomfield Avenue. Um Sam, if you could
um a couple of people have approached me saying that they watched the town council meeting the other night and that some uh changes were floated to you at that meeting. Um if you could
just fill us in through your dialogue on the consistency review hearing. um what changes are planned to be injected into this plan before it goes back to the council so that if anybody had any
suggestions for any changes that we don't have to re you know be repetitive. >> Okay. >> Thank you. All right. Thank you everyone. So uh on Monday night uh so first off before we begin into the
process a reminder for everybody that a redevelopment plan although it's called a redevelopment plan it's under the purview of the governing body your role as a planning board is to determine consistency like you would do for any
ordinance and um a red weapon plan is actually an ordinance. The redevelopment plan for 420 Bloomfield Avenue was introduced on Monday night and during the process of discussion. One of the um
uh points that was raised is to have um more detailed language uh about um the storm water management. Um uh so what we when they introduced that they
introduced edits to it um nothing uh with 420 Bloomfield would ever um it it doesn't change my consistency determination. Um and um I I I believe uh I covered uh everything for 420.
There were other edits that were a part of 885 which I shall go uh in detail with that. So the edit I made for um for 4 uh20 Bloomfield was basically specifying the actual chapter uh of the
storm water management regulations which is article 25 of um uh chapter 150. And then um the and and then there were some other very minor edits. Uh for example,
I uh did not include deputy mayor's uh name. So I did that. Um the the area needed investigation uh should have had the year of 2026 because we just adopted it in January. So I I made those kind of
rather minor edits. And um um one thing I do want to point out to the board is that um we went into a detailed discussion with the TC zone uh a week ago, but since that has just been
introduced and not uh adopted, I did I used what's the existing affordable housing um not affordable housing uh uh I beg your pardon uh existing TC zone standards. So that's um so that's pretty
much what um I have done. Um and then one other thing um I wanted to also you know ask the board if they were comfortable. I put the parking standards
um you know they the project is comply will be has to be compliant but one uh sentence that I was asking if you would like me to add is about providing uh parking
on the site for both commercial and residential use. I mean it already talks about um that but just to augment the language a little bit more and um I believe uh we've uh yes storm water we
took care of that and I think that's about it. Do you want to discuss the um parts of the plan that are you know the the parts of the master plan that certainly I can
get into the detail. Okay. So um so I'm sorry. So I want to give everybody a background and if you have heard uh the presentation on Monday night um I'll be repeating myself but those of you who have not um it it it's useful to know.
So um when you see the redevelopment plan or you see um you you you see other um documents that are produced by us, there is always this whole affordable
housing process has been uh very arduous and um it's myself, our uh township manager, our attorney, uh we've been working diligently. So for 420 uh Bloomfield Avenue, this has been in the
making since December 2023 when we were approached by them and they'd come with 114 units um which just was something that we shut down. Then they came back with 86 or 90 units which again we shut
down and we negotiated it down down down to 67 that they came back. Um again we pushed back and um insisted that they provide all off streetet parking on site. They continue to maintain the
character of Bloomfield Avenue corridor and most importantly the final units is a maximum of 65 units and 20% uh 10 let's see 60 10 units so 10 units of
which would be affordable which is a part of our affordable housing plan which again it's uh so that people understand it's something that we are mandated uh by the state of New Jersey and um if we don't comply with it uh we
are vulnerable to what they call as builder's remedy lawsuit. So which that means that somebody would come and say you are not satisfying your constitutional obligation which is as per the fair housing act and here's my site and instead of say 65 units I'll
try and put in 120 and there's nothing you can do because it's a part of that lawsuit. So whatever um that the township has been diligently working on uh with uh all of us together is basically to ensure that we don't fall
into that situation. Um another thing I wanted to add for the 420 Bloomfield of course it it meets all uh the master plan goals uh as I mentioned uh in my report to you. Um and most importantly
uh it uh continues to meet the municipal obligation to provide the township of Verona its fair share uh of affordable housing. Um and um it will contribute towards providing affordable housing
units or credits as are mandated by the state statutes and will effectuate our uh fourth round uh plan. So, in conclusion, it's uh my professional opinion that this ordinance is
consistent with the 2022 master plan. >> Thank you, Sam. Um just a couple of uh suggestions to just sew things up and then we'll go around for questions. Um at the bottom of I think the document
page 29, letter F was left blank. I I don't know if you noticed. >> I noticed it. I took care of that. So, >> you took it out. >> I I did while preparing for tonight. I noticed that I got it out. I added deputy mayor's name. I added uh our
township manager's title. So, I ensured that it's as per the 2026 uh list. Um and uh uh let's see. One other thing I you addressed it in your
comments to begin with, but do you intend to change the uses the allow or the permitted uses to somehow mesh with the proposed updates as well as the
non-permitted or prohibited uses? >> So, so in town center, >> correct? So the way the redevelopment plan is required to be written by statute we have to talk about existing uses. So as of today that ordinance has not been adopted which is one of the
reasons why I didn't include. Now if should the board choose I can reference put in a sentence saying it's in the process of being adopted. I I think that's a good idea just so that the there is consistency in intrazone if you
will. It's it's just I mean if anybody has an objection to that um but the section is with the permitted uses is 1714E and the prohibitions
um prohibited uses is 1714F. So just >> uh ma'am what I would like to talk about that is uh for the prohibited section again I think that we had worked really
hard on to um ascertain what uses could go could not go if the board so wishes I can actually call that out in that section when I'm talking about 4.3 I can add additionally these uses but that's
again it's your decision decision, your recommendation, and the governing body may either accept or not accept, but I I'm just going to I'll be able to do that. If if you could please put that in a memo that that will be brought forth to the council for their
>> consideration. Does anybody object to trying to remain consistent to the proposed town center? >> None. >> Okay. Um, Dylan,
>> you have questions? Any questions? >> Any questions? >> We're just going around. So, anybody who has >> Tim? >> No, I'm settled. Thank you, >> Dave. >> Uh, no. >> Kevin, >> no. >> Jack.
>> Mayor. >> No. >> Jay. Yeah, I just brush. Okay. >> Um, with respect to parking parking calculations, I did see on PDF,
I'm sorry, not PDF, >> page 20, the actual page 20, PDF 23, uh, there's that asterisk regarding how block 1708- lot 2, that parking lot is being treated. Um, and then when you I guess
cross reference it with the parking standards, it's a little unclear to me how that lot will be utilized in conjunction with the development of the redevelopment area. Is it intended that that lot will satisfy their off streetet
parking requirements? >> Um, I don't believe so. Um, so just so that everybody understands. Um and um uh I would just ask our uh township manager um is it okay for me to describe our
process for the past year with this? Please do. Okay. >> So um and actually I really appreciate um uh Mr. Heinman you asking me this question. So we were approached by this uh particular property owner and whoever
the prior developer was who wanted to do 114 units and then a new developer came in with I think 90 Kevin it was it 90 at that time. Um and then he also wanted to uh develop that narrow parking lot to
have 18 20 or 25 units. So it was going to be a whole lot and during the process of that negotiation uh we basically said you need to provide off streetet parking. Um you need to so
we can accept 65 units on this building which you know eventually came down to 65. Uh but that parking lot needs to continue to remain serving the purpose of parking. Um it um and uh and that's
why when you put it in perspective right um it it's actual that only one lot is.995 but when Richfield Regency was is you know it's still functioning um you if you've attended any event all the parking almost all the parking goes to
that lot. So our goal here was okay you want to put in 65 ensure that you can provide all of that parking within your development but that continues to remain as a parking lot. Now what happens whether it comes to the municipality or
not is I'm not sure where we are in on that you know in that process but to answer your question that's why I included that when I did the density calculations. I mean, my recommendation would be to include a provision that if
it is utilized as part of the redevelopment area's development application, um that uh if it's going to be utilized for uh satisfaction off street parking that it has to be subject to an easement agreement just as they are separate
lots. they're not contiguous and you know there is a a risk down the road that this thing gets developed relying on that parking and then all of a sudden they sell that piece off. So I I do want something in there. >> Okay. >> Right.
>> That but you know if they decide that they can satisfy their off street parking without it then >> but but but our conversation with them was that that will continue to remain as a parking. We haven't entered a readap and agreement with them as as far as I know. Right, Mrs. O'Sullivan?
>> That's right. >> Okay. So, so we wanted to put that language so that it it's very clear that that continues to satisfy whether it satisfies their parking or satisfies municipal parking. So, um this is um
we'll be happy to put that in uh on my in my memo. >> Just a question regarding uh Jason's question. It's not considered part of the redevelopment zone. >> No, it's not. >> Nope. >> So, you just stipulated that you were going
to add into the redevelopment zone. All parking for that building must be contained on site. >> That is correct. >> In the redevelopment area. >> I think what Mr. time and correct me if I'm wrong. Uh because we considered that
to continue as a parking, you're suggesting I put in a sentence so that way we button it up or cement it. Correct. >> Right. Well, you could do it one of two ways and that's why I was not clear what the intent was.
>> Okay. So if the intent is the redevelopment area has to be wholly self-contained then there should be a provision basically saying that off street parking requirements have to be satisfied on site >> and that's what I had said in the
beginning that I I actually want to add that sentence which um and that I wanted your all your opinion if you're in agreement. Instead of putting that I I'll just add that one sentence which um
you know I I thought we should add to just cement it. It's very similar to what we had written in the 885. So I'm just going to pick that language from 7 onto this which I've done now. Uh, so yeah.
So, so does >> I think that that change that change satisfies. >> Okay. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that we're not kicking the door open to letting them or giving them the idea to park next door. >> But that's still a recommendation that we're making >> that all that it's not in the ordinance
explicitly now >> that on-site parking must be contained. >> That's right. That's a recommendation. >> Yes. Correct. Thank you, Greg. >> Yeah. Um and then similar to what we required for Hillrest, I think there should be some um accommodation,
uh I'm not sorry, >> some requirement for bike parking. >> I did I did. Okay. Yeah, >> I didn't notice it. >> Oh, where is that located? I can just let me do a word search because I know Jason, you asked that. So, I put that in.
>> Yeah, cuz I did a word search and I didn't maybe >> Oh, bicycle. Yeah. >> Yeah. Found it. >> There it is. >> Found it. >> Designated. >> It was at the Yeah, I missed it. It was like tucked in between signage. >> There's a lot of reading for you guys. >> Yep. There was a
>> lot of writing for this. >> I'm going to play up the um new to the board card again. Um you might have talked about this before and this might be for Sam or Mr. Sullivan regarding you know we're doing all these housing projects. Absolutely. We're doing all
these housing projects and as a former board of education member, um, one of the things I always want to bring up is have we done any studies to validate how many additional students would be moving into all these housing developments and how that would impact the school
district with their budgeting. The average cost for students about 15 to 16,000. And I know I don't know if this has been discussed before, but that was one one question I had. The other question was, have you done traffic feasibility studies with the county to
talk about the impact of the uh additional housing would you know do for the town? >> I I can answer it, but I'm going to defer. Mr. Misera, would you like to answer it? >> The town's hands are tied with regard to both of those questions.
The town has an obligation to meet the requirements as imposed through New Jersey Superior Court and somehow all of those issues have become secondary and not important. So, we're stuck with having to build a certain number of
houses. Um, not our numbers, but through Fair Share Housing Center and, you know, through some great negotiation that we got numbers uh reduced, but they're going to be in town and they're going to be somewhere. So the the task has been where best or where's the least worse to
put >> and that's >> but I think Jim's question was correct me if I'm wrong Jim saying like okay we understand these developments are are needed and has there been any projections around student populations so that then there can be planning done right
>> yeah I mean we should at least do some kind of study to validate how many potential students might be there so we can prepare the town or the impact that might take place >> I mean that I don't And that's not really, you know, it's great questions, but that's not really what's before this board. I mean, you know, like
>> I just know we're doing studies, so figured that could be part of the study or something that could be done. >> I think Mr. Salivan wants to say >> I I can offer the fact that u I've been in touch with the superintendent of schools to inform her of where we are with this obligation that the the
township has from the state. uh she is aware of these uh these redevelopment agreements that are moving forward or redevelopment plans that are moving forward. Um so I've had some discussions with her and I I've uh not yet scheduled but I have discussed with her the idea of
scheduling sometime in March another set of meetings so she I can provide her updates on all the redevelopment so she can then continue the work that she needs to from the school's perspective from the school's considerations. >> Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you.
Are there any other >> I just maybe just walk me through 4.2 >> the regulations. >> Sure. And just remind me why are the setbacks on on either side zero?
>> That's the existing condition. And um this is also based on so there are two uh it's the front setback is zero. That's the existing condition. This is a part of the redevelopment. So we are uh
complying with the concept plan that they had provided to us. Uh so that's where the zero which we obviously like I said negotiated down to the 65 units that's the existing condition and we're keeping that same front yard setback. Um
the there is one side back side setback which is zero with the non-residential which is also an existing condition as you know um we um managed to so that's so that
continues and then the third uh the one that uh Mr. Sal Sullivan and myself push back push back on was a minimum sight yet set back from that residential single family home which actually if you go on site it's at a higher elevation
than than this because the slide site slopes down. So those are the uh those are the um those are the existing conditions which we were not able to successfully um negotiate and we pushed back and were
able to negotiate the sideyard for the abuting residential uses which is 15 feet. >> Thank you. Any other questions? >> If there's no other question, I just have a >> sure
>> question of what was the recommendation the specific recommendation with regard to 148 uh uh 1714 and >> I I can tell you uh 1714 we have specific uses that we um had in the TC
zone that we are prohibiting. So to keep it consistent, we are recommending >> also permitting permitting and prohibiting a >> correct. So we want to continue keeping that consistent language. >> So how do you want Greg to write the memo?
>> So you so okay so in um Greg there is a section which talks about uh the existing zoning for that we just write add a sentence saying that it's in the process of being changed. So that's what
it is. But I think there was a a conversation and suggestion about uh having prohibited uses which will apart from 4.3 which is um in in our general zoning ordinance but we had identified
specific prohibited uses uh in our uh proposed ordinance. But since that is not adopted yet um what I think the best way to do is include those uses um in in the section where uh 4.3 which is
prohibited we said the prohibit I said the prohibited uses as per section 150-4.3 shall apply to the read weapon area um and then I wrote in addition fast food restaurants shall not be permitted so we also need to then list out what uses we
are prohibiting. >> So I guess the question is yes, is there any intent to change or alter this redevelopment zone with the permitted uses and the prohibited ones after the TC zone
presumably passes the muster of the council? >> The TC zone and this are two separate things, right? >> Understand that. But you don't want to leave the word cafeterias in that's kind of like I know but the thing is that
that doesn't apply what would apply to this is from section 3.0 onwards what that cafeteria does is as per the redevelopment law um the redevelopment plan has to be written in a specific
way. One of those requirements are to talk about what is the existing zoning. That's pretty much what this does. >> So for the pro prohibited uses, are you suggesting that there be a reference to the new yet to be passed town center zone prohibitions?
>> We we or not. I I'm it's kind of a yes or no. We could do that or we could actually write it down. What do you think? >> I mean, we're >> the redevelopment plan is kind of its
own thing. >> It's fine. Okay. >> It supersedes the zoning. So, whatever TCM overlay or TC zone, not overlay, but >> this is insulated from >> Okay. I just don't want any nail salons
with hot dogs. Anyway, no, we did put that language which was consistent. Linda Bar. >> Um I am now uh if if there are no further sorry comments, um
I I would like to now open to any questions from the public. Um, Madam Secretary, can you just quickly reiterate? Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this matter only, please approach the
microphone. Once recognized, clearly state your name and township of residence for the record. You are not required to provide your street address. However, if you do, please note that these meeting recordings are public record and addresses will not be redacted from any for any purpose. You will have four minutes to address the
board. There will be no cross dialogue during this public portion. After everyone wishing to speak has been heard, the board may address your comments and your questions. Public comment is open. Seeing none, I will enclose public
comment. Um, and if there are no further questions from the board, then I will entertain a motion to uh find the redevelopment ordinance for 420 Bloomfield Avenue's non-condemnation
redevelopment plan not inconsistent with Verona's master plan. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Um, is that you, Jack? >> Yes. >> All right. Deputy mayor makes the motion. Vice Chair Heinman seconds. Can we get a
>> You want recommendations? >> Oh, sorry. With the following recommendations. >> Can you just reiterate them, Greg? that the the uh off streetet park off streetet parking requirements must be
satisfied within the redevelopment area and that the ordinance be made more specific with regard to prohibited and permitted uses >> and you already said that you were handling storm water. Yeah, >> that is correct. And I've already quoted
the right section instead of just saying zoning ordinance. So section 25. So, with those two recommendations for the council's consideration, can I get a roll call vote? Thank you,
Deb. >> Mr. Magarell, >> we have >> Oh, sorry. >> We have the >> Mrs. Parker. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Mr. Lily. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kamoodi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fresky.
>> Yes. >> Township manor Sullivan. Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Makavoy. >> Yes. >> Mayor Tambbor. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Heman. >> Yes. >> Chair Pearson. >> Yes. Uh motion passes
and we will send that memo to the council with um actually we'll be able to memorialize this if Greg stays on his current trajectory. I actually had a resolution prepared for tonight, but now I have to
modify it. So, based on your recommendations or whatever, um we can uh pass this at um Wednesday's meet uh next Tuesday's meeting. Um but yeah, and that'll precede the council's hearing
for adoption. Okay. Um the next item on the agenda, sorry, the next item on the agenda is 885 Bloomfield Avenue. Sam, can you start with what um any particular
changes that you were asked to >> Sure. put in on the council and then go into your >> Okay, I I will. Can you bear with me for a second, please? Because everything opens, but what you want doesn't. So,
>> thank you. I apologize. No, thank you, T. So, 885 Bloomfield Avenue was an intervenor in our affordable housing um um affordable housing plan. um our plan
had said and I correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Hobin um that we had put in a maximum of 19 units minimum of uh 19 units with uh 15% affordable correct >> so they intervened
um and uh based on that we basically settled with them and I'll get into that that detail in a little bit but uh one of their uh we had a settlement we settled with them uh in the middle of December
and they had a draft memorandum of understanding and they sent us a concept plan. There were no calculations provided. So based on the concept plan, I estimated two things. Uh the maximum
improve surface coverage at 65% and uh a frontiard setback um at 6 ft. Um, we were supposed to introduce this uh we were introduced this ordinance at 7:00 p.m. on Monday on the snow day and
at 6 p.m. We had an email from their attorney saying uh that uh as per theou it should be 70% uh of uh maximum improved lot coverage and that the franch setback uh should uh be should be
uh should not be at 6T um looking at the concept plan what really encroaches into that 6T is there are steps that they're proposing so what I did in that 3.2 to area yard and bulk regulations is I
mentioned that to the governing body that this is what the conversation was and they introduced the ordinance with that modification where the minimum frontiard setback of 6T has um an asterisk uh which says steps can
encroach into the 6T frontiard setback provided they maint maintain a minimum setback of 1 ft from the property line and the maximum imum building uh sorry improve uh improved lot coverage was at 65%.
Um it's a deminimous increase by 5% more and that's how it got introduced. So just to be clear the front yard setback is 6 ft with the allowance for the structure of steps to
be allowed into it along Bloomfield. Yes. >> Okay. That was the the step back. The step set back is from the the bottom step. So what is it? One foot to the curb. >> Yeah. >> 6t from the curb. It's 660 from the curb. >> 6 ft from the building line to the
property line, not to the curb. The curb is a part of the right away. >> So is the sidewalk. >> I'm sorry. >> The sidewalk is also part of the right way. >> Yes. Sidewalks are typically part of sideway. Uh
right away. um it's up one any setback we write or ever write in a zoning ordinance is up to the property line as per their survey. So that's what we are uh that's what we are uh saying. So it doesn't encroach into the right of way
and they should not be encroaching it in into the right of way. >> So it was introduced to the council with that that is correct and with the allowance for 70% coverage. >> That is correct. Yes. >> All right. What other changes were
discussed at council that you are in incorporating? >> Um I think there was some uh discussion about storm water management to be very clear about that and then there was um some language that they uh uh had about
um uh the landscaping landscape buffer. There was some uh mention about that uh as well. Um, and I'm I'm going to defer to the mayor and deputy mayor. Did I cover everything or there's something um that's rem
>> I I saw something that you didn't miss that didn't mention was the uh the driveways I think somebody had recommended putting in moving a driveway. >> That was that discussion and we had mentioned you know the the driveway width and the drive uh that would be a
part of the site plan review. Um there was the questions were raised about the driving. >> Um and what I had mentioned to them is that that could be a part of the site plan review. So when they come to you for a site plan, you can make those
recommendations to them. What this particular um what this particular document does like you know you have a zoning ordinance and you say okay you can have two driveways 24 ft. If if there's one foot uh there's one driveway with 24 ft which is a better design
solution as a part of the site process they can go ahead and do that. So um am I clear or am I maybe confusing? >> No understood. >> Okay. >> Um so >> so we are not doing anything about the
driveway. So what the additional change that would be is specifying what section of the stock management? >> Yeah, it's chapter 150 article 25 >> and all provisions of that like shall
comply wholly with etc. >> Yes. >> Um >> I had another quick question too. I I know that the bus stop is right there is that goes pretty much right up to the bus stop. Correct. But you showed a diagram that I hadn't seen last night on the or Tuesday, I mean Monday at the
council. >> Um it it's close approximate to the bus stop, right? That's correct. >> Okay. And assume that you're going to put some kind of buffer there. I think plant trees. Yeah, >> correct. >> Okay. >> And again, they'll come to you guys and
that's when you um you know ask for that. Um, just to be clear, you know, I I before you even get into the meat and potatoes here, um, I I recommend strongly before
you move any further that they must comply, they shall comply with Verona's tree ordinance chapter 496, article 2 according to the removal and replacement schedule. Also, their plantings and
landscape shall comply with Verona's attachment three in chapter 150 entitled recommended plant selection list. Um, and I I have further comments, but I want to allow you to elaborate on uh
what you've got going there and give everybody, you know, a chance to ask questions. >> Happy to do that. Just >> Thank you. Um again um just so that everybody understands is I'll be happy to write this but know that the red
weapon plan very categorically states uh states that anything that is not mentioned in this red weapon plan the actual zoning ordinance um it defers to the zoning ordinance. So you know this it's not a big deal for me to add these
sentences but know that um your zoning out does just because we have a redevelopment plan with these building setbacks doesn't mean it uh um it uh it that it sorry uh can everybody hear me?
>> Yeah. So it doesn't mean that those the or um those sections of the ordinance do not apply but I'll be happy to write this as Madame Chair mentioned. >> Yeah, I had some comments and I don't know and to your point right I don't
know whether they're incorporated now or when we discussed the site plan but I had the opportunity to interview a couple residents in the town homes which are immediately adjacent. >> Okay. Okay. >> And I wanted to understand what maybe potential challenges or you know things
for improvement. And you know and I want to preface this by saying that I don't this is certainly not an ideal piece of land to develop for for a lot of reasons. So um and and I think some of these comments reflect that. So these um
these individuals you know of course from a quality of life perspective it's very noisy. So you have to have at least double pane and some of those some of those units have triple pane windows. >> Okay. >> And then initially the exterior siding
was um before they ran out of money was was uh the kind of siding they use absorbed some of the sound. Um but then as they continued to build they took a pause and they built some new ones and it was less lower quality sighting and the uh the noise came through.
Um, the other thing is about air air quality because they're right on the avenue and there's a lot of and there's a bus the bus stops right there and the bus of course even for those short stops it's uh burning diesel and their
exterior their windows actually has an oily film to them. >> Okay. >> And their current MV filter is not sufficient to filter the air in their department. So they're pulling in polluted air and then they're breathing polluted air within the within the the
unit. >> What's your recommendation? >> Well, I guess I'm just Well, the recommendation would be to have a higher MV filter because if you don't design the system like that initially, you can't put a higher filter in because it puts too much strain on the system.
>> So I can tell you that we do talk about fenestration windows. So your recommendations can easily be re um incorporated and I would suggest that it gets incorporated now then u you know so it becomes a part of this uh redevelopment plan.
>> Okay. The other tricky thing I think is is with the light. So there's so in these these town homes that are there now they put a light in to allow people to make a lefthand turn when traveling west on Bloomfield A. That light has resulted in several accidents because people people
aren't used to people stopping there. Yeah. >> So someone stops and waits for the light and then they get they get rammed from behind. >> So the traffic I like very interested to hear what the traffic um analysis is going to be because such a tight piece of property going on and off including
delivery trucks and then of course emergency vehicles could be a challenge. >> I and I'd love to answer that because um I believe uh Mr. So Sullivan that's a county road correct. >> Yeah. So this question that you raised
about traffic and etc that will definitely be the questions you need to ask at the time of site plan. Most importantly um any kind of development which has ingress and eress from a county road they need county approval. So that is
important and the county is very particular of how you know uh how they would want the points of ingress and egress. So, um, that's, you know, th that's something that, um, they would have to satisfy. Like I've I've had an
experience in one of my towns where it was a county road, uh, you know, they pushed back, the planning board said, "Okay, we'll give you that." And the they had to redesign everything because the county refused to give approval, especially because Fels Road, Bloomfield is a intersection. They're right at that
intersection. >> Yeah. It's it's not like I said not ideal for many reasons. >> And then uh the other thing was around water. Um some of the some of the units do flood the existing units do flood >> and then the snow particularly this
winter was it was highlighted that unless the the site is designed with a place to actually pile the snow, there's no place for the snow to go and then when it melts it it causes it causes flooding there as well. So it can't just I don't think the site design can be one
not considering snow and managing snowfall. >> Just out of curiosity that the said that buildings are flooding because of the water coming from uphill from the from the rear. >> Um I I don't know. I can't speak to that, but there's a there's a really significant uh retaining wall behind
those units and then a very short space. Um, and that's the other that's the other challenge is parking because this site too is essentially isolated. There's no buffer. Like if somebody wanted to visit and there were no parkings parking spaces on site, where would they go? To the county lot across
the street or or to this lot? Um it's just >> and that's the other I'm sorry that's the other thing is that parking is an even though they followed the the the um recommended parking spaces it's an issue because um there are always more cars
than um than fit there and it's and it's been a a constant um annoyance or or incon inconvenience. >> So I' I'd like to answer that. >> Okay. >> Um Like are you making a recommendation for
the council's consideration? >> I think all I'm saying is that >> because that's the important part here. We don't get to change the plan. We make a recommendation to the council to to consider our our suggestions.
>> Yeah. So I guess I'm bringing these up as as an open discussion to say, okay, >> does that make sense? I'm I'm just relaying information, right? And so based on that, I would think we would want to ensure we have a buffer for parking
more so than something in the center of town because in the center of town, you could always just park on the street. You can't park on the street there, >> right? I mean, that was a question I actually had about Fels Road. >> Correct. >> Fels Road is a narrow road. I don't want parking on it. And I think it would just pose a danger
>> with a lot of traffic on the traffic. It's a narrow road with with no >> shelter. I think as I proceed ahead >> not they'll park there and walk through but I just >> it's not easy to walk either but I can
actually go through this process for everyone to understand how from where we came to this >> can please proceed and then we'll come back to questions >> yes because all the points that you've raised are very valid points and I I
actually um you know I like your uh suggestion about the double uh pane windows. It's we can modify the uh plan to add that um that air quality um that's also a very um good
recommendation which we definitely can add in the redevelopment plan. Obviously we'll talk to the governing body about that. Um, regarding the parking, um, one of the things, uh, first off, would you like me to go through the process of how
we came to 28 units or would you like me? >> Let's just talk about the plan. >> We don't need to talk about the negotiations. >> Keep in mind, this is this the board's role tonight is to determine whether the ordinance is consistent with the master
plan. >> Okay. Now some of the background information obviously is important and I think going back to what Mr. Day had said maybe we suggest you know that there be a buffer between the bus stop that's how we change the ordinance it's has nothing really to do with the
consistency but one of the roles also is to make recommendations what Mr. Presley just said obviously um you know um with regard to to uh parking requirements you know perhaps you you um require more
parking I don't think you can do that but also with regard to the ventilation that's a way to improve the ordinance but as far as the history and everything else. Okay, that's fine. I I just wanted to ensure that everybody if they have questions. Anyway, let's let's get to
the point. Uh, one of the things that I did write in this is all required parking must be provided within the reed weapon area. So that ensures that that man um and then another thing that I
could write um especially listening to your concerns is um I did write about on street parking is prohibited along Bloomfield. I could just add Anfell's road. >> I I think that's appropriate. Does anybody object to that as a
>> could you receive >> but you would write in the plan that >> if you look at section 34 >> right >> we have the jurisdiction to say none on avenue >> no no but it's a we we don't have the
jurisdiction to to govern off street parking we can we have the jur the the governing body can say that the requirements off- streetet parking requirements must be that on site, but you can't go any further than that and say you you're restricted from parking,
you know, on a public road. >> Okay, >> Madam Chair, one, if I could just sure one thing. Mr. Presky had brought up that traffic light there and um by virtue of dealing with another issue, uh the police chief pulled all the any
reports there. Uh there was a a question that came up from another an adjacent town about change in the orientation of the light. Um and we did some data analysis on the number of accidents and the police chief did not find it um that
many more significant than any other intersection um in town as far as accidents being caused there. So, uh, but just as a point of information or reference, I just don't want the public to think that there's some, you know, major accident problem at that light
when when there's not. >> Uh, can I also just add for context on the parking discussion, the town code already prohibits parking on Fels Road on both sides from Bloomfield Avenue to the Essex FEL's line. So, it's already restricted at this point. >> Okay, good. Um
>> but the question is if it's consistent with that um uh Mr. Misara, is it okay for me to keep that or would you recommend that we strike it from the plan? >> I would strike it. It's not it's not the uh the jurisdiction of this board or
Okay. Right. I would strike it. >> It is the jurisdiction of the council. >> Right. But it is >> well but again it has nothing to do with the redevelopment plan itself. It's already it's already restricted. So >> and you are stipulating
all parking must be contained on site. Okay. >> So continue Sam. I think I think that's um that's it. One thing that you had
recommended, the board had recommended last week uh which um I wanted to point out to you is under uh fences um you you know I've just written board on board
fence. Would you like me to stipulate uh um that wood or vinyl and not chain link because I did did board on >> board on board is what I've written. Yes, please. Um I had a note about that. >> Okay. >> Um if that could be more better
specified, it's better. >> Okay. Um All right. And then um >> you are pulling the northern portion. >> No, that's that. Um I have no idea why that stayed on. That was supposed to be deleted. Um I apologize. I have no idea.
It's the same thing as Westfield. I remember it done best viewer wrote. So it's that same thing that language just stayed on. Um >> okay >> I'll be happy to delete that. It's I think on page 25 of the it >> um
>> I just wanted to confirm something real quick. You had mentioned the >> It doesn't matter >> lot coverage. What? Oh, sorry. >> I just want to keep it orderly. That's all. Go ahead. >> Go ahead. >> Out of order. Um the lot coverage you
had said it was 65% but then they the developer wanted to be 70. So did you just change it because they asked that or is it >> because it was a part of the in what they relayed to us was it was a part of the memorandum of understanding and
that's why I changed it because we settled with them right it's a it's a part of the um settlement agreement. >> Okay understood. The other question I had was the maximum building height's four 40 feet. Like I know the complex down the road is that similar height.
>> Yes. >> 40 ft too. Okay. So that will because it's low potentially that won't block >> it would neighboring houses >> even even from the rear it goes slides the side slopes down. So yes. Okay. That's also pretty typical height for
like house with with um at grade parking. >> Sam, one of the one of the issues I think you know Dave brought it up. It's something that I take issue with is most of our bulk
requirements in almost every zoning code in every district of town and in all of our redevelopment ordinances that come before us has a stipulation about a planted buffer and it generally
determines the width of that buffer whether it's you know a minimum 15t planted landscaped buffer shall be planted between, you know, at the blah blah blah. This ordinance is missing that. I'm wondering what exists
between the property line in the rear >> and the parking. >> Um, >> how much space exists there? >> Right. So I do talk about landscaping but I do not specify the grid and um the
one thing I could do because the way the the concept which was a part of the memorandum of understanding um the you know just so that everybody understands that when we were negotiating with them we we actually pushed back and asked for
a a buffer. There are there's a small portion where it's like close to Fel's road where it doesn't meet that 10-ft requirement. That's the reason why I didn't specify that. Now, if the board would like me to put in a 10-ft and the
other portions because the lot is a little um to the rear, it goes in a very zigzag fashion. So, if the board would like me to specify a minimum of 10. Yes. Well, you have a minimum rear yard setback of 20 ft. There can be no
structure within that setback. Is that correct? >> That is. >> And why not make 15t buffer? There would be no parking allowed in that 20 foot. Why not keep it 15? >> It well with that if we keep it at that 15t
some portions portion of that development would not comply. There are there is portion that complies. So, I would suggest that we have a we did a 20 foot um but I I would suggest that we do
a minimum of 10 ft. Um when you say some portions wouldn't comply, are you talking about parking jutting into the 15 ft? Then then you're saying that there's 10 ft of parking that exists in the 20 yard setback.
>> So there is >> 20 foot I'm sorry 20 foot. So there's there is there is a a very small portion of the parking closer to the Fels Road as it curves around which juts into that 10ft setback very it's literally like
10. >> So why don't we write in a 10ft buff like you know 90% of the rear. >> Okay that's that that works >> foot buffer. >> Thank you. He's always solving my >> he's always >> my stumbles.
>> But you get my point like >> No, I agree 100%. >> Okay. If you have a 20 20 foot setback, we there's no reason not to have a 15 foot. >> You just said 10. >> Nope. >> He's saying a 10. That's what >> you're sticking with 10. Damn.
>> Yeah. I would I would I would request to be >> the Yes. 10. >> Okay. >> All right. Okay. Um >> I mean Sam you're you're working off a concept, right? >> Yeah, that is correct. >> And I mean how how far along is that concept? Can that just be
>> not that far along? >> So it's not >> Yeah, it's it's good enough when we were settling with them in December. But all these um and that was mentioned to all our calculations go based on that
concept that was sent to us on December 15th. Um we haven't received anything since then and u this was up us making sense but fortunately what they sent actually had landscaping.
So I would also make this s suggestion to uh alternatively utilize some of that buffer for storm water management purposes whether it be so if they want to expand beyond the 10
ft up to 20 in order to utilize some of that as green infrastructural >> space that anyway >> well >> they don't need permission right >> well Right. But >> I mean they would do that. They would have to do that as a part of their site
plan. >> Um but you're right though. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah. No, I'm not I'm not right. So the um this is it. Let me just go through the consistency portion so that everybody understands. So I have
identified um what goals and um recommendation goals and objectives from our uh 2022 master plan that this particular red development plans satisfies. Um, one of the most important goals that is very pertinent is continue
to meet the municipal obligation to provide the township of Verona its fair share of affordable housing. And um the uh and uh most importantly that uh this will contribute towards providing
affordable housing as mandated by the state statutes and will effectuate the housing element and fair share plan that we are supposed to adopt. Um so that's why the proposed ordinance in my opinion is um not only complies with the 2022
master plan but will effectuate the fourth round affordable housing and fair share plan. Anyone else have any I'm just kind of coming around. >> What do you want to know? >> Do you have any questions? I don't have
questions. >> Okay. Do you have any suggestions for the council to consider besides what we all want them to consider? What we want the state to consider? >> Um, >> you'll have to come up with something.
>> I don't have specific suggestions on this. I think as far as what's been covered face value, it's comprehensive and we've added to it. So, I don't have more to add on. I just want to I just want to reiterate I I think that one of the biggest challenges to this site is
going to be the flow of traffic on and off the site coming west and making some kind of left it be I don't see how this is going to work out well and then exiting the the property and then would you be forced to go make a right when
you're exiting exiting the property and go east and then people are going to be doing illegal U-turns. I just I'm going to be very interested to to see how that is what proposals >> and that will be at the part time of site the site plan review and you'll
have I mean they have to come to you and get your approval. >> Um Kevin >> no other comments >> deputy mayor >> I'm just going to speak to the traffic uh on Monday when we discussed this at the council meeting uh I was the one Mr.
that brought up maybe moving the buildings to the left, uh, excuse me, to the west because the county has their driveway directly across the street. And it looked like, you couldn't really tell exactly, but it looked like their
driveway was directly opposite buildings one and two, right, the center of them. So, my suggestion was maybe put a driveway there. And I know the county is moving forward with redoing lights along Bloomfield Avenue. So, the possibility
of adding a light there that could go maybe every other time that White Rock light turns, that may be the solution for this. And but that again, when we keep people keep bringing up traffic, have we done traffic studies? That's going to be done at when it comes before
us again here. Uh so that was one of my suggestions, hoping that with all the trucks because their salt dome is there for the county. So that may be a perfect opportunity for them to make their property a little safer and to make this property work a little better. But I
totally agree that going westbound on Bloomfield Avenue coming out of this property right now is going to be very very difficult. So hopefully that'll be a solution and the county will will warm up to it. Their traffic people are right across the street and that's where they work. So they'll they'll they'll know
the the area and the location very very well when they make their decision. That's all. Thank you, Mor. >> I don't have any further comments. Thanks. >> Um, yeah, I I have one, well, a lot of concerns, but major concern uh is with
storm water management on this site. It's a very unique property. Uh it's going to be challenging from a general compliance standpoint, but um and Kevin feel free to educate me or correct me because I'm coming at this from a late
perspective, but my understanding is the current storm water regulations are measuring um uh I guess the peak runoff based off
rainfall on the site, Right. And it doesn't necessarily account for all of the water that a site might collect. And a site like this that is at the bottom of a hill and is essentially a ditch between a hill and Bluefield Avenue
might be collecting more water than what is just falling on it. So if the storm water management infrastructure is only taking into account what is actually falling on their site,
is there a risk that those systems get overloaded in a realtor storm scenario where water is also coming like their sheet flow from offsite? >> I mean I I'll say again this is kind of a lot of the discussions that would come
at the site plan application. they'd be obligated to provide a full storm water design with storm water management to meet the storm water management standards. Um, which would then be reviewed by our storm water experts at that time. And all of those considerations would have to be part of
that analysis that the design from their perspective and our review at that time. >> Yeah. Yeah. And that's my concern though because if we're only looking at it from a current storm water regulation standard, it's not going to account for some of these real world situations where there's going to be additional
sheet flow onto the site. >> So what I want to >> the interesting point that you bring up is that right now it collects more water than it will be able to once it's built on. So what what the stormwater standards require is the reduction of
current undeveloped peak flow to the post-developed. That is going to be a tough number to get to for this particular site because of >> the really but you can't impose a you can't
impose a greater restriction just because it's down slope. Well, that's that's what under the current rules, right? The calculations that they would be taking were based off of estimated peak storm. Right.
>> Correct. But I think because we're catering a redevelopment plan to the site specifically, I think there should be some consideration for the actual water inflow so that they at least have to >> I don't think for it so that we know
that the the storm work >> I don't think that you could put a more stringent requirement on something based on your own which I think I mean it's very good thinking >> but I'm not sure that it would
enforceable because it it is property restrictive as opposed to applica, you know, generally applied. >> Well, it's generally applied to that area. >> Well, generally applied to revelator, but there's nothing in the statutes that provide for different requirements
depending on where you are located on a slope or down below a slope. Presumably, that's all supposed to be taken into account with sheet flow calculations and everything else. So that's all part of >> that. That I guess that was my question. So the sheet flow coming into the site
will be accounted for when they do their >> It's supposed to be accounted for in the regular storm water regulations. You can't have a different you can't have a different requirement if you're on a hill or below it. >> Well, that was my question before. >> Actually, you can have a more stringent
>> if you're on a slope. >> You can have more stringent and put it this way. If you recall the discussion that we had when we were hearing a different application and they used Del Marva instead of standard, >> right? But that's because they pretended
there was no >> but they weren't but they were not they were not putting a different a different standard. They were trying to use they weren't creating a new standard >> but they were trying to ignore the current. >> Right. Exactly. which is something that
I think Jason is trying to say. Currently in its undeveloped state, >> it has a great deal more capacity to not just receive but also to contain onsite the storm water >> and once developed less out than in
>> so that we'll take that into account. >> So we have to bring it to pre-development level anyway as per the D. Right? >> Right. So the >> pre-development is what they base process. >> Yeah. But what are they counting? Are they counting the water that the site actually >> So the storm water design will will take
into account both the on-site retention that they need to provide to make sure that they're reducing the peak flow runoff at different storm intensities. Uh it will also incorporate overflow events and that those overflow events are part of the overall site plan review
that the the board's engineer will have to undertake. Not only will they have to make sure that the stormwater design is compliant with both the state and the town standards, they'll have to make sure that the site itself functions properly and then if there are any uh any negative impacts either to the
public right ofway or to any other infrastructure, those are accounted for as part of both the design, the storm water review and the site review. So they'll there will be a little bit of a reconciliation between both of those designs at the time it go comes to the site plan uh to the to the planning board. And is it same with adjacent
properties? Because again, think if you're filling a ditch with a town houses, that water that now is soaked in and you know, wherever wherever it goes, it can we here's a suggestion. Is it can we be explicit about that other adjacent
properties are not going to be affected by storm water runoff or is that implicit? >> I think that's the obligation of the board. >> That's an obligation. >> It's an obligation, Eric. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's that's what we would be doing. Yeah,
>> Mr. S, we get a I guess for Hillgress Farms, we have a storm water management report talking about time of uh time of concentration, all that kind of stuff. Are we getting a report similar to that for these for every property or just >> that will be requirement at the time that they submit for a site plan application?
>> Got it. It's a good report. I mean, it breaks it down. So, yeah, I like >> they're they're further along in their process than these other sites. >> Okay. Got it. I have a question for miser with the builder's remedy if if um
because we did have to change and allow certain allowances for the the builder. How does that work? If if in the future with something such as storm water, they're not compliant. >> They still they must comply. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, there is a settlement there's
a settlement agreement memorandum of understanding. um they have anything that is not in the redevelopment plan, our regular ordinances still apply. So storm water ordinances apply. They have to they have to come up with something that our engineers determine is
acceptable and meets all the requirements. Um same, you know, same with any other if they wind up with site restrictions um that makes it difficult to build what their concept shows um they have to come up with a a modified plan that still meets those requirements
really. So, >> so, so there is a chance that if if they weren't able to meet those requirements and needed to reduce the amount of units, that would be >> okay. >> And just to bring Dan in on this, if
that were to happen, that would still comply according to the fact that it was an impossibility. Would that >> ring true? >> Yes. Well, >> would you fight for that? I I would I would fight for that. Uh yeah, I mean I
I have not um had the opportunity to read the memorandum of understanding to to know if there's a uh condition that you know we have to give them 28 units if they're they and and maybe they changed it to >> one of the town houses to apartments. I
don't know the answer to that question. Um, but yeah, I mean they have to comply with all these rules and and if they have to change their site plan based on that, I think there may be a need for them to come back to negotiate with the municipality uh if it's not something that could be remedied at the planning
board level. >> Thank you. >> And just so that we are all clear, this looks like a plan, but this is an ordinance. In an ordinance we put in maximum standards and then at actually when the site plan is before us you know
if say for example uh we've written what the like 28 units for example as per the site plan if they are lacking in you know providing adequate storm water management providing you know parking or
what have you you know that triggers off a little bit of modification and it it. I've seen it happen um in other places where we've written an ordinance um which stipulated the number of units or density but the actual site cannot
accommodate that. So um we so right so the you know you'll have an opportunity at that time to go through like um as Mr. they said, um, you're doing with Hillrest Farms, >> but but should we not as a board
anticipate that they're not going to be able to meet the storm water standards >> and we this, you know, this is just a consistency determination. We're off the track by pretty far as it's been, but which is
obviously what >> but it's you know that's your account that's the the governing body and you know who created the the who who created the settlement or who entered into the settlement and allowed the 28 units
because quite frankly their hands were tough. >> Yeah. I mean, >> to your point, like I'm taking this at face value, not like what I anticipate might change or or that. It's like there's, you know, we're voting on consistency as is,
>> right? >> I had a question. Um, Greg, you brought up a good point about that bus stop. Um, is that within the property boundary? Because when I looked at the overlay, it looked like it was. >> It is. >> Um, how's the concept plan account for the bus stop?
Um it is and they haven't touched it. >> They're not touching. Okay. >> Um I mean I I would recommend that 3.4 um driveways and curbs account for you know >> uh you know not not putting a driveway
within you know 25 ft of the bus stop >> and it's more than 25 ft. >> It's actually 100 ft. >> Okay. It's a because it's a very elongated site with very um with it's not deep, it's elongated.
>> Next time for >> And are there units next to the bus stop? >> There will be. Yes. >> 50 ft. >> Well, no no no no. >> It's J. >> Mr. Day asked for a buffer. Is that some a recommendation that is going to be
included? a buffer between the bus stop and >> Well, that was that was specifically for the the driveway. >> Okay. But probably to the >> from the nearest unit nearest Yes.
>> Um >> because my feedback from the people next door is that buses when they stop it, it vibrates to buildings. Well, I I agree with the buffer because there's going to be members of the general public walking
onto the property next to somebody's private unit, you know, or >> so I do agree that there should be >> an appropriate buffer and let the council at least I mean >> they can't see in the windows all be covered in
>> sorry this is God. Okay. >> Madam Chair, while we're at it, can we can we just go through all the recommendations? >> Is >> Yes. >> 90% >> of the rear yard must have a 10ft buffer. We're going to recommend an
appropriate buffer from the bus stop to the nearest unit. Um there was Mr. Presy had talked about um >> the window >> the the filtering the uh >> double windows on the front on the frontage of the property
>> at least double pane >> at least double pane because of the noise standards >> because of the noise >> and also >> air filters >> and what was the acronym for the air filters tape >> MV MV mv
uh I put a suggestion greater 17 or greater >> most filters House filters are 11 and 13. >> Okay. >> Uh it goes up to 20 though. >> Okay. U Mr. Fresky had also mentioned like like snow removal, but is that something that
>> I guess it's part of storm water management when you think about it because >> they need some place design it so they have someplace to dump the snow. >> That would be okay. >> And then the parking was off is off the table. Right. >> Right. That was something. Right. That's that's going to be on site. And then the other was a board. The fences shall be
board on board fence >> um made of wood or vinyl but and in no way shape or form chain. >> No chain link shall be prohibited like it's sort of retro. It's coming back. >> It's not. >> It's not. >> No, it's not.
>> Okay. Try >> it is absolutely not. Um >> okay. So I have those five recommendations. Is there any recommendations that somebody made that were sort of left out by accident? Um, she's adding the
>> No, that's in there. It has to apply. >> All the other is not part of the zoning code. I want specifically chapter 496 article they'll have to comply and uh as I mentioned we'll be writing that will
be met um shall comply with Verona's tree ordinance article two yes >> um and attachment three verona's plan selection >> okay so those are two more things for 96 is part of not part of chapter 150 >> so I thought >> tree ordinance and what was the second
one >> and the attachment number three of the zoning code recommended plant. Uh >> recommended plant. Okay. >> Recommended plantings. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Um do you want to at least um go through where this is consistent before we open to public? >> I I I did. >> Oh, you did? Okay. I got I guess I got lost in the >> Yeah. Madam Chair, just as a point of order, we're going to hear from the
public and then will we deliberate on the merits of the consistency or is that happening now? >> That's that will happen after the public speak. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Does anybody have any further comments before I open to public?
Um you can basically every please this goes by the same public comment that DD made before. So anybody who member of the public who has a comment please um
come to the mic state your name and just your municipality. You do not have to stay your street address and you will have four minutes. Uh afterwards the board may choose to address you. >> Hi. Um I'm Michelle Brew. I live in
Verona and I had one thing written that I had planned before I got here and all I've been doing is rewriting and I just want to start by saying thank you very much to the planning board um and all of
the members here for your thoughtful questions and um and deep conversation about 885 Bloomfield Avenue. Um it it's uh I'm really um very appreciative of the
conversations um in the meeting tonight. Um there's just a couple things um that I have and it's only it's very short. It's it's not 18 minutes, I promise. Um
but I noticed in the the 2022 master plan that um A3 properties like the Valente tract um were designated to have a maximum improved lot coverage of 55%.
Mhm. >> Um, and I know that it sounds like um Oh, well, and then at on Monday, I was listening to the town council meeting and I was looking at the documents that were provided in advance of the meeting
and um uh the number was 65% for maximum allowed lot coverage for the Valente tract. But then during the meeting um when the planner shared her screen um it
showed 70%. So I just was hoping for some clarification on what is actually going through um and is it consistent with the master plan because 65 to 70 might not seem like a
lot but 55 to 70 is a lot. Excuse me, I'm nervous. And um I just want to make sure that um it's consistent. Um so I'll just I'll leave it I'll leave my question at that.
Um and I wanted to thank um Deputy Mayor Mackoy for um noticing um and asking about those percentage numbers at the town council meeting. Thank you for that. Um, and there's so many things I'm not going to
say now because they were covered, and I appreciate that. Um, I ask that the planning board take the time to carefully review all information before voting tonight on whether the current plan is consistent with the
master plan with the maximum lot coverage, but also with and maybe this isn't doesn't count because I don't know, but also with Baron's ordinances on steep slopes, storm water management, um trees, um
um and thank Thank you, Jessica, Miss Pearson, for um um bringing up the tree ordinances and the information um on landscaping. Um I very much appreciate that.
I want to acknowledge something. Um I understand that the planning board, like the town council, may feel its hands are tied by New Jersey's affordable housing mandates. The state's weight behind developers in these situations is real, and I see the difficult position that
puts you in. You did not create these laws, and fighting them in court is costly and uncertain. But I'm asking you tonight to protect what you still can. Where the law gives you discretion, use it for the residents of Verona, for the trees of Verona.
Where a number can be pushed back, pushed back. where a standard exists in our own master plan. Hold to it. The families on Fels Road and throughout this town are counting on this board to be their last line of defense.
Even when the state has made that defense harder to mount, we understand you may not be able to win every battle. We're simply asking you to keep fighting. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um Sam, do you want to just
briefly readress theou stipulation >> correct >> uh that led to the change from >> most certainly >> 65 to 70% most certainly. >> Thank you.
>> So again this particular um developer was an intervenor in our affordable housing uh plan. Um we settled with them to the units that we have and based on the memorandum of understanding which
they had submitted to us in December. Um there was a concept plan that was attached. The concept plan did not have any calculations. The calculations were done by my office just looking at the PDF and guesstimating. Based on that we
had 65% for the maximum impervious surface coverage. Um we put that in in the plan that uh got introduced on Monday night. All of you saw that. Um and an hour before the introduction um
we got an email uh or a call saying that this is not as for theou and that it has to be 70%. So that is the reason why we changed what we changed and what I mentioned before I began my uh presentation. And um I will just say um
thank you for your comments. I will also say that um the A3 zone is not in the master plan. It's in our zoning code. So that that's the difference. this we're not weighing it against our existing zoning code which does in fact call for
55% allowable coverage in the A3 zone versus and that was a comparative analysis that they were doing to a townhouse zone that's uh drafted that's pre-existing really there's no
new town houses coming but for the affordable housing that we're we're going through right now. So the comparison to the 55% is to the zoning code, not to the master plan. And as she just described, they allowed for 65 and
theou said 70. So they reverted >> and and it is again I don't need to belabor the point but what we are reviewing here is the consistency review and um it is compliant with um the land
use plan uh of uh our 2022 master plan. it is um compliant and it's substantially compliant. That's what uh the ML requires to do. Most importantly, um it effectuates our affordable
housing. And Sam, just for the record, it's important to note, please tell me if you agree, you're not only negotiating against or with the property owner, but you have fair share housing that is correct. >> That you're negotiating against as well. >> That is correct. And that is an
excellent point. So, Verona was in a tough situation and um we um you know Dan, myself, Kevin and our attorney negotiated with four interveners and fair share was consistent throughout. Um
so yes, that is a very important uh part aspect of this. >> Are there any other members of the public that have any comments or questions? Please state your name and your municipality and you have four minutes.
>> Steven Ferger from the firm of sorry Steven Fkser Fir KSC R and the firm of Greenbro Smith and Davis attorneys for the property owner. I just want to um say I think all the recommendations made by the board attorney. Um, I just uh
just want to clarify that 90% of the rear yard must have a buffer for landscaping and that's good because there is a pinch point where it may not be a full 10 ft for landscaping in order to accommodate the parking. Um, and I just want to I think everything else is
reasonable. I don't know about the MV air filter. We just need to see if that's commercially reasonable standard. So we would just ask if commercially reasonable and we thank the board for its consideration. >> Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that have any qu uh
comments? If so, please mic. Okay, seeing none, I am closing public comment. Thank you. Um, at this time I I
if there's no further comment on this, Tim, >> so I I I recognize the structure of this redevelopment plan is one it it's set around that goal of objective uh in our
master plan of meeting our public obligation of housing, but I think it's motivated by, you know, this settlement and that versus intrinsically overlaying our master plan as a whole. I
see I think we all know um about the the odd and the nature of the property and there's a lot of potential negative impacts on the surrounding area on the the neighbors and to uh the the
residents as indicated by what uh Mr. Presy said of the town houses that are that are there that I I've scoffed at them years ago at the stairs that are literally you know if you fell I've thought if you fell down them you're
going to roll into Bloomfield Avenue and you know agree 6 feet is you know about the length of that table. Um it's probably even longer, but um so another part of the master plan is
maintaining the existing character of of the area. Obviously, it's a uh undeveloped wooded lot. Anything's going to change it. But however, I think that the nature of this plan, uh using that A3 as a reference is
adding more density to that than normal. If anything, I would expect one of these plans to not only uh seek to maintain the entire spirit of our um uh uh master plan, but mitigate or or you know put uh
put the onus on the on the builders to maintain that that but I think this allows even more leeway towards the settlement towards the uh um uh meeting that obligation but at the expense of
other um other aspects of the master plan to a space that I have serious concerns with and and I'll just close by saying, you know, as much as we want to move progress forward and and I think we balance um uh all parties as much as we
can, you know, this board is not just a mouthpiece of the governing body or a rubber stamp. Otherwise, we should have just said, you know, yes and and and gone home. Um I think we have to even be a a a counterbalance sometimes uh and
add checks and balances to uh the entire Verona governing board. So with that um I I encourage you to look at it you know at our master plan holistically and um take into the considerations and
concerns I've laid forth there. So even if 100% of this body just making an argumentative point said that this was not consistent, the governing body were just a recommendation just to let you
know. Um that I'm not undermining us, but we did make a bunch of suggestive changes that brought it towards that sweet spot that I know that you know exists. there are other properties that
have um gone forward in this process. The same exact conditions exist on um >> I I understand I mean I could come up with a lot of ways to make it not so bad to have a horse in my house but it would still be so I don't
>> I appreciate your input always. So um ma'am uh may I just interject as as a professional planner who actually wrote the uh master plan and who's been involved in this process um
this is indeed consistent with the land use plan. There are two when you look at consistency, you look at that what it is consistent substantially with the land use plan and you um also look at affordable housing or um plan to the
affordable housing plan element and fresh air plan that uh Mr. Hobin has prepared is part of our master plan. So based on that it is substantially consistent and the recommendations that you've given um the board uh
holistically has given um is to make this plan uh this ordinance even stronger. Do we when we're taking consistency matters into consider into consideration especially for land use
development ordinances such as this that obviously don't comport with our existing zoning code which is not again the measuring stick. Are we also supposed to apply consistency to the affordable
housing element? >> Yes, >> that is correct. Okay. So, and and just so that I um you know, I wrote it perhaps people noticed it or not, we did have a land use recommendation uh four years ago to adopt a redevelopment plan
for the valenti tract. So, we had a recommendation in the land use plan at that time. >> Okay. So, accordingly, it's almost impossible >> to inconsistent. Correct. >> Okay. Yeah, I I was just going to add that in 5 days hopefully, you know, I'm
going to be back here and hopefully the board will uh adopt the housing element fair share plan which will effectively update your master plan. So if if you have any concerns about cons consistency, just be aware that in 5 days S could give the exact same presentation she that she gave tonight
and it would be consistent with the master plan by way of the adoption of the housing plan. And if you're just being extremely technical about understanding how you know the the consistency questions >> and and and really it is to effectuate that, but it is consistent with our land use plan element. So those are the two
elements that we consider when we look at for consistency. Um, as for the units of the land use >> taking into Does anyone else have any further comments or questions? Uh, mayor.
>> Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Um, first off, I I am satisfied that this is consistent with our master plan or is not inconsistent with the master plan or whatever. So, I'll start with the conversation there. And I appreciate Miss Siobhan and and her expertise, Mr. hop and in your expertise and uh and
helping guide us toward that understanding. Um I would like to thank all the board members for coming up with some reasonable suggestions to help um mitigate any issues that may exist with
this development. I think we all are in agreement that this is not an optimal um development, but as has been mentioned a couple times, um by the virtues of of law and court decision in the state of New Jersey, uh we are in many ways
forced to adopt something that we probably would not have done otherwise just to be to be fair out there. Um but I I don't think that's necessarily a a catch-all excuse for anything either. Um, and what I want to say to the members of the public is that I think
what you saw tonight, though, some of the discussion didn't specifically relate to the um the uh relationship to the master plan, but I think what you saw tonight is a really good preview of what will happen at a site plan review. Um, and I think that the members of the
public should be confident that this board, myself included, will ensure that the the site plan is consistent with all of the legal requirements and ordinance requirements that it it must follow. Um, and that's another and I'm sure there
will be many many meetings regarding the site plan. Um, expert testimony, a lot of review. Um so this is simply saying that we are consistent with the master plan but does not necessarily um it's not the end of deliberations on this. In fact really and truly it's only
the beginning. So as a member of the governing body I will point out that I I will vote in favor of amending um this at our next governing body meeting to include those recommendations made here tonight. Um, so I thank the
board members for that and Miss Gray, thank you for your your public comment as well. Um, and and uh also for the attorney for the for the applicant. Um, sorry, Mr. Persker um for coming forward
and and agreeing that some of those recommendations or almost all of them were reasonable. Um, that is that is helpful um and uh and and unexpected. So, thank you very much uh Mr. Ferg for
that and and I hope that that also um provides some um assistance to the public in understanding that that the applicant's own council is is reasonable in review of these items as well. So, that concludes my comment, Madam
Chairwoman. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um are there any other comments? That being said, I will entertain a motion. And it's going to take a minute to find the redevelopment
plan for 885 Bloomfield Avenue not inconsistent with the master plan with the following recommendations from the board. And 90% of the rear yard must have at
least a 10-ft buffer. That um there be a buffer between the nearest uh residential unit and the bus stop in at uh at a distance to be determined by the council. That the um housing units have
double pane windows. That the housing units have MV 17 or greater filters. that any fence be boarded on board, vinyl or wood. Um that the um plan shall be revised so that it is explicit that
the um that there'll be compliance with Verona's tree ordinance. That attachment number three of recommended plantings in the township be u made a part of the uh redevelopment ordinance. So there were seven recommendations.
>> Right. Chapter 496 article 2 instead of tree ordinance. >> Chapter 496 article 2. >> Thank you. >> I'll stick with Can I >> Can I use both and then put that in parenthesis? The tree ordinance and then put chapter I just want to make sure.
Yes. Okay. >> You can use whatever. Um >> I reverse that. So, with that said, can I get a motion to find this uh 885 Woodford Avenue's
redevelopment plan not inconsistent with the master plan with the notations and suggestions that Greg just iterated? >> So, moved. >> The mayor makes a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. Dave.
>> Yes. >> Uh seconded by Dave Fresky. >> Can you call roll? >> Mrs. Parker? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lily? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Kamudi. With great respect to Son and H2M their comprehensive work and their valid suggestions and deliberations of this board, I still find it inconsistent. I say no. >> Mr. Presy, >> no.
>> You made the motion. >> You seconded the motion. >> Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Township Manager O Sullivan. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Makavoy. >> Yes. >> Mayor Tambbor.
>> Yes. >> Vice Chair Heinman. Um so given the limited scope of review we have here that we find that it is either it either is or is not consistent with
the master plan given that the master plan specifically called for the development of a redevelopment plan for the site and the site was included in our housing element and fair share plan. While this is not the plan that I would like to see for the site, uh I don't
have a choice but to vote that it is consistent because the plain language of the documents say that it's consistent. So uh with that I say um I have to vote yes >> and
did yes pierce for the same reasons and more. So, um, can you just >> 52? >> Okay, motion passes. Um,
>> sorry, 72. My bad. I can't add right now. >> It's like 9:20. It's addition time is over. Um, at this time, why don't we go to the TCMU since it's a pretty short
review with one minor tweak and then we can take a a fivem minute break before Dan takes over the meeting on the uh last two ordinances. Is that okay, Dan? >> Yeah, I mean hopefully mine will be quick too, but >> Okay.
Um so all right so TCMU zone >> TCM 920 really >> pull that closer you >> yes thank you >> can you hear me uh TCMU zone again um this was a part of the settlement agreement uh with fair share housing and
as per our special educator the um the TCMU zone was a part of the third round rags where we had 15% um set aside for um rental units and 20% for owner occupied as per the settlement
agreement and our special adjudicator. We are now required to modify that ordinance to have across the board 20% set aside for both rental as well as um owner occupied. Um and that's basically
what um is the ordinance change and it is again going to effectuate a housing element fair share plan and it is consistent with the uh master plan. >> Thank you Sam. Um
briefly will the allowable uses also revert to the TC the TC zone once that passes at some point in the future not now. So, um I think that's a good idea, ma'am. Okay. >> Um so, yes, we could do that, but you don't have to tell me to.
>> No, no, no, no. I understand. >> Um does anybody have any questions on this? >> Um uh I will make a motion. No, I won't. I will entertain a motion to find the TCMU
uh updated changes to that zone uh not inconsistent with the master plan. Can I get a a motion? >> I'll make that motion. >> Sorry. >> Vice Chairman Heyman makes the motion. The mayor seconds. Can we get a roll call, please?
>> Sorry, Mrs. Parker. Yes, >> Mr. Lily. >> Yes, >> Mr. Presy. >> Yes, >> Township Manager Sullivan. >> Yes.
>> Deput Mayor Mackoy. >> Yes. >> Mayor Tim Burrow. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Heinman. >> Yes. >> Chair Pearson. Yes. And you missed a couple of people. >> Best for last. Oh, I'm sorry.
>> I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> Just just Tim. >> Just me. Sorry. >> Best for last. Yeah. >> Big vote. Yeah. >> The motion passes. It's unanimous. That it's um And why don't we just take a
five a quick fivem minute break and come right back finish up the meeting. Jessica's is going too. >> You good? All right. >> Okay, we're back. Um, I want to thank S for all the negotiation that she
did. She just um left for the evening, but uh she's been under immense pressure to get all of this done. Kevin, while you have that comment,
>> I just want to know >> what's um >> do we does anyone here know that could be Dan also whether we got an extension on our plan for that one piece of
property. Does anybody know the outcome of that? Dan, >> I don't. S probably would have been the person to to ask at this meeting. >> Do you know Kevin? >> I don't believe that we've received the extension at this point. Not yet. >> What is What does that mean if the in
the next couple of days before we have a hearing on this plan that we did or did not get an extension on that property? Um, >> has anyone spoken to Can you call Jamie?
>> I'll get an answer from Jamie. >> Thank you. >> I I Okay. >> Yeah. I I I don't know the answer to that. I mean, I think that it depends on the communication that's been had with fair share and and the special master. And I know the special master is aware
of what's been going on um with the uh the the Grove Avenue property uh and uh and that an extension may be needed. So I think she'd be on our side if if we had to get one. Um but that's that's the
extent that I'm aware of unfortunately. >> Okay. Um Okay. So the next two items on our agenda. Thank you. Anyway, um our
two uh portions of our zoning code, articles 21 and article 19. 19 is the financing. Article 21 is the affordable housing ordinance. Um, Dan, do you wanna, >> while you're answering that, can you
tell us if the green type face was somehow different than just the red line? >> It's all red on my screen, believe it or not. But, um, uh, yeah, I mean, anything that >> I thought maybe the green meant like
this is something that's >> I think it depends on your computer. Uh uh green it mean if it's >> I think >> the question Oh, green means that it's being moved from one section to another. >> Thank you. See, >> thank you. I forgot that green. I'm not crazy. Yeah. All right. >> No, it's green and red on my
>> Well, let me pull that >> in ours. In ours, I think it means an addition. Anyway, >> okay. I didn't know if it meant >> we don't have red in ours. It's just >> all red. >> This Oh my god. All right. Sorry I
asked. Dan, please. Right. So yeah, so you you you should have um uh for kind of educational purposes the track changes version which shows you what's changed. Um but uh yeah so so just the uh starting from the beginning uh chapter 19 is your affordable housing
ordinance that states uh essentially dictates how to uh how development is supposed to be affordable housing developments are supposed to be built, occupied, priced um how how um incomes are determined each year and it is
largely the responsibility of uh the um administrative agent uh uh to uh handle the uh some of these issues, especially the the the the uh marketing of affordable housing units, the selecting of uh the occupants
of affordable housing units. Um article uh 21 is your development fee ordinance. Uh and and these are two ordinances that you already uh have that I think we last adopted in 2022 or 2023 as part of your third round affordable housing process.
And at that time the ordinances were updated based on settlement agreements uh that were entered into between the township and fair share housing center as part of uh you know that round of litigation and and chaos. Um and uh
based on rules that had been uh uh adopted by COA, the Council on Affordable Housing from the '90s through the mids um and uh uh amended uh or partially struck down I should say
uh by uh various Supreme Court and appellet division decisions. Uh so what's happened since 2024 when the legislature adopted PL 2024C2 which is what we were calling the fourth round rules is that the New Jersey Department
of Community Affairs uh adopted uh a new set of rules called five 599 which is supposed to replace a number of the old COA rules uh and the uh uh HMFA housing mortgage finance agency administration
one of those one of those two um adopt uh updated a set of rules that's been around since the mid 2000s called the U hack which um uh dictates a number of those things that I was just talking about the the pricing the number of bedrooms uh the
the uh occupying of units uh and we basically have to as part of our uh agreements with Fairshare Housing Center uh we have to update our ordinances to match those two new uh new state regulations. Um a lot of the uh changes
are not substantial. It is removing old references. Uh since as I said some of the old the language goes back to the '9s the old the 2000s uh still some you know COA is no longer a thing. Now it's the affordable housing dispute resolution program. Uh there are some
changes that are a little bit more substantial. For example, now the rules now uh have minimum unit sizes for affordable housing units. Um uh and um
there's changes to how much money uh the municipality has to set aside for this thing called affordability assistance, which is basically on top of creating affordable housing, you have to have historically have to have a pool of money um equal to 30% of your trust fund
revenues uh that you have to set aside to basically make that housing a little bit more affordable. uh in terms of providing deposit assistance, down payment assistance, etc. You no longer have to meet that 30% threshold. So, it gives the municipalities more wiggle
room in terms of using money for the actual creation of affordable housing or the payment of your affordable housing professionals like myself, uh some uh San uh Jamie. Um uh and there's you know some other
changes in there that are substantial but pretty minute and not really related to uh the your purview as the planning board or even the council uh because they don't deal wouldn't deal with it on a day-to-day basis. Uh one other substantial thing is that uh we have had
to update uh we the the the 2023 uh update to those the ordinances were required to have a mandatory townshipwide set aside requirement that says that any development of five units or more has to set aside 15% of development for or 15% of units for
rental uh uh uh 15% of rental units for affordable housing 20% of sale units for affordable housing Um but now that we are a vacant land town, meaning that we use the vacant land adjustment to reduce our affordable housing obligation uh in
the fourth round plan, we have to now have a flat 20% set aside townshipwide. So there's no longer a difference between 15% for rentals, 20% for sales. It's all 20%. uh which is actually good uh that we now have this uh allowance to
or requirement to do this because uh when you do a vacant land adjustment, you're assuming a 20% set aside on every vacant property that you consider in that analysis. Uh and so now it just means that um if any of those vacant land vacant properties are actually being developed and included in your
plan in the future, uh you're getting as many units from affordable units from that development as you were required to account for it in the analysis. So it it it uh it's a self uh uh repairing uh uh thing I guess uh the the the
developments uh pay off for the RDP you could say. Um the language is I'd say 90% mandatory. It's not a whole lot of flexibility. The one uh area where you have flexibility when it comes to development fees is
you're allowed to have uh uh lower uh uh you're allowed to have some flexibility with regards to charging development fees for residential development. I've maintained the language that we adopted in a few years ago. Um and then there's some abil uh flexibility with rounding
uh when you're determining how many affordable units have to be uh one, two, or threebedroom. Um uh and I uh recommended uh the the approach that I guess protects you the most um in terms of making sure that you have the number of three bedrooms and two bedrooms that
you should have for the most part. Um >> did you limit those to the best of your ability within that >> or were you did you allow for more than >> No. So it's still it's still the the
percentages are still 20% uh maximum 20% for one bedroom minimum uh minimum 30% of two bedroom of affordable units have to be two bedroom minimum of 20% of your affordable units have to be three bedrooms. So, um, we rounded we actually
I rounded up actually for the three bedrooms and the two bedrooms. And the reason is because, uh, you're, uh, you actually, well, in the future, you get extra credit for additional three bedrooms, but it also protects you
and, uh, when somebody looks at your plan, your your total unit uh, inventory and says that you're short on your three bedrooms. You don't want to find yourself short. I'm there is flexibility there. So if
your recommendation is to round down, >> not not necessarily. I just this just speaks to the amount of kids that end up metriculating into the ROA school systems when you're talking about a three-bedroom family unit. >> Yeah. >> So I I appreciate your description of
what you did and why. I'm just that's just one little concern I think everybody. Um, you know, one one thing that I I would say um that I'm comfortable doing uh is rather than rounding up or down, just round it to
the nearest hole. Um it's, you know, it's it's clean. I think it's just um uh try to be try to be mathematically conservative with these things cuz I don't want to find out what the backfire is going to be in 5 years uh once you do
the look back. Um but uh I'm I'm comfortable with making it around 70 years old. That's recommendation. >> Okay. I appreciate that. >> Yeah, I I I would tend to agree with you, Dan, that we should round to the nearest hole.
>> Um especially with the 13% very low income requirement because >> when you're talking about 13% of all affordables, more likely than not, you're going to be rounding down and then we're going to be left with a shortfall. So
>> we want no round to the nearest. That way you know some developments will round down others you'll make up for it with rounding up. >> Um does our spending plan I know we're not there yet but does our spending plan account for >> um earmarking funds as an incentive to
developments to provide additional 13% very low? >> No. uh because uh uh the um that that so that is that's not something that normally we would qualified as or uh affordability
assistance. I'm sure you understand. Um we are using >> uh what funding we would have had available for for that is going to be used uh or at least is right now being reserved to assist with um providing special needs housing uh at the 885
property. Mhm. >> Uh to in case that's a need for assistance. So um and this is obviously a draft spending plan right now. We have uh it's going to be uh passed or approved by the um council on the 9th. Uh by the council and hopefully
approved. Uh so there's there's time to change that. Um but that's how I've approached it at this because we now have the flexibility. We don't have to do 20% of our this huge amount of our money for that. So um uh but but that's how we're being it's being used right now. Were there any other changes that
were individual to Verona and not mandated besides what you had just mentioned or is that pretty much it? >> No, that that's pretty much it. Um uh just trying to uh trying to think. No, I I think that those are the big ones.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, >> this is again the affordable housing ordinance chapter 19. >> Yes. And uh does anybody have any questions on this? >> So it is one ordinance that's one one
ordinance that's amending both articles. >> Really? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Oh, okay. Do you want to move in? Well, are there any questions on this first portion of our discussion? >> I just covered both. >> Yeah. You want to roll? >> Madam Chairwoman, I move to >> Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I have a
question. >> Yeah. >> Just stop. Come on. Um, under the spending, uh, I would recommend to the council. I'm getting there. Article 21 section
9A should rename investors bank which doesn't exist anymore to either whatever bank it is that Verona might utilize or >> you know the bank with our funds in it >> is it citizens now
>> that citizens >> I I I tried to read to look up is investors bank still exist and I got >> I wouldn't be specific to any bank. >> You have to be the bank. >> You have to be. >> Yeah, you have to identify in the
ordinance the bank that is located. >> Is it citizens not Kevin? >> I'll get the information. >> Okay. Um secondly, article 21 section 10 A7. The town of Pona does not currently permit accessory dwelling units. Therefore, I suggest removal of that
option for spending. Thank you. not going to work. You're going to have to put his horse in your garage. >> I have suggestions. >> Um, does anybody
else have any comments before the mayor? >> Seeing none, >> Madam Chair, >> I did hear from uh the deputy mayor at the last >> deputy mayor. >> Yeah. that uh that that I should remove the duplicative uh mentions of air conditioning and utilities and stuff like that which which I'm going to look
into uh uh the ordinance that we use as a model ordinance that was uh produced by various affordable housing production professionals and then >> reproduced by the DCA. Uh there's a lot of uh there's I don't I don't doubt that
there's uh repetition potentially junk in there. Um, so I'm gonna do a little uh scanning to see what I can remove without affecting the substance. >> Yeah, actually um there's a whole section reiterated for units for rent versus units for
sale. And it's the exact same two things. If you could combine whether they're units that are rentals or or sold, combining that would probably save a lot of eight. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
Then I will email you the pages that I was referring to on at Monday night next meeting. >> Yes, please. Thank you. Mayor. >> Madame Chairwoman, I move to uh find amendments to article 19 and 21
not inconsistent with the master plan subject to the revisions suggested from the table this evening. >> And Mr. Mayor, if I could reiterate recommendation that we're going to round to the nearest hole. We are going to um
>> and that's for the the bedroom counts. >> The bedroom counts replicate. >> Um we are going to um remove any reference to it. No, we're going to fill in or we're going to uh modify investors bank to a new bank. Um we're going to
remove one u 1087 or 10 A7 of the ADUs. We're going to remove duplicates uh for AC units, etc. And we're going to consolidate uh any parts that we can for sale at Ferrett. They are the recommendations we're going to make to the government body. >> Yeah.
>> Um I think we also have discretion on the very low incomes on rounding since that's not >> Do you want to round >> We want to round the nearest hole on that. So, >> you want to round up for the very low because you want to make sure that your
family very low is uh meets the >> the requirements. That's that's my recommendation. Um uh it doesn't hurt. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's just that that gets tough cuz I mean if you've got a a 1.2% two%
requirement on a smaller development doing a a second very low that >> gets it close to not feasible. >> We're not going to do it. >> You're made to do two instead of one. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. there that is a trade-off because you know when you have to when you have
a roundup you you you potentially create a burden for smaller developer prefers but um and >> and I'll do what obviously what what uh >> yeah I think the nearest if you're at like 1.8 >> yeah once you get above one you round to the nearest
>> does anybody have any objection to rounding to the nearest goal for very low income development >> when you say round like what >> 1.2 two could either get rounded up to the nearest >> if you have if your development has 10 affordable affordable units requirement
13% of those units which is 1.3 units have to be very low income so um you know that so the recommendation what I had in the report is to round that 1.3 units to two very low-inccome units from the perspective that it helps your whole
plan >> no I understand the rounding rule typically it's like okay 1.5 and above go to two below. >> That's what they're suggesting, right? >> Okay, that's >> as opposed he had 1.2 would go to two, >> right? >> He's changing that now that
>> just for the very low just for very low >> and for the number of >> And let me ask you this. Does that >> when somebody suggests that they're going to build 30 units and they're required to or 31 units and
they're required to produce uh 20% now do you round up? I like rounding up for that. >> For for which one? >> For when No, no, no, no. This is overall for somebody who who basically >> uh you know that's
>> proposes to build up. >> So okay so for >> I think we did well so that actually you had flexibility on. So I think we did round up for that. >> Thank you like that. You had to you had to. >> So the rule the the way that the the
model ordinance uh was written was that you can either you either have the option of round force them to round everything up or to have them round uh to the nearest and then pay a fraction pay and pay up payments in the trust fund. And I'm averse to getting
payments in the trust fund because then you're under the obligation to spend that money and coming up with how to spend it is often diff. So with that, so that that is required at that's required. Okay. So the only other change
to the amendments was for the very low income to round to the nearest whole number, >> right? That's the only additional from what I read. >> Okay. So, the mayor has just made a motion to not find these two articles to find
these two articles not inconsistent with the master plan with the memo of uh the list of changes for Dan along with Deputy Mayor Makavoy is going to send some consolidating
ideas for him. Can I get a second? >> Second. Deputy Mayor Mackoy seconds. Can we get a roll call vote, please? >> Didn't you second? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Mrs. Parker? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Lily? >> Yes. >> Mr. Kamudi? >> Yes. >> Mr. Presky? >> Yes. >> Township manager O Sullivan? >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Makavoy? >> Yes. >> Mayor Tambbero? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Heindman?
>> Yes. >> Chair Pearson? Yes. Uh the motion passes and a memo with this list and um a resolution or whatever will will get passed on uh next Tuesday. Before everybody leaves, I have
I had another thing, but um I I kind of pulled people I tried to poll people walking in the door tonight to ask them their feeling about changing the meeting hour for this board to meet on a regular
basis. Um, next Tuesday's meeting, the hearing of adoption of the housing element is starting at 7 p.m. And um, I think most members here, including our legal genius, uh,
and our, um, who's that? I know. um are amendable to a starting time of 7:00 last hearing um a 10:00 cut off for new testimony and a hard cut off at 10:30.
>> Does anybody object to any of that? >> Is that going forward? >> Well, we I don't know how that procedure happens. Do we have to have the council pass something? You're you're suggesting you're you want to change the bylaws of the body to reflect.
>> Well, there are quite a few others that >> you have to publish that because every the beginning of every year you have to publish your your meetings in which again that's >> one notice. Yeah. >> One notice to publish that meeting will now begin at 7:00
>> and we would just list out the remaining meetings and the dates. >> Right. So change the buy. You could do that. >> Well, if you do that in March, just publish online, right? Well, true because we're not publishing the paper. >> There are a couple of other additions to the bylaws that need to be reviewed. And
what I I will suggest right now is uh the other item that I just wanted to toss out there was after the last meeting I did speak with um another person on the ad hoc committee to review
the zoning code. And we spoke about picking that up after this all gets passed. this um affordable housing mess is kind of put aside so that we can begin to suggest to the council and
obviously this board. Um a couple of other tweaks that should occur in not just maybe the town center zone, but a couple of other tweaks that could occur in other zones to make things make a little more sense and get rid of some of the inconsistencies.
Um and and Greg will be instrumental in that as well. Um because he probably has some notes going back that can help us >> this time. Hopefully we have time to finish it. >> Right. So I I'm wondering whether that
same ad hoc committee can also work on the bylaws or you know the the board bylaws and maybe soon after we can just kind of get this done. Maybe moving forward in April we can have it done by then. We
>> am I on that >> I think I might >> I think I think the chair and the vice chair could just make recommendations on the bylaws to the board. That's >> you're not >> I Dan >> I was >> Jim is on >> and I'm happy to do it.
>> But >> who else was on that besides >> would be more realistic >> besides the three of us? There was someone else. Oh, was it you, Jesse? I don't know. >> Damn it. >> Yeah, Jesse's not >> there.
>> I'll look back. I have notes. Do you know? >> Um, I not in this notebook. I have them in the office if you want me to run real quick. >> No, I have it here on my drive here >> somewhere. We can coordinate and schedule that so
discuss that upcoming meeting when it's ready. >> The ad hoc is Jesse Lily. >> Me, Jesse, Julie, and Jim, Greg. And then obviously we would want your input
as well. >> Madam Chair, >> well, will you come as an administrator? >> Madam Chair, I'm just looking up now. There are New Jersey model planning board bylaws. So I respectfully suggest that
>> we compare and contrast. >> Let me >> email it to the people on the ad hoc for >> work off of the model bylaws and then we can make you know any changes that uh that people need. But we can start with the model bylaws. >> Okay. just done
>> that that mayor. >> If we're done with this, I have another item of >> new business >> announcements. Yes. >> Okay. >> Um the Tuesday meeting there's going to be a large public event at this facility starting at 6:00. >> Yes.
>> I've asked Mr. O' Sullivan to ask the police department to put up some signage to reserve parking down here for the board. So if you see signs that say emergency no parking, park there. And with that, I move to adjourn this
meeting. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Second. Okay. >> Good night all. Thank you.