Grace, please state. >> Welcome to the public meeting of April 15th, 2026 of the Township of Washington Planning Board. Adequate notice of the meeting was given in accordance with the open public meetings act by the board secretary to at least two newspapers on
January 15, 2026 and March 20th, 2026. This meeting has been posted on the Township Bolton Board Electronic Message Board, WCTV, and on the Township website. >> Thank you. Please read the public announcement. >> Governor Murphy signed into law on June 30th, 2025 a new law which reflects the
transition from traditional print newspaper to online platforms as of March 1st, 2026. You will find on our township website a tab on the homepage named public notices where all official public notices are required to be posted and may be obtained or viewed. These
documents in addition will have a hyperlink to the secretary of state's public notice web page. >> Thank you. Grace salute to the flag 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. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Carol >> here. >> Mr. Pledo is absent. Mr. Tool >> here. >> Mr. Toro >> here. >> Mr. Ojeransky >> here. >> Councilman
>> here. >> Mayor Kamari >> here. >> And chairman Sabino >> here. Let the record reflect also in attendance are attorney Lulu Lamatina, board planner Joe Burgess, engineer Paul Aelina, and secretary Grace Cable. >> Thank you. Please read the public portion.
>> To participate in the general public portion of the meeting, please click the link below to join the webinar. You'll be asked to state your name for the record and we ask that only one person speak at a time. This public comment portion is only for non-aggenda items. Time is set aside later in the meeting
to address questions or comments about current agenda items. If you are participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star six to unmute. At the end of the general public portion, no further general questions or comments will be accepted. >> Do I have a motion to open the public
portion? >> So move. >> I'll second. All >> in favor? >> Is there anyone in the public that would like to address this planning board on topics other than what's on the agenda for this evening?
No one in the audience. Anyone on video? >> No one on video. Uh, do we have a motion to close the public portion? >> So moved. >> A second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. New business is the discussion on
the adoption of the revised amended 2026 housing element and fair share plan amendment to the master plan amended through March 31st 2026. Mr. Burgess. >> Yes. Good evening everyone. As indicated
this is the a public hearing on an amendment to the master the housing element and fair share plan. In actuality, there's only four pages of the roughly 111 page document that have been modified and all those four changes
are actually interconnected to each other. Um, but if we turn to page 35, there is a table 26 entitled zoning regulations applicable to 660 Pasc Road. That's the property across the street
from uh seasons. um at the northwest corner of Washington Town, Washington Avenue and Pascak Road. Uh there are two modifications, a few modifications to that zoning
table. Um previously uh in the prior housing element fair share plan item number five um broke out the front broke out all the setback requirements in that one item
number five that has been adjusted to reflect a new way to approach this issue. The minimum front yard setback now says to the building wall is 30 feet and to the deck and patio is 20 ft. The
minimum setback from the north lot line to the building wall is 30 feet and to the deck or patio is 20 ft and the minimum setback from all other side rear lot lines is to the building wall 15 feet and to the decker patio 10 feet. In
addition to that uh we've modified the building coverage and the imperous coverage calculation. The maximum building coverage calculation has been slightly increased to 25%
and the uh imperous coverage has now two we've now broken out two components to this and this is where the prop the developers um initial plans have incorrectly
identified the impervious coverage. Um they had indicated it was 40.2% 2%. Um when analyzing it further they came back and said no we're sorry it's 42%
and then it became 45% and then 55%. I think that was more of a typo than anything else. Uh irrespective of all that um what we wanted to do is hold our feet to the fire and have as less as little and impervious coverage
calculation as possible. So we said we'll allow you to have 42% imperous coverage and an additional 13% could be pvious material where the driveways in front of the townhouse units would be.
And um they would also allow pvious material on patt where the patios are and timbered type decks over lawns and gravel surfaces. That would total 55% which is still lower than what you've
permitted in other townhouse zones which is 65% in the code. Um we had always wanted to see some a slight reduction from that 65% and all the machinations occurred solely because of the incorrect calculations
that we had received from the developer. Um the other issue is maximum building height. Uh it says 35 ft with a m it will now say 35 ft with a maximum two units one over the other. Okay. So
that's on page 35. On page 36, the original uh iteration of the housing mid and fair share plan showed a what I call a conventional apartment design which had been given to us by the the developer uh
through negotiations that was changed to townhouse design. So we inserted the new illustration to depict that rather than the apartment design. And then on page 37
in paragraph one two the fourth paragraph uh uh this is regarding I'm sorry 370 Pasc road um and there it had initially talked about 30 excuse me 73 stack
townhouse units the number now is 72 replacing what was previously 73 three. And then on the table on the opposite page 38, the zoning table, instead of identifying a
density limitation because the acreage had changed just a little bit. And to clarify that, we just simply say maximum unit count is 72. And then under man minimum landscape buffer to lot lines, it's now say it's a residential use. To any residential use,
it will be a 20 foot setback at 20 foot landscape buffer, excuse me. And to any adjoining non-residential use, it would be 15 ft. Maximum building height is at 2 and 1/2 stories and 35 ft. We have
added a reference to minimum parking requirements. Um where we previously had ref simply referenced the uh minimum parking requirements will be per RSIS the residential site improvement standards
of the state and parking is prohibited in the front yard. We have added that driveways and parking areas shall have a minimum 20 foot setback from side and rear lilines to make sure that there is an understanding that that's where the landscape buffer has to be. Those are
the only modifications uh to that 111page document. Um so I'll leave it up to the board and the vast members of the public who are here to answer any questions. Miss Burgess, I have one question and
that concerns the visitor parking on lot one. >> Yes. >> Uh and I believe the last time we had reviewed the uh fair share housing plan. I correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe
that the developer had left a message for you and and you said that you would get back to the planning board on the use of that piece of property. And then I noticed that in the resolution that one year after completion of the
development of the multifamily housing that there'll be a traffic analysis performed. >> Yes. >> To determine whether that that space could be used for visitor space. If I could suggest that for the ordinance which is separate from the master plan. Okay. >> So we should keep those two things
separate. >> Okay. Great. >> Okay. And I I say that because the draft what's a draft set of regulations in the housing element and fair share as you plan as you can see is just a table. >> Yeah.
>> You know it's typical that then when you do the details of the ordinance it gets refined and expanded upon. Okay, thank you. >> Excuse me, Mr. Burgess. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Yeah, please. >> Sorry about that. Um, can you just
confirm the number of units that is being approved or that's being included in the fair share housing plan >> for both sites? >> Yes. Because I I thought
we were increasing, not decreasing. increasing to >> 73, not decreasing to 72, but I could be mistaken. >> I had been under the impression you wanted
to initi stay at 72. There was so much discussion with the governing body the last week or whatever it was. Um um I had suggested it be 73 if you recall,
but there was so much discussion about that. And >> and the second site, >> the second site is a total of I believe it's 32 units. 32 units. Yes.
>> And that includes that allows them the extra unit that they were looking for. >> Now that was always 30. Well, once we resolved the discussion about the build the housing type and we settled on town
houses, it was clear it's 32 and that's what we agreed upon. And lastly, um I had raised a question about a credit for the
um I guess nursing home or adult care or whatever, however we're classifying it. >> I was never able to get confirmation of that. So without that confirmation, we
couldn't include it in here. If we can get confirmation, um it would go towards um unmet need. So it really wouldn't change the overall position of this document. I will say that much.
So if we had additional units that were creditable, it wouldn't change what we >> No, because we we have a significant unmet need obviously. So um we would have to apply it to that.
And who has to prov what who are you waiting on information from to make that determination? >> Um it could be through the prior housing plan, but I didn't see it there.
>> No, >> that was that was the most significant one. If um somebody gave me a res a resolution identifying the fact that that was part of their site plan approval and it was
actually imposed on them, that would be helpful too. But again, our fourth round obligation was initially determined to be 184 units and we had reduced it to a 19 unit realistic development potential. So we
have a very healthy unmet need. If you also recall as part of this housing plan, anybody that ever comes before the board or the zoning board uh with a multif family development application of five five units or more would be
obligated to provide a 20% set aside. That would all be applied to that unmet need factor. But getting back to the 72 versus 73, um, if you're certain, I was not certain,
but I, if you recall, I was arguing that you don't want to get into a an argument and go to court over one unit. That was so if if you're comfortable I am certainly comfortable
keeping it 73. >> No, I would have to I don't have my notes from the meeting from from the council meeting. So, uh I wouldn't want to you know stick my neck out.
>> Let me make a suggestion then. um after the adoption of this document um you have the ordinance to adopt and you have to you're just not excuse me you're not adopting it you're make talking about consistency and
as and you're also entitled by the statute to make any recommendation you want and since we're both I think of like mind lines on this to a certain extent it may be appropriate if you want to you could
say it's consistent it's overall it's consistent with the master the housing element and fair share plan however you ask that the council review their note are there minutes to see if it is in fact 72 or 73
>> Mr. Mayor, were you in the uh meeting where some abuse were discussed? Do you recall if whether was 72 or 73? >> I was at the meeting. I don't recall the number that was settled upon. >> Yeah, it was there was a tremendous amount of back and forth on that issue.
>> Okay. >> But I think that's one way to clarify that. >> Okay. >> I have written down 72. That's the air. Now your your number would be correct at the last time we discussed it here.
>> Yeah. Right. >> But then the governing body makes that final decision. That's where the discussion really >> expand. >> So council, you'll definitely go back to your notes and if need be bring up to
the at the next council meeting. >> Yes. >> Great. Thank you. Any other questions from uh Mr. Burgess for my fellow board members. Any questions? Questions? Okay. Do we have a motion to open the public
comments? >> I'll make that motion. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Anyone from the audience would like to address the uh planning board on the fair share housing plan? Thank you.
>> Hi. Uh Mike, 667 Mason Street in the township. First off, you were asking about the number of units. There's 32 units coming in out of basic in Washington, >> correct? >> Okay. With seven low low income housing, >> no. Yes.
>> Okay. Um I just have a couple questions or clarifications if I can get it. Um when the plan came out a month or so ago or two months ago that we heard um they were using 20 lot 2110 um lot one to
tear down a house and use it as a grassy area to incorporate the land so you have enough land to build 32 units and then at the last minute a week or two ago a parking lot appeared. >> That's not entirely correct. >> Okay. Um, in their plan they were
contemplating using that acreage uh for additional parking and they showed a parking area on that. The governing body has neither plant nor the governing body like that. They weren't using that acreage to get 32 units
because we had already decided on 32 units. What we were concerned about was with that additional acreage that because initially it was never contemplated as part of the site, but with that additional acreage theoretically when we had a density
calculation that meant they could get more units on the property, >> right? >> And that's why we changed the ordinance. So it doesn't say what the the density is. We just say it's 32 units. >> So if you're able to get 32 units without that lot, why would you come on to Meister Street to take a lot? you
know, >> to put it on a pass. >> That was our That was our position and that's why we changed the ordinance to to discourage that from ever happening. >> But it happened. >> The only the only thing and you'll hear it not as part of this housing plan, but
when we talk about the ordinance next, um because we were we were concerned from a planning perspective that there may not be enough on-site parking for visitors. Um they may need to use some
some additional land there. Um but we said after a year one year I believe. >> Yeah. One year >> after one year in operation um we'll do a tra a parking study to see if they really need additional parking
or not. Okay. And the first focus would then be on the developable side of the street to provide some additional parking in that area. That would be on one, but it would not have access to my
>> It would not have access. >> Okay. Um when all the construction is complete, who's going to own the property? >> Will it be will this be a tenant? Will there be an association? So it would not be the owners of the 666 pass.
>> It's my understanding and this is something we cannot control. It's my understanding that it will be owner occupied. >> Okay. So >> the lot that's going to be sitting next door to my home that's going to be used
for parking. Will there be ordinance ordinances put in place that it can't be used for parking for seasoned valet or seasoned um employees? Would there be ordinances put in place to protect us? >> Yes, that would be part of it.
>> Okay. >> Okay. As far as the setbacks and the rear setbacks are 15 feet to the building, the rear setbacks of the property. >> Yes. >> And that includes is it 15 feet from the property line or from the buffer? Because there's a 10-ft buffer. Is that
So I'm asking is is the building coming five feet from the buffer >> or is it going to be 15 ft from the buffer? >> 15 feet from the property line >> and but then there's a 10 foot >> 10 ft. The first 10 ft would be a heavily landscaped area,
>> right? So then there's only five feet left to get to the building. >> Yes. Correct. >> So those buildings would be sitting five feet up against the buffer. There'll only be five feet. >> Yes. But someplace in the plans it says all the parking will be in the rear of the buildings. Not no parking will be
permitted in front of the building. >> No, it says no buing is permitted in the front yard setback area. That's along the street edge. So that's in the front of the site. >> All right. But there's going to be two rows of buildings. Am I correct? >> So where will the parking be for the rear building?
>> They would not be behind the units. They would be uh interior where the garages are to those units. >> So there'll be a roadway in the middle. >> Yeah. Let me show you page 36. >> If I may.
>> Yeah, please. So this is the >> building. >> Well, that's that's my concern. And I thought there would be cars and I thought there were going to be cars and driveways behind that building. And I want to know how you're going to get any kind of emergency vehicles back there in the event of emergency.
>> No, the parking is these little spaces here. Yep. >> At the drive right in front of the town. >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay. As far as far as the parking be um how will the parking be done? Oh, no. You just answered that for me. All
right. Um, how will the cars go for the parking lot? How will they get to the parking lot? Because presently, I'm not I'm not sure I'm sure you are aware there is a 5-ft basin that goes underneath Washington Avenue and there is no longer C1
waterway, but there's a big ditch. The property levels are unequal and there's a five foot drop. So you can't drive a car from lot four to or no lot five to lot one or whatever. >> Yeah. >> If you're driving south on Hashtac Road
as you approach their property immediately you can immediately make a right hand turn into the site. >> Right. >> Then you would go down that driveway that we were just pointing to. Right. >> And that's the access for the property. >> But how you going to get how you going to get over that hole? Are you going to
build a road, a bridge? um over that stream for like the store >> for the lack of a better word. >> They're not they're not doing that now. That's what's been eliminated from this design. >> Okay. But if but if you get a parking lot, how would you get into that parking lot? >> They would have to build over that stream.
>> They would build over that stream >> because we do not want access from >> Okay. um the corporation that's building the units on on that property four or five years ago petitioned the
state and had that class C1 waterway um removed. It's no longer on the maps, no longer easements through our properties and so on. The water from this property, is any of that water going to be directed into that no longer waterway? Where is the water runoff going? They
have not engineered this yet. Maybe Paul, can you answer that at all? I don't know. >> I haven't seen the plans yet. >> Yeah, they haven't engineered this at all. >> But are are you aware that you won't have access to run water into that waterway that flow that that used to be waterway?
>> Well, it still has water flowing through it. >> Okay. No, that's no longer an easement with the town in those properties. So, how are you going to get onto my property without >> Well, I I don't believe they would have to go into your property. They would have the ability when the intersection
was improved, they put a new culvert crossing under Washington Avenue. So, my suspicion is that any design would include some sort of a connection to that system. >> Okay. >> Not impacting your property at all. >> Okay. So, if you do all your runoffs,
you'll do it. It won't come in through our properties anymore. No, they they would have to comply with the the current storm water management ordinances adopted by the state and adopted by the municipality. So, it's quite restrictive. >> Okay. Would the planning board know?
Now, right now there's a retention basin in Northgate that releases water through our yards. There's no longer the waterway or the easement there. Is there any way that we can get that water stopped from coming through our property? Do I have to do I
have to allow it if I don't have an easement or if I don't have a waterway? No, there's no longer a C1 waterway. >> Can I can I get your question on that? Um, it's no longer a C1 waterway, but was the easement removed? >> Yes. >> No longer shows up on my survey.
>> I'm not certain that there ever was an easement to be honest with you. >> There used to be when I first moved in. I had a I had a survey with an easement. Yeah, but I >> the most recent one shows no easement, no waterway. >> I I seem to recall there there was some issue with with that survey. I don't recall off the top, man. We're going
back almost 20 years, right? So, there was something odd about I don't think that easement that you're referring to shows up on >> any map other than what your surveyor came up with, right? The file map for >> without an easement, >> does the Northgate have the right to run
water through my property? >> Now, now you're getting into to legal uh issues. Isn't that where you guys are? You're the planners. I'm just >> I'm asking with this project coming, maybe it's possible to reroute all the water >> to that new system that's in the front of the project.
>> But Paul, I mean, Mr. Le without planned site plans, it' be tough for you to comment. >> Correct. >> North is that and I'm assuming site plans will come to this planning board for >> review. That's assuming the board
adopts. What will happen when they file their site plan? that issue is going to be has to be addressed and you will get noticed because you're within 200 feet. So, I'm sure you'll be here. >> But now that we're all aware of what
your issue is, we'll probably ask that question in our memos as well. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Mr. Now, my recommendation is when the site plans are presented to this planning board, I recommend you come back to that meeting. >> Will we get a notification that's being done? I mean, >> yeah, there's a public notice. Yeah.
>> In the paper. >> Okay. And also on our >> email. >> Yeah, if you're within 200 feet, yeah, you'll also get an email. It'll be on the town's website, so you'll get more than adequate notice. >> Now, as far as planning, one more thing.
There's 2500 ft surrounding this property. There's probably a thousand on each side and 200 on on the sides, a thousand across the front and the back. There's only three residential properties that border this property.
Okay, there's a 10- foot buffer zone. Can the buffer zone be um block a site block? In other words, not a tree every five feet, but a solid block of those three properties because those homes, those those new residents
are going to be 10 feet from the buffer. 5T from the buffer, which means they're going to be 10 feet from my yard. I I I I'm not going to want to sit on my patio in the summer and see the buildings that are right up against my my border. All I'm asking is there's only three
properties. Can it be a solid a high fence, a solid wall, something to block us from seeing? And it would also serve as a sound barrier for us. There's only three residential properties, so it's only 300 ft of the 1500 ft that you have. I have to double check the
ordinance, but I believe it talks about a double row of significant evergreen plant material that will be used to effectively screen it such that there won't be any holes. >> Right. But or is it something that's going to be planted and we have to wait
for it to grow together for it to um assume the board would impose a requirement and they provide fencing as well. >> Okay. And the lights that are now going to be 10 feet from the property on the back of that building, will there be will there be um shielded from shining
on our property? >> Yes, the ordinance the site plan review ordinance has talked about downshielding, >> right? >> And the ordinances will protect us so no again when the site plan is presented to this planning board, you'll get the opportunity to ask those questions
again, >> okay, >> of the uh developers engineer and and architect. Okay. Well, that's it. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else in the audience would like to address this planning board?
>> Nice. Anyone on video? >> No. >> Can Can I just get clarification? >> Yep. the lot, the undeveloped lot that after a year will be assessed and the potential exists for a
parking lot. Are you of the opinion that the access will not be from either Washington or Me, but it will have to be internal from the adjacent property? No, it would be off of
Washington because that's the access into the whole site, but you would wind yourself around to go back to the rear of the site and but it's the area east of what was the C1 stream. Yeah. according to their engineer there will
be sufficient there's probably sufficient area to accommodate I forget exactly what he said six or seven additional spaces and I think that would be more than sufficient to accommodate the needs
>> okay so there it's not contemplated that there would be a need to cross the stream >> in all likelihood that's correct I the the study will prove the point. But
if let's assume they do have to cross the stream, um we still do not have to allow for a driveway from M. >> Okay. >> And we could still have it all accessed internally. >> And does that need to be codified in our
ordinance? >> Not the plan, but the ordinance. Um we can put that in there that there there shall never be access allowed from that street. Um normally that's just a site plan review process. They won't be
spelled out during the site plan review. Uh so my concern is that you know once you get lawyers and engineers in a room
that's those the best laid plans become not plans. >> When we get to the ordinance you are c this board is certainly entitled and consistent with the municipal land use law. you are not just determining
consistency, but you can also make recommendations for modifications. So, we could do that when we get to that ordinance. >> Thank you. >> Y >> Okay. Uh if there's no other public comments, do I have a motion to close
public comments? >> Motion. I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I >> Okay. Do I have a motion to approve resolution PD 26-17, which is to adopt the amended 2026
housing element and fair share plan amending the master plan and to recommend its endorsement by the count township council. So motion to approve. >> I'll make the motion.
All seven. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Pledo, >> yes. >> Mr. Tulle, >> yes. >> Mr. Toro, >> yes. >> Mr. Wansky, >> yes. >> Councilman Alman, >> yes. >> Mayor Kamari, >> yes.
>> Chairman Sabino, >> yes. >> Okay. Motion is approved. Resolution is approved. On to resolution PB 26 26-18 to review ordinance number 26-04
and recommend its adoption by the township council. Mr. Burgess, would you like to comment? >> Yes. Well, your last action adopting the housing element fair share plan makes this very
simple because the housing element is an element of the master plan statutoily. You are being asked to determine whether this ordinance 2604 is inconsistent or consistent with the
municipality's master plan and where you have multiple elements you look to the latest one to see how you are consistent with it. Um it is entirely consistent. We made all the changes that I talked about in that
conceptual table. those conceptual tables. Um those changes are all reflected in ordinance 2604 2604. So consequently, it's safe to conclude that the ordinance is not
inconsistent with the master plan. And I say it double negative because unfortunately that's way the statute is worded. >> Got it. Now, if I may, because of the com that we just had, um, we can adjust
section one, item H, which talks about visitor parking on lot one. And for the record, so the members of the public know what it says. One year after completion of the development of the multif family housing on block 2110 lot
6 through 11, the township shall conduct a traffic analysis to determine if lot one may be needed to be developed with a to be determined number of visitor spaces based on the analysis of demand for such visitor spaces serving the
development. I started to already write an additional sentence. Access to line one shall only be allowed internally from block 21. >> Mhm. >> Lot
2110 lot 6 through 11 semicolon. No access shall be permitted from >> and how do you spell that street name if I get it right? >> M E S T. No, I could have had it right.
>> Road street >> street. >> Okay. >> I think that covers the concern that was just raised. >> I have just one quick question. When you mentioned township conducted the traffic analysis, I'm assuming the town
I mean the question is we talk about completion. How do you define completion >> after the last CEO? It should usually >> do we should should we also include that language or you don't do you think it's necessary? >> I don't think that's necessary but if
you want to include it we certainly can. >> Yes. But to me when you're after completion I want to be sure that uh >> why don't I write in afterwards on the second line development of the multif
family housing and then just add i.e. upon um >> issuance of >> issuance issuance of the last CO in the project. >> Yeah, it's a little more defined. >> And I'm assuming that the township would
have to bear the cost of this traffic analysis. >> No. No. Why would No, that would be >> Yeah, I'd like to see wording in I was going to ask question paid for by the applicant. >> Yeah, because right now the way you read is that the township shall conduct the traffic analysis.
We want we want the municipality to conduct it, >> right? >> We don't want the developer to conduct it, right? >> Well, you said a payment or had it born by the developer. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> I'll just say um the cost
>> Yeah. to be born by the developer and that already came up in the discussion with and they are they understand that. >> Okay. And then the last comment is >> excuse me Glenny just one thing to
follow up on that. Um if if it's a year after completion uh should we ask them or insist that they leave something in an escrow account for this? Yes. >> Yeah. >> That should not be in here though. Okay. It's done separate. >> Okay. when the site plan is filed.
>> Thank you. >> And lastly, do we need any language that approval of this space is at the discretion of the township council, mayor and council? >> Actually, the approval would be part of
an amended site plan to you. >> So, the the planning board has the uh discretion to disapprove. The traffic analysis shows that yeah, they need the extra space. >> Yeah, you have that discretion. Um,
again, it's kind of nebulous to who makes the final combination. >> Clear. No. Well, anytime there's an an adjustment or amendment to a site plan, that comes before this board. But we can add um the planning board
shall during and bear with me during the course >> take your time. Let's get it right >> of a an amended site plan review. um
determine um make the final determination. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Yeah. Make the final determination of of need for such spaces.
>> Perfect. >> Okay. Okay. Any other comments on ordinance 26-04? >> I don't have a question on this. I just while Mr. Burgess is here, I would like
to ask him a question about the AH one. >> Yeah, please. >> It's okay to do it now. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Um, just Mr. Burgess. Uh at the meeting uh the last council meeting when
we review the development plans for next door uh a question arose or I raised a question about the uh fact that all of the affordable housing units appear to be
concentrated in one building. Uh is that was that further reviewed or is that >> Yes, it was. Um it it's interesting. There was a March 15th deadline to file our plans with the
state and they had specific regulations um that they the state was recommend DCA was recommending. March 16th they issued a new model ordinance which changed a lot of that
and then shortly thereafter they withdrew the model ordinance or from cons for you no don't consider this ordinance this model ordinance the whole question is up in the air because of their machinations you know
they they changed the their tune three times in a matter of two and a weeks. So, I can't say definitively if we're allowed to do that or not. I
would say we keep apprised of what DCA is going to be doing next. And if we have to amend an ordinance, it'll be a simple thing to amend it and either prohibit it consistent with the a new model that will presumably come out um
or not. >> And could the town and just in case you I don't know if it was even in close session, but um Vive raised the question of all of the affordable housing units being concentrated in a
single building in the what I would view as the least uh desirable location on the property. Uh and I had thought or I had recollected that
um that was sort of against the planning uh concepts that they were supposed to be dispersed throughout the development. So didn't create I guess a single
uh undesirable area potentially. Uh so that's the question I was raising. I mean can if it was the desire and I don't know if it's a planning board issue or a legislative issue for the council but if
we did not want that to occur if we wanted it dispersed throughout uh is that an action that would take place at the planning or at the uh ordinance level >> the council >> council
>> council I I would say that under the third round rules, the the regulations are clear. They encouraged dispersal, but they didn't mandate it. >> Okay. >> Um in the fourth round rules, as I said,
it's been a pingpong issue. Um they do very clearly say that if it's a mix of market rate for sale units and affordable rentals then they can be separated.
>> Yes, that was the exception you >> we don't know what the developer in the end will be doing anyway. >> Okay. >> So there's also that issue that >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. There's no further questions.
Do I have a motion to open the public comments? >> So moved. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Anyone in the public would like to address resolution PB26-18, ordinance 26-04.
>> Diane Manzion, 685 Me Street. We're talking about two different developments here. The one on Pasc Road and Washington Avenue and the one further down where the bank was. the one with either 72 or 73 units. What are they doing for visitor parking?
>> Why is it not an issue there? >> They h they have more visitor parking delineated in their concept. >> And why doesn't the other development have that? Because they've got that extra property that you can just knock down and make a parking lot.
>> Uh initially didn't come up. They had originally had a design with what I call conventional parking structure and with that design they had a lot more than parking. So it had never come up earlier in the discussion. It was at the last
moment when they came in with the town houses that we recognized that they only had a handful of visitor parking spaces and I had raised the concern about do you have enough because there's no street parking anywhere nearby. So what
are you going to do? And they first talked about and here's a sketch to show access from license and nobody liked that. And so that was injected and then their engineer showed the very in a very
rough sketch probably back of the napkin sketch that in the area east of that former C1 street there sufficient area to get roughly half a dozen parking spaces. I said, "Well,
that would be I think with with the addition with with the um visitor parking that they do have, another half dozen would serve the needs of the facility. So, that's why we're pretty confident that they would
never need the rest of that lot. If they were to, it wouldn't be more than a handful of additional spaces because these are only for visitors. Um, and they would be obligated to provide to bridge that
former C1 stream area. But as you just heard, we're prohibiting access from my students. >> Okay. My concern is also who's enforcing the ordinance of who's going to park there. the municipality zoning officer
>> is going to stand there and make sure it's visitors for the development and not people coming from seasons or commuters who >> well want to get from us. >> It's what the zoning officer does. They don't stand there dayto day just checking. Exactly.
>> They start noticing people driving across they're walking across the street to seasons. People get out there start ticketing and give them fines. But also the employees are one thing, but um
visitors to seasons, they would have to know you drive through this townhouse development to get to those spaces. >> I think they can figure it out quickly and beat the valet parking, but who knows? I guess we'll see. >> Okay. >> I I I'm well, I'm comfortable that
there's enough control and part the municipality has to control that. Okay, thank you very much. You're welcome. >> I would agree. I I think if we I believe if we uh amend the ordinance as we discussed
and prevent direct access from Miston or Washington to that side, that direct lot, they would have to, you know, navigate the internal roads to get there. They would have to park and then
walk across. It means like and it just odd to me. I would also add that in the end that's my understanding that these are going to be for sale units. They'll have their own homeowners association. They would notice if people are using their lot,
>> right? >> You know, I mean, they're not going to want people parking in my driveway, you know, going to a party across the street >> because they'll be liable to so they they're not going to want them in there. Exactly. Yeah. That's why so many parking on your properties.
>> Yeah. >> Well, they put up signs. >> Yeah. Well, if I can make a comment, you know, uh the the homeowners association there can also put in your car will be towed >> if it's not and that gets expensive. So, the valet parking except for the tip is
free. You might be looking at a $200 bill >> if you're not there legally. So, that would certainly be a deterrent to me. Anything else? >> I don't know the I don't know the procedure, but I know that anybody can
apply to the municipality to have section whatever it is. I can't remember title that section in force. >> Right. Correct. >> Yes. >> I just I if I could just add the Meister Street is used quite often for parking
from seasons. Not necessarily valet ballet, but people see the street and they say, "Well, I don't want to do ballet. I'll just park across the street." And they walk. We it's happening all the time, but it's a public street. We can't really fight it too much. Okay. The idea of seeing a parking lot sitting on the corner 50 ft
from their driveway is just going to draw people in. And unless there's enough to keep people out as far as ordinances, towing, whatever you're putting in place, they will come. You got to see our street. I would suggest that since the ordinance talks about a
landscape buffer on the perimeter of the site, that lot is shown as part of the site. So, we could mandate as part of the site plan review a significant landscape area around the perimeter. So, nobody's driving through that to get in there.
>> It's not necessarily the employees will come. It could be just their customers that use our street now. Like, their employees don't park on our street. They're now presently parking at the old back. >> Okay. But the the customers come and they're like, "Well, we'll just park over here and walk and we don't have to."
>> But if we can and if we can require and we can require a significant landscape, >> buffer around the entire perimeter of that lot. Nobody's getting in there. >> Right. Okay. I'm just I just wanted to make you aware of what goes on. >> Yeah. No, I appreciate that. or almost
like we spoke about earlier, might put a fence around it and that way you really, you know, can't see it from the street. You won't know if there's a parking lot there or what. >> Okay. Anyone else like to address
this planning board? Anyone on video? Okay. Do we have a motion to close public comments? >> So moved. >> Have a second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> do I have a motion to approve resolution PB26-18
as amended? >> So moved. >> I'll second roll call. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Fledo, >> yes. >> Mr. Tul, >> yes. >> Mr. Toro, >> yes. >> Mr. Wansky,
>> yes. >> Councilman Alman, >> yes. >> Mayor Palamari, >> yes. >> Chairman Spino, >> yes. Okay. >> If I may suggest no. >> Resolution PB26-18 uh is approved. >> Um you are required to send a report to
the governing body about what we just did. Would you like me to put that together and then identify the changes as we discussed as well so they'll be aware of it? When it your next meeting >> Monday, >> I'll make sure you have it in D. Grace has it probably tomorrow or at worst the
following day. >> I thought you were going to say I'm not going to do it that night. >> I thought you were going to say I'm not going to do it. Leader for grace. But uh that's >> and I will add the note about the 72 versus 73.
>> Yes. >> Okay, Mr. Burgess, thank you. I know you've been very busy with all of your uh with the fair share housing situation across the New Jersey and uh I know a day doesn't go by where I pick up the
paper and I don't I don't see another town dealing with some of the same issues that Washington Township is dealing with. I read today about Tennifly and >> you one and what's going on there. >> Um quick aside, you know, the deadline
was March 15th. Um, we did what, 43 housing plans and then I'm adjudicator for like 25 towns for judges. >> It's still going on. Although the deadline was a month ago. >> It's still going on. It's crazy.
>> No, I I totally understand. But hopefully that will not delay the final draft of the master plan. >> No, I I wrote to you this morning. No, I'm I'm hoping to wrap up the master plan within the next three weeks and then we'll have a couple meetings on
that because I think we discussed most of the elements. The only two outstanding or community facilities and that's all written except for some fill in stuff and I'm wrapping up on the sustainability elements that you have not seen at all. >> Three weeks I'm shooting for it.
>> Okay, we have it on video. We have it on audio. Three weeks. See, I wonder what Joe Burgess will tell you. Exactly. I am shooting forward. So, >> Burgers, thank you very much. >> Thanks, Joe. >> Have a good night, everyone. >> Okay,
>> on to old business for another. >> Yep. No problem, Mr. Toro. Thank you. >> Good night, everyone. >> Good night. >> And let the record show that Mr. showed up. >> Say good night, everyone. >> Good night. >> Thank you.
On to old business resolution PB26-9 to approve the application of uh Blumage Properties LLC for a minor subdivision at 683 Vanberg Avenue blocks 1205 lot 3.
Any comments on the resolution? >> Am I allowed to comment on it? >> No, you refused. Okay. So, he came up >> right. >> That's right. Yeah. >> Yep. So, we have a motion to approve
resolution PB26-19. So, >> second. >> Whichever. >> Okay. Roll call. >> Mr. Carol. >> Yes. >> Mr. Toledo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tulle. >> Yes. >> Mr. Weransky.
>> Yes. >> Mayor Komari. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Resolution is approved. Excuse me with Grace. >> I think you should read the councilman's name and let him recuse as opposed to just skipping him. >> Okay. >> Am I correct, Luke? >> Yeah, that would be thought.
>> Councilman Alman, >> I'll recuse myself. All eyes are on you, Mike. >> I know. I know. >> Very dramatic. >> You were meditating. >> I like all the attention. >> All right. Resolution PB 26-20 to
approve the application of Carla Ventelli to business as Salon 299 for a change in occupancy at 285 Aspac Road, block 3403, block 1. Any comments to the resolution?
None. We have a motion to approve resolution PD26-20. I'll make that motion. >> Second roll call. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Pledo, >> yes. >> Mr. Tulle, >> yes. >> Mr. Weransky,
>> yes. >> Councilman Omen. >> Yes. >> Mayor Komari. >> Uh, recuse because I recuse myself from the application. Okay. Okay. Resolution has passed. Now on to
the minutes. February 4th, 2026. Any comments the minutes? >> No. Do we have a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Second. We'll call >> Mr. Carol. >> Yes. >> Mr. Pledo.
>> Yes. >> Councilman Alman. >> Yes. Polari. >> Yes. >> Chairman Sino. >> Yes. >> March 4th, 2026. Any comments on the meeting minutes?
>> None. Okay. Do I have a motion to approve? >> Just it was an excellent uh an excellent meeting on March 4th. >> Were you here? >> Sorry. >> Did you lead the uh
March 4th. >> Yes. >> Yeah, I was here. >> Oh, I thought it was >> I wasn't I wasn't the last one. I was >> Oh, I thought it wasn't that great. >> That was a bad time. >> Wasn't that great excuses. >> All right. Do I have a motion to approve?
>> I'll make that move. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Roll call. >> Mr. Carol? >> Yes. >> Mr. Fledo? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tulle? >> Yes. >> Mr. Woodensky? >> Yes. Councilman Alman, >> yes. >> Mayor Kamari,
>> yes. >> Chairman Speed, >> yes. >> Okay, that's the last of the minutes. Any board member have any comments, thoughts you would like to share?
None. Just just the uh concern of of the uh overall height at 567 Hickory Street. if the uh zoning officer could take a look at that. >> Y Grace, can you tell those kind of case
now? >> As you heard this evening, hopefully we'll have the master plan in three weeks, the draft. you know, it's going on two years and a little bit longer, but we understand why Joe Burgess was uh busy with other
other towns, 43 towns to be exact, helping them develop their fair share housing plan. So, three weeks I'll keep his feet to the fire. >> Sounds good. >> All right. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? Motion. >> Second. All
>> in favor? I I Thank you, everyone.