count to 24 through what's called a vacant landman and that number 24 is referred to in the regulations as a realistic development potential for a municipality or RDP and there are a number of things that the municipality at that time to identify how they were
going to address those 24 units uh there's a project on Calvin Street called Life Opportunities which I believe is a a group home we have four affordable units there the Jewish Association for Developmentally Disabled
uh built a three-unit uh project on Rididgewood Boulevard. And then back in the day, we can't do this anymore, but back in rounds one and two, we were allowed to transfer out a portion of our obligation to another willing receiving
municipality and we transferred out 11 units uh to the city of Bayon who accepted that. And then because of the projects in town were rental projects, we got what was called rental bonus credits. We got six of those. So if you
add up those different components, that's how we dealt with the 24 units back then. Round three was supposed to cover from 19 Yeah. 1999 to 2005. At some point, they changed it to a
10-year period. COA was then changing their method of how they calculate housing obligations. And it took them 16 years before the Supreme Court ruled that COA had become dysfunctional because they tried it so many times and they kept getting it
wrong. So the state and had the courts take over the process completely. the obligation for for the year from 1999 to 2025 uh was determined by the state for
Washington Township to be a total of 433 units. Now the township went through the same vacant land adjustment process and reduced that number down to 11. And the way we dealt with the 11 units was a
Habitat for Humanity project on Jefferson Street. There's four sale units there and that's been completed. There was a project on Franklin Court uh for seven family rental units that is now under construction. And then there
was a site um called the on van vanber at 463 vanburg where the property owner made a monetary contribution of about $325,000 that pay in le of constructing affordable units on site and that money
went into our housing trust fund but in that way we were dealing with the 11 unit RDP for that round. Uh in addition to that uh there were two overlay zones uh that were put in the plan. Uh one was
on Ridgewood Avenue that's called Stoneville Gardens. Um there were 12 uh 12 units built there. Two or three were affordable units. That project has been constructed. And then
where the Y used to be, that was also given an overlay zone for about 15 units to the acre. And obviously that site has not never been developed, but that overlay zone still exists on that property. So that brings us to the
current fourth round. With the fourth round, all the rules of the game have changed and changed dramatically. First of all, CO is now gone and it's been replaced with Department of Community Affairs. We were obligated beginning in
the month of January to take the number that DCA had given us for the fourth round and that number was 184 units and we had to decide whether we want to accept that number or fight it. And what we chose to do and that was a new step
in the process by the way. We took that number and we accepted it. But we did point out in our resolution that we knew we were a f a fully developed municipality and would be seeking another vacant land adjustment which we
have prepared for this round and just purely coincidentally that number is 11 just like the third round. Now, I know when I last was with the board, I think I talked about 10. Um, but when we were reworking the numbers in preparation for
tonight, I realized, yeah, we had to round up. Couldn't round down. So, it's 11. Uh, which leaves us with an unmet, what's called an unmet need, the difference between our DCA number and our vacant land adjustment number, and
that was 173. So what we've initially decided was well how do we calculate the RD the the new RDP and we looked at two different property three different properties excuse me um to calculate
that uh one was on Venembburgg uh one was on uh 660 Pasc road and those two sites alone accounted for about 4.08 08 RDP units. But the regulations now
say that we have to look at changed circumstances. And we had one change circumstance and that was the bank property at 370 Pasc Road. Um you know the bank is vacated or vacating the site. A
developer has already approached the municipality and asked to be part of the plan. So once they were put into play, we had to give consideration to that site and that added a couple RDP units to our requirements which brought us up
to 11. Now there is one fly in the ointment so to speak. Now, there's a provision in the new regulations that says that for all vacant land adjustment municipalities, you're obligated to take 25%
of what the language says of the perspective need as it has been adjusted and apply that to your argument. And there's two or three different schools of thought as to what was meant by that very awkward language in the new
legislation. Our position uh we take it at face value where we say the numbers that this text says is 25% of the prospective need as has been adjusted and in our mind that means you take 25%
of RDP and add whatever that figure is to your RDP calculation and that's what we've done and with that that's what brought us up to the 11 unit figure. Now I will tell you that the fair share housing center has taken a totally
different position on that. Their position is that you take 25% of unmet need. Now that means they would be taking 25% of 173 and adding it to our basic our base RDP
number. And as you can see that would be a heck of a lot larger number that we would have to deal with. We are comfortable with our interpretation. uh it will not get settled until the courts start reviewing these plans and make a determination as to who is right
in terms of the interpretation. I will tell you that quite a number of the uh affordable housing attorneys who do this on a regular basis are in agreement with the position we are taking. So I am comfortable
um that we are correct. Um, I would also point out that in that section of the legislation, the words unmet need do not exist anywhere in that section. So, from our perspective, it's quite a stretch.
That's how they're interpreting it. But having said that, that's all up in the air and we're not probably going to have an answer to that question until probably next winter or spring at the earliest, the way these things will play out. and I'll explain that in a moment.
In any event, how are we dealing with our modest 11 unit RDP? We have two sites that we are recommending for consideration. One is at 660 Pasc Road. That's those
five lots at the northwest corner of um Pasak and Washington Avenue. This is another developer that had initially come before the municipality and saw a significantly large number of units.
After going back and forth with them and what we felt was appropriate and reasonable, um we agreed that we would zone that property for a total of 28 dwellings, uh townhouse units, which would give us a
uh seven units of affordable housing amongst those 28 units. The second site is the bank site that I had mentioned earlier at 370 Pascat Road. Uh that's a much larger property that's 5.16 acres
in size. And there they had initially submitted a plan for 74 units. Uh we pointed out in the text of the plan that while we will acknowledge that number of units as a potential number um we wanted
to see much larger buffers along the perimeter of those properties and was shown in their exhibit and the text points out that we believe two to four units may be shaved from that site to it was either this morning or yesterday I
forget which already we received set of plans from them to indicate how they feel they can accommodate 74 units with a 20 foot buffer around the per the entire perimeter of the site. Um that remains to be seen as I
spoke with one of Dr. I spoke with two attorneys on the matter today and pointed out that you know if push comes to shove we will decide what the final number will be during the site plan review process. Um because during the site plan review obviously things often
come up and modifications are made. I can only tell you that just last night I was in saddle river where at an affordable housing site that was designated for 60 units came in with their site plan and they
had 48 units and so things do get modified. That's all I can say. So, the municipality, and this is important for the public to understand, the municipality is obligated by the legislation
to adopt and file this plan with the state and and an adopted resolution no later than um June 30th. The state had given us basically three and a half months to
prepare housing plans. And I will tell you having done this for many many years and I'm special adjudicator on this issue for a lot of judges throughout the state uh a typical housing plan usually takes 6 to9 months to prepare and that's
for a more modestized community larger communities take a lot longer. Um the state gave us three and a half months to do it. Um so time is of the essence that the board is obligated to adopt something
tonight. The governing body will be obligated to adopt a resolution at their meeting I believe next Monday endorsing this plan so it gets filed with the state and at least that serves to protect the
municipality from any potential exclusionary zoning litigation during dependency of the review process. Municipalities can always amend the plan in the future as things go on, but it is really urgent that we adopt a plan now
so we are protected from any potential affordable housing litigation. The way this process will play out, beginning July 1, objectors will have two months, the months of July and August to file objections to a plan. And then beginning
September one, the state's affordable housing dispute resolution program, which is basically six retired judges who have a lot of background in this area, uh will be reviewing the objections and technically they the
legislation says they are obligated to make a decision once they start reviewing a plan and an objection. they are obligated to file their recommendation with the affordable housing judge in your vicinage within 10
days. I will tell you I was an adjudicator for all six of those judges during the first step of the process and they were supposed to make final decisions no later than March 31st
and some of them took till into early May making those decisions. if they meet a 10day deadline, they would be they would be hardressed to do so. Um, once they make that recommendation to
the affordable housing judge in superior court, that judge then reviews it and either accepts it or rejects it to likely be a trial on those issues. And because of that, whoever wins, undoubtedly the other side
will appeal. So the belief is that all of this process will not will continue through the winter and probably into the spring before we get final answers on many of these housing plans. And certainly on
that issue about that 25% factor because that's probably the most critical component that is questionable in terms of how you interpret the the wording. Do Excuse me, Mr. Birds. Do you
anticipate a blanket appeal for every plan that's filed uh by Fair Share Housing due to that language? Fair fair share in the first step of the process back in January where we were just deciding whether municipality would
accept a number or not. Uh fair share housing center was a little more circumspect. They filed 68 69 objections through throughout the state. The New Jersey Builders Association on the other hand filed objections to 159
municipalities. So and there's some overlap obviously but having said that I think it's safe to assume that between those two entities there will be quite a number of objections
and there may be others because any any interested party can file an objection and by that I mean not only fair share housing center and the builders association but any individual developer any interested property owner any
interested resident of your community should follow an objection to the plan. And so there's that potential. But with that, I think I've touched base on the main components of the plan. Uh the only thing I want to add, um because
I did mention that I adjusted the vacant land adjustment number by one, uh it doesn't affect the plan at all, but I do have a table uh reflecting that change. So I will be I can put one into the
record for tonight and assuming you adopt this plan. Um it will be incorporated into the document that we are required to file. Now we are required to file it within 48 hours of the adoption date. So if you adopt it
today, we have to file it by Friday. That was just another step by the legislature, I believe, to make it difficult for municipalities and force you to take action immediately because if you don't file it, the legislation actually says if you don't file within
48 hours, you lose your protective immunity. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Anybody else have a question for Mr. Burgess after that? Yes, council. I have a few if you don't mind.
Go right ahead. Uh the first and uh you mentioned it in your comments and it caught my ear and only because it's also referenced
on page 31. Uh Stonemill Gardens. Yes. Uh there is an appro I guess an approved or an agreed density. I didn't that's still
an operating uh garden center. There's no there's no constructed units there as far as No, I was told they just started some earth work on the site unless I'm
mistaken. It's not correct. No. Well, then I will correct that. They were just pointing the correct shouldn't say that. So Joe, I think you're confusing. We were talking about Franklin Court. That's where I said they had started. Ah, thank you. Stone
Gardens is currently undeveloped. I guess it's the same status as the one below. Okay. It operates as a so 31 table 24 which is an overlay parcel
for unmet needs. So it's not as critical as if it was a designated site that could only have continues. Um and I'll correct that in the text. Thank you. Um, is it possible to have uh
on Roman numeral 2 the members of the uh working committee that uh contributed to uh this document? Uh we certainly could if you'd like. Thank you. Grace, if you could send me that list tomorrow morning
so I could ask you to Okay. Um on table on page two table four. Yes. Is there any um written agreement? Is there any do we
have any uh that's committing uh these two projects to go forward? Uh we do not. Um, we do have plans submitted by 370
Pasc Road and I'm glad you mentioned that because I do have that updated set that reflects that 20 foot buffer. So, I will also be inserting that sheet into this document and it has the developers may want certainly suggesting that
they're in it, but we do not have the formal agreement in place yet. And what happens if it falls through? I mean, interest rates are up, you know, cost of building is going up. uh
the municipality's obligation is to uh after this is approved and after the the objection process play is played out we have until
March of 2026 to adopt all the implementing zoning regulations and that's what you are obligated to do. you are obligated to zone these properties to enable it to happen. Um they have a
10 the fourth round goes on for a 10-year period. I will say that at the midpoint of year five uh we will be required to write a report to the state indicating what has happened and make a determination if the sites still represent a reasonable opportunity for
development if they have not yet developed. And if we ch if we determine that they no longer represent a reasonable opportunity, then we would have to find another site to replace it. Okay. Uh on the same page, uh table two,
uh the 325K, uh Mr. Mayor, is it possible to get a copy of the account that this is held in? I was under the impression that the monies were not paid, but if we received them,
uh I'd appreciate a copy of the ledger uh showing that. Okay. I believe there is a spending plan in the back of the document that it doesn't identify
is totals of what was received over time and what we anticipate receiving over time in one of the appendices. I guess the way it's written it says payments completed. So I just want to to make sure that that's the case. um on
page 21 and it actually goes on for some of the proceeding and some of the following. Are these extrapolated numbers or are these actual numbers? It's a combination. In many instances,
it comes from the 2010 and 2020 census information on the off census years. the American um community survey organization provides interim numbers and those are
extrapolations. Okay. Um we talked about page 31 uh table 24. Um, the question I have on page 36 and 39,
um, the building heights, they seem to be the same height. I mean, are these just uh um prelimin preliminary plans? Yes, the the
uh the new legislation requires that you identify draft ordinance provisions that I thought we've done here and for the other site as well. Um and there is a reference somewhere in this in that section that says these are preliminary
and subject to adjustment as the as we work with the developers to prepare as the uh formal plans are prepared. Okay. in uh on the plan for 370 Pasc
uh if we're going to iterate the plans uh I guess page 41 um if these are going to be continually uh revised uh I would just suggest that we push the
buildings as close to the municipal facility as possible uh to try and limit the impact act on the houses to the north. So if we could situate and squeeze the south end, I think it would be preferred. There there is a reference
in the document about how again these are preliminary because we have a zoning table for that site as well and we we make that same statement for this site. Okay. And the I think the last question I had is on page 42
uh multi-generational family housing continuity. So can you expand on what this is saying and are we committing to anything
and would you recommend we commit to something sort of uh auxili auxiliary rebuildings? I go this is interesting because again this is the state working in its finance they had this provision
but then if you notice after we quote from it the next paragraph says and I'll read it as of the date of the of this housing element and fair share plan the multigenerational family housing continuity commission has not yet adopted any recommendations so we don't
know what it's going to say yet but the legislation says we have to follow whatever it is they Maybe not. Would we benefit from getting in front of it or should we wait until they We really have no idea what they're going to be citing yet. That's the problem.
You know, in many instances, it appears the state has put the caught before the horse because they have certain provisions in here that like this one where they say you have to follow the provisions of this commission, but the
commission hasn't done anything yet. So, there's nothing to follow. Um, and there's a couple other instances where the same thing occurs. Um, so you would not recommend
the planning board or the council take up uh auxiliary buildings or family mother daughter because we don't know uh what they're going to suggest.
We don't know how they're going to s suggest it. is it's just simply a recommendation or it's going to be a very specific standard that you have to follow. Um but I think we would be best served to to wait before we start
adjusting our ordinances to address something that we just don't know what to say yet. I think most importantly is we are obligated to address the entirety of our RDP which we are doing and we have built in a little a small number of
excess units to address a portion of unmet need uh which also will help in defense of the plan if we have to defend it. I mean the reason I focus on that is
I I look at on page 20 table 14 and the value of the housing stock in town and it's going nowhere but up and you know it is becoming harder and harder
for families to enter the town and I think it's harder for our aged population to maintain their residence. So if there is something that we can do uh as a planning board, as a council or
that you would recommend, uh I think that it is something that we should proactively address as opposed to reenacting. We will undoubtedly be required to address this issue, you know, when the when the commission finally gets sets forth it
recommendations. There will be an amendment to this. Okay. And that's what we'll do. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you, chair. Anybody else on the board? Any questions? Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bergus, I just have two things. I think they're just typos on page two. Uh the Vivian
property. Shouldn't that be a dollar sign? It was a $325,000 payment. And that would be the same for chart 31 on page 31, rather. I'm sorry. I see. I see a dollar sign on page one. It's
table two. No, page two. Yeah. Page two. Table table two. Right in the middle. Middle column. Middle column. That's right. That should be a dollar sign. And it's the same thing on page 31.
Yeah. The mayor already told me about that. That's all I had, Mr. Chairman. You know, it's about a 100page document, so it's not bad. Not that bad. Okay. Anybody else have any comments,
questions? Okay, I guess we go to the public. Okay. Anybody in the audience have any comments? We have to open it. Sorry, I'm new at this. Okay. Uh, I need a motion to open public comments. So moved. Second.
Okay. Okay. All in favor? I Okay. All right. Anybody in the audience have any comment on what Mr. Burgess just proposed and uh explained? Yes, ma'am. You up to the
podium, please, and identify yourself. Name and address. Hi, I'm Debbie Carlson. I live on Hoover Avenue. I've been a been here for about 30 years in Washington Township. Wow. What an amazing thing to do to our town is just to continue to build build. Amazing. I
think it's just so great to put affordable housing. Let's just flood the town with with kids with school districts that can't even hold kids in the classrooms. Just keep going, Washington Township. So proud of you. Um
our town has zero need for affordable housing. According to the article that was written from new jersey.gov. I was just putting up the article right now. Um it's on DCA. You can find all the information that's written on here where
it says affordable housing obligations for 2025 through 2035. Fourth round. Washington Township has zero need for this. So I don't want to hear it. I just think it's a disgrace of what you're
going to do to this town. This town is a smallknit community. You add information like this, I think a lot of people feel as angry as I do right now. I think there's other things that you can do with the land that is here.
I'm done. Mr. B, you want to address that, please? I agree with her. Yeah. What the state has done to municipalities. I don't know if she understands the state has done that, not Yeah. It's the state, not the municipality. What the state has done here has forced many fully developed
municipalities uh to provide a lot of additional housing which may not have been warranted. Um the reference to the zero number that that woman had mentioned regards rehabilitation and then you noticed I didn't talk about
rehabilitation because she is correct our rehabilitation number is zero. Now, many municipalities have a rebuilt that rehabilitation obligation. As I mentioned earlier, I was in Saddle River
last night to show you how ridiculous it is. Saddle River has a 78 unit rehab number. In the third round, they had a four unit. That could be possible. But from
nothing's changed in Saddle River that the number should have jumped from 4 to 78. Allenale went from 21 in the third round to 151 in the fourth round for rehab. So we've been fortunate that we
had zero rehab obligation in the third round, in the second round, and now in the fourth round. So fortunately that component of the state's requirements we don't have to deal with
because it's an expensive proposition. You are obligated to set aside the equivalent of minimally $10,000 a unit right up front covering a third of that obligation. Um and so we don't have to do that on
our housing trust fund or taxpayers dollars. Anybody else? Yes. Ellen Dali Wayne Place have a question. Can we just do it with senior housing if you had to do it instead of having you
know families coming in because again the school system Washington school is overfilled I guess George and and all the other schools. Is there any way we could just do senior housing? Yes. Unfortunately, you're allowed to do up to 30% of your
RDP numbers as for seniors. Our RDP number is 11 units to begin with. So, it's basically a third of that. All the other units, your market rate units, that doesn't apply. And you have to use
the land that is not developed. You have you have to because the state says so that you have to do this or can't we just do something else and not use it for I mean if if say Hackinack Hackinack
has been overdeveloped and I and and I see it I mean I go there a lot and I see how it's overdeveloped Pamis is getting so overdeveloped if they're using their fair income housing can they just like we just say
give them extra money and have it used for them and not us or like they you did with Bayon. It's interesting that you would say that we were very successful with our project sending money to pay to just a portion of our obligation
municipalities and urban municipalities all over the state were doing that in the first and second round and that's probably why the state took that ability away from us. It was the one thing that everybody agreed worked well. So, and unfortunately, it was removed from the
legislation. Okay. So, who in the state is this because of the Democratic uh state like the Democrats are doing this or is it I don't get into the politics of the state legislature. So, Murphy did this.
So the state legislature going back to 1986 when they created the council on affordable housing started this process. It goes back to a 1975 Supreme Court case called the Mount
Laurel case and this township of Mount Laurel refused to zone property for affordable housing and a group of residents sued them and went all the way up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court determined
that this is a constitutional obligation that municipalities cannot just simply zone out the Okay. So, and if I may, one other important thing. We're not talking about the hardcore poor here. Um, for example,
when we talk about moderate income uh households, a family of three for moderate income could have close to a $90,000 income and qualify for that affordable housing. Okay. So, I know like there are a lot especially this
town is suing the state. uh Montail Pasc Valley. Um is there anything that if you're suing the state that why do they need something right away if they should be in litigation for a while? The litigation is proceeding.
Um but the legislation did say that if you want to keep your um protection from affordable housing lawsuits, you have to adopt this plan no later than June 30th. Oh, this because the new elections
coming up. I'm not going to say that, but you did. And I think this is something that should be placed on the record. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. That's why. Anyone else in the audience have any comments? Hi, Jody Rogers. Addison Street. Um,
were any studies and when did they do that for traffic? Excuse me. Could you talk into the mic once a week? Studies for traffic and for school impact. That would all be done during the site plan review process. Okay. So, what happens then if then we get again we get the
results of that and then we'll have another meeting to decide. There will there would be notice public hearings for site plan. Everybody within 200 feet of these sites would receive the notice. We also notice in the so notified I
would assume that it goes on the website. So you know people would be made aware of it. Um, if for example, you know, during the site plan review process, presumably the municipality would hire its own traffic consultant as an example. And if that person were to
say you need to widen the road or you know whatever you need to do to make things work um he or she would say say that if he or she determined that the road network cannot handle it and the resulting traffic flow would be at level
service F which is a flunking right and they have to change the situation then there would be some significant change and who pays for that? Um who pays for the road changes? The it really depends on how far a field the road improvements would have to be.
But typically the any applicant pays for it what's called its fair share of fair share of so not all of it. Yeah. So that who pays the other um it would it depends if it's a county road or state road or a local road. Right. So we could
potentially be the ones to pay for this development to go in and then we pay for the changes in the road possibly. Yeah. And what about the school impact? Say one thing about that. Yes. The the amount of traffic from the 28 unit
project um will be negligible. popular. It's only 28 units and even the 70 units on the other site, um, knowing Pasc Road as I know it, I don't know that the amount of traffic at peak hour will be
that dramatically different. Usually they talk about, if I'm not mistaken, you can correct me if I'm wrong, it's about 2/3 of the number at peak hour. So if it's a 70 unit, you just take two/irds of that and that would be the number of cars at peak hour, right?
Two/3s more than we have now. Yeah. And then also um the other question was with school, same kind of question which is so if there's class sizes have to get bigger, another teacher has to be hired, maybe additions a little bit, even if
it's a few additions or small additions, who pays for that? um all the taxpayers including the taxpayers on the site, right? And so we don't know for sure though even the corner one with the 28 units down there that's already a big traffic
area. You know we've got people coming off of come down. So you know you know the parkway and then we've got the light and then we've got people going to hills. So actually I don't think it'd be as not noticeable as everyone thinks it would be. Um also school traffic. school traffic if
there's children. We're talking about a lot more school traffic as well in that area if it's coming from that complex now. We've got a little juggernaut because we got the school litting out and then we got the complex and people going, you know, so there's definitely going to be some sort of, you know, um I
would think there will be an impact. Yeah. You know, the question is is it so substantial that it changes the levels of service of the road? Um my experience in terms of school impacts, the
the kind of townhouse uses that units that are being contemplated um don't generate as many public school attendees as people tend to think it will. Right. Okay. I have one more question, but the thing right now
Um, okay. I have to read this one. Does the town have the infrastructure, water, sewer, power supply, drainage to support approximately 100 new unit new units slashfamilies? And will the school system be overloaded with this housing which I already had asked? Not a little
bit. uh in terms of but although that is a good question the overwhelming because I I would want to know like how would it overwhelm them we need to know would it overwhelm the school at that point but that's another so as for I'm sorry the structure I'm sorry interrupt in terms of the infrastructure
the town has the infrastructure to accommodate in terms of water and sewer capacity uh we talked about the school impacts in the general sense and all the other issues oh I'm sorry um infrastructure water, sewer, power supply, drainage to
support that too as well. The drainage uh when they file their site plan, they would be required to show us what the existing flow from the site is, you know, water off the site and they are required to reduce that that level of
snow with their revised plans. That's a state requirement. Okay. um and the power supply and all of that. Maybe hiring of new police, anything like that, we would well, you know, would there be extra anything expense-wise
there? Um fractionally, I I can tell you that typically the statistics are that suburban communities will have like one police officer for every 500 residents. You're not going to get that many residents. Okay? And um so basically with this no
matter what as taxpayers if there is any changes in any of those things we're going to feel the impact financially in some way even if it's not the whole 100% of course in any way you would be modest and recognize that there will be a value attached to those units
as well which they will be paying property taxes. Yeah. But yeah, right. Exactly. But we would too, right? And so we don't know. I mean, modest is, you know, we can't really say modest because everybody's got a different financial situation. So, everyone's financial situation. I had the same question about
municipality. And one of the board members who knew the person who was asking the question said, "You have five children." And so that's 20,000. Did not tell. He just said, "That's like $20,000 a pop." Right. Right. Right. So it was like he
was just pointing out that you know even single family homeowners have an impact on the uh well that's it I mean they do but at the same time this is being added when we really don't feel it needs to be so that there's a difference these were established for years and these are housing
unfortunately and I don't want to sit here and defend the state because that shouldn't be my role um but they have established a program that forces municipalities to address a number. No, our number was 184 and we reduced it
down to 11 and I think that the board should and the governing body should get some credit for that significant significant reduction. I I understand that and that is good, but people are still seeing that the big the big amount and that's still going to weigh on
everybody. It's going to raise our taxes possibly and like like they said earlier about young people not being able to live here. that that's that's also something. The taxes go up, that's going to even be harder. So anyway, so that's that's what I say. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Anybody else? Good evening, John Ramik, Northgate Road. Um um I might have missed something. I don't really understand. So the properties are um zoned as residential. Is that correct? They it the proposal was that it would be zoned
for multif family residential. Yes, multif family. So there's no restriction as to how many units. No, there is as I mentioned earlier are okay. Uh there's a set of regulatory controls that are
preliminary, but they're all spelled out in the document to ensure there's, you know, adequate light air and open space. Women units, women have building heights, that sort of thing. So the 74 and the 28 are approved for those. Not
yet. Of course. Not yet. What's the next step in this? Yeah, this is just the first step. Once the planning board adopts this, this becomes a just another element of the municipality's master plan. Then the governing body working with the planning board has to prepare
the detailed ordinances to implement this. And as I had mentioned, that doesn't have to happen in it must happen by some date in March of 2026. So there's a period of time for that to to occur. And then following the adoption
of that of those ordinances, then a developer, you know, they so choose can file a site plan application. Okay. So then the developer comes with their plans and everything. Then there's another hearing on that. Yes. And that comes before the planning board or the zoning board. That would be before the
planning boards assuming they comply with all the appropriate regulations. Yeah. And I missed one thing. So, we have a total of 11 units that are four floor housing. And how are they split between the two properties? Again, um
well, it's 20% of the total. So, of the 70 units, I believe it's 15 on the one site and on the 28 it's uh seven units and that's 22. And that's 22 or 11. There's a total of 22 because we have to
deal with a portion of our unmet need which is that difference between the 184 and the 11 that we're actually a lot of numbers. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, there's a lot going on in this process. All right. Well, thank you. You're welcome. There. Excuse me. Um Amy Zarly, Rayburn
Drive. Um is I missed a couple of things when you were talking. Is it we're looking to develop both pieces of land or one or the other? We are looking to reszone both pieces of land. Resone both. Okay.
All right. Um and the difference between the 184 and the 11 and the 11. What's our magic number to get the state to fulfill every need or every requirement of the state? Is it 184 and then we're good for forever? It is the unmet need,
which is the difference is 173. That's more of an aspirational number and the state and the courts like to see that you're addressing at least some segment of it. I will tell you that statewide typically it's about 30 or so% of that
number is being addressed. Some municipalities are higher, some like here it's lower. Um, but we build in some additional units to make sure we can point to the judge to say we're doing at least a second of our need, but
we are a fully developed municipality and our options are limited. Right. Okay. Um [Music] the build the the space uh at uh 370 that's currently a bank and office building now. So that would need to be
reszoned as multif family residential. Um could that be reszoned as mixed use? It theoretically could. Um the developer certainly was was
interested in doing residential project there. Um and in order to meet our obligations, we thought that was the way to go. Okay. All right. Just a few more units. You have to understand
in all likelihood at some point I'll be testifying before a judge and I'll be crossing my fair share housing center and maybe some other objectors and you want to be able to put your best foot forward and you know I've been doing this for a long time so I have a sense
of you know what needs to be done at a minimum to make sure that we can put forth a compelling argument before a judge if it gets to that point. Right. And the 20% that you were mentioning to um Mr. Ramik, is that the minimum amount
that we would be allowed to stipulate the builder use or is that the max? In in prior rounds, the regulation was 20% if it's going to be for sale housing and 15% for rental. But in the fourth round,
they changed the rules and now it's district 20%. Okay. And these houses that are being considered now um I mean we don't know right now I don't think if that would be rental or purchase do we? Okay. So it
could be either way. Okay. All right. That was it. Thanks. You're welcome. Anybody else in the audience? Come on up. Michael Och 17 Biola Tyrus. Um my property butts right to the back of the bank there. Um we're just trying to
figure out a few things. So the 22 units is what we will owe in total. We won't owe any more than that. Oh that 17 provides for 20 maximum 22. Okay. So we wouldn't have to pay back the rest of the 174 at any point in the future.
Okay. um the uh the other development of the property. Sir, could you speak a little closer to the microphone? Sorry. Yeah. Say we may get an objection that somebody said, "Well, I've got a property and I could help meet some of
that on that need." But I will say I'm very comfortable with the vacant land adjustment analysis that we've completed for the township. Sure. I think we're in a good position. Okay. To limit it. the the other undeveloped properties like uh
there's a property next to the school, the old horse farm, things of that nature. Would those ever come into play with this stuff? Some of those sites are either because I just don't recall off the top of my head if I get the general answer.
Yeah, they're either impacted by environmental constraints like steep slopes or wetlands or flood planes. So they they get eliminated from any consideration. Okay. So they wouldn't be in like a we're overbuilt. We keep getting overbuild situation and also
some sites were calculated as part of a prior round obligation. You don't get to count that. We don't have to count that again. That would be double counted. But they haven't been built. So would they have to be built? Um if the site in one instance the site
is zoned it's an overlay zone for affordable housing. So theoretically, for example, the former Y property theoretically could come in with the project. So at some point that could end up with a large development on it also.
Okay. Um and then um as far as tonight's call that that has to be made tonight, right? In order to fit into the timeline. Yes. because that that's the compelling thing that is
forcing every municipality to move quickly. What's our rights on the objection side after this? What what are what's well if we assume that we get some objections um we will have to weigh what what those
objections are all about to see if they make sense or not. I can tell you I already received in some other municipalities some objections that I thought was somewhat far-fetched. Um so in a way it was good
that it was so excessive because it makes it easier to to not right. Um but you know what we have to judge each one on on its merits and see how we can make our arguments and then if it's if it's um it's only 22 units that we do
owe does that project have to be so large does it have to have 75 units can it be reduced down to it's really difficult to hear everybody so sorry I'm I'm I'm asking if the units have to be at the 70 mark you know like do we have to have such a large development there
if we really only owe 22 units in that in that space through that number that we get to the 22 because of the percentage. Yes. Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. You're welcome.
Hi, good evening. My name is Richard Miller. I live at 10 Brayburn Drive in Township in North Kate. I have a few questions I wanted to ask if I may. Uh the property that butts us there on Washington and Pasc, how big is that
piece of property? Uh 2.14 acres. 2.14. Okay. And then also the property that's been already approved I get I since been approved across from the pond down on Pasak Road. They're going to be developing there. That was approved for
like 18 units, I think. No, that that that got turned down by the zoning board. Oh, it got turned down. Okay. And how big how big was that property? That's about 1.2 acres. Okay. Thank you. Uh now the proposal for the
units uh on Washington and Pasc are they all going to be single level homes or we talking about twostory building? Twostory building. Okay. So there'll be units on the second floor and the first floor. Yes. sort of would completely
could be town houses, you know, and the town houses would be multiple stories anyway. Well, town homes would be one thing, but you know, now now we're talking two levels of apartments and I assume it would probably put parking underneath it or something like that,
right? So, we raise it again another another level. Now, let me check it. I think we we maintain a 35t building. Hold on. It's 36. That's correct, Joe. 35 35 should be 35 which is what the
surrounding area is zone okay um but I don't think we not to my knowledge I don't think we have any like two-level buildings in this area anywhere that I can think of single family houses
yeah well single families are one thing and town homes are town homes are another thing but what I'm talking about will it be like is it 24 or 28 units we said 28 28 would it be 28 units with 28
entrances or would it be that would 14 and 14 and it will depend on the architect who designs the project in the end okay because I think that would look wouldn't look too nice in that area we
will be building into the final draft a whole host of architectural design standards and facade standards to make sure that this is and we'll have the option to to view them also. I'm not saying we can knock it down. There will be a public hearing on the ordinance
itself even before you see the site plan and um you know click on the website as well so you'll know when that will happen and we'll have a public meeting about that as well. Okay. and and I do understand the public housing. I I know what you go through at the state level,
but uh having built the Chelsea just recently, doesn't that help us with our affordable housing? I mean, that's a senior care center basically. That was part of a prior rounds objective. Oh, so we don't count that because it
happened before time. Counted previously for a prior round. Oh, okay. So we maybe would have something to look forward to like this again in another couple years too. 2035 as the next round starts.
Okay. Uh I think that's it right now. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Anyone else? Hi. So um my name is Patricia Moda. I live on Colonial Boulevard. Uh I just need I guess a little clarification.
Um as I understand it, these fair housing laws exist in the context of we have to include lowincome housing when new building is being done. Is is there some
change to that law? Um so in other words, when when when you decide to build housing in a town for whatever reason, a certain percentage of it has to be low income. Yes. These rule r law rules go back to the 1975, right? I understand that they go but but I I
guess so what's what's I don't so for clarity are we required to build right now you were required to zone to enable it to happen the municipality does not build the units right so so I I guess I
need a little clarity on what the the rule is what the law is well the the law says that you've got to provide a certain level a certain number of units you've heard how I talked about how we have legitimately and consistent with the rules reduced your obligation from
184 to 11. Right? Okay. So, we've got to enable that. The rules also say you've got to make some effort to address that unmet need, which is 173 units. So, we've 11 units into addressing that. a
very small percentage in relation to what most municipalities do with a a function of how you're fully developed. Um so those things you have to do you have to zone to make to enable it to happen. If the property owner ends up
not building it like was mentioned on the one site um so be it. You know you can't force them to to build. It's it's it's still not really addressing my question. My question is, are we required to build
right now at all? Is there a law that says we have to build more houses? Joe, can I maybe if if these two parcels of land did not come up, maybe you can answer what we would have done in that case. If if for example that bank wasn't
going to vacate you be torn down um we would have never included that in our site in our vacant land RDP number would have dropped even much lower. Um the municipalities are not required to do the building. They are
only required to zone some properties to address that number. And if developers decide they don't want to build for whatever reason or the property owner decides she just doesn't want to she doesn't want to sell to a developer, so
be it. As I said earlier, at the five-year mark at the midpoint, you have to do a report to the state to indicate what's happened with your sites. And in years past, we have submitted letters that said none of
our affordable housing sites have been developed, but they still represent a reasonable opportunity if someone were to come along and there's criteria to make that determination. Um, but the towns
themselves have not been required themselves to build the units if nobody else does. So, so basically then the reason that this whole plan has come up to begin with is because we have properties that are have been vacated and we are now because of that we have
to designate them as residential properties uh essentially because um there's a few other sites that contributed to the RDP number but in large measure you are correct.
Thank you. Anyone else in the audience have any comments? Hi Vicki back 16 Biola Terrace. So in essence, this is a done deal. In essence, your comment about the
family of five kids paying getting $20,000 a pop back from the town for the education was not the most sensitive thing in the world. I don't have kids. Don't have them. Been here for 34 years. My kids are out of the the systems for
what, 15, 20 years maybe. Um, but yeah, I'm paying my taxes to get out of my street. You know, all these little street things that you do, it's not going to affect the street to get out of Pasak. For the past week and
a half, I've been timing to get out of Crest onto Pass Past and make a left-hand turn. 15 minutes, 17 minutes, 14 minutes. Doesn't matter the time of day. I'm not doing I'm not going to work. It doesn't
matter the time of day. So, I have to go around up Jackson down Manhattan and wait for the light and then come all the way down because there's no way to do it. But this development at 370 is not going to
affect traffic. Washington School we all know is getting overcrowded. The kid down the street at at the corner of Crest and Viola when they bought the house they had a little kid.
They registered the child for school where a block and a half away from Washington school. They had to go to George school because Washington was overcrowded. So now we're building 74 town homes on the Washington school side. Maybe
they'll go to George. Maybe they'll go to Berkeley. But these town houses are not going to have children. That's what we were just told. I mean, that's amazing. I I don't I can't believe that this first of all
just came up on Facebook. Amazing. Just amazing. It just came up on Facebook and now we're told this is just going to happen. So sit back and wait. And what one of the women said, "Shame
on Washington Township." This is not a surprise. This is not a surprise. and to downplay how much this is going to cost us. Shame on you and shame on this planning board.
I've been active in this town for 34 years. This is just a shock, a surprise, and this is going to affect the property value of my house that I
thought I was retiring from. Thank you. Good evening. Hopefully everyone can hear me. My name is Declan Gorley. I live on Pasc Road, 427 Pasc. Maybe just outside the 200 ft from where I'm required to get noticed, but found
out through Facebook. Uh when I first read about this on Facebook, obviously very annoyed, frustrated hearing the opening comments. I understand maybe the state has tied our hands a little bit. It sounds like forced us into a corner. Maybe we're forced to do the things we're doing. My first question is did we
go to the the land owners for those two properties and and propose this or is this coming to the town? Um the land owners came to the town. Okay. Um and I guess so what this would be doing would be changing the master plan for the town
for future building on those properties. Correct. Correct. Okay. So, how easy does this make it for future? So, we let's pretend this all goes through as planned and two years from now there's these 100 units within within a quarter mile of each other on Pasc Road and the
town continues to be overdeveloped, which I'll reiterate that overdeveloped. It seems like the town never missed the chance to develop anymore again. Maybe this time we're being forced, but it seems like we've gotten into the into the business of being land developers all of a sudden. We buy everything and have to develop everything.
Um, but what is the future precedent for future developers that come in when another property goes up for sale in Pastek and they get to point and say, "Well, everyone around here is a, you know, a townhouse. Why can't I be a townhouse?" It's not reasonable to expect that there's how many condo
associations within a quarter mile of Pasc. What's the stop the next guy from coming and doing the same exact thing? That is the most difficult question because any property owner can file an application
and seek a reasonzoning, but that doesn't mean that they would get it. Um the criteria spelled out in the state legislation is pretty specific in terms of how you would how how one would go about that. I'm comfortable knowing the
town as I know it that you'd be hard you'd be hardressed to overcome the fact that we have a solid plan that presumably a judge will give this approval on and once you get that
approval at least you are protecting yourself to the maximum maximum extent that you can. Okay. And I agree with basically all the comments that have been made about how this plays out because the state I think has done a
disservice by setting up these new rules and regulations and numbers and then telling towns that you have a very limited amount of time to prepare, right? And that's what's happened here. Um, typically a decent housing plan
takes 6 to9 months to prepare. They gave us three and a half months to do it. And I think, well, I understand that. I respect that. But at the same time, the fact they gave us three and a half months doesn't mean I will have to live in my house for the next, God willing,
35, 40 years or maybe longer. I have to deal with that now as a repercussion of that. So, we don't have to rush forward. I get that you maybe feel like we have to, but I don't want to make sure this sounds like it'll be rubber stamp tonight, by the way. And I get that. Kind of feel like we've been forced to do this. Now we have to move, make an action. But my real question is the next
person that comes, how much easier does it make it to say, well 660 they got a condo and at 370 they got a condo. Here I am at whatever number 500 paste road. Why can't I be a condo assoc association as well? They're all around me now. Does
this not make it a lot easier for that? I don't think it does because assuming that we get a judge to give us our judgment of compliance and repose and you are supposedly protected from future affordable housing litigation. Now,
having said that, there have been instances where um towns had to swallow some additional development. But I'm not just talking about affordable housing. I'm talking about the next guy that wants to build townouses, but they would be required. There's a what's called a mandatory set
aside ordinance that will be adopted that will require anybody building multif family housing that has to set aside 20% of the units as affordable units. Okay. And the current master plan you can't build townhouse if I'm reading
it right without having at least a 2 and a half acre lot. Correct. Is that right? I believe so. I think that's the minimum. So the corner lot at seasons is just over two. Yeah. So, does this open the door for future again the same idea for future people to come in and say we
don't need to do two two and a half quarter acres anymore. Now we can do with two acres or an acre and a half. I think again having the judgment of compliance and proposed from the courts helps in large measure to protect you there. Okay. And I guess to kind of
hammer home the point regarding the overcrowding, I do live close enough to Washington school. My daughter's in second grade there. at at George school. I could throw a football to Washington school. We go to George school. I'm happy with George school, but the fact we had to go to George school when we
literally can I I mean it's like probably 300 ft from my house is kind of strange. But this is not just me. This is apparently going on all over the west side of town or east side of town, whatever the side of town, Washington side of town. People are being sent over to George school and this is not about
to make that problem any easier. We have 150 units within the space of three years potentially being built. And not only the schools, again, this might not be my problem. This might be down the road, but my kids in sports and just this past year, every time we turn around, we're getting shuffled around
fields. Games aren't being played. They're getting cancelled because we don't have enough sports fields for the kids in town. Again, maybe not something that most people here are worried about, but as a father of of a second grader for the next 10 years of my life, that's something I do care about. So, I don't want to hear that four years from now we
can't play sports because we don't have enough fields because 150 new units came to town and we just, you know, sat idly by and watched it happen. Again, I know I'm venting. I'm not trying to take my frustrating on you. You are here. Unfortunately, the state maybe dealt you a raw hand, but I had to be hurt on the
issue because I do think it's kind of ridiculous. I appreciate it. I'm Look, I'm going around the state doing these meetings and I'm hearing the exact same thing from north to south. We do a lot of towns in Bergen. We're all the way down to Cherry Hill doing plans and I'm hearing it everywhere and it's
unfortunate dealing with it in my town too. Thank you. Anyone else have a comment? Hi, Irene Farenari and I'm over on Hoover Avenue. I have a question related to the 22 units um that are identified
for the affordable housing. Um, of those 22, do we do we know how many um will be fully accessible? They they would be deemed all those all of those 22 would be required to be dee
restricted and that deed restriction is imposed. It can only be occupied by low and moderate income households. That's not that wasn't my question. You mean ADA? Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I misunderstood completely what you were asking. Um there's a certain percentage that has to
be ADA accessible of the entire property or just the 22 of the entire property. Okay. Um do we know how many of the entire property are going to be uh single bedroom units, two-bedroom
units? The regulation is not out in the plan. The reg the legislation says that um no more than 20% can be one bedrooms. 20% have to be three bedrooms and the rest can be two bedrooms.
And the 20% for the affordable housing is a mix of those combinations. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else in the audience have any comments? just what that general was saying just keep
in mind um I so if we have a certain amount that's affordable housing right and then the rest is whatever right okay so what if we don't want that extra like so let's say okay so the state's making us tying our hands blah blah so then you
have all the other housing units right so how do we get that less and whose jurisdiction is that who stops that is the town do we like how Does that work? Whose ability is that for? The only way to make it less housing units. The the only way you can make it less is if the
municipality were willing to build the units themselves. And if you were willing to build 22 affordable units in 100% project of affordable that way, you wouldn't get the other the other units that come in
with that. But then but with that that's the one time that the if you're doing that the municipality has to set the time frame within which the actual units would be built. They want to see it built then and the municipalities and
you're on the hook for it. Yes. So otherwise so otherwise we just we're basically we're at the mercy then of the developer who does these unit and then they can do whatever around those h those affordable housing units the amounts pretty much. philosophy is that since they're going to build the the
affordable units, they need the four market rate units for every affordable um to be able to pay for the affordable units which are technically. So to pay for the affordable, they have to put in other ones, right? And they can even put in extra though. They can put in enough
to afford the other and extra. Well, no it's 20% in that over time determined that for market rate will all help pay for those for market rate will help pay for one
affordable unit. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Jessica he I'm living in on the virtual drive. Uh my question is because I'm new to this kind of thing. Uh how do
you define the affordable housing? Uh is the standard different for different town? Now the standard is basically the same for each housing region. Um, and when if a project is built, there's
a process whereby there's a public notice to make people aware that these units are available. The town will have a administrative agent who will publish the fact that the affordable units are now available and people can sign up and
try to get. Usually there's such a rush for such units that they have the town's end up holding a lottery for them. Uh no what I try to understand is um when you say say we we have 20 units and maybe
half of them qualify for for the housing 20% uh it doesn't matter I just want to know the standard. Uh so you have to have a standard say well this number they qualify for affordable housing
right but this standard is that different town has different standard or for example one unit here you can define as affordable housing and if you move the same unit to different town maybe
it's not okay our it's broken down by the six housing region in in the state. So for example, in our housing region, as I said earlier, a three three person
moderate income household uh could have an income of about $90,000. If you go to Somerset County, you could have up to $16,000, I believe, and still qualify for a moderate income household. Okay. So, New Jersey has six six region
different. Yes, I see. Okay. In South Jersey, the numbers are a lot less because in times are less there. Thank you. Hello. I'm Christine Leakley. I live at 750 Wayne Place. Now, the unit the 28 units that are going over by or proposed
to be going over by seasons, those are since that's under two and a half acres of land, it's going to be like an apartment building and not town homes. It could be either. I thought that you said you needed to have two and a half acres to have town
homes. No, the the current ordinances for that, but with this plan, we're designating that particular site to allow its own zone. Okay. And then regardless what goes in there, what is going to be the composition? Are those
going to be single family apartments like onebedroom, two bedroom combination? As I said earlier, up to 20% of the units will be one bedroom. um 20% will have to be threebedroom and then the rest can be
two bedrooms because three-bedroom apartments are definitely going to impact our school system and I live on the block that approaches Washington school and I can tell you the traffic pattern there is a disaster and I don't think it can accommodate what we have
currently let alone a hundred new families swarming into town. that I hear that wherever I go and there is going to be some impact but unfortunately the state the courts have said that
municipalities can't deny these projects based on school impacts. My other question is um when the other resident was asking about the do we have enough water. I work in Montdale and Montdale has recently developed to a lot of it
because of low-income housing and Montdale has a big problem now with water and they have to put in water towers now to accommodate all the new build. How do we know? Did we contact Viola? Do we know for a fact we have enough water that we're not going to have to put up a water tower after all
these projects? The preliminary discussion about that. I will tell you know Mont know it. Um they have had a tremendous number of units. They would have loved to been able to say we're getting 28 and 70. Yeah. They've got
quite a few hundred. In fact quite a few. Right. Okay. But so we know for sure that the water is not going to be impacted. Well, that will be confirmed during the site plan review process, but the preliminary conversation we had is
it sufficient. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Are there any other comments from the audience? Okay. Bill, before you close the public session, I'd like to make a statement. Sure. Go ahead. Um, we sit up here.
We're your friends and neighbors, too. We live in the town. Uh we feel the pain the same as you do. Um this is a bitter pill. I won't speak for my fellow board members. This is a bitter pill to swallow. But it's being imposed by the state. The implications as Joe has said
if we don't approve this now could be catastrophic because we lose our repose Joe right for for the next 10 years. Um and then you know we could end up with triple the units over the next 10 years. So it is important. The township has
done well in the prior rounds. Uh but you know you all know you drive around you see these huge developments going up in other towns. Uh so the township has done very well. Even in this round we're still doing very well. If you look at other towns you know they are talking
hundreds of units. Um so again uh I think it's a little unfair to attack the board personally when you know we are your friends and neighbors. this is something that we have to do to protect the township long term. Um, and so I ask you to keep that in mind, uh, you know,
when we take our vote. Thank you both. Okay. Any other comments on the board? Uh I would just uh reiterate what the mayor said. Uh you know, as the council representative on the planning board and
participating in council meetings, uh you know, we've had plenty of discussion with Mr. Burgess, with the mayor, with legal representation. uh just in these two sites uh the
initial proposals for the number of units far exceeded what you see on these final documents. uh you know I don't know if uh it's uh for public discussion uh
these negotiations but I will tell you uh far exceed the numbers that uh we see here uh it is not ideal uh but it is something that our hands are tied uh and
we also have uh there are individuals who own these properties and have some right to devel develop them and within the construct of state law and the zoning and uh planning uh constructs in
the township. That's how they choose to develop it. You know, they chose not to continue it as a office building. there is an opportunity for them to make money and some of these are businesses uh you
know and we are trying to operate uh you know the Rubik's cube of regulations what's best for the town and uh you know I think uh the council has done a good job I think the mayor has done a good job in bringing these
opportunities to us and talking them through uh so I would you know that would be my comment uh about the development these two developments uh that we have before us. I don't think we were attacking you as
you know it's a small town and developments like this take away the look and the aspects of a small town and it just changes the dynamic. That's what I think we're all upset about. Not that
we're attacking anybody. Um I love this town. It's a beautiful town. I tell people when I go to township, Washington, like, whoa, it's such a pretty town, but then you add elements like this that just brings down the the value and the aspect and the look of the
town, you know, add parks, add things that kids could use, that people could use. I think and I understand the laws, the rules, we always have to accommodate people and lowincome housing and it's it's a disgrace. It's so sad because
it's just not what a small town is. But it's statemandated and we there's not much we can do. Sorry. Not I'm not yelling. I'm I'm I'm upset. We are too. We share it. We We agree with you. I I've lived in the town for 53 years.
I've been in here over 45 years. I've seen trees and vacant properties disappear when I was younger and would play and ride my bike in there. I'm I'm with the community. I don't want any development personally, but we're mandated by the state. So, if
we don't pass this today, these numbers are going to go up higher. We're going to have unscrupulous lawyers like we had in the past come fight and and sue the town and and they gave us a hard time and put us through a ringer and and it if if this doesn't happen,
it's going to be it could potentially be worse. Well, can they be smaller than what's actually placed on here? I mean, I'm sure builders want to make as much money as they can. I I wish I was a builder. I'd be so happy with all that money, but can they make them smaller
and not so accommodate so many people build you apartment building? Was there consideration for group homes for individuals with developmental disabilities? You would have had six to meet your requirement. Six homes. We we
we did some research with group homes with the new concepts for living out on 17. Um unfortunately the town would have to own property that we would donate to them and then they would build the facility but the town does not own any
suitable facilities. We reviewed some of the town properties with them and they were not suitable for what they were looking for. Was there consideration of buying the current properties and then donating them? Would that have saved money? There there wasn't. And so I'm about to
speculate to say the developers are paying a pretty penny for both of these properties. I don't know that the town could have competed if that's a compet with with those offers that the developers are making to put these uh these communities in. There
shouldn't be any any misconstruction that people are going to speak. They need to be at the podium. It's always recording for the record. Yeah. Come up to the podium. So, are we able to look at these plans? So, especially we we don't want
apartment buildings in this town at all. So, does people in this town have a right to see the plans and what we can vote on which they're going to develop anyway that we could vote on it? Because, as I said, I guarantee everybody here, they don't want
apartment houses at all. We're not living in um you know, like Hackinack and so forth, West New York and all that. This is a nice town and we want it to be beautiful and if you're going to make it, we want it beautiful. We don't. Town houses are great, but they're not
apartment houses. The uh the units at Valley Bank will be town houses. The units at Pasc will be apartments as will the ones being currently constructed at Franklin Court uh that we settled in the last round. They will also be
apartments. And so again, these things are being forced upon us. And again, Joe, please correct me. We don't have much of a choice to say whether the town wants to see apartments versus town houses. Yeah, you your hands are tied on that issue. What about condos?
Same. But no matter what, we we can't dictate. The apartments may turn out to be condos. Um, in the architectural design standards that we're going to put in place, we'll try to have them mirror a townhouse lot, but they might be, you
know, one of the lines. Yeah. As long as it doesn't look like, you know, those high apartment houses that you see in West New York and Union City and all that. No, that that will not happen on site review. We won't allow that. At least do we get to see the plans?
Absolutely. Okay. All right. Okay. Is there anyone else before we move on? Okay. All right. I get a motion to close the public portion of the meeting, please. Second. Okay.
Okay. So, now we need a motion to Okay. All right. Now, we need a motion to uh approve the the 2025 housing element and fair share plan. amending the master plan um with the adjustments as we spelled
out earlier. Yeah, with the adjustments that we discussed earlier in that. So, Mr. Chairman, I'll make the motion to accept it with the corrections and that Burgess has to add. Okay. Do I hear a second? I'll second it. Second it. Okay.
I'm just Are we voting on 2510? Yes. Yes. Okay. We'll do roll call, please. Mr. Carol, yes. Mr. Murphy, yes. Mr. Pledo,
yes. Mr. Tulle, yes. Mr. Weransky, yes. Councilman Alman, yes. Mayor Komari, yes. Chairman Cabo [Music] Grace, if you could email me the signed copy of resolution tomorrow morning.
Okay. I will make the adjustments tomorrow and then I will forward everything to the state and to the county if required. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Okay, now we'll uh move on to the application of uh George Toddaros for demolition of the existing
house and new proposed residence to be located at 311 Walnut Street, block 4415, lot 4. Guess they're ready. So you have to sign. Yeah, he's in morph.
He'll be blaming you for the next 10 years. Oh yeah, you saw that. Okay. Okay. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Matthew Capzy on behalf of the applicant. This is a project at 311 Walnut Street for
the applicant GE Builders LLC. Uh what we're before the board for this evening is the property is developed with an existing single family dwelling that the owner seeks to demolish and construct a new single family dwelling at the
property. Uh your ordinance requires an appearance before the planning board anytime a homeowner seeks to raise more than 50% of a dwelling. That's the reason why we're before the board this evening. Uh Tom Sterns, our civil engineer, has prepared a site plan that
illustrates the new form of development. It's a fully conforming single family dwelling. No variances are required. We have Mr. Aelina's letter of today's date. Mr. Sterns has spoken to Mr. Aelina about that letter and we stipulate for the record that all of the
technical comments that Mr. Aelina has raised will be addressed uh through way of any additional submitts through uh the building department andor his office. Uh if there are no questions of me, Mr. Chairman, I can have Mr. Sterns go through the plan. Okay. Um I know
you're in a hurry, so we'll we'll uh we'll go to Mr. Stern, but I think we need do we need to have him sworn in? Please. No, swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, another truth to help you God. I
do. Thomas G. Sterns III, S A R Ns, 144 Jewel Street, Garfield, New Jersey. Could you state some of your qualifications, please? Just Yeah, sure. I'm a licensed engineer in state, New Jersey, licensed land surveyor. I've been practicing uh engineering and surveying in the state for approximately
20 years. I've been admitted as an expert in engineering before this board several times. Um, and I've been before many other boards in the state. Okay. Anybody have any questions or objections here? Okay. Proceed. Thank you. Can you take us through what we're proposing to
do here, Tom? Sure. So, this is my site plan dated March, sorry, 25th, 2025. It's 311 Walnut Street, lot 4, lot 4415. So, this property is on the uh easterly side of Walnut Street, south of Lincoln
Avenue. It's 100 by 100 lot, 10,000 square feet. There's an existing one and a half story dwelling on the site. Uh that is um 10 98 989 off the northerly side, 1804 off the southernly side,
approximately 25 ft off the front line, and 34 off the back. The site uh has a topography approximately five% grade change uh from one side to the other. Grades are from uh 81 to 77.
Uh so our proposal is to remove that dwelling and several um several trees on the site. The site is fairly heavily wooded. Uh we'll discuss the trees a little later. And our proposal is to construct
a uh a two-story building with a two-car garage, a 1982 square footprint. We're going to have 108 on the norly side of the property, 32 40 uh 3042 on the southerntherly. We have a front yard of 22 where 20 is required and we have a
rear of 43. So, our bulk requirements all comply. Uh we're taking away one existing non-conformity on the existing house and sideyard and everything else we're proposing is compliant with the site. Uh we we have a drainage system uh
consisting of a seepage pit and we submitted drainage calculations to Mr. Aselina and they were approved in his letter. Mr. Mr. Aselina had a comment that there may be since we're dropping the basement lower than the current basement, there may be some groundwater
we encounter in the site. So, we um there is a way to address that if that comes up during construction. There is an existing um uh storm water pipe on the easterly side of Walnut Street that Mr. Resley said we could tie into as an
overflow if need be, but that's uh that's during construction. So, currently everything looks good as it is. We have to get a percolation test as well. Mr. Sterns, Mr. Le's letter today's date. Have you had a chance to review that? I did review it. Yes. uh any issue addressing the technical
comments raised therein? No, it seems like we just have to get a tree expert to uh identify trees that are hazardous and um and we'll remove them and then we'll comply with any uh tree or arbor requirements in the in the town. Thank you, Mr. Sterns. I don't have any
further questions, Mr. Chairman. Okay. I what we normally would like to do is have Mr. Aelino go over his letter with for the board's sake. I I'll be very brief. Uh Mr. Chairman, uh, I do concur with the testimony offered by Mr. Sterns. Uh, I do believe that the two
primary issues here are are the are the trees, which to to my non-professional non- arborist, but to me, some of those trees look like they are in fact dangerous. So, I rely upon the certified arborist. Um, there are a very large
tree at the very front of of the property, which typically uh would be removed. It's not shown to be removed on this plan. So that kind of caught my eye, but uh if the applicant uh you know I was just trying to be ahead of the curve because often times what's
happened is developers go beyond the approved plan and then it presents a whole another set of problems. So just looking at the site uh there are some trees in the rear yard that are clearly dead to me that uh should be removed but are shown to remain on this plan. Uh but
the the one tree that really jumps out at me and I think others would be that 24inch pine tree at the front of the property. Um so I would rely upon the the certified arborist to to make that determination. Then there are several other trees within the right of way that
also are um they're marginally trees. They're they're four to five to 6 in. Under our code, a tree is 6 in and larger. There's maybe one 10-in tree that could remain, but once again, it's between the curb and the sidewalk, which
those types of trees often cause problems with the sidewalk eventually heating. So, I I'll rely upon the testimony or the report prepared by an arborist um to to make those determinations. Otherwise, the the plan as presented complies with the zoning
site design is proper uh potential for for groundwater. As Mr. Sterns mentioned, I believe we have a solution if if we need to to utilize it. Applicant has agreed to to do that. So with that said, uh offer no objection to the board approving the plan as
presented. Subject to further uh review of the uh the tree situation. Okay. Anybody else have any comments on the board?
Mr. Stern. Yeah. Oh. Uh, so um how do we ensure uh that the bulk variances are met? I mean this plan pushes to the
absolute limit. Uh we'll have to provide an asbill survey as part of the closing out of the permits to confirm that the asbill condition matches what you see on the site plan. It really wasn't addressed to you but thank you for your comment uh Mr.
Aelina. So that is my task is is to confirm that these numbers are accurate and what I have done is I review the architectural drawings compare them to what's presented on the site plan and those those numbers are consistent. So
we can measure to 0.02 O2 that's what the numerical analysis shows which is based on this calculation as compared to what's shown on the architectural plans. So it's their burden to make sure that is constructed
uh to that extent. Typically builders will build a little bit less to confirm that they're they're not exceeding it. But what I have done is I've requested or required that they submit a a framing uh as built. So before they get too far
along that they confirm that the ridge elevation allows the home to be built to that standard. Okay. Thank you. Typically there's a they will build 6 in or or less uh from that number. Okay. And can you explain
the construction of the retaining wall on the south side? Yes. Either one. The engineer. Yeah, sure. I mean, it's a it's a modest wall. It's only uh I believe it's only up to 2 ft
high. So, it's a stack block wall. It's uh just for just for minor grading around the driveway. So, does it does it have uh a purpose for to retain water onto the property? It does both. Yeah. So, it'll it'll keep the driveway level and it'll retain water from going to the
neighbor at that location also. Okay. And is the lower level is it going to be gravity fed into the uh sewer? That I don't know because that is
one of the pieces of information that are requested. Was it invert elevation coming out of out of the dwelling which it possibly could because the sewer in the street is is very deep about 9 ft deep. So, uh, they may be able to do that, but if not, you would introduce an
injector pump into the, uh, basement, pump it up, and then out by gravity to the, uh, sewer in the street. And that's atypical. Um, no, you a lot of new homes have, uh, finished basements with with bedrooms as
this home does. Uh, so quite often you do have ejector pumps in the newer uh, construction. The older homes, not not so much. If I may interject, they do show an injector pump on the page of the architectural drawings. Yeah, that's only because they didn't know for
certain that they're getting into into the sewer. CIC and when does that get resolved? Well, that's one of the questions I had for Tom is to tell me what invert elevation they think they're coming out of the home. I gave him the the asbuilt which
will allow him to calculate the the slope of that pipe and where they would be entering in the street and from that uh it can be determined whether the pump is necessary or not. Okay. And uh the storm water management section
uh specifically number three uh the applicant is however required to provide appropriate surface drainage measures. has that have we received that or yes I've gotten the calculation which as Mr. Sterns indicated we've reviewed
and approved. My comment is that that addresses simply the the rooftop area basically that my report says any uh seepage uh you know groundwater condition that may be observed that would need to be either another system
or possibly constructing that overflow from the uh from the seage pit into the storm drain. So that back that could be a console. Okay, which is really the best way of handling it. You're you're adding a recharge element uh to to the design.
And when uh for the uh demolition, when do we have to have uh asbestous and lead testing completed? That's all part of the uh demolition permit application handled by the building department.
Okay. So, there's rodent, asbestous, uh couple other, you know, guests and utility shut offs, which I think have already taken place based on my site visits. Um, so th those are all the perview of the building department. So, it has to be approved here before the
correct. They they won't consider issuing demo permits until they have this prior approval from this board. Okay. And just one last question to the applicant. Is this going to be owner occupied or is this uh speculatory? It's It's not going to be on our occupied.
It'll be for sale. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else have any questions? Okay. Someone online. Okay. All right. Yeah, we're ready for open public. Okay. I need a motion to open public comment.
So moved. So moved. Second. Second. Okay. Um, anybody in the audience have any questions? All in favor? Hi. Hi. Okay. Um, I think there's someone online that has has a question.
It was John Re. Hi. Are you your name? Yeah. Yes. Hi. Thank you. Uh, my name is John Ray. I'm the next door neighbor. I'm at 311 Washington. I mean, um, well, sorry. Just want to make sure. I mean, I think I've heard there's no variances, so they won't be encroaching on my property any further than what's
currently existing. Is that correct? That's correct. No variances. No variances. All right. Great. And then just in regards to the trees, as was mentioned before, there's there's a lot of trees on this property, and I can't imagine how you'd be able to do any real
building there without having to get rid of quite a few. Is there any more detail on which and how many trees will be removed? So, I can uh answer that. So, once we hire, we're going to hire an arborist that's going to uh look at every tree on
the site and give us a detailed uh analysis and a tree plan. Got it. Is that something I'd be able to review at any point or It'll be on file with the building department, sir. Okay. And that's something I would have
access to. Yes, sir. Okay, great. Thank you. And I mean, I don't know if this is a reasonable question, but just knowing from experience when a massive construction like this takes place, often rodents, termites enter into other properties, little concerned about that.
Is there anything that can be done preemptively to prevent that? As Mr. Aselina had mentioned a moment ago, there are certain uh task lists that need to be addressed before we demolish demo the property and I I believe uh termites at least is is one of the
categories that have to be dealt with. Rodent abatement primarily. Okay. Rats, mice, etc. Yes, that that's all part of the demo application. Okay. And I did notice about maybe a month or two ago there was something removed from the I
want to say north side of the house. I'm assuming maybe it was an oil tank or because I believe uh the previous owner did have oil heat. Is that correct? So, there was an oil tank removed from the from that side of the house. Yes, that's correct. Okay. And I'm assuming that
metal code and there's no concerns around that or any spillage or leakage or anything to that matter. Right. It was done by environmental company and uh it it was satisfactorily uh removed. Yeah. Without issue. Okay. Great. And then just another qu I
mean just from lack of knowledge or experience is there anything else uh from your knowledge or experience that I should be concerned about with this new building from a zoning perspective that complies with all the zoning ordinances and uh we
you're the board engineers issued a review letter that has made certain technical comments all of which will be addressed. Okay. Thank you. And I believe Mr. Alino had mentioned the trees uh that border
um the street just in front of the curb. Um do we know cuz I think he said like he would think they would likely be removed, but is that still TBD? Correct. That our arbit will perform an assessment and advise which of those street trees can remain and which should
be removed. Okay. Uh any idea on timing of all this when it might start to take place and how long it may take? No, I mean as far we certainly want to move on the project as soon as possible. So we have a vested interest in getting going as as soon as
you may want us to take care of those trees. So do we. Okay. Yeah. Listen, it's you know like you know listen I've been here for the whole meeting so I've heard what everyone's saying about this town and the trees and and loving it as it is. So just hoping that not too much is taken down. anything that's dead, of
course. Um, but just hoping that it's nothing overly excessive. And if that was required, they would need to get a permit or come before this before that this board before this could be done. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Um, and any tree that comes down, we have an
ordinance that they have to plant two trees in replacement of the tree that comes down. Okay. Um, and also just so you're aware, you could contact the zoning planning board uh secretary uh for any of this information uh a copy of
these things that you might be interested in finding. She'll she'll be able to provide that for you. Okay. Thank you. And will a copy of the plans that you guys have in front of you, will that be posted on the township website in the in the meeting notes by any
chance? Yeah, they're online right now. They are. Okay. All right, I think that's everything. I really appreciate you answering those questions. Thank you. Okay. No, no problem. If I may, I have a question for the neighbor. Do you have an opinion relative to the uh six trees that are
along the uh the sidewalk and and the curb line? Yeah, listen, I don't they haven't been particularly manicured, and I've noticed anyone who tends to park along that area has some issues with it. Um, anything that's a taller vehicle
tends to hit them. Listen, if if the owner wants to keep them, that's fine, but I don't have any particular love for them. Um, in the end, I'm just hoping that it's, you know, a very nice home that's built there that uh increases the beautifification of of the street and
the town and uh, you know, if removing those trees helps with that, I'm I'm fine with that. I don't have any objection to it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ring. Thank you. I appreciate it. Bill, just a quick question.
You know, with every application, for every site application, we always required a landscape plan. Well, the landscape plan submitted with this application to Mr. Rain's point. Yes, that that that's shown on the site
plan has a planting list which I'll I review it in my report, but I'll read off the plan. So they are proposing uh shrubs which are aelas um junipers
uh boxwood private hedge. Then the uh trees are uh 11 uh no 12 green giant arborite along the driveway uh screening the neighbor to to the south and then two deciduous trees which are alageny
service berry trees. Okay. The type plans I have do not have landscape plan. I understand Phil in your report you mentioned the vegetation shrubs that will be planted but it's always been the
practice of this board to see a detailed uh landscape plan and where those uh shrubs and vegetation will be planted. Yes, the drawings that I referenced in in my report which is is a site plan uh dated uh March 25th, 2025 as Mr. Sterns
just testified to does in fact depict in plan view under the site plan detail the the location of of of the trees and shrubbery the the two service berries are basically at the corners of the dwelling and then you have the uh what I'll call foundation
plantings which are the shrubbery along the front perimeter of the dwelling and then the uh 12 arborites are along the uh along the retaining wall basically. Okay. Okay. My my apologies. was all the way in the back of all my documentation here. So, I'm looking at
it now. Thank you. Thank you. If I may ask one more question, is there any detail there? And I'm sorry, I will take a look at the plans, but is there any information on what will be put along the north side of the property that borders mine? I have uh several hedges there. I have a massive oak tree that is
on my property, but several of the branches uh obviously go into the property of 317. and I just will there be any impact to that tree? I'm not sure what the rules are in terms of where branches go over into other properties.
My understanding of the law is that this property owner would have the ability to to cut those limbs uh at the property line. Obviously, they want to be neighbors with you. So, I'm sure they would uh you know work out whatever is agreeable to to both parties, but
currently the plan does not depict any uh extensive landscaping along the the northerly boundary other than uh a row of shrubs around the the AC condenser units which are on that side of the dwelling. Okay. Your property is higher than than than their properties. Yes.
Yes. Correct. Okay. So then what you're basically saying is they could really just by law any part of my oak tree that encroaches onto their property or past the borderline, they would be allowed to take anything off of that
at property line theoretically, but you know, I'll I'll assume that the builder would uh talk to you first uh to to do to do it in a proper manner or Mr. Kaby going to comment further on this. Sir, my suggestion would be if I can have you
give your information to the board secretary and then I can have you put in touch with my clients and you guys can meet at the site and discuss these issues and uh come to an understanding. I'd really appreciate that. Thank you. And then sir, you mentioned you're in
the northern side, right? Yes. Yeah. You're the the fence is not in the property line. So just just so you're aware of that the fence is is is is well onto your side of the of it is okay. Well that's good to know.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else have any other questions, comments? Great. I guess we uh need a motion to close the public portion. So moved. So moved. Second. Second.
Okay. Public portion. All in favor? I I All right. Um, so now we need a motion to Yeah. Need a motion to approve the application. Make a motion. Make a motion. Second.
Okay. And Mr. Chairman, I had a question before we vote. Um, how does the board want to deal with the arborist report? Is that going to be up to Paul or or usually we leave it up to Paul the arborist the the new report after he
gets the arborist in there? Yeah. Do you do you want to handle that or should that should come back? If the board's agreeable to that um we have more than willing to do it work with the everybody okay with that we professionals. Okay. Can we Paul reviews it just for so your
arborist report should go back to Paul that would be terrific. Thank you. Okay. We just make that part motion. Okay. All right. We ready? Okay. Okay. We're going to need a uh motion to uh vote on this uh
with the arburous report being sent to Paul when it's done. Um, do I hear a I'll make the motion. Make the motion sec in a second. Okay. Um, Grace, you want to do the
call. Mr. Carol, yes. Mr. Mr. Pledo, yes. Mr. Tulle, yes. Mr. Wramansky, yes. Councilman Almond, yes. Mayor Kamari, yes. Chairman Sabino, yes. Okay, it's been approved. Thank you. Thank you,
gentlemen. Thanks. Have a good night. All right. Okay. Mr. Lou, the minutes are not ready. I'm gonna have to be tabled till the next meeting. Do we need to have a motion for that?
Um, no, that's fine. Just uh you announced it. Okay. Just so everybody might not have heard this, the minutes on the uh schedule are not quite ready, so they're going to be tabled till the next meeting. Okay. All
right. Very good. Yes. Any board member have any um issues before we wrap it up? Anybody have any? Thought the meeting went much better. Thank you for your patience.
Okay. So, I guess it's a motion to Okay. I need a motion to adjourn the session. Please make a Make a motion. Second. Okay. Ajourned. Thank you. Thank you for everybody's patience.