button extend agenda meeting soon announcement July 22nd, 2026. Transmitting into this packet on July 22nd, 2026 and filed on the township clerk on July 26, 200.
>> Mr. Patel, >> Mr. Shtel, >> here. >> Mr. Panco, >> yes. >> Mr. Bake, >> yes. >> Miss Bar, >> yes. >> Miss Applegat, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Jvers, >> here. >> Vice Chairman Hoververman
>> here. Mayor Marte and Chairman >> Carpende line up everybody. [laughter] Um okay so comments uh first up on the agenda meeting finished May 20th
comments changes question Um this president here I exchange Yeah, the meeting where we took the vote
on you were here, but you couldn't. >> So, you're saying you weren't here on you we >> so you hear on May 20th when we did the vote, we asked you, okay, vote on on the uh on the resolution. You could not vote
on the resolution because you were not listen to the application. That's why it's abstained. the people that are asking they will not hear that vote. Okay, good. Thank you. Um, okay.
Second second by Sue are eligible to vote. Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. I'm happy you waited on
the master plan. >> Okay. Next up is um resolution 6-03 Princeton Extend Development LLC signed bearings with Princeton down the road.
Jerry just want a very brief summary. >> Yeah, this was in there was a lot of discussion about whether it was sufficient, the size of it. Um they came back a second time. I guess they I think maybe never the PRC revises the uh the
application and make the sign smaller. There are a number of variances of stillness they're on page two of the resolution that's um the min quantity um only one mined
but and it has to be this is 50 ft back. This is 43 ft. So one thing to be done is the area sign and land sign and the P granted the application with those references.
>> Right. This is a resolution where we kind of help them shape the sides, >> you know, and they took our opinions seriously. Okay. >> Yeah. Was is there a conclusion to this one?
>> No. Um, so I the I think what happened was the general parameters were established, right? And they're supposed to for resolution compliance submit something to be reviewed. They haven't submitted anything. >> They haven't submitted. >> No, no, nothing submit yet for any of the resolutions. There's been no revised
plans yet. >> Okay. So motion to >> again. Sorry. Um over this month I was present on June 7th but I abstained because when it was initially discussed
I believe it was in May at some point or April or whenever >> yeah was it was a May meeting I think and I I cheered it >> prior but they came back for the board simply for this uh sign. >> So this was June 17th voted on. >> Yes.
>> So I abstained but I was absent. So then she >> on page nine, right? >> Yeah, page nine. >> Okay. So on page nine, Jordica said it says absent. She was here for one of the meetings. >> Uh for June 17th because they said
related to the voting on June 17th, right? >> And you were absent that day. >> No, I was you were here that day. >> But you were absent for the first meeting. >> You could date. >> Okay. So >> So this is it should be abstain. Absolutely.
>> But this one says absolute >> change. >> But who's on first? >> Change to abstain. No big deal. Just so you know, you can always abstain. Regardless of whether you're here and you don't want to vote, you can always abstain. You don't have to vote.
>> You can always abstain. Right. Isn't that right, Jerry? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. There's no reason. >> There's some people I've been here for 18 years. Some people like to not have their vote known. I know this is very um innocuous. This resolution, but there's
some people that the application very contentious and they don't want their name associated with a vote, so they abstain. So, you're not required to say yes or no. You say abstain. I don't want to vote.
I agree it doesn't make much sense on a resolution, but if the application was like you were dead set against the size of this sign on no way I'm voting yes on this sign, you know, but I don't want to piss off the people that wanted the sign. So, I'm not going to vote no. I'm just not going to vote. So, you can
always abstain, >> but this is that's not the reason. >> I know there's a real reason why you want to see if you weren't at the first meeting and that's not a problem. It's going to get changed. But I just want to make sure that everybody knows that you can always abstain. You don't you're not required to vote.
>> Okay. [clears throat] >> So So I just want an understanding on this. Uh so uh if the board member was not at the first meeting and did not hear the record of the first meeting prior to the second meeting where the
board member was present, the board member still cannot vote. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. Let me let me let me let me play this scenario out one further. Let's say let's say the applicant wants to put warehouses on a major site that goes for
five or six meetings. The app the the board member can only vote if if they were absent for one of the five or six meetings that they uh listen to the record. So it comes down to a multiple meeting
event. the the the one can only vote if one's heard previous record if not present. >> Yes. Correct. >> And then certify that. >> I just want to make sure I understand this. >> Right. Right. And that Jerry done that. >> Right. >> Okay. The motion. >> Right.
>> Right. Right. The motion is still on the floor. >> I I will I will move that motion if you didn't hear it. >> Um >> so is >> 2603. >> Okay. So ED2603 I have the motion to approve the uh the resolution by Simon.
Anybody second? >> Second. >> Second by Alan. Uh please the role eligible with the vote. >> Mr. Shtel. >> Yes. >> Mr. Pancco. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Jvers. >> Yes.
>> Mr. B. >> Miss Bar. at stadium. >> Okay. >> Miss Applegat, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman Hobberman, >> yes. >> And Chairman Cart, >> yes. Thank you. >> Okay. Next up on the agenda is
resolution PB26-04 BLG Westwind LLC amended final subdivision with variances one middle road block 911. just very brief. Um, >> yes, that's a COGO chair resolution. Um,
and that was actually approved some time ago. Um, took a little while getting all the input we wanted to get. Um, and it just provided that it was primed. uh the only changes that are necessary was they said
this was a city if they were proposing a subdivision for tax purposes and because of the supervision line it necessitate a couple of variances so there really wasn't much to it at all >> right okay I'll entertain a motion to
approve that well if I have changes or amendments or clarifications >> so okay of motion to approve resolution PB264 by Jordan. May do I hear a second? Second by honest please call the role
eligible to vote. >> I'm not eligible. I was absent >> you. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. D. >> Yes. >> M. Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. PB 26. Um, [clears throat] thank you. >> Next up is PB26-05 Woodstone Residential LX LLC Major Site
Plan 2000 Far Road 86 58.02. Jerry, please very brief um description. [clears throat] >> Yeah. Um application. This is part of the affordable housing program in the
town. This was a um 80 um I think it was 80 units uh with a 25% set aside, I think. Uh was it 80 units? >> No, the 35 units, I believe. >> Oh, 35 with a 25% set aside. >> Uh nine affordable units. Um it was what
they they had originally had approved there was a commercial site. >> Yeah. So the the original application a subly portion is a child care center child day school that's still under construction. The northerly portion was to be medical office. They subsequently
then asked to be part of our housing plan. They were included. The site was reszoned for uh 35 total units including 26 market and non affordable. So this was a right across from Woodstone. has approved originally to be an office medical office building and now it's
going to be uh residential. >> Okay, >> great. Um any any um clarifications, changes, modifications to resolution? Yes. >> So I was uh present on uh when this was approved and uh I will be yes
it says absent here and okay you got that cherry for page 16. because uh yanked. >> Yep. >> Okay. Modification will be made. I'll entertain a motion to approve PB26-05.
>> So move, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. >> Second. >> Okay. U motion by Simon, second by Allan. Please roll for those eligible to vote. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. Councilman. >> Yes. Mr. D.
>> Abstain. Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. PB26-05 approved. Thank you. Last but not least,
um resolution PB26-06 Clark Plaza signage flavor 217 Clarksville Road, lot 10, lot 14. Any uh mod changes? to this one. I know who's present and I will include yes.
>> Okay. So, Dorica, it's Lisa is absent. She should be a yay. Okay. Anybody anything else? Anybody changes? Um please uh a quick summary of this one. >> Yeah. Um this is this is Village Square and of course they've had real problems
with the uh with access and they've now proposed a um proposed a new sign. Dave, do you want to describe it real quickly? >> Yeah, of course. Uh so this is the uh Clarksville Shopping Center or Clark Plaza. Um they have an older sign up front right now. It has a height about
um 12 and 1/2 ft and 60 square uh 12 and a half ft tall, 60 square foot. Um they have been having a lot of difficulties uh for a number of reasons. The first being that the uh some of the buildings are set back far from the roadway. Secondly, probably more important right
now is the closure of the bridge which is really cutting off a lot of traffic. um their individual tenants have been requesting a new sign to identify the individual units there. Uh right now there's just a sign that says plaza. So they uh asked for permission and
received approval for a new sign to be 16.25 ft high, 12 ft wide and approximately 126 square ft. Uh it will have 14 delineated tenant spaces which will um encapsulate 14 tenants there with a font size of seven inches. Uh
there's traffic testimony or the traffic memo that we submitted with that uh sign would be internally internally illuminated and um it's basically in the same setback as the prior sign and with a couple of conditions.
>> Yeah. One one correction on that. The I was over there for dinner tonight. It says the village shopper. Oh, the There we go. Yes. It's like an older name, I think. Yeah. >> It's tragedy. What's happened with that bridge for them? >> Oh, really? >> I haven't been on I haven't been down there probably since the bridge went
out. >> And the other the other issue there is those businesses that are between their >> Yeah. >> strip mall and the bridge. Yeah. They they're in the process of moving. >> Yeah. You can't even get to them really. Those those those businesses
>> used to support the >> You mean the office? >> Office? >> Yeah, the offices. >> Wow. >> Oh, yeah. I can imagine there's probably a bunch. >> So, they have to bring in new new uh Sounds like a warehouse is going to go in there. >> World tape.
>> Scratch scratch. [laughter] What? What? >> The county go business at the village >> store $10,000 each each. >> Wow. >> That was the county.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Also to France. They g [clears throat] >> there was supposed to be a temporary fix that would allow at least one lane through. >> There is one lane. >> But uh >> is that ineffective? >> Who knows when that's going to be >> Oh, that isn't even >> Is that even in effect yet? >> No. No. Well, I mean it's it's in the
planning. >> It's >> uh I'll entertain a motion to approve. >> So So6 approved. Um a motion by Simon, second by Jica. >> Uh please call the role of those eligible to vote. >> Mr. Shakal, >> yes.
>> Mr. Panov, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Jvers, >> yes. >> Mr. B, >> Miss Barry, >> yes. Miss Applegate. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman Hobberman. >> Yes. >> Chairman Cart. >> Yes.
>> Uh, resolution PB26 is approved. Thank you. >> Okay. Environmental commission. Anybody? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Please. So, um I was present at the last
meeting, but uh I think in June, um I have a sen. So, there's there's a $1,500 hand check grant and there's discussion about putting the following model and some science related to that investments at
community park. um a representative came in from Duke Farms and talked about preservation of fireplace to facilitate wildlife. Uh just something to remind the law the planning rules you can then develop
applications that new developers are not blocking wildlife access to their habitat. West Township has partnered with sustainable Jersey and PSG to offer free home energy assessments to residents.
Residents can receive a free home energy assessment to understand their home's energy use and discount ways to reduce waste. Uh plus it looks like energy saving products and store with low cost some use on the program. >> I'm sorry can I interrupt? How do you
how do you apply for the home assessment? >> I believe it's on the website. >> On the website okay >> send email time to time. I got the email from PNG that they can have US. >> I I went through that a couple years back. It it was very uh >> I know somebody that had it done and I
thought well they live in East Windsor so I was thinking that maybe >> I don't know I have to I I don't remember getting an email. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry. Um yeah, so some of the um u gadgets that they, you know, they might be
willing to install or one of the recommended um smart thermostats, LED light bulbs, faucet heaters, efficient flow, shower heads. They're obviously not installing heat, but shower head adapters, advanced power strips, water
heater byation. >> Okay, that's nice. >> Thank you. Okay. Okay. Next up, work session on revision to RP1 district ordinance amendment to AV redevelopment
plan pursuant to settlement agreement between township and AB. >> Okay. Anyone? >> No. >> No. >> Work session. >> Got it. >> Okay. I have a I have a question before
we start on this. A couple questions actually that you can maybe Who's gonna start? >> Um David. >> Yeah, I can start. Well, yeah. Um >> let let me go to my questions. Couple things. We don't we don't have the reference docs, you know, the original,
you know, the docs from the um you know, with the site plans and all that stuff. So, it's hard for you know, to remember what I looked at >> with location. >> Yep. location and what we agreed upon.
That's number one. Number two, um, and I guess we'll get to it. Like, did Chief Lynch opine on anything with the changes to the height of the buildings? And maybe I I you know, maybe I'm jumping the gun here. >> That's good question.
>> Well, it is. Yeah. >> Yeah. I was I was curious. I don't know how how how tall is it story? Like it says 85 feet, six stories. To me, I always thought a story was 20 feet.
>> No. No. Um the tip of the story depends on what type of building it is, but generally on a ground floor, you see a story height of maybe 12 feet or so and 10. But it depends on what type of building is. So there's something say for example
special needs housing or senior living housing. If there is some sort of medical component involved in that, you will see a higher floor to ceiling height for that type of equipment. >> I guess I'm, you know, I'm used to Manhattan, so I think those stories are 20 feet probably because they have
equipment in there, high ceilings and Okay, so that's why I wasn't I was saying 85 ft, six stories seems a little low. >> I know. So this is um so to refresh everybody about where this is, right? >> I'm gonna say one thing before you start. Sure.
>> Uh to add to Michael's uh intro, um as we go through this this process, uh I really want to know the why of all the changes as we go through things instead of just the nitpicky this is the change. >> Uh the short answer is and I don't hate
to say it like this, but short answer is because we have to um as part of a settlement agreement. >> We have to be the short answer. I can give you some of the background but the short answer is >> an agreement with Avon >> uh with Avan. So
>> when when we submitted the house fair share plan it was approved by Judge Ali but there was one and the program member who was Judge Jacobson with one caveat. Um Avalon at this point had objected to the plan because they were saying that
the uh assisted living facility which is immediately adjacent to the train station um and it was over 200 units as I recall etc. >> It was 155 >> originally 135 >> originally 135. >> Okay. Right. But it was like a 20% set
aside and Avalon came and say you know what we had a partner they bowed out. We we can't do it. We just can't do it anymore. So, we're we're objecting. We wound up settling with them to get it finished uh of they can build up to 170 units, 10% Medicaid beds, which we could
which are affordable housing beds. Um and we we would have a an amendment to the redevelopment plan, which we've agreed to with them, and an ordinance implementing the changes to the zoning. We didn't think at my office's end that we actually needed an amendment to the
zoning ordinance because we thought the redevelopment plan was sufficient, but they wanted to do it. That's what's before you. They basically prepared that, but we signed off on it. Um, and what what's going to happen, this is now going to go uh basically the council,
they have a meeting on I think the 8 introduction on the 18th and then uh a second reading in September. Um if this is approved then we're finished with that but they have to come back in for site plan review right then. So
>> yes don't they have to come before the board to um lay out their plans after they need site plan they they'll need site plan approval. >> Good. >> So I just wanted to give some background here. >> Yeah and that's 100% right. Um just to Mr. German answer your question.
>> Um isn't it this is the W squ. >> Yep. this W square. So this right next to the Z that lot right next to the train station. If you guys remember that you have >> and I'm going to I'm going to this is going to be correct for the record but I'm going to use my hands to demonstrate everything. >> There's lot there's open lot there's lots there where I guess they're going
to put some of this stuff. >> Yeah. So, if you know where the train station is, then you have kind of that uh plaza area with the two mixeduse buildings on either side >> originally. And then right ahead there's that uh condo building supposed to be a hotel. >> To the left of that,
>> the township approved a uh senior living building that 35. >> It's between the parking garage and Vond drive extended. That is the empty site. >> It's so crowded there. >> Yeah. I don't know how they're going to fit this that stuff in to be honest with
you. I when every so often like I'll drive in to see the progress they made and it is packed in there. >> Yeah, it does it. It is. Yeah. I mean that was the whole point in a high higher density mixeduse area. Unfortunately, when you get as much commercial as we originally had uh envisioned in that area, >> we got a day some
>> we got a day. >> Yes. >> But but we didn't we had initially initially conceived this as the new downtown for this. kept getting scaled back and scaled back. Let's >> What about the the property on the other side of the train tracks? What's I'm sorry I'm digressing here. >> No, which which property?
>> The uh >> slumber. >> Slumber property. That thing's been vacant forever. >> Uh we looked into that. It's still very contaminated. >> Okay. >> Now, just and this is a very technical term, very contaminated still.
>> Oh. So, don't aren't they responsible cleaning it up? They are, but the >> just to be clear, the um the special special needs housing is a separate building.
>> No, no, it's my understanding that this would all be something that would replace that uh previously approved 135 unit building. That's my understanding. So that new building would be some sort of senior living building that would have some sort of combination of whether
it's age restricted um nursing home, special needs, assisted living >> all would be in that building. >> The the basic idea was um now with 170 10% this is fewer than we had planned on
when when we did our compliance plan. So, we worked out a um an arrangement with with uh Avalon where whatever fee that has to be paid by them for um for the the affordable housing improvements,
they would now put put in place five special needs uh beds. And those would those would be basically group homes where they would shift existing market units in their development both both east and west to to a couple of two or
three um um group homes in uh w with total of five beds. So we would pick up five more beds and there'd really be no increase in the number of units or the density. So the group homes would basically have just the beds in there for special needs
and whatever else goes along with that. >> Exactly. And you would get a credit for that. >> They'd have their own living facility, kitchen, somebody. >> Yeah. Right. Exactly. >> How many of How many of those are there? >> They would the the contemplation is five. >> Five. Okay.
>> Five is okay. >> Yeah. >> Would those count to the next round? the round four of >> No, this is actually counting for round three. >> They would count for round three. >> They allocated for round three. They just haven't been yet. >> Exactly. >> And and the way we came up with five is
when you added all the credits we thought we could take for where we were with round three developments and that's basically pretty much everything. Although we have um Frank Petrino on behalf of Tri-State and WWM claiming, you know, a lot of all a
lot of these things are never going to be built, etc., etc., but if we ever get to a hearing, we're going to show that in fact they're proceeding. Um but when you added the numbers now with the reduction of 10% of the 170, we were five short of a required number. That's
how we came up with a five. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's a lot of it's, you know, I I you guys all like the affordable housing process. A lot of it is sometimes more mathematics than it is planning. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. >> Uh but this is essentially and Jerry hit
the nail on my head too. This is step I want to say step one because that was probably the second but this is step three in a 20step process. So >> exactly >> they will have to file an amended site plan application. they will have to appear in front of you and every question that you guys might have in terms of safety, in terms of circulation, parking, everything like
that. >> So, so the Chief Lynch memo would take place during their application process. >> Okay, that makes sense. >> And I believe, yeah, probably a minute site plan. >> Yeah, because they already have a site
plan approval for the 135 with a 20% set aside. Now, are we okay with six stories in some places? >> Uh, I believe we only plan for six stories in some other affordable >> as long as it's no big long larger than 85 ft tall.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, for example, the R5E district, which is um the former BMS site, we're allowing a height of up to Oh, no, I just Sorry. I had that lined up and I just lost it
for you guys. Sorry. Oh, six stories and 70 ft there. So, >> six stories, 70 ft. >> Yeah. >> Why is this one 85? >> Uh, that was something that was discussed with them. I think just to allow for that flexibility and again understanding that if there is special
needs or some sort of nursing home or assisted living, it is a larger door to ceiling height. >> Okay. >> Uh because again, you need to fit that equipment in that >> statues. No, it's it's architectural. Yeah. Uh when we were we've done a lot
of work with like certain hospitals for example. Um so we had to do a lot of like Florida ceiling height studies and because of the medical equipment you will see it for a to ceiling height then it hit like family resident. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. We uh you know uh Valley Hospital in Ridgewood they open. >> Yeah. We represent Valley Hospital. How how tall is the height of the parking garage? >> Pretty big. >> The one that's right next to the site, right next to the other >> the one off of V.
>> How tall is that? That's pretty big. >> I can see what the allowable height is there. I forget what the height was. But I believe we actually did an increase. I think that goes back to another zoning amendment for this site where we increase the allowable height there. >> Yeah,
>> I believe they had another four. We give people >> I think we increase that that was when they the idea was a hotel right >> um I I I forget the patient there is >> you remember
it's pretty massive you think they got to fill that up >> uh based on their projections >> okay >> so people could walk around and shop
Yeah. [clears throat] >> Okay. Well, parking free in the Wallace road block on weekend. So, >> um the parking structures, we did do an amendment to the ordinance. They are allowed to be up to six levels. >> Okay.
>> So, here's a question. On the third page, um at the end of permitted uses before parenthetical number three, there's pet daycare facilities. >> Yeah, I know. Is there a requirement for exterior space for a pet daycare facility? >> No, >> not at all.
>> Don't forget most most of this is the existing RPA. >> Yeah, most of that is existing. So, that was another amendment that we did for >> I I remember I think it was a planning board application when we did the veterinary place next to the Starbucks. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Near Lowe's, you know, that had
exterior space for the facility >> the because it was a pet related facility. though and would that would the requirements for a pet daycare facility be elsewhere in the zoning code for that use? >> You mean the standards? >> I mean it's listed as a permitted use
but that yeah that's what we had exterior space for the pets. >> All right. So um we did adopt an an amendment to the ordinance for pet daycare facilities in the RP1 district which is specific to the RP1 district. >> Right. >> It has um separate standards that are
unique for that zone. Um buildings and or tennis spaces must be soundproofed to a certain uh vessel bullet rating. All buildings shall be of adequate construction maintain a good repair and secured in order to protect animals from injury or escape. Proper and ample ventilation of all animal areas and
building shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction with uh board. Um all animals housed in the facility shall be kept within the confines of a building between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. >> Provisions shall be made for the removal. page. Which page?
>> Oh, it's on the top page. >> The pages the pages that are not numbered. >> And it was actually >> Thank you. Thank you for no outdoor facilities were to be permitted. So, you're actually not allowed to have an outdoor facility for >> me. It was something from that.
>> This answers my question. Thank you. >> Yeah, I think it was something from that one. Paul probably due to the due >> Yeah. Right. >> Um I don't recall I don't think they ever follow a cipher application for pandemic.
>> Anybody else? >> The other other change I'll point out um and you might ask why it seems silly. Uh senior housing um we reduce the parking requirement from 7 to 0.5. >> Um >> Oh yeah,
>> that lines up more with um residential site movement standards for assisted living which is actually 0.5 parking spaces per unit. >> I I could I mean it makes sense for lower parking because if there's seniors
there they could be single, right? because one spouse unfortunately passed away or and a lot of them don't drive anymore. >> Right. >> Right. >> So that kind of makes sense >> which is good that it's near a transit facility. >> Yeah. >> Right. That's
>> they had proposed at one point that they would be willing willing to do a project with um more more than 10% set aside but it wouldn't be non-agger restricted >> and the thinking at the in the side of the township was keep it as age restricted which has a lot of
implications financially and yes schools and in terms of site design too. on a I guess slightly related note. I saw that uh I think West Windsor Plainsboro high schools have the highest SAP scores or some of the highest SAP scores in the >> highest what? >> Highest SAT schools in the state.
>> Really? >> I think that the the schools were number two and number three. >> Very number one was >> our two high schools. >> Average SAT score that is >> I believe it was I think it was SAT. >> It was it was an NJC article. Yeah, like
yesterday heard David work. >> Oh, I got to check it out. I saw it. >> Well, Odysius is uh Matt Damon who went to West Plainsboro, Ohio. >> Yeah, >> Matt Damon. >> Yeah. >> No, Matt. No, you're thinking of Ethan Hawk. >> Ethan Hawk. >> Oh, okay. >> Matt Damon's from Massachusett.
>> Ethan Hawk went to the Hunt School. >> I thought Matt Damon was a New York. >> Ethan Hawk is a Hunts school graduate. >> And Matt Damon grew up with Ben Affleck in Massachusetts in Boston. >> Yeah. New York. No. >> Everything what I've been telling everybody. They're both [laughter] >> He's in Hawk.
>> They've been humoring you, J. >> He's in Hawk went to school here and he went to Hunt. >> Okay. >> And And he didn't give any money to Hunt as an alone. >> Just so you know. >> You would know. You would know. >> I would know. So So where are we in the review of this? Uh this >> we're still reviewing Matt Damon and
Ben. [laughter] >> Uh as from one Greek tragedy to the next. Um >> so St. P no St. page further down um on both does it mean that
isn't that is there a regulation you know or I see requirements >> no that so that is a um that's actually an existing regulation and um it does make sense so the way we
crafted or the way this redevelopment ordinance was originally drafted was come up with those types of standards based upon the totality of the redevelopment area. Because sometimes what happens is in these larger redevelopment areas where you have different entities that are operating,
right? You might have one developer or one operator for one housing unit, another for another type, then the commercial, they'll get chopped up into different lots just for financing purposes. Much like that happened with the fog of the show. They're not
supposed to be operating independently from one another. So sometimes when ordinances are a little bit too strict in that, they'll apply say F coverage setback requirements to those individual lots when really they're not supposed to be functioning individually. They're
supposed to be connected. So sometimes you'll see those FS spike up because the lot line completely encompasses the building, right? Or they won't meet the setback much like the photo to show. So, when it comes to the individual lots, how they're being arranged for financing
purposes, it doesn't make as much sense to apply individual um bulk standards to those chopped up lots as it does to the entirety of the district because you're making the assumption that everything is going to operate as one cohesive development even if they have different operators for
different lots. I'm sure. So are you saying that it doesn't make sense to describe how descriptive they are or see? >> Oh no no no we we No no no no if it's like do so for example if you look on
>> just for >> just for the individual lot for the district we have for the overall district we have an improvement coverage of 95%. for example, that's for the entirety of the district. But when you chop it off into individual lots, you might have one lot that says surrounding a building just for financing purposes,
>> that'll have a 100% coverage, but then maybe the plaza has 20% coverage. Really, it's the totality we care about. >> I I have a question regarding um 7D parking struct on there's no I don't know the page number. >> Parking structures attached to buildings
or principal permitted uses may be up to six levels of 70 ft. >> Yes. Yes. Now, you're talking about a standalone parking structure like a garage, that big garage. Because to me, when I read that at first, I'm thinking like you have a townhouse and next to the townhouse is a sixtory,
you know, you have apartments and then next to a six stories and garage can be I don't know how you get the car up to the sixth story, but but you know what I'm saying? It needs maybe a little bit more specific there. >> Well, those were already built. >> Okay. >> Yeah. The only things that are getting
changed in this ordinance are in red. So that that parking structure attached to the building that's already >> that that's that big massive parking structure. Okay. >> Building E5 and E6. >> Okay. >> A shame at least know those numbers at this point. >> Yeah.
>> That's fine. >> Anything else in here we need to exchanges? Yeah, that's all we that's all we focus up. >> What's that? >> Yeah. Number two, the senior housing. >> Yeah, that's where the that's where the p the changes are. >> Yeah. You know, >> and again, we're keeping the number of
family units the same. It's just senior housing, which is kind of an all-encompassing term for um age restricted needs, nursing home. >> What was it before? It says in addition to the 800 family dwelling units, the
redeveloper may um construct up to additional 170 senior housing units. Didn't we have allocated some senior housing prior to to this change? >> That was originally going to be the 135 number. >> Okay. We need we need to make we need to
have that kind of language in there that says that it was increased from 135 to the 170 as opposed to it looks like it wasn't any uh proposed and all of a sudden we'll put in 170 additional am reading it incorrectly
>> probably >> yeah normally you wouldn't put that in an ordinance that like more of like a wear ass Okay. Okay. Got it. Yeah. No, that's >> that makes sense. In addition to the up to 800 family dwelling units. That sounds weird.
>> In addition to the up to 800. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The wording doesn't sound right. Get rid of >> I agree with >> Oh, yes. In addition to the up to >> So maybe in addition to the maximum up. What I would I I think there's I think
there's a number of language improvements that could be made. This was actually drafted by Avalon Bay and just for for simplicity of of process I would just leave it the way it is. It's going to be before council. Well, it's going to be before council and first
reading in uh in August second reading September and if we want to make changes then that would be that would be a place to make them. >> Okay. Um, but something that I agree with you, Jerry, but something like stands out like this, it just really makes no sense. We should fix that. But
and then I agree with Jerry that when it goes to council, then that's when the final verbiage takes place. >> You express that to them. >> Well, we're going to get um there'll be another session to to >> for us >> for us to um nail down the final
verbiage. >> Yeah, it's going to come back to us after first reading. It'll come back to us. >> Okay. Well, we should change we should change this language because it's it's not even clear. >> So, let's let's change that. And then again, you know, let's not nitpick now
because the final uh version um will come back to us >> where that's I agree with you >> one senior traveling unit that whole thing can be moved up to another sentence already. I uh that will
be done at the later stage but I this addition to the up to 800 needs to be fixed. >> Just make it maximum >> I would say um >> a maximum of >> the maximum of units. Yeah, something like that.
>> Yeah. And then you know when when we re when we revisit this and we come up with the final version that's going to >> then we need to wait till >> until it's all cleaned up and then >> right when when does this come back to
us Jerry >> those changes are significant >> in September >> we go back >> no then we'll change we'll change the verbiage we'll change the words we don't like this sentence we'll remove it we'll move it up we'll move some down Okay. >> Right. We're gonna nitpick now and then
they come up with that version. >> It may not it may need to be totally redone anyway. >> So, let's all do it all at one time. >> Yeah. And I think um >> Am I understand this correct? >> Yeah, I I agree. >> It's usually something like this. It's
it's >> so council in a separate work session and and asking all sorts of questions and stuff. that they introduced. Then we got 45 days to get it back to the plans board >> and then you have to
>> So can can we have another working session that gets closer to a final ordinance uh ordinance for council? >> We can this this is um going to go to be introduced by by council on the 11th. So that's a very short time period.
>> The next >> oh the 18th I'm sorry the 18th. No, it's the 23rd, right? >> August 11th >> through the 25th. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And also
>> Yeah. >> Yes. 24th is the next >> and also I noticed, >> right? >> Yeah. And and Jerry, I just realized too. Um, so I I we had worked on a separate draft. Uh, this was from Malan. I I
think the numbers are wrong, too. Um, >> because this would allow for >> Yeah. Which I thought it was going to be 9. >> Yeah. 903 all together. >> 903. No, 970. >> No, I know. I don't think it's Yeah, I I don't think it's supposed to be that
many. It's 800 plus 170. >> So then we >> Oh, they slipped with the numbers. >> So that needs to be fixed 100 that needs to be fixed like right away >> because if originally
>> So then there's not 800 right now because if you say it was 135, now it's 170. Didn't they already build 800 there >> or is it seven totals? >> So, um they were approved for eight
68 I thought. >> That sounds familiar >> because they originally had something. >> They originally allowed 800 units as of right and then if a hotel was not constructed, they were allowed an additional 68 units, right? So, that would be 868 total units they were
approved for. Oh. of which 135 were senior, right? So 16 or 868 minus 135 is 733. >> And then if you add now 170, that's 903.
>> Okay, now that now that makes sense. >> Yeah. So I I >> But the way this is written, looks like they're going to put a they're going to squeeze in another 170 senior housing units. >> Yeah. I don't know if that was a conversation after the fact, but when I had first looked at this,
>> no, this language, no, this language needs to be fixed because you're getting from 9003 there's 970 there's an additional 67 units that was not approved. >> So I don't this language needs to be
cleaned up and fixed >> before it goes before the 11th. I mean, I guess one week before good >> catch uh the meeting on the 24th is when the council president set the agenda, but sometimes it's a date or two later.
We go out to the public on a Thursday, >> right? >> To me, it's a little confusing. I think it be 800 units. I know. Isn't it interesting? They they they
crossed it out. >> Look at the number they crossed out there. >> Cross this out. >> I don't know. >> 68. See the 60? It was 67, I think. Right. >> What a 68. The 68 is crossed out. >> And then how conveniently they added the
170 back in. >> Yeah. What I would recommend is um Establishing a maximum of 93 dwelling units
of which at most 170 shall be senior housing, assisted living, whatever it is. Um, most >> because they already have the rest of the residential constructed. So, we're only doing those seven
and it was in um think that was a ceiling as well. They weren't willing to agree with just in case a quick question number two 68.5%. What is the exact >> Oh, that that's Yeah, I would have to
work those numbers that this has become almost like a Frankenstein ordinance. Um, it doesn't this these numbers don't add up. I see the 800 and I see the 68. That's your original 868. But then there's nothing no mention of the 135 originally approved senior
housing and and then the 68 goes away. It all instead of they just add back the 800. It should be 800 less um it should it somehow the know they're playing with
the formula right it should be it maybe up to um >> it should be 170 senior units less >> 868. >> Yeah, that's the um 68 or something.
That's 67 to get you to 103 >> or up to additional 170 senior units which in which includes I don't I don't know what the right verbiages you just don't know
>> as an example >> I just know the numbers don't jive so gets picked So they're squeezing they're they're they how Avalon Avalon is the one that crossed the stuff out, right? >> Yeah. The edits.
>> Okay. So then Avalon is trying to pull one full fastman. >> No. >> No. Um, yeah, I have some preliminary numbers about what I I thought the unit counts. >> I don't know how to word it, but I know the numbers don't
>> I I would I I I would keep it relatively simple, right? I would say 93 units total at most 170 senior housing. >> Um, work backwards. Now, the set aside for the family units is going to be
slightly more at 16.64% 64% >> and 10% for any new >> okay >> senior housing >> well the 903 total units which can can include up to an addition which can include
170 senior units take out the 170 you get 733 >> Yep. >> So 733 is the 86080 minus the original approved 135. >> Yes. Somehow you've got to word wordsmith that.
>> Yeah, I Yeah, I I I will work with uh I'll work with Jerry. So, >> because it can't it it can't stand the way it's it is because it looks like whatever they have there, they're going to stick another 170 senior units there.
>> Yeah, I think the 800 family devel approves this, they're breaking ground. So you have to have to come before the new >> hard. >> Yeah, >> I don't like it at all.
>> I'll entertain a motion to change this paragraph. [laughter] >> I'll agree with that. >> I'm having called a role. Can they separate out the senior um I think
>> housing units versus the family dwelling units? >> I think David has it right that we should say they can build up to 733 family units and up to 170 senior units and that's and that's it. That's what we're all saying I think.
>> And then and do we know what number that's there now? Right now they're approved and how many is physically built because they're done building. >> Oh, no. I I mean they I don't know how many have been coed, but it's going to be 733.
>> Oh, so they they know there's 733 there or broken ground or maybe maybe not not COD, but the build the frames are up, the buildings are up and >> Yeah, that's okay.
>> So that then Okay. So then if you if this was approved [clears throat] >> they would probably put another 67 to get up to the 800 and then shove another 170 in there. >> Yeah. I I again I haven't been too
involved in discussion but I I thought it was just the 170 for senior. Uh um >> so yeah, you got to word smith it to total of 93 units with up to 170 senior units. However they want to do it,
right? They have 733 there. Well, then they can max out at the 170. >> Mhm. >> Right. You can't have the the number 800 in here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I agree. Well, I I think as I said, I think the most straightforward
approach is just to say you can build up to 733 family units and up to 170 senior units. >> Like how do they do that? Unless are they going to say the senior units are all in one building or are they going to be
>> Oh, they're going to be that's the assistant living. >> Yeah, but to say that it's all senior senior housing will shall be in like one building. >> Oh, in the >> two buildings or whatever it is. >> Well, we think the assistant living >> everything else is built out. So, they
only have that like vacant space towards the like the westerly portion of the site. That's where this building goes. >> Space for 170 seat. Is there enough space for that? >> Yeah, that's why they're hanging on the floor. >> Yeah, but they have the footprint for
that for building that size >> footprint for the >> hotel. That's a lot of units. >> Shares of parking. >> Okay, got it. So, it's not shares.
>> Okay. because that's a lot of units in the one building. >> So, just so it's clear, it's going in a separate separate building, the senior housing. >> Yes. >> Does it say that? >> It's it's attached to the garage, but um does does this say this?
>> Does it say separate building? No, I don't think so. >> How how are they doing that? >> What do you mean? >> I mean, how the senior housing units, let's say the 170, where where are those going? They're not distributed with the u one building.
>> Okay. Does does this say that it be a separate building for senior housing? >> Yes and no. So it doesn't say separate building, but senior housing buildings are allowed to be >> up to six stories. So they're they're a separate building height established for senior housing. So presumably all those
units are going to go to that sixtory building. They in this language they may have the option if they choose. >> Yeah. I mean >> yeah it's it's gonna end up being in one building but Fran is right. The way this
is rain, it would allow for >> each unit have different amenities >> so they could move them. >> Yeah, because every floor has an elevator. So that's one or
I think units with an atrium. Stairway to the top floor. Here's if you start distributing senior housing throughout then the other buildings they
go up to six story they say well wow we have some senior housing in here senior units for the rest of market >> yeah regular family >> may maybe uh maybe >> buildends to be a higher
add >> and those are technically both already mixeduse buildings and so even if they did have senior living in there right or an age restricted unit or two which again I don't think they're going to do but because they're mixeduse we have a separate height or mixeduse building so they'd be to that
>> yeah they they wouldn't mix a se designated quote unquote senior housing unit in a regular building that wouldn't make any sense. >> Well, part of >> a lot of things in this didn't make any sense. >> No, I know. But that wouldn't make any sense cuz what what's the benefit of
having a senior unit inside a mixeduse building? There's no there's >> you know there would have to be in I guess income restriction that would that make it an affordable unit. You know, you the apartment 2D you have to be 55
and over. I I you know I don't know if that >> it's going in a separate building. >> I think it's got to be >> I think we're overthinking this. >> Yeah, I think >> what what is wrong with with saying you can do 733 family units
>> and you can do up to 170 senior units in the assisted living facility. >> That makes sense. I like it. >> Yeah, I like that. Simple. >> Yes. You got to be clear that that's what we want the >> senior living facility. >> Yeah. Yeah. That make that makes sense.
They're designated that the senior housing goes into the assisted living building. >> And it's really unfortunate that we actually have this because as I said earlier um we we've already done amendments to the redevelopment plan which deals with all these issues,
>> right? >> Um and they said, "Well, we need an ordinance also." So I said we don't think you do but >> um >> if you want to do the ordinance you can but you know it's created as many problems obviously. >> Of course absolutely >> what do
>> Yeah. >> Well I think they still I I think the limit is still the 733 right now and the up to 170. Let's we'll make these change and we'll we'll get off to them. doesn't do that. >> Did Did they send us information about
us >> in your housing? >> No, they just sent it a few days ago actually. >> Yeah. >> Includes nursing home, senior citizen. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> This was was this was part of the settlement? >> No. This
>> or No. >> No. >> So, where where do we go from here? We we reddraft this section. Dave and I will do that. We'll get it off to Avalon this week. >> Good. >> Yeah. I Yeah, I have link already done. Um
>> every everything else that's not in red was the existing ordinance. >> Oh, yeah. Everything Yeah. Okay. >> We're adding in the um description of special need. Does that have to be put in? >> Yeah, we want to keep we want to keep
that in. Yeah. But in the definition section at the beginning of the article, you're a whole different cate. >> That's a good point. >> Yeah. >> Um, special needs housing is defined as housing of a bed that is reserved by. So
if we have an ordinance book that has definitions that need to be included >> special >> well it says it's defined in NJSA 341B >> whatever >> that's a state code
>> so okay >> yeah but it doesn't say special needs housing for seniors or senior I >> I think we could keep it I think it's best keeping in this section tell the truth Special needs housing is separate from senior housing. It's se it's a separate item. >> Yeah. >> Could be a senior.
>> Yeah. It could be anybody. It could be a senior or it could be a kid. >> Anybody. >> Yep. >> Well, they want to make sure that it's, you know, microscope. >> It's group homes for people with special needs. Yeah.
>> Are we going to discuss windows too, >> Anderson or Pel? >> No. No. Whe the bedroom has a window or not. >> So, so it has to have a window. >> Well, that was for
>> No, when We've we've we've resolved that elsewhere. >> Okay. >> Yes. Thank you, sir. >> Okay. Anything else that Jerry and um David are going to rework that? I think everything there's no
Is there nothing else in red that we need to revisit? >> No. >> My >> Okay. have what leads you about. >> Well, yeah, you have the first page you
have the special needs housing. >> Then you have >> we need to define that, right? >> Yeah. >> And then B2 you have everything there regarding um the number of units that needs to be revisited, re uh
worded. We're >> Yeah, I think on page one under tube A, it's sufficient the way it is now. >> Okay. But do we need to add this definition to the ordinance book under definition? >> No.
>> Why? Because it's already defined. >> It's defined right here. You better off here rather than having somewhere else. >> Sometimes it could be used. >> Yeah, I believe. So, yeah. So, it's just defining it to that.
>> So, then B2 needs to be rewarded. Uh we're okay with the six story. It's 85 ft. We're okay with the parking is um.5 versus 7. This time we have
>> the six stories to have the chief comment on that. Well, that'll thatation >> but the c well the council would um introduce folks right before the plane and board gets >> well. Do we need an opinion from him
that you know >> address? >> Well, we have five. I don't want to have to buy another $2 million fire truck because half doesn't go off that high. I I I honestly I don't know. >> I would want to know now. >> Yeah. Exactly.
>> And this is again I know it's a different product and different population living there, but originally that hotel was supposed to be six doors and 85 CD. Okay. So, nothing's changing >> as far as the height is concerned in the
storms. >> Yeah. I mean, the maximum height of the hotel is supposed to be 80. >> So, he >> do we know do we know if Chief Lynch will find on the sixtory hotel? >> I think Chief Lynch will be fine with >> Okay.
>> They have long host. He has he has a very long host, Chief Lynch. >> Right. So basically, like I said, then he's going to have a valable needs in the building, >> right? >> And if and and if he doesn't have a ladder truck that could reach that, then he's going to insist on sprinklers.
>> This ladder truck will reach it. >> I heard he has a very long hose >> for neighboring municipalities. um points five parking spaces and that's pretty much it. Okay, >> we're good to go. >> Yep.
>> Okay, we're good to go. >> Yep. >> So, David's going to >> David and Jerry are going to re >> I already have I already have some like draft language specializing on numbers and then reooking the set aside. >> No, no, >> no, >> no, no, no. We're going to get it off to
to Avan. >> Sorry. to >> I think we've gotten the in we've gotten the instructions we need. If we get it back to the board, this will go on >> for an extended period of time. >> Okay. You you know what we want. We want no more than 93 units with 170 total um
max senior. However they get there, she's fine. And since they already have 733 built already, they're locked in for no more than 107, right? They're not getting away with an extra 67 units. They're going to squeeze
in. >> I That's my story. I'm sticking to >> Okay. >> Okay. Um council would be introduced and 45 review by the planning board ordinance that's introduced. Yes.
>> And it comes back to council if something passes and eventually either side of plan. >> Yes. >> And and before there's even a site plan application will be TRC meetings about this first. So look at it technical
details. So there's a bunch of steps done staff meetings. Okay, we don't vote on this vote. Okay, >> any other business? >> Close the motion to close the public's hearing. >> So move. >> Moved by Allen. Second.
>> Second. All in favor say I. I. >> Okay. Media journey. >> Look at that. Not bad.