You want a look? like to call this special meeting of the township committee on Tuesday, March 12th at 6:30. Uh please rise for the flag salute. Jim, would you lead us in the salute, please? >> Ready? Salute begin. I aliance to the
flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Please remain standing for a uh a quick invocation.
Uh, heavenly father, please guide us this evening and welcome all the residents that are here that have concerns and and may we have clarity and explanation and going through all of these subjects. May we all be well. May
we all continue to work very hard to keep the town of Woff the way that it's been as best we possibly can under many difficult circumstances. Say this in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen. Amen.
>> That's a roll call, please. >> Miss Bogdansky >> here. >> Mr. Bonstra >> here. >> Mr. Milion >> here. >> Mr. Shappert >> here. >> And Mayor Lane >> here. >> Please read the uh open public meeting law, please statement. >> This special meeting of the Woff Township Committee is now in session. In
accordance with the open public meetings act, notice of this meeting has been posted on the bulletin board in memorial town hall by the municipal clerk. And at least 48 hours prior to this meeting, the notice and agenda were posted on the municipal website's legal notices page in accordance with public law 2025 chapter 72. As the ordinances on our
agenda tonight were introduced prior to public law 2025 chapter 72's effective date of March 1st, 2026, the notice that these ordinances would be the subject of a special meeting on this date also appeared in the Bergen record on Friday, February 27th, 2026.
Good. Uh so we uh we had the uh I guess if you recall the pleasure of being at the planning board meeting last night and these topics were completely reviewed all the ordinances for the way the
process works at the the planning board passes their judgment on it and passes it on to us for ordinance approvals. Uh so what we did last night seemed to work quite well and we're going to try to do the same thing tonight. We have uh Matt,
our our town administrator, is going to introduce a couple of folks that are going to give a general broad overview presentation. You know, we may do some banter from from up here with them as they do that to try and go over the general scope of the reasons why we're
here tonight. So, Matt, with that, if you would give the introductions, that'd be great. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, uh, with us this evening is Beth McManis, our affordable housing planner, who has been with us, uh, since the third round. Um, and also with us is Lindsay Knight,
who is the township planner. uh they're both here uh going to make a brief, as you said, presentation to the township committee and to the public as to the reasons why we're here with regard to the fourth our fourth round obligations under the for fair housing act. Um so
without delaying it any further, I'm going to pass it off to Beth. >> Should we open up the public? >> We're going to do that after the presentation so that hope maybe some of the questions get answered. You're good. >> Please.
>> Do you want to use the table >> where you can? >> It's on wheels. You can move it wherever it works. Okay. >> Okay. Uh good evening folks. Um my name is Beth McManus. I'm the township's affordable housing planner. Uh so what I
thought I would do right now is just uh quickly set the stage for some of the actions before the council this evening. There are a group of resolutions and a group of ordinances on your agenda for uh passing of the resolutions in the public hearing and potential passing of
the of the ordinances. And everything that we're doing this evening is in service of uh gaining our affordable housing approval from the courts. And so this process started well I should say WIPOF has been engaged in this process
now for decades but most recently it started when the fourth round kicked off which was uh about June last year in terms of uh formal actions that are particularly relevant for this evening. That's when the planning board adopted their housing plan that was submitted to
the affordable housing dispute resolution program which is the court program that reviews and uh conducts mediation if necessary of housing plans. We submitted our housing plan to the program. We received one objection and that was from fair share housing center
through the program. We mediated with them successfully, came to terms, and we received a positive recommendation from the program stating that provided the township do what we've committed to both
in our June 2025 housing plan as well as through the mediation that we went through with Fair Share Housing Center, specifically the mediation agreement executed in December of 2025, provided we do all of those actions, which include include some things that have
been done already such as adoption of an amended housing element and fair share plan that was done by the planning board last night, but also the variety of resolutions before you and the variety of ordinances before you. We will be eligible for a compliance certification
or a judgment of proposed. It's essentially the same document and that's the court's stamp of approval of our housing plan for the fourth round. And that would essentially say that Wyoff has adopted the documents necessary to satisfy its housing obligation in a
manner that is compliant with the New Jersey Fair Housing Act and all of the case law and sets of rules that support it. >> Would you would you just give a little bit of the historical background that led us up to this and what what's occurred in the past with some of the
overlay zones and what we're at now? >> What's different between the third round and the fourth? >> Correct. >> Sure. So in the in the fourth round, as I said, we adopted our housing plan in June 2025. The reason why we why we did that fundamentally is because the new
fourth round affordable housing obligations became available were uh were determined is a better way to put it were determined for municipalities. And so that prompted a new round of housing plans being adopted by municipalities across the state. But
here in Wyoff, this township has been compliant with the previous rounds, rounds two and three, with adoption of various housing plans and putting in place various uh various zones throughout the municipality that are
intended to allow for development or redevelopment of what's referred to as inclusionary housing, which is a mix, it's defined as a mix of market rate and a mix of affordable units. So typically it's uh 20% set aside or perhaps a 15%
set aside of affordable units. So for 100 units, let's just say 15 or 20% of them or 15 or 20 units would be affordable. And so in years past, let me just jump in again. So So in the past when we've done some of these overlays,
there's been uh has it not been maybe decades and nothing has occurred on any of those properties? >> That is true. the um here in Wyoff, you guys have um perhaps a dozen uh ordinances or zoning districts throughout the community that uh that
allow for inclusionary housing for which uh the property owners have have not taken advantage of, have decided not to go through the redevelopment process. >> So, in other words, if there's commercial or industrial properties, uh some of these overlays go over multiple owners. Correct.
>> Absolutely. So, so that they would have to even agree together if they were going to make a a change and try to quote unquote take advantage of this overlay zone even in the past. >> Yes, absolutely. There are there are many examples around town and as an
overlay zone which all of and I will say all the ordinances before you this evening in most of your uh inclusionary housing zones throughout town that are not yet developed. They're all overlays which means that the underlying zoning continues. So let's say it's in a
commercial district. Um well they're almost all overlays but every and I'm sorry I'll clarify as I get through the ordinances but in each case of the ordinance every ordinance allows for the existing zoning to remain in place. So to the extent let's say it permitted uh
retail that retail can continue to operate today uh tomorrow they can change tenants etc. But if the property owner decides that they want to change their site and go through redevelopment uh with perhaps with stores and
inclusionary housing depending on the zone district, they have the ability to do so. And I and I also want to highlight that just because it's an affordable housing project and just because we're talking about the ordinances this evening does not mean that any property owner does not need to come before the planning board and seek
site plan approval. So just because you're doing affordable housing doesn't mean you get a free pass so to speak. You still have to go through the site plan approval process. Excuse me. So um this is this fourth round is really a continuation of the
decades of work and compliance that Whiteoff has gone through and is just simply a continuation of that. And the whole reason, one of the primary reasons why municipalities go through this process, which admittedly is difficult
is because they want to preserve their ability to uh to have control over their zoning. Or put another way, they want to preserve immunity or protection from builder's remedy litigation. And that is a huge concern here.
>> Please go into detail about builder's remedy. So, a builder's remedy is a type of litigation. Sometimes it's referred to as exclusionary zoning litigation, but it's a type of litigation that Excuse me. >> Yeah, I have some. Uh,
>> please take take your time. >> No rush. Sorry, I'm just getting over a cold. So non Laurel does not wait for that though. So uh most of the time almost always it is a developer that brings a builder
litigation to a municipality. And municipalities that are vulnerable to this type of litigation are those that do not comply with their affordable housing obligation or don't have that judgment of repose, that compliance certification that all of these actions
are intended to uh for WIPO to be able to obtain. So if you don't have that judgment of repose, that basically means there's some nuance to it, but it basically means that you haven't satisfied your affordable housing obligation. you haven't adopted a compliant plan or maybe you haven't implemented the plan, you haven't
adopted the ordinances that your housing plan set forth. And so if if a municipality is in that position, it gives a developer the opportunity to file litigation that essentially says this town is not compliant. They are not
meeting their constitutional affordable housing obligation and I the developer can help. And the reason how they help is through how they help is through creation of a residential project that
includes a set aside of affordable units 15 or 20%. And it looks different in every town and on every site. But the one thing that ties all of them together is that the project is bigger than what the municipality would have otherwise
permitted. because frankly a developer is not going to go through the headache of going through the litigation if they could just apply for site plan application. Instead, they're uh perhaps looking at commercial districts where they're proposing just residential, maybe it's a single family district
where they're proposing multif family, maybe it's a um a building height that's taller, a bu a building that is bigger, or perhaps all of the above. And so builder's remedy litigations once they're filed and if they're successful, the court will will make a finding. If
they're successful, it essentially means that that municipality's zoning, their master plan policies, all of the work that put into that existing zoning is basically irrelevant. Uh there are >> repeat that one more time. So if if we
don't take certain actions, let's get get right to the crux of it. If we don't take certain actions, we lose any of our planning and zoning capabilities because of builder's remedy. Is that correct? >> That is very much a possibility and that is the entire
just about the entire reason why I recommend that New Jersey municipalities go through this process. The zoning is critical to maintaining uh having control of your zoning is critical to maintaining uh quality of life and being able to
plan for the future of a community. A builder's remedy is enormously disruptful to that process. And as I said, it means that your zoning, your master planning policies are basically irrelevant on a property. And I should say that when a developer files a
builder's remedy and they're successful, it's it's awarded to that developer for that particular property, but the vulnerability in the community is is townshipwide. So a developer may file there, but it what can happen and I see
this in other communities is once once it becomes understood that that a community is vulnerable and assuming the town is desirable, has a strong housing market like here in Wyoff, it can be a bit of a a cascade of builder remedy
litigation, you find yourself with three or four developers with sites all vying for for frankly as much development as they can as they can achieve on >> and not just and not just sites that we choose. No, absolutely. None of the sites are to the municipality's choosing. Absolutely.
If they were to the town's choosing, presumably we would we would just put the zoning on place and work with the developer, but they're going through the litigation because that is they're asking for something the town is not comfortable with. >> And that's because and and and what we attempt to do with these overlays uh and
we're compelled to do by uh state constitution and New Jersey state law. Correct. uh is is we have to make agreements with fair sharehousing regarding density etc etc and then but then still that does not take away the fact that any
developer that may buy a property there's always rumors but it has to happen uh still must go to the planning board zoning board all of the local entities that we can you know use our leverage to protect the interest of our residents correct
>> yes Okay. >> Yeah. Go ahead. Continue, please. >> Okay. So, um let's see. So, why do we do this? Because we want protection from builder's remedy. What are we doing? We're trying to gain that protection through a judgment of proposed
compliance certification. And we are uh we're getting near the very end of this process. As I said, we've adopted our primary housing plan in June 2025. Last night, the planning board adopted an amendment to that housing plan that addressed a few changes that were
necessitated through our mediation with Fairshare Housing Center. They required uh four amendments to our housing plan and to uh what we were proposing in order to uh execute a mediation agreement for which the the township
previously did in December 2025. And we executed that mediation agreement because it was a way to gain certainty that the program and the court would have favorable view and have a favorable recommendation for our housing plans. Essentially finding that we were
compliant and then the the idea is that as we get through this process, we adopt their resolutions, our ordinances. They make a final finding of compliance, sometimes referred to as a final judgment of repose. And that is our our official stamp of approval for the fourth round.
>> One another question. What compelled us to this date? >> That was my next point. So uh we have the legislature, >> this is not rehearsed. >> No,
no, it's not. Um the legislature uh found it appropriate to place a March 15th deadline in the Fair Housing Act and they put a number of deadlines in the Fair Housing Act. This happens to be the last one. Um they set a deadline for
adoption of a housing plan. They provided some guidance for how the program would work and some deadlines in there, but ultimately the deadline that we're looking at right now is March 15th and it requires that municipalities adopt their housing plans and their
ordinances, their resolutions, etc. All of the the documents necessary to be compliant. That must be done prior to the 15th. Um, and it's important not only because Fair Housing Act says that, but more importantly because the program
recommendation and the Fair Housing Act states that if WOFF does not comply with this March 15th deadline that we could actually lose our immunity from builder's remedy. So failure to adopt
the ordinances and the resolutions could trigger the judge to find that we are without protection. >> Would that mean every zone? >> Yes, every zone. It would not be specific to the sites in our housing plan. >> So they could build five 10tory buildings, commercial properties, etc.,
etc. If they if they if that's if that occurred, >> I would say that a developer uh could pick up a commercial, single family, any property in town. I mean I you know parkland wetlands would be off off limits but essentially anything that is developable they could make use of.
>> This may be an appropriate time just so everybody in the room knows the town uh we joined in a lawsuit against the state with regard to all of this. Okay, because we uh we believe it's unconstitutional. But the the crux of
the lawsuit was to delay this particular date to give towns more capability to to try to work certain things with fair share housing. David, this might be a perfect time if you just go over that lawsuit. >> I will, but just to piggy back on what you just said about if we don't pass
these and also file by the 15th, a builder could come in on March 16th and file a builder's remedy lawsuit. uh because we have immunity right now through the third round up through that through the 15th, but that immunity will go away if we don't adopt these
ordinances. The housing plan was already planned and we don't file with the court by the 15th. If a builder sitting out there on the 16th, they could file right away. So, it's very important that that dates hit even though obviously we don't have anybody that we know of in the wings
doing it, but someone could file the next day. So this these dates as much as we tried to file we were involved with 2930 other municipalities both there were many reasons for it. Some were the rules in place we had some issues with some of their parts of the
fair housing act we thought needed to be reviewed but a lot of it had to do with the dates as you could tell are so compressed and unfortunately both federal and state court and we took it all the way up. We did not get any injunctive relief to delay any of this. It went it went to Samuel Alo on the
United States Supreme Court and the injunctive relief to change the date was denied. So I think uh you know sometimes when I'm I'm I'm riding in the car with my wife, you ever come up with one of these old sayings? I think the saying that's appropriate the state, the
federal government, the courts have put us what is it between a rock and a hard place so to speak. >> I mean so that's that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to balance the protection of white golf and and the community that we all love with the laws that are compelling us to do certain things. So why don't you pick up where
you left off? And uh but I hope that I hope you at that point is understood that your community collectively all everybody sitting here voted to go into this lawsuit to try to prevent this thing. And actually the crux of the lawsuit is to get to the core
constitutionality of what they're trying to do by taking away home rule on density and the type of zoning and everything that that we're accustomed to being being done. Uh but since the Mount Laurel Institute itself in the 70s, we
have this and it's just become a cascade a mess and quite frankly it really isn't serving people that uh need affordable housing. Okay. They've exempted cities like Jersey City, Hobok, and Camden. They don't have to do it. Now, where's the infrastructure to do all of this?
The city. Where are the jobs? The city, right? Where where's the infrastructure for transportation to get to the jobs? The city. But they're exact. But not not towns like White Coff or Franklin Lakes, etc., etc. And we're not alone. I mean, this is anybody that reads the papers,
this is a it's the timing is the timing, and everybody's up against this. So, we're trying to give you as much we're giving you every piece of information that we have. We want to do that in advance because it may it may answer some of the questions you have. Okay. So, back back to you.
>> Okay. So the uh so this evening if the if the council adopts the resolutions and the ordinances the next step will be that they're submitted to the program for review approval and uh there's an I I
would presume that the the judge our special adjudicator will review our documents. Perhaps they'll have comments, but my hope is is that they'll simply be reviewed and approved as being compliant with the Fair Housing Act, compliant with our mediation agreement, and consistent with our housing plan.
And so the the steps for this evening are uh there are several of them, but it's relatively simple in the sense that I've prepared a number of uh administrative documents for you that are subject to the resolutions. And then we have some
of these zoning and affordable housing ordinances for public hearing this evening. >> And just from a process perspective, uh if you have a if you have a question regarding a specific ordinance, that'll be done separately. So I know there's, you know,
there's Lafayette, there's there's West Main, there's different areas. Somebody may have an interest in one of those. There'll be the opportunity to have public comment at that point, too. Okay. But I I you know you can see you know
from what we're trying to tell you here what what we are up against and that we are rest assured we wouldn't be here if we weren't here for the best interest of whiteoff and fighting to do that. So are you uh are you
>> that was my introduction introductory spiel. I'm happy to answer any other questions or we can talk about resolutions whatever. Yeah, let's we'll hold the questions for the time until till we have that. David, would you would you please just give a brief brief overview of your your what you've done with us in that process.
>> So, um Beth did a wonderful job just telling about the programs. That's what they refer to this as. Um but I think it's important that the township committee made a decision that we were going to go butt down both tracks here. We were going to follow to get compliant because we want to protect the town and
not lose zoning rights. At the same time, we entered in with I think the final total was 30 municipalities. I wish there had been more and we were involved litigation both in the state and federal court. Unfortunately, those have not gone anywhere. The state ones are still out there. We have some
appeals that are still being heard. The federal case was dismissed for standing at the district court level. We might take an appeal there. So, there's still some issues, but we couldn't get injunctive relief. That's why we're here tonight. There's no pause on this. So, we have to move forward. But the township committee, I believe, took the
right decision to say, "We're going to go down both avenues here. We're going to fight it because we believe there's some issues in the rules and some of the, you know, constitutionality of the amendment to the Fair Housing Act, but we got to be compliant or we're going to lose our zoning rights. So, we've been
doing both tracks here and um I think that's been the right course to go." >> I I'd be remiss if I did not mention Rudy Boonster over here to my left. Rudy uh has been instrumental over many many years. Not not saying that you're old or anything, but he's been involved a
little bit. He knows probably everybody in the room or at least most. Uh and I just wanted to publicly thank you for all the time and effort that you put forward >> uh in these mediations before the judge, etc. And if you'd like to say something, please. >> I I appreciate that, Raj, but it it's we
do what's best for Wolf and it's a town effort, but I appreciate your words. Thank you. >> Okay. Do you have any other comments? >> Masking. >> Yeah. So, before we move into public comment, I think it would be wise if Beth goes through the documents that are in front of the township committee. Okay. In general,
>> uh try and address any specifics. Uh there are certain questions that Beth knows that we've been addressing throughout the last 3 weeks or so. Uh and try and address some of the residents questions maybe preemptively before they they need to get up and and ask them.
>> No, that's a great idea. Why don't you why don't you do that? >> So, um I'm going to just go in order of the of the agenda this evening. >> Sure. >> So, our and I'm going to start with the resolutions. We'll start with the resolutions. So, the first item is a resolution adopting an affirmative marketing plan. This is number 26-84.
An affirmative marketing plan is essentially the way that affordable units will be advertised. The advertising of an affordable unit is highly regulated in the state. And so this affirmative marketing plan, affirmative marketing being the term of art for advertising an affordable unit,
just simply identifies how the advertising shall occur. Uh where it's where the ads will be placed, some information about uh what should be included in the ads. Uh the next resolution 2685 is a resolution of
intent to fund a shortfall for affordable housing programs. This is a resolution that is uh simply required for municipalities and it simply states that if funding is necessary to meet your affordable housing obligation regardless of whether you can obtain
outside sources of funding to to uh to take the actions that you've committed to. The municipality must provide funding. Now, in this town, uh we don't have a 100% affordable housing site or something that is particularly expensive where this resolution, I think, takes on
a lot of uh importance here. Uh we're just simply looking for uh compliance and adopting that resolution to make sure that that we can gain our uh judgment of repose. The next resolution is 2686 and that is approval of our
spending plan, our affordable housing trust fund spending plan. That's a document that projects first let me say WOFF like many municipalities collect development fees and it's based upon residential and non-residential development that occurs in the town. Uh
developers, property owners must pay a small amount. It's based on their uh assessed value. So, for example, non-residential is 2 and a half% of the equalized value. They pay the amount of money. It goes in the affordable housing trust fund and the town can use it to advance affordable housing uh throughout
uh the township. So, our spending plan projects how much money is anticipated to be collected and how it will be expended uh and it does so in the in the manner that's specified in the applicable rules. And then the last
resolution is 2687 and that's the endorsement to the amended housing element and fair share plan and that's the document that I had referenced that the planning board adopted yesterday evening which simply addresses the few amendments to our housing plan from the
June 2025 plan. The governing body must endorse that so that we can submit it to the court for their review and approval. Right? >> So those are the ordinances excuse me resolutions. Like I said they're pretty much administrative in function. And then looking at the various
ordinances on the agenda, the first one addresses uh it's item eight. It's a ordinance repealing and replacing chapter 77 affordable housing. And so this ordinance regulates affordable housing
uh development in Wyoff. What it does not do is address zoning or determine where affordable housing shall be permitted or required in the community. It just simply states essentially where there are affordable units. These are
the regulations that they're subject to. So, it addresses topics such as uh determining proper rents or sale prices of units. uh the minimum number of bedrooms in affordable units, which is one of the regulated topics, uh how to
conduct or how to implement affordability controls to make sure that units that were anticipate getting credit for against our obligation are actually eligible for credit. So, this entire ordinance is being updated to reflect new rules that were adopted as recent as uh December of late last year,
uh December last year. The next ordinance is is uh chapter 113. This repeals and replaces development fees that uh development fee ordinance uh for the affordable housing trust fund I just
described. The rules and regulations for development fees have been updated. This ordinance simply uh is amended to reflect those updated rules and regulations. It does not change the amount collected or the types of properties it will be collected on. It just simply addresses some of the
administrative changes to the rules. The next item is uh referred to as a mandatory set aside ordinance and this is chapter uh or sections 186-48 and 49. And what this ordinance does is it states where there's a use variance
or resoning or perhaps a redevelopment plan where that occurs for for residential housing. uh it must include an affordable housing set aside. It does not state that where use variances must be permitted, where resonings may occur,
and it it also doesn't make it easier for a developer to obtain these things. It just simply says where they're granted, there must be a set aside. And specifically, what this amendment does is it increases the set aside to 20%. And so that means that instead of 15% of
the units being provided as affordable, it would be 20% and it just simply will be a better tool for the municipality always having protection from buildage remedy and gaining as much affordable housing from developers coming forward as possible.
>> And how did it go from 15 to 20 >> the developers? >> No, no, no. 50 the set aside. So it's it's just simply uh an amendment of the required set aside from 15 to 20%. >> Okay. >> Fair share requested it. >> Okay. Yeah. That that was my
>> Oh yeah. So fair share 20% 15 20% has been uh common set aside in years past and what we're seeing now is it's really just 20% that folks are pressing for. >> So they're looking for more and and and whiteoff as a municipality always tried to tamp that number down as low as
possible. >> Right. And and while I say and while Mr. Bonra was polite and said fair share requested it, fair share demanded it. >> Yeah. I mean, their their mission is to promote affordable housing in New Jersey. So, all of the changes that we
made for mediation agreement and for this ordinance is is uh is consistent with that and that they're just pressing for more. And this is >> and one of the general arguments that we'd love to have in this litigation is that, you know, it's called affordable housing, but it doesn't really end up
being affordable. I mean, >> it's the the the level of price that it would be at is not the person that you would think when you use the phrase affordable housing that you're actually helping. It's just not not the case. But continue.
So, uh, the next ordinance addresses the B1, uh, district, and this is actually where we start to, uh, move into the ordinances that are more consequential in the sense that it's actually changing, uh, uh, changing zoning and
changing land uses, >> right? And this this may be the ones. Now, with each one of these ordinances, when they come up, if you have specific comments, we're going to stop and and give the public the ability to make the comment. Uh but we she's going to go through each one and obviously I I
believe that there's people here for specific >> Mr. Mayor just to clarify she's going to go through all of them now and then we will go through each one individually at the when we get to in that to that portion of the agenda. >> Yes. Thank you Matt. >> Okay. >> Please. >> Yep. So the so the B1 district but more specifically it's not just the entirety
of the B1 district in the community. It's uh the B1 district around the intersection of Godwin and Franklin Avenue. So includes things well let me start with it does not include the CVS shopping center uh the shopping center with the CVS. It does include uh the
Dairy Queen Dairy Queen the tea bank uh some of the the office uses along uh Godwin and Franklin right there. And so what this ordinance does is it allows for uh the B1 district to or for these properties within the B1 district to
have inclusionary development. So incorporating uh a mix of market rate and affordable units as well, you know, in addition to the commercial uses that are permitted in the district. And our next ordinance is relatively similar in the sense that it's it's for the B2
district and it essentially does the same thing. And specifically, it's it's also not the entirety of the of the B2 necessarily. Instead, it's at the uh the B2 district that is at the intersection of Godwin and Crescent Avenue. So, it
includes the Brick House restaurant as well as the uh the restaurant, excuse me, the office and the retail across the street from it. So, for those commercial properties, it allows for uh now inclusionary housing in addition to the uh the commercial uses that are
>> I got to jump in. I don't believe that the brick house is going anywhere anytime soon. So that if that gives you any comfort with regard to this that those are the type of things they ask for just in the event that god forbid multiple property owners got together. Please continue.
>> Yep. Um and I would say that's uh that's actually cons consistent with what we see throughout. Most of the uses or most of the areas subject to zoning are not here because we have a property owner that's asked for. It's we're just simply obligated to create zoning opportunities for folks >> right
>> in town. Um let's see. Our next ordinance is the uh our next ordinance is referred to as the AH2 overlay. And so, uh, what this does is we have an existing AHO2 and it's
affordable housing overlay 2 is the the name of the ordinance. You'll hear me shorten that for the various districts. The AHO2 is an existing area, existing overlay ordinance at the Gothal Road, the Chevy dealership area. And so what
this ordinance does is it allows for that zone district to be expanded along the west side of Gothal from the township border up to but not including the poultry farm. >> So those properties there will now be subject to the same zoning overlay
zoning as the Chevrolet dealership. And as I talked about before, this is simply an overlay. So the zoning that exists today will continue in place uh for folks to utilize. and that's actually the L1 district. Uh or developers can decide to make use of this overlay
zoning. Uh our next ordinance is the AHO6 and that is for the uh property referred to as or at the address of 825 Windham Court. Uh this is an area that will have
uh overlay zoning that will permit town houses and multif family. It's at a density of uh 10 units an acre and it's a change from the not excuse me not a change because the zoning will remain in place but the existing zoning is the uh L2 district and so that zoning for those
commercial uses will remain in place but this is an additional option should somebody uh decide to take advantage of it. The next ordinance is the AHO7 district and this is the uh the Whiteoff Assembly of God or the uh
property. It's also at 139 Franklin Avenue. Uh and so this is a site that is going to be in the uh the RA25 district. And this will allow for a mix of uh town houses with affordable market rate homes and I think multi uh single family as
well on the property. Next we have the AHO8 district and that is for the property at 500 West Main Street. It's a it's a single property. This is a lot that's in the L1 district and this overlay zoning would
allow for the site to be redeveloped with multif family housing at 14 units an acre. I will say uh for this property in particular, for for those that for those of you that might have looked on Google Maps, um I'm a planner. I spent a lot of time working on Google
Maps, but uh if you look at the site, what you notice is that there's a a large portion of the site that is developed with the building and the parking around it. And then there's a large area that is uh existing trees and and woodlands surrounding the property. And so one of the things that this ordinance does is it requires a
significant buffer in order to maintain as much of the woodlands as possible but still allowing for the the density that we're that we are required to permit to allow that to proceed. Let's see.
And then our next is of course it's the Ah9 district and this is the this is the 4 >> 47575 L. >> Yeah, sorry. It's the 475 uh Lafayette
site. Uh and so this is a district that has been that has set forth in our mediation agreement. This one has a little bit of a a nuance and a change that I want to recognize. This site is in our housing plan and in our mediation agreement at 8 units an
acre. Subsequent to executing these documents, it became better understood that 8 units an acre was was a bit high for folks. It made folks uncomfortable at the level of development. And so what's happened is we've gone back to
Fair Share Housing Center and essentially said um we we recognize that this is what's been set forth in our agreement in our housing plan. However, frankly, we really like to reduce it as much as possible. Um the response was
okay, but with a significant caveat. So it was okay. It can be reduced, but it will only be reduced down to the minimum presumptive density permitted for inclusionary development with it, which is six units an acre. So I I don't want
to suggest that eight and six units an acre is a huge change, but we did get the reduction from Fair Share Housing Center, which quite honestly is rather unique. Um and they did uh express support for it coming down to
the minimum presumptive density which that too is actually rather unique as well. So while it's not uh addressed in this ordinance I think that's a change that we will have to make in order to affectuate that. >> That's correct. Uh and I know you've been in touch with fair share and I spoke to them today even at the this
afternoon. They're fully um supportive of that. We're just going to amend our mediation agreement. Uh so it shouldn't be any issue and again six is under the rules that's as far down as we can go unfortunately if it's an inclusionary area and it was unusual but uh Miss
Mcmanis was very uh helpful in getting them to go to that compromise and I got a u support of that today on the phone with them and I'll be amending our mediation agreement accordingly. Beth, if I can, can you can you please explain I know you did it last night to the planning board.
>> How what's the reasoning behind six is the minimum? >> Sure. >> Um, so first let me just say we start with six units an acre has been in COA's rules since 1993. The affordable housing rules for the state generally since
1993. So for the last 30 plus years that has been the minimum presumptive density and the reason why there's a minimum density like specified in the rules is because in order to require a developer to provide the affordable units, you've
got to give an incentive. Those affordable units uh do not generate profit. In fact, they really just cost the developer money. and and so in order to essentially require that they build units that have no or a negative value
to them, the courts and policy in New Jersey dictates that we essentially give the developer something in the give is typically through density. And so that's why in on all of these sites, we have densities that exceed the surrounding
area. Quite frankly, I I think that's it's just uh inherent in what we're trying to do. In order to get the 20% as is the case for for this for most properties in town, you've got to give some density and it's termed an
incentive or a compensatory benefit in order to then extract the affordable units out of the developer. >> Um and so then our last ordinance is for uh chapter 18. Yeah, chapter 186-49.
Uh, and this is to the um I think it's listed. Oh, yeah. MFAH9 district. And this is just simply an adjustment to the set aside of this is one of our older sites. One of the things that Fairshare was looking for through the mediation was any site that could have an
increased affordable housing set aside from 15% to 20%. This was one site that uh that we agreed to edit to just simply revise the uh the set aside to another 5% for 20%. >> This is by the post office.
>> Yes, correct. >> Just so I know. >> Yeah, it's between the uh the post office and the and the is that St. Elizabeth? >> Yes. Right there. >> I'm Beth. Beth, if I could get you to
explain to the residents and what leeway does this governing body have when setting these ordinances based off of the mediation agreement compared to and I'm going more with residents concerns similar to the ones that we spoke of when we met with uh we met with the
planning board last night. So the mediation agreement it doesn't specify some of the details like it doesn't specify um front yard setback for example things like that. What it
does specify is the density and but what that means is that while they don't specify the d uh the detailed bulk standards, it requires that the municipality prepare the rest of the ordinance in a manner that supports the
density specified. So, for example, in an extreme example, admittedly, we couldn't zone a a 10 acre property for 10 units an acre and then allow uh allow just 5% of the site to be to consist of
buildings and parking and driveways. That would simply a two-story building height. You simply couldn't achieve the density. So, you have to So, it's a couple things. is one, you've fundamentally got to ensure that the density that you've agreed to can actually be achieved on the
property. That's number one. Number two is municipalities are not permitted to apply additional rules to inclusionary zoning sites that they would not otherwise apply it throughout town. So, if you had an existing development uh or
an existing zone of let's say town houses that were permitted with no affordable housing and it included uh very few design standards, things like that, it would be problematic to then create a very similar townhouse district
that does require affordable housing and say and then these are all the design standards that must be met. You can't create a larger burden for a developer of affordable housing than you would a developer for market rate housing. And so I think those are two common pitfalls
for municipal ordinance crafting. Making sure that not only do you permit the number of units via the density, but also uh facilitating that density via the other standards and making sure that you're not creating essentially barriers to the construction of affordable
housing with really honorous design standards. But but that still does not preclude our our local zoning and planning from having buffer zones from having uh uh environmental environmentally protected areas. Uh you
know infrastructure demands >> storm water storm water that you know again if if there is a development the water goes somewhere right. Yeah. And actually on that point, let me say uh not only do your ordinances, they include things well they include
setbacks and other standards. They include buffer buffer requirements in most of these districts. Um for example, the West Main site is a is an easy example. Um it also does not exempt the developer from standard provisions that are in your code. So for example,
they're not exempted from storm water management. They have to meet the states and the local storm water management rules just like any other property in the community. And they'll and as I said, they'll go through site plan approval like any other property. And that will give an opportunity for your board engineer to review their storm
water management plan to make sure that they're doing it properly. It also doesn't exempt the developer from submitting information for their planning board applications, uh, such as maybe a traffic study. that would still be required. So the board and the public has a sense as to what are the traffic
impacts does the developer need to mitigate those impacts. They also need to submit the same uh environmental information and environmental impact statement. They'll have to comply with your tree ordinance for example and any of or request relief just like any other
property owner would. So, >> lighting, >> lighting standards is another another common one. Uh, parking standards, uh, parking construction, driveway construction, all of the additional items in your town code will continue to
apply. And I think that might it's probably not obvious in these ordinances for folks that don't live and breathe this stuff like I do and and like some of your professionals do, but these ordinances are they're overlay zones, but sort of regardless of whether
they're overlay zones, it they need to be considered in the context of the rest of your code. So, for example, you won't see storm water management addressed in here. You won't see lighting addressed in here. And that's because it would just simply be duplicative because we
have all those standards in the Wyoff township code that will naturally and certainly apply to the developments. >> Why? >> How would that be affected with a builder's remedy suit? >> You know, with the builder's remedy, uh, >> we're just talking density.
>> No, you're really talking everything. So, storm water is is storm water is rather non-negotiable because those are state standards that municipalities have to implement. Um but >> buffers on >> buffer I would say buffers are definitely uh >> that's part of what would be eliminated
uh or reduced to be fair to somewhat fair to developers. Um but buffers would be reduced, building heights would be increased. Building coverage or impervious coverage for parking areas would be increased. Um, essentially the control that a municipality would
typically exert over a project is going to be massively reduced. >> Please, I know this is redundant. Please just repeat what you just said. >> The control that a municipality would have over a project that was subject to a builder's remedy is massively reduced.
The court is going to award it. Presuming the developer presses and they're successful, the court is going to award a project and the municipality is going to have to permit it. Um, you may have the opportunity to revise your ordinances to permit it, but that's not
it doesn't give you a lot of control. When you're given the the plan that you don't like and being told you must write an ordinance for this, it's it's not particularly meaningful, at least in my mind, that you actually get to craft the ordinance when you've got to permit the thing that you don't that you don't like. Okay.
Beth, how does these developments take into account or how does the the the Fair Housing Act, I should say, take into account infrastructure, utilities, schools, >> schools, it doesn't, that's just the
short answer. It does not take that into account. Municip municipalities are not allowed to take it into account to be clear. It's not that, you know, WOFF isn't doing it. Uh, it's simply not permitted. Many municipalities have concerns about capacity of their school system and
it's simply not a consideration in developing the affordable housing obligation and it's not a consideration for municipalities perhaps objecting to what's necessary to meet their obligation. >> However, however, if we negotiate the best possible deal that we can, that
does mitigate that to a certain degree. >> Well, yes. And um you can protect in part I I think your school costs with uh by protecting against builder's remedy um just by being able to control your
zoning and instead of having a massive project potentially permitted on a property subject to a builder's remedy to instead require as you do uh smaller projects or permit smaller projects around town. And that means that the
additional school children is uh would occur across a longer time period and it's smaller chunks rather than all at once when a when a building is occupied or development is occupied in terms of other infrastructure such as roads,
sewer, water, etc. Um developers. So to the extent that a municipality already has concerns about those those issues as long as it literally has sewer and water, it is really not a consideration. You've got to meet your obligation uh
regardless of what you think about your roads, your sewer, and your water. There are exceptions if you literally don't have capacity or don't have sewer service, but concern about quality of infrastructure is is largely not a concern. um absent some nuance and uh
details which I don't think are applicable here. I will say that when a developer gets to their site plan application, they have to do that traffic study, they have to confirm that the infrastructure can accept their development, whether it's uh cars,
sewer, or water. Uh but it's in New Jersey, it's relatively limited. You can only ask a developer to uh to address the changes or the increase in traffic flow etc that is
that their development alone but I will say that this process doesn't tie the hands of the planning board the same thing that they would ask for another developer they can ask of an inclusionary developer but it can't be used as a reason why we don't have to meet our obligation
>> I think my questions are answered David, >> I'm fine. >> This is just a smile. >> Anything else you like? Anybody uh from the dis like to add anything at this point? >> I think great job. >> So, I hope I I hope this overview helped
and answered a number of questions. Uh but what we're going to do now is we're going to open the meeting to the public and the first portion of opening it to the public will be for general comments. Of course, you know, anything that
affects WOF you can make a comment on. But the reason I bring it up, unlike other meetings, is because when we get to the specific ordinances, for example, somebody may have a concern about West Maine. Uh I know that there's concerns
about because I'm a Coolage Papa. So I I know a little bit about that that particular area. So uh if it comes to that specific one, you can get we we're going to open up to the public on each one of these and and you can speak specifically to those. But I I just hope
that this presentation you can see that this is not something that uh uh uh the town has taken lightly. Uh this is something that we uh actually entered into a lawsuit with 30 other communities to try and and and and you know, exercise our ability to keep control
over our our lovely town. And um you know, we're acting in the best interest of of everybody that's here tonight. It's uh you know, when when David and I were at the federal court, there were mayors and council people, etc., etc., And what they said was, "What you're
doing with all of this stuff is you're forcing local officials to make a decision that under normal circumstances they would not make. But have if they do not make that decision, the alternative is catastrophic." And that was what
that's what was explained, I hope, in detail on the builder's remedy portion. So in essence, we're we're basically between that rock and a hard place and forced to take these actions to protect whatever ability we have to maintain control. So with that, I'll ask for a
motion to open up the meeting to the public for general comments, any anything that you'd like, but remember you can specifically get up as we go through the ordinances. So can I have a motion, please? >> So move. >> Second. >> Second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay. Uh it's a 10-minute
uh uh public comment period. Two minutes per speaker for public comment on any governmental issue that a member of the public feels may be of concern to the residents of the counc. Please note that each ordinance will also have its own public comment period. And if your comment is related to a
specific ordinance on tonight's agenda, kindly reserve your comment until that ordinance is called. And uh I will tell you now that there'll be no uh there'll be no time limit. Whoever whoever wants to speak, you can speak as long as you like. We can we we'll stay here to listen to all the comments. So, if
anybody would like to come up during this general comment period, >> the mic is yours. Please come to the mic and >> come to the mic and state your name yourself and uh >> I can speak loudly. >> I know you probably don't need it, but come on.
>> Okay. Just two G microphone so that we It's being watched online as well. I'm sure thousands Three three general questions. Your name, >> sir. I'm sorry. We need your name. >> Mark Regante. >> Okay.
>> Um, this is You said this is the fourth round. Are there more rounds to come? >> Well, I'll let >> Would you please speak to that? >> Great question. >> In theory, yes. Uh, every 10 years. So, in 2035, we'll start the fifth round.
2045, God help us all, the sixth round, and so on and so forth. So until the legislature, if and when they change the Fair Housing Act, it just keeps going. >> What's the target? >> There is no there is no long-term target. It's just simply every 10 years
a new round uh occurs and a new obligation is published for municipalities. >> Um >> so we'll go for 10 years. >> I I think um Beth, it's Beth, right? Yes. said that um you you changed the
standard for I think it was AHO9 from 8 to 6. Can I ask what caused that change? I'm not I'm not related to AHO6. >> No, but um why that one versus any of the others?
>> I was David. >> So the the site really does not it's very difficult site to go the higher acreage or the higher density. uh we we took another look at it and uh as you could tell fair share was willing to
understand that has to do with some of the terrain issues the street there. So it just was a site that when we went back and looked at it said that's going to be very difficult plus to do some of the buffering that you need to do and things of that nature and obviously fair
share saw that position. And so it really had to do with the site specific that the density level to going to eight would be very difficult and still do some of the other parameters of the of our zoning ordinance. >> I would add if we could have went to four we would >> oh we would have but just
>> but we just couldn't eight there not um how can I ask how large the site was is >> I think it's six >> about six acres >> about six acres. >> Yeah. And that that's >> um I'm I'm a little confused about the traffic studies. It's and how by
designating these areas you're not giving away your argument about traffic in that area. I mean >> if if I could too I I apologize too. Um also the other sites were on county road or at least had county road access. This
one does not which also makes it much more difficult to have the higher density. >> Right. Um, go ahead. >> Sorry. >> Well, anyway, back to traffic studies. Um, it just seems to me you prejudiced your argument about having to make the
dump or do a traffic study when you said this site can accommodate 40 40 housing units. >> Well, well, I I guess the the simple answer there would be it's not us that are saying it's really affordable housing that's forcing the the density
issue. Uh but with could you speak to the traffic study issue whether it be builder's remedy or generally an overlay uh change? >> Yeah. So um a traffic study is still necessary but if the concern is that uh
the traffic study now that we're permitting the density uh that traffic study can't be used to reduce the density I I would say that's that's sort of that's the nature of zoning here in New Jersey. um unless they're creating an unsafe situation and if they are
they'll have to fix it. Uh traffic concerns cannot be used to eliminate sites from Mount Laurel, cannot be used to to deny permitted uses on property if that's the only issue for a builder's remedy. I that remains true as well. Uh
I don't I can't think of any builder's remedy that has successfully been denied because of traffic concerns. It's one thing that doesn't have road access, but that's not what we're referring to here. >> So, basically what you said, sir, is is you're correct. I I mean in the sense of
putting us you know but there's still we still have the ability to do trafficies >> and sometimes the traffic studies are done too to change sometimes access points or to make certain traffic regulations like I'm not any specific site like you can only take a right-hand
turn here or you need to move the entrance to a development a different location because it's not consistent. So the traffic studies are still important for the safety concerns and how you're going to develop a site. You can't just go in there and say I'm going to put these here and we're going to come out a
road anywhere. So those are very important >> still could affect ingress time, right time, things like that. >> Right. And and just remember with regard to planning board applications in general, traffic studies are limited to the area in which is going to be to be
disturbed, the immediate area which is going to be disturbed. So, we can't be talking about an intersection 2 miles down the road. We're talking about the immediate area surrounding an application. And that's not just with affordable housing. That's with all development applications. >> Yeah.
>> Uh any other please mind up to the mic. Just just your name. That's all. >> Hi everybody. My name is Patrick Welch. I'm fourth generation president here at WOV. I'm sure you know all of them. Um,
I wanted to say first, thank you for putting up a good fight. Uh, I appreciate it. You know, trying to preserve this town's, uh, character. Um, and ultimately the People's Republic of New Jersey is going to win on this one.
>> But, um, thank you. I mean that. Um, I am curious, uh, how you may have skipped over where we are. We're on 1.7 acres at 255 Godwin. And I'm curious, you know,
maybe why we were not involved. It seemed like a lot around us was involved >> and that's a pretty good chunk there. >> Bear with us. Matt will look it up and we'll we'll address it. >> Sure. >> Oh, well, thank you for your comments. It's uh it's great. We appreciate it
under these circumstances. >> Yeah. So, you're behind the Vander Plat funeral home, right? >> Yes. >> So, that area. So, the the overlay zone ended closer to the intersection. So, it ended with the property next to the funeral home.
>> Yeah. >> You want any more color? >> It's the Well, no. The bank is the bank's included. >> The flower shop's included. >> It ends at the bank. >> It ends at the bank. Correct. So, 255, I believe, is behind the funeral home. Correct. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> I was just curious maybe that could have
added to this and >> so >> maybe >> so 255 I do not even believe is in the B2 zone. It's not in the B1 zone, >> right? >> Okay. >> Okay. So, this couldn't have been in there anyway is what we're >> Does that answer your question? >> Yeah, I was just thinking another 1.7
acres. >> You have another question because I love the way around five. That's it. Thanks. Six, >> please. Please go on up. Welcome, sir. I like your uh patch. >> Oh, separate.
>> Yes, sir. >> Uh thank you for all your hard work. >> Uh I moved in three years ago. Vincent Brennan, my name is I'm from Fleica Drive. Moved in three years ago from another state. The same problem. Uh but then the problem got compounded after. I
just want to know about safeguards. You speak about a developer. Uh the developer has the right to sell the property to anybody he wants to rent or sell. Am I correct in this town? >> Well, well be the property owner has the right to sell property. It may not be the developer. It could be
>> or he sells to somebody. Yes. >> That was the issue we had while I ran from the last state I was in. The developer sold the property to somebody and they put a religious cult in the property. Everybody that was allowed to
buy was only from one group. >> Mhm. >> And uh next thing know we found out that the uh they don't pay taxes >> because of uh a religious uh they get a deferment.
How do we safeguard in our town from that happening? Because it not only did that happen with just 50 units that wound up being 550 units. the tax base went crazy and uh I left. >> Okay. Um well, I think the best way to
address that is uh I'm sorry. >> Oh, we can address we can take care of >> Oh, go ahead. >> So, unfortunately, there's very little we can do. Um you know, and I'm going to speak specifically to religious uh organizations. Religious organizations are covered by their first amendment
rights. They're also covered by federal law specifically and one of them being specifically RUPA which is the religious land use and institutionalized persons protection act which pretty much does which unfortunately takes local zoning
away and completely and religious instit religious entities within reason can build build and do whatever they want on land that they own. And I'll give an example. casinos owned, it's casinos owned by um a tribe
fall under similar laws. >> Affordable housing units, >> but the affordable housing but I should say that the affordable housing unit obligations follow the property. >> Yes. >> So if they develop, they still need to produce affordable housing units.
>> Thank you, sir. Yes. >> Hi. How are you? >> Good. Could you just define affordable housing in terms of what you call this age? Is it income? Who who's in affordable housing? >> It is.
>> So, it's uh it's not age. Well, it's not it's not age except that the adults in the in the house are making the income and there's uh information regarding the size of the units. But let me give you >> there are there are caps on you can have
senior housing. We don't know the types of affordable housing. This is just an overlay for affordable housing, right? So, a developer could come in and there could be supportive housing. There could be senior housing. We're capped at a number though. So, of our of our total obligations, we can't do 100% veteran
housing. There has to be some family, supportive, veteran, senior. There has to be a mix of different types. >> Thank you. I feel like that I was not picking up that aspect. >> That's a help in itself. So, affordable housing is isn't necessarily that term
affordable isn't there's a lot of categories like you said >> and then Beth was going to probably go into the income distribution as well as the number of people living there. So the income distribution in region one where we're located is much higher than the other regions because the cost of living in this region is much higher. So
the thresholds if you look at them and I think Beth will pull them up exactly for one a one person family or it goes up to a four person family and the numbers go up to six figures. So it's not there's different levels of it. There's low, moderate, median,
>> range. >> So it is um for it depends on whether you're moderate income which is 80% of median income, low income at 50% of median income and then very well which is 30% of median income. So let's talk
about a threeperson household. So it could be one parent and two children or two parents and one child. A moderate income is a maximum of in terms of round numbers $92,000. Low income is $57,000
and very low is $34,000. Lindsay referenced going up to uh to six figures for their income. So for example, if we look at a moderate income fourerson household, that's where you you start to uh to get into 100 plus. So
it's $102,000 for moderate income. So they're really quite high in this region. >> If I may one last thing then you talked about um so if I understand your answer for the housing plan it's every 10 years. >> Yes. >> So given this one for instance what what
is the housing plan? I'm thinking it's a map of the town and and within it specific areas that can be developed and then and that's is that what the plan basically submits to the state and then once it's approved uh you wait for
somebody to come forward and say hey I have an idea for this track. >> Yeah that that is basically it. It's uh essentially it. So we have uh an obligation and we're basically a builtout town. Um, and so what that and I'm going to try not to get too far into
the weeds on this. >> You can go there. >> Careful what you wish for. >> Um, okay. So, we have uh we have a 334 >> 344 >> 34 344 sorry off the top of my head. 344
obligation for round four. And what that means is that the state has has indicated WIPOF should produce 344 affordable units in the community. And in order to get to 344, what that
typically means is it's 344* 5. So if you think about a 20% set aside, if each of those 344 units were in an inclusionary development, it would be 344* 5. I'm just a planner, not an engineer. Don't make me do the math off
the top of my head, but it's 1,500. There we go. A lot of housing units. As I said, wipe off. We're basically built out. So what we do is we take what's referred to as a vacant land adjustment and that's specifically permitted in
COA's rules and it essentially says that for municipalities that don't have enough land to meet the entirety of their obligation, you can reduce that number down to something that reflects vacant and developable land. And that is a very specifically defined term in in
law, not how uh you or I might think of a vacant or developed parcel. So in my op, we've been going through this vacant land adjustment process actually since the third round and we just simply continued it into the fourth round. And so the result of the vacant land
adjustment is one a recognition that we can't get to the entire obligation. Uh and two, in order to be compliant, not you don't need to get to the entire obligation, but rather you need to put zoning mechanisms in place to create
opportunities for affordable housing where they may arise. And so that's why you heard me talk about all of the overlay zones that we're proposing. So it's not that we have um vacant land, for example, uh at Crescent Avenue. It's
that we have overlay zoning in place if the council adopts the ordinance that would allow for a developer to make the choice to redevelop the site with inclusionary housing. And so because of our vacant land adjustment status, it means that our housing plan is pretty
much as you described. It's it's a map of the community with various zone uh zoning strategies for inclusionary housing located throughout most of the community. uh excluding most of your your residential districts except for
maybe a house of worship that's located in there but generally focusing on commercial areas and well non-residential areas that >> the property is please >> I was just going to ask though >> just identify yourself
>> sure so if the property is sold then a developer has the option to do that because of what been done and I also Just want to thank everybody for all your hard work. I think it's amazing and I hope it's really way past what could
be done. I think what you're doing needs to be done. People have to remember this when they go vote for state election. >> Uh yeah, >> to it doesn't get discussed. >> I have another comment on that at some point. >> Okay. But anyway, so if it came up for
sale, then a developer could do >> Absolutely. I mean, a property owner could decide that they want to do that as well, but but basically once they're ready to sell or no longer operate the business if that's what's there, it that's the opportunity. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Just and and Jen, go ahead.
>> Just one last question. >> Sure. No, stop. >> So, so we're we've almost built out the state comes back every 10 years say, "Okay, show me again." Who or what defines when we are finished built out?
Who says we're done? Well, >> the question is it it it doesn't really end except that you have 10 years and we've have this protection if we get the order proposed. But what they do is they determine by the regions what your
obligation is. So they they have they do it mathematically and say this is what we expect the need for housing over the next 10 years. So re region one, this is what looks like you're going to be responsible for and they kind of say to the individual towns what you're going
to be responsible for. So 10 years from now they're going to come up with some decision as to whether they need more affordable housing and they're going to see what regions and we'll come up with the number. So it's still far out there, but my guess is unless we change the laws, i.e. Trenton uh we we're 10 years
from now they're going to come up with some numbers and say you got you have an obligation again as Beth pointed out doesn't mean it's going to get built right away but you have to show where you could put it or at all right where you're going to put it >> and I just want to echo just just expand
on that a little bit more >> what this obligation also requires the municipality to do is to look at their development stock and f and make a determination. And this is where our planners and our legal team work to um
I'm going to say push back with this with the DCA and with Fairshare Housing Center. Is is your development stock current to what is normal for the air for for the for
the climate? Meaning, do you have Yes, you might have a developed shopping center, but is that shopping center really the shopping center of today? And I'm going to give you an example, and it's it didn't get it didn't get developed into affordable housing, but 10 years ago, Woff had a shopping center
on Greenwood A. It was the old AMP shopping center. That shopping center was not what today's shopping centers what today's retail market is looking for. They had too large of stores
because they had you know when the shopping center was built they had large store rooms because people only got deliveries once a month or once a once a season. Now stores can order their supplies and get their shipping next
day. So retail stores are not looking for as large of a footprint square footage as they were in the '60s and 70s or or even in the 80s and '90s. So what this process does is it makes the town look at the stock that is currently in
place and say affordable housing, this site might be ripe for redevelopment. And because it's ripe for redevelopment, you really need to consider putting an over an obligation in there that they need to build affordable housing.
>> But again, just to be this is redundant, but any of this doesn't mean uh anything until a property is is purchased by a developer and a plan gets put forward and if we take the actions that we anticipate, it it protects us as best as humanly possible. Good questions, by the
way. Yes, please come to Mike. Next. >> Hi, Melissa Calendello. Thank you. As someone in legal, I do appreciate you going all the way to the Supreme Court. It was written. Um, so just to clarify,
even though it's being resold, it doesn't mean that if it gets sold, say the brick house both sides, they want to put another brick house type thing in there. They don't have to turn that into affordable housing. It's up to whoever buys it to determine. We just have to
have zones saying we're complying. >> I have the ability to. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> And it's not getting reszoned. The zoning is staying in place. There's just addition. >> Sir, you're up. >> Edward Sanchez.
>> Hey, how are you? >> I'm good. How are you? >> Okay. >> Three-year resident of White. The reason I moved to White is because it's not affordable. That's why I'm here. Okay. Who you Who do you represent? Who do you work for? >> The township.
>> You do? >> And you're doing this to our town. >> I'm not doing it to Whiteoff. I'm helping this town be compliant so that you're not vulnerable to builder's remedy litigation. Is this not a uh >> So, it's coming down from the state.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> So, we have to vote the state up, >> right? affordable housing to keep places like Camden and Jersey City so those people don't get displaced. >> Correct. >> Correct. If you look at the if you look
at the original case in 75 Mount Laurel, you're exactly right. It's it's it's a far and and to understand a little bit where it's coming from and I'm going to go way back to when this fourth round started. We mentioned the number was 344. DCA
came up with a number that I think was 380 something. Fair share came in with a we were want under 344. They came in a number that was higher than that. We had to go to negotiations to get it down to 344. And I'll be honest with you, when I sat in negotiations, I said, "I'm using
DCA's math to come to my number. Where are you coming with yours?" And they couldn't tell me. >> So we it so the number was they wanted a higher number. So >> they don't care about the kids the school. So, so there was no basis for that number and we had to get it down. >> Right. And so, and what you're saying
just it's coming down from the state. So, >> specifically exempting the urban municipalities was an amendment made by the legislature in 2020. >> Mhm. >> 3, >> right? Yes. 2020 end of 20 end of 2023.
It was an amendment made by the legislature and it specifically exempted those urban municipalities from fair share obligation from fair housing obligations in round four. >> And that who originally was supposed to help. >> Yeah. >> Well, it was supposed to if I could
because I >> to the mayor's comment about how long I've been around. Okay. In 1975, I was a member of the White Board of Education. I remember this very well. And the the original Mount Laurel suit was brought for school funding. That was the premise
of it, school funding, >> right? >> And the argument was that um suburban municipalities had a better tax base than the degraded tax bases in the urban areas um and could provide better schools. This is also where in our
income tax came from, the same lawsuit and legislation that followed it. Um, and the idea was if there was affordable housing in the suburban areas where the better schools were, people could afford to move out of the cities in or where the crummy schools were, um, to those
communities and and have their children go to better schools, which is which is an honorable thing to to to do sort of. Um, they missed the point though of they never looked to fix the crappy schools in the cities. That was that was really the answer. Okay? Because where we are
now is a long way from getting kids out of crummy urban schools into better suburban schools. This thing has taken a life on to itself that doesn't even resemble that. Doesn't even resemble it. >> Right. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments.
>> Any other any other questions? Please come to the mic. We have a question about an ordinance, a specific one. >> Yeah. >> Do we wait? >> Yes. >> Yeah. If you wait till less specific ordinance that way it'll keep it focused to that. Are there any other general please come >> just to go back to what we're talking
about with the zoning. Uh George step in. >> Hi George. How are you? >> Good thanks. >> Okay. >> So um if if if the affordable housing if so a zoning is approved by the on the property the property owner then sells the property to a developer or new owner
and it's approved for six uh six units per acre. Let's just say >> correct. Does that mean they can build whatever type of units they want there and as high as they want? So, we're in a one family area like you know where we're at. Now, they're gonna start building. >> No, no, only if you get to build this remedy. Please, please explain that in
detail. >> So, >> this is this is this is the crux of it. >> So, I just the ordinance is as I went through them briefly, it's like, oh, this one permits six units an acre, this one permits 10 units an acre, whatever the case may be. But the ordinances are all multiple pages. And so it lists, for
example, permitted uses. Some places, some of the zones permit multif family apartments, some of them don't. Some of them just permit town houses, for example. They all include uh uh yeah, sometimes duplexes, other housing types,
but there are specific housing types permitted. And then there are bulk standards set forth for every district. So it includes uh front yard setbacks, sideyard setbacks, perhaps buffer standards, always a maximum building height, and some other design standards.
So I've described or summarized the ordinances very quickly, but they all include some of those additional controls that you're asking about. Just like just like any of the other uh zones here in or just about every other community in the state, it includes, you
know, a dozen or two dozen standards to make sure that the development >> is appropriate. >> Does that does that help? >> Yeah. Thank you. >> And just for the building heights, they are in our town, they're not they can't go any higher than what the building heights allow in our town right now. Two
and a half stories, 35 ft. Well, >> yeah. Ruby wants to mention >> there are with some exceptions >> just to add to the phone light is on. Uh yeah, your lights on. Thank you. >> You want to go?
>> Well, um I don't know. And Matt, if this was you what you were thinking of, you know, last year there was a bill in um the legislature in New Jersey. I think it was in the assembly, it might have been the Senate,
which would have from Trent, not local municipalities. They would have usurp local municipalities ability to control and reszone properties, would have reszoned throughout the state of New Jersey all
church properties for super high density affordable housing up to three or four stories high. and we had we would have no say in it. Now, fortunately, the bill never got out of committee and there was not a companion bill in the other house, but this is what the view from Trenton
is. Um, and to their point, um, there are ch, you know, we always prided ourselves that we had 15 houses of worship in White Well, that's becoming a little bit of a liability because some of them need help. A number of years ago, um, the
Gret Methodist Church on on Russell A came to us, came to the board and they have they had a super large piece of they're all on at least 5 acres. They had a super large piece of property and they asked to subdivide a few lots off which we did. We approved the subdivision. They sold the lots off because they needed the money quite
honestly. And that's they're not alone. Okay, they're not alone. So, uh, you know, um, now 15 houses of worship, as wonderful as they are, could be a liability. The only good news is we didn't have any large corporate campuses
like Franklin Lakes had >> because that's a bigger problem. We see what they're dealing with there. >> And >> so, so our our we're we're working and we're always strategizing to try to look ahead and see what we can do with with, you know, even the church properties.
>> And Mr. And just to expand on that a little bit more, it wasn't just church properties. It was also properties owned by nonprofits. >> Other nonprofits. You're right. Yeah. Yeah. >> So, you know, to Rudy's point, I was going to bring that up that Thank you for doing that. That's because that's critical and that that was a political move and you know, once there's a
political move just because it's dead right now, don't think that it may not rise itself up again because uh I know a lot of the Catholic churches are talking about merging the dascese and the amounts of property are astronomical.
Uh, you know, we know if we talk about Lafayette a uh imagine the concern if we we had any inclination as as we should to look forward uh that if that legislation ever passed, oh my god,
>> no pun intended, but you know that that that would so so it's almost like how else to put it. Please develop within the parameters that we've made the best out of so that we have that local zoning control, environmental controls and everything else, buffer
zone controls, maybe traffic to the extent that we can and get ahead of that. So that that's also part of the thought process. We're we're forward thinking because you always have to be concerned. But thank God Rudy that that right now we got great uh legislators,
Christa Phillips, and they're ready to fight that kind of stuff. So great. Thank you for bringing that up. Are there any other uh questions or comment? If Matt, would you any other questions? Please come just feel free come on up. Whoever can race to the mic first wins.
>> All right. >> Thank you. >> Sure. >> Hello. My name is Kristen McKenna. Uh I think this question is predominantly for you. So um the 344 number is talked about a lot. You said that that number is reduced. My question is so I understand that obviously the meeting
today is to approve the changes to the zoning. My question now, is there a timeline when these units have to be built by? >> The short answer is no. There's no timeline. Uh so, and I I think a a good
example of this is Whiteoff has a number of zones that were put in place during round three. So, around 2018 or so, I think >> we also have sites in round one. Yeah, that's true. That it goes even farther back. And they've remained unbuilt and yet we're still compliant.
>> So that's okay. And that goes back 30 years time. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It goes back to the whole situation that there has to be somebody that purchases the property and and moves forward. >> Any I saw some movement. >> Come on up, sir. >> How are you?
>> Good. How are you? >> Thank you. >> I think okay. Um, I don't know if this is the right time for this concern, but let me voice it. Why don't you just tell me if this is not your name? >> State your name. >> Rich. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, I live on Lafayette. I'm south of Ravine. >> Sure. >> Lafayette Avenue is a hill.
>> Yes. >> Goes downhill fast. >> Whenever there's whenever it rains, >> there's like a river that goes down Lafayette. >> When it's a heavy rain, it's a bigger river. My basement is susceptible to taking home water. If this property is
developed, they're putting in a lot of hardcape. In other words, the land would be able to soak up a lot of rain. It'll be a long a lot of storm water runoff onto Lafayette. This water seeks its own level and will go downhill. Would any developer of this property be
required to provide battery backup for my house and a sump pump change every 3 years because they're going to exacerbate the condition of water because of their development in search of a like >> you want. Yeah.
>> So, actually 10 years ago, when did the stormwater regs change? >> Five years ago. >> Yeah, they're changing again. But um so the most recent changes to the stormwater regulations require that any
development that any development that is done even if you were to do development on a single family lot must provide storm water management to retain that storm water that is produced on that property on that property. It cannot
discharge to another property. So right now you have a large parking lot that sheet flows down to Ravine A. that won't hap that can't happen in a new development. They have to take all the water that's currently being generated on that property and all water
that will be future uh will has the possibility of being produced or generated on that property and retain that on that property. Whether that's by building underground retention, whether it's actually pretty much it's by building underground retention. Um, and
meaning they have to keep that water on the property and they have to discharge it into the into the ground on their property. >> They'll build wells, they'll take the water hole and then they they they they'll go out on a time basis and so forth. So >> So theoretically, it could improve your
situation, >> right? But >> but that being said, developers can only be required to do on-site improvements. They cannot be required to do any off-site improvements. It's hard for me to believe that what's now grass and forest and trees
that soak up water after putting roads and houses and roofs and hardscape that they can dig a hole big enough to catch all that rain without it coming out and hurting the area. They build certain
detention bases that the engineers have to certify that's going to hold it and release it over a certain time period. >> No, they they they do Bosswell Engineering is excellent at at these type of storm >> and they do and and to Matt's point it
actually could improve your situation because we're there's a huge parking lot and that's if if that if >> that's a parking lot but behind the parking lot is woods. >> Most of it's going to be in the woods in the trees and the the land. The law the law requires and let's put it this way.
I don't know that whether they would be more lax if it was build as remedy >> for storm water. >> Storm water doesn't matter. >> All right. So in that case that's that's maybe the only situation. >> I have a hard time believing that there could be a commercial solution to that.
They they have to certify that actually there are sites around that it's improved once they've actually developed them because of some of these these these breaks that >> Lafayette turned into do you have any
>> floods the banks >> any other that's it >> all right now that folks that was specifically on one of the ordinances is there anything that is in more general terms and not on any specific ordinance, please. You can come up and Okay, come
on up, sir. How are you? >> Very good. Thank you. Thank you all for your efforts. I I appreciate it. My name's Anthony Kamanto. Um kind of a followup to the discussion about religious properties. What specifically? I just want further clarification if you
will, for what caused them to be part of that selection process. What what what were the specific characteristics of the religious properties? Were they I have in mind not only Lafayette but the Assembly of God property 807 I'll
comment on that later >> but what what made them good candidates if you will these pieces of land for identification for round four. So basically the state did a survey, an
aerial survey, and they were looking at undeveloped land. And by undeveloped land, I mean land in natural state, because all of our park land was included in this survey. Um, and the one thing that churches have, such as corporate offices have, is a lot
of parking. And they see parking as undeveloped land. So when as as Rudy sort of already hinted to having all these churches with huge parking lots
>> is a detriment to us. >> So >> and then you know and then you may have a yeah then you may have a scenario where u you know a lot of these churches are financially strapped. their their their uh commissioners are down to a
handful and they see that they have this property and they could keep them in existence and I don't I don't know the specifics on that but uh it's those those are the things that were generated. >> There's also no >> there's also a third church in here
which um it's there actually it is in in one of these that it's on Squalberrook Road. It's a small church that's that's um I think they pretty much relocated somewhere else, but that's that that's one of these as well. >> That was already done.
>> Oh, you're right. Yeah. Okay. >> But we do have a third church in town. That's >> Yeah, I noticed that as well in your document. >> I hope I I hope that answers your question best we can. >> Yes. >> Anything else? >> I'll be back for a second. >> Oh, you'll be back. Okay, good. Well, we'll see you when you come back.
>> Thank you. How are you, sir? >> Could be better. >> You're doing good. >> Placing, but it's okay. I have one question. These affordable apartments. Is there a
grandfather clause to it? I have my father own property in the city, rent control, rent stabilized apartment. I had a tenant. He had a million dollars in the bank. You spend me7 $741 rent for a two-bedroom apartment.
>> Another if you own your name just for the record >> the hunt. >> I apologize. >> Classic pickles. Just put an A on the end. >> Thank you. >> What is your You have a question.
>> I just wanted to get you. >> Oh, okay. >> Simple question. In other words, a person enters an apartment, he has children. Does those children have a right to that apartment and they're making a million $150,000 a year?
>> You're talking about rent control. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Right. But the affordable apartments, where does this fall in? >> Go ahead. So uh no you you are not able to take your um your affordable apartment and just give it to your children or create a sub lease to a
neighbor a friend or anybody. Uh the >> oppos would enforce it but it's what happens is the let's say an apartment building is constructed and it's got a few affordable units in there. There will be a deed restriction on the property that
states, you know, let's say two of 10 units are affordable to low and moderate income families. >> And the deed restriction includes enforcement provisions and uh it references a variety of laws. But the bottom line is the tenant in the building, they must qualify as low or
moderate income and then they as anybody that's on their initial application for housing, they're the only people permitted to live in the unit. They cannot um >> they cannot invite other family members. They cannot give the unit or their lease to family or friends. It is not
transferable in any way, shape or form. >> Once the initial person passes away, what triggers >> it for a rental unit, if the tenant passes away, it's just simply then uh readvertised and rented to the next
income to the next thing. If you need an extra unit, you got an empty unit here. Thank you. Thank you to uh please >> I have an ordinance one, but I'm going to hold that sort of ask a regular question. >> Very good. Thank you.
>> So, my name is Kathy Wilson. I'm a 26 year resident with my family from Lafayette Avenue. you know which property I'm here to talk about, but I want to talk, we've had a lot of conversation around churches, but when I look at the map, a disproportionate amount of the properties that have been
zoned seem to fall into two areas into the Lincoln segment and into the coolage segment across the board and this whole portion doesn't seem to have any overlays required on it. Is there a reason why? >> So like all of the overlays, all of this
area has churches on it, has open properties. Why was none of that area considered for or even just put on pause at some point in time over the next 10 years it might get developed? It just all happened on these two. >> So the school districts aren't taken
into consideration. >> No, I'm not talking about school districts. I'm just talking about >> Yeah. I'm saying when we're identifying certain areas, the school districts we don't consider with looking at the the areas. We're looking strictly at areas that are developable or have that open space where there's larger parking lots.
So that's how they're chosen. So in certain areas of right is much more broadly residential as opposed to other areas where there's a lot more commercial uses. So those corridors on the county roads identified are where we're kind we were trying to develop most of those overlays.
>> So if I if I can just before you chime in. So I'm actually pulling your >> already >> they're already we zoned the other side of town. So >> I'm sorry. So, like in the first round,
areas that were zoned were Barrister Farms, um Snider Snider Snder Farms, uh Fieldstone Manor, which is over off of uh Lawlands, uh Turtle Creek, uh Wind uh Windmir, Abmas Farm, Wyoff Commons, uh
and then we got to the third, the um the ones that were built, Boulder Run, Evergreen Court at uh well, sorry, Evergreen Court, and Long View at the Christian Healthcare Center, uh the Eastern Christian Children's Home. Um but then you got into then we get into
the third round and you had where is the third round numbers? Third round. Uh West Main Street was already zoned. Bergen Brick and Tile was zoned. Um the first part of the Hawthorne Chevy dealership, the Whiteoff
Shopping Center, the rest of Abmas Farm. Um and then we also had additional units at at um Woff uh sorry at Christian Healthcare Center. So those zones what's left is what wasn't zoned in the
first three rounds. >> Understood. But there's still like two churches on Eder Avenue, >> right? you know, with big parking lots, all the same scenario as as >> So, when it also came to the churches, it also came to churches that prior to the fourth round being
um let down, churches that have expressed that they're going to be closing. So, which is Squall Brook and or have the possibility of closing, I should say. Squalbrook and Lafayette. They both came to the town to tell us that they're
in financial hardship and they're going to be selling off their property. >> So my understanding is is that especially abundant life that there have has a profitable profitable school district and the school director offered to buy the property outright. >> That's a priv that's a private issue
between the church and that that potentially could happen. We have no say over it. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh we'll have one more one more question on general. Okay. and then we're going to move on and move through the ordinances and if there's specific questions there we'll take them.
>> Good evening. How are you? >> Good evening Philstead. I live south of Lafayette also. >> So the question I have is the number of 334 units that is the total count >> 344
>> 344. Does that take into account the existing units? What's the total count of existing units in one? >> No, it doesn't. >> These are net new. So this is a net new count. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then what's the is there a strategy because I know in Tom's River they faced a similar challenge um with a
significant number of affordable units >> and they were able to mitigate that through a couple of different strategies >> and that was already explained the vacant land number which is why our number is not 344 anymore. >> Our number is now our RDP number in >> for round four is actually zero in round
four. >> Okay. And is is there is there a strategy? So in terms of the zoning for specific to Lafia is there a way to keep that has that been defined? How does that get defined in terms of the actual construction constraints and parameters?
>> So there are set there in with regard to the individual zoning. There's um uh specific criteria with >> right there's specific bulk requirements that are are permitted um and it's set forth in each of the ordinances.
>> Okay. So down from eight units an acre down >> to six units an acre, but it's still town homes and >> duplexes. >> Duplexes and single family homes. So no apartment buildings, but town homes. >> Okay. Okay. Thanks. >> All right. So we bled over into some of these ordinance stuff unless there's
something really pressing on general. >> Okay. All right. We're going to uh God, please have a motion uh to close this portion. >> Oh, thank you for your time. >> Oh, you're very welcome. Have a good evening.
>> Okay. Well, we'll try. >> No hearing. He hearing and seeing none. Close public comment. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. Okay. Nancy. Nancy. >> Thank you. I'm still here. Yes.
>> Okay. Very good. Consent agenda, please. >> All matters listed below are considered by the township committee to be routine in nature. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If any discussion is desired by the township committee, that item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. We have four resolutions for
adoption as were explained by Miss Mcmanis. Uh the first is a resolution adopting an affirmative marketing plan. Second, a resolution of intent to fund spending plan shortfall for affordable housing programs. Resolution approving the fourth round affordable housing
trust fund spending plan. Endorsing the amendment to the housing element and fair share plan adopted by the Wolf Planning Board. May I have a motion and a second to approve these resolutions on the consent agenda? >> Motion to approve. >> Second.
>> Thank you. >> Nancy, please. >> Miss Bogdansky. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bonstra. >> Yes. >> Mr. Milkon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Shepard. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Lane. >> I. >> With an affirmative vote, the motion is approved. >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, sir. Before we move on to the ordinances, I just want to uh just say
one final thing. While this is we do have public comment here tonight and the township committee and our professionals will be taking will be listening and taking into account and we have been any questions that the residents or the property owners have uh with regard to
these ordinances. There is no leeway for the township to amend any of these ordinances tonight. >> Correct. Um, the ordinances in order for us to file with the program and be compliant on January on on March 16th, the ordinances as they have been
reviewed and approved by Fairshare Housing and the court have to be approved in the f in the form that they are in this evening. >> Correct. So, I just wanted to say that so the residents are aware that while we're listening to you and we're taking into account and we can possibly make
some changes to um minor things that don't uh disrupt the density or the number of affordable units or the development the the ability for the property to be developed. And we can do that at later time whether it's
by an amendment to the specific zone or possibly an amendment to the global ordinances of the township that include uh you know that cover different things um lighting. I'm going to give an example um or uh buffer areas
um definition I should say. Um the township committee as you have the ordinances in front of you has really no leeway to amend the ordinances uh beyond what's written in front of you.
>> All right, would you just very briefly if there is an amendment process? Have you been involved in one? I just could if you could speak to that briefly. I think it may allay any uh because when we get these comments obviously we're going to take those into account but to
Matt's point because of the constraints on the state and the constitution and the laws and all of that good stuff we're we're to do certain things. >> So I think there are a couple different options if we hear some comments of uh ideas or concerns that the that the township likes and would like to
incorporate. if it's something that is that does not need to be sightsp specific and then wouldn't disrupt the ability to achieve the density like I described. But for example, if folks have uh comments about let's say lighting, I would say that's a great
thing to consider for general township ordinances. You know, there's I'm not sure it makes sense to adjust lighting ordinance for one specific property because those same concerns may apply to dozens of properties here in Wyoff. So to the extent there are good ideas, there may be some that go in the the
bucket of general ordinances that would apply townshipwide. And then to the extent that there are questions, concerns, good ideas about ordinances that are uh sight specific enough for discussion tonight, if we I would say we
need to adopt the ordinances this evening. As Matt said, if it's something that we would like to incorporate into the ordinances as part of an amendment, what I would suggest is if it's a substantive change that we need to or we at least should have reviewed by fair
share so they don't accuse us of undermining our mediation agreement, I would say subsequent to the adoption in submission to the court, which will happen tomorrow. It's just simply a call to them and to say, "Hey, we'd like to adjust X, Y, and Z. Do you have an
objection? And if no, we could do that as uh as a short amendment. If the answer is yes, obviously yes, that they have a concern or uh push back about it. That would be a different discussion. >> Okay, Eric, thank you. >> I made a comment last night which maybe
would fit now based on what has said. You know, anything here that we're considering tonight will appear before one of our land use boards before anything happens. Um, the governing body takes great care
and puts significant time into the people we appoint, the residents who we appoint to our all of our boards and commissions, but especially our two land use boards, our zoning board of adjustment and our planning board. And trust me when I tell you, they are very
professional, high functioning boards. They're very resourceful and they ask a lot of questions and they do a very good job. So if it's if it's any comfort and I do take some comfort in this myself um anything that happens here will have to appear in front of those two boards and
and they will be given a thorough thorough um uh hearing and treatment before anything moves forward and there's there's nothing on the any any agendas right now. I'm just saying that going into the future once we move into this next phase around four. So that's a
great point if that if that's any I think it's meaningful. Um I've lived here. Mr. Welch left already. Uh you know he remembers well he he could attest to the fact as do I that White has the same small town feel when I was
a a young person and um and it it's we put a lot of effort into trying to keep it that way. So that's worth anything. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Mayor. >> Okay. Uh Nancy, let's move forward. Mayor Lane, I have the first of 11 ordinances on tonight's agenda for public hearing and further consideration. The first number is
ordinance number 2064, which is an ordinance repealing existing chapter 77 affordable housing of the code of the township of Wyoff in its entirety and replacing it with a new chapter 77 affordable housing, providing comprehensive regulations for the
administration of affordable housing and addressing the current requirements of the Fair Housing Act and the Uniform Housing Affordability Controls UHAC regarding Wyoff Township affordable housing fair share obligation for second reading by title only. And a copy of
this ordinance has been posted on our municipal website on the bulletin board in town hall where public notices are customarily posted and copies have been made available to members of the general public of the township who have requested the same. >> Okay. This is the time and place for
public hearing on ordinance 2064. And all persons who wish to be heard, please state your name before making your comment. If you wish to make a comment, please step forward to the microphone. I get a motion. No, not yet. Sorry. Is there anybody
that has any questions on on this specific >> hearing? And seeing none, I move that public hearing on ordinance 2064 be closed. >> I think the addresses. >> All those in fa >> There's no address on this one. >> There's no address. >> All those in favor say I.
>> Any opposed? >> Okay. Motion carries. Be it resolved by the township committee of the township of Wyoff that ordinance number 2064 after public hearing and further consideration is hereby adopted and the municipal clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish the notice of final passage of said ordinance in the
official newspaper for the township as provided by law. >> Get a motion please. >> I move ordinance 2064 and second reading by title only. >> Second. >> Second. Have a roll call. Nancy please. >> Miss Bdansky. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Bonra. Yes, >> Mr. Melion. >> Yes, >> Mr. Shepard. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Lane. >> I. >> With an affirmative vote, the motion is approved. The second ordinance on tonight's agenda for public hearing and further consideration is ordinance number 2065, which is an ordinance
repealing existing article 2 development fees of chapter 113 fees of the code of the township of Wyoff in its entirety and replacing it with a new article 2 development fees providing regulations for the affordable housing trust fund collection of development fees and
expenditure of development fees for second reading by title only. And a copy of this ordinance has been posted on our municipal website on the bulletin board and town hall where public notices are customarily posted and copies have been made available to members of the general public of the township who have requested the same.
>> This again is not an address. Okay. This is the time and place for public hearing on ordinance 2065. And all persons who wish to be heard, please state your name before making a comment. If you wish to make a comment, please step forward to the microphone.
Seeing no one, I move that the public hearing on ordinance 2065 be closed. >> Second, second. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? That being none carries. Nancy. Be it resolved by the township committee of the township of
Woff that ordinance number 2065 after public hearing and further consideration is hereby adopted and the municipal clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish the notice of final passage of said ordinance in the official newspaper for the township as provided by law. >> I move ordinance number 2065 on second
reading by title. >> Second roll call, please. >> Miss Bogdansky. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bonstra. >> Yes. >> Mr. Milkon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Shepard. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Lane. I >> with an affirmative vote, the motion is approved. The third ordinance on tonight's agenda for public hearing and
further consideration is ordinance number 2066, which is an ordinance amending the land use ordinance of the township of Wyoff to amend section 186-48 and-49 of chapter 186 zoning to increase the affordable housing set aside of the
mandatory set aside ordinance to 20%. for second reading by title only. And a copy of this ordinance has been posted on our municipal website on the bulletin board and town hall where public notices are customarily posted and copies have been made available to members of the general public of the township who have requested the same.
>> This is the time and place for the public hearing on 2066. And all persons who wish to be heard, please state your name before making your comment. If you wish to make a comment, please step forward to the microphone. Again, there's no specific address.
>> There's no address, ma'am. On each one, please. >> Yep. I'll let you know. Did we start on the next one >> up front? Thank you. >> Seeing no one, may I move public hearing on ordinance number 2066 be closed. Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> Any opposed? >> Opposed. Okay. Be it resolved by the
township committee of the township of Woff that ordinance number 2066 after public hearing and further consideration is hereby adopted and the municipal clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish the notice of final passage of said ordinance in the official newspaper for the township as provided by law.
>> I move um I move ordinance number 2066 on second reading by >> second. Roll call, please. >> Miss Bogdansky, >> yes. >> Mr. Bonstra, >> yes. >> Mr. Melion, >> yes. >> Mr. Shepard, >> yes. >> And Mayor Lane, >> I. With an affirmative vote, the motion is approved. The fourth ordinance on
tonight's agenda for public hearing and further consideration is ordinance number 2067, which is an ordinance amending chapter 186 zoning to revise zoning requirements for the B1 district along Godwin Avenue and Franklin Avenue effectuating the township's adopted 2025
fourth round housing element and fair share plan. for second reading by title only. And a copy of this ordinance has been posted on our municipal website on the bulletin board and town hall where public notices are customarily posted and copies have been made available to members of the general public of the township who have requested the same.
>> Mr. Mayor, this includes 285 through 318 Franklin Avenue and 265 through 300 Godwin Avenue. >> Thank you, Matt. This is the time and place for the public hearing on ordinance 2067. And all persons who wish to be heard, please state your name before making a comment. If you wish to
make a comment, please step forward to the microphone. >> I move the public hearing on ordinance number 2067 be closed. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Be it resolved by the township committee of
the township of Wyoff that ordinance number 2067 after public hearing and further consideration is hereby adopted and the municipal clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish the notice of final passage of said ordinance in the official newspaper for the township as provided by law. >> Motion
>> I move ordinance number 2067 on second reading by title only. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Miss Bogdansky. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bonra. >> Yes. >> Mr. Melkone. >> Yes. >> Mr. Shepard. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Lane. I >> with an affirmative vote, the motion is approved. >> The fifth ordinance on tonight's agenda
for public hearing and further consideration is ordinance number 2068, which is an ordinance amending chapter 186 zoning to revise zoning requirements for the B2 district along Godwin Avenue and Crescent Avenue effectuating the township's adopted 2025 fourth round housing element and fair share plan for
second reading by title only. And a copy of this ordinance has been posted on our municipal website on the bulletin board and town hall where public notices are customarily posted and copies have been made available to members of the general public of the township who have requested the same. >> This includes 178, 179, and 191 Godwin
and 85 Crescent. >> Thank you, Matt. Uh, this is the time and place for public hearing on ordinance 2068 as delineated by Matt. And all persons who wish to be heard, please state your name before making your comment. If you wish to make a comment, please step forward to the
microphone. >> Seeing no comment, I move this that the public hearing on ordinance number 2068 be closed. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. Any opposed? There being none. Motion carries. Be it resolved by the township committee of
the township of Woff that ordinance number 2068 after public hearing and further consideration is hereby adopted and the municipal clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish the notice of final passage of said ordinance in the official newspaper for the tachup as provided by law. >> I move ordinance 2068 on second reading
by title >> second roll call please. >> Miss Bdanski yes >> Mr. Bonstra. Yes. >> Mr. Melion. >> Yes. >> Mr. Shepard. >> Yes. and Mayor Lane. >> Hi. >> With an affirmative vote, the motion is approved. The sixth ordinance on tonight's agenda for public hearing and further consideration is ordinance
number 2069. An ordinance amending the land use ordinance of the township of Wyoff to expand the AHO2 overlay zone along Gothal Road section 186-49 of chapter 186 zoning to be consistent with and designed to effectuate the
township's adopted 2025 round four housing element and fair share plan and 2025 mediation agreement with Fairshare Housing Center. for second reading by title only. And a copy of this ordinance has been posted on our municipal website on the bulletin board and town hall where public notices are customarily
posted and copies have been made available to members of the general public of the township who have requested the same. >> This includes the oddnumbered addresses on Goffel Road between 50 sorry 555 and 575 including an unnumbered lot on Bush Lane
and lots 1 6 8 and seven Bush Lane. Thank you, Matt. This is the time and place for the public hearing on ordinance 2069. And all persons who wish to be heard, please state your name. Uh before making your comment, if you wish to make a comment, please step forward
to the microphone. >> Hearing and seeing none, I move that public hearing ordinance 2069. Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. pass. >> Be it resolved by the township committee of the township of Whiteoff that
ordinance number 2069 after public hearing and further consideration is hereby adopted and the municipal clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish the notice of final passage of said ordinance in the official newspaper for the township as provided by law. >> I move ordinance 2069 on second reading
by title only. Second roll call, please. >> Miss Bdansky, yes. >> Mr. Bonstra, yes. >> Mr. Melion, >> yes. >> Mr. Shepard, >> yes. >> And Mayor Lane, >> I. With an affirmative vote, the motion is approved. The seventh ordinance on tonight's agenda for public hearing and further consideration is ordinance
number 2070, which is an ordinance amending the land use ordinance of the township of Wyoff section 186-49 of chapter 186 zoning to add one new inclusionary overlay zone AH6 to be consistent with and designed to effectuate the township's adopted 2025
round four housing element and fair share plan and 2025 mediation agreement with fair share housing center for second reading by title only and copy of this ordinance has been posted on our municipal website on the bulletin board and town hall where public notices are customarily posted and copies have been made available to members of the general
public of the township who have requested the same. >> This includes solely 825 Windham Court North. >> Thank you, Matt. This is the time and place for the public hearing on ordinance 2070 and all persons who wish to be heard, please state your name
before making your comment. If you wish to make a comment, please step forward to the microphone. Seeing here, no one, I move the public hearing on ordinance number 2070 be closed. >> Second. All those in favor say I.
>> Any opposed? None. >> Uh motion carries. Yes. >> Be it resolved by the township committee of the township of Wyoff that ordinance number 2070 after public hearing and further consideration is hereby adopted and the municipal clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish the notice of final passage of said ordinance in the official newspaper for
the township as provided by law. >> I move ordinance number 2070 second reading by Ty. Second. Roll call, please. >> Miss Bogdansky, yes. >> Mr. Bonra, yes. >> Mr. Milkon, >> yes. >> Mr. Shepard, >> yes. >> And Mayor Lane, >> I. With an affirmative vote, the motion
is approved. The eighth ordinance on tonight's agenda for public hearing and further consideration is ordinance number 2071, which is an ordinance amending the land use ordinance of the township of Wyoff to amend section 186-49 of chapter 186 zoning to add one
new inclusionary overlay zone AH7 to be consistent with and designed to effectuate the township's adopted 2025 round four housing element and fair share plan and 2025 mediation agreement with fair share housing center for second reading by title only and a copy Copy of this ordinance has been posted
on our municipal website on the bulletin board and town hall where public notices are customarily posted and copies have been made available to members of the general public of the township who have requested the same. >> This is the time and place for the public hearing on ordinance 2071 and all persons who wish to be heard, please
state your name before making comment. If you wish to make comment, please step forward to the microphone. >> This includes the properties owned by Assembly of God Church, 135 and 139 Franklin Avenue. >> Thank you. Sorry for that mixed matter. >> It's okay. >> Okay. Anthony Kamanto, uh I'm a 41-year
resident of Wolf. I live in Anthony Place, which is adjacent to the Assembly of God property. >> Um keeping in mind what I'm seeing now with properties 168 and 174 Franklin Avenue, the clearance which has been
total on that property. With that in mind and the whole idea in mind of what the property of the Assembly of God looks like, it's a lot of it is a beautiful natural place. uh and uh I'm asking for reconsideration of this ordinance understanding Matt's
comments uh about what we can presently do and what what our options are going forward. So my request is is simple. Um, I I know that it's uh from looking at the the map, the parcel map, there's a a
segment for the church and the significant size parking lot, but to the right of it, which would be to the east, there is a plot of woods and as you go south, open grassland, if you will. And
uh at least in my opinion, I consider it having been there so along a a a very pleasant place, pleasant to the eye, uh in keeping with the town, the characteristics of the town. And I think what what given the whole idea of my
prior comments about the likelihood of a religious organization perhaps going forward considering selling uh that in in that sense of inevitability, if you will, uh I'd like to see something done
to preserve the good character of that land. Uh we do have an afford affordable housing requirement, but I I'd like to see more of a win-win for the residents particularly of that area. Uh again, looking up further west on Franklin
Avenue, it it really has got opportunity to see that property cleared. Uh we hope for the better. But back to the Assembly of God property, I ask your consideration, can we do something? Uh again, as I see it, the uh the uh the
lot to the east of the parking lot, it it is full of what the woodlands and restaurants are. So, I'd like to for you to make note of it, please, and whatever you can do in your power to uh help us resolve this for a little more of a compromise and revision.
>> Sure. We'll definitely take it under consideration and if it does give you any solace on the Franklin Air property, I I was I'm on Shade Tree Commission. There is an extensive extensive replanting. 90% of what you see piled up right there
now were all dead trees and dead. >> So that the the Shade Tree Commission, which is comprised of people that are arborists and landscapers and know that business, they marked every single tree. There's some that will remain, but they're the healthy ones. So there's an
extensive plan there and that's more in line with being able to protect our ability to do certain things to keep the character of the neighborhood the same. So that's going to that's going to look a lot better. >> Yeah. Understood. It it's probably at its worst. >> It's Oh yeah. It's frightening. I mean we had we had another property if
anybody's familiar down on White Buff A. It was an old house and and the whole lot got cleared up. Oh my god. The landscaping there >> was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It looks fabulous now. But initially it was scary. So if that gives you any solace, you know,
>> I'll certainly take it under consideration. >> And one further comment, I am not as immediate to to that property as there are people on Van Blom and I speak to them all the time having walked my down Van Barkham a million times. And a lot of people who live right across the
street from it on Van Blam are distressed to say the least. You know, some have said I I wouldn't have bought this house had it. But, you know, hopefully they'll speak for themselves. But, uh, >> you know, please consider keeping that woodland in any potential revision. >> Okay. Well, if I may just reiterate,
mayor, um, to my earlier point, >> if anything happens there, and that's a big probably, it'll it'll appear it'll appear in front in front of one of our land use boards and and get a thorough look looks see and and they're very they're very um um strident on screening
and preserving what's there and everything else. I can use lane for that. So >> of course anyone >> would be welcome to appear at such a hearing as well. >> All right. >> Thank you very much for your comments.
Any other guest please? >> Well, we welcome. We saw you last night. >> Yes, you have. >> Uh my name is Jason Kim. Uh I lived in that town and actually in the same house uh for about almost three decades. Um I
have sent my three kids to the whole school system and my wife uh really love the place in the town uh for the peace and quiet that it offers. Um I'm not here to argue against the zoning, you
know, in terms of the compliance to the affordable housing act. Um rather you know I would like to thank the committee uh for the fighting for the you know town's interest uh you know hopefully you know continue to do so uh my concern
uh is mainly around if and when the development does occur you know how do we protect ourselves to be able to preserve uh that peace and quiet that we do enjoy uh today so I have um like
three specific requests uh the township should to con you know to consider. Uh the first one is around the uh the current truck uh parameter setback is set to be I believe 25 ft and given the
size of the development I would like to see if that could be extended but more importantly uh the developer will be required to erect uh more of a permanent uh barrier
in terms of the fence or the dense elements. uh to provide a uh both sound and the visual protection from each other. Right. And the second one is around the
open space use. Uh I understand it could be used for the active sports which is fine. Um my ask is that such a placement to be not next to the you know existing residential
properties to be able to mitigate the you know the potential noise that may come from such such a use. And the third one is uh similar in vain. uh should they develop uh centralized
uh garbage collection or recycling centers. Uh I would also ask the ordinance to specifically mention that such a facility to be built away uh from the immediate residential jones uh to be
able to mitigate again the order uh or the you know potential uh the pest control issues. Uh I mean I have many others but those are like three things uh that came to my mind and I you know I also met with uh a
couple folks from the uh planning board. They were very receptive and I really appreciate you know that us cooperating together to be able to make this uh >> you know in complying to the regulation >> we make the white off the way it is is a
wolf. >> That's that's what we believe our actions are doing. to Rudy's point that and if you uh if anybody's appeared before the planning board, it can be very difficult. Let's just say that. Thank you so much. >> Thank you very much for your comments.
>> Any other comments on uh ordinance 2071? Yes, sir. >> Mark Reganti again. I want to thank Matt for taking a call from me earlier this week. And I don't take very good notes, Matt. I might wind up repeating myself. Um,
just a few points. I I don't understand private recreational facilities being permitted here. Does that mean like a commercial spa or a commercial I don't know gym >> within this area?
>> Oh yeah. >> Yeah. So, so that's a permitted accessory use and what that means is it's intended for the private use for the residents of that site. So, it's like a pool or a clubhouse. And the distinction it wants to make is a pool for the residents there, not a
commercial pool for anybody that wants to join. >> Well, that was the distinction I wanted to see. >> Well, there you go. >> All right. Well, I hope that proves to be true. Um, so it's sized and limited for use by the residents. >> Accessory,
>> accessory to the principal use. >> So the principal use is housing and the use the recreation has to be accessory to the housing. >> Yeah. Um, you covered ordinance 2066. Did that change the standard for all of your properties from to 20%. Is that the
intention to >> It changed it going forward. any of the previous rounds had to be amended individually and that was or will be done with ordinance 2074. The only one that's being changed is the lot on green.
>> So my question to change 20% to 15% on this ordinance is >> out of the question. They won't go for it. >> It's a Yeah. >> Um the um I heard discussion of very low low and moderate. Um this just says affordable.
>> Yeah. So the uh the ordinance is all I'll all specify just affordable housing an affordable set aside and then the way that it works is a developer or is somebody working on the property will see okay there's a set aside for affordable housing they will then look
to uh the ordinance that the township reviewed earlier the I'm sorry I forget the number the first ordinance chapter 77 that regulates the regulation of affordable units and in there it talks about this many can be moderate, this many must be low, this many must be very
low. Uh so this is these ordinances use uh just a general term knowing that it's further regulated elsewhere in the ordinance. >> And this >> yeah this ordinance talks about a 20% set aside of quote affordable units and then chapter 77 goes into 30 pages of
details about how to actually produce the 20% set aside. >> Okay. So, so in that other ordinance you're saying there's specifications as to yes this 20% yes will be allocated. I take it there's different standards for the different levels. >> Yeah. There's different income levels,
different rents and then there there's a matrix >> I meant in terms of improvements like the furnishings of the kitchen appliance. >> No. So there that is not part of uh regulations uh in terms of the internal
furnishings. Most municipalities, some municipalities will ask questions of the developers, but it's not part of what can be included in a municipal ordinance. There are standards about the exterior of units and the size of units to make sure that folks are building affordable units that are adequately
sized, not a not a micro unit for a fourperson family, for example, and to make sure that the affordable units look like the market rate units. >> Yeah, they're missing finishes. >> Um, talking about This says that it'll be harmonious and
scale texture materials with marketed units. Why doesn't it say with the other units in the in the zone? I mean is >> because you know I mean it sort of six of one half a dozen of the other in the sense that the market units are the
units in that very zone. Um because the site is >> why is it why wouldn't the developer say it's Gothles Road or some other area? is the uh the uh the housing in Wyoff generally
speaking is not regulated in terms of architecture details, architectural styles. And so I think what makes more sense is to ensure that there are affordable units built within the the project as a whole are consistent with the style, the finishes, the
architecture of the market rate units because what you don't want are folks to drive down the road and By market rate units, you meant the the nonaffordable. >> Yes, >> that was the answer. >> Sorry. >> Sorry. Got it.
>> The basic point I believe Beth was just getting to is you're not supposed to be able to tell by looking at the unit that it's an affordable unit. >> Sorry. That's why I asked the question. Um this is a um you talked about
churches who might be thinking about selling and this may be an incentive for the Assembly of God church to sell and for developers to approach them. So I think that the potential development of this property is you know much more
likely than maybe some other some other properties which is what gives us concern. Um the um this is a corner lot basically when you talk about the two lots together. I don't understand if why the
buffer zone is limited to 20 ft. Let me explain why. We have a rear setback requirement of 25 ft. Isn't 25 ft effectively the the the applicable setback that's going to apply from with
respect to all the residential properties that boarded this property? >> No. >> So if the property gets developed with both if the property was to be sold and developed as a as a whole with both lots, there actually is no rear lot on
that property. It would be two side lots because it would have two front yards and two sideyards. If they only sold one of the lots off and let's say they sold off the church property with the parking lot and left the open space to be owned themsel uh then there would be sideyards
but the rear would be 25 ft. The sides would be 20 but I believe it's the 20ft buffer but there was a 25 ft set back >> correct >> I'm sorry I didn't see >> so >> it is earlier in the ordinance prior
>> and the buffer can't have anything to It has to be. >> Yeah, I know. That's why I was hoping it was make it 25 instead of 20. >> Um, >> so there's the 25 foot set back.
>> It is. Yeah, it's on the bottom of page two. >> There's a um minimum building set back to track perimeter of side yard and rear yard is 25 ft. side. Oh, I'm sorry. So, it's a Yeah, I
was hoping to make no minimum sideyard back set back 20 ft. Isn't that I just heard that >> that's the set but there's also a track set back. >> Yeah, it's a it's a setback of 25 ft and then there of the 25 ft 20 ft must be
planted with a buffer. So 20 ft must consist of uh majority evergreen trees to provide screening. >> Okay. Um this um our my daughter's property is heavily lined with trees already.
>> Do they have to preserve those trees >> on her property or on their property? >> It's on their property. It's on the church property. >> So it's so it dep it depend it. It all dep if it's within the 20 foot buffer.
Now the question is the qu the the answer to that is keeping the current buffer or an or creating a new buffer. They have to have a buffer. It's going to come down to when the property is being reviewed by the by the land use board. They determine the
healthiness of the existing stock and whether or not the existing stock is going to stay or they're going to take it down and the board's going to require them to put up something that is healthier and is going to last longer. >> So, >> it would be something that we couldn't answer right now. >> So, we have to wait.
>> Landscape plan is going to get reviewed. Oh, yeah. Pretty elaborate. Um so um am I correct that I think she said within the buffer zone >> nothing there's nothing no walkways no
you know nature trails dog walks >> and the buffer is meant to be screening so it has to be pretty robust >> um that answer your question >> um I think so one last it thank you thank Thank you very much
for your uh thank you for your time. Is there anybody else on ordinance 2071? Correct. Matt1. >> Oh, I'm sorry. One last question. >> Driveways. >> You're you're pushing it, but go ahead. >> U Matt told me most likely if there's a
road entrance to this property, it would be on Van Bar. It depends on how they submit, but but >> there if there's access if >> there's access to the lot on a county road and a municipal road when it goes
to the county planning board, a lot of the times they push it that the requirement has to be that the entrance has to be on the side road. um is I I assume this is the planning another planning board issue but would very much
likely if if there's an access on um Franklin Turn that uh you know at least 100 ft from the next the next property drive but that's in our ordinance. >> Yeah. And the county has >> Yeah. you know, the county is going to
review. They're going to have to submit to the county besides the the municipality and both of them have regulations. They're going to have to come in with, you know, obviously that's where the whole traffic plan that we talked about is going to regulate a lot of that. >> Okay. But in terms of driveway,
>> yeah, there'll be requirements how wide or how narrow it can be, distances, >> driveways for other. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. And is anybody else on? >> Yes. >> Hi, how are you? >> Hi. Good. My name is Kathy Dash. Kathy with a cat with a >> cat with a safe. >> Oh,
>> so I'm a resident of Van Block and Lane and we have our own little contingency in the back. A little, you know, concerned neighbors. >> We've had that lot, you know, just empty for so long and really nice. We do appreciate that. I want to um echo what Tony said earlier. But um I did notice
on the letter it said a eight dwelling, the design of eight dwellings per Yes, that's eight. >> How big are those two lots? It's kind of hard. >> So, it's roughly around six if I'm not mistaken. >> So, it could be 48 units.
>> Okay. And then the other thing that was kind of floating around the grape line was that the grassy wooded lot was going to be developed for houses, single family houses or could be or but then the area where the church building and the parking lot would be.
>> So, so there's no develop there's no development plan. >> This is just hypothetical. I know that there's no development plan. So the the zoning applies to the entire zone, which in the case is these two lots. >> Um and any developer that comes in would have to develop a plan and present it to
the planning board on how they want to do it. If they want to make some of it single family home, single family homes are permitted there, correct? >> Single family homes or town homes duplexes >> or duplexes would be permitted there. >> Okay. >> Um and then again, it's up to the developer to make a compliant plan with the ordinance and then present it to the
planning board about how they would want to do that in the future. And then there's requirements on top of it. So like the minimum track size is 1.5 acres. So there's there's minimum lot sizes and then within those lot sizes then there's yard minimum yard setbacks
as well. So there's all of these parameters that take that large lot and make it kind of smaller and smaller. And then you think if there's single family homes, they need access from a road, right? So then you have to think about a road going in there, sidewalks, things
like that that all contribute to creating a neighborhood or a townhouse development, parking, all of these items. So quickly the larger lot kind of gets a little bit smaller and the ability to construct units kind of minimizes a bit as well.
>> Yeah. And I guess with a town home kind of setting, you could reach that 48 unit possibly. >> Um, we don't have a concept plan or anything. >> Okay. So this is just Just theoretically the max could be 48 but it may not even realistically >> you maxed out the site but then you have
to think about constructibility. You have to think about the setbacks. You have to think about the cost of the development. All of these items if there are any easements or there's environmental conditions or things like that that would that would um contribute to the inability to fully develop to the maximum as well.
>> Right. Thank you so much. >> Thank you Kathy. Okay. Uh any others? 2071 once, twice >> hearing. And seeing no one, I move that public hearing on ordinance 2071 be closed. >> A second, please.
>> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? That being the case, uh, >> be it resolved by the township committee of the township of Wyoff that ordinance number 2071 after public hearing and further consideration is hereby adopted and the municipal clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish the
notice of final passage of said ordinance in the official newspaper for the township as provided by law. >> I move ordinance 2071 on second reading by title. >> Second roll call, please. >> Miss Bdansky. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bonstra, >> yes.
>> Mr. Melion, >> yes. Mr. Shepard. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Lane. >> Hi. >> With an affirmative vote, the motion is approved. The ninth ordinance on tonight's agenda for public hearing and further consideration is ordinance number 2072, which is an ordinance amending the land use ordinance of the township of Wyoff to amend section
186-49 of chapter 186 zoning to add one new inclusionary overlay zone AH8 to be consistent with and designed to effectuate the township's adopted 2025 round four housing element and fair share plan and 2025 mediation agreement
with fair share housing center for second reading by title only and a copy of This ordinance has been posted on our municipal website on the bulletin board and town hall where public notices are customarily posted and copies have been made available to members of the general public of the township who have requested the same. >> This specifically has to deal with the
property at 500 West Main Street. >> This is the time and place for the public hearing on ordinance 2072 and all persons who wish to be heard, please state your name before making your comment. If you wish to make a comment, please step forward to the microphone.
Anyone on 2072? >> Seeing hearing no comment. >> Hold on a minute. >> I'm so sorry. >> Jump with the gun here. >> Hi. >> How are you? I'm good. >> Um and I don't know whether >> just your name just >> Rosemary Burns. >> Rosemary. >> Oh, thank you so much.
>> Um I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly or not, but you said that so it all have to go before the land use committees. So how much flexibility would they have to change any of this?
>> They have flexibility on um buffering primarily. They have a lot of flexibility on how the traffic pattern would go and there's things >> says this 14 acres with 14 dwellings per
acre. That's a lot of dwellings. Um, is there wiggle room in that? I mean, would the planning board say no? That's too dense. >> No, they can't do it. >> They can't do it. >> But it goes back to whether you can build it out depending on what type of
home they're looking to build, the other bulk requirements and so forth. So, the the board can't say you can't do that, but they might not be able to come in with a plan or their plan might come in and you can't do that. Right. They have to if they want to go to the max, they
have to find ways to satisfy that what they're building and so >> and are you able to tell me whe whether the person who owns the the building there also owns all the property in the back? >> It's a single lot. >> It's a single lot. So yes.
>> Yeah. >> Oh okay. >> They own that property of this property abuts the common property of field stone >> stone. >> That's where >> right. So, so the end of this property ends at the common property of Fieldstone,
>> right? Correct. >> So, do we know who this owner is? >> Well, he's on the record. >> He's on the record, but again, the owner is not involved in this process. This is a process between the township and fair share housing center and the courts. >> Right. >> So, this was determined as an area that
>> is underutilized and and could potentially need to be redeveloped, which is why this is being put on there. There's nothing saying that this owner is looking to sell today. >> And he still has all this regular underlying zoning requirements. We're not reszoning it. We're just putting an overlay that could be developed there.
So all the rights he has right now under the zoning still exists. >> If the property owner never decides to redevelop the site, just wants to keep operating the business or the building as he does today, that's okay. does buy it.
>> There are still some prerequisites. >> Yeah. So, for example, there's a 75 ft buffer because there's that very large wooded area between uh field stone and the building and then to the single family homes to the south. So, there's a 75 buffer that's required. Um, and
that's something that we could accomplish on this site even given the density. So, a variety of other standards like front yard setback, building design standards, etc. that they'll have to comply with. And I think that's part of what uh what Rudy had uh
alluded to is they have access to the 14 units in anger, but there are a variety of additional requirements they'll have to meet if they actually want to get approved at the maximum density. >> Okay. A and just because it's going to come it's a question's been asked before
about why is it 75 ft on this property and only 25 foot on another property and it has to do with the size of the property and as you as we mentioned before we cannot zone we have a density that's required that in this case the density was required by by by the agreement and by fair share
was 14 units an acre and in other cases it was eight or whatever based on the size of the property we cannot zone to a point where it's going to limit the buildability of those 14 units an acre. So if we were to say that this property had to have a 500t buffer, it
would come back as being not they can't build the 400t and it's not possible. That's why on our larger lot, we're able to put a larger step back. >> Doesn't feel you also have to think too about what is existing there and if it's, you know, a building that has
tenants that are successful that that are in use. Um I mean, for example, one of the overlays Dairy Queen. Dairy Queen is probably the busiest Dairy Queen in northern New Jersey if not the state. They basically put money there, right? And so like a place like Dairy Queen
most likely not going out of business anytime soon, right? So you have to think about the uses that are currently existing. While we're putting the zoning in place, we're not saying businesses that are there can no longer exist. Um we're saying they can continue and they
continue working if they're successful. They wouldn't have a necessarily to sell because they themselves are are contributing to that problem. >> You know, it's it's just like for three decades some overlay hasn't changed at all. >> There's nothing.
>> So, everybody keeps their >> Well, that's it. Well, in a sense, >> I mean, if if that just speaking of this property, um what might go in there might not be terribly dissimilar to what feels down this honestly. >> Exactly.
>> Yeah. That's fine. It's just the density of it seems >> daunting. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thank you, Rosemary. Anything else? Anyone else on 2072?
>> Not. I move the public hearing on ordinance number 2072 be closed. >> Second. All those in favor say I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Be it resolved by the township committee of the township of Wolfoff that ordinance number 2072 after public hearing and
further consideration is hereby adopted and the municipal clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish the notice of final passage of said ordinance in the official newspaper for the township as provided by law. >> I move ordinance 20 2072 on second reading by title only.
>> Second. May I see roll call please? >> Miss Bugdansky. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bonstra. >> Yes. >> Mr. Melion. >> Yes. >> Mr. Shepard. >> Yes. and Mayor Lane. >> I >> with an affirmative vote, the motion is approved. The 10th ordinance on tonight's agenda for public hearing and further consideration is ordinance
number 2073, which is an ordinance amending the land use ordinance of the township of WOFF to amend section 186-49 of chapter 186 zoning to add one new inclusionary overlay zone AH9 to be consistent with and designed to effectuate the township's adopted 2025
round four housing element in a fair share plan and 2025 mediation agreement with fair share housing center for second reading by title only. And a copy of this ordinance has been posted on our municipal website on the bulletin board and town hall where public notices are customarily posted and copies have been made available to members of the general
public of the township will requested the same. >> 2073 M >> 475 I'm sorry >> 475 Lafayette and 120 ravine. >> Okay. >> Okay. This is the time and place for the public hearing on ordinance 2073. And all persons who wish to be heard, please
state your name before making a comment. If you wish to make a comment, please step forward to the microphone. >> I'll be quick. Michael Haur. Um I live uh about 100 ft from Lafayette. Uh it's
this seems like the one ordinance that seems to be smack in the middle of the residential area. You know, you mentioned Mil uh County Road connecting to it. Uh I if you're familiar with the area, which I think you are, it's
probably the most dense area, the smallest properties. Um the college section, uh you know, mostly quarter acre. The fact that we're now going to be placing it, it's almost like, as you mentioned, it is awkward. It's like actually
cutting like coolage in half with this piece of property. It's butdding up against I think the only wooded area um in that area. I I know it's it's only wooded area where my kids can actually walk to today. >> Sure. >> It butts up right up against Coolage. Um
you know, that's the nature walk of Coolage. Again, there are no other locations where it's not it's not located in these other areas that Woff that are larger properties uh where there's a lot more open space. Um there's been traffic areas that you guys
have been dealing with over the years. You guys just, you know, completely redid the area by coolage. Um there's huge safety concerns here. Um adding 36 new units to an area where now all these cars are going to be exiting. Um there's
it's a very curvy road today. Um as you know, that sidewalk that you can barely walk on it without like stepping into the road. Um the we have two crossing guards there. Uh kids are cutting through that area. That's the only way you can really get to Coolage. It just
seems like this is going to be causing a huge safety concern to hundreds of children here. It's going to be kind of on you guys. I mean you guys I I know this doesn't seem like it's your choice to do this. You guys all seem to be against this, but this is an area that's sitting on Main Street or by Dairy Queen
or on Gothal Road. um this is like cutting one of our residential neighborhoods in half. Um and even if we're cutting it down to six people, it's just causing a huge uh again safety concern. And unless you guys are going
to be adding some additional wooded area or making other changes, it's just going to be a concern. If I if if I put a shed in my backyard today, you guys are going to be sending people over. like seriously because we have these tiny
tiny lots here. So I mean like the college section should not be more dense and you guys should not be doing this next to a school. So this is just like it's it's absurd. It's disgusting. Um it's going to be hurting all the property value around us. I don't think
anyone cares that they added a bunch of condos where the Hawthorne Chevy dealership is today. You can't do it right in a smack in the middle of our neighborhood. So, totally disagree. I know this isn't your choice here, but I mean, from a land use perspective, you
guys aren't thinking this one through. >> Uh, hello. U, my name is Amanda Crommy. I'm from Harold Law and I'm representing uh Brian and Carrie Krauss. Um, so I just have a couple statements that I'd like to make on their behalf. Um, I know for this particular
ordinance, um, you mentioned earlier in this presentation today that, uh, this is one that is going to be subject to an amended mediation agreement. And I think that in this particular instance, it would make sense to look at this ordinance again to consider reasonable
amendments to address some of the concerns of the neighbors. um and consider for instance uh this overlay zone and the interplay between it and the underlying RA25 zone. For instance, I know that um there's a enhanced
setback requirement for the RA25 zone for say a home with a gross building area that exceeds 3,700 square ft where it requires minimum sideyard setbacks of 25 ft. Meanwhile, the ordinance separates based on uses. And so
something like that might be an opportunity for this board, uh, this committee to address and and, uh, make this a little more palatable for the neighborhood. Um, further, um, in terms of the density, I understand, um, the
constraints and getting it down to six density units per acre is a win. Um however uh it just makes it even more critical to focus on reasonable changes say to the buffer area. The 20 foot planting strip is not going to
adequately address the needs of the existing single family residences that are uh next to this parcel. And another uh gentleman spoke up earlier about the private recreational facilities. Having some language in the ordinance to restrict those facilities from being
placed in close proximity to these existing residences, I think would be another uh point that this committee could take a look at as and again in this opportunity that you have to go back to fair share on this particular ordinance. And I think I'll I'll leave
it at that. >> Thank you very much for your comments. taken under consideration. Uh any other >> Hi, back >> um is there is there a site plan or um >> no proposal been submitted to the town
by either the owner or developer for this church? >> Not for this zoning. >> For this zoning, >> not for this zoning. >> This zone, if I'm understand correctly, is the church parcel. Correct. So there were previous uh renderings which we
which were se seen online actually in the by by the realer that's selling the property. Um but the zoning does not uh there's no specific site plan that's been submitted
to the town for this with something that meets these requirements. So again >> again this the zoning is this zoning is has nothing to do with current development. Zoning allows for a development. So once the zoning is
approved then a development application can be submitted and a site plan can be presented. >> Right. Right now, if they were to submit a v if they were to submit anything to a land use board, it would require a zoning uh a uh devariance and it would require it
to go to the zoning board because only thing allowed on the property is RA is RA25, so single family homes and a church with no less than 5 acres. >> Has regard been notified formally?
>> Yes. Mhm. >> All right. Has Rid Water raised any concerns about development in here next to the water company? >> So, Ridgwood Water has not. They were they were notified along with all the other utilities, cable, gas, telephone, gas, electric. Um, and as was mentioned
before, the utilities actually can't object because they have to provide if the zoning requires it. >> Good question. Um, I don't know what this what the map for the town looks like.
Um, but this church is adjacent to a water field. >> I think that's significant. I hope the town would keep this in mind because the water tank extends obviously beyond the
property line. >> Okay. So, if you eliminate the trees and the wooded area between the water company and where the parking lot begins, you're going to eliminate all that all
that potential area that replenishes the water table below. If you develop that, you create lawns and such, you're going to introduce potential contamination to the water that's pumped out of that ground several hundred yards away with
fertilizers for lawn, pesticides for bugs, salt for the sidewalks and roads. Sure. >> Okay. So these things are reasons in my mind why that spot should not be developed with with it's also on one
side adjacent to water company and over the top of a water uh well field that's that's part of the drinking water system now >> but next to it is the board of ed property which is also a wetlands and a wooded area.
>> Okay. And that as the gentleman who was up here at first uh you know mentions uh that that whole that whole area between the water company field and the board of ed and that in that piece of woods um
that the church owns is a small oasis and it's a crossroads from all the towns from from the white border south up by ravine and college streets and probably to >> right So, they should keep that green.
You know, that's an important part of that part of town. And and it's not really um it's it's not just uh developing something out of parking lot. That's that's one point I would really stress. We're talking about property that's
going to affect the drinking water system, not maybe you're over top of water. So if an if an application comes ever comes in by a developer, Rididgewood Water will be notified just like the other comment
>> and then they do have to Matt's point they do have can come in at that point in time and raise some of the issues if they are true to what you're saying as well as if there's wetlands they're going to have to be buffered you know there's certain they're going to have to get state approval you know that they
can only go certain distance so these are all parameters once an application comes in. >> Right now, we're just looking at the overlay zoning, but you're right. All those things will be considered when an if and when an application ever comes in,
>> if the church sells off a part of the parking lot. >> Mhm. Isn't it true that when when a property is is um constructed that the building code requires a given number of parking
spaces based on a use classification of use and the size of the building. >> So assuming that that church was built in compliance with the code that means that the number of parking spaces whether he uses them today or not is required by code still
>> for that church to operate. That's correct. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> So again, I understand I understand that that that you know, you don't have anything specific and concrete in front of us, but I think it's important that that the committee hears this and keeps
this in mind because if he tries to sell off a part of that property, the question becomes, how does his remaining church stay in compliance? >> Well, he's already he could be already under the five acres, which causes a >> which makes him out of compliance. takes him out of compliance. >> Yeah. And they're going to have to if he
subdivides the property, he's going to have to go to the planning board. But by subdividing the property and then going beyond the 5 acres, technically >> he's going have to go to the zoning board and it's a zoning board zoning board for a devariance. So if you if that property was to be subdivided and
sold off, it would be going to a board. This would all be considered as well at the board. Um, and then the subdivision also would be going to the zoning board, which if you've ever been to a zoning board meeting, they're quite thorough. >> So, so there's a bunch of hurdles that,
and you've correctly pointed some of them out >> that any kind of developer applicant, depending on what the church wants to do, whether selling off the whole piece or trying to keep the church becomes another issue of whether you really can de develop it and they can stay there. But again, tonight we we're not
addressing that right now. But those are anything that a developer would have to uh deal with and when they go to the boards >> and Mr. Spel also you have to think about the topography of the site >> right that's not a flat site also think about all of the earth work and earth work very expensive so you think about
all of the extra conditions that would have to be done to make that a level site that's easy to build upon. So those all contribute to the cost and then when you're a developer right you're trying to make a profit and when you start thinking about things like that it becomes quite expensive >> and on top of the fact that you have
affordable units where they don't make profit >> they don't make profit they lose money on affordable unit >> so there's a lot to think about in terms of just the site there's a lot parking making sure there's enough parking spaces >> they don't have to they're not going to get a reduced parking rate they still
have to comply with all of the same RSI parking standards All right, one last comment if you entertain that man's point. You know, um that specific part of town, Lafayette, proved here several
years ago, um the town allowed Barister to put in Barrister Court, which include not just private homes, it's got obviously town homes, which I'll call high density housing and some low income housing in there as well. And you know,
after after years of being a prior horse for its was sad to see it go. They also approve uh an additional road deep V court road >> and homes on the banks of the ravine which is a protected water understand
that and then more recently and not long after that going south going down the hill on ravine on the left side just past Hill there was a nursery developer came in and the town approved high density homes in there and people
on Hillary all of a sudden looked out the background And there was this wall in front of literally these big town homes in front of their face. Okay. And now more recently, last year the town is entertaining a request by the poultry farm on Waffle Road to move their
Pennsylvania processing plant into the same neighborhood on the other side of the ravine just south of uh Hopper in that area there and create a basically a slaughter house shipping processing plant and the town's entertaining that from what I
understand I didn't attend the planning board means okay and now this now we're looking at the potential for low income or high density I don't care what the income is high density and removal of of of what is a green area and
potential impact to the water system all in the same what are we talking here two square miles >> I think we pay our fair share in that area I really do >> and it's a big town. So to the to the lady's point who came up here early with
math in hand and her question was what about the rest of the areas? What's going on here? So please keep that in mind. You know I know everybody answers to somebody. The committee does a great job here. lifelong resident. >> Vincent Brennan
on the 16th of March. This this board is going uh submit you have to have it submitted to the state and trend of the overlay. >> Okay. I just heard tonight now after the 16th is there's a 10-year period. So
>> actually it runs from July of last year for the 10 years. We're really into the we're already into the fourth round. So it goes to 2035. >> Everybody has a temporary stay through the 16th. And honestly until the b the courts have time to review the documents
that are submitted by the 16th. If they're submitted late, they're submitted late and then we're out of the program. >> I understand that. Now, what happens? We I heard tonight that the church on Lafayette
uh is having problems. >> So, and they sold some of their property off. >> No, they have not yet. Okay. Suppose they go uh they cease to exist as a as a congregation and they sell the entire property off
>> after the after we submit up. Can the state come back in and re do the overlay for that that property also to add more affordable housing? >> That's a good question.
>> So >> well the state's not >> the state's not doing the overlay. We are. And the whole church property is included in this overlay. >> So I'm I'm a little confused. So the whole church property is included in this overlay. It's not just the rear parking lot. It's the entire church property.
>> Okay. But can can they modify the amount of >> Once we have our judgment of repose, we're good for 10 years. They can't come to us and ask us for any more units. We've met our obligation under the law. >> Okay. Now, also
with the property which is adjacent to the the um Rididgewood Water property, which is at the end of our road >> on on on Fleer, >> can the state come in and say we could open up the road that goes across
Ridgewood Water? Could they force Ridg Water to open the lane into the the new development? >> No. No. >> No. Okay. >> That was my my my main concern. Okay, thank you very much. >> Thank you for your comments.
>> Hi, good evening. >> Uh, Andrew Pesimenti. Uh, I live at 83 Rivian. Uh, I was born at 446 Lafayette Avenue. Went to school with Jim's kid, Bert's kid. I'm a coolage kid. Um
I have a couple things like I said it makes sense in my head but the the easy one we keep saying like in keeping with white in keeping with white what I've seen is a culde-sac especially in these areas where we're talking about how people move through
>> cottage coolage terrace these culde-sacs have cutthroughs so you can get out of them >> if we build a culde-sac I would ask to consider that there is an exit in the back. Everything leaking out onto ravine. We can get into that mess is
crazy to my in my opinion that the entrance will be at the at both downhills on Ravine. You'll be coming down the hill one way and down the hill the other. If you're walking your dog, if you're walking to school, the 70 people you put in here, those kids
should be able to get out because you're building on the side of a road without a sidewalk. So I would ask the consideration that there be some way to get through it and it's not just all private property or fenced because we do have that as part of all the other
developments in the other areas in town >> and it's it's a big deal. Anybody that lives in the area, you cut through cottage, you can get to Eisenhower. It it's just really really helpful. Um,
it's been mentioned, but I've been here 40 years. I mean, 42. In my 40 years, we've added green space in every other neighborhood in this town. Russell Farms, we added near Baptist, the the wildlife center. Every
single area of this town has open space except Coolage. That empty lot, lady teaching her kid how to ride a bike. It's where I'm teaching my kid how to ride a bike. There is nowhere to go. It's not coolage because since I've been
a kid, we've built Coolage out so much that there's no parking lot left. When you go there after school, there is no space on the black top. The lot actually says lot full during the day >> in the in the faculty. So like that's
not an option. And again, if we close off the back entrance to Koolage, you are basically making this an urban area. and it's one of the only places in town without sidewalks. And as mentioned, the sidewalk on Ravine is is not great. Um,
animals, town carrying capacity, all that stuff. It's really kind of a bummer, but in general, I know something's going to happen there, but like I said, the best way I would ask is at least a cut through. To be honest,
it's a big enough spot that there can be some space given back to the community. I don't care if it's five benches. Like, there should be something there that allows people to get out of their house cuz, as you said, they're going to build all the way to the edge. So, where are
these people hanging out? >> It's not on the street and it's not in my yard, right? I have a corner lot. It It's not There's nowhere to go. So, again, I know rock in a hard place. I get it. But if we're talking about white golf and what white golf's like, all the
other areas that have been built up on have that ability everywhere but here and >> thank you for your comments. Are there any further comments on this specific audience? Anyone going
>> hearing it? See? No. And I've moved that public hearing on ordinance 2073 be closed. >> Second. All those in favor? >> No opposed. >> No opposed. >> Be it resolved by the township committee of the township of Wyoff that ordinance
number 2073 after public hearing and further consideration is hereby adopted and the municipal clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish the notice of final passage of said ordinance in the official newspaper for the township as provided by law. I move ordinance number 2073 on second
reading by title. Roll call, please. >> Miss Bogdansky, >> yes. >> Mr. Bonstra, >> yes. >> Mr. Melion, >> yes. >> Mr. Shapper, >> yes. >> And Mayor Lane. >> With an affirmative vote, the motion is approved. The 11th ordinance on tonight's agenda for public hearing and
further consideration is ordinance number 2074, which is an ordinance amending the land use ordinance of the township of Wyoff to amend the MF/ AH9 zone section 186-49 of chapter 186 zoning to be consistent with and
designed to effectuate the township's adopted 2025 round four housing element and fair share plan and 2025 mediation agreement with fair share housing center for second reading by title only. And a copy of this ordinance has been posted on our municipal website on the bulletin board and town hall where public notices
are customarily posted and copies have been made available to members of the general public of the township who have requested the same. Mr. Mayor, this has to do with the free lot >> Greenwood Avenue um between the post office and St. Elizabeth's area and
Godwin. And all this is this is not resoning it. All it's doing is effectuating the 20% change from a 1520 split. >> Okay. This is the time and place for the public hearing on ordinance 2074. And all persons who wish to be heard, please state your name before your
comment. If you wish to make a comment, please step forward to the microphone. >> Hello again. >> Hello Ken Jello. I just have a question. With the orange changes, is the town able to do what they did on muscle farms and whatnot and buy that the land with
these orange changes if they want to like the zoning changes. So, >> if the township was a if the township was able to come up with the money, if if the township committee was interested
in purchasing land, and I'm going to just go land in general, not not land, the township has the ability to purchase land. Yes. If the township has the finances to purchase the land, that's a different story.
uh or has financial backing maybe from state or county open space. with regard to a property that is considered open space or has the ability to produce a realist a realistic developmental development uh potential which is a
planning term and it's a legal term uh which you know that uh we would then have to find out what that potential would be on that property and zone for it somewhere else. >> Okay. So,
>> and not just zone for it. We actually almost need to produce it somewhere else in order to get fair share to agree to >> So, it's not just zone for it. We'd have to actually find a spot >> that's going to get built. >> So, in theory,
>> in theory. >> Mhm. >> One of the spots that got zoned >> tonight. Yep. township has backing, decides they're going to purchase it. >> If there's another spot in town that
basically replaces what that would have filled, that could happen in. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And it's not the whole density. It would be the affordable obligation. So in a property, let's say that's 36 units, the poss possibility of a 36 unit. five
acres at six acre at six dwelling units an acre with a 20% set aside 7.6 somewhere around there. We'd have to find a spot for eight other units to be built and actually ensure that they're going to be built. >> So 36 plus 8. >> No, just the eight.
>> Oh, so you could buy the 36 and just need >> No, the 36 we don't buy. The 36 just don't exist. Fair share doesn't care. Fair share doesn't care about the other 30. Yeah. Fair share doesn't care about the other 28. They only care about the eight affordable units.
>> It's just numbers. >> It's just numbers to them. >> It's just numbers. >> Yeah. >> Any any other any other questions on the specific ordinance 2074? Correct. >> Anything else? Once, twice. Motion.
>> Seeing no one. I move that the public hearing on ordinance 2074 be closed. >> Second. All those in favor say I. All right. Any opposed? There being none carries. >> Be it resolved by the township committee of the township of Wyoff that ordinance
number 2074 after public hearing and further consideration is hereby adopted and the municipal clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish the notice of final passage of said ordinance in the official newspaper for the township as provided by law. >> I move ordinance 2074 on second reading
by title only. Nancy, roll call, please. >> Miss Bogdansky, >> yes. >> Mr. Bonstra, >> yes. >> Mr. Melion, >> yes. >> Mr. Shepard, >> yes. >> And Mayor Lane. >> With an affirmative vote, the motion is approved. >> Motion to adjourn. >> So move.
>> Second. >> Second. All those in favor say I. >> Opposed. >> Thank you very much for being here and thank you for your comments.