Does the what? I'm sorry. Paving mortorium. There's a there there's certain roads that the town is repaving and they're imposing I think a five-year moratorum where you can't open those roads uh for any utilities or the like since they're just being repaved. I would imagine that would have be dealt with in a settlement agreement. I have a question too. Yes, ma'am. Um could you talk a little bit um about um people's obligations for offtrack improvements and who bears the cost? There's a lot of concerns that the community has right now in particular concerning our water supply in town. And I think that people are concerned about increasing the number of residential units when there's when there hasn't been any talk yet tonight about the offtrack improvements and who bears that cost. Sure. It's a good question. So offtrack improvements are prata shares. So a developer comes in and they have x number of units and they require x number of whatever water or sewer and there needs to be an improvement of that that utility to get to that site.
Uh but uh we're we're looking forward to another renewal this year. Chyros Healthcare has done a terrific job in providing a good product for us. Very excited about that and we're just asking for the board support tonight on this benefit plan.
they are responsible for the prata share of of that utility. So that that's typically how that's dealt with. Kendra, I just wanted to say you you call it rank and road and it really the application before the planning board is for the end of Rathton Road. It's on the corner of Rank and Rathon, but it's really up so it really should say Rathon Road. Thank you so much. Appreciate that. Any other questions up at the deis? Okay, we'll open it up to the public. Um, I think we're going to line up at the mic. Um, and I believe this is the gentleman that has first dibs, right? Okay. That's correct. Go ahead. I'm sorry. You're just making a statement. You don't need me to stand up here or Pardon me. Are you just making a statement or do you have questions? Um, I'm going to make a statement and then introduce some testimony from the planner.
Board members, you have any questions? I have one. Do my best. Go figure. Um both of you can actually probably So, uh I' I've looked over the um all the plans and it is great that we're going to be covering the additional costs on the employees so that at least for their coverage, they're not going to have that added expense, but it is a big increase for employees that need to have spouse, family, or children. That's a huge hit. Um, do we have a list of resources that they could seek other insurance that may not cost as much that we can give to those employees that may need to have that extra insurance but just can't afford it with Chyros, but maybe through a marketplace or something they might be able to afford it. Wonderful question, Vice President Coutree. Um, again, our our benefit offerings to our employees are optional.
Okay, I'll stand back. Thank you. Uh, good evening members of the council and the planning board. My name is Brendan Judge and I'm with the law firm of Connell Foley. I represent a nonprofit corporation known as Preserving Our Town, which is comprised of three Briel residents, George Harms, Michael Craig, and Lauren Harms, who are here in the audience tonight. First, I want to thank the the council and the planning board for conducting thisformational meeting. We recognize that you're under no obligation to do so. We appreciate the effort towards transparency. We also appreciate your efforts to deal with affordable housing and development issues. These are complex and timeconsuming issues, especially when you're faced with the builder's remedy lawsuit, such as the remedy the builder's remedy lawsuit filed by high tide bell to develop the whiskey lounge site. As some of you may know, I made a motion to intervene in that lawsuit on behalf of preserving our town.
They can opt out of that. If there's a better plan out there that they can avail themselves of, either in the marketplace or a spouse's plan that would be more beneficial to them, we're certainly going to encourage them to do that. But can we get them a list of resources? Can we look to see if we can find a list of resources that we can give to them so that you know if the if our plans aren't working for them that they have some other avenues to research certainly once again we're offering four different plans. Uh again it the the final plan that HDHP 5000 plan is is is reasonably priced. Again we offer some offset cost in that as well with some of the HSA savings uh contribution we made toward that. again. Yes. Happy to put together something we offer to our employees.
That motion was denied at the trial level and the issue is currently before the appellet division. The crux of our opposition to high tides development is that its concept is inconsistent with sound land use planning. Now that is a factor that the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in Mount Laurel 2 can be used to defeat a builder's remedy lawsuit. It fails to comply with sound land use planning. Now, I understand from Miss Ly's presentation that the burrow is considering a redevelopment uh zone for Higgins Avenue that would include the Whiskey Lounge site that would reduce the density at that site. Uh I'm not in a position to comment on that tonight. I have to review that with my clients and also I understand that the density isn't set yet. Uh it's somewhere between 10 and 12. Um, but I can say we are encouraged that we see steps being taken towards sound land use planning.
That That's a great suggestion. Thank you. I would appreciate it. Board members, any other questions or motions? Uh Mr. Beck had hit on uh hit on some of the questions that I had. So, um I don't have anything. Uh if there's no discussion or other questions, I'll make a motion to uh approve the uh benefit plan for next year. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second, Lisa, we have a motion and a second. Shante Rothschild, I. Ben Owens, hi. Carol Lopez, I. Patty Catra, I. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. Next item up, discussion of possible approval to accept the fiscal year 2024 audits and compliance questionnaire. Mr. Harmon. All right. Good evening, Vice President Coutree, members of the governing board, and Dr. Lopeman. The purpose of this action item is to formally accept the audits and compliance questionnaire conducted on the district for fiscal year 24.
But what I want to do tonight is to formally object on the record to any development of the Whiskey Lounge site that is not in not consistent with sound land use planning and especially to the high tide bell uh site concept. That's a concept that calls for 101 units in a fourstory structure that absolutely is not consistent with sound land use planning. With me tonight is Michael Sullivan, a planner with Clark Kaitton and hints who's prepared to address the the high tide realel concept. Michael, could you first provide the council and planning board with your credentials? Okay. Um, I'm Michael Sullivan. I'm a principal with Clark Kaitton Hints in Trenton, New Jersey. I'm a planner uh and a landscape architect in New Jersey. I've been um a professional planner for 35 years practicing predominantly in municipal millu municipal clients planning boards um redevelopment plans, affordable housing plans and the like.
The audit was conducted by Heinfeld and Meech, an independent audit firm. They conducted the required single audit and compliance questionnaire. They also completed the voluntary annual comprehensive financial report that is required for two applications for esteemed certifications of excellence in financial reporting. one to the Association of School Business Officials International and the other to the Government Finance Officers Association. The rules for public school districts come from the Arizona Constitution and Title 15 of Arizona Revised Statutes. These rules change every year through legislation and voter approved initiatives. The Department of Education and the AR and the Auditor General of the State of Arizona are responsible for interpreting these rules and enforcing them with districts. This is done through the uniform system of financial records or the USFR and the USFR audit compliance questionnaire. The current version of the USFR is 404 pages and the annual audit contains 171 questions in the compliance questionnaire that cover these 18 categories.
H have you been recognized as an expert by any uh boards or courts uh on the issue of planning? Yes. Uh, hundreds. Are you familiar with High Tide's concept as proposed for the Whiskey Lounge site? Yes. Could you describe it, please? Yes. The concept for uh the Whiskey Lounge uh site is a a four-story building with 101 units. It's four-story multif family building with uh apartments. Uh 16 units, 15% of those are proposals affordable housing. It has 181 parking spaces configured in such a way that they are underneath the building and constitute the first floor of the building. It also includes um amenities including an amenity deck on the fourth floor which will be an outdoor recreational space on the In your opinion does the high tide concept comply with sound land use planning? I don't think it does. Should I tell you can I tell you can I tell you why?
The auditors spend two separate weeks on site as well as additional off-site work to determine sufficient appropriate evidence is obtained for each question of the USFR compliance questionnaire. Evidence is obtained through test work, observation, examination, and client assertion. We're pleased with the audit process and results for fiscal year 24. This slide shows our fiscal year 24 compliance questionnaire. The blue bars are the total numbers of qu of the questions in each section and the orange bar shows the findings in each section. We had 13 findings in 10 areas. On the bottom right hand corner, you can see our five-year history of our findings and 13 findings for fiscal year 24 means we're about 92% compliant to those 171 questions. Out of the 80 districts that are audit firm audit firm, a Heinfeld Meech audited in fiscal year 23. Um the findings in those districts range from 10 to 35 findings with the average being 15.
Okay. Um the high tide use uh abuts an existing single family neighborhood the R2 um residential neighborhood. Um and um it doesn't comply with principal uses density building coverages, building setbacks and other spatial relationships to the public streets and existing homes. Um and it the floor area is excessive and the floor area ratios are excessive. It doesn't comport to any of those. Not only is it incompatible with the residential district, but it eliminates the commercial potential of the C1 district. The total area of the C1 district is just over 8 acres. The plaintiff's property high tide is 1.65 acres, which is over 20% of the C1 zone. development of the planist parcel uh high tide uh would eliminate the ability to develop commercial uses in the zone and that would equate to a reduction in commercial potential of about 44,000 to 45,000 square feet of commercial ratables.
Um it is important to understand that the number of findings isn't the most important factor. What is most important is the severity of the findings. Uh a a good guide to understand the severity of findings is our single audit report which is also attached to the board agenda. Um paying attention to the findings or the lack of findings on the single audit will reveal the se will reveal the severity of findings in the compliance questionnaire. Our single audit for fiscal year 24 had zero findings. Um for the 13 findings in the compliance questionnaire, we'll continue to work with each of the finding areas and develop corrective action plans and continue to educate on the USFR. I want to give a lot of praise to our MUSD staff that have continued to work hard on training and practices to improve compliance with the uniform system of financial records.
Um there are currently no multif family dwellings in the C1 zone. So it's uh distinctly different from the character of that zone. Um and uh because it's inconsistent, it undermines the intent of the C1 zone as a commercial district. Um uh the percentage of the zone consisting of residential uses because there are some residential uses within the C1 zone would increase from about 20% to over 40%. So nearing almost 50% getting towards 50% of the commercial zone. That's a substantial impact to the nature and of the underlying C1 zone which is required to reflect the the existing character of the district. Pursuant to the New Jersey Municipal Land use Law Section 62, all zoning must reflect the character of the district to some extent. So you're undermining that. Um so it's not just a change to the property, it's effectively removing a portion of the C1 zone, effectively a zoning change.
Um thank you. That uh concludes my presentation. We uh so you have an an action item in front of you for approval of our audits and compliance questionnaire and we're we're seeking your approval.
Um the average lot coverage in the C1 zone is about 25%. High tides lot coverage 84%. That's 342% higher than the average of the properties in the C1 district. Um we talked about building height within the C1 district. The building heights range from about 14 feet to 30 feet. Um and they're two and a half stories roughly. The average building height is 21 feet. High Tides uh fourstory building is 47 feet or 217% higher than that in the C1. Um let's talk a little bit about the impacts to the the residential neighborhood. The abuing neighborhoods to the south the southwest are entirely composed of single family residential homes. It's redundant residential homes. Uh the neighborhood directly to subject uh property high tide is R2 zones single family zone has older housing stock most of the housing stock uh there's some as early as 1850 they're very noteworthy those home that home um 80% of the dwellings were built before 1967 and most were built uh between 1976 and 2013.
Board members, any questions discuss or discussion? Um thank you first u Mr. Harmon for that. Um the 13 findings that were mentioned you mentioned it's the severity um of those. So with that is there a time frame in which those have to be addressed and resolved and if so what is the average of that and then the followup from there? So if uh great question we are working internally to look at every single one of those findings and see if we need to make you know adjustments to our procedures, our processes and some of those findings were in my department and it's just as simple as you know changing our checklist for you know reviewing things that may have resulted in a clerical error. Um if the findings were severe or material um of nature then the auditor general would require a formal corrective action submitted to them with a time frame.
There's 39 single family homes in that area. um they're of an appropriate size and scale with uh trees on the streets and yards and and lots of light air and open space around those homes. Um it's very pleasant, relatively low density setting. Multif family housing in that neighborhood is is not permitted, but the high tide proposal would put it right up against that neighborhood and would essentially um loom over the neighborhood. Um so the character and the scale is is very distinctly different from the R2 residential neighborhood. Um and there could be substantial impacts. Um the density, let's talk about the density. I think this is one of the most stark uh differences between the R2 single family neighborhood and high tide's proposal. Um the gross residential density is approximately 1 point units per acre within the R2 zone in that 39 uh home neighborhood.
None of these will require an auditor general corrective action. So, it'll just be internal work. We've already uh worked on a response and corrective action from all of the responsible parties and and a lot of it will just be education on that that large 404 page document to make sure that we're aware of our sections and the the questions of the compliance questionnaire and sometimes it could be training even at our school sites on inputting certain records and making sure that all of those files are complete. And then my second question is so upon approving that are we approving the submission or approving the validity of the the results of the question? Yeah. So the the audits have already been submitted to the state and the county and all of the entities that are required. It's the the formal acceptance from the governing board of the validity of these uh these audits and compliance questionnaires.