High tide is at 61 units per acre. Okay, that's insane. Uh it would exceed the existing density by 59 units per acre, which is 34 times the density of the R2 zone in that residential neighborhood. Um Uh so the building height the plaintiff's high tide would ex also exceed the average height 25 ft in the neighborhood uh by 86%. Uh, and this is even uh the height uh difference is even more uh important because when you go up four stories and then you put an amenity deck on there with speakers and hot tubs or whatever else you're going to put up there for people to have fun with, lights, that all is now emphasized. It's almost like having an outdoor fifth story which could uh uh impact the neighborhood. So, uh, due to its location, uh, and its, uh, size and scale and its density, its character, uh, I don't think it represents sound planning to put any kind of development of that nature at that location in close proximity to those homes.
Thank you. I did go through and read all 31 pages. Great. Of the USFR, good for you, Mr. Owens. Um, and we woke up. It It was relatively boring. Um, but um, you know, just kind of going through there and reading what exactly they're looking for, they really drill down to some very, very granular um, uh, data. um you know and you've already addressed that we're making corrective actions uh going forward. I think that's probably the biggest thing. So hopefully next year um you know we can be at nine or less right they make that you know make a even bigger improvements. So um thank you to our to our district and uh because this is an entire staff thing. This is not the financial department. This is all the schools, transportation, this is IT, this is our food service. Everyone has a hand in this.
And, uh, and I also think it's detrimental to the C1 zone for commercial use. So, that's what I base my opinion on, that it doesn't represent sound planning. [Applause] Thank you, Michael. Because High Tide's proposal does not is not consistent with sound land use planning, I encourage this council to continue to fight the lawsuit. We are going to continue our efforts to participate in that lawsuit to join the fight with you. Thank you. [Applause] Hello, my name is Richard Degrroot. I live at 915 Riverview Drive in Briel. I've been a resident of this town for 47 plus years. Uh at the last meeting I attended in January, um my question was what constitutes sound planning? Um, these gentlemen gave us an idea and please excuse my uh looking at this because I'm not a lawyer, but I looked this up and it said if the proposed development is contrary to sound planning and represents a substantial environmental hazard that should be denied.
That is correct. So, so thank you to to all of our staff on that. So, thank you, Mr. Any motions? A motion to approve. I'll second. Lisa, we have a motion and a second. Shante Rothschild. Hi, Ben Owens. Hi. Carol Lopez. Hi. Patty Coutrey. I And down to our last item, adjournment. Do I have a motion? Motion to adjurnn. You have a second. Lisa Shante Rothschild. I Ben Owens. Hi Carol Lopez. Hi. Hi Catra. Hi. 759.
uh rules have articulated these principles with a dozen site suitability uh criteria including access compliance with the flood hazard area um I would think being that close to the river that's a flood hazard area and adjacent to compatible land uses and it requires addable uh adequate um public services etc school but it also requires ires an adequate water supply. Um, a deck on top of that building would probably also uh add to any noise regulations that the town has that has to be complied with within the town. Um, in addressing sound planning, I'd like to know, have any traffic studies been done because this is not just a local use. This is going to be summer use. People are going to have people coming down here for the summer. Have traffic studies been done? The other thing this week I spoke to um um Michael I think McDonald who was in charge of um uh the uh water supply for Bel and Manisquan and um I'm not sure the other town he told me that Bel is allotted I think it's six million gallons a quarter Uh he said two million come from each water tower and two million come from the uh Manisquan reservoir.
And he said we are already a town short of water short and we will be paying a penalty for overusing the reservoir. I think you mentioned that the builder will pay a pro ratta. That's not going to be the same once we start drawing more water. It's not going to be anywhere near the same. And we are already short of water. People coming down for the summer, they're going to take showers. So, I I don't know how sound planning can take that into account aside from what uh Mr. H's lawyer said. So I I'll address the first question and probably punt it to Al uh with regards to the water issue. Uh who has much more information on that as it relates to traffic study. There's not been any traffic studies. It has not been there's not we don't have a traffic study. I have to make it clear we are in settlement negotiations with high tide site.
Um I put on the record I agree with Michael Sullivan. I believe that what has been proposed is not sound planning. Um, so this burrow is in the process of of thinking thinking out of the box as to how you include that site, but not anywhere near those densities at this point. So from a traffic impact perspective, traffic studies are typically done at a site plan level. Um, and at that point we we would have traffic studies, but there's lots of steps that need to happen before we even consider anything on that particular site. So, I understand your concern. Um, but again, uh, there is no negotiation or even a settlement that's coming close to what they're proposing at this point. But does that mean that no traffic planning has to be done before? I'm saying that we have to go through that process as part of the redevelopment planning process.
Um, but it it's not something that we're we have done yet going into it. This is conceptually what we're we're presenting. I'm taking your feedback. Obviously, traffic is a concern, so we will make sure that that we're aware of that. Al, can you talk to the water issue at all? Um, it doesn't we don't have to get into depth, but just kind of talk about what you know about the situation. Sure. Uh, so the uh burrow has been working proactively with the D to address the uh let's say the water uh shortfall. Um, most of that's based on calculations, their D calculations. um and they're taking steps forward to addressing that. So that's not like an issue going forward. Uh you know, one of the things that should be said is, you know, part of the troubles that we had last summer have in large part have to do with as as many people that water their lawns with our portable water.
Um you know, unfortunately it's been fairly inexpensive to do that over the years. And I'd say, you know, I think it's, you know, kind of become like a a common thing to just use the the town water for the watering of lawns, but that's something that going forward is needs to be curtailed because we do have adequate sources for let's say the consumption within the town. It's just we don't have enough water to to, you know, irrigate the town as well. But but the water, excuse me, but the water use now you're talking about is in the summer. I spoke to the man who is in charge of the water. He did not say this is a summer issue. This is a yearround issue. It's not a summer issue. And once our town starts paying uh a penalty for using more water, that's going to go on top of the water bills we just received.
This is not a summer issue alone. Well, it's totaled over the course of the year, but it spikes for the six months that actually people do irrigation. It may spike, but it's it's still an issue. I I think the water issue as it relates to new development coming into town. We we are aware of the need for getting potentially another water source. And so, the town municip the municipality is going to have to work through that process as well as we move forward. And so we as it relates to affordable housing in the state of New Jersey, um you can't put a moratorium on development because you don't necessarily have sewer and water. You have to find the ability to get sewer and water into the municipality to support your obligation. Um and so that's something that the municipality will work towards and work with developers to ensure that um that they are going to have sufficient water supply.
Can we move on to the next person? I think probably say one last thing. this uh part of this uh sound planning said compliance with flood hazard. That should be in a flood zone. It's partially in a flood zone. It's it sits right on the cusp of a flood zone to the high tide site. We've looked at that. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to make one last statement. Just because you said that you just said that. No, no, this is my last statement. Just because you can do something does not mean that you should. [Applause] David Ericson, 301 Oldbridge Road. Um, I appreciate all the professional planning testimony. Uh, it's probably accurate, but that project wasn't presented here, so I'm not going to comment on it. I'm going to focus on the ones that were. Uh, the two round the two affordable housing sites that were identified, they're both round three sites.
Yes. And you settle or one was settled with a 15% set aside instead of the 20. Uh yes, I believe so. Don't you have to change an ordinance or something or that was part of the redevelopment plan for that parcel as part of the settlement agreement. The second one was also settled with a 15% set aside instead of a 20. We haven't settled that case yet. It's heading towards settlement. It was presented here with a 15% set aside instead of a 20. It's it's heading towards settlement. So it may change. Isn't that going to increase our future burden by taking 15 on the two that we're taking instead of 20? Now I think if you noticed on the on the Mumford site actually we're getting more credits um for that particular site. So it's a higher set Can I finish? It's a higher set aside.
Um so essentially we as I said that was a general uh understanding of what we think we're going to get. It it may change but it doesn't change our future requirements as it relates to ordinances or our obligation. No, that wasn't my point. My point is we could get a couple more units now by going to 20% and have less in the future. But I'll let that go. Um, how are we getting bonus credits on round three sites when we were never a certified municipality? Because you're getting rental bonus credits. They're rental units. You get bonus credits. It doesn't matter if you were a previously non-certified site or approved uh town or not. No, we've never submitted anything. Doesn't matter. Well, okay. I'll let that one go, too. Well, she's saying I'm wrong. You are wrong. It's that's it's the case. Should we let it go?
I think we let it go. Um, you identified a redevelopment overlay zone of 14 acres approximately with a 15 unit an acre density that will generate 200 units in total. If we take 20% of those units and require everybody to do 20% instead of 15, you'll generate 42 potentially. Yep. So we owe 3.95 and this plan generates 42. So the the way that the unmet need is um uh put together for second for the prior round and third round um there wasn't a mechanism or there wasn't a metric sorry there wasn't a metric that said you had to meet so much of your unmet need. The third round sorry the fourth round says that you have to provide 25% uh of the units of the unmet need. So 65 units is our fourth round obligation. 25% is of that is I don't know it off the top of my head 16 units something like that.
We have to provide that to meet our unmet need. As I said in the beginning unmet need may never be met because of the number of units. So my my question really I just want to add one thing to that just to clear the record. There's a dispute as to what that 25% applies to. The plain language of the statute says the 25% applies to the RDP. Fair share housing center has taken the possession contrary to the plain language of the statute, the unambiguous plain language of the statute that that 25% applies to the to the unmet need for round four. You know, we're going to take the position that like any judge knows, the plain language of the statute controls. So, I'm I'm going to try to paraphrase what I think is happening here. So, we're we're going to put right now we have two builder remedies that we're settling because we can't defend ourselves.
I heard Well, I heard somebody say that even if we do all this, the builders can still come in and file suit against us. Even if we do everything you're doing, the builders can still come in and file suit against us. Is that correct? That's correct. So we have no protection. Well, you have some protection. What kind of protection? If they come in and file suit, what protection? Well, you will would if we have an approved plan, we would we would argue that we have the right to determine how to address the obligation. But it is true that every municipality that secures approval of a plan that has a vacant land adjustment, if a site comes along after your plan is approved and that site is suitable for residential development, you have to deal with it. So I guess what I'm thinking is we're about to go to a judge and ask the judge if this plan is good enough, right?
Good enough to approve it. It has to comply with the regulations. Correct. And they would approve it indicating that that's what a judgment of compliance means is that you're complying with the the reg the regulations. So we we've known about these obligations for decades. We currently have zero qualified affordable houses in Brio. I'm not aware of any deed restricted affordable housing. Zero. We have zero qualified affordable housing in Breel. So we're going in front of a judge and we're saying we know we were supposed to build 400. We did zero. We have this plan that's going to generate 40. And we know we're supposed to do 400. The judge is going to say, "Good, Bel." or the judge is going to say, "Go back and start again." Now, the judge is So, the way that this works, and I've been doing this for lots of vacant land towns, and everything that I've proposed here tonight has been used and approved by uh a judge or has been approve used by municipalities and approved by a judge.
I feel very confident that if we don't have fair share housing come in and object to our plan that that a judge and a and a a special adjudicator um would come forward and say this this meets the obligation and it meets the regulations uh per council of affordable housing and the fair housing act. Yes. And if fair share does step up and say they don't like it, then we're starting over. No, I don't necessarily think we'll start over, but there is going to be a a negotiation and settlement that would would be had. So, we're really not sure. I mean, what number one, a developer can come in and sue us anytime, no matter what. And we're not even sure if this plan is really going to be approved or not. But listen, you got to start from somewhere. So, this is where we're starting from.
This is conceptually uh what's being proposed. I feel very confident that if it was before a judge, it it would go through an approval process. Um but yeah, I mean, what we've answered is that there is a likely is a possibility of another builder coming in at some point in the future. I however um feel confident that uh that given our level of protection with a judgment of compliance that we would be in a much better position than we potentially are now without any affordable housing plan. I I would also add that by virtue of having filed the declaratory judgment action in January, we have insulation, we have immunity from any developer that might sue us at this point. I'm I'm glad you brought that up. Miss Ley, I'd like to ask your professional opinion on something. With your review of Bel's history, would you be willing to certify that Bel has documented a volunt a history of voluntary compliance with the COA rules documented?
I don't know what you mean by documented. Shown something. I mean, I did an analysis of all the master plans. There hasn't been a single zoning ordinance enacted. They have said they don't have redevelopment zones. If you're asking me to make a statement that would hurt the interest of my client, obviously I asked her answer. I asked her opinion, not you. Let me let me just I I think I mentioned this um in my in my presentation. While the bureau has not submitted to council on affordable housing or the court, there was a housing element and fair share plan put together in the year 2000. There was one recently done in 2022. So, as it relates to municipal land use law, you've done what you're supposed to do. I will say to you, I've looked at lots of I work for lots of municipalities throughout the state.