Um, when I look at your zoning ordinance and the master plan, you have created opportunities for low and moderate income households, they may not be dis deed restricted, but they would be available and and affordable to folks that would meet those income uh criteria. So yes, there are examples of boots on the ground where they've done they've done some of that work. It may not have been necessarily specifically as it relates to an obligation, but you definitely see a different um a variety of a housing stock ranging from uh attached single families to condos to apartments um to um town houses uh throughout the the the state. So, so you know, I don't think you're necessarily exclusionary zoning even though there's a builder's remedy suit. You have created opportunities for densities upwards of six units per acre in certain zoning districts. So, to answer your question, I think that there's been an opportunity and you've seen actually some units being built that in my opinion are affordable to low moderate income families.
Well, I love this town and I think it's a great town. and I think there's a lot of nice places to live, but it doesn't meet the letter of the law and it doesn't give us protection. And when a builder comes in here, our zoning gets thrown out the window. That's what I'm worried about. We have no protection. Whatever zoning you're putting in place, if a builder comes in, he can do whatever he wants, just like the whiskey lounge is trying to do. And it's Yeah, I don't I don't necessarily agree with that. I think we put a plan in place of builder can't come in and do whatever he wants. I disagree. Thank you. [Applause] Maybe I misunderstood you, but you did say if we were not in compliance, then our planning board has no jurisdiction. They have nothing to say. So, he's right.
If a builder comes in here, he could do whatever he wants. No, that's not true. What are we fighting for here? So, so again, I'll reiterate. If you if you adopt a housing element fair share plan and you get court approval, what Mr. Mr. Renian mentioned was um because we have unmet need. We're we're a town that doesn't have a lot of vacant land. Because we have unmet need, a builder can come in and say, "I have a site now that I want and it's and if it's suitable for residential development, I think that I should be a part of your plan." That the fact that we have an approval does not disallow him to do that. I'm not saying he can do whatever he wants. we can say, "Fine, you've created an obligation on that property, but we think it should go into a different location." So, we still have zoning control.
We still have the ability to put our case before a court. So, it it's not as if anybody can just file suits and and we have to deal with them. Once you receive approval from a court, and I got to tell you, builders know that they don't want to fight an uphill battle. They don't want to spend a lot of money that once a municipality has a judgment of compliance from a court, they're they're looking at other locations. They they have limited resources, limited time, they don't want to spend years fighting a fighting a lawsuit. So, um I would disagree that I don't think that that's the case. I should have mentioned my name is Joe Natoli. I live at two Crescent Drive. Um, we have Whiskey Lounge as a project that's doesn't meet the height requirements, setback requirements, none of the requirements. It's a it's something that you would build in Jersey City, not Belle.
Our planning board, the way I understand it, they have no say over that. Can they stop that project because it's too high? Because it doesn't have setback. It has no landscaping. It's grossly inconsistent with these several projects that you put up here. You're talking 103 units. What What do we have to fight that with? So, we don't have jurisdiction. These the these guys made a very good case about why we shouldn't approve that project. And who they're making the case to you. So, they have every they don't have it sounds like a judge is going to decide. Not you, not them, not me, not anybody in the room. If there is not a settlement agreement with this builder, it will go to a judge. And the testimony that you heard tonight will be very similar testimony that I put on the record in front of that judge.
But again, the judge that Wait a minute. You said to me that I was wrong that the planning board does have a jurisdiction over this. Now you're telling me that they don't. The fact of the matter is they don't have a set. They don't. Not right now. They don't. They So, so a builder's remedy lawsuit is a lawsuit. They the the municipality is defending a lawsuit that goes to court. The the judge will make a determination as to what if if a builder's remedy lawsuit can be awarded and if it is awarded then it will come back to the municipality. I think you're maybe conflating two things. When it comes back to the municipality, what jurisdiction or what can can our planning board say the building is too high? Can our planning board say there should be more setbacks? Can our planning board say there's no landscaping?
Can our can our planning board say the traffic is going to be horrendous for this size of a project in this area? Sir, I have to I have to make this clear. We are fighting this lawsuit. We will fight it tooth and nail at the at the at the um superior court. The hope is and I feel very confident that we can prove that it is not sound planning and it will be dismissed. That's our hope. I can't tell you what's going to happen after that, but this this town is fighting that lawsuit and I am responsible to ensure that I put proofs on the on the record that it is not sound planning. I agree with you. I don't know if that helps. Then what we need is experts like this to be at that court, not here talking to you because what's the point?
Thank you. Hi, I'm Kim Row. I live at 626 Borie Avenue and I was surprised to hear that we're on the list. Uh I everybody here in this room is going to be very happy. I have one question and that is uh the Borie Avenue is part of a single family home neighborhood. There are some rentals but they are all single family homes. All the homes have driveways where we park. There's still a lot of cars on the street, no curbs, no sidewalks. I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion that it would be logical to put six rental units on a 1/3 acre yard uh lot on that street. So, as it relates to um 100% affordable housing project, the thing that we look for is um ways to utilize burrow owned property for things like that. And that's because if we had to provide for six rental units in an inclusionary um zoning district, you would need 30 family homes in order to support that.
So the idea behind 100% affordable housing is that municipality helps with the nonprofit to subsidize the 100% affordable housing project pretty much by giving the land. Um but it also saves an additional units that would have to be had somewhere else in the municipality. So it's a bigger bang for your buck. Um, in in my opinion, and we've started to work with a nonprofit, uh, we feel as though that the building could be uh designed in such a way that it it looks like a single family home. Parking will be different for sure. It's not going to be the same. Um, but it is large enough that we believe five to six. Um, I I think we're going to end up around five once we get it done, but five rental units um could fit into that home. And will there be parking on the lot?
Yes. Four, five, five cars. Yeah. Per RSIS. Correct. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. [Applause] Good evening. Uh my name is Joseph Dcross. I am the president of Belal Landing. Uh we have a a serious vested interest of course in the in the property of our water mids. First, I just want to thank everybody in the in the administration for letting this meeting happen. Uh without it, we don't have an input. So, I thank you on behalf of our entire community. Number one. Number two, I know that you all are between a rock and a hard place. This is a this is a a freight train that I know was coming down the pike and I think everybody now is trying to figure out how to best amilarate or to solve these problems uh in some fashion. So, I don't envy your positions. Uh but I will say that I echo what Mr.
Judge um and his planner uh has said. We at Bel Landing what we look at and we have a petition that we are going to present appropriate time. I've got at least 25 or 30 of the owners of our 56 unit owners that have already said we are vehemently opposed to the whiskey lounge project. I'm not going to belabor all of the things that you know Mr. Judge went through with the planner but just as some food for thought for everybody. You know, we at Braille Landing have extreme parking problems as it is in the summertime and along Ashley Avenue there is just there's no spots available ever. It's gotten worse over the years. I've lived here since 2000. I grew up in Point Pleasant Beach, so I'm pretty familiar with the area in general, but the but the Ashley Avenue parking is a real problem.
I mean, we have cars being towed out of our property all the time. And I know that there was a proposal, I don't know what happened, or an application for additional parking for the marina for an additional 13 to 15 spots at the end there. Um I I don't know what happened with that, but when I look at this project and I've had in our board meetings along with the rest of the owners at Braille Landing, we look and say just hypothetically if 102 units go in there, four stories high, two cars per unit, not including guests, not including children, in conjunction with the project that was just approved across from the Breil Sports Club, you got another 20 units in there times two cars. is 40 cars times guests and kids. The traffic alone on Higgins Avenue and Ashley Avenue is going to be off the charts.
Then you're going to compound that with with parking problems in addition to the safety concerns for everybody in that area. It's it's going to be a a nightmare for everyone to the point where I think it's really going to change the dynamics of our community, especially in that area. And I know that you mentioned that the town is proposing a redevelopment or rehabilitation plan for um Higgins Avenue. My concern on the redevelopment and and and rehabilitation plan that might be set forth is the following. In order to have a redevelopment and rehabilitation plan, you correct me if I'm wrong. Uh I am an attorney, but I'm a trial attorney for medical malpractice cases. So this is not in my comfort zone. However, when we look at a redevelopment rehabilitation plan, doesn't the town have to then come up with how they're going to um take the properties that are there to conform with the plan that's put forth?
And in doing that, don't they have to then either by um adverse or eminent domain with condemnation take properties along Higgins Avenue? No, there is the redevelopment law allows for a non-condemnation area need a red redevelopment study. Um and therefore, uh it is really a zoning ordinance that would as people want to redevelop their property, they would abide by the redevelopment plan. So it's purely a private entity or private motivation for development. Okay. So it it it would not be subject to an eminent demand condemnation. It would Okay. I think that gives some comfort to other people that some of those properties are not just going to be taken by the town or whomever and and and redeveloped in some fashion without having a lot of say from the board and council and so forth. I think that's really critical in terms of what I have to go back to and answer to 56 uh owners about.
But I will I will just tell you that the enormous scope of what's being proposed there is is really a dynamic problem I think for all of us in in the way it's being proposed. And the the thing I was confused about in your presentation was that when that property came up, it didn't say how many units are being proposed. Yeah. So we're we're not we're we're basically saying we're going to treat the entire corridor and do some uh density on that on the overall corridor. Um, and and what I would suggest is as we move through that process, there will be public input sessions as to what that plan will look like. I'm I'm throwing out densities that would probably be in the range of 10 to 12 to 15 units an acre, but it would depend upon, for instance, if it's a mixed use, it may be a little bit lower density because you'd have retail on the first floor.
But but from a I don't have a specific density for that site. As I said, we're throwing it in to the redevelopment plan because that's how we're choosing to deal with that site through the plan right now. Um, but we're we're looking to spread the the development overall at the corridor. So, there's not such a intense amount occurring on one particular property. Okay. So, if it's I forget what the acreage was, 13 or 14 acres at that site times 10 units per acre. Uh, that that's a pretty wide latitude. Or am I am I doing the math on that wrong? And you have to remember not everybody's going to redevelop their property. So you you may not actually, you know, provide the the true buildout of that o over the next 10 years or even over the next 20 years, but you're giving the opportunity for uh redevelopment to occur and then have a set aside of affordable housing as part of it.
Okay. And then really just lastly, I know that you're fighting this in court and trust me, I I've tried over 500 cases myself. It's not easy, especially being in the chancery division, which I'm I'm assuming you're in front of the chancery judge in Mammoth. We're in front of the Mount Laurel judge in Mammoth. And I'm assuming you're going to you're presenting expert testimony along with Mr. Judge and what the planners are going to say to present to that judge. We are. Okay. And just if you could you just let us know who that judge is because I'm not familiar with the Mount Laurel judge in Mammoth. I thought it was in front of the chancery court. No, go ahead. There there's a kind of odd process going on right now. Uh we're before Judge Jones in the three builders remedy lawsuits and then we're now also entered the program like this new process that's been established by the Fair Housing Act from last year.
So now we're going to have to go through that process and I don't know that they figured out how one program integrates with the other. We may end up with the same judge. I don't know who is going to be the visage area judge, but they set it up. So, stage one is mediation. They have what they call the program. They have a retired judge that has a a planner that um tries to get you to settle and then if you settle, you're done. If you don't settle, then you litigate. And ultimately, you find yourself before whoever the visage area judge is going to be. It may be Judge Jones, maybe someone else. And just lastly, I think I think the concern I of course I can't speak for everybody. I can speak for 56 unit owners, but I think the concern is is the town really going to bat and really fighting the litigation aspect of this um in a way that we all at some point can say, listen, we did everything we could.
It it came down to a judge. And sometimes, you know, in my profession, trying cases, you think everything's going to go great and you get some judge who's a renegade or somebody that just is going to go a different direction than where you're going and you end up losing or there's an issue and and you say, did I do everything we could? So, I think on behalf of Bri Landing, you know, we just want you all to say we're doing everything we can. We're we're we're devoting enough assets to this. Just from the turnout here and you all being present, I feel pretty comfortable that everybody's concerned enough that along with some of the other suits that we're joining in and frankly I'm trying to talk the uh board at Burell Landing into joining into Mr. Judge's suit. I know it's in the appelllet division, but you know, we have a concern there and it's a it's a large community right here in Burell, but so thank you for your time.
I appreciate I can tell you I can tell you one thing. The town ha was smart enough to hire one of the best planners in the state, if not the best planner in the state on affordable housing. Very credible, an excellent witness. And the issue in a in a builder's remedy suit is is the proposed project clearly contrary to sound land use planning. Great. And I'm sure there'll be transparency of what goes on. If I was living next door, I would want her testifying. Gotcha. Just as long as as we all kind of know what's going on in some fashion. I think I think that provides a lot of um security for everybody knowing, okay, here's the status, here's what's going on, and we're doing everything we can. So, I thank you. I really appreciate your time. Thank you. [Applause] Kra, can I just ask you a question?