Sure. You mentioned before. I'll try to be efficient. Hold on one minute, sir. When you were talking to the whiskey lounge, you said you're basically going to fight try fighting it in court. Yes. When we talked about the Mumford court, you didn't say that. No, they're in settlement talks. settlement talks although they haven't presented any kind of a proposal to the planning board. That's the planning board. It would go to the governing body. That's the process. The the opening the the council doesn't have the ramification to look at look at this. Yeah. So it goes to the affordable housing committee as well as the government which includes members of your planning board on the affordable housing committee. So were you on that planning board? Were you did you see the program for the new houses? Oh you have? Yeah, it's in again litigation is confidential.
Well, that's very nice. It's confidential negoti litigation is confidential negotiations until a settlement agreement is had. Once the settlement agreement is had the that agreement will be public and everybody can review that. That doesn't mean that it won't come to the planning board. It will still come to the planning board. You're basically telling you can go ahead and do it because the planning the council has looked at it. No, I didn't I didn't say that. I said it. Okay. Am I right? No, I I didn't say that. I said goes through a settlement agreement which is in the process right now. It will it will be finalized at some point in the future and will be made public and you can comment on at that point. I can't talk anymore about it. However, understood, but you're not fighting it. No, we're No, there's a settlement that's occurring.
Correct. Thanks. Yes, sir. Sorry. I am John R. Teni. I live at 815 Wrath Road, resident of uh Bel for several decades. I'm particularly concerned about what's identified as 70478 Ranken Road, although it does not front on Ranken Road. It really is at the end of Rathjen Road and it's called Rathton Road Woods by the locals. Uh this lot is particularly unsuited for this proposal of 25 town houses. Its location, its topography, and its natural setting are inappropriate. It's steeply sloped. It has a stream that enters it. There are wetlands there. The developer who appeared before the planning board proposed to uh run the rightway of Rathon Road through the wetlands transition area. Uh and 25 town houses on a very sloped um uh lot would be mean would require removal of the natural vegetation. The lot is very well densely vegetated. That vegetation holds soil and water, storm water.
The storm water already runs off site. And if you remove that vegetation and uh run it off site, it is going to cause problems or at least well the volume and velocity offsite I think would probably be increased. The prior application of the developer proposed several catch basins which would have to be secured uh and cleared and a complicated conduit system which would lead into the storm water system down Rathen Road down uh behind William Drive ultimately to Rick's Run to the Manisquan River. Uh so it it is a site that should not be denuted. It also is a site in terms of location that's bordered by Highway 35 which is which is a congested roadway. You're going to have 25 town houses with cars coming and going to the intersection of Rathjen Road and Ranken Road. Uh which I think is going to cause difficulties.
Um the Briel uh environmental commission when it reviewed the prior plan, the developers plan said that u that storm water control system would not it did not demonstrate safe control of storm water offsite. It also is a location that is not appropriate for safe walking downtown or to services and commercial centers. Uh it's in a quiet residential corner of of Belle. Uh the site really needs is going to require protection by law of the wetlands and also the lots I think are subject to CAFRA coastal area facilities review act and it's already been subdivided into various lots that have been developed. So, CAFRA may well, I don't know, but may well limit and prevent 25 town houses. Don't know. Something to be considered. But what is clear is this is a uniquely topographically challenging site that already uh discharges storm water off site. and the imperous surfaces, roadways, roofs of 25 town houses would make it worse.
Thank you. [Applause] Uh, hi, I'm Virginia Loftton, uh, South Street. I just had a couple of comments. One is on the Borie Avenue, um, that proposed, uh, location. I may be wrong, but I thought there was some water infrastructure on that lot that it was a a burrow owned lot that had some I think I remember a water mane break there about a year ago. So, um you want to answer that? I I'm not aware of any easements or water manes on that. Okay. I'm not I just remember there was they were doing some water main work on that one. Um but that's not I just wanted to make you aware of it. But it's also no sidewalks. It's not what you said it is. So, all right. I do want to go back to um you said that these affordable housing units have to be deed restricted for 30 years, correct?
A minimum of 30 years. Minimum of 30 years. Um what happens after 30 years? So, that the deed restrictions actually stay on unless the governing body releases those deed restrictions. Um and actually the new Fair Housing Act requires a minimum of 40 40 years of a deed restriction, but it's it's a minimum. So there's really nothing that happens. They don't just ex expire. The the the governing body would have to take action to to release those deed restrictions after the 40 years. And if those are released, they become market rate units. They they could become market rate units. Um however, there is a possibility of getting additional credits when those deed restrictions come due. If you re uh what's called extend those credits, sorry, extend those deed restrictions, uh you actually get credits for those existing units going into whatever round that may be in the future.
And is it possible that a developer would consider that 30 years is over and they want to change them to market rate that we'd end up in additional lawsuits? No, I mean it's really up to the governing body. That destriction is is clearly on the on the purview of the governing body. Okay. And then um the other thing is when I saw your overlay for Higgins Avenue, the new um development at the Greco property was not covered. I did not see that the M andD property. Yeah. Yeah. That's in a separate redevelopment plan that would that we've already done that redevelopment plan. It's already been approved and zoned, but that doesn't get included as part of our it it wouldn't really because it's already been approved and there they have uh rights underneath that redevelopment plan. Okay. And then um there was an opportunity for municipalities to purchase credit for affordable housing from other towns that um have any of our local municipalities done that that protect them from?
Yeah, that's called a regional contribution um agreement. Those are no longer permitted uh and they haven't been for uh 10 years plus. 2008 200 what? 2008. 2008. So Belle missed an opportunity to to put an end to this. You would only you would only allow they would only be allowed to do 50% of the obligation and and um at that point in time uh I would say the Council on affordable housing regulations and rules were being overturned on a regular basis and so um it was available at one point but it's no longer available. Any other local municipalities do that? Anybody around us? Um, Wall Township did uh they had a huge obligation back in the second round in the prior round and they did some RCAs um elsewhere. Yes. And so the other question is when you say we are in settlement discussions when you say we does that mean the council the burrow council.
Yes. And you're representing the council or you're representing the burrow in this settlement negotiation? I am I am their planner and helping them work through any settlement negotiations that they have. But you're also working for M andD on their No, no, I am the I am the municipal planner. I don't represent private developers. Okay. Because I just confusing because you showed their plan. Yeah. Because that was um that was settled. The redevelopment plan is what I prepared for that property, which is I would prepare for any property coming forward because the zoning is per the municipality. Um, and what I showed you was what was in the settlement agreement, their conceptual plans. So, I wasn't necessarily saying I came up with that. That was something that we worked, we being the burough council, affordable housing committee worked with that particular developer to come up with the redevelopment of that parcel and that was one of the exhibits.
Picture that you showed now goes to the planning board for approval. Correct. So, um, so there's still opportunity for discussion on that. Yeah. The the next step is that a site plan will be submitted to and I think they already have submitted to the planning board. It will go through the typical approval process with the planning board. And um the way that the redevelopment plan was put together is that there's a specific concept plan and a a specific architectural plan that they must abide by in when they submit to the planning board. So you've got a settlement and a and then it comes before the planning board. And what if it turns out that what they have submitted for approval is different has issues even though they have an approved settlement plan. They they would have to come back and change the redevelopment plan. If there's a substantial deviation um from the the plan that's been part of the zoning, which is the redevelopment plan, right?
They'd have to change the zoning in order to do that. Um, but my understanding is what they've submitted is I I believe the burough council has found that it was consistent with the redevelopment plan as to what they've submitted at this point consistent but I think there were concerns with those building heights and ability for fire equipment to that and that will be worked out with that gets worked out in correct. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Welcome. [Applause] Good evening. My name is Rich Sedero. I'm at 529 Borie Avenue and my questions do pertain to the Borie Avenue parcel there. Um I guess the the burrow uh being that they own that property has offered this uh to be part of the plan so that they can sat satisfy partially satisfy the requirements. Yes. Okay. And are there any plans yet that have been developed? No plans yet.
We've talked with a nonprofit developer that's um has many years of experience of doing this. Um what I what I would offer up to the community is once we do have plans that we would have a neighborhood m meeting to go through those plans and have feedback on those plans. So there would be an opportunity for neighbors to um as with these other properties that are under discussion to to have comment and provide input. Yes. Now you did also mention that parking would not be the same. Uh is there going to be some kind of variance that uh reduces the the parking uh on the lot itself? It's really not a very large parcel of land. They would have it's very narrow and it's deep but it's narrow. Yeah. They would have to provide parking on site in accordance with residential site improvement standards which is a state requirement on parking.
So what I meant was it's not going to look like a single family home necessarily. you'll most likely have a parking lot that will park those vehicles. Is there some kind of time frame that you would expect this to start to gain steam? Once we re once we receive court approval, we typically have about two years to actually put shovel in the ground. Um so I would I suspect you're probably looking at two to three years um from now. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. My name is Bruce Jeffrey. I live at 804 Ashley Avenue, which is Caddy County Corner to Whiskey Lounge. What's in here? Can you speak into the mic? Bruce Jeffrey, 804 Ashley Avenue, which is adjacent to Whiskey Lounge. Um, I think a lot was said here in the best interest of the taxpayers. Um, we covered a lot this past Monday at the council meeting, which I appreciate.
Just very uh couple questions. Do we ultimately know what the status is of the liquor license at Whiskey Lounge? Has anybody researched that? It was okay. Thank you. Um has any consideration been given to the town hall as to where it exists now? Whether that is a site that could be devoted to assisted living. Uh we have not looked at it for that particular use, but we did talk about the town hall as a potential site for future affordable housing. Um it it was not carried forward because we didn't think that there was enough land space to do that given I guess the redevelopment of that parcel at some point. I'm not sure I followed that. You you asked about the town hall. Yeah, there's been discussions in the past to consolidate municipalities with other towns and I was just wondering if that site was ever under consideration.
Not that I'm aware of. Any thought to it or is it too late? Okay. All right. My next question. There was a recent rec recent settlement um with the township uh to the owner of Waypoint uh for a couple hundred,000. Um the township messed up I believe um and had to pay him. This is the same council that's representing us um with this developer remedy. Is that correct? I believe the answer is yes. All we ask is as taxpayers that you do the right thing and you fight a little bit harder. I understand that. But you represented the taxpayers with that particular suit. Correct. Well, I'm not the attorney that represented them, but I can tell you that $250,000 by insurance. I understand that, but they paid it in behalf of the township. Okay. Um because the tachet possibly made the wrong decision. I don't believe we did make the wrong decision.
Then why' we pay $225,000? Are my faction correct? civil suit and business decision made the best interest. Okay. Um just to give a perspective um to the taxpayers, the amount of parking that's being considered for this site, there's almost twice as many parking spots in the lot adjacent to this building. So, when you all drove in here and had difficulty parking, that's how many cars they're proposing for this first floor. Thank you for your time. [Applause] Dave Ericson, I just had a quick follow up on the Whiskey Lounge Builder Remedy lawsuit aspects that's currently been filed and sitting with Judge Jones. That's what I heard. Yes. And no matter what we do here, that particular lawsuit is going to stay with Judge Jones because it's in the third round. We'll see. I I don't know that they that the courts have figured out how they're going to interact with this new system.
No, but the option would be that round four gets pulled back to Judge Jones. This this whiskey lounge is not leaving. You know, the the the truth of the matter is these judges are feeling their way. They don't really know. of figuring out as they go. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Thank you so much for coming out tonight. Um and look forward to seeing all of you as we go into the next couple of months and uh uh are at the planning board with the housing element fair share plan. Thank you.
[Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] Heat. Heat. [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] I'm [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] not [Applause] Heat. [Applause] Heat. Heat. Heat. N. [Applause] [Music] [Applause] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music] Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] the to order the special meeting for for Bullheads City School Board on Thursday, March 27th, 2025 at 900 a.m. Roll call. President Melinda Saski, Charlene Dia is here, Fred Rushton here, Barb Zarziki here, Judy Reid here. Would you please stand and say the pledge with me? 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. Okay, we have no citizens present. So, we're going to skip the 1.5 adoption of the agenda.
All right. Good evening everybody. Thank you um for everyone in attendance for tonight's bond and override committee. um to review just uh another overview of some of the items that were uh requested at our previous meeting and then um we do have some of the handouts as well at the front when you first walked in. Um I know there's a couple new faces now. We do have some microphones here at the table. So um hopefully we'll don't mind kind of sharing as as needed. Um but I'll start off if you don't mind. I know there's especially since today I do want to have a little bit more conversation within the committee. So, just kind of be able to introduce yourselves again just to make sure everyone at the table and is familiar with the faces. So, don't mind starting Johnny. Okay. Uh Johnny Melton. Um is that one on?