Brielle Borough Council/Planning Meeting - 3/26/25

001Okay, it's uh it's uh 7:00. We'd ask everyone now to please take their seats. We'd like to uh get the meeting underway. Uh this is a unique situation. This is the first time there's been a joint meeting of the Bel mayor and council and the planning board. It's been advertised as a special meeting because under the open public meetings act uh we have to whenever there's a quorum we have to conduct it as though it were a regular meeting. The reality is it's more of a presentation. It's a and uh we want everyone to see this basically for the first time. Most of the planning board and almost everyone on council they haven't seen this. This is the first time they're going to see it. So if you will note if you had look took

002an agenda you'll see that it's bifurcated the question period. We're going to allow the planning board and the council to ask their questions first. Then we're going to open it up to the public. Uh the first speaker that we're going to recognize is Brendan Judge. He is an attorney representing some real residents and he's asked because he has another commitment if he could speak first and we're going to extend that courtesy to him. And then uh really the only thing is we're going to try to stick to a threeinut question period for everybody because there's a lot of people. Everybody's going to want to ask a question. So if you ask your question, we'd ask you not to ask a second question until everybody else has had an opportunity to ask their first question. And

003finally, we are on YouTube. And uh you may notice on the news, you see these rowdy meetings taking place, these town halls across the nation. But I think this is our opportunity to show what how we are behaving in Bel. We're respectful. We let the speaker speak. We don't interrupt her. and we should be able to get through this uh in a few minutes. Now, I'll turn this over to Mayor Guzo, who will open the meeting in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. In compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, notice of this special meeting of the Belor and Council and Planning and Zoning Board has been given by placing a notice on the public bulletin board, Facebook, the municipal website, and publishing said notice in the Asbury Park

004Press. I also have a statement to make this evening in regard to the fair share housing plan being presented to the council. I want to advise the council, the planning board, and the public that my son-in-law is employed by a firm that serves as an in as the engineering firm of one of the participants in the fair share housing plan. Therefore, in the interest of avoiding any issues, I'm going to remove myself from the hearing, the presentation tonight, and any further consideration of the plan going forward. uh there is a committee that will be handling that on on the on the on mayor and council on council. Um and I respect and you know appreciate and I know they'll do the right thing. So good evening everyone. Thank you very much. Tendra at this time

005uh the because it is a meeting uh Miss Baron the municipal clerk will take the roll call of the council and then Karen Brisbane the planning board secretary will take the roll call. After that we will recognize Mr. Jeffrey Serenian and Kendra Lily who will make the presentation of the plan member Gorm here. Council member Lawer here. Council member Shock here. Council member Velia here. Karen Karen Brisbane here. Kevin Callahan here. Amber Fernicola here. Jay Jones here. James Piolo here. Karen Trainer here. Dan Turk here. James Stenson here. I would also like to announce that our board attorney David Clark is present as well as Alan Hill Jr. our board engineer. And at this time we will recognize Mr. Jeffrey Serenian. I guess I should stand up so I can see everyone. My name is

006Jeff Serenan. I am the affordable housing attorney for Belle. Uh my firm is Serenan Edwards, Boozak, and Nolan just across the bridge. Uh we represent towns all over the state on affordable housing. Uh the purpose of tonight it's the culmination of the efforts to try to voluntarily come up with a plan to satisfy your obligation and Kendra Lily is our planner very well recognized uh an excellent planner that helped that's helping put the plan together uh there instead of having a hearing like many towns do and just adopting the plan. The idea was to come inform everyone what's taking shape. There will then be a plan that will be the subject of another hearing. Uh there there may al there's there will also likely be an agreement at some point with the Munford site and

007that too will be the subject of a public uh action before anything is signed. So, this is one step in a series of steps intended to culminate in the adoption of a plan by the deadline that we have to comply with, which is June 30th of this year. With that, I'll turn it over to Miss Ley. Good evening everyone. My name is Kendra Lely. I am from the firm of Kyle McManis. Um, I'm a professional planner that's licensed in the state of New Jersey. Uh I've been providing professional planning services to municipalities across New Jersey for over 30 years. Uh I would say in the last 10 years I have an expertise in affordable housing and have done many affordable housing plans uh for many municipalities. I've also been recognized uh by an as an

008expert uh as what's called as special adjudicator in several visages courts within the state of New Jersey. Um I came on board with Belle um about this time last year to help them put together start thinking about putting together an affordable housing plan. Um the purpose of this presentation as Jeff had indicated is not necessarily a public hearing that we there is no adoption no action occurring tonight. Um, I really want this to be an information um, provision of information to all of you generally about affordable housing in the state as well as it relates to the bureau. But I also want to have your feedback. I want to answer your questions and I and and truly would like feedback from all of you as it relates to affordable housing planning in in the bureau.

009Um, so I'm going to start the presentation. I I don't think it's going to take more than about 15 minutes. Um you kind of heard what the the the the next SE section would be would be questions and answers um from uh up up here on the deis and then also from all of you. Um and let's get started. Can you all see that? Okay, great. Um so the items that I'd like to cover tonight, uh this is kind of a quick outline or the goals of the presentation. Um I'm going to try to pull this a little bit closer. Uh so the first is the affordable housing over overview. So I'm not going to get into a whole history. We could be here for days talking about affordable housing in the state of New

010Jersey. Um but I do want to talk through things that are important to understand as we as we talk about low and moderate income households in the in the state and what does that really mean. So we're going to talk about uh who qualifies for affordable housing. We're going to talk about the need in the state of New Jersey and then regionally and then down microscopically into the bureau. What is the need of affordable housing? How did this obligation come to be? Um then we're going to talk about the compliance plan. This is a proposed compliance plan. I've been working with uh several people within the municipality. Uh you all know that there are several what's known as builder's remedy suits. They're lawsuits. Uh and and they will be talked about generally tonight. Um, I

011will indicate that because we are in litigation, I can only talk about uh general information. I cannot talk about specifics because we are in the middle of negotiating at least uh one or two of those builder remedy sites. So, but we will talk about a general compliance plan enough meat there that you all can um it just it won't be uh you'll be able to to respond to it and ask some general questions. Um, but I will indicate that if it's too general of a question or too specific of a question, I I won't be able to answer it because of uh I'm not at liberty to say because of litigation. Um, finally, I'll talk about what the next steps are. Where do we go from here? What what are the next opportunities for public

012input? And then finally, we'll get to the questions and answers. Okay. So, the first slide here uh talks about uh qualifications. Who qualifies? So this the first thing I really want to talk about is when we say low and moderate income households, what what does that really mean? The Fair Housing Act, which is legislation that um really guides uh affordable housing and how municipalities comply with their obligation, defines housing that's affordable to low and moderate income households as being 80% of the median income. And it's important to know that that 80% of the median income is of the region. Um you are Braille's in region four which includes Mercer, Mammoth and Ocean counties. So the state of New Jersey is broken up into six regions. You're in in one of those regions. And um the

013median income is based upon those counties. So it's not just Mammoth. It it encompasses Mercer, Mammoth, and and Ocean. I gave an example here of what a t a twoerson family would be earning um if they were to be considered moderate income. Uh in this particular case uh they two per a median income earns $104,000. So 80% of that is approximately $83,000. That's what a twoperson household is that would qualify for what's known as a moderate income household or moderate income unit. Um, as you'll see here, there are different um, subsections of what low and moderate income housing is. It also includes low income and then very low income. And you'll see what the ratios are with uh, with regards to low-inccome, it's 50% of the median income and with very low, it's 30% of

014median income. So when we talk about low and moderate income families or I say affordable housing um these are the that this realm this cohort of people that's that's who can afford affordable housing as it relates to okay so fine that's how much everybody makes. What does that mean as far as what what a purchasing power has or the ability to afford a rent? Um, with affordability on a twoerson household, uh, and this is, uh, looking at low to moderate income, uh, you're probably looking about $130 to $230,000. That would be the worth of a house that somebody, uh, and these these are general. These are very general, but that that'd be the worth of the house that somebody could purchase. On a rental side, somebody that makes a twoerson household in that very low

015to moderate income is anywhere from $1,000 a month to $2,000 a month. Um, so that's really when we're talking about who can afford affordable housing, that's the um that's the range that we're dealing with. It changes uh every year as uh federal government uh comes out with new HUD numbers, new income uh limits or new levels. There's a new calculation um completed and typically for the most part um those incomes go up slightly as far as who can who can afford affordable housing. um the qualification process for folks that go through this uh or are able to to qualify uh first they must show pro proof of income. So it's like you and me going for a mortgage. It's no it's really isn't any different. Um we have to go through the mortgage process. We

016have to prove prove income. Uh they are then put on a once they're income certified they're put on a waiting list. uh and that waiting list is uh pretty much stays in in in effect for a period of a couple of years. As units become available, the people from that waiting list um are contacted and they are let they let they're they're told that there's something available if they're interested, they can go on kind of what I would call a second waiting list. The way that the the uh initial uh um I guess way that you would get into an affordable housing uh unit is actually through what's known as a lottery system. It's a random lottery system. There's no preference uh necessarily to speak people who live in Bel. There is a preference however

017to folks that live in the region. So the qualification process is very strenuous. It is it is by New Jersey law um as to how the process moves forward, how people get income qualified and then the lottery system as to how people get go actually go in to those units in Ma. So, so going to move on to the need. Um most of you have heard there are these numbers obligations. There's a need of affordable housing in the state of New Jersey. Where that came from was way back in 1975 when um the Supreme Court uh ruled on something known as the Mount Laurel uh case and they had a Mount Laurel decision. Uh basically that decision said that towns in the state of New Jersey um they are not allowed to exclusionary zone and

018basically what that means is you can't just zone for single family housing. You must allow from for different varieties of housing typically multif family apartments. think of apartments as when I talk about multif family housing. Um, that's one piece of it. The other piece of it was you can't not only can you not do exclusionary zoning, but you must provide a realistic opportunity for affordable housing within your municipality. And we're going to talk about what that means. Realistic opportunity um means a very specific definition and we'll go through that in a second. But one of the things that affordable housing planners such as myself throughout the state of New Jersey, we are trying to balance. We are trying to balance the need for affordable housing that we know is coming from the state that they've

019given us a particular number, but it's also then looking at how do we do that in such a way that it respects the community character. Um, it does it with sound planning principles. We look at locations of potential projects and zoning to fit into the community character, but also take advantage of existing infrastructure, sewer and water, existing sidewalks, existing park locations near parks and schools, retail services. Um, you know, that's really what our job is is to lead the folks that you see up here and say, "Okay, yes, you have this obligation. here's how we start to kind of think about the best way to to divvy up that obligation but in a way that doesn't we hope that balances with the need with the community character and that's what we're here tonight to talk

020about. You know, this is a proposed plan. Um and of course we want your feedback. Uh but but it is it is it is something that needs to be done because it is a constitutional obligation as decided by the the Mount Laurel um Mount Laurel sup the Mount Mural decision by the Supreme Court. So um we all know for sure we're in a national housing crisis right across the country. Not only is there not enough affordable housing for low and moderate income households, but we're also dealing with um the segment of population, which al it's also called in planner terms the missing mi middle where folks that don't quite qualify for low and moderate income households, but they also can't get into the market yet. They aren't able to necessarily afford uh the the housing

021that we have and therefore we have a crisis. Um and of course we we all know that we have uh issues with people that are unhoused as well. So the challenge that we have not only in the in the country but also in the state, it calls for definitely providing for a variety of housing options. Um, and uh, while I've only been here about a year doing this work, um, when you look back at the planning, uh, efforts of of Bel as it relates to their master plan, um, and actually boots on the ground, what has happened on the ground, you will find that over the past 25 years, you did a you did a master plan in 2000. Um, it included a housing element and fair share plan. That's basically your affordable housing plan.

022Um, there was also one done recently the last two years. Um, but what you will find is that uh there are there were there was an R5 and still is an R5 zoning district which allows for multif family housing. Those are apartment units. So places like the Branding Wine at Breel is an example of that. Um Whers Key and Union Place are examples of what would be considered affordable housing. Uh you have attached single family homes uh in different areas within the municipality. So, you started to plan for this in 2000. There was a recognition, and I'll talk about this in a little while, but there was definitely a recognition that you as a bureau just didn't have enough space, meaning you didn't have enough land to support the the large obligation, which we'll go

023through. and and therefore um really started to think about um just just generally waiting for COA, Council on Affordable Housing, which was the administrative body uh before the courts took over um to really create rules and regulations uh for for the bureau to abide by. Um so you've planned for it to some degree uh and you have implemented actually some affordable housing. However, it doesn't necessarily meet the definition as the state would define affordable housing. Any of the units that people go into have to be deedestricted for 30 years that it's only it's only affordable for the low and moderate income households. Uh that is one major restriction and and that's one of the ways that you would get credit for affordable housing. So, the need as you would see here uh which is calculated

024by the state of New Jersey through what's known as the Fair Housing Act. As I said, that's a body of legislation that that regulates affordable housing in the state. Um, that this need that you see on the screen is based upon household change in the state of New Jersey from 2010 to 2020. And then the 80,000 units comes from a multiplier. 40% of that change of households. Um the way that the Fair Housing Act reads is that that number 40% the 80,000 units are the number of low low and moderate income houses that that are households that are needed in the state. So for the next 10 years uh the goal is to hit 80,000 units of low and moderate income households. That is then brought into um it's divvied up as I said amongst

025the six regions. One of the regions of which Bel is in is Mercer Ocean Mammoth. Um that is divvied up and there's about 13,000 units that then will be divvied up amongst municipalities throughout throughout that region. So that really talks about the need um and that's what then drives the affordable housing obligation for the burrow. As I indicated uh the Fair Housing Act is the body of legislation that that regulates affordable housing. Um just last year, March of 2025, the Fair Housing Act was um amended significantly uh and it was signed by the by the obviously by the governor and it did a couple of things. It established the affordable housing need which I just talked about. It created a methodology um of how that need is allocated amongst all municipalities. Uh it creates a

026general regulation to some degree as to how we put together what what needs to go into affordable housing plan. Um it sets up a mediation process and it's what's known as the program to address any disputes on obligations and then going forward any affordable housing um plans that we put together. So we will as a bureau uh we've we've accepted our obligation of 65 for the fourth round and I'll talk about that in a second. Um, so you haven't had to go through what's known as mediation that actually ends next week. Um, and so you've accepted your number. Your number will will uh be 65 for what's known as the fourth round. However, uh, we will put a plan together. It will be submitted by June of this year and it will go through a

027mediation process. People have the option have the ability to object to the plan and we have the ability to mediate that. So, there's a program that's set up by the Fair Housing Act that helps with those disputes. Um, it establishes an approval process um and which I just mentioned. It will go to court, however. So, the program is a mediation arm. The mediation arm recommends something to the court. We will be still in a court situation. Um, so the approval of our plan will will come from the superior court uh in Mammoth County. And then it creates incentives for compliance to the law. And when I say incentives, um, it's more of a carrot, sorry, it's more of a stick than a carrot. Meaning that the in while Jeff had mentioned it's a voluntary process.

028Uh, if you don't comply, uh, you are open to what's known as a builder's remedy lawsuit, which we just we just, uh, talked about. You have a couple of them now. So, um, while it's voluntary, if you don't comply, you could be open to lawsuits. And so I always I tend to call that a stick. Here is the obligation. This obligation, the large number that you see there, 419 affordable housing units. Um that represents a 48-year obligation. And I don't know if you can see it, but it it is made up of three different rounds. There's a prior round which covers 1987 to 1999. There's a second round, I'm sorry, there's a third round which we are just ending. We will be ending it in June of this year which ran which was the longest

029round um between 1999 and 2025 and then we are moving into what's known as the fourth round which will cover the next 10 years from 2025 to 2035. Um you can see the numbers up there they are they are big numbers uh 159 16 sorry 195 and and 65. um that all is pulled into one large number of 419 uh housing units. Generally, the way that the obligation is determined uh it's been since 1987, there's been lots of different ways of doing it, but generally the way that the the way that you take the regional need and you divy it up amongst the municipalities has to do with three main factors. One is income, the household income in the municipality um as it relates to the region. U non-residential valuations, the amount of commercial valuation

030that you have in a municipality and the amount of land that you would have to develop and they average those what what are called factors to come up with your percentage of the need. Um and that's how it it's very it was very clear in the new fair fair fair housing act the amendment as to how uh that the number 65 came to be for for the fourth round. So, while this is a large number and you all may be like, how the heck do we do that with not a whole lot of vacant land and you know, how do we accommodate 419 new units, there is an adjustment uh that the uh regulations allow for towns like Bel who have what's known as a scarce resource, which is vacant land. You don't have enough

031vacant land to support that obligation. Um, it we do what's what's known as a vacant land adjustment. Um, so we look we look through uh what really is vacant, what parcels are vacant that could support an inclusionary development. An inclusionary development basically is a development that would allow for at least five units of of of development with a set aside of um 20% for affordable housing. So when I talk about inclusionary developments, and we'll talk about it tonight, there's a couple of them that that we're going to go through. It basically means that about 80% of the development is market rate units and 20% is affordable housing to so it's some it's what's known as a set aside for affordable housing. That's what inclusionary uh development or zoning is. Uh we when we do that

032vacant land analysis, we look at parcels that could support affordable housing. Doesn't necessarily mean that they would be built on those parcels. It's kind of a theoretical exercise. Um but based upon densities that we apply to those parcels and what that set aside of affordable housing would be after we do that um that is what actually is what is your number or your realistic development oper excuse me realistic development potential. So this 419 units that very large number is broken into two pieces. uh one is the RDP or what I just mentioned the realistic development potential and that's based upon a vacant land analysis and then the remainder is the unmet need 395. Um we treat them differently. The RDP is uh a a number that we has to be realistic. We have to create

033a plan that will realistically produce uh units in a in a in a realistic time frame. The unmet need is we provide uh mechanisms that provide for meaningful capture of affordable housing into the future. We may never hit that number ever, but we have to at least put into mechanisms that would help to capture affordable housing if development were to occur in the future throughout the municipality. Um and so this when we did the vacant land analysis, um I'm coming up with an RDP of 24 and we're going to talk about how we're going to uh meet that obligation and and then an unmet need and we'll also talk about uh how we're going to meet that. So this is the proposed affordable housing plan. Um we are uh looking at two two boxes. The

034first box is the RDP, 24 units. Uh within that RDP, uh the law allows us to take what's known as bonus credits. Um and so while we're still in the third round, this is what's known as our third round RDP. This will be our only RDP, but we are running by third round rules. We get bonus credits, meaning uh one for one, you you provide one rental unit, you get a bonus credit for that. So, what you'll see up here is that there's actually 18 true units that are being proposed and then we're taking advantage of six bonus credits or what is also known as paper credits. Um, so they the third round rules have uh incentivized municipalities to provide for family rental housing which tends to be the most accessible uh housing for low

035and moderate income households. Uh so what you will see here and I'll go through this uh by step by step for these projects but I just wanted to give you the summary and the overview of it. Um we have 628 um Higgins Avenue that's also known as what we've been calling it as the M &D site. Uh this is and I'll go through it in a second but um basically uh it includes that is that's an inclusionary housing um project. Uh 704 Ranken Road is the Mumford project. That is also an inclusionary project. 636 Borie Avenue. This is a lot that's owned by the burrow. And I'll go through it in a little bit more detail, but this is what would be known as a 100% project, meaning that 100% of the affordable housing units

036um that will be built are affordable to low and moderate income households. And that's usually uh it is um part of a a partnership with a nonprofit organization that builds 100% affordable housing. And then finally, we're going to recommend uh that Higgins Avenue, all of it be considered a redevelopment area and we would do a corridor plan, redevelopment plan for that which which I'll talk about in a second. the unmet need is taken uh into account and then we we look at satisfying that unmet need, that larger number, through a couple of mechanisms, including a mandatory set aside ordinance, um a development fee ordinance, and then potentially overlay zoning over not only Higgins Avenue, but potentially Union. And I'm I'll talk about unmet need in a little bit. I want to kind of get into

037the the RDP first, and we'll talk about unmet need after that. So this is the first site um that is in the plan. Um this is a builder's remedy site. Um they they came to the burrow probably about a year and a half ago uh and and sued under a builder's remedy lawsuit. Uh the the case was settled. So I can talk about the the details. The redevelopment plan was adopted. Um the redevelopment plan included uh it was about 15 units an acre. that was the density. Uh but what you'll see here is obviously included 20 town home units. Uh it was on 1.33 acres. Uh and and this sits right across from the um the gym on Higgins Avenue. You on on this particular uh parcel, the 20 town home units will be rental

038units. They will not be for sale. And because they are rental units, you get three bonus credits for the three affordable housing units that they are providing as part of this project. Um, and so this this particular project, as I said, was is zoned is approved, and my understanding is they've submitted an application uh for uh for site plan approval at the planning board. This is a representation of the architecture. We spent a lot of time with this developer coming up with um a decent architectural design as well as a site layout. Um as you see here, I think this I think for everybody as you start to kind of think about affordable housing and what's it going to look like, this is a very good representation of what your B burrow officials want to

039see in any inclusionary development as it relates to um building massing, how it relates to the street. As you'll notice here, Higgins Avenue is to the left hand side. Uh these are front-facing town homes with rear entry garages. So you have porches, you have face face forward or public facing um uh units and so that you're engaging. That's very important obviously to engage a community especially on Higgins Avenue as we start to kind of think about redevelopment uh opportunities along along Higgins Avenue. So, this gives everybody at least I think an idea of what as we move forward, what the bureau is hoping to accomplish with uh other uh builders or projects that would be coming uh to the burrow for affordable housing or inclusionary zoning. The second is what's known as I'm calling it

040the Mumford site. Um this one is under lid is still under negotiation. This is another site that was a builder's remedy site uh lawsuit. Uh this is located at 704 to 708 um Rank and Road. It's about 6.7 acres and um the density that's being uh had here as we start to kind of go through this, but I I I feel comfortable that I can divulge this is that it's 25 townhouse units that equals about a density of 3.7 units an acre on this property. There will be two units uh set aside as uh affordable housing units uh two town houses and then two of the units will have uh three bedrooms which are for special needs. So folks that have supportive and special needs uh um needs for housing uh actually provide you get

041credit for each bedroom. So in this particular instance there may be six to seven bedrooms uh but you get so for two units you would actually get six to seven credits uh per per unit or for those two units. Um so that's important to understand is that that there's a limited amount of uh building on this property uh but you're actually getting you you're getting a lot of credits for these particular units. Uh what I can share with you is that the site plan that's been presented or concept plan that's been presented to the burrow as it relates to I think it was 11 single family homes that was originally proposed on that property. Um definitely seeing less impervious coverage. You're seeing more buffering around the outskirts of this lot. Uh you are seeing greater

042building setbacks or we are seeing it. You will see it eventually. Uh and again we we get some additional credits for the special needs units. This is the Borie Avenue site. Um this is owned by the burrow and uh what we are looking at this is about a.34 acre a little bit o a bit of an oversized lot on this area on this uh street. Um we are looking to work with a nonprofit developer in the state uh that does a lot of these small what I would call small infill projects uh wherein we would provide for probably five to six rental units but it would look like a single family home probably an over oversized single family home. Uh again in this particular instance because they are rental units we would get additional bonus

043credits. Now, um, we're only can only take three additional bonus credits, uh, even though they're providing more units because we are maxed out. There's a maximum number of bonus credits that you can take, which is 25% of your obligation. So, um, it's always a goal to max out your bonus credits, obviously, because you're getting um, a two for one uh, credit for it. The the one thing that I wanted to urge all of you to kind of think about is as I mentioned in the beginning, one of the things that we do as affordable housing planners is to kind of take this obligation and and um provide for good planning, sound planning principles. This lot is in an excellent location. It has access to sidewalks to li to the li it's within walking distance to

044the library. It's walking distance to the park to the school. Um so as it relates to an inf and it's an infill type of development. So, it I I think seamlessly fit into the community very well, but also getting a really good number of uh credits for um a small piece of property without feeling like it's overburdened. And then finally, uh which which is um the Higgins Avenue redevelopment area. Uh you will see at the bottom right of the of the aerial, it says the High Tide BR site. That's the high tide builder remedy site. Um, you all know, I'm sure most of you know that uh the town's been sued by what's known as High Tide. And um, while we have not, we're we we're still in negotiations, we have not settled, uh, with

045this particular developer. One of the ways that we are pulling this property into the plan, but not at the necessarily the density or the number of units that was proposed at this point was to really look at, and this and this somewhat came from the planning board, like look at the entire corridor. We want to redevelop this corridor, most likely for mixed use. Um, so let's look at a redevelopment area that encompasses the entire corridor and provide for zoning that would uh allow for mixed use. Uh, so think about retail bottom or commercial bottom and one or two stories of of apartments above along this area. This would be zoning. So these aren't necessar this is not a project. This is something that would give an opportunity for a developer to come in to to

046redevelop. The interesting part about this is that we are meeting our RDP with those other projects. The only thing that we really need to realize from this redevelopment zone to meet our affordable housing obligation is 10 total new units of which two have to be affordable. So the zoning here we haven't gone through. Redevelopment is a two-step process. we need to go through an area need study to determine whether these part these parcels meet the criteria per state law uh as to whether it's an area need of redevelopment uh which I I know the area I feel like a good number of them could meet that criteria and then f we would do a a redevelopment plan and it and it really dubtales off of what's your existing zoning is for this area. This is

047a gateway overlay zone or at least a portion of it. Um, and in that gateway overlay zone, your your master plan and your zoning already support this main street theme. So we're we're really just we're kind of just piggybacking off of that and and looking at this and really instead of looking at a specific site just looking at the high tide site and thinking about um what should happen there I think we're looking at it uh globally or comprehensively as to how do we look at this entire corridor but then fit that site into it as as and what makes sense uh for development in that area. I will say to you that Hig the M andD site which which has been approved that was a redevelopment area that was 15 units an acre. I

048would imagine that we're probably in and around that density somewhere between 10 to 12 to 15 units an acre. Excuse me depending upon the use of of that particular prop of the properties within this area. You'll see that it in encompasses about 30 parcels which is about 14 acres. So in summary, this this gives you a good sense of the number of credits each of the projects is providing. So six credits from Hig from the M &D site. Um eight to nine credits from the me the Mumford site. Um eight credits for for this the Borie Avenue site and potentially two credits uh for and this goes to RDP for the Higgins redevelopment area. as it relates to unmet need. Uh these are the mechanisms that have been adopted and allowed for in the past.

049A mandatory set aside ordinance is basically a blanketwide ordinance across the entire municipality that says if anybody develops five or more units, they are to provide affordable housing set aside. That's that's basically it. So um if somebody gets a use variance to provide more than five units, they have to provide a set aside. capturing affordable housing as new development potentially occurs. Um, a development fee ordinance allows the bureau to collect development fees on residential uh improvements, typically new homes, as well as non-residential improvements. Um, the residential improvements can go up to 1.5% of the assessed value of that new home. Uh, and the non-residential improvements could go up to 2.5% of the assessed value of that that new improvement. the um the residential development fee is is is regulated by the municipality. The 2.5 non-residential

050fee is regulated by the state. We can't change that. But that development fee ordinance, as the municipality collects fees, they can then use it for affordable housing purposes. They can use it to pay administrative fees like my my my um cost as well as Jeff's cost. It can provide for uh helping a nonprofit build affordable housing. So, there's lots of ways that that as you build up that that development fee ordinance, it takes the burden off the municipality or the general fund and allows for a funding source for new affordable housing. And then finally, uh one of the things that we're contemplating is um the overlay zone that we would do for Higgins Avenue. If we get above and beyond, let's say two units of affordable housing, it would go it would go then to

051what's known as this unmet need, that that larger number. Uh we are also contemplating and like to hear certainly your feedback about maybe doing an overlay zone on Union Avenue as well as as to you know maybe that makes some sense to capture any new future redevelopment that would occur in that location. Um, so hopefully it wasn't too long and long- winded. Um, but the next steps and this before we get to questions and and um feedback is we will finalize the housing element fair share plan which which I've been calling the affordable housing plan. Um, that will most likely occur in May where there will be a public hearing in front of the planning board. The planning board is the entity that adopts the housing element and fair share plan. part of your master

052plan and they will have a public hearing where they where they would listen to public uh comments. There will be a a plan that's on file 10 days before that hearing so everybody has a chance to review it. Um and and so that's required by uh municipal land use law. Um after that sometime in June the bureau uh the governing body will have to endorse that plan and then we would submit it to the court or to the program uh for approval which I could take to it could take several months for that to occur. Um and so that's really the next steps. There will be opportunities beyond that. So, as for instance, their settlement agreements, let's say with the Mumford site, the the governing body would have to go through that settlement agreement in

053in public and and sign it and and pass it by resolution. That's an opportunity for uh continually to understand uh what that particular development may look like. Uh and so, and then with the redevelopment plan, there will be several opportunities both at the planning board and the governing body to review the redevelopment plan. So conceptually that's that's the overall plan the details. Um I can go through some things I can't go through other things but certainly uh happy planning board and governing body to answer any questions that you all may have and then I guess we'll open it up. Uh, can I sorry uh Elliot Cologne uh Briel uh council person uh just two questions. Um, you if we if this plan is approved by the planning board and the mayor and council and it

054goes to the state and if the department of community affairs gives its blessing, in other words, approves it, will we have obtained obtained compliance? So, the plan will go to the program which is a panel of judges first. DCA has nothing to do with it. Um, the panel of judges will make there's an opportunity for mediate for objections to occur. So, a developer could object to the plan. Fair Share Housing Center, which is a a nonforprofit uh organization that represents low and moderate income household interests throughout state New Jersey, could object to the plan. And we would sit in what's known as mediation and settlement. Um, if we get, let's assume we get through that, the plan is what it is. uh there will be what's known as a judgment of compliance from the superior

055court and that is um basically your approval of the plan. Yeah. So, so even if we're if we obtain compliance uh based upon the plan, would we still possibly be uh subject to any builder remedy suits? So what's interesting about vacant land towns is because that as you recall in that slide it's broken up into two pieces RDP and unmet need. That unmet need means that you've never really completely met your need. Um and so there's a presumption of of validity when you u submit a plan and it's approved by the court. You have leverage. Let's say you have you have an ability to say you've done what you've said you wanted to do. That doesn't however u exclude a developer to come in and say I have this piece of property and I want

056to be a part of your plan and I'm going to try to sue you. Um we have a good defense because we have an approved plan from the court but anybody can sue at any particular time. So you'd be defendable but not a cruel. Correct. Okay. Thank you. To put it another way, you have to sleep with one eye open if you're a vacant land town because at any point someone could pop out and say, "I'm here to help you." And then you have an issue that you have to face. Thank you. Any other questions from governing body planning board? Yes, sir. units. plan before the plan. The one before that was for 12 units, 12 or 11 units. I'm not aware of any other plans coming before the planning. No, you you wouldn't be.

057So, it's in the middle of negotiations for negotiations. But if if the property is such that they can't build that, there's all kinds of problems with the with the uh uh they're going to take all the trees down. There's all kinds of water problems coming in. But with the 11 thing 11 sites, they're building five or six different uh drainage ditches that all drains down into Ranken Road. Yep. Now, if it's questionable for 12, what the hell is going to happen with 24? Yeah. How does it how can you plan for that if they haven't looked at it? So, I can't get into the details until the settlement agreement is finalized, which is is pretty close. Those details will be um allowed to go before the public at that point. I can say though because

058I've been part of the negotiations is that what I said to you before is compared to the 11 unit plan, we're seeing less impervious coverage. We're seeing less clearing. How well they're taking all the taking all the plants down. Sir, I would just ask that you would wait to for the settlement agreement and for the concept plan and then we can go through it in more detail. I can't I'm not at liberty to get into the details. But you're talking about a settlement agreement without looking at any of the material. No, but that's the that's the burough council's responsibility. It's not Council has a look at a plan for it. There has been plans. There have been plans for building there. There are settlement agreements in the works. Yes, sir. That makes no sense. Anybody

059else from the planning board? Yeah. Yes, sir. Um, is it fair to say that uh that a that a builder's that the builder's remedy uh suits uh enable a builder to knowingly buy a piece of property that is not zoned the way he or she would like it to be zoned for a project that they have in mind. It's the typical way of happening. Correct. And so, um, so then they sue. Yes. And that's what we call a builder's remedy. Yep. That's the law allows for that that's the stick. Um, if you're not compliant with what's known as the Mount Laurel doctrine or the Mount Laurel law, um, and you have, then you are open to a builder's remedy suit. And so, yes, so builders are savvy. They they know. I I will mention also,

060and I think this probably may have come up in other public um realms, is that uh vacant land towns up until about a couple of years ago really didn't feel a lot of risk that there was a builder that was going to come in. Um I think as you see the state of New Jersey, a lot of the vacant land in suburbia that has been eaten up through um development, builders are now looking at redeveloping. And so that's what you're seeing now is that you're seeing them coming to the smaller areas. So, you know, while it may have not been a risk 20 years ago, definitely seeing more of a risk as it as it relates to a Bel type of town that doesn't have a lot of vacant land. But yeah, that they have

061every right to do that and and they look for it. So, the implication of that is if we're not in compliance, this is a question. The implication seems to be that if we're not in compliance, then our zoning codes do not have a lot of teeth. Whereas, on the other hand, if we are in compliance, then our zoning codes do have, for lack of a better term, yeah, I mean, the the idea is once you have a builder's remedy suit, you're trying to settle that, right? And you're and we're putting together a plan voluntarily. we want the the court to approve it and so we have legitimate zoning codes. If we and there's been a couple municipalities in the state if we say we're not doing anything um your zoning power could be taken away

062uh if we decide that we're just going to you know put our feet in the ground and we're not going to move and we're not going to settle, we're not going to put a plan together and be proactive. Uh that's a possibility. Yes. Thank you. You're welcome. Can I ask one more question? Sure. it just in my own research it seems that out of the hund the 564 towns in New Jersey uh over 160 of them are non-compliant that's more than one/4 right it are are why would is there a strategy of just not being compliant I mean like I know we're trying really hard to become compliant yeah and I know we're you know this exhaustive e effort to become compliant, hiring you, hiring the other experts, but there's a lot of work that's

063going into this. Why are60 other municipalities saying we don't have to go through all this work? Or maybe they're just trying, but they're not successful. No, I I would imagine there are some, and I know of a couple that have chosen not to to participate in the fourth round, and and it's a risk benefit. uh you know, is it is there enough of a risk to put us in a place where we want to put a plan together? Are we just willing to deal with developers as they come along? Um the risk, however, is even if you want to deal with developers as they come along, a judge could basically say, I need a plan. I want not I don't want you just dealing with the developers. I want a plan for how you're going

064to provide for affordable housing. Technically, you need a housing element fair share plan in order to have legitimate zoning. So it it is a requirement of municipal land use law. Why folks aren't necessarily complying with going into the program is a policy decision and it and and it's obviously different for each municipality, but they're taking a potential risk of dealing with additional builders re or builders. So council of sorts for for whatever town that's that's ignoring this is is choosing Yeah. to accept the risk by not pretty much. I mean, I don't know all 160 towns in their in their situations, but that that's I would say generally across the board. Okay. Thank you. In this process that has just been created by the amendment to the Fair Housing Act last year, 440 of the

065560 odd municipalities have elected to participate. That means that there's over a hundred that have elected not to. So there's there's a fair number that are rolling the dice. Thank you. Yes sir. How how does the settlement of the M andd site with regards to density impacts us going forward? We obviously increased our density up to 15 units per acre. Does that help us? I mean it it it's a good precedent. I mean it for a townhouse development. I think we, as I said, we spent a lot of time on the layout of that and making sure that it wasn't o overly developed or or feeling like it was too big, too much of a building mass. And so, it gives a good example of what 15 units an acre looks like and and is

066acceptable to the governing body and and uh to the planning board. And so, uh it's a good representation. Uh now, it it could there could be a different type of unit too. So multif family housing apartments u may look a little bit different which you know may change the density a bit but I think it's always about how you fit that into the community car the neighborhood character and how does that how does that dovetail into what's existing around it um and not necessarily um dealing with things that would in my opinion be uh you know not sound planning which ultimately could help us with the high tide possibly Um, does a paving um moratorum apply to builder's remedies? Does the what? I'm sorry. Paving mortorium. There's a there there's certain roads that the town

067is 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

068number 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. 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,

069right? 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. 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

070the 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. 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

071land 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. 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

072for 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. 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

073the 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? Okay. Um the high tide use uh abuts an existing single family neighborhood the R2 um

074residential 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 there are currently

075no 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

076effectively removing a portion of the C1 zone, effectively a zoning change. 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

077R2 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. 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

078there 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. 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

079and 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. 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

080planning, 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. uh rules have articulated these principles with a dozen site suitability uh criteria including access compliance with the flood

081hazard 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

082uh 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

083from 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

084a 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

085at 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

086know, 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

087a 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

088municipality 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

089project 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

090burden 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

091rental 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

092third 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

093the 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

094suit 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

095they 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

096everything 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

097in 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

098filed 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

099think 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. 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

100they'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

101live, 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.

102No, 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."

103So, 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

104a 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.

105If 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

106back 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

107that, 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

108of 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.

109So 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

110serious 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

111have 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

112out 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

113going 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

114plan, 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

115to 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

116corridor. 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

117one 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

118I'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

119have 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

120the 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

121present, 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

122I'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? 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

123haven'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.

124It 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,

125although 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

126site, 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

127it 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

128site. 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

129what 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

130possibility 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

131redevelopment 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

132that 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

133No, 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

134for 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

135that'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

136that 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

137very 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

138Avenue, 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

139future 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.

140Is 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

141this 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

142are 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.