Municipal Council - Regular Meeting

I just wanted to make a note that July is Disability Pride Month. So I just wanted to make that note of that. I put notice of this meeting that Lawrence Township Council being held on Tuesday, July 21st, 2026 has been provided to the postings beginning on the schedule of the said council in accordance with section 13 of the open public meeting set. Said notice was forwarded to the Trentonian Times and the Princeton Packet on December 12th, 2025

and a just, honorable, and sincere man, always bearing in mind our differences and thinking towards a wonderful community in which to live. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. special proclamations recognitions and presentations we have

So I can't hear you. Okay, I'll do my best to speak up for everybody. So the purpose of my attendance tonight is to help the council, as well as the public, to evaluate one of the agenda items, which is a resolution that would allow for the township to declare a particular property as an area of redevelopment. And that property, of course, is 3641 Lawrence Road. It's blocked. And before I talk a bit about the specific redevelopment designation, I wanted to share some of the recent history and the catalyst for what has led up to this meeting. And the catalyst is, I guess it started back in 2005 when the Township adopted its housing element and fair share plan. As part of that process, it's laid out in the Fair Housing Act. It allows for developers to file objections for a housing plan. One of those objectors was the hopeful developer or the property owner for this particular property for the 3641 Lawrenceville Road property. They objected to our housing plan and the Township was able to settle with that developer. We did so on February 11th of this year. We also settled with one of our other objectors, Bear Share Housing Center, on the same day. in both settlement agreements that address this particular property in the same way. And that is that the township would allow for inclusionary development to occur on the property. And as part of the zoning and the process for development of inclusionary housing, the settlement agreement, specifically the one with the 3641, it provided that the township would consider the property as an area in need of redevelopment. And after executing that settlement agreement and both settlement agreements, the township then began the process of of doing just that, of considering the property as an area of redevelopment, specifically considering whether or not the property meets one or more criteria for redevelopment designation as set forth in the local redevelopment housing law. And that law dictates the process that we're in the middle of going through right now. It starts with the council authorizing the planning board to conduct a study and to hold a public hearing on the study, considering whether or not the property meets the criteria. And that was done by this council on February 3rd of this year. The planning board then authorized me and my firm to prepare that study. It's referred to as an area of redevelopment studies and times of preliminary investigation. And that study was completed on April 1st of this year. We had a public hearing at the planning board on April 20th. And the planning board subsequently adopted a resolution on May 4th. And the resolution found that there were two criteria OF THE REDEVELOPMENT LAW THAT THIS PROPERTY MET AND THEREFORE FOUND THAT THE PROPERTY DID INDEED QUALIFY AS AN AREA OF REDEVELOPMENT. AND I WILL SAY THAT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWED OR PLANNING BOARD'S FINDING IN THE RESOLUTIONS FOLLOWED MY RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE APRIL 1ST REPORT. AS I SAID, THEY ADOPTED THAT RESOLUTION ON MAY 4TH. THE RESOLUTION SPECIFICALLY FINDS THAT The planning board found that the property met two criteria for an area of redevelopment and recommended to the council to adopt a resolution designating the site as an area of redevelopment. So while the planning board is obligated to hold a public hearing and to have the report to designate the property as an area for redevelopment or not. And that's the purpose of tonight's, one of your agenda items later on the meeting for one of the resolutions is to consider a resolution that would designate the 3641 Monaco Road property, again, block 6601, block two, as an area for redevelopment. And doing so would be consistent with the settlement agreement that was executed with the property owner, and would also facilitate the settlement agreement that was executed with the Fairtrade Poverty Staff as well. And I'm happy to go into more detail But that's an overview as to what the council is tasked with doing and how we got here, given the affordable housing case and the local redevelopment housing.

Thank you.

Questions from council? Can you, thank you very much for giving us an overview. speaking in layman's terms so we can all kind of understand it. Can you go over the two criteria that I met?

Yeah. So before I do that, let me just, for a little bit more context, so the criteria makes more sense. This property is a little more than seven acres. It's at the corner of Lawrenceville Road, Providence Fund Road. And then I think, as most people know, it's the property that closed the Hoover House on its site. And so there are two criteria, there are several criteria set forth in the redevelopment law, but I think two that I referenced in the report as being relevant and recommended in favor of the planning board agrees. The first one is criterion A, And that speaks to the condition of buildings. Specifically, it states the generality of buildings are substandard, unsafe, unsanitary, dilapidated, or obsolescent, or possess any of the characteristics or are so lacking in light, air, or space as to be conducive to unfulfilling living and working conditions. So the report found in favor of that criteria for a variety of reasons, but including the lack of property maintenance leading to a state of disrepair of not only the home itself, but also an accessory garage on the building. There was evidence of fire, fire code violations as well there are also a number of substandard conditions that were actually identified by the township and it's in a violation especially approximately 25 years ago that largely remained in place and there were a number of characteristics of the two buildings that were substandard unsafe and dilapidated as stated in the report including for example Claps and damaged roof in the accessory building, the garage, damaged roof, missing E on the principal building, cracked in both foundations in need of stabilization, a structural support beam in the basement of the home that is not fully supporting the building. Uncontrolled access to the basement and first floor, you can see evidence of vandalism and trespassing on the property, number of broken windows, vine infestation, and debris throughout the site. And for all of those reasons, that's a summary, but for all of those reasons, the report found that it met criteria A in the sense that the buildings are substandard, dilapidated, and that they led to this unwholesome living and working conditions. The report and the planning board also found that the property met criterion D, which is defined as buildings for improvements, which by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement design, lack of ventilation, lack of sanitary light or sanitary facilities. Deleterious land use, obsolete layout, or any combination of those are detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the community. And the report found in favor of that criterion for a handful of reasons. The property had faulty arrangement and design due to lack of driveway. access from adjacent roads and that lack of accessibility to the site by emergency vehicles such as PMS and police contributes to an unsafe nature of the property and also for the property to serve as an attractive nuisance with evidence being the vandalism found throughout the property. The report also found that there's a lack of access to septic waste disposal since that had been decommissioned on the property and it further found similar to The property itself is dilapidated in the sense that it has a number of holes in the building walls, broken windows, that uncontrolled access to the dwelling as well as the garage. And that creates opportunities for trespassing, animal nesting as well. And there was also a finding that the property is littered with dead and overgrown vegetation. And as I mentioned before, and access to the site and because of the totality of these dilapidated conditions the unsanitary conditions the faulty arrangement with the lack of access the result is that the property serves as this deleterious land use that is detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community such that it meets criterion D. And so those are the two criteria. I will say that the redevelopment law requires that one or more criteria be satisfied in order for properties to be found in need of redevelopment. But in this instance, there were two criteria identified and supported in the report, as well as by the planning board's resolution.

Okay. Mr. Knapp. I don't really have much else of a question, but I guess the thing is out there.

So the legislature created it when they prepared the local redevelopment. And so that's the same criteria that would be applicable to any property in the township and any property in the state that was undergoing this process.

a developer already done, there's X number of units, X number of parking spaces, are we there yet? Or is this really what it says in the game?

for tonight's agenda the only thing stated the only thing listed on the agenda is designation of the property and that is a separate process than adoption of the redevelopment plan which will presumably supersede the existing zoning THE COUNCIL'S DECISION TONIGHT DOES NOT DIRECTLY IMPACT THE POTENTIAL AND THE FUTURE OF THIS PROPERTY, BUT I DO WANT TO, I DO NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT OUR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER IS NOT SIMPLY THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD CONSIDER THE PROPERTY AS AN AREA OF DEVELOPMENT. IT DOES ALSO TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE, WHICH IS FOR 110 UNITS ON THE PROPERTY. THAT DECISION MAKING, THE ADOPTION OF THE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY OR the necessary next step to fulfill the terms of the settlement agreement with the developer, as well as with Fairshire Housing Center. But for tonight's agenda, it is solely about the destination of the property since there's no reference to future development in the redevelopment study or I believe in the resolution before the consultation.

So there will be multiple

Absolutely. So should the council find or declare the site as an area of redevelopment, there would be a public process, public hearing for adoption of a redevelopment plan. And then presuming the developer proceeds with a site plan application to receive approvals for development of the site, there would also be public hearing scheduled for that process, just like any other site plan application that would appear in the

that the state and fair share of housing required Lawrence Township to provide inclusionary zoning for a certain number of units distributed throughout the township. Is that correct?

Correct. Lawrence Township participated in the process in order to protect itself from building from litigation. We did so successfully in the sense that we were able to secure settlements and And once we're able to complete all of these steps in the process, including the adoption of the redevelopment plan, at that point, we would be eligible for this final approval referred to as a judgment of propose or a compliance certification from the court, which is the final stamp of approval that Lawrence has done, which is a necessary program. So a builder's remedy is a type of litigation that is set forth as part of affordable housing here in New Jersey. And it is intended to be stiff, so to speak, if there's a carrot in stick for affordable housing in new jersey in the sense that municipalities that do not have an approved housing plan with zoning uh that has been approved by by now the court it gives developers and property owners the opportunity to file what's referred to as a builder's remedy which is a form of exclusionary zoning litigation so essentially they are providing the builders providing the remedy to the lack of affordable housing compliance in the municipality and what it specifically means is presuming that the town is not participating they're not compliant with their affordable housing obligation the developer can file litigation before the court to seek approval for a project that is significantly larger than what the municipality would have agreed to and i i The standards for what would be a compliant builder's remedy are going to vary by municipality. It's going to vary by the character of the site and the surrounding area. But it is always in excess of what the municipality would have been possibly comfortable with. Logically, because it's a lot of effort for a developer to go through the litigation process to get that approval. They can just simply get a yes from the town. They would have. But they secure approval for the... from the court for a much larger development than what the municipality would have been comfortable with and it's much larger because the standards for what are deemed acceptable and appropriate are lower in the case of the boulder's remedy than in the case of an objection or even a use variance application that might be filed in the municipality it is hugely disruptive to a community because it's because the nature of the litigation the typical size of the development as well and for those towns that have decided that they would like to not participate and go through this process, which is admittedly very difficult for towns, I will say that oftentimes one of the requirements from the court, in addition to rezoning that property, typically is that the town must then go ahead and adopt the housing plan. So do the, take the action that it was seeking to avoid, that's often one of the requirements after you go through the Tatum's ability to remedy, the court says, and now go ahead and do the housing plan and you don't have to do it initially. So the builder's remedy is essentially a developer's opportunity larger than one of these probably would have appeared.

Sorry, that's the short answer. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Any last questions? Could you just explain what this objector objected to?

Oh, sure. So they objected to... And filed a suit.

That was mediated by a superior projection.

So their objection addressed I've proved that. The objector was 3641 Mindful Road, essentially the developer and property owner for the property. The site was included in the housing plan because they had approached the township prior to adoption, the housing plan seeking a development that was actually larger than what set forth in the settlement agreement. The township had declined and instead had proposed zoning at a lower density of 10 units an acre in the housing plan for that property. They objected, stating that the density set forth in the housing plan for their property was too low And I don't recall exactly, but every objection I've seen issued for municipalities across the state address not only their concerns about their property, but also anything else they can identify in the municipality's housing plan about all of the other things that the town, in this case, large township, and as part of how they would address their fourth round obligation, as well as what may have been done potentially wrong in earlier rounds. As part of the affordable housing process, that objection was reviewed through the affordable housing dispute resolution program. Ultimately, that was a very expedited process for municipalities to work with their objectors to determine if the settlement was possible. We worked with this developer during that process to determine if we could come to terms. We were able to do so in order, and we did so in order to to avoid ongoing litigation about the property that may result in additional density at this site and may have resulted in other zoning amendments necessary to address other concerns that may have raised affordable housing strategies and earlier strategies. And that was a very common occurrence throughout the state. Most municipalities had at least one objection Almost, most of those objections were settled. I'll say that. The vast majority. Thank you.

No, no. Only questions for Patsy. This is not, no, this is a presentation for Patsy. I mean, you're here, but this is for us. Any other questions? Thank you so much. All right, we've come to public participation time.

We can't really hear you. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. Is this better?

Yes.

All right. The purpose of public comment period is for members of the public to inform the governing body of their views. This time is an opportunity for Township Council to listen with care to the public and to consider what we hear in our deliberations. Rather, one can call or email members of council, manager, or clerk seeking additional information or response to an issue. I'd also like to read two excerpts from the Lawrence Township Administrative Code. Section 10-22, Manner of Addressing Council. A person may address the council upon recognition by the chair and shall have the right to address the council for the amount of time needed by the chair. No person having the floor shall be permitted to enter into any discussion either directly or through a member of the council without the permission of the chair.

My name is Catherine Trenner. Can you all hear me? Yes. Okay. And I have lived in this area for 15 years, although I must say I don't recognize part of anybody who's here tonight. And despite the fact that I practiced law around here for 56 years and recently retired. And I also think that all the thing about the builder remedy and the area indeed that Yeah, I think that's all been knocked out by the case that came down from the New Jersey Supreme Court on July 16th, 2026, the Montvale decision where the town of Montvale and a builder had a case together. and with a decision, but you know, I've been thinking about this and I kind of want to go back over what I think is the history of this area. When we all got out of school in the old days, we were poor. And so remember when you got out of school and you had to get an apartment with roommates, that kind of thing. And then as we gradually did better in life with our job, my first job paid $4,800 a year. Then we moved into a better house, a better neighborhood, more land, more this and that. And so many changes have taken place. And in fact, and I live over on Poe Road, actually, 233 Carter, but it's really Poe Road. I'm at the very back end. I moved there so my animals could go out the door and not get hit by a car. But what I recently got was an offer to buy my property, 6.9 acres. from a battery storage company and they want to pay me a million dollars to rent them my land for 20 years. That would require a zoning variance. Are you going to permit this kind of thing to go in? It seems to me that it's the same kind of violation of the neighborhoods and the zoning that we have had that we want. That's our American way of life is upward mobility. And I recently met a man who runs a barber shop in Trenton. He's run the barber shop for 60 years. And I said to myself, this guy knows everything. He meets all the guys every day of the week. And he said to me that all the changes around here are a result of commercial aviation. Commercial aviation came in in the end of the 60s when regular people could start flying around. Before that, if you came to this country, you had to come by boat. And right after commercial aviation became popular or available, we had the Mount Laurel decision in 1975. And I must say that that case was handled by my former boyfriend back in the day, who had just graduated from Sanford Law School. And in fact, he even made a John Biasi claim, so he was living out there. But what they were talking about is, should there be affordable housing everywhere? And we are all immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants. The Native Americans who lived here were driven out in the late 1800s by all of our ancestors, all the European immigrants who came here for the California gold rush, for getting beaver fur that was all shipped back to Europe. and also some of like some of my answers came because of the potato family they didn't come because they wanted to leave their countries they came because there was opportunity here and um unfortunately for the native americans the european idea about land was different from how the native americans thought of land this is what i've read um native americans thought All the land was out there for hunting and for food, gathering food. But the Europeans said, oh, no, you've got to have a little block for yourself. My family moved to Westfield. I grew up in Westfield, New Jersey. We lived halfway out where the farm started. And my parents were then able to get a nice house in the suburbs. And all of the kids in Westfield High School when I went there were basically Protestant and English-speaking, and they were no longer immigrants. Most of us in my age group were like the third-generation immigrants. A lot of you people are younger, so you may be toward the fifth-generation immigrants, but we're all immigrants. The facts now, according to what I read online, is that 26% of people living in New Jersey and also in California are new immigrants. And 43% of the kids in public school are in here. 43% have at least one parent who was foreign born.

Thank you.

If five minutes are up? I just, I can't believe that.

Can I have a few more minutes? No. I'm happy to give you, you can wrap, if you have one sentence to wrap it up as a lawyer, I think you can do that.

I just want to say that the case of Monarch Communities versus MonVal states that an inherently beneficial project, like senior housing, will not be, you have to show that it will not adversely affect and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zoning plan. And I just want to make reference to, I was in England over Christmas. Can I just give, I got two sentences to go. I can ask somebody else to finish my remarks.

No one can deliver as well as you can. I will grant you the two sentences.

Jakarta, Indonesia is the most populated city in the world. And what they've had to do is like you can only drive every other day in your car because there's too many people there and it's overpopulation. And I'm here to say, don't put, don't put, poor people, the apartment stage of life, into the rich neighborhoods. That's the American way. You want to grow up and move up and get a big house. And stick with our plan that we have. And I don't think you can not follow it based on the Mondale case.

Thank you. 58 Carter Road, Princeton, New Jersey. The first thing I want to say on behalf of the North Lawrence Citizens Association, which is about 80 people, we would like your resolution 259 of reference by Ms. McManus to be cut from any kind of omnibus bill and voted on as its own resolution with a hand count so we can see who is voting in favor of that resolution. There will be several more people tonight who will also make that request. We feel it's very important for transparency. Transparency is a word I'm gonna refer to several times tonight, so I'm giving you a warning upfront. So firstly, 259 is cut it from the pack. Please vote by hand and let us know who's voting for what. A COUPLE, IN THE PLANNING BOARD MAKING OF APRIL 20TH, I BELIEVE, I ASKED MR. NEWINSKI, POINT BLANK, HAVE YOU EXECUTED CONTRACTS OR SIGNED CONTRACTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF BOTH ETS AND GULAG? AND I KNOW A LOT OF YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED, MR. NEWINSKI, I BELIEVE YOU SAID YOU HAD NOT SIGNED CONTRACTS.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I did not hem or haw.

And my response was accurate. Yes or no. Ma'am?

I am allowing you to ask Mr. Mayor a question. He is allowed to respond.

I'm not going to let you characterize something.

We can go back to the tape. Just give me a yes or no.

That's the transparency that we don't have with Mr. Newinsky, who I understand assigned to a five-year term when he's supposed to be working at the will of the council. Interesting. Doesn't have any qualifications in city planning. Interesting. It costs them less than $400 million. Let me go to board number two.

Let's stay away from the personal attacks and go to what you want to talk about.

They're not personal attacks. They're facts that speak to transparency, which we, the citizens of Lawrence, With this board, we're feeling, and we've said it time and again, you're giving us lip service, you're making decisions, and you're not sharing them with us. When I call Mayor Mike Gasali of Montvale, he returns. We want transparency and we want to know what you folks are doing. And we don't feel like we're getting it. I apologize, Arthur, I love you, but we don't feel we're getting transparency. Let me go to my point number three. Ms. McMahon, when you were determining 210 units at ETS and 10 units on the corner of Province Line and Princeton Pike, which is a highly trafficked thing. Why don't you just stick those 10 affordable units over at ETS so we could fight one battle here based on round four and don't put 110 more families on a corner that is highly trafficked Traffic to Route 1 at rush hour every day, we could do with less, 110 less families bleeding on our school system, bleeding on our police, bleeding on our fire. and destroying the neighborhood. Let me remind you, there are no sidewalks. How do these people get their groceries done? There are no sidewalks, and there are no buildings in this town higher than two stories. And what you're doing is, once again, you're doing what Kathleen said. You're urbanizing our bucolic neighborhood, which Professor Isaacs addressed so carefully. that we want the character of our, we call it, neighborhood to be undisturbed so we can enjoy what we earned to live in Lawrence. If you put those 10 affordable units from Gulick into ETS, we could fight one battle and we could save the property at ETS for something less than $110,000. more families draining on those resources which our taxpayer dollars pay for. I don't know about you, but my taxes are very high on 10 acres, and I'm sure most of you have very high taxes. My neighbor with 10 acres, her kids are on a way to it.

They don't care. Yes, dear.

This is a public meeting. And I'm speaking publicly. I'm not hiding what I'm saying from you.

Like Mr. Newinster, who attacks me after I leave the meeting. He's done it three times.

Take a breath. Take a breath.

I'm sorry good evening to everyone say

So I am a lifetime Lawrence resident six years now. So in 2018, I had a bicycle accident where DROID CODE 2021, AND IN MY POSITION OF SITTING ON THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, I THOUGHT ABOUT STARTING THE CORONALS AID IN OUR COUNCIL. THEREFORE, AS I SIT ON THAT COMMITTEE, THERE'S A BOCCE COURT THAT SITS OVER IN VETERANS PARK. IT'S THE VENTURIO BOCCE COURT. AND IT HAD SURFACE ON IT THAT WAS CLAY. AND IT WASN'T VERY CONDUCIVE FOR BOCCE, BUT I THOUGHT MAYBE It was a way for people to get outside during that time. We had been on lockdown, wearing masks, and everybody knows what COVID was about. So it was a way to get outside. The governor released that people could be outside The first season, we had eight teams. And actually, during that time frame, there's a tornado watch today. Well, July 29th of 2021, we actually had a tornado watch. It takes about half an hour to 45 minutes to actually set up the court. We have 27 feeders, which is the standard in between the boards. I have to take my patio bricks to anchor the boards. And it reminds me of when I was a kid, we had to pick our basketball games and baseball games. First base would be soda cans, second base would be cardboard boxes, and so on. So I just want to say that the national polling has 50 to 70 billion participants All ages and genders and backgrounds can play this. We've had surprise birthday parties. We have people come in and play with slings. The age groups are from eight to 85 years old. The park, it needs, the block support needs some aesthetic improvements and we're playing on the space that's not conducive to cornhole. I've offered you guys a binder of this proposal. there's a lot of information contained in this binder and i just hope everybody needs it and and if you want to talk about it further i have full conversation about it so i just appreciate having this opportunity to come out and do this there's a lot more to it i appreciate mr chester and i appreciate the very detailed and thorough and i think it's food for thoughts for both council as well as recreation

thank you so much for presenting i was on the advisory council when the cornhole was started you built an amazing program and this if everyone could see this he's put this together we all have one it is amazing um being on the committee for eight years i've never seen anything this thorough and i really appreciate

I am a three-year member of the Lawrence Cornhole League, and one of the things I'd like to make sure people understand is You might not think a glamorous woman such as myself belongs on a corn hole, bitch.

But in fact, I go and I have fun. And one year, I came in 11th place. Out of 12, but still. But the point is that I go out there and I have fun. And I have fun with people I know and people I've never met.

And one woman said she's been in Lawrence for 50 years and she doesn't know anybody. I've been in Lawrence over 50 years and I know almost everybody. So it's when you reach out and you're part of something bigger than yourself, it's really exciting. I think about the opportunity for kids, any kid to play cornhole. They can play very young. They need no money.

They need no equipment. You show up.

You show up with a good attitude. And really, it's not much more than that.

It doesn't take anything more than that for people to have fun.

and uh anyone can come up there uh there's been a waiting list every year since the first year to be on the coin hole league and i can't think of another way to get you outside and away from your computer then i did talk to the superintendent of lawrence county public schools and she asked me to submit her statement Anytime we can encourage adults and students to get off their screens and get outside is a positive thing for the physical and mental health of all. The district would love to see more engagements in our public parks, and since Cornhole has been quite a hit, its continued expansion is positive for all. There are scholarships for cornhole.

There are professional cornhole players, and there are people who underwrite cornhole activities.

So there's a lot of potential for our little cornhole league to grow, and I hope you'll think about it.

which is maybe consider a central part. We can't hear you. Oh, we can't hear you. I said I love the book. I'm still looking through your proposal, but I just wanted to make a pitch to the central part. That's a possibility.

Hello. My name is Maria Pico and I live at 4465 Promise 9 Love Road. Mr. Mayor, committee members, I'll bring it back to the subsidized housing. My husband and I made the investment to move here. Yes, after school we could afford the taxes, the property taxes, of course, in this area. And we love our neighbors. We love our amenities here in Lawrence. And When I first moved in, I enjoyed jogging around the trail near the Yorkshire apartments before they started developing. And I soon stopped. The safety, I didn't feel safe going there at six o'clock in the morning or late at night. The people around it. So Mr. Mayor, committee members, I like my friends and neighbors here in Lawrence. I don't know what 200 plus new neighbors, their friends, their extended families will bring to our community. So I ask you not to allow that in our community. Thank you.

Michelle and Greg 657. this mcmanus's presentation and the way this whole thing was being conducted to me it smells like a rat and the rat is not in gula's house one of the things that it seems like is a concern is uh for lauren's township to be reaching a settlement contract that was entered into in february of this year LITIGATION THAT WAS EVIDENTLY INITIATED IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR AND RELATES TO PUTTING IN, ACTUALLY TAKING OUT THE GULAG HOUSE AND PUTTING IN A HOUSING PROJECT OF AROUND 110 UNITS, EVIDENTLY. THE DIFFICULTY THAT WE'RE TOLD IS THAT IF WE DON'T DO EVERYTHING IN THE POWER OF LAWRENCE TOWNSHIP TO FACILITATE THE SETTLEMENT THAT WAS ENTERED INTO IN FEBRUARY, which to me is a backwards way of doing things, that we could run into a problem with the builder's remedy threat of different type of lawsuits, which could have a worse outcome. I think the whole process was not transparent. The time for everyone to have understood what was going on was December through February, the time that the settlement was entered into. And I understand that this was a legal process, but I think most... going on and that the settlement that was entered into with the 3641 Orange Road organization is essentially a developer that we're enriching by putting in this townhouse complex there, but also sort of solve some other problems that the township had. But I concur with some of the other people who have objected with the lack of transparency of this process. And I also urge the members of the council who are voting on this

And we will be...

I'm Stephanie Wedeking. I live at 9 Flair's Lane. I've lived in Lawrence for 22 years. And I'm not speaking just on behalf of myself, but on a large group of neighbors in the area around the public house. And there are several points that I'm going to read into the record. point one is that the zoning change to arise from the redevelopment plan represents illegal and unconstitutional spot zoning in that it is creating an artificial zone change solely for the benefit of a single land owner contrary to the existing zoning uses in this part of the community The designation will allow vastly increased density in an area that is zoned for and considered as a matter of policy to be a rural and ecologically sensitive area, planning area three, in which the planning goal is ecological preservation, not increased commercial density. The redevelopment ordinance and designation is a part of an intentional effort to allow the landowner to avoid the burden of seeking a use variance that would normally be required in a change of this nature. By this device, the landowner is free of the difficult burden of satisfying the positive and negative criteria that are necessary for a use variance in violation of the municipal land use law. The zoning change that will arise from the redevelopment designation alters fundamentally the community zone plan and that this property is adjacent to and or is a vicinity of a preserved area or an area deemed environmentally sensitive and should be subject to a use variance proceeding so that the negative criteria as to the ecological impact can be tested and proven, especially since property has reforested and has acquired new ecological qualities. The proposed redevelopment designation is without factual and legal basis since there is no generality of structures or features that are blighted, but only a single historic building and outbuilding occupying a fraction of otherwise untouched and undeveloped land, none of which is blighted or otherwise meets the requirement of the redevelopment statute. Other reasons advanced for the redevelopment designation are invalid under the law. cuts, no access to the street, that the lack of access from Lawrenceville Road or Province Line Road reflects a faulty arrangement and design, that access is limited for police and EMS vehicles in an emergency or in the event of trespassing, that a lack of septic system and has overgrown or dead vegetation all are unsupported claims made by the preliminary investigation, and that our pretextual reasons or that are easily cured by ordinary maintenance, or by ordinary updating, such as by merely creating a driveway cut along the access roads. To the extent the structures are not repairable, they occupy only a small fraction of the site and can be taken down if necessary, but the remainder of the site is not blighted and contains no features that prevent development under ordinary zoning or that cannot be achieved via conventional use variance process. In short, the requirements of the redevelopment statute are not proven or shown by preliminary investigation. The redevelopment designation is intended to allow a vastly increased density and part of the community that is adjacent to the Kings Highway Historic District and that will impair and encroach on the district in violation of New Jersey law and in violation of Mount Royal Doctrine. In addition, since the housing project is a municipal project and is designed to satisfy the township's housing quota, the encroachment is municipal action that must first be approved by Historic Sites Council on notice to the public. Mount Laurel Doctrine also prohibits destruction of forests and natural areas by proposed inclusionary developments and the reforested area on the property will be destroyed by the proposed development. the designation is contrary to and inconsistent with the national plan that seeks to maintain preserved and environmentally sensitive areas in the township and to protect such areas from intrusion and harm from adjoining developments the redevelopment designation is the product of an illegal promise by the township in its settlement with the developer to introduce and improve a redevelopment ordinance in zoning a pledge that abrogates the council's legislative independence and is illegal and finally In addition, the township planner is a member and employee of the same planning firm that conducted the preliminary investigation. As a result, the township planner was unable to function as an independent advisor to the planning board in its review of the proposed redevelopment designation. This conflict of interest renders the redevelopment designation invalid and illegal. We object to the proposed zone change and ask that it be voted down.

Thank you.

Make sure everybody can hear me okay? My name is Martha Friend. I live, thank you. I live at 976 Lawrence Road. So I guess I am self-law. I say that because there does seem to be a group here that is speaking for all of Lawrence. So please don't speak for me. And in fact, I want to remind council who I respect greatly This group, I won't say this group. The folks here that are against Gulick House's future and the possibilities for that, they don't speak for all of Lawrence. They speak for themselves and the people on their email list, I guess you can say. But I want that to be really clear. We know people show up when they're angry, when they're frustrated. That's when they show up to meetings. So we have a large crowd here. But you don't know who's sitting in this. I want to apologize if anybody who's listening to this and hears people casting aspersions on the folks who live in affordable housing in those 10 groups, that's horrifying. And that is not what the people I know here in Lawrence feel. People need housing, and don't, I'd like to just be clear, for 30 years I drove past Gullick House on my way to work, there and back, there and back, there and back. So I know about traffic. I know about traffic. I also have, and I'm gonna be quick, this five minutes goes really quick. We have some folks in town who see this as their emergency, right? There have been things on Facebook, urgent, alert, And you read through it and they say, all of Lawrence, there's something happening that we all need to be concerned about. But in fact, it's just one, seem to be some neighbors who are concerned about it. There was somebody who tried to run for council and he said it was just because of this, because of this issue. Like there are people upset. Okay. And they have a right to be upset. What I would ask you to do is listen to your experts and We can all be passionate about things, but that does not make us experts. I have worked with Beth McManus through master plan work that the town has been working on for years. I know she is an expert. She would never want ill will for people who live here in Lawrence and do something shady. That's offensive to imply. Thank you for the work you guys are doing. And actually, I'm glad you're going to vote independently. I trust you're going to vote for all of Lawrence, more housing. You would never do something that was not good for this town. I trust each of you. I know you're people of character. Thank you for thinking about all of Lawrence.

There was a comment made by a prior member about our planner, Elizabeth McManus. She's been our planner for seven or eight years. We appointed her to be the planner. She is our professional planner with the education, certification, and experience to do the required to do. Any inclination or any insinuation that people seem to grab onto that there was some nefarious conflict of interest needs to be rejected immediately by everyone in this room and everybody that's listening on the feed. We cannot allow our professionals to I'm sorry. It offends me. Attack Naomi. I'll get upset. It won't be a big thing. But she does good work. She's supposed to do the job that she did. And she made her recommendation based upon all of her education and experience and certifications. There was no conflict of interest. There was nothing nefarious. She did the job that we asked her to do. That's what I'm saying.

Hi, my name is Nate Kunkel. I live at 129 Review Avenue. I am a lifelong resident of Lawrence Township, all 20 of my long years. I wanted to point out some information that I feel is lacking in this conversation. I'm not here to sway on whether we should or should not have additional housing. I am more concerned about the historic properties of this building. I was one of the founding members of the Lawrence Junior Historians, a subsection of the Lawrence Historical Society. the history of the house. It was built in 1855 and is one of the few remaining structures in Lawrence Township and in our wider region of Mercer County that shows exceptional Italian revivalist architecture. And there's, I think, only one other house in Lawrence Township that shows that. Outside of that, as it was pointed out, the house itself only takes up a small portion of the overall property. And if it were to be amended, excuse me, renovated to ensure that the historical attributes of the house are maintained. I also agree with the other people who brought up the fact that it is an extension of two different protected areas, both the Kings Highway Historic District, even though there is only a 30 foot berm on the property, I do think this house is characteristic of the exact thing that historical district is trying to preserve. the Lawrenceville-Hopewell Trail. It runs right alongside the property, and I do believe that maintaining green space in our already declining green township is necessary. It is healthy. It also ensures wildlife is able to survive in excess in our land. The historical house is also a continuation of multiple other historical properties in the area. There is a Gulick House on Raymond Road in Kingston. There is the Kingston Gullick Grist Mill and subsequent Gullick properties in Princeton and the Dirk Gullick house up, I believe in Middlesex County or yes, I believe so. And this house, if preserved, would be just another continuation of that longstanding history that has since spanned over 300 years in our area. Our history is a finite thing. We cannot change it. We cannot preserve any of it that has already since been not necessarily to benefit either the people who want to maintain a more secluded neighborhood or those to industrialize it to the point where it is inaccessible to animals and the wildlife in the area, but rather to ensure that the historical property is preserved on account that it is significant as it is one of the few remaining properties of its kind in our area.

Thank you so much.

I hope you can still hear me. I'm trying, I'm sorry. Have there been previous, over the 30 years that this property owner has owned the house site, have there been previous attempts that you are aware of to try to, and do you know what those what happened to them?

Yes, so actually there's been numerous attempts. There was the historical building survey done in 1987 that designated the house as being possible for acknowledgement on national and local registers. It was then subsequently designated as a local landmark in 1990, which is significant. And in 2013, an individual named James T. Callahan was putting together a petition to ensure that the property was acknowledged on the National Historic Property List. However, it fell short due to the fact that the property owner would be the ultimate final say on whether or not the property would be designated. There have also been some 30 years of back and forth between the township and this house. When I say it was purchased, I believe in 1995 by the current owners from Bristol Myers Squibb, who had sold off the property. And they have submitted about four master plans for redevelopment. three, maybe four, included a assisted care facility with plans, some of them, to maintain the house. And they were rejected by, I believe, the Historic Preservation Office each time for, oh, Historic Preservation Office and also the township, I'm not necessarily sure which, for multiple reasons. And I believe that is the extent of

Anyone else get public comments? There's always a second one, but it's only three minutes. We get two extra minutes.

Yes, please.

It's so that you don't have to say your comment yourself.

in 1972 i'm glad this young man who i was very practical with my own uh well spoken talked about uh in the master plan the reject it was a rejection for a nursing home i don't know exactly what it was but i remember coming to township meetings if you can't put a nursing home in because of the impact on the area, then why would you put 110 units in there? And then the other thing is, the two criteria, I just put my hearing aid on, so I'm not sure everything that your first speaker said, but if the two criteria are that the place is dilapidated, It's like saying, well, the property owner didn't take care of their property. So we're just going to say, forget about that. And we can just build whatever we want. I mean, you have a master plan. I don't understand why this keeps coming up and getting resurrected. If the property owners bought the property in 1995 and it was a master plan, they already knew that it wasn't a facility that could be put up there. And it's just been causing more galvanies over the years. I mean, you know, I'm not, very well spoken about water or anything like that. I just don't feel like it's the place to be. I don't have any problem with the Mount Royal decision, but I don't see how you can have 110 units on seven acres. And, I mean, I lived on that property when it was a farm, and there's a development there. I don't have anything against low-income housing. It's not going to impact me. I'm 84 years old, and it doesn't much matter. But it's going to impact the neighborhood. I mean, I cannot get out of my driveway at 4 o'clock. And if Canal Road gets flooded, the province line is just backed up all the way, almost to 2 or 6 degrees sometimes.

Hi, my name is Lori Evans, and I'm a resident here. And I agree, I have no problem with low income housing at all. But why do we need 110 units just for 110 low income properties? Why can't we just put 10 low income units on those seven acres?

So everybody gets a little house. I mean, doesn't that make sense?

And I don't know what's going on with BTS at this point either, but I was told that that was something like that.

So I don't even know what's going on with BTS. And that's not the part of the world I live in. So that really concerns me as well.

And can I ask you? You can ask me a question. Okay.

So is the ETS deal done? Is it going to be? So how many apartments are proposed there?

I know this is not true. I'm not. No. So the woman that was here earlier. She says, oh, it's dilapidated. We've got to tear it down. There's vines growing everywhere.

And we're going to take those seven acres, and we're going to put 110 units on those seven acres.

I mean, most of us here live on an acre or more. Well, a lot of us do. A lot of us do. And this is farmland.

And do you guys think it's farmland? No.

And all you keep seeing are these developers coming here to town, to Princeton, to Lawrenceville, building these enormous complexes and getting a 40-year tax abatement, which I don't understand either. You've got 110 families moving into a seven-acre area, and this gentleman at the end

I don't know who this woman is, but I think there is a conflict of interest between the planner and the fact that she has something to do with the people that are going to be running her. That is a conflict of interest. So I guess I'm trying to say I agree that we should put in

lower-income housing, but why do we have to include it in a 110 or 500-unit property? Well, okay, it's the law that we have to have lower-income housing, but it's not the law that you can build. It is the law that, okay, you can build 500 units, right? And those 500 units, you have to have what?

20%. 20%, okay? So let's take the 20% and build something for the 20%. Yes.

thank you

If I sound nervous, I am nervous. All right. And I'm not contentious. I understand why we're here. I've been a resident for 38 years, living at 41 Foxcroft Drive. People will say to me, if you could live anywhere in the New Jersey, Pennsylvania area, where would you live? And I go, I wouldn't move. In fact, seriously speaking, if any of you, I mean this from the heart, would like to come to 41 Foxcroft and have lunch or dinner with me, sit in the backyard, you know why I love this township. It's phenomenal. It's just a wonderful, gorgeous place to live. I like it so much that a couple of years ago, my daughter finished school, wanted a house, and we bought her a house. FOR MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY SO WELL, I WOULDN'T WANT TO LIVE ANYWHERE ELSE. THIS IS UTOPIA TO ME. I THINK THERE'S TWO ISSUES. I THINK ONE ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH A PROPERTY THAT YOU IDENTIFIED AS BEING VELOCITATED. AND THE QUESTION REALLY BECOMES WHAT IT WOULD ENTAIL TO FIX THE PROPERTY SO THAT YOU MAINTAIN THE CODE, THE STANDARDS THAT YOU WANT. AND THE SECOND ONE I BELIEVE I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY. I'M SORRY. I see those as maybe two separate issues. And certainly we don't want to dilapidate property in our township as was identified at the start of the meeting. So is it possible to just fix the property so that it meets the aesthetic value of the neighborhood and consider affordable housing separately? I mean, I know I see the issue also, as the last person pointed out, and this is my final point, about traffic. When I go to work and I travel on Province Line Road, especially during non-summer periods, it can take you 20 minutes to get from 206 to Princeton Pike, 20 minutes. And that's both ways in the morning and in the evening. How many hours am I spending a year sitting in bumper to bumper traffic That will only get worse as the area continues to develop and we put in more properties. And it's really, you sit there, you want to look at your phone, you look at the car in front of you, it's bumper to bumper. A little bit better in the summer when people are on vacation. But also, Princeton Pike, same thing. Boy, if you're on 95 and you watch the traffic in the morning and evening, exiting Route 1 and now Princeton Pike, it's horrendous. So from a quality of life standpoint, which we all care about, and one of the reasons we're here is what's the impact on the traffic and and to me that's critically important as you're sitting in that car every day both ways wasting time so i thank you all for your service and for your commitment to the community and i thank everybody for attending this evening as well and i probably won't speak again for another 45 years

I'm sorry. You have to wait until the second one.

You don't pick those. No, no, no. of the agenda, or do we want to take a break?

We'll take a break for five.

Recess for five minutes. We'll be back.

this is still

Thank you.

What are you doing?

Good job.

How you doing? But I see you still. We did a great job today. Remember, us playing Fires and Metal Boxes with Mr. Rodriguez. We're out. Good night. Good night. That's great. That's great. Yes, sir. Oh. um .

.

. . . um Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. There's no way to get me. Okay. The audience. Thank you.

I have a motion for 8-8.

I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8.

I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8.

I have a motion for 8-8.

I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8.

I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8. I have a motion for 8-8

This is a part of our affordable housing rehabilitation program, and the amount for the bid is $24,735. Thank you.

Any questions from the council?

Seeing none, any questions from the public?

We're seeing none. Ms. Farmer? Yes.

Motion for 9B. Motion for 9B, authorizing the awarding of the Sylvie and Nadelcu painting and remodeling to perform rehabilitation at 718 Putney Avenue. Second. Second.

And this is for a rehabilitation program. The amount of the bid is $25,100 to Sylvie, Nadelcu, and remodel. Thank you.

Any questions from the council?

Yes. Do I have a motion for non-C? I can advise C, authorizing the awarding of this will be deducted from the payment in remodeling upon rehabilitation at 293,000 in the range.

I'll second.

Second.

Again, this is for a rehabilitation program. The total amount is $12,500. Thank you.

Any questions for the council?

Any questions for the board?

Same one. Ms. Furman? Ms. Furman.

This is for a rehab program. $29,860 is the amount. Thank you. Any questions? Questions from the public? Same one? Yes, sir. this project arises out of a grant that we received from state of new jersey and we have um

Bid out the job, and we received an acceptable bid. The amount is $218,265.50. Again, this is using grant funding.

Any questions from the public?

And this is for the perimeter, or you can tell me.

What about it? Making one? Yes.

It's going to open it up for more people to access to. Anybody that wants to use it and enjoy it, it's going to be

Yes.

I have a motion for 9.

Motion is 9S, authorizing a warning of bid 26-12-2035 and video to trust fund improvement, Brunswick Pike Pedestrian Safety at Earl Asphalt Company.

Second.

Second.

Yeah, this is for another phase to the improvement of the Brunswick... AND THIS INVOLVES IMPROVEMENTS RELATING TO INCREASING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IN THE AREA.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? MS. GARLAND? MS. GARLAND? WE HAVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

my question uh sylvia provis so um if i could uh have more details about um what is business pedestrian safety since it's a very interesting topic for me because i live there yeah i certainly i don't have more to share with you tonight but if you were to email me i will provide you with a copy of the contract okay okay i believe it's in correct me if i'm wrong mr but i believe

Because it's a contract.

24 items that are involved in this project. So they are available and I'll be able to share that with you directly. But I could go over those right now if you wanted to.

For clarity, Ms. Carter, once we pass a bid, that's all public record, correct?

Yes, it should be.

And so if it's passed, it's something that is easily obtainable from the press office. Yes, I'll get it.

yeah but it's not it's not being done in the darkness it's not unavailable all right 10a introduction to the board 10a ordinance number 25 20-26 ordinance amending ordinance 2449-23 by the township of lawrence county of mercer state of new jersey in order to revise the district

Yeah, this is not an expenditure of new funds. This is a redirection to encumber funds to address the break room downstairs that I think has never been improved and is not being used currently. We have employees that are cooking in individual offices.

On Ordinance Amendment 5, Ordinance 2211-15 by the Township of Florence, County of Mercer, State of New Jersey, in order to provide for description of the improvement during various park and recreation facility improvements to include LED field lights retrofit.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second. Thank you. Mr. Merewicki? Yeah, this just relates to directing funds to retrofit.

Ms. Farmer? Yes. Ms. DiPietro? Yes. Mr. Kinnick? Yes. Ms. Anderson? Yes. Mayor Bobbitt?

Yes. We now move on to 11, adoption of ordinance.

Is there a motion for 11a? I move 11a, ordinance number 2519-26, an ordinance authorizing the acquisition of certain real property on Landover Road for open space purposes. I second. Yes.

little white schoolhouse across from the Lawrence neighborhood center that we approached the long time property owner with the vision of creating and making it a museum for everybody to enjoy. Currently, it's not been in use for years and years and years. And this is just 20 days from now, once it's published, we'll be able to start working through this process of investigating it to make sure it's what we think it is so we can report it.

Any questions or comments?

It will be a tremendous addition

Any comments or questions? Seeing none, can we start?

just two items um the league this year will be november 17th through the 19th so um they haven't they just started their early registration process

an election board workers recruitment day celebration on this 20th it's going to be nearly 5 p.m

Thanks.

And Mr. Sipek, just so you know, I'll tell you publicly and out there, I will be sending you an email so that we

board and zoning board, but there are probably others that I'm unfamiliar with that we need to keep hold of.

or negotiated with developers are either Rulic or ETS. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS WITH DEVELOPERS FOR BOTH PROPERTIES MOVING AHEAD WITHOUT REGARD TO WHAT'S TRANSFIRING HERE IN THESE MEETINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HOPE YOU'RE LISTENING, BUT WE DON'T FEEL THAT YOU ARE. I have heard that two contracts have been signed, one for Gullick, one for ATS, and developers are ready to bring him. Well, Ms. Kelly, you know the developers. Can you share?

I'm sorry? Could you share the developers that you have?

I don't want to be sued for interference with somebody's business. Okay. But, yes, it's not just I. It's people on Carter Road know this. They know that they're waiting with the troubles. that this is a done deal, and since March, you've been telling us it is not. And we feel, I feel, many people on Carter Road feel that this is a done deal. You're just giving us lip service.

Mr. Mayor. I would say, one moment, Mr. Williams. I would say some of the things that I've seen in public via email and other things have been completely misleading. And so that, I think, community who are saying things that aren't necessarily true talking about these two different properties that are for affordable housing that are in our fourth round agreement that somehow they're already they're already happening there's a certain number of units there's a certain number of parking spaces and things like that when there's no application before the planning board at this moment and so to say that there are shovels ready i don't know what the shovels are going to do if they don't have a plan for approval or billing?

These contractors are under the impression that it's a dumb deal.

Mr. Mayor.

And we...

I was just going to let Ms. Milley finish her time.

Once again, the keynote word for tonight is transparency. And we don't feel like it.

Well, I... Transparency, I feel that transparency for some in this room and elsewhere is hearing what we want to hear. Not necessarily listening with open ears and open mind and understanding what we have said. Because having served on the planning board this year, I feel like many of these conversations we've had consistently The entire of 2026.

When you talk to the contractor who says he's ready to move in.

This is a businessman.

He wouldn't be saying it. Mr. Nowitzki.

Yes. of a fundamental misunderstanding of land use law and the township's role in land development. And you're showing it right now by what you're saying. The township does not own this property. There is no development contract for the township to execute for the town to develop or the developer to develop on that land. there has been no land use application presented to the planning board or the zoning board and once that is done if it's done and once it's done the planning board will have the full scope of hearing whether or not the traffic is gonna be negatively impacted, the environment is gonna be negatively impacted, whether it's too dense for what they are proposing. All of those things are subject to a public hearing down the road in front of the planning board with open transparency to everyone. So I will tell you emphatically, the township has not executed any document whatsoever directly with the developer relating to them going with clouds and going onto the property. Our planner has said in open public, right there where you're standing, that we entered into a settlement agreement mediated by a superior court judge regarding this particular property. That's the explanation. It's a settlement agreement for it. It's not for shovels to go into ground. I don't know where you're getting that from, but that's not the case. But it does present a poor picture of everyone here, and I think that's your goal, and I'm offended by it.

I think you have a fundamental problem.

are saying they've got a deal. We're done. Thank you. Thank you.

So what I don't know is if there's a property that's been allowed to deteriorate with a rapid destruction or maybe needs to get fixed.

But then I keep hearing that there's a certain amount of units that are going to go onto this property. Is that number that's being thrown around, is that something that's being approved or That's what I'm just trying to understand.

First statement of the record.

Oh, I'm sorry, Vince.

Thank you, Mr. Evans. Yes, part of our foreground housing obligation, as the planner mentioned. Yeah, that was hard to hear. Not a problem, so I'll try to speak up as well. We had a certain obligation. We had taken what's called a baseline adjustment.

Right, so the township has an obligation.

development. And so when a property owner says, we'd love to help you with your affordable housing, that's when the settlement agreement comes in.

um and so okay so there is there is some plan yes okay okay okay there's there's no improved plan to build anything no no but there's the beginning of the settlement agreement in the superior court of new jersey indicating uh As the potential attorney, I review a lot of documents that I'm aware of. nothing has crossed my desk. And if anyone is out there indicating that there are contracts with some developer, and Mr. Witzke made the point, we don't own this land. I think that it's absolutely false.

Sure.

But there's a sort of determination made the possibility that this may go on.

I would say, Mr. Evans, if you go to the township website, go to the engineering page, and on there there's both the initial fourth round obligation sort of report that the plan provided, as well as the addendum that includes this, the Lawrenceville property, as well as BTS and a few others. Is this

Is that the amount that will fulfill

get a copy of the settlement agreement. I would like to see what the town agreed to.

The public record, yeah.

Is that a public record? Where is that located?

It's the contact and clerk's office. Contact and clerk.

from the clerk's office? You can get it from us, but I'm pretty sure it's on the website.

I think it is on the website. It's on the website. It's on the engineering page. There you go.

Engineering? Okay, I'll look. Thank you.

So Joyce Allington, I'd like to know, since I've asked questions before, but everything was told to me that it's theoretical and you can't really give me an answer. So once they do, these developers sign over or they decide that, yes, we are going to go forth, how long do we have before they start to do any type of, what is it, the land, the traffic, environmental studies. How long do we have before they'll do those studies? Because you told me before that you have to, you have to, you guys have to make the deal with the developer, right?

And then after that,

We don't control when they develop or they don't. We'll file an application. We'll do an environmental study.

We do that, don't we? I'm sorry? Doesn't the township do those studies? We have professionals on staff as part of the planning board process, right? And so they will review it.

But we don't control that. It's up to the applicant.

Once these things start to... You guys sign a deal with the developers?

No, there's no deal signed. So the application... There's an application made by a developer or property to the planning board. Once that's done, there's no time limit. Whatever time is required of the planning board members or the professionals to get through all of the scrutiny involved in that application, that's what happens. It could take a while. So there's no time limit. There's no necessity for the township to respond. It's just a matter pending before the Lawrence Township Planning.

We'll know about that. So that's what I want to add.

Don't put...

And everyone will know.

Everyone's invited.

It won't be theoretical when I ask these questions.

And that's why you can ask the questions. And I have a sneaking suspicion that this, it won't be just one of you. I just have a feeling about that. And this is for both sites. They'll be separate. They'll be separate kind of work here. For each site. It's a separate application.

So get ready.

First and third line.

18A through 18H4, and 18H6 through 18H8. Got a second? Second. Miss Carter?

Miss Carter. That's it.

I just want to say that I was listening very clearly to the comments that were made. these people, draining resources, building our neighborhood, schools, police departments, subsidized housing projects, municipal projects, not feeling safe jogging through my neighborhood because of the people. I take tremendous, tremendous It pains me to hear these words coming from residents in my community. I have lived here, like many of you that have spoken to me over 50 years. I'm a fourth generation Lawrence Township resident. I take great pride in my community. The beauty of all that is Lawrence Township. I believe that, like many of you know, we have a national crisis for affordable housing. And I believe strongly that my teachers, our firefighters, our police, our professionals, our young college students, like the gentleman, 20 years old, who is here today, from the Junior Historic Society, deserve a place to live here in Hawaii. They deserve also to have an opportunity to live in this working college. It pains me to lose a destroyed home like the Gord House. But I also realize 30 years have passed and no one did enough to save that house. And I'm hopeful that maybe going forward we can find a way so that we don't have a situation like to rent a historic home in our community becomes an opportunity. I would hope that more of us would be in a position to do more. Having served two years recently on the planning board, I am very much aware of our responsibility as a council of what we are required to do, legislatively by the state. We are mandated It is not that we get to pick and choose where affordable housing happens in Lawrence County. As a matter of fact, it's happening all over Lawrence County, not only in this particular community. So I'm very proud of the work that we have done as a planning board, as the council, and that we will continue to stand up for all the residents in Lawrence County.

Thank you so much, Ms. Farmer. That was what I think as the newest council member. It illustrates really well what all five of us are feeling and We are all listening, we're all hearing what everyone is saying, but I think there's a difference, as Chris has said, with hearing and agreeing. A lot of the things that were said tonight were offensive i would like as the newest member i really lean on our professionals and i think what was said about our planner was completely inappropriate um and i you know i wish i got to say before she left how awful that was to accuse her of something um with no basis in fact um and i appreciate all the

Just real quick. We have a crisis, a housing crisis, affordable or otherwise. People deserve a place to live. In your public neighborhoods, in the not so public neighborhoods, we all deserve a place to live. I fully support this for my generation, for generations to come. Don't want to say much else because I'm speaking with a lot of big emotions after what I heard this evening, but yes, everybody deserves a place to live in our community.

Thank you.

We listen. Sometimes you come downstairs and the room is cramped. Other times you come down, there might be three people. A decision has to be made that night. You aren't there to hear the decision. Tonight is an example of it. This room is loaded with people talking bad about a planner, about transparency. And you don't show up. And when you do show up and the decision has to be made, you decide to leave. And I don't like what was said about doing stuff, say, illegal. We don't. We can't. We have an attorney downstairs that we have to listen to. That has our planner. We have an engineer down there. And the board downstairs, you have some Members have been here for years and know what they're doing. And I stand by all of them for what they do. And I'm proud of the decisions that I make for down here. I can't make a decision because one group in this township feels it's wrong. You got to look at the whole township, the 33,000 residents that we And that's what I do out here.

Thank you. I'll end with, yeah, tonight, some of the words that we said were disgusting, offensive to me, showed a real lack of understanding about one's country. And someone who has friends in sort of all four corners of the diamond, I think we're going through the diamond, from North Lawrence to South Lawrence, from And it's also just how I get to know people. And so to hear things that are a mischaracterization of this township shows sort of how small that world view is of what Lawrence is and how it exists right now. And a fundamental misunderstanding of what we've all gone through various places in this township. When I moved into my home in Colonial Lakelands, I was the third owner of Little Cape Cod that's unfortunately not an acre. But I heard stories about how that was potato farms back in the day, back in the 50s. There are numerous occasions where progress has happened. And one of the things that we get in touch with is to try to how do we manage that change? How do we fulfill our legal obligation for the Mount Laurel Doctrine, which came from And so one of the things that's hard for people to understand without getting into the weeds is that some of the things that we're doing, it's not about a deal's construct. It's about changing our zoning to make it inclusionary to allow for the realistic development of affordable housing units. And no, Lawrence Township does not have the funds to build, say, the 10 affordable units you'd go out to the private sector to do that. The way they make, for the most part, the way they make the pencil out is they make 20% affordable, which if you actually look at the numbers, can be a six-figure income for a family of four in our neighborhood, in our region. For it to pencil out, they have to go with the average 80% market rate. And so to say that it's, you know, I've heard horrible things about people saying, do I need to build a fence next to my house because affordable housing is coming in? Well, quite honestly, if you look at what market rate is up in North Lawrence with a Princeton address, I don't think you're going to have to worry too much about those people, right? I don't think you will because those are going to be some damn nice houses. And so it's a funny thing to me when I'm sitting up here and I'm thinking about my legal obligations. I have professionals. I have colleagues. We all do the work in understanding this. And people are saying, you know what? ignore it ignore the mount laurel doctrine after 50 years after two settlements at the supreme court level ignored and you know and coming up with all kinds of things and just as a reminder i kind of tried to do a quick count of the seats in here about let's let's be kind and generous and say it's 100. there's 32 900 other people in this township that are just not as well and so that's one of Thank you. Yes, you don't have a vote.

But you have a voice. I know the code. I don't like it, but sometimes I feel like that. First, I thought you were going to say something about who's left at this meeting. I want to thank everybody who stayed to the end of this meeting. It says a lot about your character. The people that left, I'll let you decide what that means. And to the 20-year-old who gave a great presentation. probably have other things that he'd rather do. But he's here. But I wanted to just very briefly give a two-minute history of the pool accounts. Over 30 years, there has been many efforts to save this building. The primary reasons for it is we lack the legal mechanism to do it as a governing body. We don't own this property. We don't get to say as a township, fix that house. They're the property owner. We get to say it when somebody says we want to live in that house or we want to rent that house. That means occupant And that means inspections. And that means us saying no one is living at that house until this, this, and this is done. That's where our enforcement powers come into play. We don't have any authority to compel a property owner to fix a property if he doesn't want it fixed. That's just how it is. And all of us, I think, would agree we would love that house to be seen. And there has been offers over the 30 years. And the property owner has agreed to do it. If some organization were to step up, we actually had engineering, structural engineering study whether that house could be moved to another location from years ago. I think, I don't know, maybe 8 to 10 years ago.

I was married.

And it could have been done. And no one steps up. Whenever we, over 30 years, people come forward when these issues happen, not when it's silent out there. So I don't know what the status is right now, whether it could be moved. I mean, there's more deterioration. There was the planning board. deeply considered how to save that bullet house. And a lot of it had to do with the equations of if we save it, how much more density is going to happen if we decide to save it. And that's an equation that the planning board members had to deal with in reaching this conclusion. So All of us, I know, would love to see the house preserved, but it is not a historic house. And if it became a historic house, then we would have had the teeth to say, it's a historic house. You need to do something about it. Because we've seen other property owners with historic houses on Princeton Pike. Keep the care of their properties. It's got the plaque on it, and they're closely monitored to make sure it is able to be used So I just want everyone to know, the Gulick House was on our mind throughout this entire process. It's been on our mind. If someone stepped up or a foundation stepped up to do it, great. But it's, I think, just improper for municipal government and local taxpayers to fund the multi-million dollars it would take to improve or bring that house back to life for a property that we don't own. That doesn't make any sense or respect for local taxpayers. So that's what I wanted to put on there.

Anyone else? Ms. Farmer? Yes. Ms. Giglio?

Yes.

Mr. Konecki? Yes. Ms. Sanchez? Yes. Mayor Bob? Yes.

we didn't have any heat so that's why everyone's looking at each other um but i just wanted to thank you yeah no the summer there's no heat um i wanted to thank the recreation department and the recreation advisory committee for another successful fireworks event it was wonderful as always um and i also wanted to highlight a recreation program i think It's a program held for incoming kindergartners to learn about safety in a welcoming and fun environment. Campers learn valuable safety skills, including home and fire safety, call 911, and many other important lessons to help keep them safe every day. I think that it highlights the amazing work that our first responders, as well as our municipal employees, together to help educate our children. I want to take the time tonight to thank the Recreation Department, Miss Jen Skorupa, who runs the program, and the Lawrence Township Police Department, the Lawrence Township Fire Department, for giving campers tours of their stations. Thanks also to the Lawrence Township Health Department for their presentation on sun safety, hygiene, and animal safety. One of the best parts of this program is watching four more safety town kids come back and become volunteer counselors once they get to middle school. It's truly a wonderful example of the village that we're always talking about. And the last thing, National Night Out will be Tuesday, August 4th here at Town Hall from 5 to 8. Come out for a fun night and sign up for the Town Newsletter if you want to know what's happening. Thank you. You're so welcome.

were recognizing disability.

It's one of those interesting things to me about how George H.W. Bush really changed sort of my practices. I was able to attend the business and economic growth committee.

And we were not able to officially meet, but we were able to conduct an interview with a student who was interested in being on the committee. And I have to tell you, and the education and the community and our young people wanting to engage. So I just wanted to make note of that because I was quite impressed with the candidate and the others who were there. So I may steal a couple of them.

Wonderful. Anyone else? All right. Mayor. Yes, sir.

Fort Steele, 48 years in a row, they have come into Great Ridge Mall. And it's quite a sight. They could not ride in on their bicycles because of the huge storm. But everybody thinks it's just a home. nonprofit bicycle fundraising event in the United States. And it's right here in Los Angeles. Thank you.