Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Ah, no mute. [Music] I believe so. Okay. In accordance with the open public meeting act, please note the following. All burn planning board meetings will be held in B for the Burnersville municipal building road. In accordance to the open public meetings act the following. All Bernardville Burough planning board meetings will be held in person in the meeting hall on second floor of the Bernardville Municipal Building at 166 Mine Brook Road. Meetings will be live streamed on YouTube with no opportunity for public comment. Members of the public wishing to offer comments or ask questions will be required to attend meetings in person. The YouTube live stream access for all meetings is YouTube at Bernville Burough live streams. This link will also be available on the agenda for each meeting which is posted on the burrow website burnville bureau.org and on the burough hall public bulletin board at least 48 hours prior to the meetings. Notice of these changes have also been emailed to the Bernardville news and the current news by posting a copy on the burough website and by filing a copy with the municipal protocol on January 23rd bill 5. It is the intention of the board not to continue any matter past 11 p.m. in any regular or special meeting of the board unless motion is passed by a members to extending related specified

comment time and same shall be in the opening of each meeting. In addition, the board does not intend to begin a new hearing after 10 p.m. There will be a testimony of a new witness after 10:30 p.m. Any hearing conducted by the board is a quietly judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision. The quorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained with all miss here. Mr. Mson here. Mr. Sto is absent. Mr. Boff is absent. Mr. Walden here and Mr. in our department. Excuse me. May I say something before we start? Okay. It just I I want to request that all of the board members respond on Tuesday whether or not they are attending so that we know ahead of time if they have Yeah, it's time to consider board members not respond immediately to any request. They should be monitoring your emails regardless since you're on vacation and they should be responding. That's rude but not respond. It's important. Anything on the map? Anyone get back to you with all the needs? No, we do not hear back from anyone. Mr. Karen,

I'll take a motion to accept the minutes. Second. All in favor? Any opposed? People that are eligible. Well, wait, hold on a second. Exactly. Make a motion for the first minute. for the first meeting is not maybe you can let the board members know who's eligible to vote on Geller Graham Walden are eligible for the first minute start again motion we can move thank you and second I'll second all in favor any oppos everyone is eligible Thanks. Make a motion. I'll second. Any opposed? I know communications. Um I'm are Erin, are you here for anything unrelated to the agenda? Uh, no resolutions. Um, we have a a bill small bill amount. Make a motion for that. Motion to approve the bill living services. I don't have any local. Yes. Miss Geller, yes. Mr. Gra, yes. Mr. Morrison, yes. Mr. Walden, yes. And Mr.

Zin, yes. Motion carries. Okay. So, this is now the main event and uh which is a public hearing proposed fair share plan and um Steve wanted to provide some opening remarks. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to put things into context from a legal perspective, uh the uh the this is the adoption of the housing element fair share of the master plan. As you know, as I would say, we as the planning board of the gatekeepers of the master plan and the housing element and fair share plan is held thereof. Hence, it is our board that adopts the housing element fair share plan with the ML procedures, Mr. the law entry procedures which require of course as well they should in my opinion a public hearing notice an opportunity to be heard and then ultimately a vote on the adoption. Uh I did have an opportunity uh to review the content of the notice and it was submission. who was kindly served and published uh uh published more than 10 days in advance of this evening and served on the office of public advocacy and the sun county planning board uh as well as adjoining clerks um also 10 days prior to this evening. I think the publishing date actually is June 12th so a little more than 10 days. Uh so the board has jurisdiction to conduct the public hearing and adopt the house and al fair share dependent the conclusion thereof and I would just mention that as the board knows. Uh the um this particular element relates in large part to our fourth round as a burrow unlike most other municipalities in the state of New Jersey. Not all are qualified urban aid obviously do not

have this obligation but most do uh we are obligated uh through the Mount Laurel doctrine and the constitution to satisfy our constitutional obligation uh to provide for our fair share of affordable housing for the fourth round. The fourth round being July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2035. So not only is our planning board involved in the adoption of this housing share plan, but the obligation is a burough obligation. So that through the burough council uh the bur council is responsible for satisfying that obligation. The amended fair housing act provides a litigation related process. uh who affordable housing dispute resolution program of former notal judges uh and then current notal judges for the final orders uh and uh it is anticipated uh that assuming that the board adopts the housing fair share plan this evening that the governing body will soon thereafter endorse the adoption of the housing fair share plan which is also part of this statuto process and the process set for the administrative the boards directed number 14 um for those counting the they um so uh so there the governing body is involved in the process as well it is pending litigation in essence um but of course this hearing is a public hearing uh so uh hopefully that gives everybody an idea I suspect Miss Cardwell our planner will tackle affordable housing will explain some more of the legalities and the process including the June 30 deadline and what be alternatives are if this board and the bureau would not meet that 3:30 deadline but I don't want to steal all I apologize if I stole some array so with

your permission Mr. Chairman, I'll swear in Morgan before I end the presentation. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Please proceed with the presentation and feel free to share your qualifications with the board and members of the public. if so desire. Jessica Cwell for the record burough planner. I prepared with my office the housing element and fair share plan before you tonight for a public hearing. Um as Steve noted, I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I'm certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners, which is a national planning certification. I've been practicing as a planner for over 25 years and developed a specialty in affordable housing compliance. I've worked through the round three process uh through superior court to certify over a dozen municipalities and now in this fourth round process I'm working with 20 municipalities. I've been um accepted as an expert in affordable housing in Superior Court as well as before uh numerous boards. So hopefully that gives people a sense of my background if you don't know me already. I know some of you do. I did prepare a PowerPoint presentation for ease of um presentation tonight and I'll go through that and then I'll be able to answer any questions that the board or the public have about the um plan itself. We are here tonight because of an amendment to the Fair Housing Act that occurred in in March of last year uh that set forth deadlines for compliance and also set up the dispute resolution program through superior

court. So the bureau has now submitted to superior court uh accepted its obligation and now in order to um save up uh susceptibility to builder's remedy lawsuits, we need to within 48 hours of adoption or by June 30th submit an adopted housing element and fair share plan to the dispute resolution program for review. So that's um essentially why we're here tonight. also to have the public hearing uh does the housing element as as Steve said does get adopted uh as an element of your master plan which is why it's before you as the planning board and then it's a unique document in that as you know most master plan documents the planning board adopts it and that that's the end of the story um but because of the need to fund and implement the fair share plan there's also an obligation by the burough council to endorse the plan. So that that is also uh something that the burough council is planning to do as well. So I will share the screen and and if I may ch while you're doing that the the uh the to the extent the PowerPoint may have one or more documents that are not in the plan as as it exists. I'm anticipating I candidly haven't seen it yet, but uh um maybe we should just mark it. It's not really the board exhibit. I don't know. But we'll we'll call it B1 if that's okay with the board and then it would be available after this evening. Sure. And I did send a copy to Miss Lardis. So it the board does have a copy of it. So if you want to I can also send it as a PDF if that's issue. She have the actual PowerPoint

presentation. Yeah. Or and that's fine. It's not obviously exact as but it does contain the information on it. So oops it's not one question. Is there any particular reason and maybe the standard you type none of this was shared with the planning board and in advance? No discussion. No, nothing was shared. No meetings with the plan board in advance of this in the first word. Oh, you mean doing this? Right. Yes. Um, unfortunately because of the short time frame. Yeah. There just wasn't didn't seek to gather any guidance or information as we came up with these either for properties possible properties andor concerns. I'm sorry. I I don't the organiz you as planner did not seek to discuss any of the potential opportunities for creation of this plan with the planning right so he was hired by the burough council I mean your research you didn't feel necessary to consult with any I I would under our normal circumstances we would have. Unfortunately, there just wasn't time available to do that. My explanations was silent. Um, pretty much when it was published and given to the board and it was we just got it on Tuesday. So, I'm asking you don't know what date you sub if I may, Mr. Chairman. Uh the uh it was uh noticed and avail publicly available certainly available for planning boards uh

available to any and everyone want to look at it um as of at least as far as I know from me noticing and following up on it June 12th. So that would have been days ago. My question was just for the record some things. That's I was asked to be because when I read it not because of notice when did you complete this when it was completed was when I gave it to to maybe I know it's dated June 26 wasn't completed on June 26. It was completed 12 or so days ago I think or 14 weeks ago. I gave it to so first they saw the property they selected and this report and they knew anything about what went into it was 12 days ago literally yes not us not the planning board. My understanding is the governing body gives direction to properties that the town control meaning ownership of or wasn't where it's always it just can't happen again this I know it's 10 years from now but can't do that if I may I know it doesn't change anything don't anticipate it would but just so everybody fully understand and I appreciate the input from everyone they the the um as I mentioned earlier the burough council has the obligation to ensure satisfaction I have to repeat the word of the obligation the constitutional obligation you don't work brown uh postspective need and and and present need uh doesn't preclude the involvement of

subcommittees planning boards I'm not suggest or me members or such I'm not suggesting business such um but also the way the process unfolded because I've experienced this in multiple municipalities uh the way this process unfolded this time and if anyone wants to blame the legislature you might not be wrong in my opinion in doing so the statute was amended uh very compressed time frames were established some have called them draconian ridiculous what have you say compressed Uh and uh in fact I'm aware of in one municipality at least they were forced to adopt their housing element fair share family planning board uh satisfying their obligation before the court order was entered establishing what their obligation was. Uh so it was a very very compressed time frame. uh many orders weren't entered until May or June. Uh also part of the process and I'm just telling you my own experience as I serve as affordable housing council elsewhere. Part of the process is such that they required to consider any uh if if property owners or prospective developers who make inquiries to the to the municipality. Uh I had one circumstance where the day night before the hearing uh in another municipality a property owner made an inquiry for the first time. We had to adjourn the hearing so that it could be considered and a determination made whether they would be included in the plan or not explained why they were included or why they were excluded. So the simple point being and I apologize for going on long is there are a lot of factors a comp confluence of factors that made it

particularly difficult excuse me difficult in my experience having done this for a while uh or there to be the type of involvement over a long period of time uh of multiple stakeholders and interested parties that might otherwise have occurred and certainly most if not all would have wanted to occur. It was a to a large extent municipalities were a victim of a statute that of which there were no exceptions deadlines all of which had draconian penalties i.e these automatic builders remedying losses, loss of immunity from their prom. Uh so in fairness to everyone when you're working under those circumstances, uh expecting it to come out and have the type of involvement over a long period of time that everyone would like. unfortunately not realistic as should have happened and I definitely disagree that that's fine but there was no insurance the they the the the uh that's the legislation and that's the process not to say that more could have been done I'm sure more could have been done perhaps but we're here now but we're here now here so there's no sense in us arguing with each other that would be just count the background just explain circumstances of the legislation and how this process took place. Uh but anyway back to what you think should be the plan. Thank you. I certainly appreciate your comments and and going forward we'll definitely make make the effort. I

anticipate you here. What's up? I said I'm going to anticipate you will hear some. Yes. All right. So the housing element is the element of the master plan. It's essentially has required elements for municipal land use law and the fair housing act including the community overview relationship to other plans. We always have a a background in history of the municipality and compliance with affordable housing. And then we include demographics about employment, uh housing characteristics, an inventory of housing stock, and then an overview of where housing can be built, uh zoning within the municipality, and that essentially makes up what the housing element is. The fair share plan itself is is the plan for the bureau to comply with the affordable housing obligations and it we always go back to the beginning uh from the 1987 to 1999 prior round which is the first and second rounds combined. Um we talk about the third round from 1999 until now June 2025 and then the fourth round starting July 1st 2025 to 2035 uh going forward. Uh and then so part of that will include uh status of the existing units. We try to go back and and review especially the third round to see what was built, what wasn't built. uh are all the mechanisms in that round still viable and or were there things that were done that maybe weren't even in the plan um prior and in this case there there were some changes to the third round plan and then we talk about uh fourth round mechanisms so the prior round as I said it's the

first and second round 1987 to 1999 the burough's obligation was 127 units you had prior cycle credits uh nine credits for that. We did re regional contribution agreements which are no longer permitted but at the time it was essentially the bureau sending money a certain amount of money per unit to urban aid municipalities that had a need to rehabilitate existing low and moderate income units. So there is money sent to New Brunswick as a regional contribution agreement for 41 credits and money sent to Perth Amboy as a regional contribution agreement for 36 credits. There are also two uh affordable housing projects of Pineriidge condo units which is 26 units and Rolling Hills at Burnsville which is 15 uh credits for a total of 127 credits. They met the prior round. So third round also included a present need or rehabilitation obligation. Uh that was met through the municipal home improvement program as well as particip participation in the Somerset County Rehabilitation Program. The fair share plan for the third round 1999 through this month, end of this month, uh was for 215 units for prospective need or that's a new construction obligation. So there was a Habitat for Humanity project that generated uh four credits. There was a group home at the Conti site which was four credits plus four credits of um bonus credits for eight total credits. There was a North Finley Avenue 100% affordable condo project for two

two units and 210 North Finley 100% affordable age restricted units for 46 credits. And then what we referred to as a scattered site 100% affordable project uh which morphed a little bit during the third round. Uh some sites were taken out and someone put them in put in and actually the total number of credits increased. It's 108 credits. We have a project on Lineberg Road for 25 credits, a project on Mount Ary for 12 credits, and 63 Bernard's Avenue uh for 22 credits for a total of 49 bonus credits to come up to that 108. We also had a pull together something they were going after at the RPM group, you know. Yes, that's that's Did they get their funding? Did they get their funding? The funding. Yeah, we we expedited the the so they could get the funding. That's one of them. Thank you. Yes. Uh Quinnby Lane redevelopment inclusionary zone was one of them uh projects. It's uh the redevelopment plan is in place. It's for 13 credits. And then we have a Corey site uh inclusionary zone which is affordable housing AH8 zone that provided for 28 credits towards the third round and then we're carrying 23 credits over to the fourth round. We also did extensions of expiring controls during the third round and that's at the Pine Ridge condos and the rolling hills. those were built essentially 30 years ago. So as those uh deed restrictions expire, the bureau has the ability to extend those deed

restrictions. So we are uh in the process of doing that also for the fourth round. But in the third round, six six units were extended and so they have to expire within the round that the extensions apply to. Uh so those ones were expiring during the third round. They were able to be extended and then we as you'll see we have several in the fourth round that we're also working on. So that's a total of 215 credits. So the good news is you met the third round and going forward into the fourth round. We no longer have a rehabilitation or present need obligation. So that was set at zero units. That's good news. that means that you don't have substandard units in town that need to be brought up to code uh at least according to census data. Uh so the perspective need obligation that was set by the DCA and that the bureau agreed to was 113 units. So as I mentioned we have the quarry site inclusionary zone where we carried over some credits. We have 31 credits there. We have a an inclusionary zone proposed at um 65 Claremont Road for six credits. We have a redevelopment area which is referred to as Claris redevelopment area for 26 credits. And then we have the I2 industrial overlay zone which is 37 credits. And then with the extension of expiring controls, we're proposing 13 credits. We have up to 35 available. So, the bureau is going to be working on those. One issue that happened is the Fair Housing Act was amended and the cost per unit went up. It was $10,000 per unit that the municipality was obligated to pay the homeowners. Now, it's 20,000. So, that is a higher number. So, um you know,

we're putting in 13. If if we have the availability and the money to do more and homeowners agree, we will complete as many as possible. So the max number though in that chart was 35. The max is 35 that we have available to extend. If the town believes they can find 13, correct? But if they found additional money, if we find additional funds, then we'll extend it up to 35 and then that could then adjust the other development sites. Absolutely. And then if something doesn't develop or whatnot, it also fills in. Yeah. Just wanted to make sure that was clear. Yep. Thank you. So, just to drill down a little further into each site, we have the quarry site inclusionary zone. It was part of the round three plan. It includes 31 properties. It is a durationally adjusted zone and will remain so because it is outside of the sewer service area. It is zoned for up to 51 affordable units and we proposed eight redevelopment bonus credits for the fourth round since some of those sites uh would be redeveloped 65 on the course the panhandle that's there is that I'm sorry topologically developable on the course side you see the lower the leg going down there the panhandle portion yeah is that it's part of the lot, part of the zone. It doesn't necessarily mean it will be developed. It could be open space. Yeah, absolutely. Does it take I mean again I know some of that area is bloodway where Rose Bowl is we haven't done any studies to determine I mean it may come up as part of our

compliance you know we'll have to do some drill down a little bit more into the zone and developability and it is a durationally just zone that was in our third round And so we'd like to carry it forward and keep it as an inclusionary zone if if we can. If I may question related to that, it was accepted and part of our compliance and we pose in their settlement third round. Yes, it was reasonable to assume that the court founded such level and the third and the fourth one that the uh that the court would continue to do so. We so yes I mean there's there's some compliance mechanisms they the board uh directive asks for layouts and and you know more compliance as we go forward. This isn't, you know, we kind of wish we submit in June 30th and we were all done, but there is a time period of review. uh by August 31st uh anyone can challenge our plan and then between August 31st and March 15th of next year we'll be reviewed at least by uh the program and we have to submit compliance documents and and to a certain extent we may need to address developability of of prior round zones and so this this would depend ICS draft versions of implementation ordinances because that's also that broadly required in the amended fair housing man. Correct. Correct. And and the reason that it's only draft is because one needs to have a final housing element fair share plan ultimately determine whether it's challenged or not. by the board

in order to then go to the step taking those draft implementation ordinances maybe filling in some more detail and then actually adopt them correct yes we need we need some 26 outside date for statute right that's that's the date for the statute and uh I guess there there was some board findings recently that that was that was the date not not by June 30th for adopt the importance and if any project comes forth out of either these inclusionary zones or any of these inclusionary projects. Uh there would be public participation in the actual docking of the zoning ordinances or any redevelopment ordinances because they would be there would be public hearings associated with the governing body. Correct. Yeah, there are public hearings associated with the governing body and they're all referred to the planning board for review and consistency for the premaster plan. So at the very least would be here for that and if they proceeded after the ordinances with actual projects they would more than likely be before this board or site plan application. Correct. Yes. If they proceed with projects but at the very at the very least we're proposing zoning. Right. This is the beginning so to speak the planning and the uh provision of the realistic opportunity for the development to occur. Would that be accurate? Yes. This is really the beginning of the beginning. I think so many times. It seems like we're It seems like we're far along, but I I'm just judging from how the third round was, this won't be the last time we were only so much detail and minutia to get into at this stage is the point. Correct. So, Jessica, just I just want to affirm that in this site we have 51

potentials. Yes, that's that's the 20% set aside that in U51. So it's it's presuming over 250 units, 20% of which are affordable. No, that's it's currently this is an existing zone that we're just carrying forward. We haven't proposed Yeah, we haven't proposed changes to this zone. Um but that may occur as as we go forward and we'll see. 65 Claremont is an interary zone as proposed not currently zoned. It includes four properties. It's just under an acre. Um the proposal is for up to 28 u multifamily apartments with six affordable units. Claris redevelopment area is not an redevelopment area as of yet. A lot of burough council is proposing to review it and designate it as a area needed redevelopment. It includes four lots with one portion of a municipally owned parking lot and the proposal for that is up to 94 market rate units with 18 affordable units. that would be designated as senior units. That's the total acres of that property. [Music] I would have to go out of my Yeah, I didn't see it here. Yeah, I'll circle back to that. No, that was before. And you said that was age restricted. So, parents with that age school age

children, right? Right. So that's that's part of the the plan. The market rate units would be one and two bedroom and then the seniors units would be one bedroom. That's and only because we just we just found out they did you behind the scenes whatever you handle the lead restriction that's on block 22 um that it can't be used for housing. No. Okay. up the circle back. Just take that back at steer shifting. So, okay. Above everything portion north north of the parking area. Okay. Depending on how they design I mean we just have the concepts at this point. It's nothing's set. So I mean going forward we can do that. So we're working with concepts and if we get to the point but we need to meet this obligation and we can't do it. Can we just we would need to find other senates. Yeah. Which is not utilizing the 35. Yes. Wouldn't they came fruition according to his plan? Yes. So that is a a little bit of a pigeon, but um we could find biking maybe necessary. Who knows? Um but there is at least some extras in there and that's we didn't want to rely totally on that because then we would have to guarantee that amount of funding which is pretty hard. So but the option is still there. It is. Yeah. So if there was something that

came up where this one wasn't feasible, we'd either find another one, rely on some of the extensions, maybe a combination of both, similar to many municipalities. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. So we do our best right now to identify what we think is realistic opportunities at this point. The point is I'm just concurring here. The point is we weren't obligated to like in a jury. We didn't have that assurance submit it. You know, like even review other other ideas, things that could possibly be used, but it's not like we had to give them the assurance, but we'll hit our number because this is what we're planning on. Oh, and we have two alternates. So, it's not part of that process. Although you might find that something and then we're going to have to come back and I like that you were Yeah, I would hope that I thought I heard kind of like well there there are some other things but we didn't want to formalize them in the plan because that's that would be improved you know but there are other and sometimes potentials things group homes or you know small 100% affordable projects that come up as opportunities. We don't necessarily put those in the plan because you also anything you put in the plan you have to show that you can fund it right away that you can build it within two years all those kinds of things. But you know if if say group home opportunity came up and it was built it would count as units and you know it could take the place of something else. We have the I2 industrial overlay zone. This would be proposed as an overlay not

to um supersede the zoning because we know there our business was on the site. However, if the uh property owners or someone they sold it to decided to develop multifamily and we have up to 125 units proposed with 25 affordable units on the site. So just again summary of the plan um zero units of rehabilitation need respective need is 113 that's met through the pore site carryover credits uh 65 clammont inclusionary zone the claris redevelopment area I2 overlay zone and the extension of expiring controls and let me Just sharing. So the question currently in the downtown area for the uh climate road collection the the current zoning it's that is 35 per acre Right. I I know you're I'm just affirming that. Okay. This this

less in this area. Um because there we're proposing 32 32 with a set aside 20% set aside. No, I just I know it'll be in potentially redevelopment or whatever need of redevelopment, whatever. I just wanted to make sure it was at least how it related to our existing zone. Right. So, it it's it's roughly similar to existing zoning except I believe they would be looking for a higher height. Um because of the sort of narrow size um they would have to have parking under. Uh again, we've just heard Hans's conceptual we're not there yet, but we're not there yet. Right. No, don't there. Good. We're going to do we're not into complicated but just on the surface. It's very similar to existing. We adjusted the downtown zones to lease core or whatever to allow for 35. So I think just a presentation what's expected of us now. What have you been deleted? Because I do have two quick questions for you, but once the uh done with the presentation, we have members of the public swear public and question, but I'll swear everybody in so you can ask questions, comments as much as you like. Uh and then we will address those and then board members uh uh assuming the board members have any questions or no further questions. Uh if we have a resolution that was distributed by which if you adopt it you would be uh adopting and have chair. All right. I just want to put the share out there. Okay.

If I may chair just real quick. What's that? I just wanted to know you know the order the one we lined up in the wrong order. No, no, we would never allow the the the uh the um M corwell in your professional opinion uh as a professional planner just the state of New Jersey particular city portal housing uh does the housing element fair share plan as proposed guide the use of land in the bureau in a manner to protect public health and safety and promotes the general welfare? Yes, it does. Theory think the um and in your professional opinion uh is the housing only fair share plan designed to achieve access to affordable housing to meet the town's fourth round constitutional affordable housing obligation and consider and does it consider the land excuse me and does it consider the land most appropriate for the construction of low and moderate income housing? Yes, it does. questions that are derived from the Mlanders Bond Fair Housing Act. Um, and just for confirmation, if the board were not to adopt the housing on the fair share plan this evening, uh, or by June 30th of 2025, it's going to be amended fair housing act. Am I correct that the MP will lose its immunity from builders gravity draws and be subject in essence to losing municipal power to zone in in this burrow for those and seeing to a large degree of developments with respect to height of anything like yes if we didn't adopt this so we can lose our in fact by statute it would be inact correct Yes, the um I have nothing

further. Mr. Chad, I only had one circle back question which is Lexi of the Claris property. It's about an acre and a half. So, it's an acre and a half. And how many units are here? So, in the plan we have uh 94. Really? That's it. Really? Yes. How did that get through? I'm sorry. How did that get through? What is your justification? What is the plan? What did you how did you feel that that's an appropriate number of event identity and that's all? Uh we have a a concept and a proposal from the developer that wanted to be included in the plan. Um the council reviewed it and it's still in negotiation with the developer. So this is a conceptual proposal at this time. We haven't thoroughly reviewed it, but we're including it as a conceptual proposal for Did you just pull that? You want to see that? That one. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just going to see. Well, it's not a plan. I'm supposeding it to be a redevelopment plan and and area need of redevelopment and a redevelopment plan. So it's

knock the master planes the plans and the zoning just zoom in on it. I think you have the size of the beach lot. I think if you add that up over two weeks say it sounds very low to me. But I'll do the math. Okay. I was looking but you're right. Yeah. Yeah. It's about 2. It's 2.5. Yeah. My apologies. I was looking at their engineering requirement. It's amazing. [Music] Yeah. That that would bring it into the mid30s at my calculator. It's like 35 maybe. It's not. Yeah. But I think it's restricted for parking. Not necessarily. those drugs recreation. Yeah, but it's it's a 2 and 12 acre lot, so it's probably like 35 million to get the as I said, they're coming up with conceptual plans. They may only use that. Yeah, it's like 30 40 instead of two and a half. Yeah, it's like 34. Yeah, I got 37 there. [Music] All right. Okay. And this one had senior in it. I'm just trying to look at the Yeah, the lining on it, right? I mean they're they're senior and as you've

testified they're represented they're lower number of bedrooms bedroom they're market rate units are the the market I mean they're market rate nonrestricted for the 94 but those are proposed to be one and two bedrooms and then the affordables would all be one bedroom so senior senior I'm just trying Uh yeah trying to anticipate the numbers. Okay. Thank you for clarification. Any immediate questions from the board? I have I just have an administrative comment. You corrected your um your report for Mount Arlington, but you left Vernon Township in the 3.2. What? 3.2. two were not non actual report in the report um they updated we had one that chairman Graham saw that you referred to us as Mount Arlington you refer to us as Vernon Township okay yeah any more typos please what all municipalities are doing all municipalities all Mosul not all municipalities are doing is uh capturing that are taught and the adopted resolution essentially provides that if there are any of the typos that are ultimately what is adopted what is filed is a updated version cleaning up any type error I like that one the uh the uh and not substant [Music]

So we also had just to for the record under the Claremont development area and Claris you clarified that it was 94 market um non senior and 18 senior and then on 32 it was up to 35 total extensions that was also that I think yeah that's is a little higher. No. So what you said was I think 90 94 total units period right with a 20% set aside which are the ages or 18 which is the okay right that's that's different than 94 market rate plus right that's all right correct this way so how many markets would this set up for it. Uh I don't have the total number out of that. It is but if I may for clarification by that question are you asking for example if you took the 113 total credit obligation and assumed a presumptive set aside they were all mark inclusionary project uh and we're to say for sale uh 20% set aside that maybe 15% rental but uh you know I guess the easy way to do is multiply five by 113 and he could have been looking at a plan that provided for 565. I did that with our account there. Well, get credits to it's roughly 500 total where you're going. Yeah. I mean, the fact of the matter is

this lowers the number of years market. So, 400 roughly. Yeah. We 28 bonuses and then 13 extensions and then the rest are from inclusionary. So, So, it's about 75. Any questions? Okay. So, what I'll get members of the public and I'll swear you in so that you have the ability to ask questions and make comments comments if it's a public hearing. Somebody's got to go first and then somebody's got to go last. I think Please raise your right hand. You swear to God testimony about the goodness of truth, the whole truth and the truth. Thank you. Please give me your name and address. L E Y L A L D. Thank you. Yeah, I'm interested in the Claris one. So, just a few questions around that. Why the name Claris? Where did that come from? I think you kind of answered it earlier already there. Yeah, that was their their name for it. Yeah. Yeah. There's a Clarison. Yes. So, who came up with the numbers of was it you or the department? uh was sort of a it wasn't me personally, but it was a combination of negotiation with the council. Absolutely. The council was involved in that stuff. Absolutely. How many levels would that be? We don't know. Yeah, that doesn't

necessarily change this plan. I'm not an ideal set. So that we're going to be just gross down below. It's not the detail. So, you're just so we're all on the same page. Should they come later on and we start getting to that level and 94 doesn't work, then 94 doesn't work. Then we're going to have to review the whole plan again, right? But the expectation is that 94 should work. Will it work? Couldn't tell. Yeah. the and if it helps I apologize if we're overran but we all try to help the the the there are these steps the next step would be the ordinances themselves and then potentially an actual site plan application where all those you'd have more than a a plan and more than a concept you'd have a site plan and all these details would have to be addressed if and when I get those steps I think this type of scenario is So what's the normal ratio of affordable to market rates? It's a 20% set aside for pretty much all the developments. So So multiplier of five essential. Well, fairness maximum. It's not there's not a maximum per se, but it's about as good as you're going to get in most cases. So it's the Brit says that we may be able to get more through negotiations with developers but 20%. Yeah. Those are getting more like any negotiation. There's a reason that's again more. Um do you have an idea on where the entrances will be? Would that be on Lawrence Town Church Street? No, not yet. I drive down church street every day and sometimes I take a

different way because it's very difficult to turn that as it is sometimes to turn that in. Thank you. Thank you so much. You've been through this before. You swear to God the testimony about the truth. Questions and comments please. I'm gonna try to be organized about anticip I want to echo the uh the comments um made by the chairman and uh board member Deler. Um I read a local paper. I don't see a reported model but I read a lot follow local government not just in Burnville but also surrounding Summers Hills towns and I've been reading for months March April May how they were planning on meeting their round for affordable housing requirements constitutional requirements hey we had this developer come propose this and we have you know this idea for this development all open public meetings with their planner there soliciting feedback from the public, getting feedback from the public, saying, "Hey, planner, do you think that's something we could look at to improve this?" And in certain cases, they were um you know, looked at what the public had to say about these different ideas, these different compliance mechanisms, and put them in place. Improve their improve their plan.

Didn't make everybody happy. Never can, but you know, um did what they could. not a vertical. Um, apparently, uh, there have been multiple meetings of the council, not public meetings, I've been watching them, uh, where these different options for compliance mechanisms um, were discussed. Uh, maybe developers were present, maybe they just sent along their proxies or their um, emails ahead of time, whatever it may be. Um, our plan was present and who was public wasn't uh you can tell how I feel by that. I It's ironic. I I you know I also read that we're spending what thousands of dollars on on uh text surveys so we can show how responsive we are to community sentiment. But when it comes to the meaningful, impactful decisions that will shape the future of our burrow for the next 10 years and really well beyond that, the public and the planning board is absolutely intentionally, purposefully, and 100% absolutely excluded from those discussions. um not develop developers very much included the the property owners politically favored property owners very much included not and not just that here we are we're four days away from when this has to be adopted or else the the builder's remedy bogeyman's going to get right that's that's the pitch so it not only presented with the least possible involvement from the public road, but

also at such a time in such a place where the opportunity for meaningful improvement input to possibly potentially incrementally change what seems to be the B pre-ordained course of action on affordable housing round at this point, right? So I mean I mean first of all check on on on what was on what was available. I went and Denise was kind enough to uh to make available the um the report uh that was written. Uh and I reviewed it. It's it seems to me like that's changed between the 10day not period and and tonight. I I'd like to figure out first of all the report says nothing about a redevelopment area at Mr. Galla Properties on Claremont Road. Is that intended to be a Does the council intend on designating Mr. gallon properties an area in need of redevelopment. We're soon for the local redevelopment now. That is a that's a stage we're not at yet for this for this project. Okay. And the you know and I understand your comment was Paul because your associate appeared on Monday at the council meeting gave a short presentation about the plan and within that presentation my recollection was that she said that's going to be an area in need of redevelopment designation. So I just would you know cur what is what is the plan? Is the plan what is written here

or the plan what your associate stated uh at a public meeting on Monday? So what the plan is is that that is an parcel that is going to be designated has a prospective spot for the town to solve its affordable housing. I'm answering your question. Based on what based on your knowledge, I want a redevelopment attorney that knows how to actual question. Aaron, can you just let me speak? Sure. Okay. All right. So, how that property gets developed is not before this board tonight, right? Whether it is through an overlay zone, whether it is through a variance, whether it is through a redevelopment plan or an area need redevelopment is not the discussion for tonight. So you may have found an error or something that you think is a golden nugget that will tear this whole thing apart, but I'm telling you not what we're talking about tonight. Thank you for that. The Claris redevelopment area says and sends one of the barrier, the bureau will seek to designate the area shown below as an area in need of redevelopment. So clearly with respect to that property, there is an intention present intention expressed in your report by the bureau to designate that area as an area in need red. Is that correct? That's correct. No such intent as far as this report reflects is reflected from Mr. G's thought from the time. That's correct. I think as Mr. Demarco said, that's all. Thank you. is this a public hearing on the adoption of the housing and fair care plan or grandstanding for political purposes and it's not and you don't want the planet to answer your question and you're cross-examining her as if it were a litigation uh because you are a lawyer I believe you I don't know I think you told me you don't practice law anywhere

you don't or you're not with a firmer working right now but the the uh but frankly uh uh there is a process and procedure and there's a purpose for this hearing and respectfully you're changing it to something else and and you shouldn't be you shouldn't be cut down in my so please after the questions that you have that are pertinent to this public hearing make the comments that you have that are pertinent to this public hearing for this board at this time thank you can you tell me how the uh 65 Fair Clare Mile Road inclusionary zoning um zone first paints your attention as a potential for the verit um obligation the property I refer to as being when was that I don't recall exactly when I was roughly after not I don't really call I don't want mistake. So, uh, this property is located directly to the west of the military condominium. Is that correct? Yes. 23 units there. Yes. Uh, slightly up the street from the proposed Essex um apartment. um the units that were approved by the planning board last year. Okay. Uh it's it's also directly across the street north um from the main redevelopment area. Is that correct? 86 units there.

Yeah, this development um did you take into account how the extension for development of these properties might impact uh such things as traffic entrance egress from Columbia link? We have not gotten that far with this yet. Okay. Um I bet in the Quy Lane overlay there is no Quimby Lane Street intersection anymore. Correct. In the overlay the prop the proposed sorry the the the proposal for the entire Quimby Lane area I believe the Quimby Lane and Mil Street intersection was eliminated. We have a project for Quinny right now. So it's hard to say conceptual room that intersection there's no presence proposal there right now in your mind it's still present that's what I can still for redevelopment it's redevelopment but there's certainly and and the crim redevelopment right now maybe it's going to be changing but right now it is yes the plan is is like zoning so if there was a conceptual plan for that that underwride how the zone was developed. It it could be it could be a different there's no plan currently. There's no so so there's no development. This is not adherent on the lane redevelopment. Continue with your question. Yeah. Quarant lane. You know what? I understand you, but I don't go down a path of

uh going back to the um the earlier um housing element section of your report. Um you mentioned that uh the housing fair share plan needs to take into account um certain other regional master planning um guidance. Is that correct? Yes. Including the highland protection planning council's master plan regional master plan. Yes. Uh are you aware or is it your understanding that the Highlands Regional Mal plan prohibits construction within 300 ft of open water? Not necessarily. Prohibits construction on steep slopes of 20% or above. The areas that we're proposing development are primarily existing develop. So they're picking differently than I would say St. H's resources that are undeveloped. Thank you. We'll look at um section 3.4 four on the report for Jack's got table 14 in there from the U Department of Community Affairs. uh housing in certified from 2020 2024.

Is that correct? 2004, excuse me. Uh it says on the bond 2000, but you're right that you're right. The the chart shows from 2004, but the little caption says 2000. But that's obvious. What are you looking at? Which table? Page 21, too. 14. Page 21. It was probably a certified it was probably 2024 that was in the certified thing. It started in 2004. Charlie But it gave it Oh, it doesn't doesn't have 2020 form. Well, it has since, you know, it's kind of it's what we could get from DCA at the time that we what what DCA has not saying DCA. You're wrong. No. So they have a total of 19 multifamily units um created in Burnersville uh within that time period. Yes. So I mean just from my own personal experience you know watching uh planning board and familiarity with the town. Um I think built in 2018 certificate 2019.5 mil tree had 23 units. Um the heritage of Claremont uh had 20 units. I think 20.1 uh the and I know it hasn't been uh been created yet but it's been approved. The 28 units at um the Essex. You got six units of equinet on the

corner. Um so the way I look at you look at that it adds up to 95 approved multif family units all between last say last seven years. Um the conclusion that you draw from the DCA's numbers is that the data reveals a sustained pattern of slow residential growth with heavy emphasis on low density housing. I mean if you look at the Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot Mr. Rossy's 114 Claremont. He's got four town going there. So that's 99 about 100 99 multif family units. Um would you say that you know 199 multif family units in the last you know seven years supports a finding that there's slow residential growth especially in the multif family market certainly going forward you do I mean that's based on this table I I think you're answering that going forward but I mean show the table shows 19 if you would adjust and and heritage expire that's 43 and that was you know 2019 2020 um so I guess I can make comments the you know the way I look at it when I see that is you know we had our wholesale reszoning of our downtown high density residential multif family construction in October of 2020 um and you know since then any developments been fighting headwinds of COVID supply chain disruptions, um you know, difficult lending environments with the Fed raising rates and now um you know, tariffs on imported steel and you know, building Canadian lumber, building

materials and yet we're still generating, you know, significant, I would call it for a town of our size, significant multifamily construction. I I think that you know when you look at the you know what what the burough's compliance or or reasonable possibility which which is you know what what we need to establish in order to you know satisfy our our constitutional requirement. You know, it seems to me that the zoning that we put in place in 2020 that we're not taking any credit for whatsoever in this round four more than adequately provides a reasonable opportunity for the creation of affordable housing. you have, you know, I look, like I said, I look at some of these other towns and what they're doing for for their affordable and they're talking about, you know, the reasoning they get, they have a developer who has 30 acres and, you know, he's going to build town home this that and and the den fees are something like, you know, 10 20 at the most units per acre on just those individual developers blocks. We took 115 acres of our downtown and and Zona in my opinion zone is like we lost the mother of all builder member lawsuits for 35 units per acre. That's essentially the most densely zone district of downtown northtown and we're not saying that that has any impact on the burough's ability to re reasonably generate affordable housing. And you're talking about, you know, prime real estate, all all utility service, water sewer,

you know, location by public transit, uh, major highway 78, 287, relatively flat for our area. Absolutely prime real estate to be developed at 35 units an acre, 115 acres in our downtown. I did the math. It's uh that would create 4,000 25,000 units if it was developed. Um and obviously it's not all going to be high density 35 unit apartments but doesn't need to all be 4,025. Um but just as an aside that would you know conservatively forget forget that 4,25 um at 20% the required bedside from the FHA you're looking at 805 affordable housing units which when you give the 1.5% housing credit that you get because every single one of those was prior zoned for uh commercial. Yeah. Yeah. No, I'm I'm and I'm not I'm not saying it all has to be taken now, but I mean whatever, mate. You're at you're at 8005. You know, if if you were to get the the housing credits, you'd be at 1,200. And I understand that you're not going to get all those, but you're talking about, you know, seven, eight, nine, 10 times our fair share number provided by overlaying our entire downtown, 115 acres at 35 units an acre. Why do we need to do and why do we need to do areas need of redevelopment which I I'll back up. I'm not going to get that on. I I think that we've absolutely discounted um what we've already done in in this plan and you know essentially said we're not taking any credit for the affordable

housing we generated. Another I have it written down here. I'm sorry. Very disorganized. Um on round four, Mr. Rossy and Mr. Msushi's um ethics house is going to deliver uh five portable units. Do we get credit for that? At least one that's already been approved for round four. We get credit for any units that get available whether or not they were in this plan and so where they come out where like you know so to your point when we get further down the line then there might not be a need for that same level of density proposed in this plan. So, one of the things the planner pointed out earlier today was that the town had a possible 35 extensions of existing was only June 13th, though there were additional there. So, that's another place where that would then ultimately adjust the developments going forward. The purpose of today is to put something in front of the courts to say that the town has studied it, made the best effort, has now identified things that they will move forward. The courts do allow us to adjust it as we go forward. None of us up here are happy with the timing of this. No one in the state that sits on any planning board anywhere in the state who has been going through this for the last month is happy with this timing. The only saving grace we all take from it is that going forward as this continues there will be many more discussions here, many more hearings, many more opportunities in this call, well to come where we may tweak this and adjust this to avoid some of the things that we all have concerns with going forward, right? Height, size, setbacks, and things of that nature. And

so that's really my well one one of my concerns is that you know it's it's a knock on effect is okay this is now our master plan 94 units at this many units here and this many units here and so every zoning implementing ordinance that comes before us is now going to be reviewed and for you it's going to be reviewed for massive plan consistency Right. And so like you know what do you say when the master plan says oh 94 units because we didn't take credit for any of these other ones and you get a zoning ordinance that the only way you're going to get 94 units in there that have been approved that are in the master plan is by going up six stories and by you know eliminating parking and building over the the the setback lines or whatever else it may be. You know, I I I don't like this situation where you're essentially being asked to buy a pig and a post saying, you know, here's what we're gonna do. Now, the council seen the zoning concept conceptually, you know, Miss Cowwell's conceptionally familiar with the zoning, what it's going to be, but we haven't seen it. How how do how we know how do we know that 94 units putting it putting that in our master plan to be approved by the court that if we want to go back and say oh actually we don't like that so much it's not going to be just you know smooth sail I feel like like I said it if they're picking up folk and and you're and you're just kind of you know this is just the first domino to fall and then oh what's in the master plan and oh well it's in the zoning and you know well you know I I don't like it nothing we can do it was in the master plan um so I I'll digress from that and I'll

I'll try to try one of these days um so on uh on round three and I'm just going through because um I'm not you have the queen lane redevelopment inclusionary 13 units um that's just as as far and I might be wrong want to make sure because there was some mention in the QL RP about satisfying that overlay zones affordable housing obligation through construction elsewhere in the Quimulian redevelopment area because the west side is supposed to be a park according to that um redevelopment plan is is this this is just for the west side lot that are mentioned there is that correct That's correct. So, I would respectfully suggest it seemed I mean, and I don't know there's there's going to be that nobody that the public hasn't seen and and it's going to change around and things are going to, you know, um be different. If if the park on the west side is still a consideration, something that we're, you know, hoping to accomplish. Um, and we're going to be accomplishing that through expenditure of open space acquisition funds and hopefully receiving green acres reimbursement which would eliminate the possibility of developing those westside lots around um the mine. Does it make sense at this point to transfer that um obligation, affordable housing overlay obligation onto the lot on the east side which are currently zoned for um 86 creation of 86 um total housing units um which when do do the math what's that uh 178 what do you what do you get what do you want

86 times that 20. It shouldn't be that hard. This is for the whole site. We didn't include all of the units that could potentially be developed here because there's different areas of the brand, but there's no plan to change that zoning right now. That's an existing zoned area. So, we're taking credit for existing zoning. I'm not going to believe the point. I would just say that if if that is our intent to go and buy that land with an encumbrant with green acres restrictions on development, fair share probably won't like us taking their overlay zone and making it undevelopable. So we might want to consider while we're talking to Fairshare and having these conversations moving that overlay zone to the east side, but that has nothing to do with what was in front of us tonight. Can we keep our comments to things that are in front of us tonight and not our plan? just summarizing the point you started with at this latest point which was the DCA chart, right? It it probably does make some sense to update to try to get an update because we've had them doing stuff and it clearly looks like we've done nothing and and you know in the last 25 you know just I mean we can check the number provide that. Yeah. or or just collect it's future if it was being developed right now if it's not 100% correct it is but I'm just saying the comment says and and and we could update that. I'm not going to change any and I'm not even saying okay planning this planner just let the council know that they are

pivoting you know it's like it's not all like you're just looking at my path and telling me it's ugly. It's well there are pivoting there. Yeah. The point's well taken and we can add a line about the fact that there are new multif family projects in the works or something along those lines. So to be more fair to the work that's okay I understand it's occupancy and I don't know when Ry get his certificate about it. We use the best data we can get, but it's [Music] whatever you agree. I I don't even need to submit. I just need to for people to feel better about it. Sorry. Um just wrapping up the point. Oh, go discussed before. I'll end the report, but pretty well on their end. Uh it says that the bureau anticipates redevelopment plan would permit approximately 94 age restricted rentals with its 20% set which would provide for 18 age restricted affordable rental units. Yes. And then your associate on Monday mentioned that there could please uh just clarify which how many age restricted units there are and how many non-Ehip. The proposal for a total of 94 units 18 of which should be ages. So only the affordable unit the rent the roll. So I can I have a followup question on that specific topic. First, just for our own edification, what's the maximum number of age

restricted units that can be developed according to the rules? So, it's 30% which I believe is 30 under 30% of the total obligation. 30% of the total obligation of four of four credits, right? I'm sorry. 30% of the units. 30% of the total credit. The total credit. Okay. Yeah. So, if you had those credits in there that were senior credits, right? So, in your table, you got 18 correctly. 18 senior units. And instead of nine credits, bonus credits, we got eight. That's because we get counted. So, with 26 is the total number. So, we're claiming half a credit, right, per unit on that one for, I believe, being a half a mile of a transit station. Um, but we're capped at um 26 total. So, that's why that gets capped. 26 total receiver. Yeah. You say you you're capping from a cap for all purposes you're cap to 26. So you spread it over the candidates essentially senior for senior and then we're capped also with the bonus credits. So I took as many bonus credits as I could for that one. The point is it's not a tech. The point is that behind the scenes there's all this optimization or balancing like a basic requirements we call them but yeah there's all these minimums and maximums and no I just wanted to be sure it wasn't and then the limit was you said 30% off all credits potentially which is I think we were 26

28 credits We're proposing 26 bonus credits. He's going down on 28. Yeah. Okay. You're proposing 26 senior. Okay. So, yeah, I'm sorry, I misspoke. So, there's 34 total max senior, but we capped out at eight because of the maximum bonus credits of 28. So, we had capped out at 8. So, the max bonus credits was 28. to recap that because that's fine. Just wanted to be sure. So the on the age restriction at what point was the aid restriction for the nonaffordable units removed some final? Uh that was removed after the council game because they noted that that was an incorrect statement and would be impossible. I mean sorry it would be outside of all this. Right. So I just want you could have all of your affordable housing. Oh no, you could not. Yes, that's true. You need to have some family as well. Correct. We have to have 50% family. So how many% [Music] um the uh I guess you know the prior gentleman's question I had as well at what point did did this development opportunity present itself to the council? So yeah, to to your um what steps were taken by either um your

office or or anybody else here um to inquire um with any downtown property or any property owner in in Burnerville uh about their inclination, willingness, or thoughts about developing uh their properties. I believe it's all volunteer people who just reached out to the council. We didn't So the only concern reached out to the council I mean that's not entirely true. We did look at all we looked at all of the area. We looked at vacant lots. We analyzed all of the town really to see where could potential overlay zones be. and then also sort of dead on with those who requested to be in the plan. So those the two pieces is looking at what was potential would make sense and then there's those requests and if someone requests to be in the plan you have to have a created reason not but but you did not actually reach out to any of the property owners other than the ones who reached out to the council. Is that correct? That's correct. And how many uh individuals did reach out to the council? So far as I know it the the two pro the redevelopment um Clarence redevelopment 65 Claremont and then one of the Burns Avenue I2O overlay zone property owners also reached that okay the uh I guess the the last question is um as far as going forward Mr. uh board member uh Demarco mentioned, you know, this is just the initial initial stage. Um, does

putting a representation in the uh housing element plan that we're going to be seeking a redevelopment designation in any way impact or impact at all the obligation of this board uh and the council to undertake the review was necessary to decide whether or not the properties qualify as an area needed redevelopment. If if I could understand make sure I understand if this obligates us going forward any type of there could be two questionification but if the question is does this language in the counting on the fair share plan require this board to automatically find that a study area is an area in need of redevelopment irrespective of whether they conclude it satisfies one or more of the criteria under section five of local the local redevelopment housing law. Uh uh I believe the answer is no. It doesn't require them to do that. There's still an independent determination to be made based on planning testimony uh in the context of an area needed reevelopment study hearing. We happen to have a redevelopment attorney on the board. It might be concurrent. We We're not bound. This does not bind us to any doesn't any future decision one and the council who has to make separate decisions on that is a separate board that we cannot bind. Yeah. We recommend

that they make the designation. So that does not preclude or cannot necessarily be used as you know forth enough to say yet there's something that doesn't meet the statuto requirement. I appreciate that and I think I know the answer to this question but I just want to clarify the way that Mr. Warner phrased it is it isn't an automatic approval. Is it at all a consideration when the board is approaching that determination? Well, we thought it was not one not even consideration. It's not one of the statutory factors that are being weighed upon by the board. What will be a consideration always is there in this overarching obligation to satisfy these affordable units, right? And is this a progress to that? But you still have to meet all the statuto requirements along the way for every point that leads. And so when you're making that determination, it would make no difference to you whether it was part of the master plan housing master plan or if this was just a you know the oneoff development office. It's not going to make any difference. Yeah. And legally we don't have oversight for an R&D. It's it's a legal can't you know we can't it's it's a notification requesting an opinion with an RDP. investigation independent investigation. We can't we can't stop it or override it or change it. Okay. And for this form, you must the board must be and co-ounsel here uh the the uh the site and criteria almost in isolation so to speak. Does the site meet one or more of the criteria?

uh it doesn't matter who a prospective redeveloper may be uh and like that's my understanding of the from a legal perspective we have two attorneys here from a legal perspective uh it's my understanding and I I get comforted by the not the affirmative from Mr. Demarco uh that that is how you view it that those other items don't are not evidence of whether or not the criteria are satisfied or not. Thank you. And actually we have a planner here who does redevelopment work too. So I was I'm going to ask our planner next is in the event that this housing element master plan housing element of the master plan is uh adopted approved and it turns out that this particular inclusionary zone is not found to be an area need of redevelopment. Does that mean that we are no longer in compliance with our constitutional obligation to provide um a reasonable opportunity for the creation of polarizing or we may have the opportunity to zone the site just without doing a redevelopment plan or we can replace the site with another site or other units. I find that improving there's all kinds of options. The only the only time is that perhaps the only time that one would have an automatic submitted something like that the TV show they're never watching uh is uh is if you don't meet one of the statuto uh under the amended fair housing act but but otherwise reasonably anticipate we will have opportunities if things evolve and and some items Some proposed

developments don't end out or what have you in the plan any third round plan some of the scattered site redevelopment areas for instance I hope it's not affordable development areas didn't work out they were replaced with other areas and if they accept this all we're saying is collectible is we're seeking we're not saying we will in the plan says we'll seek and if the review of the plan says okay we're just you seeking it then that's fine but we're providing realistic opportunity for committing to get area in re need of redevelopment yes would be accurate providing a realistic opportunity to development of our fourth round need for our realistic opportunity if we get to the point that we can't create a zone can't create something for that site. We have to find another site or other unit that I am not affordable housing council. It is thorough planning board attorney take my advice on the topic of this clearance redevelopment plan and I think um I'm interpreting this correctly. I'm pretty sure NRDP would be required because of the distribution of units that stand proposed. So, no threebedroom apartments in this proposal. I mean, what what it gives you is more control over how someone develops. If you have straight zoning, you say don't do this, don't do that. Not as much. point earlier that you're buying a pig

and if you're if you're saying that you know this is you know a 94 unit and our current zoning does not allow for 94 unit then you're essentially saying that yeah and and they have to say that's okay with us just this this is what we're seeing my my concern is if this is if if the realistic opportunity that this site present is contingent upon a discrimination that this is an area in the development rights to a constitutional level of I wouldn't say it's continue on because we did mention a couple other ways it could be accommodated again we're not bound by that right you might not like no it's okay that's the best answer you're going to get we're not bound by it so we hear later that this is something we have to do because in the master plan I can say actually we're not bound by that we can seek different opportunities to meet those same if a professional planner says if it satisfies one of the criteria the local redevelopment housing law and this board responded uh as constituting an area in need of redevelopment and the council would reaffirm that and they would take that recommendation then that's of course a local redevelopment and housing law no matter what other options are altered may or may not be out there. Uh it's it's so it's based on the criteria if they're not bound by it. But by the same token, if it satisfies the criteria, frankly, uh I don't believe they have the opportunity as a board to say anything other than if it meets the criteria just like Barry believe. They don't have any options. they do the RDP definition is in the realm of the council and whether they believe

it's not redevelopment that's there the board will base it on the evidence presented at the time the board doesn't we we do not we're not part of that we basically the decision is all the council You need an investigation as to whether it be here the area needed redevelopment and we made those visit. We do not beg to differ. We do ask for our consent and we respond the planning recommendation after recommendation. We do not determine whether it's going to be an attorney provided illegally. led the chairman as what he believes. The um the presentation already in February mentioned a um 30-day grace period for an extension of a deadline um to submit or adopt a housing fair. I'm sorry, I missed the front. There were some potential um there was an idea that that was going to be easier to get that the vast majority of the den what's his name about 50 or 100 of them in the world I have but but um and I'm unaware of any of that granted them did not seek and no one else decision on the part of the barrel the uh so it's not to lose their immunity

while waiting to get the denial the the um Mr. Sure, we have resolution. Yeah, I don't know how you can get involved in that just it's just weing suggestion to you for the council is that the concept of Poland is so broad and you may have it all nailed and it's all figured out and you had presentations of what the consequences were, but just in the context of this just double check that you're good. you know if there any any issues with highlands compliance or because it's recent you know so um this has been in process absolutely it's just a suggestion are well taken and I would u submit eliminate the private for their review well we're concerned that the council not be blindsided by something because it was recent or whatever that's all despite oh wow I agree He mentioned it. So, and it is fairly recent. So, comments from the board. Yeah, we open any comments, discussion from the board. Um, a couple of comments. Um, I recognize we are facing a statutory deadline and I recognize and I'm holding on to the fact that that this is a conceptual plan and we will be working on this or you will moving forward and I'm going to ask moving forward but I'm going to start with the fact that I'm not fully comfortable with what what with your report. Okay. Um on on a more limited side, just starting with the community profile, it's basically just census data from 2020. Not that it's incredibly spec important to the moment.

By 20 to 2025, everything about how the town works and whether people work from home or not um has completely changed. So there was no independent analysis. it was just, you know, here here's the data from the census. And that was the first thing that troubled me that there was no independent analysis. But I'm really troubled by the fact that you don't have independent specific knowledge of the sites that you are recommending in your report. And I understand that you rely on the council for what they have clearly thought about what it is. But if you're going to own this report and sign the report and and as it gets amended or addressed further, I would really like to see that that type of awareness in an on a report that you're putting your name to is there to not know what the acreage is or not know what what the restrictions might be. That matters. We're only talking about four sites and um so I'm asking moving forward that you we did we did that analysis I just didn't have it right I don't have it memorized and we looked at hazard areas we looked at acreages we we looked at all of that so there is analysis and with respect to the 2020 data the issue is that's the best data you have as a census data and when you go to the only other data that you have are projections after the dennial census. So they project in the same trajectory that their estimates. So the estimates aren't as good as the actual census. So I usually for these plans like to use a census unless we're really getting close

to like 2030 where they haven't been done for a while. So I mean that's why we use the 2020 was an extraordinary period of time where the census data in and of itself really wasn't enough. Yeah. Interestingly with respect to the numbers but DCA we had to use old census information too. Couldn't update it could use new stuff could correct it when there are obvious errors. It's unfortunate but that's the process. I apologize. It's all it's a side issue, but it's not a perfect process that that we've been given to work with as municipalities from the state. Um, you know, I necessarily disagree with the resident who appeared that, you know, there are other zones that were previously looked at and upon or redeveloped that, you know, weren't included in here. Um but again knowing that the sites picked were people who apparently came to the town and want to develop and that goal is to have these units developed in the state. You know I'm fine with the sites that were ultimately selected. You know I look forward to having a fuller discussion on how they shake out what they look like you know how they function. I think all that is more supremely important in the long run um about traffic and their long-term effect on the community in the downtown and I think we're going to have some good healthy discussion on that like we always do. Uh yeah, again I'm um a lot of comments about unhappiness with the process. I agree it's an accelerated process in the part of the state. Um, you know, I would look, you know, to in the future, we can always be more communicative as a

council. Um, these lots here out of the ones that were looked at, you know, I I do feel confident that these are lots that are, you know, well to an extent well integrated into the downtown in the future could reasonably provide employment opportunities, transportation opportunities. You know, I think that, you know, that's kind of the real intention of this process. Even things have gotten a little messy at the state level. Um, so we vote. Yes, I'll try to Well, no. I understand. It's just going to be indicating where you're going. What's the um deliberating? We always have a wholesome deliberation. No comments. No comments. Um yeah, I s during the process. Um I do have one other suggestion and it may have already been done but and if I was on the council I kind of want an idea of a schedule and like some of these are lowhanging fruit like oh yeah we can do and I don't know if there's any compliance issues. Does anyone come and check you after two years and say, "Hey, how you doing? Did you do any work?" Perhaps not in this presentation, but I would think you'd have a straw man for the council that says this is what we're going to do. we're going to extend the, you know, on the 13 and that's going to be this year's, you know, number and then we think it's this and that and and what because you have a 10-year projection, right? And at least go through that exercise with them.

to stay just the discussion can create some insight and whatever just have that discussion. It's a good idea. Um that's all I really have. So the board has included the deliberation as previously mentioned. We do have a resolution that we distributed in advance for the board's consideration. and I read off of part of it uh to make sure that our planner found that the housing on fair share plan met certain uh statutory requirements to be the NL and the affordable excuse me the fair housing act. Um the resolved paragraphs of that resolution, should you adopt it momentarily, are that we hereby adopt the housing element fair share plan and recommend that the mayor and burial council ador. This resolution and the plan will be filed with this computer report within 48 hours of adoption by the board which is done by generally by locally by affordable housing council Jack Vision. uh and uh further resolved that a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the office of planning advocacy and the asset county planning board together with a copy of the plan within 30 days of adoption uh which will adhere to that's out of the well. So, uh, if it is the board's pleasure to adopt the resolution and make those recommendations and adhere to those statutory obligations, uh, it would be a motion to adopt the resolution, a second, and a roll call vote majority for passage 46. It's the hardest math. I should have heard it. I'll move to adopt plan. Second,

Mr. Deamarco. Yes. Miss Eller, yes. Mr. Graham, yes. Mr. Moran, yes. Mr. Walden, yes. And Mr. Zo, yes. Paris. Thank you, Joseph. Thank you. Anything not on the Okay, thanks. No executive session and our next meeting is going to Yes. Our next meeting is July 24th. Yes. So um yesterday we received hard documents from burn for the whispering woods hearing. I spoke with the attorney late yesterday afternoon and I offered them July 24th or August 14th because I believe we have to have this done by for the order that yes was entered by the court and um their attorney spoke with the team and the applicant and they would like to do the tri okay all be here in the 24. Well, we should we should do a check. Make sure uh and I mentioned to you about Mr. S. I'm fine. I work on

So he would like to participate in the ass that will have to look into that specific do a special instead instead of the type [Music] soon. Yeah, it's pretty soon. There you have a bike. Well, I think it's work. Okay. We have a few more, right? We haven't lost. We can figure out if there's any away. He's sleeping today instead to Switzerland. He's I think his wife was a week before and I think he's only a week. Oh, so I was happy to be back. And everyone is here now. Is everyone okay? I feel so that's fine. I think we're going to get I think we're already there. We should just So So, so that'll be Yeah. I'm going to um I'll send checks and again for request in the beginning of the evening it is really important but there was a little confusion this afternoon because there were basically half the board so I had to call the people going to permanent record no it's not but it is gentlemen we all have other commitments that we do at at 4:30 and at 5:30 and at 6:00. I didn't know if I had a meeting

or not because no one had responded and it's it's it's out of respect to each of us and our schedules. It doesn't take much. I assume that meeting every time it's scheduled. Anyway, I said I assume it would be nice to respond, but sometimes things get in the way, right? But but that happens to half the board and then, you know, half the board shows up and we can't have the meeting, right? You know, at the at the 11th hour, it's not fair to people, it's not fair to the applicant or whatever. If if there wasn't a meeting today, I would have shown up here. I would have, you know, again, I would have just showed up. That's I assume there's a meeting, but Well, yeah, I would always if if there's not going to be a meeting, I definitely reach out to her, but but at 4:00 this afternoon, you sent out an email saying only four people. So, that said to me, four people, we can't have a meeting. And nobody else responded. and I didn't hear from anyone else and there were other things that I would have I would have arranged my the rest of my day differently. So it it's just on Tuesdays when we get the agenda. You have to open it. It's not it's not a text message. It's not a phone call. You can respond at 2:00 in the morning. It's it just it can't be like it was this. It's got to there has to be we've got to establish a quorum at at the latest Wednesday, you know, close business at the latest. If we don't do that, we have to cancel. Well, exactly. And and I we had talked about this a while back now. I didn't warn

you. We decided not to do it the week prior because sometimes too far in advance. Exactly. And things can change. So things change for everyone last minute. But two days ahead an email will not wake some up some up in the middle of the night. You just respond. So maybe adjust the timing too. Agenda and forum check, you know. Let's let's let's the Tuesday let's use the agenda distribution as the also solicitation for the quorum check. Okay. Is an urgent type. Well, good. It's up to you. I type the word honestly. whatever you want to do. I think we we do have to make sure we know u as a no later than close of business Wednesday. They send it out Tuesday. Sorry. You got to either you'll get it Tuesday night or you've got to process not too. Oh, Friday at the same