Planning Board - Special Meeting

downstairs

I'd like to call the September 18th special meeting of the Milton Planning Board to order. The secretary please read the open public meeting act. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided as required under chapter 231 public law 1975 specifying the time, date, location, and to the extent known the agenda by posting a copy of the notice on the municipal building, municipal website, providing a copy to the official newspaper of the burough and by filing a copy in the office of the burough clerk. Will secretary please read the excuse me, please roll call. Mr. Caraso, I Mr. here. Mr. Cook here. Mr. Merren, here. Mr. Leblon here. Mayor Murray present. Mr. Potter here. Mr. Rabba

here. Mr. Ruth. Mr. Shakaran. Mr. Darren Murray. Mr. McMara. Miss Earl here.

Okay. Everybody rise and salute to the flag, please. 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.

Next is our master plan consistency review. This is the amended Ford Avenue redevelopment plan. The burrow has introduced an ordinance to amend the Miltown Ford Avenue redevelopment plan. One of the responsibilities of the planning board is to review the proposed amended plan for consistency with the master plan. Board does not does not vote on approval of the redevelopment plan. That is the responsibility of the council. planning board's jurisdiction is only to review the plan for consistency with the master plan. I'd like to turn this over to the plan. Oh, you know what? I do have one some just housekeeping real quick for the for the board here. You do have a a memo from MJ Planning. This is from the town council planner. Okay. Turn this over to Mr. Bar.

Thank you. Good evening board members. um here on behalf of the on the the burrow and the council to uh give you a brief overview of the changes to the Ford Avenue redevelopment plan talk a little bit about the consistency with the master plan and then uh I know you have uh Mr. Rinerson here from from CME as well to to chime in on behalf of the board so I'll kick it over to him when I'm through. Um so we everybody has you know some familiarity of course with the with the Ford Avenue property and redevelopment area. This is uh a never- ending saga of uh litigation and back and forth and so so forth that's been going on for many years. Uh the most recent amendment to the Ford Avenue plan was adopted in 2022. At that time, we did a a similar review before the planning board and discussed the consistency of that plan with the burrow's master plan planning documents. Subsequent to that adoption, there was a challenge filed. The ultimately the um through the superior court law division and through the appellet division that uh adoption of the plan was upheld. We did what we were supposed to do and uh everything was done appropriately with that adoption at that time. So the current amendment to the redevelopment plan uh comes from the ongoing condemnation process that has been underway for about 6 years now. And as a result of the valuation the most recent valuation that was entered for the uh property for the redevelopment agency to take the property. it was determined that some changes, some amendments to the redevelopment plan would be necessary in order to continue with a with a redevelopment project and move that forward. So, that's what we're here this evening to discuss. The plan uh dated September 4th was introduced by the the mayor and council. Um this was last week and the this the high point

changes really are to adjust the total number of units that would be permitted. The most recent version of the plan, the 2022 one, permitted 30, sorry, 300 afford u 300 residential units and the current version proposes going back to the 350 units that had been part of the prior plans predating the 2022 amendment. So increasing the number of units um back to 350 which historically for many years had been the number of units proposed for the site and was even the number that was approved by a site plan approval at this board some years ago. The um with those 350 units 35 of them are proposed to be affordable. This is something we discussed uh back in June when the fourth round housing element and fair share for the burough was adopted by this board. This was part of that plan to amend the number of affordable units. Previously, it had been 70 units. Um, through some look at the viability of the project and discussions with the designated redeveloper, it's determined that in order to move things forward, uh, 10% set aside with the 35 units would would be feasible. And in looking through the housing element and fair share plan and working through the the various numbers then different sites throughout the burough was determined that that would still be acceptable for the burrow to meet its obligations and to continue to be in compliance. So the housing element fair share plan outlined this change and this proposed amendment to the redevelopment plan is putting it into place. Some of the other changes include um prior versions of the plan had permitted town houses and apartment flats um two different housing types. The most recent 2022 version envisioned all all apartment units and now we're back to a mix of town home style and apartments and also a stacked townhouse. Um so

there's three different definitions included in the plan. For those of you who may not be familiar with stack town houses, it's they come in a couple different styles, but sometimes you have two two floors above two floors. So, you'd have one unit on the lower two floors, one unit on the upper two floors in a four-story model. There's also versions of this that are more like interlocking pieces that have kind of one and a half, one and a half to in a in a three-story model. So, there's a couple different versions of that um that's possible. they tend to uh be a little more flexible with um especially with affordable housing. So, uh the plan permits a mix of town houses, stack town houses, and apartment units. The plan also slightly modifies some of the permitted building heights. The the previous 2022 version had allowed permitted five stories for apartments and mixeduse buildings for a maximum of 60 ft. We bumped that up to 65 ft um in this in this version of the plan just to give slightly more flexibility to and also to ensure that um if there is a mixeduse building, we have a good good height for a ground floor commercial space that typically require a little more height than a residential floor. So you'd have a you'd often see a taller ground floor and then shorter floors on the upper floors. The um heights permitted for the town houses are three and a half stories and 45 ft and the stack town houses four stories and 50 ft. Again, that gives the flexibility for for different models that uh as the design gets gets flushed out. The um parking overall um the previous version of the the plan the 2022 had been focused just on apartment units. So there was um parking ratios based on on the different number of bedrooms per apartment. Now we've got parking ratios based on the different types of units. So for the um apartments in a mid-rise

flat style building require 1.25 spaces per unit. For the stack town houses, one and a half spaces per unit, which most likely come in the form of garage and driveway. Good. Yeah, looks like it's you picking it up. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. So, um one 1.25 two five spaces for the apartment flats, 1.5 spaces for the stack town houses, and then two spaces per unit for the more traditional standard townhouse models, and then we've got the same commercial um parking ratio that that's uh three spaces per thousand square ft of floor area. The um other kind of the one of the let's see, this the last change now one another significant change is the uh setback requirements. Um there's a slight reduction in the setbacks for the mid-rise building. Previously that had been 50 feet to neighboring properties. We've reduced that to 25 ft. Um that gives some flexibility and also setbacks for the mil pond we reduce from 100 ft to 50 ft. And that also um the discussion about open space. The 2022 plan had called for a 100 foot buffer walkway area along the pond plus some additional open space. Um it had required I believe 8 acres at that time. Um considering the different economic factors at play and the um uncertainty about whether other entities will be able to contribute to acquire open space. The um open space requirements in the plan now are a little more amorphous. The 50-foot walkway along Mil Pond is still a requirement. That publicly accessible walkway that's been a part of the plan for you know many years since its inception essentially. And that's consistent with the uh the county's longerterm greenway vision, the Lawrence Brook Greenway, that area that that will provide part of a broader connection. Um but as to the rest of the open space that may or may not be provided on site, the plan leaves it open-ended. There's a hope that um and reflected on the concept plan that's attached that there be an area of passive open space likely toward the the west southwest side of the property, the

back of the property if you will, away from Main Street. So those are the the high level plans. There's a few other uh small tweaks here and there, but um and a little bit of cleanup work and some updates based on the the history and and so forth, what's transpired, but those are the the big picture changes of note. And then in the the memorandum I prepared for the board, I just gave a run through on the board's obligations to review the plan in the context of the local redevelopment and housing law that um there are several sections that talk about the board's role here reviewing the plan for consistency with the master plan to determine if it's um substantially consistent and designed to effectuate the master plan. and then also that the board has an opportunity to provide other comments to the mayor and council should they see fit to do so. The um the master plan most recent document that was adopted was the 2025 housing element and fair share plan as I mentioned and this plan amendment is directly in line with what's called for in the housing element and fair share plan. I mean, it's directly connected. It's designed to affectuate that plan exactly as it was written with the amendment to the Ford Avenue site and the obligation of affordable units associated with it. Um, and then we've got the history of how the 2022 plan was adopted. And broadly speaking, things have have stayed the same with this plan in terms of its big picture, its goals, objectives, and its relationship to the previous planning documents. The 2019 master plan re-examination report talks about making sure that vacant and abandoned parcels of land are fully utilized and developed with ratables and public amenities. Uh future plans that provide for parks and open space within the burrow burough making sure that the burrow's housing obligation is

satisfied. Um and then ensuring that future land use decisions consider environmental impacts including local flooding events and broader impacts through a lens of sustainability and resiliency. And in 2019 at that time the there was specific discussion of this site of the the redevelopment plan and the um there were no further changes recommended at that time but there's a key line I think that the burrow and redevelopment agency should continue to work with the designated redeveloper to ensure that the redevelopment project is successfully completed. We're further down the line. lots transpired over the last six years, but that that statement certainly rings true and and remains valid for what we're doing today. The uh 2019 utility services plan element and circulation plan element um both um utility services plan element doesn't have anything particularly tied to this plan. There were updates to the offtrack improvement ordinance, the burough's offtrack improvement ordinance that came out of the adoption of that plan. Uh but that's now five six years ago. And the circulation plan element does include language about improvements to the Ford Avenue uh Fort Avenue corridor, Fort Avenue and Main Street intersection that would tie directly into this project. And as the you know future engineering designs are fleshed out, those um proposals may be incorporated or modified as needed. And then lastly, the most recent land use element prior to the 2019 re-examination report was the 2009 master plan land use element. Goal 1D talks about following through on the bureau's commitment to redevelop the Ford Avenue redevelopment area. So, here we are still working on that 16 years later. Um then continuing to provide for open space and recreation opportunities and promote a sense of place and improve neighborhood aesthetics, which we're

working on with the um dedication of the the walkway along the pond and and hopefully a contribute a u enhancement of the main street corridor with a with a mixeduse design. And then the land use plan talks about um updating the zoning map to reflect the Ford Avenue redevelopment plan to provide a mix of residential, commercial, and public uses for the block south of Fort Avenue. Obviously consistent with the redevelopment plan that was in place at that time and has continued to evolve and would still be in place today. Um so I think with that I've said my piece. I'd be happy to take any questions, kick it over to Mr. Reinardson and go from there. Real quick, I just want to clarify that our planning board planner is Ronald Reson here tonight for us as well. Um, board questions and consistency. I have a question have a few um just trying to get a better understanding of the difference between this plan, 2022 plan. And I know the all the reference to 2009. From what I recall in 2022, one of the changes had to do with the change in the material type which were or the definition of primary building materials which did not include things like metal and fiber siding. Um I I double checked it seemed like that had not changed. So, is there anything else that um maybe goes back to the 2009 plan other than the additional units that might stand out to you that's significant?

So, the prior to 2022, we had a 2019 version and we had a 2012 version. Um I think the most substantial change was or prior to the 22 version was the 2012 one. Um but as far as the materials go, no, the definitions of the different primary secondary materials have not changed in this version. Um the things I highlighted are really the the key changes as far as

the the unit number is actually back to where we had been in 2012 with the 350. Um and as well as the the mix of some apartment flats and townhouse units, so the combination of or the the different types of housing. Um, so in that way it's it's reverting back to to what had been before. Um, and some of the other things I talked through are the the main changes since since 2022. I don't I don't know if there's anything else that jumps out at me that was wasn't a whole lot of other alterations.

Yeah, I think just to clarify and I think you kind of already answered it. uh maybe was in 2022. I I recall there being the difference between a mixed use development versus a development that was a mix of uses or a collection of various parcels but and specifically it was on the corner. I remember that was going to be labeled as a as a pad site in the concept plan. Am I understanding it correctly that the this is more of a mixeduse plan? Is that would that be the right terminology as opposed of a mix of uses?

So I I think what what you see on the concept plan that's attached is you've got a true mixeduse design at the Main Street frontage at the corner of Main Street and Ford Avenue where you've got likely one building that has multiple uses within it and kind of sharing access and creating that connection to Main Street and then you've got the residential development kind of behind it. So the answer to your question is maybe it's both. I mean it is it is kind of there is a more of a directly mixeduse concept incorporated here but there is still a mix of uses present on the site.

Right. Yeah. Because I think the way I interpreted the 2022 version is that mixed use was ex that was prohibited. There wasn't anything that was mixed use. Everything was very separate. this particular uh section of the property would be used only for commercial and then over here would be strictly residential and then in the back was open space and I feel like this is definitely more blended. Yeah, because I think the the 2022 version the concept at that time like you're saying the the commercial was sort of off on its own and then we had chunk of residential and then we had chunk of open space. So um there is a little more of a integration of uses of this version.

Thanks. Y quick uh two quick questions. So a lot of the changes have been based upon uh the jury award that came in a few months ago and the ability to um redevelop the site and still make it so that it was uh consistent with the plan but also viable economically for the developer. Correct. Yeah, I think that's a a fair way to frame things. Um and the the open space has has shrunk since the last one in in light of that.

Yeah. So the the 2022 plan there there prior to that there had been an agreement at which point there was the intent that the county middle sex county would be involved to acquire a specific section of open space. Um that's up in the air at this point. So, we don't want to tie this redevelopment plan at the local level to outside entities and their decision-m um we've we've got a provision to encourage some open space. We just don't have it quantified in quite the same way. You see, the concept plan does include an area. Um the one area that we're explicit about is that that walkway along the along the pond, but um the intention is for there to be some area of open space. um they're certainly shown on the concept, but we don't have it quantified in the same way because of those uncertainties.

One last question, too. Um uh you referenced the fact that this uh board came uh a couple months ago to uh approve our long-term uh affordable housing commitment. And in this plan, we're reducing the number in half from 70 to 35. uh can you just give us another explanation as to how that's still consistent with our long-term obligations relative to not only this but future and additional projects?

Sure. So with the uh with the housing element when we prepared that, talked about it, adopted it, the way that we were able to do that was by identifying other sites in town, either projects that are have been approved. Um in the case of the the ARSA project at at the Acme site, um there's certain number of affordable units as part of that project when it moves forward. And then some other parts of town that have been either zoned for affordable housing or in this case of the South Main Street redevelop rehabilitation plan have sites that have been earmarked for inclusionary development that has a mix of market rate and affordable housing units. So, when we went through and did all the math, and you know, this is always sort of a a math exercise at the end of the day with these affordable housing obligations because we need to fit these these different numbers into the different rounds that have transpired over the years. But once we worked through all of that, we saw that even by cutting this down from 70 to 35 units, the burough would still be able to generate enough affordable units through these other sites, through these other zoning opportunities throughout the burrow to satisfy its obligation. So, um, while with with the 70 units, we probably have some surplus credits, with the 35 units, um, based on the adopted plan from June and the intention to follow through with that, I think we're still in good shape to meet the obligation.

Thank you. You're welcome. Um, I got a comment to add to that. just a an affordable housing overlay zone that I remember like that's what you're saying that we did do a few properties like that like the end of Vanloo Avenue where that Riley services is like that that building I think is an overlay zone for affordable housing. So we I do remember approving uh some overlay zones for affordable housing for future developments. Yep. Um my question is so these amendments the purpose of this is for us to be able to condemn the property with these changes right?

Well redevelopment agency hopes to move forward with with the condemnation and the goal would be that putting having this plan adopted would set the stage for a development that will allow that to happen. So it pretty much gives us a shot. This would give us a much better shot. It's not something that's guaranteed and we think that a combination of all of these changes is necessary. We shouldn't really look into pulling one back. It's it's really these few changes are are the way to go.

Yeah, I would say that these changes are important to be able to move things forward. I don't want to say anything is guaranteed when it comes to Ford Avenue, you know. So, um but as far as trying to to make this work, this is the the plan that that we believe is best shot. Cool. Thanks. Understood. Yeah. Anyone else?

Uh, just want to some confirmation from Huge on um this planning change is going to trigger some pretty substantive changes in the proposal from the developer for layout and all that stuff. We're still going to see that that's going to cause a new proposal that would trigger a new proposal as opposed to a change order from the original proposal that was approved as as far as came before the board the last time.

Oh yeah. Any anything that would be that would move forward based on this would have to come back to the board for site plan approval starting with a with a fresh application. Yeah. be vetting it from scratch based on these standards, the the current storm water standards and so forth, the other, you know, other engineering requirements that that go along with it. All right, that's anyone else. Last call.

I'll um need a motion to accept question. Ju just so we're clear, what you're voting on is if this is consistent with the master plan. You're not approving the new amended plan. That's for a council to do. You guys are voting yes, it's consistent. No, it's not consistent with the master plan. That's all we're doing here. I'd like to make a motion that the hear proposed Hold on. Oh, I think I have to Yeah, we have to hear from our board planner. Is this on? Yes. Yes. You just got you got to really talk into Okay.

All right. So Ron Reinardson here on behalf of the board. I've had the opportunity to examine all the um master plan documentation, Mr. Barry's memo. I'll just so it doesn't get buried in the lead. I do concur with his conclusions. It is still consistent with the master plan. In essence, what has happened here is that nothing nothing in this plan has changed except the affordable housing units. And I think we've had testimony to that. That's basically the change. And that's consistent with your housing element which has the same numbers. So which ties out as Mr. Barry kind of points out things change and one of them interestingly enough is you know we use the word effectuate the master plan. How do we effectuate the master plan? Well the numbers that were done in the settlement I think Mr. Barry laid out were a roadblock to affect uh to moving this project forward. So things had to change and I think that you went back and and I think his memo states it and I I just want to go on the record in the master in the in the um redevelopment plan on page four. Uh Mr. Barry goes in on the master plan. This is a long time going. The 2002 master plan re-exam recommended that the redevelopment plan for this area include affordable housing. This has continued on to the present day. So in the big picture, in the big umbrella, it is still consistent with the master plan. So I just wanted to go on the record for you and I'm here for any questions.

Okay, thank you for that, Ron. We're back to a motion. I'd like to make a motion to accept the um revised uh plan as um proposed. Second. We're motioning to make to say that it is consistent with the master plan. Okay. Thank you. I'll still second. Roll call, please. Mr. Caraso, I. Mr. Cook, I. Mr. Merren, hi. Chair LeBlanc. I. Mayor Murray. I. Mr. Potter. I. Mr. Ra. I. Mr. Ruth. I Okay.

Thank you. Next we have the open to the public comment portion of our meeting is allowed allows the public to bring the planning board attention their concerns and comments. Please state your name address for the record. When you come to the podium please speak loudly. Uh you have five minutes. Good evening. Charlie Miller, 92 Ford Avenue. Um, so this is just basically for clarity, but I have a few questions. I don't know if I can do it all in five minutes, but I'll do the best I can. Uh, when the remediation begins, will there be adequate and professional water suppression in place to keep the dust at a minimum because unlike when we first did the demolition, they were doing it with a garden hose. Okay.

So, we have standards for that. Okay. Um, second is there are numerous contaminants in the ground and footings throughout the site. When cleanup begins and the water is used to hold down the airborne dust, will they use containment systems to keep the water from going down the drains and sewers and going into the pond, possibly bringing the contaminants with it? Engineering. I I'm sure we're going to be following all the EPA the standard developer will need to get what's called a demolition permit. The demolition permit. I'm not sure this is on there, John. It's me. The demolition permit requires the items that the homeowner is asking. Okay. So, please let us know. You're right there. Okay.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. It's right behind my house. So, um it's been well over 100 years on the site and there are many different sources of contaminated materials such as benzene, mercury, dioxin, varsol, xylene, lead, and more recently in the past 10 years PCB from the spill during the demolition. um also byproducts from coal piles and many other storage materials over the years. My fear is that they're going to have to go very deep into the ground to remove all this contamination. So with that said, if they have to remove it, large amounts of soil, will they be lowering and changing the topography of the land, possibly making Fort Avenue um a flood plane? So my question is, will they fill it back in and raise it back to the current level above the pond to ensure that for Ford Fort Avenue does not flood out? That is my place.

If I if I can just jump in there. I mean, this this we're these guys can only vote on the consistency with the master plan. Those are probably questions better for the council and the council meeting when they're because I was told the other day to come here for them. Okay. That's I I just don't know if they're going to be able Yeah. No, no, no. I'm not asking. I'm just saying I don't know that how much they're going to be able to answer because they the plan's more for council. All right. I'll hold the rest of the question.

Let me just take a stab at it. There was a detailed site plan in the earlier versions and I'd expect that to be submitted in the new version and at that time the drainage and the flood plane and and the contamination issues were all will all be reviewed again. The old uh the earlier resolution required an LSRP which is licensed site remediation professional to be involved in all the cleanup and all the work that's be done. So that's a a D authorized engineer to basically monitor that and any materials that be taken off site would be measured and tested and taken off before before that's done. So it will be done in accordance with current standards. Okay. Including all core sampling and everything. That's correct. Okay.

That's right. All right. Um All right. I'll hold off the rest. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, please. Debbie Miller, 92 Fort Avenue. Um, I know that you you mentioned that there's not going to be much change, but when you live on Ford Avenue and you extend the buildings behind our houses, that's a lot of change for us. Um, also before the 22 there was a question on emergency vehicles getting to the uh buildings in the back and how they would get out is I guess that will be taken into consideration as I said earlier there'll be an entire site plan submitted to the burrow and with those application will be the need to prove access for emergency vehicles as it was with the earlier So the change will be required to uh to show that. Okay.

Then the other question um I know you mentioned something about utilities but is there any um obligation for the builder or the developer to support what's going to be needed for these um houses.

Uh so the the bureau has an ordinance. It's called an offtrack improvement ordinance. basically um it takes into account the impact associated with a large project and if there's improvements that may be needed elsewhere a portion of those a portion of that cost could be borne by the uh developer of of a significant project. It's basically a formula that in the ordinance it lays out the the math that you would go through to understand that and uh the burough engineer's office would be responsible ultimately for working through that. But short answer I guess is yes there could be some some cost associated with it.

So you mean the lines that bring the water in from uh New Brunswick that start at the substation if that can't handle I I don't know about the specifics. That may be a better question for the engineer. Just that as a general rule, that ordinance is on the books. Okay.

Again, the application will be submitted to the bureau. The calculation needed fire will be provided and there'll be testing required to make sure that that's available from the system. Right now, we have a pretty good pressure and flow coming down Main Street. So, uh the earlier plan included a loop from Main Street back into uh Brook Drive. So that's probably going to be required, but that was an analysis that was done earlier with the earlier plan. There'll be a new one required for the new plan. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Next, please. If there's no more questions, we'll close the public portion.

Oh, please come on up. Sorry, I missed you. Rosa Tvaris, 100 Reva Avenue. So, I've heard um about the uh parking spaces per units for the different uh types of units. I wonder what kind of consideration has been made in terms of the additional traffic into town and also the impact on schools. These are rental units, right? not for purchase units. Um, most likely rental units. The plan I don't believe requires particular tenency. I think the town houses will probably be for sale. The apartments for rent probably a mix.

Oh, so that hasn't been determined. It's it's not spelled out in the plan what's required, but it it would depend on But so in terms of income to the burrow, people who own a townhouse are paying taxes. people who are renters are not paying taxes. And that's my question about every every residential building pays taxes. The renters pay taxes as part of their rent. The landlord's paying taxes, somebody's paying taxes.

Okay. So, has there has has that been looked at the impact to additional children into like an incredible amount of new families coming into these units potentially with children. What impact does that have on the schools being able to accommodate the additional children.

The uh the plan that's proposed here, this redevelopment plan has called for this number of units for at least 15 years, if not longer. Um so something that the burrow has been anticipating for quite a long time. it's been uh just part of the part of the fabric of what may come. And as far as housing goes and affordable housing goes, um it's really and certainly not this board's job to consider the impacts of school children um on on the affordable housing development. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. One more time. Any other questions? Okay. Then we'll close the public portion and no other questions. We'll have an adjournment. May I have a motion? Second. All in favor? I thank you. Thank you everyone for coming and professionals. Thank you.