Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Is there a motion to accept the memo? Is that motion? Is there a second? Is there any discussion on it? Hearing none. Is it is that second? Second. You need a second. Second. Yeah. Okay. Any discussion? Hearing? Yes. Miss Brosky? Yes. Mr. Weiner? Abstain. Mayor's representative, Mr. Patel? Yes. Chairman Gaffrey? Yes. Okay. Um, we're going to put the public portion behind the discussion items this evening. There's two discussion items and and the first one is a recommendation of ordinance number- 2022-021 and it's amending the code of township Monroe section 108-6.18 entitled H-D Highway Development District. Um, and what we're going to do this evening is after hearing from our our planner, we're going to um consider whether in the resolution whether this proposal is consistent with the master plan. So, I'm going to turn it over to Meek. Yeah. And actually, Mr. Chairman, if it's it's okay, I'll just give some background on on sort of how we got here and then uh allow me to um provide some planning advice. So, uh, the council at the August 4th, uh, meeting introduced this ordinance, uh, stemming out of an application that came before this board last year. Um, and so the ordinance does a couple of things related to the highway development district. Um the the board heard an application last year proposing to build a warehouse at the corner of Butcher Road and North Disbra Hill Road under the existing HD zoning. The planning board uh denied that application and the applicant um has been seeking relief through a complaint in the superior court. Uh we uh the

township has negotiated a settlement of that litigation which would include uh that property into our affordable housing plan for round four for 2025 through 2035 and reszone the property to 158 residential units as opposed to its um existing highway development zoning. This ordinance effectuates that zoning change. Um it also uh stemming from the same um issue that was debated vigorously here before the planning board. It also amends the highway development zone to require access to Route 33 if uh a property owner is going to build a warehouse. uh which would then create uh some some certainty that a warehouse would need ingress and egress from Route 33 and prevent smaller roads that are not equipped to handle tractor trailers from having to deal with uh with that incompatible use. And so, um, it's here before the planning board tonight for a review as to its consistency with the master plan, uh, which is is the limited role of the planning board in c in circumstances like this. And then it'll be back on for second reading, um, and adoption next Wednesday at the September 3rd council meeting. So, that's just just the background. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McGavin. Uh, Sorry. Okay. I know I have to push it the other way around. So, um, good evening me, chairman. Um, as, uh, Mr. McGovern said, this is the ordinance, um, before the planning board today. We have to determine whether it's compliant with our master plan. Uh, Township of Monroe

last adopted its comprehensive master plan in 2022. Um some of the uh goals and objectives that this um proposed ordinance is lending itself to is uh one is uh one of the primary goals of our master plan says to achieve a balance of land use types that maintain and enhances the quality of life of the township. Um as uh just presented by Mr. McGovern this um site uh itself was a topic of discussion last year before the planning board. One of the main issues was um the where this site is located, it's along a more quieter road, not along the route 33 and um the uh compatible land uses around it are all residential. So in order to achieve that balance of land use and making it more compatible to the uh surroundings, this ordinance is creating such a requirement where this site uh identified as block 3 uh lot 31 and 32 would be allowed to be developed as a residential uh property more incompatible with its surrounding uses. and um larger impactful users such as warehouse and distributive centers would need a direct access to route 33 which is what the intent of the ordinance would be and it would be complying with the master plan. Um the second uh another goal that this uh ordinance would lend itself to is uh update the zoling regulation to ensure high quality and appropriate development. Again um creating uh such type of land use which will be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood would be able to uh you know rely on the streets that it's existing uh would be more of a quality high quality and appropriate development um and uh it is uh in my opinion that

this proposed changes amendments to the ordinance are in compliance with your uh master plan. Thank you. Thank you. Um I I have a question ma. Sure. The other two housing developments which a lot of the uh residents came out um I understand that that was also at one time an HD zoned. I believe so it was. And did a similar resolution to change the uh the zoning take place for those two developments? I can't directly testify to that because I wasn't there at that time. But uh I believe that is the um that is the um usual. I would ask for Mr. Marasimovich if he knows of any history of that development. So Mr. Chairman, my recollection uh is Monroe Manor you're talking and uh Monroe Place. Yes. So Monroe Manor goes back to I believe the second round of affordable housing. uh one of the early uh rounds. Um as far as the zoning down there, I don't recall what it would have been before that. As far as Monroe Place, that was that was a HD zone. Uh that's more near the corner of Butcher Road and Route 33 behind the uh the Waw Wa and and that was part of the last round of affordable housing. there was an approval for an uh commercial development and they were an intervenor in the uh in the last round of affordable housing. Um so that was reszoned to be um to to be the uh residential that you see there now. That was part of our last round of affordable housing. And and I know that during the process of the last number of hearings for that um warehouse application, there was some discussions had be between members of

the cit citizenry and the township expressed some concerns during those discussions. Were they made aware that a possible alternative was high density housing? They were, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Just quick comment. Um I think what is being done here is absolutely correct. Uh uh you initially stated um quality of life, I think was your phrase, and nothing would protect the quality of life better than not having trucks coming down the same street that school kids are coming home in. So yes, absolutely. This supports quality of life all the way through. It's very consistent. I agree. I also understand it there might be a park associated with this area property. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, that wouldn't be part of the block and lot that's being reszoned here, but there is a piece of property that the township is acquiring. Um, also next Wednesday night, um, uh, September 3rd in front of the council where there would be, uh, there will be some parkland, uh, that will be developed, uh, you know, in in in conjunction with, um, discussions and conversations with the residents to see what they want to have down there and if it's feasible. Uh, but yeah, that's that's an exciting component of this as well. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to add I I think this uh uh change in ordinance is uh highly um beneficial and I think um our planner did a wonderful job in breaking it down. And I would just add that being present when that other matter and and on this board came up last year and I think the the

ordinance creates a very nice balance. Uh the town is always inconsistent with our master plan looking to have different varieties of housing and the creation of the RA2 zone allows for that and it also finds a balance because from what I recall at the discussion at the time of that application that uh dealt with this property was similar to what our engineer indicated based on his experience here that at some points those housing development areas is became part of that area. Uh I'm I'm guessing essentially by zoning after the fact, similar to what's happening here now. Um, and in doing so, it looks like now we're finally creating a better balance between the industrial nature that has always been down there and is consistent to a lot of that area of the township, but at the same time recognizing the needs of the residential area, which is always a challenge when you have residential and commercial or industrial within the same zone because that was the issue when that application came down last last year was both were permitted. You know, the applicant of the warehouse at that time was a fully permitted use subject to bulk variances that they were looking for and other waiverss and so forth, but the use itself. Let's let's still pending litigation. So, let's talk less about what that application was. No problems. Um, but I would say that I think it makes a lot more sense uh now with the conditional use change in the new ordinance uh and allowing access to Route 33 because that does as Mr. Rothman said helps attenuate situations where not just school children may be on buses or being driven

to and from school in an area going to a residential area. Um but it takes a lot of the truck traffic off of there and by requiring any type of future uh development of this property to be used only with access to Route 33. I think it makes a lot sense in the broader scheme of the entire area and finding a good balance uh consistent with the township's goals uh in our master plan. So I I think it's a highly uh positive change to the ordinance. Thank you. Anybody else in the board? Anybody from the public wish to be heard on this? Michelle Armin 9th annaniel Street. Um could could I ask for some specifics on this ordinance that let's see or uh if you can point out what in particular in this ordinance is different and the changes from the previous HD zone. So what makes this an amendment to the master plan please? And if you can it it wouldn't be an amendment to the master plan. This is just an amendment to the ordinance. The purpose of the planning board's review tonight is to see whether the ordinance amendment is consistent with the master plan. So, wait, this is an ordinance. A Oh, but it's amending chapter It's amending your land development ordinance. Okay. So, the ordinance is actually chapter 108. Yes. Yes. So, and wait, let me just wrap my head around this. I'm sorry. You know what you're talking about. I don't.

Um, so the ordinance itself that we're addressing is 108. This is an ordinance amending 108. Yes. Yes. Okay, that's clear. But the question still remains if you can point out on this what because I don't have 108 in front of me. What changed? Changed. Yeah. So this is specifically amending your um section in the ordinance 108-6.18 which is the HD highway development district. Okay. So your ordinance in that has you know in that section it talks about what's permitted in that zone and all. So this ordinance is amending that it's removing wholesale distributive and storage establishment as a direct permitted use. It is also removing highway development parks and plan parkment and um the the list of things that are associated with it. It's removing that from this district. What it's adding is it's saying under the conditional use portion is that D? Yes, that D that it's it's a it's moving that wholesale distributive storage uh system from permitted under conditional use. Ah so wait so all the crossouts here are deletion they're deleted. Okay. Yeah. And then uh the next page you see under D they have underlined. So they've moved the wholesale distributive and storage establishment under conditional uses. So D is going to be all the conditional conditional right uses required. They all already exist. The only new one that's added is the wholesale distributive and storage establishment and that is uh number 11. Yes. Okay. So that's new for this amendment.

Yes. Okay. And then uh they uh under just below that if you see they're amending article uh 7th where we have all the conditional uses listed in our zone. So specifically 1087.2 no I'm sorry just below you see um where we talked about D just below that you see um oh 7.2 standards of approval. Exactly. Okay. So under that uh they have added what would be the condition why is wholesale distributive would be a condition the condition at that that it would need direct driveway access to route 33 that's when somebody can put a wholesale that makes a lot of establishment very important okay and that's it on the whole ordinance no then uh they have u the se section two of this ordinances they are adding a new um district known as RA A2 which is residential affordable housing district which is if you heard prior the the site we are talking about those block 31 and 32 it's uh changing its zoning from HD into RE2 affordable housing district 2 and does that have to have a specific amount of acres in order to qualify yes or they are they contiguous acres yes so all they are talking about is over here what would be permitted under this. So specifically for this lot they're saying you'll be allowed inclusionary housing uh but maximum of that would be 158 units of which uh minimum uh 65 will have to be affordable units. Then it also lists what would be permitted. You know, your typical um um residential accessory uses such as deck

and patios, swimming pools, off- streetet parking and all that. And then below that, it lists all the area yard and bulk requirements. Okay, that's F. Yeah. Okay, you're good. I'm trying to keep up with Thank you. Okay, so that's sort of ancillary to Yeah. And so there they you will see that what are the bulk requirements. It says you know that minimum lot area has to be 3 acres. The uh which what which is under F if you see one D it'll list all those things. Okay. Yeah. The bulk requirements for subdivided lots. Yeah. So all these things um sorry I'm jumping but above that also it lists what the density of the lot can be. It says you can you're allowed to have a for the entire tract the gross density can be seven dwelling units per acre. Um and that is what that is 1B. If you see under F 1B oh okay but it also like it's it's giving you a gross density but it's saying that maximum number of units can be 158. Okay. It cannot exceed that. Okay. Um and and you know it continues on. It talks about all the your setback standards, your rear yard standards, your how the building has to be placed from side to side and all that. It give you lot coverage. It gives you um you know the height of if it's a townhouse maximum three stories which is very typical in township of Monroe and apartments also will not exceed three stories or 50 ft. Okay. This is this is the same or is this or is this well is this just in here because of the affordable housing amendment? Is that why No, this is in here because it is allowing a residential development to

occur on this site. Oh, I'm sorry. It's it's this is about just reiterating what residential allows not re it's it's setting standards. So it's basically saying that if it is basically saying you can develop this lot as residential but these are the parameters it'll have to follow whatever development comes here. Okay. Now but it has an affordable housing requirement or can this all be market rate at some time in the future? Does this represent a potential for just all market rate? So the way uh if you see keep going under G if you look it talks about that it has to uh the number of affordable uh family rental dwelling units that can come out of this site has to be 65. The caveat is that it does say it can be built on or offsite, but because we are allowing we we are allowing 158, the township basically has to produce 65 affordable units. So, whoever develops this property will have to provide the 65 affordable units for the below 65 even if it's in a different area. Even if it's in a different area. Gotcha. They have to do that for the township. And that that's covered under G1. G. Yeah, G1. Okay. Yeah, that's important. Okay. Cuz that sometimes it looks right. Yeah. And then below that, it's basically you you must have seen all these other, you know, how many can be threebedroom, how many can be onebedroom and so on and so forth. Um, is this, and forgive me because I'm not a mathematician, and I'm not going to do it in my head. Is this 30% or 20% of the affordable housing units? It's 30%. It is. Excellent. Okay, that I think should be the the beginning. People should advertise that because I think that's a win for us. Excuse if you don't mind me um editorializing. Okay.

I'm sorry. It's all Mr. Mc Gavin's doing. No, no, no, it's fine. It's good. No, it's it's important. Well, it's important. Thank you. Go ahead. Anything else? No. Uh and then, you know, it kind of continues. because it'll give you more about u the signage, the parking, all that we have in our ordinance and okay fencing and so on and so forth. So my only comment would be all of these parameters I've seen um in coming to to the planning board for 20 years. Um they're all very good and I support the ordinance as it stands. However, my experience has been that applicants, so I'm just talking in generalities, that applicants come to this board and ask for a myriad of waiverss and exceptions and all that stuff, which leads me as a citizen to believe that these are really not standards that they come in and ask. I mean, we have your letters, we have letters from the engineer and a lot of these things. Now, they have a right to ask for all these waiverss, but I think that if you really want to protect the people of Monroe, we have to try to stay some, you know, pretty close to these standards. I've seen where the setback has been what 60 ft and and I'm just I mean I'm I I I don't have anything specific but if the setback is 60 ft they come in and ask for five feet you know like a waiver for 55 feet I mean it it doesn't make sense and that's just a hypothetical it doesn't make sense to have the quality of this amendment that we're going to congratulate ourselves on if when the applicant comes They have five pages of waiver requests and you give it to them. I mean, this is to protect the citizens and this is a great amendment and I'm glad the citizens came out and tried to protect themselves, but this is the kind

of thing that we should be cognizant of every application if you don't mind me saying so. So, I guess that that No, I I agree and that's why these standards are set. The board members here when the application comes in they you know obviously are my our letter uh the board engineers letter is given to them as a preview of what are the variances. It's always the applicant and applicants team job to prove that as per the land use law they'll have to prove the variances and each and every board member here does listen to their testimony and then is going to decide individually whether they've met the you know the standards to seek the justification of variance. So it's always case by case basis and like I said the pattern unfortunately over the 20 years has been that I in my opinion again once just my opinion that the standards are usually diminished a great deal uh in in favor of the applicant. I hope we can change that and protect our citizens and I applaud this amendment in order to do so. I know a lot of people came out and thank you for working on it. Oh, I do have another question though. who negotiated these changes and with the developers and then is there yet another developer in the mix here? I I I think the the the topic tonight is the ordinance. So, it's it's a review of the ordinance for consistency with the master plan. So, that's the focus of what this board's going to discuss. I mean, I understand that you may have more questions, but they aren't really questions for this board because this board didn't draft the ordinance. This board was tasked solely with determining whether it's consistent with the master plan. But the Okay. So, who drafted the ordinance? Someone on behalf of the council, not this board. So, Mr. Probably Mr. Ray's office. Okay. Cuz again, all right. I mean, I'll take your It's It's just this this board didn't draft the ordinance. This board was

given this ordinance pursuant to the municipal land use law with a request that it review it for consistency with the master plan. So that's was there any deliberation between the board members uh before tonight? I mean there's not any deliberation now. So we haven't gotten to deliberation because we have had presentation. We've had questions on behalf of the board for Miss Apti. Then the chairman opened it to the public. We have not come back to have any discussion by the board before it would take an action. So, the board hasn't taken action yet. So, okay, that's where we're at. Okay, but prior to tonight, there hasn't been any discussion. Um, there shouldn't have been any discussion because this is a public body that's required to move act this meeting. So, um, if there was, it was improper and I don't think it happened. So, okay, good. Thank you for your time. You got Thank you. It was It looks like a good one. Okay. Anybody else wish to be heard? And my name is Charles Depiro, 404 spots with Gravo. I I was just listening to the additions that um that our planner discussed and I just have one question about highway development. Was it ever considered to add um to have highway development? You need a highway. highway being such state highway, county road, because if we're making an amendment or we're making a change and and and you're making the additions and the subtractions to have a highway development, you know, uh there's a lot of properties that are missing a highway. Mr. Chairman, if I could,

please. Um I think it's a good question. It's a question that probably comes to you as the council uh as the council can only change a zoning ordinance or develop a zoning ordinance. This board is just reviewing this particular ordinance for consistency. But to answer your question, we only have a highway development zone here in Monroe down south near Route 33. And so what this does is it this amendment in part says that if you're going to have a warehouse, you have to have access to Route 33. If you're going to develop something in the highway development zone that requires tractor trailers or or that would see an influx of tractor trailers, then you have to have ingress and egress on Route 33. If you have other ideas, you're in a you're in a position to to do that as a council person, but I don't think this board is. I'm speaking as a taxpayer. I'm speaking as a real estate broker for 45 years. I'm speaking as someone that basically came into this building since day one. it's been built. And as the past president just said, you we make ordinances, we make plans, and we do all of this stuff, and then applicants come in front of you and they ask for tons of relief. And and when I remember talking in the past, and I, as the attorney said, um, you know, it's in under litigation, and I'm not saying anything about any of that stuff. All I'm asking is if the zone is is going to get or it's going to get amended that highway development should have a highway. It's a simple addition to the a change because u we watched the overlay zone go out there. Okay. We watched we watched round two as you discussed about about Stratford and and Monroe Manor which is still not it's not fulfilled. Round two, you know, you start going from 95 and 2005 and you

start hitting all of these affordable housing obligations. And I understand our obligation as the town and as this board is to say yes, we have the properties and and and we we did make the the requirements by the state mandates. But however, the developers really are holding are holding the key, the golden key. And um you know I I never been on any of these boards, but I've been here for many many years and I've watched many many boards not put the hammer down on the developer to say that you have to have the affordable housing built prior to marketable with certain units. The last time I I we we had this discussion was Monroe Park and there was not one affordable housing even though the resolution said it, but the developer just didn't build affordable units and and and you know it was a it was a big mess and it's not fair to the public to be misled. And as a real estate broker locally, when people come to me and they say, "What can I buy for that's affordable if there's no units out there?" But I understand that you made we've made the commitment to the mandate, but we didn't build the product. And that's the part that's the broken part of the system. And what the reality is, people aren't seeing it. I think that if we if we take this and we say the word highway development, you need a highway as example, county road, state highway. If you and we're watching Manalopin do the same thing, building all affordable housing up and down State Highway 33. You know, you're watching other towns do it because of the

mandates. And and I don't want to, you know, I don't want to say which way I am about this change, but I just wanted to add what the past resident said is true. I watched it. Um, and also I wanted to add the comment. Maybe whoever did this draft could look at add the word highway into highway development. Thank you. Thank you. Again, um this is really limited to whether or not this is consistent with the master plan. Um is there anybody else from the public that wish to be heard on this recommendation? Seeing none, uh is there a motion to close the public portion as to this re uh recommendation? I so move. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Yeah. Okay. Um, I think the motion that is on the table right now is whether we can recommend based upon the review here tonight whether this is consistent with the master plan and we can take it to the council who I understand is from Kevin is meeting next Wednesday. Yes. So is there a motion for that? I would move that. Second. Is there Okay. Is there is there any discussion? Second. Is there any discussion? Okay, we'll move to vote on it. Mr. Rothman, yes. Miss Brosky, yes. Mr. Weiner, yes. Mayor's representative, Mr. Patel, yes. Chairman Gaffrey, yes. And Mr. Mr. Chairman, uh to the extent that the municipal land use law provides 45 days for this board to receive the ordinance, review it, and provide its recommendation to the council, I prepared a resolution in advance of the meeting which would memorialize the board's action endorsing uh this this change as consistent with the master plan. I would ask that the board consider that resolution. It essentially says pretty much what I said. So moved. Second.

Thank you, Mr. Rothman. Yes. Miss Bratzky. Yes. Mr. Weiner. Yes. Mayor's representative. Mr. Patel. Yes. Chairman Gaffrey. Yes. Okay. Moving on to the second discussion item. And I'm just going to introduce and turn over to Mr. Mcnolo. um review and rec a recommendation of resolution number R-82025-169 authorizing planning board to conduct a study for making a recommendation to designate block 148 lot 37 and the buffer property as non condemnation development area pursuant to the local redevelopment and housing law and just this is moreformational than anything else Mr. chairman. So, this is just so the board understands that this resolution has been adopted by the council, that the council has tasked the planning board with uh having a study prepared and then having a hearing on whether or not this property can be designated as an area in need of redevelopment, a non-ddemnation area in need of redevelopment, which would mean that the uh governing body would not have the power of eminent domain to acquire property. Although, I believe this is actually owned by the township, so it's kind of a moot point at this point. Um, but just so you understand that if at some point that study comes in and that hearing is held, you understand where it came from, why it happened, and what the genesis of it was. So that's what this is. And that's going to then be provided to the board by by Miss. Yep. Most likely. Yes. So we don't have to take any action. You don't have need to do anything tonight. This is just really moreformational. So you understand that the council has adopted this resolution. this is something that's going to be in the works and that in the future if uh Miss Apti shows up with a study uh you understand why it happened, where it happened, and what you're supposed to do. Okay. Okay. Before we move on, does anybody have any questions regarding this? No. And since there's no action to be taken, there's no motions. Nope. Um, I'm going to go back to the

public portion and invite any member of the public to come forward on any other issue other than the uh recommendation we've already discussed. Okay. Uh, seeing nobody come forward, is there a motion to close the public portion? Can I just ask one question? I was looking for it. I'm gonna Mr. Gaffrey. I'm not going to take too much of your time. Michelle Armin Street. Just when it the discussion item says review and recommendation, I I thought that that might mean that if you have a recommendation other than what you have presented, you could actually go to the council and and make an additional recommendation. Is that not the case on what the the review of the ordinance? Yeah. Any I mean both both paragraphs say review and recommendation. So I'm thinking that a recommendation. The second one was really review. There was a question over whether or not action needed to be taken when the agenda was prepared. It did not need to be. The the board does have the ability to offer comments on an ordinance when it does a consistency review of the master plan if it chooses to do so. Okay. So, it's possible that there could have been a recommendation like what um what was suggested um by another member of the public to add the um you know the language highway there there there is always a possibility to make a recommendation. Okay. So, the board chooses not to. That's okay. The board is entitled to do that or not do that. Yep. I just want to clarify it. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else wish to come forward from the public? Hearing none. Is there a motion to close the public portion? Motion move. Second. All in favor? I. Okay. Moving on. Correspondence. There's

no correspondence. And I think we can move to adjourn. Does anybody move? Motion. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. Okay. All in favor? I. Okay. We are adjourned. Thank you.