Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the planning board meeting. We are going to start with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay.

Can we have the adequate notice statement, please?

In accordance with New Jersey Statute 10-4-10, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the newspapers of record and has been posted here in City Hall. For the benefit of the interested public, this meeting is being live streamed to the city's YouTube page and also broadcast on Summit's government channel, which is Comcast Channel 34 and Verizon Channel 30. Any hearings on applications for development in this meeting are quasi-judicial proceedings. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Please note that fire exits are to my right, your left, and at the back of the room where you entered. The city has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired. If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the necessary equipment here at the dais and return it immediately after our meeting.

And we'll now do the roll call.

Chair Bolson-Alvarez. Here. Vice Chair Hamlet.

Here.

Ms. Bowen is expected, but not yet present. Council member Chris Afoli is excused. Mr. Dalmaso. Here. Mr. Felment. Here. Ms. Morrison. Here. Mr. Sala is excused. Mr. Stern is expected, but not yet present. Mr. Staunton. Here. Mr. Golden.

Here.

You have a quorum. You may proceed.

Thank you. Okay. Mr. Warner?

Yes, Madam Chair. It's my understanding we're going to proceed with a closed session. We have a resolution for that purpose. I'll read an abbreviated version. It is a full resolution memorializing that we're going into executive session. UNDER THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT, THERE'S EXCLUSIONS FROM THE PUBLIC FOR CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING PENDING LITIGATION AS WELL AS PERSONNEL MATTERS, BOTH OF WHICH WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THIS EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE PENDING LITIGATION MATTERS UNDER 12B-7 uh will be the tatlock community preservation association versus city of summit and planning board matters uh union law 4748-25 and union law 3186-25 though those are the specific pending litigation matters that will be discussed as well as personnel matters specifically the selection of a planning consultant to prepare a master plan re-examination report the executive session minutes may be disclosed to the public upon the determination of the planning board of the city of summit that the executive session minutes are no longer the subject of pending or anticipated litigation or other confidential matters and this resolution shall take effect immediately as all as with all resolutions of course madam chair if we can have a motion second a roll call vote please yes please so moved second thank you vice chair hamlet yes

Mr. Dalmasso?

Yes.

Mr. Felment? Yes. Ms. Morrison? Yes. Mr. Staunton? Yes. Mr. Golden? Yes. Chair Bolson-Alvarez?

Yes. So do you want to go in the other room? Let's do that. Okay. So we'll see you in a little bit. We have to do it this way.

That's right. But for the public, when we close our close, we will come back, reopen our open public meeting, and proceed with the other public business on the agenda.

Yes, we did.

Yeah, motion to close the closed, open the open. Motion to... All in favor? We are back.

Sorry for the delay. Had a lot to go over. Anyway, we're back, and we are up to master plan consistency reviews for two items. Do you want to go over that, Mr. Werner? Sure.

A master plan consistency review, as the Board knows, under Section 26. Is a determination as to after we hear from our plan and Mr Burgess and his opinion, it's not a public hearing, but it's a determination by us as to whether the zoning regulations that are before us. We have 2 are not inconsistent. Our favorite negative double negative, not inconsistent with the master plan because substantial consistency is all that is required. We'll hear from Mr. Burgess in a moment, but to, as always, to facilitate the process so we can move it into one step as opposed to two, we have resolutions that you can adopt. uh whether or not you find the ordinances to be inconsistent or not inconsistent we write them as not inconsistent uh because more often than not that's the finding of the board right so but uh the chair can call them each out one at a time please yes so uh

we have an ordinance from the city of summit for changes to development regs for the prohibition of uses for detention centers and also one for the prohibition of ai data centers because we they don't believe that it's consistent with the master plan and we're here to Mr. Burgess, do you want to share your views on this?

Certainly. Let's take each one separately. The first one regards detention centers. When you read the municipality's master plan as well as the 2016 reexamination report, the policy of the municipality is clear. protecting the residential character of the community it talks about prohibiting intrusions of high intensity incompatible or inappropriate land uses and detention centers as we've all been reading in the newspapers recently um team to characterize all those features that i just mentioned the master plan the re-examination report and the zoning ordinance have all prohibited this use in any event. So they're not allowed today. This ordinance is simply designed to reinforce and reaffirm that prohibition. So it's safe to conclude that consistent with the Municipal Land Use Law wording, This ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan of the community.

And if I may mention, and so to be clear, Mr. Burgess, there are already non permitted uses. Correct. But this is calling them out to clarify or further reflect that they are actually prohibited uses. In effect, the same thing. If you wanted to have this use, you would have to go to the zoning board of adjustment to get a one use variance in order to have it correct.

That's correct. And that would be, you know, if this gets adopted by the governing body tomorrow, it would be the same as if the regulation was not into effect as of this moment, because they can't do that right now.

But they would perhaps it makes it clear a little more definitive. Yes. Not only. lacking from the list of permitted uses, but it is explicitly missing from that list because it is affirmatively prohibited, perhaps removes all, any doubt if there were any, that this is a use that, uh, is not permitted in any zone. If it's adopted in, in the city. Yes. And again, ours for the members of the public, if I may, that I'm sharing to be clear. our job is a limited role of jurisdiction we are the gatekeepers of the master plan as the planning board so when the ordinance is introduced any land use ordinance is introduced by the governing body they have an obligation under section 26 of the minnesota land use law to refer it to us for a limited review essentially is it inconsistent with the master plan or is it not inconsistent with the master plan that is effectively all we are considering and that's why we don't have a public hearing it's not a public hearing that's done here the public hearing would happen in front of the governing body on second reading so we don't essentially address the merits of the ordinance we're focused on whether it's consistent with the master plan, or not inconsistent with the master plan, I should say, or inconsistent. So that's why it's a limited role we play.

Right. Joe, what else would you like to say?

One other item, just to make it clear, there is one exception to that rule.

The ordinance does exempt municipal detention facilities.

That's basically, and it identifies that as a

temporary detention in a municipal police station so it's clear that that small scale that function will continue it can't continue i'd like to open it up for folks to ask questions of joe or discuss the this particular topic No questions or discussion? I guess I will. Okay.

My understanding is that federal government, state government, I don't know about county, if they own property, they can choose to build one of these facilities. Is that correct?

That is essentially correct. However, you know, we were the plan. We're planners in Roxbury, where I'm sure many of you have read. Is there anything going on in Roxbury? Pardon?

Is there anything going on in Roxbury with respect to dissension center?

The whole process has slowed down thanks to all the protests.

There you go.

And now they're contemplating trying to sell the property.

And that was on county land for Miss Morrison's question.

That was on private property. Private. but it shows you what vocal residents can do. This is a democracy, after all.

Okay, Mr. Stern.

Probably more for Steve than for Joe, but from a legal perspective, explicitly including the use for civil integration detention, I guess there was some case in 25.

Core civic 25, yeah.

think carceral already includes that like do we have any additional liability by including that language because then the feds conceivably they struck down a state ban as targeted regulation of it because we it was specifically called out is that is the city opening itself up for a potential

My advice to the board with respect to whether or not the ordinance, if and when adopted, would be preempted by federal government under the supremacy clause. or otherwise is not for us to opine on. And the governing body will proceed with its ordinance as the governing body and common council sees fit with the advice of the city solicitor. And I don't think it would be prudent for us as a planning board to go beyond our jurisdiction, let alone potentially in an open session question certainly assuming arguendo there were any immunities or any preemption of this ordinance if and when adopted, hypothetically, regardless, there would be, in my opinion, no liability of the planning board for weighing in on whether or not the ordinance is consistent or not inconsistent versus inconsistent with the master plan. And I would advise to leave it at that.

Again, limited role. So any other questions?

Yes. One question. I believe I know the answer, but I'm going to ask the legal and land use expert in the room. We do have in Summit a mental health facility. Most of the patients there are voluntary patients. Some of them are involuntary committed patients. So I just want to make sure that this cannot be construed to somehow affect that use.

What do you think, Joe?

No, that's a whole separate category to begin with in terms of law.

Good question.

I'm sure it's a whole separate category in terms of law. They are not being detained as a corporate corporal issue. It might be detained as a health issue.

That's different. Different use.

Being because it's medically related. Pardon? Because it's a part of mental health.

Yes. You know, a police facility or something like that. Okay. Any other? Okay. So do we do you want to.

Ultimately, we have a resolution of finding the ordinance not inconsistent with the master plan, consistent, I guess, with the advice of our planner. If you agree, it would be a motion, second, and a roll call vote to adopt that ordinance.

Do you have a motion? So moved. Second?

Second.

Thank you. So we're saying it is not inconsistent, so we say aye. Just have to make sure we get the double negative correct.

It's a yes to adopt the resolution.

OK, yeah. OK, thank you.

Yes.

Vice Chair Hamlet? Oh, sorry.

Yes. No, I was going to say it's a roll call.

It's a roll call.

Yeah. Vice Chair Hamlet?

Yes.

Ms. Bowen?

Oh, she didn't make it. Oh, sorry.

Mr. Dalmasso?

Yes.

Mr. Felment? Yes. Ms. Morrison? Yes. Mr. Stern? Yes. Mr. Staunton?

Yes.

Chair Bolson-Alvarez? Oh, Mr. . Mr. Golden? Yes. Chair Bolson-Alvarez? Yes.

Should have eight, right?

Okay. The next one, Joe, would you like to give us your wisdom on the next one? Yes.

This regards data centers. In some respect, it's the same thing that I said earlier in terms of protecting neighborhoods and regarding intrusion of high-intensity uses. In this particular instance, the focus also is on the issue of the adequacy, resiliency, and functionality of our utility infrastructure. And the definition set forth in Section 357.2 for AI data centers specifically talks about a use that meets or that generates a total peak hour load in excess of a specific, well, in this case, 20 megawatts or has a measurable and distinct impact on water utility. consumption is considered an AI data center and this ordinance specifically prohibits that particular use. This definition and an accompanying definition on computer centers makes a distinction between non-AI data centers, and that is important because that often exists and will continue to exist as a separate kind of activity that simply does not have those kinds of impacts in terms of utility infrastructure that the AI data centers have. And I think the two definitions make it clear as to what we're prohibiting and what we're continuing to permit.

Yes. An accessory and smaller and just supportive. I thought that was good too.

Having said all that, the conclusion is the same as for the previous. The ordinance is not inconsistent with the intent of the master plan.

Correct. Did you want to add something before we ask questions?

Just for clarification, you aptly pointed out the distinction between what is being defined as computer center as opposed to AI data center in the ordinance, it's my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Burgess, that the computer center is indeed a permitted use in certain zones, including, at a minimum, the PROD and PROD2 zones, P-R-O-D, PROD, correct? That is correct, yes.

But some of the language that was particularly helpful for the computer center, the smaller center, the supplemental and accessory to in a proud zone, for example, you know, that it's it's not primary and that it is not large scale. You know, there are certain key differentials that I thought were well done.

And also in terms of employees as well, which is mentioned in the definition.

Why is it just like

Is it a broad enough term?

I think a lot of that... No, but a lot of what you just mentioned is in the definition.

Yeah.

The definition includes crypto.

No, it talks about... Well, let's take it for another... Let's just go more than medical use. So we obviously know that BMS has their data centers down there right now, right?

My one question is, do you know what... I was just going to say, do we know the power? Do you know the power of those?

It's nowhere near 20 megawatts. It's not. Yeah, I didn't think so.

And now we're calling it a computer center instead of a data center. I mean, 20, I mean, I do this for a living. Like, 20 megawatts is, it's a decent-sized data center. Yeah. You wouldn't put it on 96 acres at Crystal Myers Squibb, that'd be a 200 or 300 megawatt data center, but it's still large, right?

Yes, you're right.

And I don't know if 20 is the right number or not, and that's obviously not for us to...

Is the sum of factors included in the definition for AI data center enough to put a board in a position where they could make a determination or a zoning official could make a determination that regardless of the, you know, a difference in the power wattage to utility consumption to the type of the principal use of the structure, they could determine, ah, yes, this is an AI data center. Therefore, it is prohibited.

As long as it's minimally 20 megawatts.

Yeah, I think I know that the fear is poorly CoreWeave doesn't just do AI. They do cloud-based computing.

But those components are also mentioned in this definition.

Yeah, I just think the title of it is... What should the title be?

The title is what you're concerned about.

I don't know. It should be Hyperscale.

from a legal person there's an optic issue there certainly to the extent it's relevant from a legal perspective for interpretive purposes um you know you could call it a joe smith center as long as it's properly defined and here the ai data center i grant you it Not my ordinance, by the way, but I'm just looking at it the first time as you are. And we're focused on mass plant consistency review, but I agree with Joe from a legal perspective that calling it an AI data center, but then saying as commonly known as, sometimes referred to as, artificial intelligence data center, internet data center, or cloud data center, and any and all functionally equivalent but differently named uses, structures, and facilities means, and then getting into a long definition, the fact that it starts with AI data center as its overall name to distinguish it from computer center, We might not have to worry too much about that because it clearly includes much more than that from a legal perspective.

Okay.

I had another question. For example, on some of the big properties, the couple big properties in town, if there was multiple tenants that each did 20 megawatts, right, and they were... Like, for example, VMS sold to a number of parties were leasing space and they all put 20 megawatt centers in a certain area. How does this ordinance stop that? Or does it not? um that well yeah let's say there's 19 there's 10 tenants um they're in an 88 acre area they're just leasing it then it's no it's all in the same if they're not then they have to have if it's on the same track there's also no way that jcpno will be able to supply 200 megawatts of power

If they were to put, regardless, they would have to apply for variance relief for the use anyway. Is that the case? That is correct.

Yeah. Okay. So it'd be stopped by a number of mechanisms. Yes.

And also just to give you all an idea, like the prod zone, I think the setbacks are enormous right now, currently in the zoning, something like a hundred feet, you know, so that's, that's another, just in our existing zoning because it's already there. But with regard to the subject matter at hand, When you think about our master plan and you think about the goals of the master plan, is this inconsistent or is this not inconsistent? Not inconsistent. That's what I think. Okay.

So do we have... Well, fortuitously, we have a resolution to that effect. That's amazing. Yeah. If someone wishes to move, second, and roll call, vote to adopt that resolution, you would be finding... this uh introduced ordinance not inconsistent with the master plan so that it can proceed to to second read public hearing before the common council so i have a motion so move mr stern second second first well you got it thank you couldn't tell which one of them you did okay all right so roll call vote please face chair hamlet

Yes.

Mr. Dalmasso? Yes. Mr. Felment? Yes. Ms. Morrison? Yes. Mr. Stern? Yes. Mr. Staunton? Yes. Mr. Golden? Yes. Chair Bolson-Alvarez?

Yes. I have one little bit of just news update. Melissa sent us all some, our old DRO changes. We're going to add a few more, and then you all do your homework and read it, work Work on it and we'll see you in three weeks and try and send that up to city city council. OK, so please go over it and they're going to be some additions to it.

And please forward to the board secretary. Sorry for that to the board secretary, if you make any.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. The resolution for Joe. Yeah. Sorry.

Thank you.

So we have a resolution.

Yeah, well. Where'd it go?

I had it a second ago. Thank you. All right, so. We all went into executive session to talk about hiring our planner to do our reexamination and we all agreed to continue with Burgess Associates and we'd like to approve this resolution, right? Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Thank you. A second?

Second.

All right.

Congratulations. Well, it is a resolution. We have to roll call vote to make it official. Yes. Mr.

Chair Hamlet? Yes. Mr. Delmasso? Yes. Mr. Filment? Yes. Ms. Morrison? Yes. Mr. Stern? Yes. Mr. Stoneton? Yes. Mr. Golden? Yes. Chair Bolson-Alvarez? Yes.

Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate the confidence you've continued to show in our firm. Absolutely. And we'll get started on that right away.

Very well qualified planner in the state of New Jersey. Ms. Hamlin has a question.

I guess, should we clarify to the public what we just did? Sure. You go ahead.

We're going to do a master plan reexamination, which is required every 10 years. And Mr. Burgess is very well qualified to do so. And we had to go into an executive session because We bid these out and we look at other planners and Joe is uniquely qualified to pursue this for us and he has done an excellent job so far and that's why we are sticking with Joe.

That will be followed by the master plan. Yeah. Joe, I did have a question that's not related to our agenda if this would be a good time. The planning board extended Bristol-Myers Squibb's general development plan until I think June of 2027. With that pending sale, and I talked with Steve a little bit about this, with the pending sale of that, I have two questions. One is, does Bristol-Myers Squibb or the potential new owner come back and revisit that GDP? Do they request that, I'm assuming?

It goes with the land, not the owner.

So it goes with the land, not the owner. But as we're in the process of looking at that entire property down there, what is, in your opinion, you know, how does that process work for the planning board and and the Mount Laurel committee that's been established by Common Council?

Assuming we are finished with the fourth round housing plan and the story, there are a few questions about that. But assuming we are finished with that, That property, if it were to be considered, would be considered as sort of our fifth round. I would strongly suggest that while we do this, what I'll call a brief re-examination report so we get started on the full-blown master plan very soon, we will be looking at that property We have our own designers on staff that will try to come up with a reasonable approach to see how that site may be redeveloped the way the municipality wants to do so. before we start talking to the property owner.

Yes. Do we know if any of the potential buyers have reached out to see what they can develop on the site?

So I guess without compromising attorney-client privilege, I guess what we're working on right now, and I guess Augusto can speak more to this, but the Mount Laurel Committee, which was done by resolution from the Common Council, is currently looking at, Joe, what's the right word? We're looking at just some draft decisions.

I would recommend a separate discussion. I don't think the planning board's at the forum at the moment. We have no application in front of us. Yeah, no application.

So it's all done through the Mount Laurel committee right now. My question was more just will that be, how will that fit into the re-exam, I guess?

Well, the re-examination report is simply designed to make sure we stay legal over the next three or four months because that's the timeframe we have to adopt the REACs. And then that gives us a much longer period of time to work on the full-blown master plan. I would suggest that that master plan process will probably take a year.

The full-blown one, after the master plan re-exam.

Right. If it takes eight weeks, that should be more than sufficient time to wrap that up. And then we'll start with the full-blown master plan. And that's when a lot of the background information has already been put together because we just finished the housing element and fair share plan where we did land use and demographic data and environmental data. So we could jump right in on some of the larger tracks remaining in the town to look at how we want to see those developed.

Mm-hmm. Good. Thank you. All right. Do we have a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Okay. Thank you.

It was unanimous.

Thanks, Joe.