[0:11] Hello everyone. Uh, welcome to the
Township of Chadam committee meeting the
[0:16] workshop agenda for today, March 10th.
Uh, the meeting is being called to order
[0:20] at 7:31. Mr. Lacanti, has adequate
notice been given, please?
[0:24] » Yes. Adequate notice of this meeting of
the township committee was given as
[0:27] required by the open public meetings act
as follows. Notice was given to the Chad
[0:30] Courier in the Mars County Deli Record
on January 7th, 2026. Notice was posted
[0:36] on the bulletin board in the main
hallway of the municipal building on
[0:38] January 7th, 2026. And notice was filed
with the township clerk on January 7th,
[0:43] 2026.
>> Thank you, Mr. Landi. Can we have a roll
[0:46] call, please?
>> Mr. Al Perowitz.
[0:49] » Mr. Troy,
>> here.
[0:51] » Mrs. Ewald,
>> here. Deputy Mayor McHugh
[0:54] » here and mayoritz.
>> Yes, here
[0:58] » and second call. Mr. Alaritz
>> here.
[1:02] We have the whole committee.
>> Okay.
[1:05] Now I would like to open uh the first
hearing of citizens. Mr. Lante, will you
[1:09] please provide guidance?
>> Members of the public are now welcome to
[1:14] come to the microphone to address the
township committee. This is an
[1:17] opportunity for any member of the public
to be heard about issues which are not
[1:21] topics scheduled for public hearings
tonight. Those present may step up to
[1:25] the microphone to be heard. If you're
watching via Zoom, you may speak during
[1:29] any of the public comment sessions by
following the Zoom instructions to raise
[1:33] your hand. Whether in person or online,
when you're recognized to speak, please
[1:37] mind the following procedures. Please
say your name, spell your last name, and
[1:42] give the name of your street. You are
not required to give your street number.
[1:46] All public comments will be limited to 3
minutes. Rather than use any of your
[1:51] time answering questions, the township
committee will wait until you finish
[1:55] speaking before responding.
There are two public comment sessions on
[1:59] tonight's agenda. Each member of the
public will be limited to one comment of
[2:03] up to three minutes during each public
comment period. Written comments
[2:08] submitted to the township clerk before 3
p.m. today will be read during the
[2:11] public comment sessions. Written
comments are subject to the same
[2:15] guidelines as oral comments. Duplicative
written comments uh may be summarized
[2:19] rather than read in full according to
the guidelines issued by the New Jersey
[2:24] Division of Local Government Services.
Um these rules will also apply to the
[2:28] public hearing on the uh the ordinances
this evening. And if anyone's here about
[2:32] the ordinances, we will have separate
public hearings uh for those matters.
[2:37] And uh we did not have any written
comments for this evening.
[2:39] » Okay. Uh are there any hands raised
online?
[2:43] Uh, no hands raised online.
>> Any member of the audience would like to
[2:48] come forward to ask any questions?
[2:52] » Any question?
[2:56] Let's see.
>> Questions or comments? Anything?
[3:00] » And this is for anything other than the
ordinances.
[3:03] » Okay.
>> The ordinances are the affordable
[3:07] housing matters.
[3:13] Then we can close the first hearing of
citizens
[3:17] and we can move on to the public hearing
for the adoption of the ordinances
[3:22] number 2026-05
the affordable housing ordinance.
[3:27] Ordinance 2026-06
adding the H AH1 zone and ordinance
[3:32] 2026-07 affordable housing overlay
district.
[3:37] We open it to to comment now.
>> Yes. Uh we do not have any hands raised
[3:42] online.
>> Okay.
[3:43] » So if anyone is here to speak about
ordinance 202605
[3:48] um so the zoning ordinances come next.
This is the one that um is we'll let
[3:55] Jessica describe what it's about. But um
if you're here about either of the
[3:59] zoning ordinances, those are the next
two.
[4:02] Now, for the benefit of the residents,
you want to just do all three of them
[4:05] public hearing together?
>> Uh, we should have separate ones, one
[4:08] for each.
>> Okay.
[4:12] » Okay. So, are we going to let Jessica
make comments first and then
[4:15] » Well, that's that's up to to you.
>> Yes. Let's have Jessica make comments
[4:19] first.
>> Yeah.
[4:20] » And give an overview.
>> Good evening, everybody. The first
[4:23] ordinance on for tonight is uh what's
referred to as the affordable housing
[4:28] ordinance which set forth the rules and
regulations for the administration of
[4:35] Cadam's affordable housing program and
how the units that will be produced um
[4:40] and the units that are currently
available will be administered. This
[4:45] includes income distribution limits, um,
bedroom distributions,
[4:52] um, as well as how they're going to be
marketed to residents and re and those
[4:58] who live in the affordable housing
region. It also includes what's called a
[5:03] um, development fee ordinance, which is
actually very similar. Actually, it is
[5:09] the same ordinance that we had adopted
previously. it was just um brought up to
[5:14] date with the new UAC regulations.
[5:21] » So just to make clear, this is what we
already have on the books but updated
[5:24] based on the new the new round.
>> Yeah, it is pretty much exactly what we
[5:29] had. Um this is for the most part the or
the model ordinance that most
[5:34] municipalities will be adopting. I did
make some specific changes that I felt
[5:39] were important for the township and it
was signed off by um
[5:45] by the um fair share housing even though
it didn't need to be. They uh they did
[5:49] sign off on it so we shouldn't have any
issues. Um everything has been um you
[5:55] know reviewed by everyone it needs to be
reviewed by. So,
[6:06] » okay. Any other discussion
>> or we can open to the public if there
[6:10] are any comments on ordinance 2026-05
the affordable housing ordinance
[6:20] » that or can type in the chat. Um,
I'm reading through this stuff. Uh, can
[6:26] you tell me how many units you guys are
meaning to build or whatever? I know
[6:32] there's a Southern Boulevard.
>> I can't hear you. Can we
[6:35] » Oh, you can't hear me at all. Uh,
>> speak into the mic.
[6:38] » Okay. Sorry. Head for me.
Sorry about that. Uh, I'm trying to find
[6:44] out how many uh affordable housing
housing units you guys are committing to
[6:48] build through this settlement.
So we did not settle with fair share
[6:53] housing. So there is no settlement. This
is the affordable housing ordinance
[6:58] which does administer the affordable
housing units which will be created. Our
[7:03] realistic development potential was four
units. So the township has committed to
[7:09] building four units over the next
10-year period
[7:12] » at Southern Boulevard.
>> That will be in the I I'm not I don't
[7:18] know it is Southern Boulevard, but I may
Yes, that
[7:21] » okay.
>> I know it is block I know the blocks and
[7:24] lots. Um later there are two ordinances
on regarding overlay zones and those are
[7:32] zones um which will help to
meet our unmet need. Our unmet need is
[7:39] what we're not committing to build but
we're zoning to build. So it doesn't
[7:43] have to be built. We're not planning to
build it but we are providing the
[7:47] potential for it to be built.
>> Thank you.
[7:54] I will also say the uh realistic
development potential was four units,
[7:58] but we are building a um triplex and we
will receive one bonus credit. So
[8:03] technically it's three units plus one
bonus credit
[8:10] » when you say four units.
>> Oh, sorry. Jim Blo B I E L L O Popler
[8:17] Lane.
When you say units, how many actual
[8:22] apartments or whatever they are being
built in those four units?
[8:25] » Three.
>> Three.
[8:27] » There will be three units. Three
apartments with varying bedrooms, but
[8:32] only three.
>> Okay. How many How many units are we
[8:36] required by state law to build?
>> Three.
[8:40] » I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We're required to
build four. We're building three and we
[8:45] get one bonus credit. Um, if I can just
uh cut in for procedure, let the
[8:50] resident ask all your questions and then
we'll respond at the end.
[8:54] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay.
[8:55] » Sorry.
>> So, the unit on where Charlie Browns
[8:58] used to be,
>> is that one unit or is that 80 or 60
[9:03] units?
>> 62 units.
[9:05] » 62 units.
>> Sorry, I'm not supposed to wait for all
[9:07] these questions.
>> That's all right. That's all right.
[9:09] » Question.
>> So, you're saying all Chadam's going to
[9:12] do is build four more units.
>> Three. three more units.
[9:17] » So, this is the fourth round of
affordable housing. We have been found
[9:22] compliant and done everything we needed
to do for our third round housing
[9:26] with the
building of the um group homes.
[9:32] » That's the last remaining units that
need to be built for our third round
[9:35] compliance. The three units that we're
discussing this evening are for our
[9:39] fourth round compliance.
>> How big a building is that going to be
[9:43] for three units?
[9:47] It's a triplex, so they'll It's going to
be similar to a townhouse with three.
[9:54] » Okay. Okay.
>> All right. Thank you.
[10:10] Okay, just as a reminder before you
start, um, ask all your questions and
[10:15] once you're done, then we'll respond.
Once we start responding,
[10:20] that's you're done with questions. So,
>> it's an unusual request. So, that's
[10:25] another question based on response. I
>> Yeah, that's that's part of board
[10:28] procedures. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. Well,
let me see if I could ask this question
[10:33] so I don't have to try to get another
question in. My name is Don Banano and
[10:37] Three Magnolia Place. So, in the
deliberations of this council,
[10:44] uh, what went into the decision to
change the business districts, and
[10:49] that's what I understand you're doing.
You're now including low moderate income
[10:53] housing. What went into the decision of
concentrating that in the areas you've
[10:58] chosen?
and was there consideration for any of
[11:02] the residents around there? And the last
question I'll ask you, um, and I'm going
[11:08] to ask it different this way. Uh, how
many members of the board live within an
[11:13] eighth of a mile of where this new
business district is going to be? Any
[11:18] hands? Quarter of a mile. You're not
going to answer 3/4 of a mile. Two
[11:24] miles.
Two miles.
[11:27] Two miles. So effectively these the the
members here are concentrating these low
[11:35] moderate income housing units at least
the plan and I understand you're not
[11:38] going to do anything now but you're
concentrating in an area where none of
[11:42] you move within a mile mile and a half
of it whereas there are many residents
[11:48] who may be within 500 to a,000 ft of all
of these areas that are being
[11:55] identified. So, was there any
consideration to say, gee, maybe we
[11:59] ought to spread this out to with this
very, very large township that we live
[12:03] in. Now, I'm going to make this comment.
I was here four years ago, and maybe it
[12:07] was a little less, maybe a little more
when uh you guys weren't here, but the
[12:13] port had decided to put in some low and
moderate income housing right around
[12:18] here. You couldn't get a seat in the
room. You couldn't get a seat outside.
[12:22] You couldn't get a street on the seat
out in a parking lot. It was packed and
[12:27] there was a good reason for it because
people were being affected by it. This
[12:31] decision not that many people are being
affected by it but there is a
[12:35] development that is going to be affected
by it and no consideration has been
[12:39] given to those people who pay a lot of
taxes and get very very little in
[12:44] return. Our choice I understand that
nobody's forcing us to live there. But
[12:49] it seems to be an odd concentration of
where these affordable housing units are
[12:54] going to be placed. This is a very large
township. Uh there are a lot of things
[12:59] that are going on adjacent to this
township that are going to require these
[13:03] shopping centers to stay as shopping
centers. There is a big development in
[13:07] Gerald going in by Madison. Not your
responsibility, but those people are
[13:11] going to want to shop somewhere. We
start putting affordable housing within
[13:15] those shopping areas, it's going to take
away shopping opportunities. Um, so I'd
[13:20] like to understand the thought process
is why we're jamming it all into one
[13:24] area. Why not spread it out throughout
the township? Thank you.
[13:35] » Do you want to make some clarification
first?
[13:37] » Yeah, definitely some legal
clarification. Yeah, I I
[13:42] » answer the person who
>> Yes.
[13:46] » Yes.
[13:50] » But you if you want to come back up if
you have a follow-up question, you're
[13:53] more than welcome to come back to the
mic if you if you want to.
[13:57] » Should I?
>> No, we're going to answer his question.
[14:00] We're going to have our
>> Do you want me You want to
[14:04] » provide cl I can provide wanted to
provide some clarification just to make
[14:06] sure residents understand. Um
so the third round affordable housing
[14:13] which was the last round that we
completed we built 62 units which is the
[14:17] Charlie Brown site and 24 units went in
at the Arbor Green site. Those are 100%
[14:22] affordable units. We are obligated under
this fourth round to build three which
[14:28] gives us four credits affordable housing
units. the overlay zone. In our third
[14:34] round, we did an overlay zone over the
property that's next to the Chattam
[14:38] Club. The overlay zone provides the
option for a developer to come in and to
[14:43] do uh residential housing, but it's
mixed in terms of being affordable and
[14:49] market rate. So, we already have an
overlay zone on a property that was
[14:53] that's been in place during the third
round. But whether or not a developer
[14:57] comes in, it's it's up to, you know, the
market dynamics, it's up to the
[15:02] development, that was never opted, but
it would in that property, it's 36 units
[15:07] and it would be mixed use and it's 5:1
ratio market rate housing to affordable
[15:12] housing. the de the overlay zone. The
reason that it was put over that area is
[15:17] we have to provide a realistic
development potential for those units.
[15:21] We still have an obligation to build,
but we don't have space to build. So,
[15:26] you have to provide you have to meet
that. It's basically an unmet need. You
[15:30] have to provide some way to to
accommodate for that unmet need. And it
[15:35] is the same way as that property,
Fairmount Commons, that's over by the
[15:39] Chattam Club in that it allows for
market and affordable. So, I think it's
[15:43] a 20% set aside affordable and the way
it was structured is so that it's two
[15:49] stories. I don't even think it allows
for three stories of residential
[15:52] development similar to what you already
have at the Charlie Brown site and other
[15:56] structures in the area. And again,
market dynamics, the people who own
[16:02] those properties, that may not happen,
but it was our obligation to provide a
[16:06] realistic development potential for for
that ability to put in the multi-unit
[16:11] housing. So, I hope that I just wanted
to clear the I still respect everybody's
[16:16] input and I just want to make sure we
understood what the dynamics are. And
[16:19] now now I'll turn it over to whatever
whoever else wanted to provide input.
[16:25] » I think also based on the landscape of
Chhattam Township and swamp and wetlands
[16:32] and those kind of things, we are very
limited in our options of where we are
[16:35] able to identify these areas. So, we
were very thoughtful about all of this
[16:40] and um it's a legal obligation. Chattam
Township has been one of the only
[16:46] townships and municipalities that has
successfully,
[16:50] you know, implemented our our affordable
housing. There are some some
[16:54] municipalities that haven't done
anything yet. And um Fair Share Housing
[16:59] brought uh lawsuits against every
municipality, over 400 municipalities in
[17:03] New Jersey. China Township was one of
maybe two that were successful in
[17:06] winning
>> if if unless you know if your fellow
[17:10] » I'd like to ask
>> unless Jessica you had anything else you
[17:15] wanted to add.
>> I I do. So um we if we understand the
[17:19] overlay zones they retain the zoning
that is already there. The overlay
[17:24] zoning gives an option. It doesn't mean
that that option has to be taken, but it
[17:30] provides the the zoning required by the
Mount Laurel doctrine.
[17:34] » I understand.
>> Now, we were legally required under this
[17:40] new the new amended housing act to
identify portions of Chadam which were
[17:46] this is a term that is in the fair
housing act likely to redevelop. So, we
[17:53] couldn't just pick anywhere. We had to
go through and look at the areas that
[17:59] were likely to redevelop. The statute
identified some types that you know some
[18:03] types of um properties u nurseries uh
like plant nurseries um and not baby
[18:11] nurseries but um that for example that's
one of them. Um any vacant land that
[18:17] that could be developed that that would
obviously be another one. Um, fair share
[18:21] was very much pushing Chadam to have
higher densities in our areas where they
[18:28] currently our overlay zones are 10
dwelling units per acre. What that means
[18:32] is for every acre of land, 10 units are
available. Two of those units would be
[18:39] affordable housing units. eight of those
if the zoning is if you take if someone
[18:45] takes advantage of the zoning um the
overlay zoning, eight of those would be
[18:49] market rate units. Two of them would be
affordable units. And when you go
[18:53] through the entirety of the
um overlay zones, it equals what our
[19:01] unmet need is.
>> I understand
[19:05] » what you just said.
>> Okay. However, it seems to me when you
[19:09] thought about where are we now going to
put these these areas, you concentrated
[19:15] extremely extreme concentration in one
area. Now, Chattam Township is a from
[19:22] from acreage, square miles or whatever
you want to call it is very very large.
[19:26] And I know there's some big properties,
there's some big houses, there are a lot
[19:29] of things, but it's strange that you
concentrated in an area. There are two
[19:33] shopping malls that are critical to this
to not only our area in Chattam
[19:39] Township, they're critical to Madison. I
know we don't give a damn about Madison.
[19:43] We don't ever did. Um Mars, Madison's
going to build on Geralda. Uh where are
[19:48] those people going to be shopping? What
you've done is taken the in my opinion,
[19:52] you've taken the easy way out. you said,
'You know what? We're not going to get
[19:56] Look how many people have shown up here
tonight. Almost none. Because you know
[20:00] what? Because they're not affected. When
we had the when we had the um
[20:04] recommendation to put low and moderate
income housing on this property here,
[20:09] and I just talked about it before, you
couldn't get a parking spot. You
[20:12] couldn't squeeze yourself in here. So,
it's a matter of, you know what, I think
[20:16] you made a decision on who's who are we
going to annoy? Who are we going to get
[20:20] mad at us? We don't give a damn. those
people in that development behind there,
[20:24] we don't give a damn about them. We pay
2 and a half% of the taxes. We get
[20:28] nothing. We That's our choice. That's
not a complaint. It's our choice. But I
[20:32] think you've taken an easy way out.
Said, you know what? Let's make it a a
[20:37] business to change the business zone to
a business affordable housing zone and
[20:42] it's given you an easy way out. You
didn't do enough work on this. There's
[20:46] got to be other areas you could have
identified instead of concentrating it.
[20:49] And that's why I asked the question, how
many of you on the board live within an
[20:53] eighth of a mile, a quarter of a mile, a
half a mile? You could be three miles
[20:56] away and still be in this township.
I don't know. I'm not asking where you
[21:00] live, but that's the issue. And I don't
think you've given enough thought to
[21:04] what you do to other people who are big
contributors to the tax base in this
[21:08] town without really saying, you know
what, maybe we should have diversified
[21:12] this a little bit more. So that's my
complaint.
[21:16] And I know you've already voted on this,
so it's probably a dead issue for us, me
[21:21] living in this where I do, but you're
you're concentrating this zone in one
[21:26] area of this enormous township. And I
know what you said. We got swamps, we
[21:30] got a lot of things. There are other
areas, and I would love to see the other
[21:34] areas you looked at and turned down.
Thank you.
[21:38] » So, I would say the other side of that
is not only I've lived here for 25
[21:43] years. I grew up in Madison, actually.
So, I I've lived there for 35 years.
[21:47] » So, um there's also consideration for
our new residents and the people that
[21:53] will move into town if there is
affordable housing.
[21:57] People that qualify for affordable
housing, and there's a reason they
[22:01] qualify for affordable housing,
>> they may or may not have an automobile.
[22:05] They may or may not have transportation.
We're required at Charlie Browns to
[22:09] provide transportation to the train
station as part of affordable housing
[22:12] because they may not have
transportation. So I think as a human
[22:16] being to put them out on Myersville Road
is yeah I didn't think that was the best
[22:21] » prior board prior board decided here was
a pretty good place. So boards have
[22:26] different opinions. So you that's this
board's decision and I'm sure it's an
[22:30] easy one for you guys to make and say
you know what people have affordable
[22:33] housing they don't have two or three
cars put them where they're shopping.
[22:37] Well guess what if you if you put
affordable housing in there where are
[22:40] they going to shop? They're not going to
shop there if you take the if you take
[22:43] away the the shopping malls, the not
malls, but the shopping areas are two to
[22:47] two that the abut Chunk Pike Road. So,
it just seems to me you guys made a
[22:52] pretty easy decision. Let's make this
decision. We're not going to have a lot
[22:56] of people screaming about it. It may
never happen, but you know what? You're
[23:00] being very unfair to the people who
bought those properties. Very, very
[23:04] unfair. We should go back and rethink
what you decided to do.
[23:10] Mayor, if I may just make a couple
comments. Um,
[23:12] » first first if I may just clarify um if
I'm if I'm hearing uh the gentleman uh
[23:18] correctly
this has been structured in such a way
[23:22] that we have what's called an overlay
zoning. So the underlying pre-existing
[23:26] zoning still exists and is applicable.
So I think the notion and and the extent
[23:31] that um something does materialize there
per this plan uh would be um not to uh
[23:38] eliminate the commercial component that
is to say the retail shopping there. It
[23:42] would uh desiraably be a mixeduse um
structure where you've got residential
[23:47] with the existing some semblance of the
existing retail uh along with parking.
[23:53] So that's a hope and desire and again
this is a a you know a uh a straw man
[23:59] plan that may or may not happen over the
next 10 years. That's sort of the
[24:02] horizon. Uh a couple things I understand
and I certainly respect your your your
[24:06] opinion. Um there's a lot of work that
happens uh at at the subcommittee
[24:11] committee level that is to say the
affordable housing subcommittee. So
[24:14] there's been uh extensive hours uh
consulting with professionals uh looking
[24:20] at maps so on so forth and looking at uh
the the drafting of the the affordable
[24:25] housing language. So one of the first
things we did was certainly not accept
[24:29] the preliminary figures that were
provided to us. We took uh a proactive
[24:34] and aggressive step to challenge those
numbers, reduce it and we effectively
[24:38] did. We were sued twice by the New
Jersey Builders Association and then a
[24:42] second time by Fair Share. We
effectively reduced the the commitment
[24:46] by I think about 10%. Um most
municipalities just excuse me just
[24:52] accepted the numbers. Um there were
probably a number of them that uh
[24:56] challenged it and we are now I think
it's I guess one of two that
[24:59] successfully defended uh the plan that
we put forth. So it's been accepted by
[25:03] the state. So all that is good news. Um
what I can also share with you is that
[25:09] one of the things that's become abundant
abundantly clear to me and I think other
[25:12] members of the committee is that um we
cherish our green space, our open space.
[25:17] Um we love our parks, we love our
trails, we love the aesthetics uh of of
[25:23] the township. Uh so one of the factors
that we took into it was not to set
[25:28] aside and make vulnerable unpar
undeveloped parcels of land that have
[25:33] environmental sensitivity that have
trees mature trees on it. An attractive
[25:38] comp component and this is one of
multiple components that we looked into
[25:41] is that uh the the sites that we
selected are already developed. They're
[25:45] already impervious coverage. There's
asphalt covering that land there. It
[25:49] wouldn't affect any environmentally s
sensitive areas. we would not be cutting
[25:53] down trees. We would not be reducing our
open space. So, that was a factor that
[25:58] went into it. Another factor, and I
think Mayor Roland had um alluded to it,
[26:01] was we already have existing
transportation there.
[26:05] » That that tends to be a variable that
comes into the mix. It's not a pre
[26:08] prerequisite in every application, but
we have another bonus element, which is
[26:13] that the transportation already exists
there. So we can piggyback that without
[26:17] any potential accretive cost in the
event we have affordable housing plans
[26:22] that come to fruition in other
locations. It it's sort of ideal because
[26:26] it's a short pops given away to Madison
train station. Um Chadam is a little
[26:31] further down the road, but again there's
pre-existing transportation logistics
[26:35] already in place uh in that general
vicinity. So those are two other
[26:39] components that certainly went into
penalty of variables that we looked at
[26:44] uh in order to make what we believe to
be um uh a reasonable plan. Uh a third
[26:50] I'll share is pre-existing utilities. So
for example um the things that carved
[26:55] out get carved out or are lands that
don't have any sewer system. For
[26:58] example, uh this already had uh existing
sewer system connections. So that uh
[27:05] that lends itself to be a plausible
plan. and in our in our ability to put
[27:09] forth a plausible plan. Um those were
that was another consideration that we
[27:13] took into account in order to make as
far as finalizing it to these select
[27:18] lots. So I hope that explains a little
bit about our thinking. Um
[27:24] I think at the end of the day the hope
and desire is uh the some level of
[27:30] retail dynamics will certainly be there
in the event again a plan comes before
[27:34] the planning board. Uh it would ideally
be a mixeduse uh uh development. Um and
[27:41] it would also benefit the residents
there would benefit from uh existing uh
[27:46] logistics uh and the development also be
more reasonable in terms of ultimate
[27:50] cost and any potential burden to the
township because existing uh utilities
[27:54] already are in place over there. So I
think that um probably hopefully sheds a
[27:59] little bit more light on uh some of the
parameters that we're looking at as we
[28:03] were looking considering a multitude of
different sites.
[28:08] » Another thing I just like to add is that
this also goes in front of the planning
[28:12] board. So it was not just only our
committee. There's a series of checks
[28:15] and balances. So it goes in front of the
planning board as well. And it wouldn't
[28:19] be here if it wasn't passed through the
planning board as well.
[28:23] And to those points, any development
plan for that area would have to go back
[28:27] to the planning board. So just so
everybody's aware, any plan if the
[28:30] developer comes in and wants to do
something over the ShopRite site or over
[28:34] the Ace Hardware site, they would have
to go to planning board with those
[28:37] sites.
>> And speaking of the planning board, the
[28:40] planning board did consider all three of
these ordinances to be consistent with
[28:43] the master plan
[28:48] » or by the same.
[28:52] Hello.
>> Hi. My name is Tommy Anelme an SL Mi. Uh
[28:57] live on Shunvike and directly adjacent
to one of the properties in question.
[29:02] So, a couple questions. I understand
what's going on with the overall picture
[29:06] here. Um my questions are multiple a
couple questions. Um one is the overlay
[29:16] onto the existing zoning. Um,
if the business owners are not willing
[29:22] to do anything and you don't get these
affordable housing numbers up, what is
[29:29] plan B? Or is there is there a plan B?
Um, cuz I've seen them go imminent
[29:35] domain and try to take over places. I'm
hoping it would never go that route
[29:39] being that we live in Chattam Township
and not, you know, somewhere else for
[29:44] lack of a better term. Um, my other
question is being adjacent to my
[29:49] property and and and having gone through
hoops to get variances because of the
[29:56] 2acre minimum or whatever it is in Green
Village, I had to go 9 months trying to
[30:00] get variances and permits just to put a
single family house on a 1acre lot. And
[30:04] so the idea of having 37 units right
next to my house that could be three
[30:09] stories tall and that's what it says,
not two and a half, but three in that
[30:13] area. Um, I I have some cons questions
and concerns because it it just it
[30:19] doesn't fit with where we're at right
now and it doesn't fit the neighborhood.
[30:23] And you know, Green Village, as they
said, is a little different than
[30:26] downtown Township. We I'm know I'm on
the border. Madison's across the street,
[30:30] but you know, we rely on these shopping
centers. And and the last part of that
[30:34] question or part or last part of what I
had to say was I have spoke to a couple
[30:39] of the property owners that didn't even
know this was happening.
[30:43] Um, I know that's public notice, but I
got a certified letter in the mail while
[30:48] I was on vacation last week and I really
found out about it yesterday. So, I
[30:53] mean, I was talking with a couple of the
business owners there and they had no
[30:57] idea that this was even happening. So,
that concerns me because I just what
[31:01] concerns me is where is the next level
of this? If the business owners decide
[31:05] they don't sell, where where are you
going to put these units? And again, I'm
[31:08] concerned about having a three-story
unit next to my house. Plain and simple.
[31:14] I can answer off the bat two of those
very easily. Pursuant to the municipal
[31:19] land use law, we we were required and I
personally oversaw the notice of every
[31:26] person within 200 ft of the affected
areas. So that was and it was also
[31:34] noticed um in all of the normal public
notice ways. the letter was above and
[31:41] beyond everybody who was affected by
this matter. So that's why you did get
[31:46] and it was sent via certified and
regular mail. So that's the first um
[31:51] that's the first answer. The second
answer is I I want to make sure you
[31:56] understand the difference between a the
property that is going to be built the
[32:02] threestory triplex and an overlay zone.
So when the Fair Housing Act was amended
[32:09] and everything was codified and put into
law, everybody understands that there
[32:15] are places such as Chattam that have
challenges and not a lot of vacant land.
[32:22] Two specific challenges we had in Chadam
was not only the vacant land, but the
[32:26] source service area. There's large
portions of Chadam which are not in the
[32:30] sore service area and those areas cannot
be used for affordable housing because
[32:34] there's no sore service there. What
these overlay zones are encompassing are
[32:43] an option. We are not required to build
the units that are in the over that are
[32:50] contemplated in the overlay zoning. All
we have to do is provide a realistic
[32:56] opportunity for affordable housing in
those areas. This doesn't mean we are
[33:04] being forced to build anything in those
areas. What it means is that that is an
[33:10] option to someone who owns it, an option
to somebody who may want to purchase it.
[33:16] That doesn't mean it's getting built. It
doesn't mean that if it doesn't get
[33:19] built there, we have to build it
somewhere else. The only project we are
[33:23] required to build is that three-unit
triplex that we discussed right at the
[33:27] beginning of the meeting. Everything
else is is called unmet need. Because of
[33:32] our RDP, our realistic development
potential and the vacant land adjustment
[33:37] that we received by law, we are only
required th to build those three units.
[33:43] The rest we had to provide zoning for
which we did through the overlay zoning.
[33:49] So, I just want to make sure you
understand the difference between an
[33:52] overlay zone and realistic development
and and what we actually have to build.
[33:56] We have to build our RDP unmet need. We
just have to zone for. It doesn't mean
[34:01] it's getting built. It doesn't mean that
we have developers lined up. It means
[34:06] that we as a township have provided the
realistic opportunity by zoning for
[34:13] those units.
No man, you know, I understand that. I
[34:18] understand that completely. But my
question is at what point does this next
[34:22] stage of the affordable housing kick in
where you have to meet another number
[34:28] » there? There isn't.
>> So this this level four that you're
[34:32] doing this preliminary then why are we
bothering doing it if we don't need to
[34:34] do it?
>> Because we are doing what we need to do.
[34:37] We are
>> we required by law to do it. But it also
[34:40] says we're required by law in the next
stage at some point to add more
[34:43] affordable housing. So that's my point.
Some point this is going to have to be
[34:48] pushed to become more affordable
housing. I I'm okay with that. But I
[34:53] just want to know like what that time
frame is. You're saying that then we're
[34:57] doing this overlay and it's just they're
not going to do anything then.
[35:00] » If I may.
>> I'm just I'm curious.
[35:03] » Just to clarify. So the state of New
Jersey there's been a series of
[35:06] lawsuits.
>> Yeah. over history, decades in New
[35:09] Jersey, starting with what's known as
the Mount Mount Laurel decision origates
[35:12] in Mount Laurel. And that's what's
really set the stage for this affordable
[35:17] housing in New Jersey in what's known as
rounds.
[35:19] » Understood.
>> Each round is composes of a number of
[35:23] years. This round is a 10-year period.
Right.
[35:26] » Right. We finish the third round. Each
round depending on how the state
[35:30] legislature and governor decide they
want to handle that round. Um we'll come
[35:35] up with a set of rules and parameters
and a new process for it.
[35:39] » Right now we are in the fourth round.
We've done what we need to do for the
[35:43] prior rounds.
>> No one knows what the next round
[35:46] entails.
>> So then
[35:47] » there could be another governor. There
could be another legislature. There
[35:51] could be so many different things that
could change in New Jersey and in the
[35:55] country that we don't know what's going
to happen in the four fifth round or
[35:59] there may not even be a fifth round, but
likely there will be. All that we're
[36:03] required to deal with right now is the
fourth round and the requirements under
[36:07] the fourth round and and those
requirements of the fourth round are as
[36:12] our attorney explained has been
discussed realistic development
[36:15] potential an RDP which is just a
mechanism to allow through zoning
[36:20] opportunities ways that developers
property owners buyers sellers can
[36:25] potentially do things because the
current zoning does not allow for it.
[36:28] The argument has been in New Jersey that
towns don't allow for zoning because of
[36:33] twoacre requirements, oneacre
requirements, all these different things
[36:36] says you can't build affordable housing
in New Jersey because the restrictions
[36:41] are such that they preclude it and don't
want it. So in this round it says you
[36:46] have to provide for an RDP and that's
what towns are doing through these
[36:50] overlay zones or other mechanisms.
That's all we have to do in that regard.
[36:54] Then there's the regard of actually
units that you do have to develop those
[36:59] obligations and that's what we are
obligated to do. So the two aren't
[37:03] really related. It's not that we're
going to then be forced to do the things
[37:07] that are in the RDP in this round. They
were totally different. You're looking
[37:11] at your vacant land analysis. You're
looking at what as uh you know
[37:15] committeeman Choy had explained what
circumstances may lend themselves to
[37:18] actual development. Uh so they're
they're two different things just so
[37:22] we're not confusing those. The overlay
zone that we're dealing with tonight is
[37:26] just to ensure that the zoning does not
preclude affordable housing. And so the
[37:31] zoning that we're creating that allows
affordable housing is being done so in a
[37:35] way that the density
>> understood.
[37:37] » Right. Can allow for a developer to meet
based on the size of the land, based on
[37:42] all these different factors, the height,
the the size of the land, all these
[37:45] different options to allow for a
developer to build
[37:49] » what's known as realistic. And what goes
into realistic? the market conditions,
[37:53] the utilities, um you know, from good
planning, right? Good sound planning. We
[37:58] we retained the services of a
professional planner, not just the
[38:02] township committee here, but also the
planning board. and they have to review
[38:05] that according to the master plan to see
are the locations and the plan that
[38:10] you're putting forward together uh sound
planning planning that makes sense in
[38:15] the state of New Jersey and makes sense
because what ends up happening is we get
[38:19] sued and we did get sued all these other
towns because entities actually are
[38:24] saying you're not doing enough. What
you're saying is not good enough. It's
[38:29] not realistic enough and we want you to
do more. And that's what we fought and
[38:34] we said, you know what, we have a solid
foundation. We did our due diligence.
[38:37] This has been going on since 2024. We've
been actually doing a lot of work
[38:41] through planners, through meetings,
public meetings just like this, planning
[38:45] board meetings, public hearings, uh, and
and and presentations for the committee
[38:49] to show why and how we got to this point
and to then be able to defend it. And we
[38:54] were able to defend it successfully. So
the where we are at today is probably
[38:59] not ideal. Nobody likes it, but it's
just the reality of where we are in New
[39:03] Jersey and the obligations that this
governing body and the residents and the
[39:06] communities have to face and they have
to deal with it and they have to forally
[39:10] accept it. And so that's what the plan
is today. This overlay zone, okay, is
[39:15] not a mandate to build. It's just a
mandate to allow developers now or over
[39:22] the next 10 years. And as uh committee
meld said in the third round we had
[39:27] created another overlay zone and in that
period nobody's built over there. Either
[39:31] the economics weren't suitable, they
didn't have a desire, they were happy
[39:36] with the way it was. Um and that's
exactly what could happen with this. But
[39:41] this governing body is proposing under
this ordinance to create that plan for
[39:47] the next 10 years.
>> And I understand it. I understand it
[39:49] completely. And and I'm a general
contractor by trade. I do heavy highway
[39:53] bridges and um have done development
types of places. So I understand the
[39:58] infrastructure very well. I understand
why you picked the place. My concern was
[40:02] not so much of you know how it was
picked or why it was picked. My concern
[40:06] again is like what is the next step in
stage four
[40:08] » but that's why you keep saying you
understand that's why I've explained
[40:10] there is this is the next stage this
>> so this I'm just I just wanted to
[40:14] clarify that nothing there's not going
to be a push in five years. if I if I
[40:18] can. Nobody. There's no action item for
us to go to the ShopRite development and
[40:23] say,
>> "Look, I get I get my food every day
[40:26] shop right. I get my haircut at these. I
get the stuff." Like, nobody is putting
[40:31] them out of business. If the property
owner of that development decides to
[40:37] call it quits and Shopright goes out of
business and Dunkin Donuts full of shop,
[40:41] » I understand.
>> Then, and they want to put a development
[40:44] there, they're
>> they have the opportunity to do that. I
[40:46] get that. to former mayor uh my choice
point uh we hope that it's a mixeduse
[40:52] development because we all unit
>> of course we don't and okay that was a
[40:56] clarification that I was looking for
because again I'm a planner and so I
[41:01] wanted to nip this in the bud so I knew
what was going on and again it it does
[41:05] directly affect my house because I'm
literally sharing a border with these
[41:08] five commercial properties on the corner
of Green Village Road in Shike so having
[41:12] a three-story building staring in my
backyard is not something I'm happy
[41:16] about. So, I'm just that's that's
>> it may not be a three story building.
[41:20] » It may not be and and I could fight in
zoning at that point if it ever goes to
[41:23] that point. So, I that's why I just want
to make sure that we weren't going
[41:26] further than I thought we were. So,
thank you for your time.
[41:30] » Thank you.
>> And just for perspective, the the
[41:33] allotment is for 10 units per acre. The
Arbor Green property is 24 units an acre
[41:38] and the Charlie Brown site is 20 units
an acre. So just so you have perspective
[41:43] in terms of what it would potentially
look like relative to what's there
[41:46] » the property next to me 37 acres that's
why I came up very
[41:52] » just a quick question
if somebody offers Oh Jim Viello Popular
[41:58] Lane if someone offers the shopping
center where ACE is now $20 million a
[42:07] developer and they accept it. Does that
mean they already have approval to put
[42:12] up a three-story building?
>> No, they would still have to go through
[42:16] all the municipal land use approvals
that are required by law. They don't get
[42:20] a
>> but but the but once it's done, they
[42:25] have the ability to go through the
process, the normal process, and then if
[42:29] it's accepted, they can build whatever
they want or whatever they
[42:33] » they cannot build. No, they cannot build
whatever they want. They have to follow
[42:37] the zoning that I
>> understand that. But the zoning now is
[42:40] basically saying you can put up
buildings that are a couple stories high
[42:44] for affordable housing, right?
>> Well, it's not and no, it's not for
[42:48] affordable housing. Somebody could come
in and put a and and put affordable
[42:52] housing there, but it's mixed use with
um and inclusionary, which means it
[42:58] would be both market rate and
affordable.
[43:01] » So, they could do what's across the
street from the train station in
[43:04] Madison. They could have some buildings
underneath that are, you know,
[43:09] » stores
>> and put three or four stories of
[43:12] apartments on top.
>> They cannot put three or four stories of
[43:15] apartments on top. It can only be 36 ft
high. So if there are commercial on the
[43:19] bottom, they're
constrained
[43:22] » two stories on top.
>> Yeah, they'd be constrained by and
[43:26] they're also constrained by the amount
of the density. So they would have to
[43:31] look and see how big the lot is. You
still no matter no matter what it is,
[43:35] you still cannot go above 10 units per
acre.
[43:40] » Okay. Thank you.
[43:49] » Come on.
[43:59] My name is Paul Wayne. WHN 689 Shunpike
Road. I live just a little past the 200
[44:06] foot boundary.
I have a few comments. Um
[44:13] I guess uh that might be summed up with
the fact that uh I think Hickory Tree
[44:18] has already done its duty as far as
affordable housing has gone.
[44:23] We've put up with an enormous
development across the street.
[44:28] I think we've done our duty. Anyway,
why does the new uh the new zone include
[44:36] a wellestablished bank building and a
church?
[44:40] I doubt that the bank will give up its
land, and the church may not be subject
[44:44] to eminent domain.
There's really isn't enough land here
[44:49] for a serious housing development, much
less a mixeduse development that will
[44:55] require parking.
in addition to what the residents need.
[45:00] It seems to smack of spot zoning.
[45:05] Uh I'm also puzzled that the ordinance
includes a front yard setback of 30 ft
[45:12] but no uh no sideyard setback. There is
a setback mentioned in the other
[45:17] ordinance but it's only five feet.
So any house or building that's going to
[45:25] be put in there is going to be
shoehorned into the the site.
[45:30] There are the obvious considerations. U
there are other sites. I don't know you
[45:35] you've probably investigated all of them
but u the golf course might give up some
[45:41] of its land. There is a space between
the Chattam Club and Juniper
[45:47] which has two houses on it which is
quite large. I don't know whether there
[45:52] are wetlands on it or not. Um, you
should also consider the loss of the
[45:57] professional offices.
Um,
[46:01] a lot of people in the town use those
offices. There are medical people, there
[46:06] are psychiatrists, educational
specialists,
[46:10] uh, my optometrist is there. Uh, and
there's a dentist.
[46:16] Uh, I don't know where they'll go. Um,
and then of course there's the problem
[46:21] of traffic.
Uh, it's not really desirable to
[46:25] concentrate more traffic in that area. I
have trouble getting out of my driveway
[46:30] in the morning or getting into my
driveway in the evening or getting out
[46:34] of my driveway in the evening. I often
have to drive
[46:38] right when I want to go left and make a
U-turn someplace else.
[46:44] In a word, I don't think this is a
desirable
[46:49] uh option or a serious realistic option.
There really isn't enough space there
[46:56] for for anything really.
That's all.
[47:02] » I just want to clarify a few things for
you. There is the sideyard setback. If
[47:07] you read under D, all standards and
requirements in the underlying B1 and
[47:11] PI2 zones shall be met unless they are
superseded. So there are sideyard
[47:16] setbacks that will be retained from the
zoning that is the underlying zoning
[47:21] already. So it won't be shoehorned into
anything. They still have to um follow
[47:27] the sideyard setbacks that are in the
underlying zoning. The only thing that
[47:30] foot 10. So the sideyard setback would
be a little shorter than me.
[47:37] Um
>> that's a ridiculous setback.
[47:42] » Hey, but they they would that is the
setback that is the current setback that
[47:46] is in the zoning right now.
So whatever the setback is currently
[47:52] remains the same for the sideyard.
>> This is a crowded area.
[47:56] » Okay. U the second the second thing you
you discussed was eminent domain. The
[48:01] township is not under eminent domain is
undertaken by a municipality and the
[48:06] township has stated that we are not the
only
[48:10] project we are required to build is the
three units
[48:14] not anything here. If we were we there
is no mention of eminent domain because
[48:20] the township is not building anything in
this area. The township is not required
[48:25] to build anything in this area. All the
township has to do is zone for the
[48:30] opportunity for affordable housing in
that area. So, it's the second or third
[48:35] time I've heard eminent domain
mentioned. And I just want to make sure
[48:38] everybody understands the township is is
not going to be the one who builds
[48:42] anything in this area. They're not
looking to build anything in this area.
[48:46] Therefore, eminent domain is something
that is not on the table anywhere. That
[48:50] would be if the township was going to
build something, if they were the ones
[48:54] that if it was a municipally sponsored
project, which this zone is not. Um I I
[49:01] also heard you mention that we were
going to lose all of those professional
[49:06] offices that were there. Again, just
because it is zoned for this meaning
[49:11] this for it does not mean that those
offices will leave. It is not a foregone
[49:16] conclusion that any of these businesses
will be displaced if somebody was to buy
[49:23] these projects or the these parcels. My
understanding is they're all in use
[49:28] currently and in order which means
they're more than likely making revenue.
[49:33] Um in order for
somebody to go in and buy these
[49:37] projects, it would have to be
financially feasible. And there are a
[49:41] lot of things that would go into
penciling out a project. But you have to
[49:44] remember when a when a developer buys
when a developer is required to put in
[49:50] affordable housing, they take a haircut.
They are they know going in that two of
[49:56] those units for every eight market units
they have to build, two of those
[50:01] affordable units, they're not going to
make money. In fact, they're going to
[50:04] probably lose money on those affordable
units. So that is something that
[50:08] developers when they are going to build
in any area they take that into
[50:12] consideration. So there are financial
considerations that have to be taken
[50:16] into account. Would they make more money
with it being a shopright or would it
[50:21] make more money as you know there are
many considerations. So I I don't think
[50:25] um it is a foregone conclusion that
business and medical offices are going
[50:29] to close or that shopping centers are
going to close. It is an again it is an
[50:34] option that is now um being proposed for
those areas.
[50:40] » Well, it is true that if the bank and
the church do not cooperate or do not
[50:48] are not interested in selling their
land,
[50:51] there's only one owner who is.
Is that spot zoning? Again, we're not
[50:58] we're not requesting that anybody goes
out of business or stops, but churches
[51:02] might
>> I'm not requesting that either.
[51:04] » Banks might close and and on top of
that, if they decide to leave and sell
[51:11] their property and they want to develop,
these are all multiple steps here. then
[51:16] there are certain obligations, but
there's no action item for any of us to
[51:20] see any of those businesses in any or
churches or sports clubs or anything
[51:25] else close. Uh these are things that we
all use as residents of Chattam Township
[51:31] and we like we'd like we we wish them
ongoing success.
[51:37] » Thank you.
[51:53] Good evening. My name is Gary Young. I
live on Popular Lane and um I'm not
[51:59] going to say the same things that
everybody else has said. I'm sure you've
[52:01] heard enough to feel very satisfied as
to how you feel about this. However, um
[52:07] I would just say to you, there are a
couple points I think that Mr. Banano
[52:11] raised that are are very valid. One of
them being and the other people here um
[52:16] one of them is I think there's an
overconentration
[52:19] of this type of use uh pursuant to this
act that burdens us in that one corner
[52:26] of the town which is very unfair and
discriminatory
[52:31] and because we don't have equal
opportunity here under the law. It's not
[52:34] equal application. It's it's burdening
us much more than anybody else. And I
[52:40] appreciate that. It's a pre-existing
condition. You didn't have these laws to
[52:44] contend with in 1789 when they were
first developing channel. But you know
[52:49] the you have to live with what exists
today. Okay? And
[52:54] living where we do having those
commercial properties adjacent to us is
[53:00] a quality of life benefit.
Okay? So I I don't we feel threatened by
[53:06] the potential loss of that use and it
makes our lives better. I can walk to
[53:11] those stores, okay, which is a nice
thing to be able to do, especially if
[53:15] you go in that shop, right parking lot
and see how dangerous it is. You don't
[53:19] want to drive around in that parking
lot. So, um, I I object to this on the
[53:24] basis that I think it was an easy way
and I I believe there may not be an easy
[53:29] way out, but I think it was about the
easy easiest way for you that you could
[53:32] conjure up, which is still I appreciate
that, but nevertheless, it's unfair to
[53:37] us. And we have valuable properties. We
pay taxes. We pay a lot of tax. And I
[53:42] think this would take away and
potentially prejudice the value of our
[53:47] properties. So, I would ask that you
keep that in mind in your consideration
[53:52] because there's a consequence to that.
So, hopefully that won't be realized.
[53:56] The other thing I would just say to you
is by passing this ordinance, you put a
[54:00] crack in the door. It in the absence of
this ordinance, someone would have to
[54:05] make an application. I don't know if it
would require a change of zone, but it
[54:08] would be something more burdensome by
virtue of having this statute in place.
[54:12] If a developer comes along and says to
the owner of that property, um, we're
[54:17] going to give you $20 million because we
want to build all this affordable
[54:20] housing. We'll make out like bandits.
I'm concerned about that. Um, because I
[54:25] think there is a possibility of that.
So, I would just ask that you reconsider
[54:30] this because I consider at least some of
the impacts that it has on us. Thank
[54:35] you.
[54:48] All right. Any more comments?
>> Mayor, if I just uh if I can add just a
[54:54] point of clarification for the members
of the public as part of, you know, the
[54:58] the information I was offering before,
right? There is a consequence to not
[55:02] doing this or to doing something else.
And I think it's important to understand
[55:06] what the consequence is of not doing
this. Um I can really speak to it,
[55:11] Jessica. If we do not do this, right, we
are at risk of what's known as builder's
[55:17] remedy lawsuits, right? We lose our
immunity
[55:20] » from this from developers uh being able
to sue us and essentially say I want to
[55:25] build affordable housing anywhere I want
at pretty much whatever density I want.
[55:29] Is that correct?
>> Yeah. So what would happen is if we do
[55:33] not pass these ordinances this evening,
the
[55:37] we lose our immunity. Uh developer can
come in and say great, I want to I'm
[55:44] going to build say they want to buy two
single family lots next to each other.
[55:49] Um they would then be able to put
whatever they want with whatever
[55:53] setbacks they want. Um build as many
units as they want in order to um meet
[55:59] our affordable housing. and it'd be
under the guise of saying, "Well, I'm
[56:02] going to build a 100 units. Um, I'm
going to build a 100 unit project in
[56:06] this two family lot." And it happened in
other municipalities. And you would have
[56:11] a 100 units in a two family lot and you
would get your 20 units of affordable
[56:15] housing, but you'd also get 80 units of
market rate units. So, you remember for
[56:21] every two affordable units, you have
eight market rate.
[56:26] » So, I think it's important to keep that
in mind. this governing body did not
[56:29] take the easy way out. This governing
body looked at also, you know, I I I
[56:34] hear some concerns and there are
legitimate concerns that there's fear
[56:37] that this may take away the shopping
plazas or somebody's going to come in
[56:41] here and think this is really lucrative,
but the reality of it is it is not
[56:45] lucrative to build affordable housing.
Affordable housing projects that are all
[56:50] affordable housing tend to require
pilots such as tax abatements. They
[56:55] require subsidies. They require grants.
They require a really uh you know
[57:00] lowincome housing credits. Uh a lot of
effort to build. So it is not a
[57:05] lucrative thing to just come in there
and say we want to build affordable
[57:08] housing. In fact, what does make sense
for a lot of developers and why this is
[57:13] considered and why the court agreed and
the special masters and the planners
[57:17] agreed that this is a realistic good
realistic opportunity is because you
[57:21] look around the state wherever there are
mixed uh developments where there's
[57:25] inclusionary zoning there does tend to
be a commercial element associated with
[57:29] that because that is also where the
money is. So the fear that you're going
[57:32] to lose your professional offices, that
you're going to lose your businesses,
[57:35] that you're going to lose some of the
shopping districts is actually uh the
[57:39] exact opposite. Those are the things. So
when when banks are looking to close,
[57:44] when office buildings are looking to
close, when grocery stores or cafes are
[57:48] looking to close and the owner of that
property says, "Well, this is no longer
[57:52] sustainable for me." This is a lifeline
to ensure that those kinds of businesses
[57:58] stay in your community. That's what
makes them survive in a lot of places in
[58:01] New Jersey and why this is a not the
easy way but again the wellthoughtout
[58:06] realistic opportunity because otherwise
you end up with uh two, three, four
[58:11] multif family homes scattered throughout
the town in areas that probably will not
[58:16] fit in with those characters of the
neighborhood and where potentially we
[58:20] lose our builder rem our immunity from
builders uh uh our builder's immunity
[58:25] I'm sorry and open the door to builder
lawsuits where then you can have
[58:28] development
of greater magnitude uh all throughout
[58:32] the town.
I
[58:34] » also just want to mention the financial
aspect. So, another fun topic tonight is
[58:40] our budget. And I'm a chief financial
officer. So, this is what I live and
[58:45] breathe and do seven days a week. It's
not easy to build the budget. And when
[58:51] you think about putting affordable
housing in an area like on the cliff of
[58:56] Snake Hill where we'd have to put in
sewers and transportation that like the
[59:01] costs were were inordinate. And to um
former mayor Choy's point, this is an
[59:08] existing overlay. We're not required to
do anything. But I think something that
[59:11] we also always consider, something
that's always at the top of my mind is
[59:14] the financial aspect. You talk about
your taxes. I don't want to raise your
[59:17] taxes either. and you're paying enough
taxes. But it's a reality that when
[59:22] these are imposed, this is a law that we
have to comply. We have paid. We have
[59:28] the most fantastic planners and lawyers
that have honestly really saved us
[59:34] because every municipality was sued.
Every single one in New Jersey, over
[59:38] 400, and we were successful.
>> The last time you'll see me my face
[59:41] again up here. I I promise you. Very
eloquent description. Dominic Manano
[59:47] very magnolia place
very eloquent description of what you
[59:52] had needed to do and what you were
trying to do to save the township from
[59:55] being sued for things and so forth. The
issue is the concentration the
[1:00:00] concentration of these these areas
you've identified as a new business zone
[1:00:08] businesses plus affordable housing. It's
not the fact we appreciate the fact that
[1:00:12] we need to have affordable housing, but
you've concentrated it and I I would
[1:00:17] really like to know what other areas you
might have looked at. Now, you probably
[1:00:21] are not required to share that with
citizens.
[1:00:24] » Every and there's no other place in
Chadam Township. No other place. You
[1:00:28] talked about transportation. That's an
interesting point. More people, more
[1:00:32] transportation. That whole area coming
through Shunpike, I'm sure you guys do.
[1:00:36] If you live in the township, you go
shopping at Chai. It's it's very
[1:00:39] concentrated. The roads are not are not
Shanpike is a narrow road and all of the
[1:00:45] concentration, more people, more
transportation. You need to go back and
[1:00:49] think about where else can you do this?
Because here's the issue. Once this is
[1:00:54] passed and somebody decides to sell shop
or the or ace hardware development
[1:00:59] there, they begin they decide they're
going to sell because somebody's going
[1:01:02] to put a lot of money in front of them.
And I appreciate the idea that nobody
[1:01:05] makes a lot of money on affordable
housing. And I have one other issue. Is
[1:01:09] there anything here that is there
anything in this ordinance that
[1:01:13] prohibits the township of Chadam from
either donating borrowing money to help
[1:01:20] pay for the affordable housing? If a
developer comes in and says, you know
[1:01:24] what, we could do this. We need another
$5 million. Is there anything in this
[1:01:29] ordinance that would prohibit Chattam
Township from providing the money,
[1:01:34] providing a loan, or borrowing itself to
be able to fund that?
[1:01:40] » Turn back.
>> This is a zoning ordinance. This is not
[1:01:44] that isn't something that would be in a
zoning ordinance.
[1:01:47] » No, it wouldn't be in a zoning
ordinance. I'm not suggesting it is, but
[1:01:51] is is the current the current board,
current council.
[1:01:54] » I would go so far as to say that you
really can't do that. Uh yeah, but
[1:01:58] there's no real again
obligated to develop in this overlay
[1:02:03] zone.
>> A developer could come here and ask, but
[1:02:07] there's no obligation to do that.
>> There isn't an obligation
[1:02:11] » by the same way that this let's say this
governing body were to pass any law.
[1:02:15] There's no nothing set in stone, right?
And if the state down the road in the
[1:02:19] fifth round says, "Hey, you have to do
this or a different set of individuals
[1:02:24] are sitting up here in 10 years," they
can easily undo that. So there's and as
[1:02:29] I said, I think I would go so far, not
legally, but you really can't do that
[1:02:33] because
you're kind of negating a hypothetical
[1:02:37] that really doesn't even exist.
>> Okay. Okay. Understood. All right. Said
[1:02:42] my piece. Thank you.
>> I I just want to say one more thing. Um
[1:02:47] I work with multiple municipalities. I
have worked with multiple munic multiple
[1:02:52] municipalities. Chattam is one of two
that successfully challenged the
[1:02:59] obligation. Two municipalities that
successfully challenged their
[1:03:03] obligation, had it downwardly adjusted
and then refused because fair share was
[1:03:09] not being um realistic. We refused to
settle with fair share. I only know two
[1:03:16] places in the entire state of New Jersey
that did not settle with fair share. We
[1:03:22] have a very compliant plan. We have a
defendable plan. The court has approved
[1:03:27] our plan already. And uh your council,
your committee has gone above and beyond
[1:03:35] has stood up for the residents with not
only this plan and the obligations. And
[1:03:41] there have I I I cannot there's not much
I can say
[1:03:47] other than that to let you know that
your council defended everything that
[1:03:50] they could and they went up above and
beyond. You know, where everybody else
[1:03:55] was settling um everybody else was, you
know, maybe oh, it's only a few more
[1:03:59] units. The committee refused to do that.
They believed in their numbers. They
[1:04:05] believed in the professionals and they
believed in the law. and you should be
[1:04:09] grateful that they stood up to fair
share and the builders association.
[1:04:14] » Jim Biello Paper,
um the precedent you were talking about,
[1:04:19] is it my understanding that we paid $6
million for the Charlie Brown property,
[1:04:24] gave it to a developer, and then gave
him a two
[1:04:28] $2 million 20-year loan interest free
because that came right out of our
[1:04:32] taxpayer dollars pockets. So if that
happened then there is a precedence for
[1:04:39] it.
>> Those are some roundabout numbers. You
[1:04:40] are correct. But that is different from
the overlay zone that was to meet the
[1:04:45] actual development obligation that the
town had in the third round which was
[1:04:49] those number of units that uh former
mayor and current committeewoman Ewald
[1:04:54] just spoke about. The the obligation for
this round is just those four those four
[1:04:59] units that we're building the three four
and we're getting that extra credit for.
[1:05:03] That's all our obligation is to develop
under this round. So since we own that
[1:05:07] land and we're going to be working with
the developer to develop that, that's
[1:05:11] all our obligation is for here.
>> Well, I think what Mr. Banana might have
[1:05:15] been asking is that in the future, would
we ever do the same thing?
[1:05:19] » You this governing body, future
governing, we don't know what could
[1:05:23] happen in a situation where there is an
obligation to develop
[1:05:28] » with this with respect to that overlay
zone. There is no obligation for us to
[1:05:33] develop to do something like the Charlie
Brown or something like these three
[1:05:37] units. That's the current obligation for
for what we're dealing with now and over
[1:05:42] the next 10 years. In the fifth round,
should that come when that comes in 10
[1:05:47] nine years or so, right? That's a whole
different set of numbers that we'll have
[1:05:52] to work with. They may say you have one
unit you have to build. They could say
[1:05:55] you have 20 units. We don't know yet,
right? And at that point, we'll have to
[1:06:00] deal with the reality of, okay, what
land could we do? What, you know, the
[1:06:03] town had to buy that land in order to
then turn it over. We don't have much
[1:06:08] land to develop. We don't have land that
we own that we could develop, uh, much
[1:06:12] else other than what we're looking at
for these three units.
[1:06:15] » Okay. Thank you, U, mayor. um
>> and and we looked at those dreams
[1:06:19] because that did make sense from a
financial perspective rather than having
[1:06:22] to also go out and then buy some land
from a property owner at really
[1:06:27] ridiculous
expense. This made the most sense to to
[1:06:31] be in the best interest of the taxpayers
at the lowest cost we felt.
[1:06:35] » Thank you,
>> Mayor. We do have a hand raised online
[1:06:37] that hasn't spoken yet. Can we uh let
them speak?
[1:06:40] » Absolutely. Yes. Thank you.
>> Okay. phone number beginning with area
[1:06:45] code 973. You are clear to speak if you
unmute.
[1:06:52] Name and street, please.
>> Uh Tom Evans, Birchville Drive.
[1:07:00] » Am I in line to speak here?
>> Yes, it's your turn.
[1:07:04] » I I'd like to ask you you referred to a
triplex tonight. Uh everything I've
[1:07:11] heard prior to this, you've talked about
one-story group homes and it wasn't
[1:07:16] clear at all how many units are in those
threestory triplexes. You just gave away
[1:07:24] two lots of land over on River Road. How
many triplexes are going into each lot?
[1:07:32] How many bedrooms are in each building
>> is my first question.
[1:07:39] So, just to clarify, um I think there's
just a little confusion. What we're
[1:07:43] looking at on the property that would be
adjacent to the police department, uh is
[1:07:48] one building, three units.
Each of those units would have to, and
[1:07:54] correct me, Jessica, if I'm mistaken,
it's one one-bedroom, one twobedroom,
[1:07:58] and one threebedroom. Correct.
>> I believe that's the um distribution.
[1:08:02] Yes. And so it would just be like a town
home or, you know, one one building, one
[1:08:08] structure that would include uh those
three units.
[1:08:14] » I'm I'm sorry. I thought I'm confusing
it with the River Road.
[1:08:18] » What is going in on River Road?
>> River Road round three. Yeah, that's
[1:08:21] that's separate. I apologize. Um is that
>> River Road is three group homes with
[1:08:26] four bedrooms each.
>> Okay. How many stories?
[1:08:32] » One story.
>> Each one's one. Did somebody ask how
[1:08:35] many stories?
>> How many stories? Each one's one story
[1:08:37] for the group calls.
>> Oh, very good. Thank you very much. One
[1:08:41] last question. I I'm amazed that
regarding the Hickory Tree Overlay zone,
[1:08:47] no one is speaking about the fact that
within five years, and you keep
[1:08:53] diminishing this as a 10-year window, if
nobody comes forward, within 10 years to
[1:08:59] destroy the area there within five
years,
[1:09:04] they can come back and completely
redefine the density. Isn't that the
[1:09:08] fact? That's what I've heard from the
Chattam Burough discussions as well as
[1:09:13] Kendra's presentations here in the
township. It's a five-year look back.
[1:09:20] So, you keep talking about 10 years. If
they don't come forward to develop it,
[1:09:24] you're free and clear. But within five
years, they can re redefine to increase
[1:09:30] the density to attract the development
within a 5-year window. Would you please
[1:09:38] clarify if I'm correct or wrong on that?
>> Yeah, there is a midpoint review in five
[1:09:45] years to make sure that we have done
everything we're supposed to do, which
[1:09:49] includes building that three-unit
triplex, make sure that um we've deed
[1:09:54] restricted it appropriately. That's part
of that. Um, they'll also look, and you
[1:09:58] are correct, they'll also look to see if
something has been built here um at this
[1:10:03] location and if the overlay zone has
been adopted. Um, but the standard is
[1:10:10] the realistic development potential. It
is that we have provided for the zoning
[1:10:16] and that it keeps with the character of
the area. So, one of the things that we
[1:10:23] took offense to when we refused to
settle with Fair Shares, they wanted to
[1:10:28] make the density in this area 25
dwelling units per acre. Where we have
[1:10:34] it at 10, they wanted 25. They kept
trying to um get us to go higher and
[1:10:41] higher. And we were able to successfully
defend to the special adjudicator, the
[1:10:46] program judge, and the superior court
that 10 units per acre is what's
[1:10:51] appropriate for this area.
And we have a court order which says so,
[1:10:58] » right? I just I just think you should
refer to that five-year time frame
[1:11:02] rather than the 10-year because you're
being disingenuous and and deluding the
[1:11:07] residents of the town. Thank you.
[1:11:14] To clarify though, it is a 10-year
round. The fourth round is by
[1:11:17] legislation under the afford the the
fair housing act a 10-year
[1:11:23] uh and then with all I say all the
previous rounds there's reviews there's
[1:11:28] checkpoints the court wants to whether
it's the court at one point it was ka at
[1:11:32] one point it was the courts through fair
share they always want to make sure that
[1:11:36] you're submitting reports you're
updating your spending plan you're
[1:11:39] showing that you're doing what you need
to do so um yeah I think that's that
[1:11:44] said about that
>> and one thing that we gained by not
[1:11:47] settling with fair share is in every
other municipality that did shuttle
[1:11:51] settle with fair share, they have to
answer to fair share. We do not.
[1:12:00] » Two, we are one of two municipalities
out of over 400
[1:12:04] » that I know of. Yeah.
>> That we know of
[1:12:07] » that didn't settle and did not enter
into immediate agreement incent.
[1:12:10] » I just want by by you know not settling
too. I mean the the the demand that was
[1:12:15] on the table by fair share was a far
more burdensome and ownorous um proposal
[1:12:23] than even what the law required and uh
everything from uh the the numbers to
[1:12:30] the mechanisms to the reporting um all
of which would have resulted in greater
[1:12:36] density more burdens to the residents
and greater expense to the taxpayers.
[1:12:41] So, um, the fact that we were, uh, we
were able to prevail and have the
[1:12:47] agreement of the the program judge and
the special master the the for the
[1:12:51] state, uh, I think speaks a lot about of
our plan and what we've put forward.
[1:12:57] » We did not take it lightly. We did not
just rely on our lawyers and our
[1:13:01] planners to tell us what to do. We
educated ourselves. We had a lot of
[1:13:06] conversations. I'm grateful to have the
experience of people that went through
[1:13:10] the third round to be able to do this
with the fourth round which was a little
[1:13:13] bit different. So I I I don't want I I
just I don't know. I guess I take it
[1:13:19] personally that people think that we
just snapped our fingers and and made an
[1:13:22] easy decision. It was not an easy
decision. It takes a lot of time and
[1:13:26] effort and money quite honestly to do
the right thing. This was the right
[1:13:31] thing to do. We fought for it and we I
wouldn't just go to court and fight to
[1:13:36] fight. We had to make sure that we were
buttoned up and tight. We were all felt
[1:13:41] very confident that we were buttoned up
tight. We had the right plan that was
[1:13:44] right for Chattam and we won. So I'm I'm
proud of that.
[1:13:50] If I just may uh say something um for
the benefit of of the public, I think I
[1:13:56] think the overarching concept for for us
um as it pertains to affordable housing
[1:14:00] was for the township um to be able to
manage process uh along our desires and
[1:14:07] requirements as best we could again
under the umbrella of the state law. Uh
[1:14:14] metaphorically we wanted to drive the
bus. Um the third round was much more
[1:14:19] complicated. Um there were uh there were
decisions plans that were done under
[1:14:24] duress. Um it was our hope and desire
that for fourth round we drive the bus.
[1:14:29] We dictate within the confines of the
law. Um we don't have all the answers
[1:14:34] because this is a 5-year checkpoint 10
year horizon. Things certainly may
[1:14:38] change at some point at some point or
multiple points along that time horizon.
[1:14:43] But but I think what this plan allows us
to do is meet the present need of
[1:14:49] effectively net three units. We'll be in
a good shape there. I see foreseeably um
[1:14:53] over the next several years with that
being completed, we'll we'll finish the
[1:14:56] group homes which will comply will fully
satisfy our third round. Uh and I think
[1:15:00] we can present to um the jurisdictional
bodies uh a township that is complying.
[1:15:05] we're making best efforts to to manifest
uh the the the ultimately the spirit of
[1:15:12] of the affordable housing um uh laws. Um
what is that to say that uh if if
[1:15:20] nothing happens in this overlay then we
failed? I I don't think so. And if
[1:15:25] something has happened there, have we
failed or succeeded? Not necessarily the
[1:15:29] right. I don't think that's a fair way
to look at I think at the end of the
[1:15:32] day, we looked at what we had within our
control and we wanted to drive the bus.
[1:15:37] We wanted to maintain options as opposed
to being forced to do something under
[1:15:42] the perils of builder's remedy or having
no options and no andor close to no time
[1:15:48] and having to make bad decisions. So
right now this is a plan that complies.
[1:15:54] We have our commitment today is three.
The plan complies. Uh we have time, we
[1:16:00] have flexibility. We are driving the
parameters on density. It is a modest
[1:16:05] and achievable number of 10 units per
acre. Most larger size developments are
[1:16:12] 20 plus units per acre. It is a massive
density um that I think would not be in
[1:16:17] keeping with the characteristics of the
township. So we are driving and managing
[1:16:21] uh you know controlling the variables.
Um we're in a good place. We're in the
[1:16:26] driver's seat. We don't have all the
answers. Uh but we comply. We have a
[1:16:29] plan. We're not going to get pushed up
against um
[1:16:33] a a short fuse or a time clock that's
going to run out on us. We I think
[1:16:38] we're, you know, I think we're in a very
good spot here. Uh we have a three-unit
[1:16:43] commitment. Um
and we've got a plan that that satisfies
[1:16:49] that that was just approved by court and
and we're we're we're in a great place
[1:16:53] is is how I look at it. Um, I can
respect concerns about concentration and
[1:16:58] and congestion um uh about possible
changes of character of that particular
[1:17:05] area.
It it's an it's an overlay zone um and
[1:17:10] it complies with the plan and we've
fulfilled our obligation today. Um
[1:17:16] and u I I think for the residents who
I think when when you look at these
[1:17:21] ordinance it's a tendency to
catastrophize and and imagine a 600 unit
[1:17:26] building there that that um you know
forbodingly overlooks the sidewalks and
[1:17:31] shadows off the entire Sh Pike Road. Um
that's certainly not the case. Um we've
[1:17:36] put together something that complies. Uh
whether or not it comes to fruition,
[1:17:40] that's not within our perview. um it
complies and our current demand, our
[1:17:45] current requirement is three units. We
are in a fantastic position as we look
[1:17:50] across the state. Uh I think you about
560 569 municipalities.
[1:17:55] We're in an excellent position. Um and I
and I want you to kind of walk away
[1:18:01] with with a little bit appreciation of
where this township is with regard to
[1:18:04] fourth round housing, affordable
housing. Um, we've driven the bus, we've
[1:18:08] controlled the parameters, uh, we've
successfully, uh, litigated and won. Um,
[1:18:14] and
I think business as usual, the
[1:18:17] businesses over there will continue. Uh,
the property owners, um, have uh, you
[1:18:22] know, added benefit whether or not uh,
uh, but the property rights are still
[1:18:26] intact. You can still be patrons of the
businesses there. Uh, it will be
[1:18:30] business as usual.
But, you know, uh I appreciate all the
[1:18:35] questions and comments. I do understand
your concerns. Um at the end of the day,
[1:18:42] certainly putting uh the worst thing
would be for this community to say,
[1:18:46] "Well, gee, we're going to punt this.
We're going to put our heads in the
[1:18:48] sand. We're not doing anything." That I
think is the uh Defcon one scenario
[1:18:54] where now the state now the state
believes we are acting bad faith. We are
[1:19:00] in a very favorable position. we're
we're looked favorably upon because we
[1:19:03] we actively took this on. We
intelligently
[1:19:07] uh debated it. We we uh we put forth
revised numbers um and they agreed with
[1:19:14] us. So I think they they see the
township as acting in good faith as it
[1:19:18] pertains to this overarching endeavor
here that every town must comply with.
[1:19:23] Um I think it would be a big mistake uh
to say well gee do nothing just ignore
[1:19:29] it you know and decide you know hope you
know for a hail Mary that something
[1:19:33] changes down the road we don't believe
it will in any material way as far as uh
[1:19:38] the general obligation the details of it
certainly will change but um uh you know
[1:19:44] I think we're in a good position um to
be able to negotiate whatever changes
[1:19:48] whatever unknowns may come down the pike
um and And uh I I personally am uh you
[1:19:56] know proud you know committee woman
Ewald was on that subcommittee. I we did
[1:20:00] you know we did um there were a lot of
lessons learned from prior experiences
[1:20:05] collective experiences on affordable
housing matter in the township and we we
[1:20:09] said you know enough is enough. We're
going to be smart about it. We're going
[1:20:12] to be aggressive and and we're going to
challenge and we're going to uh put
[1:20:16] something that um uh makes sense for the
township. it it's not something that's
[1:20:22] perfect, but it's it's reasonable. It's
it's acceptable. Um, and I think we're
[1:20:28] by and large happy with the outcome.
>> We move on to the next person waiting to
[1:20:34] speak.
>> Yes. Thank you.
[1:20:41] » Jessica.
>> Yeah. Hi, it's Jessica Romeo and on Pine
[1:20:44] Street. I just want to say, you know,
you guys have put in the the elected
[1:20:48] officials, the township committee, and
the professionals have obviously put in
[1:20:51] tons of work and thought, and I think
you should be applauded for your
[1:20:55] efforts. Um, I think we should all be
grateful for the work you put in, the
[1:20:59] care, and the thought you put towards
this. So, thank you. That's all.
[1:21:07] » Thank you, Jessica.
>> Any other questions?
[1:21:11] » Yes.
>> Okay.
[1:21:15] Yeah. Hi, Jen McN on um Noi Avenue. Uh
just to speak uh how Jessica, thank you
[1:21:20] to everyone for the hard work. I have
been listening to the comments. I've
[1:21:23] been following this and I think if
you've closely followed the past history
[1:21:26] of the affordable housing obligations in
the township, um we've been backed into
[1:21:31] some difficult corners in the past. And
I think that people here, like Jessica
[1:21:34] said, have put some really serious
thought and consideration um from the
[1:21:37] township elected officials, from the
township uh management, uh our lawyers,
[1:21:41] and everyone else, some incredibly
thoughtful um work into this. So, we do
[1:21:46] have what Mike said, we are driving the
bus. In the past, we were not driving
[1:21:48] the bus, and we had been backed into
some other situations. And this is
[1:21:52] smart, and uh we're the obligation is
for three, which it probably could have
[1:21:56] been if you look at other towns, a whole
heck of a lot more. Um, and I appreciate
[1:21:59] everyone's time and thank you so much
for for all your hard work.
[1:22:04] » Thank you.
[1:22:08] » Anyone else? Mr.
>> That's all at the moment.
[1:22:12] » Okay. Any other comments? Yeah,
>> one just
[1:22:19] um again, Tommy, I saw me show my
growth. Um, just out of curiosity, and
[1:22:23] this is just a legitimate question. I'm
not being facitious at all. If I were to
[1:22:28] sell my pro, want to sell my property on
Shan Pike Road, which is an acre, would
[1:22:32] I be able to get my property resed to
build 10 units on it? That's my That's a
[1:22:37] legitimate question.
>> No, that would be spot zoning.
[1:22:43] » That would be so a So, but
>> singling out one specific property
[1:22:48] without merit, without foundation. So,
for example, there's things under, you
[1:22:53] know, state law like redevelopment law,
correct? You know, there's properties in
[1:22:58] need of rehabilitation, properties in
need of redevelopment. There's a lot of
[1:23:01] criteria that has to be met,
>> even if it's a touching onto a property
[1:23:04] that already has that zoning.
[1:23:08] » What do you I'm sorry.
>> So, my border would be a property that
[1:23:11] has the zoning once it goes into place.
So,
[1:23:14] » So, you're saying you want to be
included in
[1:23:15] » I'm just saying could I be included in
it down the road if I chose to be
[1:23:19] » in the overlay zone? Yeah, you could.
Jessica,
[1:23:22] » I'm just curious.
>> You could apply.
[1:23:25] » Um, no, not automatically. You could
apply for a variance through
[1:23:30] » I just wanted to know if the option was
there when I sold down the are you are
[1:23:34] you in the business?
>> You could apply for a variance.
[1:23:37] » No, I'm in residential that touch.
>> Well, that's why I just want to clarify,
[1:23:40] right? Because this is an overlay zone
for that business. One thing once that
[1:23:44] overlay zone is created if I'm touching
that
[1:23:48] » overlay zone applies to the what I'm
trying to explain it just one second the
[1:23:52] overlay zone applies to this business
district correct
[1:23:56] » you are not in the business zone you are
have you have residential zoning
[1:24:00] » correct I was asking the question if I
could do that though
[1:24:03] » that would have that's that's a
residential zone
[1:24:07] » like I mean he can he'd have to he'd
have to go through the motions to
[1:24:11] successfully improve the case in order
to becluded in that is what
[1:24:15] » but you're you're part of the
residential zone. We're trying to
[1:24:18] overlay zone to the business zone, not
the residential zone.
[1:24:22] » I understand that. But my question is 5
years from now if the building starts
[1:24:26] happening or if something happens and I
want to decide, hey, maybe I don't want
[1:24:30] to live next to this area or maybe I'm
just tired of the congestion. Can I take
[1:24:34] my property and apply for this reszoning
because I can get a lot more selling my
[1:24:40] one acre 10 units on it.
>> I'm just saying I didn't know
[1:24:46] » anybody can apply for zoning anywhere
doesn't mean you you have to show the
[1:24:51] positive and negative criteria in order
to get that. Now I want to be very clear
[1:24:57] something that Mr. Shahadi said earlier.
If we were to not pass these ordinances
[1:25:02] this evening and lose our immunity,
anybody could do what you just said.
[1:25:06] Anybody in any area of the township
could sell their single family 1acre lot
[1:25:12] and jam as many units as possible into
their 1acre lot by passing these
[1:25:17] ordinances and by having a compliant
plan. We stop that process. we, you
[1:25:24] know, currently if you if that is, you
know, the road you want to go on and you
[1:25:27] want to apply for a variance um for the
bulk standards of your of your property,
[1:25:32] you're welcome to do that. And in that
case, the zoning or the planning board,
[1:25:36] depending on what your um what you're
seeking, what variance is would
[1:25:40] adjudicate the merits of your
application. But if we are not if we do
[1:25:45] not do what we're statutoily required to
do this evening,
[1:25:49] we don't get to make those decisions.
the court and a special judge comes in
[1:25:53] and makes those decisions for us. We
lose our zoning power.
[1:26:00] » Thank you, Jessica.
Are there any other questions? Mr.
[1:26:03] Lanti?
>> No hands raised.
[1:26:06] » Okay. Anyone else questions, comments?
[1:26:14] » Rick Carlin, Shunpike Road. Wife and I
have lived here for 34 years.
[1:26:19] Um,
very quick questions. One, it sounds
[1:26:24] like, because I haven't done a ton of
homework, I have too much other
[1:26:28] homework, that the township is subject
to these requirements
[1:26:34] separately from Chattam Burough.
Correct. Okay.
[1:26:39] And um the only other thing I was going
to say is you can tell by the questions
[1:26:46] I'm I'm in basically 100% agreement with
what's being said.
[1:26:51] But so two years from now I decide to
sell my home.
[1:26:56] It's zone single family residential.
I don't think I'm going to attract
[1:27:03] anywhere near the market value that I
would get prior to this happening.
[1:27:08] especially if there's any perceived
uh idea by the market that it's indeed
[1:27:16] going to be developed, you know, and
it's almost like what Tom said, we need
[1:27:21] flexibility. Um it it could turn all the
way around. You you lose the shopping
[1:27:26] center, one of them or whatever.
And I've noticed from the beginning,
[1:27:33] affordable housing is always located
near a commercial area. As you mentioned
[1:27:37] before, some of these people don't have
cars, whatever. That's where they're
[1:27:42] putting them, not just here, all over.
Right. Well,
[1:27:47] if we're we're only like four lots uh
those those of us that are being
[1:27:53] affected by this uh right nearby.
There's others in different directions,
[1:27:57] but we're we're we're all neighbors. and
you know to have the ability uh to do
[1:28:04] other than just single family cuz
somebody will come and yeah I'll buy
[1:28:08] your property for half the price you
know I mean that's that's what I could
[1:28:13] hear so
I worked a long time to uh and bought in
[1:28:19] Chattam for that reason so that you know
it would be a lot more valuable than
[1:28:26] what might happen
that's it thank
[1:28:34] any other questions, comments.
[1:28:39] » Okay. So, do I close the public hearing?
Is there a motion to close the public
[1:28:44] hearing related to the final adoption of
ordinances?
[1:28:47] » You control.
>> I can do that. I'm closing it.
[1:28:51] » Okay. So, then we're going to do each
one of these individually. Motion to
[1:28:55] adopt these.
>> Yes. Uh, and then we'll have to open the
[1:28:58] public hearing for the next ordinance.
>> I'll make a motion to adopt 2026-05.
[1:29:04] » I'll second.
[1:29:08] » Mr. Alperitz,
>> yes.
[1:29:13] » Mr. Short,
>> yes.
[1:29:14] » Mrs. Ew,
>> yes.
[1:29:16] » Deputy Mayor McHugh,
>> yes.
[1:29:18] » And Mayor Roland,
>> yes.
[1:29:19] » Motion passes.
>> Okay. Now, I'd like to open up the
[1:29:23] public hearing for ordinance 2026-06
adding the AH1 zone.
[1:29:33] » There was some overlap, but
>> there was overlap.
[1:29:35] » There was a little overlap. Is there any
are there any questions online?
[1:29:39] » No.
>> No questions. Okay. I will close the
[1:29:41] public hearing related to ordinance
2026-06.
[1:29:44] Uh, is there a motion to adopt? I'll
I'll move to adopt ordinance 2026
[1:29:51] adding the over uh affordable housing
one zone.
[1:29:55] » I'll second.
>> Mr. Auroritz,
[1:29:59] » yes.
>> Mr. Troy,
[1:30:00] » yes.
>> Mrs. U.
[1:30:02] » Yes.
>> Deputy Mayor McHugh.
[1:30:04] » Yes.
>> And Mayor Roland.
[1:30:05] » Yes.
>> Motion passes. You
[1:30:08] » I'd like to open the public hearing for
ordinance 2026-07
[1:30:12] adding affordable housing overlay
district.
[1:30:16] Yeah, there's some overlap. Any
questions online, Mr. Manti? Oh,
[1:30:21] » I just like to thank him for letting us
speak.
[1:30:23] » Oh, absolutely.
>> We uh we appreciate it. We do. It gets
[1:30:26] boring when nobody's here and we
appreciate having a conversation.
[1:30:33] » Have a good evening.
>> Thank you. Okay, we'll close the uh the
[1:30:36] hearing for ordinance 2026-07.
Is there a motion to adopt? So move.
[1:30:43] I'll
>> second.
[1:30:46] Mr. Al Farrowitz,
>> yes.
[1:30:47] » Mr. Troy,
>> yes.
[1:30:49] » Mrs. Ewolf,
>> yes.
[1:30:50] » Deputy Mayor McHug,
>> yes.
[1:30:52] » And Mayor Roland,
>> yes.
[1:30:54] » Motion passes.
>> Okay. You uh we will not move on to the
[1:30:59] resolutions.
I don't know if you want uh one through
[1:31:04] five, correct me if I'm wrong, are
basically updating the regulations
[1:31:08] related to affordable housing. Um just
with the with the latest standards.
[1:31:13] Those are That's correct.
>> Yes.
[1:31:16] » Okay.
>> If I may, mayor, just number one, uh
[1:31:20] 2026-075,
that's actually related to the uh grant
[1:31:24] application for Mammoth County Home for
the group homes.
[1:31:28] » So there that's um uh the developer
Lucha wanted to apply for some
[1:31:34] additional funding through the county
home program and that is a resolution
[1:31:38] that's required by the governing body in
order to make that application. Uh two,
[1:31:43] three, four, and five are implementing
resolutions as you mentioned, mayor, as
[1:31:47] part of the fourth round.
>> Got it. That's right. Thank you very
[1:31:50] much.
>> And number six is the library print.
[1:31:53] » Yes.
>> Okay. Is there a motion
[1:32:00] to approve? Do we do each one
individually? Could we do a little
[1:32:04] » by consent?
>> Okay, we can do a consent. Is there a
[1:32:07] motion to approve resolutions
2026-075767787980?
[1:32:14] » So move.
>> I'll second.
[1:32:19] » Mr. Al Perowitz,
>> yes.
[1:32:21] » Mr. Troy,
>> yes.
[1:32:23] » Mrs. Eel,
>> yes.
[1:32:25] » Deputy Mayor Leu,
>> yes.
[1:32:26] » And Mayor Roland,
>> yes.
[1:32:28] » Motion passes.
>> Thank you.
[1:32:30] » Now we can move on to the reports. And
do we want to hear from Rich first?
[1:32:35] Rich.
[1:32:39] Rich,
>> you read my mind. I was gonna So, we've
[1:32:42] got uh Rich, come on up to uh to one of
these chairs. So, Rich Young, our the PW
[1:32:47] superintendent. Um he's here also. I
believe we're joined I hope we're joined
[1:32:52] by uh Zoom also with John Rushki as he
dial
[1:32:55] » John. There he is.
>> Yes. So, both uh the engineer and the
[1:33:00] superintendent are here. uh under public
works um we don't have any legislation
[1:33:06] but we do have under discussion action
uh separate from this report discussion
[1:33:10] on the compost facility and that's why
uh John is here because he's also been
[1:33:14] assisting uh Rich and myself with the D
regulations uh associated with permits
[1:33:21] for such facilities. So, um, Rich has
provided two memos and a spreadsheet.
[1:33:27] Um, and Rich, unless you have anything
to open up with, we could just start
[1:33:31] with questions. Let's go to questions.
>> Okay.
[1:33:35] » So, you've been sitting here for an hour
and a half, so I'm going to question you
[1:33:37] now.
>> Return the favor just like you drill
[1:33:42] him.
[1:33:45] » Yeah. Make it worth his while. Um, okay.
So
[1:33:49] for for the the benefit of the
residents, the question is we want to
[1:33:53] get rid of the mulch service.
uh you would still we would still take
[1:33:59] in lease for composting from residents,
but we would eliminate the land uh
[1:34:05] landscapers ability to buy a permit
which would allow them to
[1:34:10] um and I guess my big thing and I'm sure
many residents experience this is is
[1:34:15] there any way to recast this to monet to
better monetize because I know I had
[1:34:22] asked my because we had a conversation
about this not too long ago um because I
[1:34:26] was like I how can I pay my landscaper
to dispose of leaves when we have a
[1:34:30] place to dispose of leaves and um when I
went to my landscaper and and the answer
[1:34:34] was that they can dispose of the leaves
but it have to be coordinated because
[1:34:38] you need to know what's rented.
>> That's part of the problem. Okay.
[1:34:42] » Yeah. Yeah. So, uh the landscaper said
that you know first of all they're
[1:34:46] collecting leaves all week and we're not
we're only open Tuesdays in the morning
[1:34:49] and so it's not doesn't make sense. And
then of course if they're collecting an
[1:34:53] entire truck full of these, how do you
know that the six yards that are in
[1:34:56] there, the 10 yards are mine. Uh so
there was some complexity, but I really
[1:35:00] felt like there was a value because
there's a lot of people, a lot of
[1:35:03] residents paying to have their leaves
disposed though and you guys have to
[1:35:08] grind up leaves for their residents who
dump their leaves anyway. So there's it
[1:35:12] feels like there's an opportunity for
revenue generation in there somehow. So
[1:35:16] I'd much rather my money go to the
township than there or else there's
[1:35:20] leaves.
>> Yeah. With the with the leaf aspect, we
[1:35:23] don't grind the leaves.
>> Okay.
[1:35:26] » In the re in the spreadsheet I I
proposed was
[1:35:31] we have wind rows of leaves that through
our D permit we have to flip once a
[1:35:37] month. Regardless time of year, it's
once a month. Once that is done and it
[1:35:43] breaks down, we contract with a local
vendor who takes it for free. But it
[1:35:50] takes on the average two to three trucks
minimum and a front end loader two to
[1:35:57] three days to do it. So we're providing
a service, but it's eating up a lot of
[1:36:02] manpower. That's just for the less for
the mulch for the the brush aspect of
[1:36:08] it. Residents are allowed to dump mulch
and then we turn into we we work with
[1:36:13] the contractor to tub grind it to make
double ground mulch and then we sell it
[1:36:17] back to the residents.
>> Well, that's from the residents dumping
[1:36:21] mulch.
>> I didn't even know you could do that.
[1:36:24] Okay.
>> Not mulch
[1:36:29] to make.
>> Yes. Hey Rich, I I think it'd be
[1:36:32] important to note that, you know, some
past operations and why where we're here
[1:36:38] because there was a point where we had a
lower price and we were getting a lot of
[1:36:43] developers coming in and it was just
overwhelming for the DPW to keep up with
[1:36:48] it. And that's kind of why we raised
some of the rates to try to discourage
[1:36:51] some of the commercial because if we if
we want to try to expand this operation,
[1:36:56] it it's more than just our our existing
resources. You know, we scale back it.
[1:37:00] We scaled back these operations once
before.
[1:37:04] » And I asked the question as well and I
think it was there are only two
[1:37:08] customers, two landscapers that
>> currently
[1:37:11] » currently
>> there was two last year, two two in 24
[1:37:14] and two in 25. But when these guys come
in, they come in half not happy.
[1:37:20] » Under the proposal uh that Rich put
forward though where we would contract
[1:37:24] with the MUA to handle the hauling away
of the leaves, the grass and the brush.
[1:37:31] Uh we would not be doing any mulch.
Obviously, we've not been providing
[1:37:35] mulch. Therefore, we don't need the tub
grinder anymore.
[1:37:38] » Okay.
>> So, that would be saving correct. So
[1:37:40] that would be uh saving uh about 15,000
uh a year,
[1:37:47] » right?
Plus the man power to load that duck
[1:37:50] grinder which takes about a week. So
it's one guy and a front end loader for
[1:37:55] a week.
>> So we contract how do we pay the MUA? Is
[1:37:58] it by the by the uh cubic MUA would be
believe a flat fee uh container?
[1:38:04] Correct.
>> Flat fee container. It's $200 for the
[1:38:06] pole just to show the grab it. Then it's
um right here.
[1:38:23] It's roughly 485 a 30 yard container
which can consist of them pulling it,
[1:38:30] taking it, and then bringing back
another one.
[1:38:34] So the new setup would just be uh leaf
container, brush container. Is that
[1:38:40] » it's it's the same service to the
residents except for the mulch.
[1:38:44] » So no mulch deliverance and then and
then no use of your bodies um to do the
[1:38:52] drum grinding.
>> Correct. And the cost of the drum
[1:38:55] grinder itself
>> which is 3,000 a day.
[1:38:57] » Yes. 3,000 a day. And then it would also
be that if you look at the alternate
[1:39:02] option to perhaps get more use or more
expansion then you know that that's one
[1:39:08] entrance for neighbors of vehicles and
trucks and those kinds of things and
[1:39:14] this would um not necessarily shrink it
greatly because you still want to dump
[1:39:19] the mulch or the brush and the leaves.
>> Um okay.
[1:39:23] How many residents take advantage of the
mulch delivery?
[1:39:29] » It's roughly including myself.
>> It's in the spreadsheet had 64 or 2025
[1:39:36] to 64 res.
>> Yeah. And what's happening? We're
[1:39:39] realizing that the numbers are going
down.
[1:39:41] » Mhm.
>> And we're being left with the excess
[1:39:44] that either we have to find home have
find a home for basically because
[1:39:48] » John correct me if I'm wrong. the the
new uh permit doesn't allow us to leave
[1:39:53] anything on the ground.
>> Yeah, we can't have storage. We can't,
[1:39:56] you know, we can't maintain long-term
storage. And that that's what we have is
[1:40:00] over the years, we've accumulated quite
a bit of material
[1:40:03] because the material really isn't the
quality of material is poor. We we put
[1:40:07] it through a tub grinder, but it's it's
really not a commercially grade um you
[1:40:11] know, mulch that that a homeowner would
typically use. This this is you know
[1:40:16] really is not a you know the quality the
material is very poor.
[1:40:20] » We have that material that's sitting
there a while that people have not
[1:40:24] necessarily taken advantage of uh coming
with their own buckets and taking it or
[1:40:29] whether it be delivered um then indeed
um it sits there and with the new
[1:40:35] regulation you can't let it sit there
necessarily
[1:40:38] in the same way if you will or or
different. Uh, so does it is there a
[1:40:43] cost to does somebody come take it for
free because of its quality or would we
[1:40:48] have to pay to get rid of it?
>> We have to pay the year in.
[1:40:51] » So you're looking roughly between 15 and
$20 a yard.
[1:40:55] » Okay.
>> And we were charging $25 a yard.
[1:41:00] » We were charging $25 for three yards
most of it.
[1:41:05] » Okay.
>> So but this way they can't come and pick
[1:41:07] it up either because we would
>> can't store it. We can't store it.
[1:41:11] There's the part of the new requirements
are that if we're storing it, um John,
[1:41:16] feel free to jump in and uh if I'm
missing something, right? Correct. We
[1:41:20] have to do testing uh as well there. So
there's requirements and how we have to
[1:41:24] store it and what we need to do in order
to store it. And then we also have to
[1:41:28] make sure that we're doing testing over
there. Uh and then the concern is not
[1:41:32] the testing we can handle in house
actually through the WPC. Um but it's
[1:41:36] what happens if certain chemicals uh
because the reason for the testing is
[1:41:41] it's you know people use pesticides they
use there's chemicals there's all these
[1:41:45] different things what happens when it
leeches into the groundwater or into
[1:41:49] that area. So then if there's problems
levels are elevated we now have to deal
[1:41:55] with those consequences.
[1:41:59] » Okay. I mean the mulch I'm not terribly
attached to although it's nice
[1:42:04] mostly because it's and I and you know
same thing it's expensive to purchase
[1:42:07] mulch but it is treated and everything
else. So, um, but but it is only 60
[1:42:12] people. So, I guess I'm not and if we
really wanted to do it, I guess we could
[1:42:16] charge more, but I'm not sure if it is.
Um,
[1:42:20] but, um, I guess I'm just wondering if
John, are you there? Yeah.
[1:42:23] » Yes.
>> Work with a lot of towns. Have you seen,
[1:42:28] you know, leaf collection facility that
is able to make financial go? I'm just
[1:42:34] I'm just kind of dumbfounded that
there's not a better way that there's
[1:42:38] not a way to monetize this. you know,
we're looking at kind of a a really
[1:42:41] crappy budget and revenue that's
dropping off and I'm like, I feel like
[1:42:45] there's an opportunity here that we're
missing.
[1:42:49] » No, there's there's a lot of um you
know, municipalities are not necessarily
[1:42:54] um you know, set up to be, you know, for
large bulk processes to make a lot of
[1:42:59] money with wood processing. There's a
lot of companies out there already. And
[1:43:02] in fact, what I'm seeing now is a lot of
municipalities are getting, you know,
[1:43:07] looking at these
regulations now that the D is rolling
[1:43:11] out and all the processes now we have to
follow and and and permitting
[1:43:14] limitations. Um you know and and like Z
said the the the testing the testing we
[1:43:20] we actually have to pay for a lab. So we
are it is going to add additional costs
[1:43:24] associated with you know doing all this
testing. We just don't going we're going
[1:43:28] to have to we have labor in house to
collect the samples but the analysis is
[1:43:31] still there. So, you know, a lot of a
lot of municipalities are looking at
[1:43:34] that testing requirements and the over
and the burden of of all these
[1:43:38] regulations that it's almost D is is
pushing a lot of the smaller
[1:43:42] municipalities that have these systems,
you know, out of business to to look at
[1:43:46] alternatives.
>> Yeah,
[1:43:47] » it would be largely an economies of
scale. I know like I Union County runs a
[1:43:51] compost facility and a lot of towns
whole, right, Rich? I think uh the one
[1:43:56] over in Springfield off Shumpike they've
got a lot of towns bring their stuff to
[1:43:59] the county compost facility for a town
to do it especially so small it's just
[1:44:04] starts to get too expensive to meet with
the little potential for the revenue
[1:44:09] that you have
>> okay because I mean we're talking about
[1:44:12] just so we're clear we're talking about
like eight well eight weeks of the year
[1:44:15] it's really the fall season and just to
give you perspective you said the MUA I
[1:44:20] think you said it's like 4 I can't find
it 434 what was it 435 for 30 yard
[1:44:24] container container.
>> He's got all the total costs for you. So
[1:44:28] » 485 for a 30 yard container. My
contractor charged me 480 bucks to pull
[1:44:33] away 12 yards.
>> So I get what you're saying. I just feel
[1:44:36] like there's an opportunity. But I I
trust you guys. Your judgment.
[1:44:39] » The thing is we could we we could up the
rates. You know, we did talk about,
[1:44:42] okay, if we wanted to get the
contractors in, right, we'd have to up
[1:44:45] the rates for them to make that revenue
to make it profitable right now.
[1:44:49] » Well, we don't have to have the facility
opening up.
[1:44:52] » Correct. I'm saying aside that, right?
like so you know look at in order to do
[1:44:56] that um let's say it's with the MUA
right let's say we're keeping the MUA
[1:45:01] but then you're you got to how much
money do you have to charge two
[1:45:04] contractors two landscapers that are
coming they're going to just say it's
[1:45:09] cheaper to go elsewhere and so we're
going to go through all that work in
[1:45:13] order for us to you know be able to
generate the revenue or break even or to
[1:45:18] make it cheaper uh we're going to have
to charge them a lot more and it would
[1:45:23] just be cheaper for them to go elsewhere
than it would be to stay with us. And
[1:45:27] then if we lose them because we've put
ourselves out of business, then we've
[1:45:32] gone through all that work and now have
no customers.
[1:45:37] » I thought there were more much more
customers. And I said, "Well, how many
[1:45:39] landscapers are coming?" They said,
>> "And al and also again, I can't
[1:45:43] emphasize enough regarding the quality
>> dropping off leaves Tuesday morning or
[1:45:48] commercial contractors."
But we don't have the heat.
[1:45:51] » Plus, if there's if there's containers
there for residents to dump in, these
[1:45:55] contractors are going to have to
manually load like back up to the
[1:45:58] dumpster as opposed to Yeah. as opposed
to dumping on the ground. So if we went
[1:46:04] with them
>> Rich is there is there um and this is a
[1:46:08] completely separate concern or angle at
this
[1:46:11] » uh and that is um having the grinder
having the mulch facility and creating
[1:46:17] mulch would this um containerized
version going forward um would that um
[1:46:24] go to a mulch facility or would it go to
a landfill? Do we even know that?
[1:46:30] » A recycling facility. Yeah.
>> Recycling facility. Okay. So, so you
[1:46:35] don't lose that
>> environmental benefit.
[1:46:39] » No, it goes to the Morris County
facility.
[1:46:42] » Terrific. Perfect. If if we do um uh
Stacy's much more down to the the
[1:46:49] details um on the looking at it
differently. If we if we have additional
[1:46:55] cost, additional liability, which is
happening period,
[1:46:58] » right?
>> Correct. Um, and if we if we go the
[1:47:02] route of growing it to drive revenue,
um, is is that clearly going to be a um
[1:47:11] a cost benefit um rather than just doing
what we're looking at and maybe um, in
[1:47:19] other words, if we look at it on a
growth base, we're not making money now.
[1:47:23] It's costing your guys a lot of um, time
>> where they losing money on it now. Yeah.
[1:47:28] » So, we're losing money, is it? Now,
>> um is it would it be simple or very
[1:47:33] difficult particularly under new
regulation and other things? Uh how
[1:47:38] difficult would it be to turn it into a
profitable or uh I don't know you have
[1:47:44] an exact answer on that, but I think
it'd be substantial.
[1:47:47] » Yeah, I guess I just I just I would just
emphasize again the quality of the
[1:47:52] material that we're generating. Um you
people will call and buy our material
[1:47:57] because it's convenient because they can
just call the town. But you can get the
[1:48:01] same quality material by just walking
down anyone cutting down a tree. Any of
[1:48:05] the commercial tree companies will give
you a whole truckload of their material
[1:48:08] for free. So it's it's that's the
quality of material. So if we're going
[1:48:13] to go in the business of selling mulch
like like it's you have to process it
[1:48:18] more. You know, it's not just a matter
of running it through a tub grow tub
[1:48:21] grinder. you're you're grinding it
multiple times, screening it, you know,
[1:48:24] in some cases they're dying it. It's
it's not, you know, it's we're we're not
[1:48:29] not talking about just a simple
composting. Now, we're getting into a
[1:48:32] manufacturing process to to to generate
a a quality mulch that we can we can
[1:48:38] compete with a company that's doing it
properly.
[1:48:42] » And just this year, rather last year,
we're talking about revenue of about
[1:48:46] 7,000 with expenses of about 42,000.
>> Okay. have to maintain
[1:48:51] » is crazy even
>> that's when I save $200 plus the guys
[1:48:56] » with this whole new procedure we're
trying to keep you know the same service
[1:48:59] to the residents
>> because that's our main so minus you
[1:49:03] know instead of dumping on the ground
putting in the dumpster.
[1:49:06] » Yes.
>> That's really the big
[1:49:09] » the big sell here. Does does that
if we go the dumpster route, fewer
[1:49:15] commercial guys obviously, six two
trucks anyway and 60 truck loads and
[1:49:21] going out. Uh would the would the
traffic uh the residential area there?
[1:49:26] Um would that be greater, lesser or
similar because now you just move into
[1:49:31] containers?
>> It all depends on you know like spring's
[1:49:35] going to be heavy.
>> Sure. Of course.
[1:49:37] » And in the fall.
>> Yes. You know, that's prim that those
[1:49:39] are the busy seasons. Yes. But it's busy
anyway. Okay.
[1:49:43] » You know, and MUA doesn't doesn't pull
containers on the weekends.
[1:49:46] » Okay.
>> They're strictly Monday through Friday.
[1:49:48] » Yep. Okay.
>> So, the weekend traffic people wouldn't
[1:49:51] even notice.
>> Great.
[1:49:53] » Great. Thank you.
[1:49:58] » Any other questions, comments?
>> No, I just, you know,
[1:50:06] » I mean, you you make I mean you're make
I I read all of the stuff. You made a
[1:50:11] very compelling argument. I've been
racking my brain to try to figure out
[1:50:14] how to challenge it, but um I I respect
your opinion and the work that you put
[1:50:20] in and uh you know I wouldn't really
fight your professional opinion of this.
[1:50:25] So
>> unfortunately with this new permit our
[1:50:28] answer kind of died.
>> It's the new driven by the new permit.
[1:50:31] » Yeah.
>> Just so you know too before Rich comes
[1:50:34] here I challenge him quite a bit.
>> So Then I challenge you. Yeah.
[1:50:41] » I I I make sure uh you know the
spreadsheet alone was was frustrating
[1:50:47] enough for him. So because I want to
make sure that we all have the right
[1:50:50] information and and you have the the
dollars, the figures, the quantities
[1:50:56] that you need to know in order to make
that decision. And unfortunately it
[1:50:59] seems like, you know, when you're just
looking at this short of saying, "Yeah,
[1:51:02] we want to eat that cost. We understand.
We want to eat the cost and subsidize
[1:51:06] it." there's really no other alternative
that we we could come up with to to
[1:51:11] maintain this and I think the numbers
just sort of make the decision for
[1:51:14] themselves. Well, the service is still
there because you drop you up deep and
[1:51:18] you branches and such. Service remains
>> like obviously like it's a new
[1:51:22] procedure. So, there's going to be bumps
and bruises here, you know. We're going
[1:51:26] to figure it out along the way,
>> you know, but I think once people get
[1:51:30] used to putting their stuff in dumpsters
that shouldn't shouldn't be done because
[1:51:34] » everybody just wants to get rid of their
stuff.
[1:51:36] » Okay. And we're not talking we're not
talking for this year. It would be for
[1:51:39] next year. That's why we wanted to get
this out of the way early, have this
[1:51:42] conversation so that way we can give
enough notice to, you know, the the
[1:51:47] folks that use the mulch, but also the
landscapers. And who knows, maybe we
[1:51:51] tell the landscapers, they're like, you
know what, I'll only give you 20,000 to
[1:51:54] keep this going.
>> I don't I don't think they will, but
[1:51:58] we'll get some feedback.
>> Then you got to really check what
[1:52:00] they're dumping.
[1:52:04] » Jimmy Hoffman's partner branches in
brush.
[1:52:09] Just my last two cents, just to give you
perspective, it could you
[1:52:13] » I if I paid the township $20 a cubic
yard,
[1:52:17] » it would cost me $24 would be half the
price and I would more than contribute
[1:52:21] to an MU like I would contribute half of
an MUA container with oneird of the with
[1:52:27] oneird of the leaf collection. So that's
that's what I'm getting at in terms of
[1:52:30] the you know the economics of it. But
>> I guess how would you like how would I
[1:52:34] get it from my house to theirs? No, you
still have the landscaper, but the the
[1:52:38] resident would buy the permit.
>> The res. So, I would buy a permit to
[1:52:42] dump 10 yards. Now, unfortunately, Rich
is not how to measure when the truck
[1:52:46] comes with 30 yards
>> that they're only dumping 10 yards. So,
[1:52:49] it's not it's not a clean process, but I
was like, there got to be a way to All
[1:52:53] right. I said my
>> I mean, if there we have some if there's
[1:52:58] a way we can figure it out. I said,
we'll let the contractors know. We're
[1:53:01] going to let the landscapers know. Hey,
heads up and maybe we'll meet with them
[1:53:05] and see if they can I mean
>> I'm not opposed to coming up with an
[1:53:09] alternative. Rich Rich is a little more
hesitant. Uh I just, you know, would
[1:53:14] love to see if we can make it work. I
just don't practically, you know, as you
[1:53:18] said, how do you make sure that the
people who are paying are the ones
[1:53:22] bringing it in and
>> I think you're going to lose contractors
[1:53:26] automatically just from them having to
shovel it off into a dumpster.
[1:53:29] » Oh yeah,
>> that because that's too much time. Yeah,
[1:53:32] » they're going to pay their guys to do
that and then your price is going to go
[1:53:35] up.
>> I mean, yeah.
[1:53:38] » And actually, you can you can buy m
residents can buy material from the MUA
[1:53:42] and they do have different products
because they process it different way.
[1:53:45] If you want to buy wood mulch versus
unscreened compost um and and so they
[1:53:50] they you can buy it from there's other
sources too if you want to buy the
[1:53:53] material back.
>> Yeah.
[1:53:56] » Thanks, John.
[1:53:58] purchase from the NUA.
>> Yeah, we'll put in our DPW bullets and
[1:54:02] it'll it'll notify because we do put in
there right now that you can buy from
[1:54:06] DPW. So, we'll just say, "Hey, here's
how you can buy it now."
[1:54:10] » That's great.
>> Okay. Anything else? A wrench.
[1:54:19] » I'm looking to you for another question.
>> All right. Thank you so much.
[1:54:26] to you and the crew on the snow plowing.
>> Just anote I got one resident came and
[1:54:34] they said they knew exactly where where
Chadam stops and starts
[1:54:40] » you got to come. I know I'm Chad the
roads are clear.
[1:54:43] » Yeah, great crew. You actually did too
good of a job. I say
[1:54:48] » as far as we're out a lot faster this
time than have been
[1:54:53] » so next time maybe slow it down a little
bit.
[1:54:56] » Oh, because you kept everybody safe. I
mean, big hill. We got lots of big
[1:55:00] hills, so we appreciate it.
>> We had a neighbor at a medical emergency
[1:55:04] at 2 am on Sunday and the roads were
clear. You guys got that? My the walk
[1:55:09] and his walk were not clear, but the
roads were clear
[1:55:13] » because they accidentally knocked on my
door, but it was uh the roads were clear
[1:55:17] and they had no problem parking on the
road, so it was really important.
[1:55:22] » All right. Well, thank you guys.
>> Great.
[1:55:26] You too. Thanks for hanging in
>> I believe you need to hang around,
[1:55:29] right?
>> Yep. Yep. I was just going to ask you.
[1:55:31] I'm making sure you still want to cover
it tonight.
[1:55:34] » Okay. So, whatever is next on the agenda
Yes, thank you. So, uh since we do have
[1:55:40] John here, uh next is under engineering
uh briefly uh we will have a resolution
[1:55:47] likely for the next meeting uh if not
for April. Uh but that would be to award
[1:55:52] the contract to to uh a contractor
lowest bidder to do the work at the
[1:55:56] estate for the ADA improvements. Um I
don't think there's any questions on
[1:56:01] that one.
>> Ze just quickly what is um your your
[1:56:05] best guess time frame? Um, John, we
haven't scheduled a precon yet. So,
[1:56:09] » no, we haven't scheduled a pre-con, but
it it will be done during during the day
[1:56:13] and and during the construction, you
know, we'll we'll emphasize that it
[1:56:17] needs to be safe. You know, he can't as
he's working, you know, you'll still be
[1:56:20] able to walk up the gravel road um and
walk in the area. But, you know, it
[1:56:25] should probably I would I would
guesstimate it's about two weeks worth
[1:56:28] of work, maybe a little bit longer just
to to complete the signage and things to
[1:56:31] come back. But, um, but it's really
about two weeks worth of work that he's
[1:56:35] going to do. and and John, best guess on
roughly when you when you believe this
[1:56:40] work will start.
>> Um, I would think that if we um we award
[1:56:46] the contract at the next meeting, it
usually takes about two 3 weeks to get
[1:56:51] contracts in place. So, I would think
that he would probably start late April,
[1:56:56] early May would be the soonest.
[1:57:04] Once we have the pre-op meeting though
[1:57:08] soccer season now.
>> Yeah.
[1:57:12] So we'd have construction in the middle
of lacrosse season.
[1:57:16] » Well, is it going to is you know it's
going to be during school hours. So
[1:57:21] they'll be working during the day and
they will you know have them any
[1:57:25] equipment that they have they'll pull to
the side and so you know they they have
[1:57:29] to make the work site uh you know safe
every time they leave the day. every
[1:57:33] time they leave. So, I don't it's it's
you know with the the paving the paving
[1:57:38] may be a day at two at the most. So,
it's not going to be a very um you know
[1:57:43] long process and it should be during the
day and he should be able to keep the
[1:57:47] work site uh relatively safe when uh you
know because it's not we don't have any
[1:57:52] major excavations or or you know large
trenches he's digging. It's really just
[1:57:58] all paving work. So, it's it's it's
relatively neat.
[1:58:03] Yeah.
[1:58:07] » Okay.
>> Is it going to affect parking at all?
[1:58:10] Like for
people that are coming during those two
[1:58:15] weeks? I mean, the charts will be off on
the side and everything, but there isn't
[1:58:19] going to be another place where they're
going to go, right?
[1:58:24] » John, did you hear the question?
>> Uh, no. No. Um, I get like the safety
[1:58:29] issue and everything, but what about
access and parking? Um, are how many
[1:58:34] spaces are going to be lost during that
small window of time while the field
[1:58:40] might be used and everything else too?
>> I I I I would think that in the
[1:58:44] beginning he's going to have a small
bulldozer that he'll do the to get the
[1:58:49] grades and things. So, it's probably one
piece of equipment. um we can make sure
[1:58:53] that he doesn't leave any of his dump
truck or anything on any of vehicles. He
[1:58:57] doesn't need to park there. And then
during the paving, he's going to have
[1:59:00] probably have a paver and a roller. So
have those pieces of equipment. But I
[1:59:05] don't envision him taking up more than
two or three spots.
[1:59:11] » Okay. There will be a period then though
when you can't drive on it.
[1:59:17] You you'll always be able to walk on it,
right John? That is to say, you'll be
[1:59:20] » Yeah. even even driving on it. You know,
a lot of you know, a lot of small pavers
[1:59:24] will say that um you know, you you
should keep off your driveway for a
[1:59:28] week. And and I always laugh about that
because you know, asphalt doesn't
[1:59:32] consolidate or or take time like a
concrete where it cures over time. You
[1:59:37] know, as soon as you roll that asphalt
and it cools, you can walk on it right
[1:59:41] away. So, you it's really hours that
it's going to take that uh you know,
[1:59:44] will be open versus, you know, days.
[1:59:51] Yeah, we could talk to him about having
his equip parking his equipment up on at
[1:59:56] the on the top of the hill versus the
lower area just to keep the lower area
[1:59:59] open.
>> Yeah, just in the event that we lose
[2:00:03] access to upper yesterday, you know, um
we get communication as early as
[2:00:09] possible. So, whoever if someone's got
scheduled events up there. Yeah, we we
[2:00:15] we'll we'll definitely look at the
scheduling and and when he submits his
[2:00:18] his schedule, you know, we'll we'll hash
out all those things during the
[2:00:21] pre-construction meeting.
>> Great. Thanks, John.
[2:00:26] » Okay.
>> Um so, the reason John's here is uh for
[2:00:30] the discussion action item was on the
agenda uh titled Southern Boulevard open
[2:00:35] space LOI. Uh that is the u property
property formerly owned by the Fensky
[2:00:42] family.
Um I did email a while ago um her
[2:00:48] request that the the mapping would be
made available. Um as soon as that was
[2:00:53] done, you know, I wanted to make sure I
reviewed that with John. Um and I said
[2:00:58] that to you and I had asked if there's
any questions or reason for discussion.
[2:01:02] Actually, nobody really mentioned that
there was, but the reason I brought it
[2:01:06] up is because John then uh followed up
with the next step, which was to uh
[2:01:11] submit an application to the D for the
actual delineation.
[2:01:15] Um, and before we went ahead with that,
um, that was almost just shy of $3,000,
[2:01:21] I was like, you know what, based on the
mapping, not much really changed from
[2:01:25] what we thought and there's a lot of
limitations already and very little that
[2:01:30] we can do with the property. Um and
whatever it is that we probably would
[2:01:36] consider doing uh can probably be done
without the permit from the D which
[2:01:42] would uh so just seems that we may not
need to go to the next level. But before
[2:01:47] that determination is made and before I
decide uh whether I should write the
[2:01:52] requisite to check or not, I want to
confer with all of you and give you guys
[2:01:56] an opportunity talk to John and maybe
see what possibilities you have in mind
[2:02:01] for this in light of the restrictions um
and for John to give us a little bit
[2:02:06] more clarity on what is or is not
possible there.
[2:02:10] » Do we have anything? I don't remember
receiving anything. Yeah, it was uh
[2:02:14] emailed about a month ago and then uh
resent I believe with the agenda packet.
[2:02:20] » Was it resent agenda packet? Okay.
>> Yeah. So the the not I believe I resent
[2:02:26] it though.
>> Okay.
[2:02:28] » And we can send it out again. Um but
basically the hatched area is actually
[2:02:32] the wetlands and the clear areas are the
uplands and if um if we impose the 150
[2:02:40] foot buffer onto the wetlands which we
suspect because you know because of the
[2:02:45] the proximity of the swamp it's going to
be exceptional value and that's about
[2:02:50] 150 foot buffer and and just scaling
this is about 100 feet. So when you when
[2:02:54] you add that 100 foot buffer onto this,
there's going to be very limited to
[2:02:59] almost no property that that's that's
not going to be within wetlands or
[2:03:04] within the wetlands buffer. Um I I and
if we go for the LOI, basically the D is
[2:03:10] going to go out and they may move a line
here or there, shift it, you know,
[2:03:14] slightly that that's common for them,
but it's it's not going to drastically
[2:03:17] change, you know, what what you see
here. it it's it very very typically
[2:03:22] very minor changes that they they make
and then and then basically the line is
[2:03:26] set for five years. So a lot of
developers will get an LOI because you
[2:03:31] know they buy a piece of property they
know that the the line is set it's it's
[2:03:34] it's not going to change and so that's
very common to get the LOI. But if we
[2:03:39] were going to go for a a a path or um
you know some type of a permit that's
[2:03:45] either either a general permit or an
individual permit um you don't have to
[2:03:49] get the LI the L the as part of that
permit process um they they review the
[2:03:54] the wetlands delineations. Um so so
$3,000 it's it's a hefty application fee
[2:04:00] to get the LOI. Um, in comparison, if we
were just to look at a path through and
[2:04:06] you can the DP regulations are are are
very lenient on recreational paths, you
[2:04:12] know, that they we can put paths
throughout this and and uh, you know, we
[2:04:16] should have no problem getting a permit.
And in fact, that permit has no cost to
[2:04:20] it. It's probably the only application
fee that I'm aware of that that D does
[2:04:24] not charge actually to to permit paths,
uh, recreational paths. Um, you know, I
[2:04:30] did show a driveway here and and and a
parking area. This this is gonna to get
[2:04:35] um this is actually going to be a
difficult permit to get. You would have
[2:04:39] probably have to go for an individual
permit, get a whole bunch of waiverss um
[2:04:43] to get that. You know, D may in fact
take this area and push the parking lot
[2:04:48] over here and try to limit the amount of
area that we have to come in. So we
[2:04:53] really and and if you look at if we want
to get a parking lot over here, we still
[2:04:57] have the 100 foot bit and maybe there's
a little pocket in here, but you know,
[2:05:00] all this is transition area. So D is not
going to want to have a driveway going
[2:05:05] through this entire area to put a
parking lot here. That that's we we
[2:05:09] would have a challenge. I don't want to
discourage it entirely, but it it would
[2:05:13] be a challenge with the D. So, you know,
if we're going to do something like a
[2:05:16] parking lot, we would have a
pre-application with them and discuss,
[2:05:19] you know, possibilities because it's
likely going to be an individual permit.
[2:05:24] » John, if I heard you correctly, uh
something like a path, uh we we don't
[2:05:30] need to get the LOI, correct?
>> Correct. Yeah. You don't need an LOI for
[2:05:34] the forational.
>> This was something that was up for
[2:05:36] discussion um for public solicitation of
public input. Um but now there's
[2:05:43] limitations known and we don't have
things back or I don't have things back
[2:05:49] uh from the open space here. So yeah
perhaps we can run in front of them and
[2:05:54] see if there's anything other than a
path that is uh interesting.
[2:05:58] » Correct. And and and we don't have to
jump to submit the LOI if we want to
[2:06:02] just you know vent this a little bit and
and we can submit the the LOI in six
[2:06:07] months and or a year. All the work is
start is prepped up to to submit it. we
[2:06:11] just, you know, it's just a matter of do
we want to go that next step and uh, you
[2:06:15] know, spend the money to get us over the
gold just for an LOI and it's it's not
[2:06:19] going to, you know, we're going to be
over the goal, but we're going to have
[2:06:21] the same map. You know, we're not going
to be able to do anything with that LOI
[2:06:24] other than say yes, the the D has
confirmed these limits.
[2:06:28] » Yeah. So, um, mayor, I would request
that, uh, I get some input from open
[2:06:34] space and Craig gets some input from
Environmental Commission and then we
[2:06:38] either uh go get an LOI or the path, do
whatever we want to do that way. Um, if
[2:06:43] you're agreeable to that, are you
agreeable to that, sir?
[2:06:45] » Yeah.
>> Great. I think the biggest consideration
[2:06:48] is the parking.
>> Okay.
[2:06:50] » Because we can do a beautiful space and
trails, but if someone doesn't have a
[2:06:52] place to park,
>> right, that's part of the discussion.
[2:06:55] » I think that's part of the push back
from the environmental commission is
[2:06:58] that they don't want it, but we also
want give people access to it. So,
[2:07:03] » I don't know where else you're Yeah.
like the Green Village post office where
[2:07:06] it parks there to walk on the lawn. But
>> so efforts were started. So let's uh
[2:07:11] let's uh
>> do them the the courtesy of having their
[2:07:15] input.
>> Absolutely.
[2:07:17] » If we had a connectivity to Nash, where
would that be?
[2:07:22] » Um we would we would connect it. Um if I
can see my cursor in here, you know,
[2:07:27] Nash is over here. So we we we can uh
you know, you do have the parking lot. I
[2:07:32] guess like I could try to go down a
different map, but we we can have, you
[2:07:36] know, con connected to the Nashville
Nash property.
[2:07:40] » Well, the way that's laid out the uh if
if you talk about even the Green Village
[2:07:45] trout, Nash to Green Village, uh that
would end down by the old skating rink,
[2:07:51] which
>> Yeah. Yeah. It's it's up over, you know,
[2:07:53] this this is a this is a long
>> there all the way the sidewalk gets
[2:07:57] » there's another pocket of wet there's
additional wetlands to delineate on the
[2:08:00] net. We didn't delineate all of
Nashville. They're just in the area
[2:08:03] where we're going to put the um the
boardwalk and the and the path. But the
[2:08:07] this is all wetlands out here. Probably
extends out. But, you know, it's it's
[2:08:11] over here and we can connect. You know,
we we wanted to talk about a connection
[2:08:15] and extension to come around and and and
bring a path around into, you know, just
[2:08:20] have it just as another branch coming
around so people can walk a circle
[2:08:24] around, you know, that's certainly
something we can look at.
[2:08:27] » Yeah, that's that's Thank you.
Hey John, I have a question. So
[2:08:33] the the northern section up against
southern where the path jogs around.
[2:08:43] » Mhm.
>> Can we not utilize that through buffer
[2:08:47] averaging and arguing the value is
degraded because of its proximity to the
[2:08:53] street and noise pollution and and
light?
[2:08:57] See the thing with with wetlands
averaging you have to have property you
[2:09:03] have to have pro a portion of the
property that's not within a buffer. So
[2:09:07] there's not there's not a lot of area
that we can give with averaging because
[2:09:11] if you have 150 foot buffer the buffer
is extending all the way over here. So
[2:09:16] usually with a buffer you you have
property that you can you know horse
[2:09:19] trade away and and increase buffers. But
we
[2:09:21] » trade away the the western pieces right
now. Well, we we this is all wetlands
[2:09:28] all in here. So, you know, we there's no
average. You can't average these these
[2:09:32] pockets because the they're totally
>> the uh the space all that space to the
[2:09:38] left of the parking lot.
>> Oh, in here.
[2:09:42] » Yeah.
>> Well, this this is I can just uh just
[2:09:46] throw a scale on this. Let me just This
from here to here.
[2:09:51] » What does that mean?
>> That's that's a
[2:09:55] That's 180 ft. So, you know, if you have
a 150 foot buffer on either side, this
[2:10:01] is all buffer.
>> Not even the football field.
[2:10:07] » Yeah. My hope and desire was um
to buffer average out that area and just
[2:10:19] blacken it and make it parking, you
know, informal parking for Nash, which
[2:10:24] currently is wfully under park.
>> Yeah, this will be a challenge because
[2:10:28] Nash the other parking lot is over here.
>> Yeah, that's and this this wetlands
[2:10:33] probably continues all the way around
here. So it it you have a wetlands
[2:10:36] pocket here and and you know that that
supplemental parking would be a
[2:10:40] challenge to get it permitted today
[2:10:45] » and all this would be just packed dirt
and and
[2:10:49] » we would have a gravel you know we would
have a gravel path coming in. So it's
[2:10:52] it's um you know just just to so it's
>> you could see what they've done at the
[2:10:59] great swamp parking lot that they have
and
[2:11:01] » like that. Okay.
>> Yes.
[2:11:03] So John, you are going to get us an
updated map with Nash on there, right?
[2:11:07] » Yes. Yeah, I can do that. Yep.
Absolutely.
[2:11:10] » Also, just so we can see I
>> I can show an updated map with Nash and
[2:11:14] I can actually um what I can do is just
combine the two plans so we know exactly
[2:11:18] where our path is and all the fields and
and how we're going. Um so we we can
[2:11:23] combine this so it's something that so
we can look at it holistically as a as
[2:11:26] as as one property versus two.
>> Yeah. Because I guess I wonder, you
[2:11:31] know, parking is difficult,
but if we were able to connect to the 80
[2:11:36] ft that we have to potentially build and
put like the basketball court there and
[2:11:39] use that or I don't know.
>> Um, not that I want to dismantle stuff.
[2:11:43] I'm just trying to creatively think how
we can maximize the overall space.
[2:11:53] Yeah, because we can we can compare the
delineation that we did on Nash and and
[2:11:57] just kind of, you know, we can dash
these as interpretive of what we would
[2:12:01] would be just based on the topography
and uh we won't go out and delineate
[2:12:04] more unless we need to. But, you know,
just for planning purposes, we can do
[2:12:08] that.
>> Okay, great. Thank you.
[2:12:12] » Yeah.
>> And John, because it jos it uh you would
[2:12:15] have obstructed sightelines from the
street, right? Well, there's a there
[2:12:20] there's already a um a driveway apron
here and there is somewhat of a gravel
[2:12:25] path here already because they the
landscaper was coming back here and
[2:12:29] there's a shed here and some debris
pile. So, because this is where they
[2:12:32] were dumping some of some wood chips and
so there is a a somewhat of a of a it's
[2:12:37] not very defined gravel, but there is a
path that's that's in this area already.
[2:12:42] And uh when you come out it the sight
distance was was fine.
[2:12:47] » Yeah. I'm just wondering about security
because it could be like not you know
[2:12:50] it's obstructed views from the street.
Uh you know um
[2:12:54] » yeah we could look at a light we could
probably add if there's not a light
[2:12:59] DPW because that may have to be chained
at night
[2:13:03] » um
>> yeah I I would expect something like
[2:13:07] this we would say that it's you know
dust of dawn you know it's closed at
[2:13:11] night discourage people from driving in
[2:13:18] Well, I thought we couldn't use the
parking lot.
[2:13:22] » Why are we putting in a path for
nowhere?
[2:13:24] » Yeah, that's why I'm confused.
>> Wait, I thought that that is
[2:13:28] » Well, now this is just I was just
illustrating a possible parking lot. If
[2:13:32] this parking lot is from here, we would
we would do some type of a trail in this
[2:13:36] area.
>> So, that parking lot would need a permit
[2:13:38] or no, John.
>> Oh, yeah. Absolutely.
[2:13:41] And then this this would probably need
an individual permit because we're we're
[2:13:45] we're because this is this is all buffer
um going in permit.
[2:13:50] » Yeah. This this would need a permit and
this would you know it wouldn't be a
[2:13:54] general permit likely be an individual
permit and I would suspect you know we
[2:13:57] would have a pre-application with the D
but the D tend to um you know show some
[2:14:03] leniency on their when it comes to
recreational uses. you know, the fact
[2:14:08] that we're putting this in for, you
know, for people for recreational path,
[2:14:12] a passive path, you know, they they they
usually are very cooperative in that
[2:14:17] sense.
But again, they they may come back and
[2:14:20] they they'll they'll hammer us on, you
know, is there other options? Can you
[2:14:24] minimize the disturbance? Can you move
the parking lot over here and stick it
[2:14:28] in like in this way so when you drive in
and then pull in on this sides? They
[2:14:31] they I would see that they would
probably push for that so that we don't
[2:14:35] go far into it.
[2:14:40] But that that would call come out in a
pre pre-application meeting to talk
[2:14:43] about, you know, options and approaches.
>> Would county consider extending the Nash
[2:14:51] Trail to to this location? And I don't
know what I don't know if there'd be a
[2:14:54] bluff at the end or what, but um would
they is is that on the tables? Well, we
[2:14:59] we could we could certainly approach
Morris County for another grant if we
[2:15:02] want to extend from the existing um
boardwalk and do another path in this
[2:15:08] location.
[2:15:14] Yeah, there's definitely when we had
when we permitted for this sidewalk on
[2:15:18] Southern Boulevard, this was a, you
know, a difficult permit because there
[2:15:22] was um they were there was uh spotted
salamander habitat in this area and uh
[2:15:29] actually we had had to hire a special uh
environmentalist to go out there at
[2:15:35] night to look for salamanders and it was
a big deal just to get this sidewalk in.
[2:15:47] So it sounds like uh
cost valuing would suggest
[2:15:53] » trails probably.
>> Yeah, trails and but I could see Yeah, I
[2:15:58] could see the D allowing some small
parking lot to allow in here. I I would
[2:16:03] think that they wouldn't push back too
much. you know, they they they will
[2:16:06] ultimately do that and then deed
restrict the rest of the property. So
[2:16:09] that we're that's the tradeoff is that
we we're putting the parking lane that
[2:16:13] we're going to deed restrict from
further developing from a parking lots
[2:16:16] or any other uses. Um that that
restriction would preclude um you
[2:16:22] wouldn't restrict paths and other
passive recreation in the wetlands.
[2:16:27] Okay.
>> For kicks, how many spots you think you
[2:16:30] can get if it's closer and you can't
touch the land that's abuing southern
[2:16:36] because I think you referenced spotted
salamanders.
[2:16:38] » Yeah, that right here. This this this
wetlands pocket is is um you know that's
[2:16:44] » I for us to start impacting these
wetlands that that's going to be then
[2:16:49] we're going to start getting into
wetlands mitigation and and um you know
[2:16:53] that that can get costly. Um, you know,
we could look at, you know, negotiating
[2:16:58] moving in some wetlands and then, you
know, creating this all, you know,
[2:17:01] creating this entire area as wetlands,
but then, you know, that those
[2:17:04] mitigations, there's there's ratios that
you have to meet and and it's it's it's
[2:17:09] a process to go through that. That's
that's a costly process.
[2:17:16] » I appreciate it. Thanks, John.
>> Okay.
[2:17:20] » Thank you.
>> All right. Good night, everyone.
[2:17:27] Okay. Hi. You want to continue with the
reports?
[2:17:30] » Yes, mayor. Um,
well, there really are not too much too
[2:17:36] many more things uh besides the budget.
I don't know. Do you want to take a
[2:17:41] break for the bud to the restroom break?
Does anybody need a bio break or
[2:17:45] » I need I need
>> Okay. Yeah, maybe we'll take a five
[2:17:48] minute break or a few minute break for
people.
[2:17:50] » Up to you. Just because once we get to
that one. Yeah. Okay.
[2:18:04] Ready, Mayor?
>> Yes. Ready. Thank you.
[2:18:05] » Okay. Um so this evening uh under
administration
[2:18:12] uh no action um proposed under clerk
report was received. Any questions
[2:18:18] there? Okay. Construction, building, uh,
just the report. We didn't receive any
[2:18:23] questions. Anything to discuss there?
>> Okay. Finance. Um, I'll get back to
[2:18:29] financing, police, public works. Uh, we
covered those. Anything there?
[2:18:35] » Tax collector. Uh, we will have a
resolution on for the next agenda for an
[2:18:39] outside lean redemption.
Any questions or concerns about the
[2:18:43] report? Okay. Tax assessor. I will note
under his report, he did provide a very
[2:18:48] lengthy update. uh this month on
progress related to the reval. Any
[2:18:52] questions or concerns there?
>> Uh no, but I have been getting questions
[2:18:56] from residents about whether or not
they've started, you know, going door to
[2:19:00] door, which he said or the report said
that they have, which we didn't act for
[2:19:04] other meetings. Uh that but they started
in, you know, some of the dentist
[2:19:07] sections just to get a lot of coverage
with an animal. So, uh it's more so to
[2:19:12] make sure residents are aware that
that's begun. It also said, you know, in
[2:19:16] terms of access, it said something like
you can see what area they're in now by
[2:19:20] going on the website.
>> Yeah, we did put out an update on the
[2:19:23] website about that.
>> So, it's on our website. We have an
[2:19:26] update.
>> We did put an update uh I believe um you
[2:19:30] just double check. They also have a
spreadsheet on their website, asj.com.
[2:19:35] There's a spreadsheet of um what
who the inspector will be and what date
[2:19:42] they have currently slotted to arrive at
the property.
[2:19:45] » Oh, good.
>> So, you can look it up by your home
[2:19:46] address and you can see what their
projected day is when they might arrive.
[2:19:50] » Okay.
>> We did post something on, I believe, on
[2:19:52] social media with a link as well and
update it on on our website, uh the tax
[2:19:57] assessors page with that information to
go to and see the uh like where they are
[2:20:03] and all of that information. Okay.
Hasn't popped up for me in social media,
[2:20:06] but I I follow Township, but I'll see if
I can find it and then try and repost.
[2:20:12] » But no, good. That's what I want to make
sure is to this meeting and push it out
[2:20:14] as well.
>> I'll I'll double check that. I know we
[2:20:17] did work on that. So,
[2:20:23] » um right. Um then on to finance. There
are a number of legislative items for
[2:20:30] the next meeting. It would be to a
resolution to introduce the budget
[2:20:34] resolution. We are in the self-exam
cycle of uh we are in the self-exam year
[2:20:40] of that cycle. So resolution to do that
resolution to uh do some budget
[2:20:45] transfers under the reserve budget and
then an ordinance to set the open space
[2:20:50] tax rate u based off of the proposal
that would be in the budget presentation
[2:20:55] shortly.
Uh so with that um I'll turn your
[2:20:59] attention to the slides uh for the
budget presentation. Uh this year the um
[2:21:07] budget committee
>> screen there.
[2:21:09] » I'm sorry.
>> Um there's a Zoom session running on
[2:21:11] that computer. If you want to share the
screen
[2:21:14] » so I didn't realize there was a Zoom
session there.
[2:21:21] » Thanks Greg. Uh, I'm can't see where am
I.
[2:21:29] Here we go.
[2:21:32] Okay.
Good. Perfect. Thanks, Greg.
[2:21:37] Um, so this year the municipal budget
finance committee uh was comprised of
[2:21:43] mayor General Olen, deputy mayor Marty
McHugh. Uh this is your second year or
[2:21:47] third year on the finance committee.
Second, uh myself, our CFO and our
[2:21:52] assistant treasurer uh at Davenport. Um
the mayor, she's a finance and
[2:21:57] accounting professional of over two
decades. Uh and our deputy mayor
[2:22:01] operates an independent national
business development firm that he's also
[2:22:04] owned for over two decades. So, we've
got two very very astute and fiscally
[2:22:09] minded uh business professionals. Uh and
as I mentioned, this is their second
[2:22:13] year on the finance committee.
>> Yeah. No, I'm sorry.
[2:22:17] » You're second. Oh, third for the mayor,
second for the deputy mayor. So, a lot
[2:22:21] of experience there working on this and
uh we appreciated their their input and
[2:22:26] their challenges uh that they put
forward to us to craft this budget.
[2:22:30] Uh the timeline uh for this budget
largely mirrors previous years and for
[2:22:36] the governing body, you've heard this
now several times, but I I say this as
[2:22:41] though uh members of the public are
hearing this for the first time in case
[2:22:43] anybody's dialed in uh or is new to
this. This the budget process starts uh
[2:22:48] in the previous year in the fall uh
around September October where we are
[2:22:53] having department heads and the finance
department administration working on the
[2:22:58] individual department budgets the
requests um really reviewing
[2:23:02] expenditures from the for for that year
um and starting to look at needs and
[2:23:08] priorities for the following year as
well some of the challenges coming ahead
[2:23:11] uh November uh we have department head
meetings uh and reviewed their budget
[2:23:16] requests
uh and then that information gets fed to
[2:23:21] finance department to uh put together
the first draft of the budget as well as
[2:23:25] close the books from the previous year.
uh February and March is when we start
[2:23:29] having the finance committee meetings to
propose and put forward that first draft
[2:23:32] to them and then uh by this time March
uh we've finalized the the draft of the
[2:23:39] budget to be proposed and we're doing
quality control things uh that would
[2:23:43] involve our auditor and really looking
at financial statements, fund balances,
[2:23:49] reserves, uh you know any expenses,
anything that might have come up uh
[2:23:55] since last year that we weren't aware
that also require sometimes by the time
[2:23:59] the school or the county finalized their
budget or we're getting requests for
[2:24:04] from the library or other entities uh
that is stuff that then gets fed in by
[2:24:10] March the latest we we usually have that
uh today March 10th we do the initial
[2:24:15] budget presentation uh we look to have
budget introduction March 24th uh with
[2:24:22] another presentation same presentation
unless anything's changed uh and the
[2:24:26] goal goal is to adopt April 28th, 2026
uh in time to meet the state deadlines
[2:24:31] for the budget adoption uh for municipal
for municipalities.
[2:24:37] The municipal finance and budgeting uh
really varies quite differently from uh
[2:24:44] the private sector. You know what people
might be used to. Uh it's a very heavily
[2:24:49] regulated process. We look for guidance
from the state uh through the department
[2:24:54] of community affairs, the local finance
board. Uh sometimes that guidance comes
[2:24:58] right in the middle of the process. Uh
we wait on the governor to really make
[2:25:03] clear to municipalities what their state
aid is going to look like. Uh and that's
[2:25:07] something that comes also uh when
they're finished introducing their
[2:25:11] budget. Um at least two dozen meetings
and calls uh occur in order to get this
[2:25:18] budget to where it is. It's not a uh
overnight thing. It's definitely a long
[2:25:22] drawn out very thorough process in in
addition to the finance committee
[2:25:26] includes our auditors as well to make
sure that we're doing the right thing.
[2:25:31] Um the budget has to do with really our
appropriations and our revenues. Uh you
[2:25:37] know our salaries and wages, other
expenses which are everything from
[2:25:41] supplies, materials, fuel, uh any
contractual obligations we may have with
[2:25:46] third parties, uh utilities and the debt
service. All of these are just a sample
[2:25:51] but of what really make up the biggest
part of our appropriations. And then our
[2:25:54] revenues, uh, everything that includes
fees and fines, licenses, any interests
[2:25:59] from our bank accounts, the state aid, I
mentioned, any grants, what's known as
[2:26:03] MNA, miscellaneous revenue, um, you
know, things that we charge copies or
[2:26:09] smaller things. Uh, those make up our
revenues. That is our main revenue, our
[2:26:13] main source of revenue outside of taxes.
Taxes is really our main source of
[2:26:17] revenue. We don't, we're not a business.
We're not selling widgets. We're not uh
[2:26:21] providing uh consulting services. Uh
besides mulch, maybe
[2:26:27] we we're not selling a product. Uh the
the biggest uh portion of uh our revenue
[2:26:32] is the taxes. So, we try our hardest to
increase revenues uh in any other way
[2:26:39] other than taxes to minimize that tax
burden. But the difference between the
[2:26:42] appropriations and those revenues is h
has to be made up with taxes. That's the
[2:26:48] the levy.
Um, and we really try to strike a
[2:26:53] balance between doing the cost of
business and those limited opportunities
[2:26:57] for revenue. Uh, we are also not
municipality that has hotels that might
[2:27:02] collect hotel occupancy taxes. We're not
a town that has a downtown with parking
[2:27:07] revenue. We're not a town uh with um
hospitals that might generate more fees
[2:27:13] for birth certificates, for example. Uh
so we want to provide top rate
[2:27:17] government service and ensure the public
safety so the community still remains
[2:27:22] attractive uh that then leads to the
increase in home values that people come
[2:27:26] to appreciate and yields taxpayers the
best return on their investment which is
[2:27:31] their property. Uh so we're constantly
looking to do more with less uh finding
[2:27:35] savings mitigating those increases and
trying to increase ways where we can
[2:27:39] generate revenue.
the challenges uh the the goals that we
[2:27:44] have in light of those challenges are to
avoid some quick fixes. Uh the
[2:27:47] short-term remedies of just dipping into
your surplus uh to to always say, "Oh,
[2:27:52] well, we don't want to raise taxes." Uh
raising taxes, well, that's nobody's
[2:27:57] goal. Uh it it ensures that the town is
stable and resilient for the future to
[2:28:03] make sure that those fund balances are
healthy uh and that we can budget as
[2:28:08] lean as possible but do so responsibly
where we're not cutting services that
[2:28:13] don't need to be and we're not
jeopardizing or risking safety or
[2:28:16] compromising even on the quality of uh
our roads during storms. For example,
[2:28:25] this year we were confronted with a
number of very very significant
[2:28:29] challenges. Uh the biggest of those
challenges was the rising cost of health
[2:28:34] health care uh headlines uh in New
Jersey papers but also around the
[2:28:39] country are all uh saying the same
thing. Health care costs are rising and
[2:28:44] they're rising very very drastically.
Um, but in New Jersey, especially for
[2:28:49] municipalities who provide health
benefits to their employees, as most
[2:28:54] municipalities do, your options are
really limited. Uh, you're either in the
[2:28:58] state health benefits plan, for example,
or you're out to to private market.
[2:29:02] 2025, the cost of health care for
employees uh and retirees was about
[2:29:09] $2,474,000.
[2:29:13] We saw an increase uh of 32% this year.
That's an extra $85,000
[2:29:20] to our health care costs. And that's not
and just to clarify, our employees are
[2:29:24] also contributing as well to their
health benefits. So, uh we follow the
[2:29:29] chapter 75 model. It was an old state
law that dictates how much employees
[2:29:34] contribute based on their status, the
health coverage status, and also their
[2:29:39] salary. Uh so it's a graduated scale. Uh
so our employees do share in this burden
[2:29:44] and they are seeing that same increase.
So they're seeing uh their contributions
[2:29:49] going up about the same amount of money.
Um but that $85,000 is a very difficult
[2:29:56] uh increase to overcome. What I've tried
to do, and I've done that every year
[2:30:02] since I've been here, almost every year
since I've been here, is uh request our
[2:30:05] claims experience from our health
insurance plan and try to market that to
[2:30:10] other providers to see if we can get
better costs. Unfortunately,
[2:30:15] uh no one is willing to quote us at a
better cost or at all. um largely
[2:30:21] because one of the reasons you look at
your claims experience, how many
[2:30:24] employees you have and uh you know what
what are those claims like? Uh the good
[2:30:32] thing about the stay health benefits
plan is it pools us with a larger entity
[2:30:36] as opposed to just going off on our own
for the few employees that we have. So
[2:30:42] this was a very big uh challenge for us
in addition to the payments for the
[2:30:47] county order tax revaluation. Uh we
started that process, we awarded that
[2:30:52] contract and we did a what's known as a
5-year special emergency last year.
[2:30:57] Essentially what that does is uh splits
up that cost over five years. So the
[2:31:02] cost over each of those five years
starting with this year is $130,000.
[2:31:07] uh we kind of borrow we borrow that from
ourselves, but we repay ourselves uh
[2:31:14] over time rather than borrowing it from
a bank at a higher rate. But that's
[2:31:18] $130,000 expense this year that we did
not have last year.
[2:31:22] » You want questions as we go along? You
want us to wait till the
[2:31:25] » uh if you don't mind uh waiting till the
end, but uh
[2:31:31] » you might want to take a breath, but
that's okay. I have to answer the
[2:31:34] question.
>> No problem. Uh the other one I just to
[2:31:37] emphasize also that this tax reval was
ordered by the county. So we did have a
[2:31:42] little bit of a heads up on this one uh
to plan for it but uh you know there's
[2:31:48] little that you can do. It's a cost that
you have to pay for at some point. Uh
[2:31:53] this year also weather uh as we know we
all know was a big challenge uh worse
[2:31:59] than last year worse than in a few
years. uh record setting uh storms that
[2:32:04] we've dealt with in 2026 year to date,
$94,000 in costs just for Salt, Brine,
[2:32:12] and our contractor. Uh that is already
more than we spent all of last year. And
[2:32:18] that does not include an increased
amount that we've budgeted for overtime
[2:32:22] for DPW. Uh we can't time storms. So if
they come in over weekends, they come in
[2:32:29] evenings, uh that is a cost that we
acrew uh in in the form of overtime. So
[2:32:35] because the what we had originally
planned when the department requests
[2:32:38] came in in the fall, uh we were thinking
great, you know, we could manage with
[2:32:43] similar levels as to as far as last year
for overtime budget. The the good thing
[2:32:48] about getting the storm out of the way
so soon was we knew what those costs
[2:32:51] were and could budget for it rather than
have an emergency later on in the year
[2:32:55] and and scramble. So, we did increase
the budget uh line for overtime by about
[2:33:00] $50,000. Uh because there's also still
the potential for storm at the end of
[2:33:04] the year and we have to plan for that.
And that overtime is not just winter
[2:33:10] weather too. uh you know from time and
time we get hurricanes or other storms
[2:33:14] that could impact the community and we
have to be prepared to handle those.
[2:33:20] Um
so
[2:33:24] uh a quick snapshot of the budget this
year as compared to last year. Uh I put
[2:33:29] two charts uh that really show your
appropriations and the revenue. And the
[2:33:33] reason I did that, I'll explain in a
moment, but our total appropriations
[2:33:36] this year, uh, 19,741,
uh, 153. That's a change of $312,000
[2:33:44] over last year. Uh, not a terrible
increase. Uh, but our revenue uh went
[2:33:50] down as well um by about a million
dollars. Now, I'll explain that in a
[2:33:56] second. So, our revenue for 2026 was
about 6.5 whereas last year was about
[2:34:00] 7.5.
So the difference between those two as I
[2:34:04] was talking about before that tells you
what the amount to be raised by taxes is
[2:34:08] and all of these figures I'm talking
about one obviously this is what's
[2:34:11] proposed and this is just for municipal
purposes only within your control. So
[2:34:16] that excludes the library the library
tax is set by state law and there are
[2:34:20] county schools and open space uh you
know a number of other things I'll show
[2:34:24] in a chart later. So this is just what's
in in the control of the township the
[2:34:29] township committee and and over here. So
that difference is the what's known as
[2:34:33] the levy, the amount to be raised by
taxes. That's an increase of $1.3
[2:34:37] million, approximately $1.3 million. And
when you look at I'm sorry, uh our net
[2:34:42] valuation taxable, uh we had a very
modest increase in the net valuation
[2:34:47] taxable. That's our ratable base. Uh
that is a very low increase, but a very
[2:34:52] low increase historically one of the
lowest in the last five years.
[2:34:57] Uh and so that is what we spread the
amount to be raised by taxes across that
[2:35:01] net valuation taxable. That's how I I'll
show that later. But the numbers uh
[2:35:07] above are I say a little deceiving, but
they aren't truly representative of the
[2:35:12] full picture because grants uh have to
be booked as both a an appropriation and
[2:35:17] a revenue. So
why did the revenue go down by so much?
[2:35:23] That's because we took out the grants.
If you take out the grants from the
[2:35:26] revenue line item, you do see that our
revenue actually did go up $212,000
[2:35:31] this year, but the appropriations went
up $1.5 million
[2:35:37] and largely due to the health care
costs. Um 60% of that increase is due to
[2:35:45] the stay benefits plan increases this
year, that 800 plus that I told you
[2:35:49] about. Um, and we don't want to dip into
our surplus too much. The the amount we
[2:35:55] use from the surplus is also accounted
for in the revenue. So, we left the
[2:35:58] surplus at the same usage as in previous
years. Uh, but as I mentioned, limited
[2:36:05] opportunities for revenue otherwise. Uh,
last year our tax rate went up uh.9%.
[2:36:12] I'm sorry, the net valuation, our
ratable base went up.9%. The year before
[2:36:16] that 2.33%. And so that's to illustrate
uh the magnitude of that rate of the
[2:36:24] base change.
This is the top seven the top seven
[2:36:30] expenses that make up 77% of those
appropriations. You'll see those
[2:36:34] emergency response and public safety.
That is uh the biggest expense. That's
[2:36:39] everything from the police department,
the fire departments, uh hydrants to uh
[2:36:45] uh dispatch. Uh that is the biggest
portion of it. Uh that went up uh just
[2:36:51] about 4%. Um not too bad. Insuranceances
though, that's where you'll see that big
[2:36:56] increase. And so not only health
insurance, but workers compensation and
[2:37:01] general liability insurance. Everything
from the liability and and uh employment
[2:37:07] practices liability as well uh for all
of our facilities and all the employees.
[2:37:11] That went up uh 833,000.
public works expenses. Uh in addition to
[2:37:18] the new uh Teamsters contract coming
into effect, the increases for uh salt
[2:37:25] brine contractor and the overtime costs
that was uh one of the larger increases
[2:37:31] this year second to insurance. Uh
pensions and social security that went
[2:37:37] up not a tremendous amount. Debt
payments also went up not a tremendous
[2:37:41] amount. uh capital improvement fund. We
did reduce that by about $75,000 this
[2:37:48] year to just try and offset a little bit
of the uh damage to all those increases
[2:37:52] this year. Uh but we did keep it at
about $500,000 whereas last year was
[2:37:57] $575. Uh capital requests this year all
departments were told limit it to
[2:38:03] strictly essential missionritical
absolutely can't function without it. uh
[2:38:09] that way we don't uh add to our debt and
that way we uh try to minimize the
[2:38:14] impact to the tax rate this year. Uh and
then utilities did go up this year about
[2:38:20] $42,000.
Uh we do go out to auction just to give
[2:38:24] the residents and and the township
committee an idea of what we do to try
[2:38:28] and find savings everywhere or reduce
those increases. Uh we go out to auction
[2:38:34] to try and get competitive rates. So
rather than just going with the market
[2:38:36] rates through JCPNL, we bundle our
utility costs, aggregate those whether
[2:38:41] it's for the buildings, whether it's for
the uh street lights or the facilities,
[2:38:45] uh we do go out to auction and try to
get the best rate. And it also gives us
[2:38:49] a level of predictability for the next
couple of years. So we're not at the
[2:38:53] whim of BPU and JCPNL increases.
So the subtotal of those seven items uh
[2:39:00] for this year was $14,991,249.
[2:39:04] So that's an increase of 9.67.
The remainder everything else uh which
[2:39:10] is administration, technology, finance,
construction, recreation, legal,
[2:39:15] engineering, our boards and commissions,
affordable housing, everything else
[2:39:19] besides those things up there is just 4
million or $172,000.
[2:39:25] Uh that is a uh increase of 234 over
last year. And down below again, you'll
[2:39:31] see the total appropriations excluding
grants. Uh because again, grants have to
[2:39:35] be booked as an appropriation and a
revenue. So want to make sure that you
[2:39:40] can look at that without weighing both
sides of the equation.
[2:39:45] Uh I was talking about our net valuation
taxable. Just a quick snapshot over the
[2:39:49] last uh couple years what our tax base
looks like. Uh 2022 went up 23 24 went
[2:39:56] up a large amount. That's largely due to
developments that were coming online.
[2:40:00] Enclave was the biggest one. Uh so
whenever there's development in town, uh
[2:40:05] larger developments especially, uh that
helps our tax base which minimizes the
[2:40:10] individual bur the burden to individual
property owners because you're spreading
[2:40:15] more of that levy uh across more.
Here's a snapshot of our surplus for the
[2:40:21] last couple of years. So you'll see uh
keeping it at 3.5. It's been at 3.5 for
[2:40:28] the last four years. How much we're
using from the surplus. Uh the last time
[2:40:32] uh it was at 3 million was in 2022.
Uh we will have a fund balance after
[2:40:39] this budget adoption based off of what's
proposed estimated at about 1,762,000.
[2:40:46] Not ideal, but not bad. Uh it's still
healthier than it's been uh in in some
[2:40:51] of our worst years. Uh it is still very
healthy. I don't see it affecting our
[2:40:55] bond rating. Ideally, we'd be at 2.1 uh
million, but that would mean that we
[2:41:02] would have to reduce what we use from
our fund balance by about $370,000.
[2:41:07] Uh that would mean approximately an
extra $90 a year per household to do
[2:41:12] that. Uh that's to make sure that's at
least 10% of our total expenditures from
[2:41:17] the prior year, which is generally a
best practice, but I do think we'll be
[2:41:21] able to recover in future years. Um,
and moving on. So, tax bill review, what
[2:41:30] would it look like? All everything that
I've talked about here. So, the amount
[2:41:34] to be raised by taxes, again, proposed
for municipal purposes only within your
[2:41:39] control excluding the library. That's
13,28,490.
[2:41:45] Take the net valuation taxable, divide
those, that gives you a tax rate of uh
[2:41:50] 376
uh with an average residential
[2:41:53] assessment this year of $878,600.
[2:41:58] That means that the average annual
residential tax bill for municipal
[2:42:02] purposes only would be 3 mill I'm sorry,
$3,32.
[2:42:07] That's on uh that's $275 a month to pay
for a lot of service uh that residents
[2:42:15] are getting. So that $275 a month makes
sure that the police are doing their
[2:42:20] job. We've got storm cleanup, snow
removal, road maintenance, we're running
[2:42:24] the recycling center and compost
facility, a whole slew of things in
[2:42:27] addition to uh contractual services.
We've got a number of shared services
[2:42:31] agreements to again keep costs low. Um
leverage some uh economies of scale and
[2:42:38] also provide subsidies to the fire
departments, all volunteer fire
[2:42:42] departments, our volunteer EMS and to a
senior citizen center. Uh all that do a
[2:42:48] great job and provide outstanding
service, top rate service to the
[2:42:51] residents. So I think that's a a very
fair price to pay for uh all that
[2:42:56] residents get in this town.
And when I mentioned within municipal
[2:43:02] control, that is that 17% of the pie. So
for every dollar that we collect, so we
[2:43:09] collect the taxes for all of these
entities. So uh people do get mad that
[2:43:13] their taxes are whatever they are. Uh
they think that you're to blame, that
[2:43:18] we're to blame, but we're really only
responsible for 17% of that. Uh the
[2:43:22] library gets 2%, county about 16% and
the school about 64% of the tax bill.
[2:43:31] Um now in light of these challenges uh
we we wanted to make sure that because
[2:43:38] we also do set the open space tax that
we consider uh our outlook our
[2:43:45] commitment to open space parks and
recreation all the projects on the
[2:43:48] horizon but also find a way to offer
some relief to taxpayers and I just want
[2:43:54] to highlight some things that we've done
uh recently and have in the works.
[2:43:59] playgrounds three I'm sorry uh two
playgrounds already completed with two
[2:44:04] more at Colony Pool uh coming up for
upgrade. We've preserved Fensky property
[2:44:09] as open space. Uh we are rehabbing the
Colony Pool walls. Uh that's a cost of
[2:44:15] $600,000 that's in progress and will be
coming up uh to completion very soon.
[2:44:21] And as we talked about earlier today
uh ADA improvements over at Astra Field.
[2:44:27] So proposing a rate reduction to 1.5% as
opposed to the default of 2%. So that
[2:44:33] will uh generally provide a decrease in
the levy of about $175,000
[2:44:41] which is some relief to taxpayers uh
that that is within your control. And
[2:44:47] then finally outside of the budget but
part of the budget process is the sewer
[2:44:52] utility. And uh they say it's out of the
budget but part of the process. That's
[2:44:58] because it is a utility. So it's
self-liquidating which means that the
[2:45:01] revenue from this sewer utility have to
support the operations and it's got its
[2:45:06] own fee structure which is what we call
rents. That's what uh covers it. The
[2:45:11] budget this year is 3.36
uh versus last year 3,315,000.
[2:45:18] That's just an increase of uh $45,000.
We do a thorough analysis of the costs
[2:45:23] there while m maintaining all the
infrastructure improvements that are
[2:45:27] necessary to keep the sewer utility
operating. Nobody wants a backup in
[2:45:32] their sewer utility. Uh that is a
missionritical operation over there.
[2:45:38] Very very uh sensitive piece of uh piece
of the puzzle. Uh all the equipment
[2:45:43] there is is uh tend to 247. We've got
six dedicated full-time employees. uh we
[2:45:50] share the administrative staff and so we
aortion those costs from the township.
[2:45:54] uh our uh foreman over there who's uh
operating the plant has really done a
[2:46:00] great job as they do over there of
holding the line on any discretionary
[2:46:04] spending, but they're also subject to
those health insurance increases that we
[2:46:07] are on the township side. And we uh have
utility debt service there. This year
[2:46:12] it's 535,000
and we are also budgeting for a capital
[2:46:16] improvement fund of 250,000.
uh on the horizon. We are expecting that
[2:46:21] we'll need to do a rate study uh
especially with the major impact of the
[2:46:26] headworks project that our engineering
team is working on um and looking to
[2:46:32] apply for that funding through the
state's I bank to keep costs low for
[2:46:36] residents.
So that is uh the municipal budget
[2:46:40] proposed for 2026. Any questions?
[2:46:47] Command of evil. I think you I think you
have some questions.
[2:46:52] » Um okay.
Um
[2:46:59] let's uh so healthcare.
Um that's a lot of money. That's a huge
[2:47:06] increase. Um do you either can you
either speak to like how many people
[2:47:10] that covers or why our experience is so
bad? I mean does it have to do with
[2:47:15] because the percentage of retirees that
we cover versus covering employees like
[2:47:20] I'm trying to understand
>> um so I do get the claims experience
[2:47:24] reports um it it would be because some
of that information is covered under
[2:47:28] HIPPA but it's everything from somebody
may have cancer treatments leukemia
[2:47:33] treatments a large thing that I hear
that's driving healthcare cost is the
[2:47:37] cost of GLPs a lot of the weight loss
drugs a lot more people are using those
[2:47:42] uh which is driving up prescription
costs. Uh so that's one aspect of it,
[2:47:47] but it's it could be anything from uh
you know major major illnesses or
[2:47:53] retirees
um to families, younger younger folks
[2:47:58] with families that have children and uh
that c the family plan costs more. So,
[2:48:03] you know, somebody younger starts off
here in the township, they're single,
[2:48:08] and then as the longer they are with the
township, then uh, you know, may get
[2:48:12] married, have kids. Um, but there's no
one answer as to why it is. It's largely
[2:48:16] because the state as a whole has been
experiencing, uh, a lot of
[2:48:21] mismanagement. I mean, the headlines
right there. There's been mismanagement
[2:48:24] at the state health benefits plan. I
think that's the biggest thing. And also
[2:48:29] over the last couple of years, the towns
that have had better claims experience
[2:48:34] or have been able to leave have left,
which leaves more of the uh towns that
[2:48:40] aren't able to leave left holding the
bag and have to make up for those costs.
[2:48:46] » And and that's what I'm getting at. So
because I know over the years you've
[2:48:49] been looking at moving us outside of the
state plan, anticipating that we were
[2:48:53] going to hit this cliff.
>> Yep. because everybody with good
[2:48:57] experience went outside and got better
rates and everybody with worse and I'm
[2:49:00] like we we seem like a pretty typical
town with a I can't imagine the
[2:49:04] demographic. So I'm trying to figure out
how our experience without you know
[2:49:08] anybody's individual you know being so
much worse than comparable t like I mean
[2:49:13] the burrow I was talking to a friend
they're like oh yeah we jump shipped a
[2:49:16] while ago and I'm like how is our
experience that much different from the
[2:49:20] burrow that we can't seem to get
>> sometimes just a two or three offs it's
[2:49:25] it it can can skew especially for the
size of our township our our workforce I
[2:49:30] don't know the exact size of the
burough's workforce but I think ours is
[2:49:33] smaller Um, so that has something to do
with it. Um, also, you know, and in my
[2:49:40] experience, I've left the state health
benefits plan and other plans and other
[2:49:43] municipalities elsewhere, you sometimes
will get a better rate, a teaser rate in
[2:49:48] the beginning and then you start seeing
those increases later on. Uh so that
[2:49:54] kind of initial jump people are just
being very reactionary and they may you
[2:49:59] know may be good for them in the moment
but there's no um there's no guarantee
[2:50:05] that the future years won't see very
similar or even worse increases
[2:50:10] » that did happen here about 15 years ago.
We went with an outside vendor and then
[2:50:16] I think it was just a year later we went
back to the state of health health
[2:50:19] benefits program.
Um, do you know how many we're covering
[2:50:23] in total? Because it's not staff.
>> I do have We have 51 active and 60
[2:50:27] retirees.
Our CFO is watching and she's sending me
[2:50:32] those stats so I don't have to pull up
the spreadsheets.
[2:50:34] » Thank you.
>> But yeah, 51 active and 60 retirees.
[2:50:38] » Okay. Um
[2:50:44] Okay. So we know there's a lot of like
things that we'll use to manage the
[2:50:52] budget. So we might adjust how much
surplus we use to contribute to the
[2:50:57] budget. We might adjust the route.
There's different things that we use.
[2:50:59] But of course you always have to worry
about the implications for the follow.
[2:51:02] » Correct. Um, so the fact that we're not
doing any of that, is that because you
[2:51:08] have concerns about our ability to
replenish the surplus because surplus
[2:51:12] does account for three and a half
million of this $19 million budget, $18
[2:51:18] million, whatever that was.
>> Y
[2:51:20] » So, it's a big chunk of the budget. So,
we count on being able to replenish
[2:51:23] that. But, but you have concerns.
>> I do. And I don't want to speak for our
[2:51:27] CFO. um she can send me a message if she
thinks so. But from both of us talking
[2:51:32] about this, yeah, we are concerned. So
you'll look here at the trend. Um the
[2:51:38] line that says increase surplus of
operations, you'll see has been dropping
[2:51:43] since 2022. So 2022 increased surplus of
operations was 4,82,000.
[2:51:51] 23 3.7 24 3.4 25 3.0 know um that you
know there's a lot of reasons why uh
[2:52:02] that could be one of those you know
everybody talks about lean budgeting
[2:52:05] lean budgeting don't leave any fluff
people some some politicians or
[2:52:11] candidates for office will talk about oh
you know there's a slush fund nobody's
[2:52:15] putting in a slush fund but you you when
you really budget to the dollar and cent
[2:52:20] you're not leaving yourself any wiggle
room and anything that you save or don't
[2:52:26] spend and comes back to the surplus. So
it's not like you know it's just
[2:52:30] disappearing into thin air. The
taxpayers still benefit from it. Um you
[2:52:34] know so that's one thing. Revenues not
meeting expectations
[2:52:38] uh is another thing that affects it. Uh
and it's not that we have been uh not
[2:52:43] meeting expectations in revenue. It's
just that in some areas that rollover is
[2:52:48] less. So I know you're still meeting it
but it's not as great as it was maybe in
[2:52:53] the previous year. Uh and then you know
there's been past politicians who have
[2:52:58] talked about the rut and playing with
the rut. Well the rut affects your
[2:53:01] surplus as well. Uh and then lastly you
know um making sure that you know you're
[2:53:08] not always just appealing to oh we need
a 0% tax rate 0% increase on the tax
[2:53:14] rate every year. And there were years uh
in the past that that had happened. And
[2:53:18] then if you're not bringing in revenue
and expenses keep going up, the only way
[2:53:24] you can do it is through the tax levy.
And I think uh if we were to try to use
[2:53:29] more of this fund balance, uh not only
would be bringing that 1.7 million lower
[2:53:35] than it is, uh it could jeopardize us
for the future.
[2:53:41] » Okay. Um I think that's pretty much
everything I had.
[2:53:50] I have a question on open space tax. So,
so right now the thought process is to u
[2:53:56] take it from two to one and a half.
>> And if I heard you correctly, the
[2:54:01] thinking was to
uh uh soften the
[2:54:06] um impact on the budget. Um I can
appreciate that thinking, but I'm
[2:54:11] wondering if there's more that you
considered. For example, like
[2:54:16] if you project out, do you do you
forecast a a diminished
[2:54:23] need for funds to do open space
activities or um
[2:54:30] uh I don't know. I mean, is there
anything beyond
[2:54:33] what you articulated as as basis for
reducing it by half a point? So we look
[2:54:39] at what's the plan for this year and
what are our plans for coming years and
[2:54:43] we look at our debt service and we look
at our reserve over there. We have a
[2:54:47] healthy balance in the open space fund.
Um this would not um this would not
[2:54:54] impact operations. Uh for open space we
look at large if well let me back up.
[2:55:01] We've got debt service that
unfortunately uh a number of years ago
[2:55:06] prior to my arrival I don't know you
know what the thinking was but they
[2:55:10] bonded for uh a lot lot of those
expenses and they did so in a way that
[2:55:14] now we can't prepay that. So we have
this debt service that we have to pay.
[2:55:19] It would be nice if we could prepay all
of it but we can't. So there's no sense
[2:55:24] in just collecting more revenue to just
sit there, collect interest when the
[2:55:29] homeowners, the property taxpayers could
benefit from that relief rather than it
[2:55:33] just sitting in account uh with us not
really doing much. Uh if there are
[2:55:38] projects and we've talked about a number
of projects, if there are projects,
[2:55:42] there's a planning process involved in
those. There's an engineering process.
[2:55:46] there's typically bidding that's going
to be involved and going through that
[2:55:50] whole process uh to award a contract
then mobilize. So the feeling was for
[2:55:56] any projects within let's say a million
dollars uh that are coming up, we have
[2:56:01] enough in our fund balance in our open
space fund uh that we could and you
[2:56:06] don't make a payment all up at once,
right? Typically you would phase in the
[2:56:09] payment. So you might have a an initial
portion, a midway payment or they're
[2:56:14] paying you as invoices acrew. You're not
going to have a million dollars coming
[2:56:18] out of that fund all at once. So we have
enough to make any payment that would be
[2:56:23] uh necessary for any project that's
forecast uh and then be able to account
[2:56:28] for the balance of that in the 2027
budget for the open space tax
[2:56:35] » and it's not permanent. The default is
two two cents every year. So it will
[2:56:40] automatically go back next year. And if
there was anything very large, we have
[2:56:44] enough to make a down payment on that as
well if we wanted to borrow uh issue
[2:56:48] notes to to borrow. Uh we have enough in
our open space fund for that. So it
[2:56:54] wouldn't preclude us. There really would
not be any harm that I can see in uh
[2:56:59] reducing it to 1.5 this year.
Do you have the numbers on hand? So um
[2:57:05] what's the balance now? And roughly my
recollection it it recharges like about
[2:57:11] 800,000 a year, right?
>> Yeah. So the 2% at a full 2% you're
[2:57:14] bringing in about 700,000. Okay.
>> So uh or you just take that 175 multiply
[2:57:20] it by four. That's it. So it's about
700. And I do have the uh
[2:57:25] » do have the open space here. So, um,
with with what we're talking about, you
[2:57:32] know, at a, um, 1.5, the available
balance at the end of the year would be
[2:57:38] about $494,000.
[2:58:01] How have miscellaneous fees been doing?
because I know that I know we can't
[2:58:05] factor that into the revenue, but um I'm
just curious because I know um
[2:58:11] construction fees for uh
uh surprisingly. Yeah. But we're not
[2:58:17] going to budget for that because that's
not traditional year. But we and then
[2:58:20] but then you do get that kind of
followup that the ratables will increase
[2:58:25] based on the construction that was done.
And and again, we're not going to roll
[2:58:29] the dice and bet that we're going to be
able to replenish. want to be
[2:58:32] comfortable if they're able to
replenish. But um I'm just curious to
[2:58:35] know has have you seen a decline in that
as well or
[2:58:38] » um so uniform construction code fees we
left that at uh 425 which is the same as
[2:58:44] what we anticipated last year. So that
was um slightly lower than what was
[2:58:50] anticipated in 2024. We did bring in
more revenue this year. Um but um you
[2:58:57] know we felt 425 was was a comfortable
safe number. Interest obviously interest
[2:59:02] is going down. That's an example right
down. So while we did benefit from uh
[2:59:08] renegotiating our agreement with the
bank and getting better rates they've
[2:59:12] now gone down. So we are expecting that
sort of revenue to go down as well.
[2:59:17] » Okay.
But overall, um, the revenue outside of
[2:59:21] the grants, as I mentioned, is up, uh,
about 200 and change, $212,000.
[2:59:31] » Okay.
[2:59:38] And again, sort of the the equation is
if we were to up that, right, um that's
[2:59:44] less for future years. Uh that
potentially for future years or if we
[2:59:50] don't make those numbers, then again uh
would have an impact on future years
[2:59:55] too.
[3:00:00] » Okie dokie. This is not this is a very
very difficult budget year.
[3:00:11] Any other questions?
[3:00:18] Okay.
>> I want to thank you all. I want to thank
[3:00:22] the finance committee. I really want to
thank our CFO Debbie King and uh our
[3:00:26] assistant treasur at Davenport. They are
fantastic. So, uh, really appreciate all
[3:00:31] the hardware work they're doing on this.
[3:00:36] » Okay, if no further questions, uh, we
can go to the second hearing of
[3:00:40] citizens. Same rules apply as
previously.
[3:00:44] I'm still anyone online with their hand
raised.
[3:00:46] » Just to receive a vote.
>> Oh, okay.
[3:00:54] » Okay. Uh then I will close the second
hearing of citizens and I will seek a
[3:00:59] motion to adjourn the meeting.
So moved.
[3:01:04] » Well second.
>> Okay.
[3:01:06] » I
>> I
[3:01:10] thank you.
>> Thank you everybody. Thank you everyone.