[0:13] button
[0:22] extend agenda meeting
[0:27] soon announcement July 22nd, 2026.
[0:30] Transmitting into this packet on July
[0:33] 22nd, 2026 and filed on the township
[0:37] clerk on July 26, 200.
[0:40] » Mr. Patel,
[0:43] » Mr. Shtel,
[0:44] » Here.
[0:45] » Mr. Panco,
[0:46] » Yes.
[0:47] » Mr. Bake,
[0:48] » Yes.
[0:49] » Miss Bar,
[0:50] » Yes.
[0:51] » Miss Applegat,
[0:52] » Yes.
[0:53] » Councilwoman Jvers,
[0:54] » Here.
[0:55] » Vice Chairman Hoververman
[0:57] » Here. Mayor Marte
[1:01] and Chairman
[1:01] » Carpende
[1:19] line up everybody. [laughter]
[1:26] Um okay so comments
[1:32] uh first up on the agenda meeting
[1:34] finished May 20th
[1:38] comments changes
[1:51] question
[1:55] Um
[1:57] this
[2:09] president
[2:20] here
[2:23] I exchange
[2:25] Yeah, the meeting where we took the vote
[2:27] on you were here, but you couldn't.
[2:30] » So, you're saying you weren't here on
[2:36] you we
[2:42] » So you hear on May 20th when we did the
[2:44] vote, we asked you, okay, vote on on the
[2:47] uh on the resolution. You could not vote
[2:51] on the resolution because you were not
[2:54] listen to the application.
[2:56] That's why it's abstained.
[2:59] the people that are asking they will not
[3:01] hear that vote.
[3:08] Okay, good. Thank you. Um, okay.
[3:17] Second second by Sue
[3:22] are eligible to vote.
[3:33] Mr.
[3:35] » Yes.
[3:36] » Mr.
[3:37] » Yes.
[3:50] » Yes.
[3:53] » Yes.
[3:54] » Yes. Thank you. I'm happy you waited on
[3:56] the master plan.
[3:59] » Okay. Next up is um
[4:03] resolution
[4:05] 6-03
[4:06] Princeton Extend Development LLC signed
[4:08] bearings with Princeton down the road.
[4:12] Jerry just want a very brief summary.
[4:14] » Yeah, this was in there was a lot of
[4:17] discussion about whether it was
[4:19] sufficient, the size of it. Um they came
[4:21] back a second time. I guess they I think
[4:24] maybe never the PRC revises the uh the
[4:27] application and make the sign smaller.
[4:30] There are a number of variances of
[4:32] stillness they're on page two of the
[4:35] resolution that's um the min quantity um
[4:42] only one mined
[4:44] but
[4:46] and it has to be this is 50 ft back.
[4:49] This is 43 ft. So one thing to be done
[4:52] is the area sign and land sign and the P
[4:56] granted
[4:58] the application with those references.
[5:01] » Right. This is a resolution where we
[5:03] kind of help them shape the sides,
[5:07] » You know, and they took our opinions
[5:10] seriously. Okay.
[5:13] » Yeah. Was is there a conclusion to this
[5:15] one?
[5:16] » No. Um, so I the I think what happened
[5:18] was the general parameters were
[5:20] established, right? And they're supposed
[5:22] to for resolution compliance submit
[5:24] something to be reviewed. They haven't
[5:26] submitted anything.
[5:28] » They haven't submitted.
[5:29] » No, no, nothing submit yet for any of
[5:31] the resolutions. There's been no revised
[5:33] plans yet.
[5:33] » Okay. So motion to
[5:36] » Again. Sorry. Um over this month I was
[5:42] present on June 7th but I abstained
[5:45] because when it was initially discussed
[5:47] I believe it was in May at some point or
[5:50] April or whenever
[5:52] » Yeah was it was a May meeting I think
[5:54] and I I cheered it
[5:55] » Prior but they came back for the board
[5:57] simply for this uh sign.
[6:00] » So this was June 17th voted on.
[6:03] » Yes.
[6:04] » So I abstained but I was absent. So then
[6:07] she
[6:09] » On page nine, right?
[6:10] » Yeah, page nine.
[6:11] » Okay. So on page nine, Jordica said it
[6:15] says absent. She was here for one of the
[6:18] meetings.
[6:18] » Uh for June 17th because they said
[6:20] related to the voting on June 17th,
[6:23] right?
[6:23] » And you were absent that day.
[6:24] » No, I was you were here that day.
[6:26] » But you were absent for the first
[6:28] meeting.
[6:30] » You could
[6:31] date.
[6:32] » Okay. So
[6:33] » So this is it should be abstain.
[6:35] Absolutely.
[6:39] » But this one says absolute
[6:41] » Change.
[6:43] » But who's on first?
[6:47] » Change to abstain. No big deal. Just so
[6:50] you know, you can always abstain.
[6:52] Regardless of whether you're here and
[6:53] you don't want to vote, you can always
[6:54] abstain. You don't have to vote.
[6:58] » You can always abstain. Right. Isn't
[7:00] that right, Jerry?
[7:01] » Yeah.
[7:01] » Okay.
[7:01] » Yeah. There's no reason.
[7:03] » There's some people I've been here for
[7:05] 18 years. Some people like to not have
[7:07] their vote known. I know this is very um
[7:10] innocuous. This resolution, but there's
[7:13] some people that the application very
[7:16] contentious and they don't want their
[7:19] name associated with a vote, so they
[7:22] abstain. So, you're not required to say
[7:25] yes or no. You say abstain. I don't want
[7:28] to vote.
[7:31] I agree it doesn't make much sense on a
[7:32] resolution, but if the application was
[7:34] like you were dead set against the size
[7:37] of this sign on no way I'm voting yes on
[7:39] this sign, you know, but I don't want to
[7:41] piss off the people that wanted the
[7:44] sign. So, I'm not going to vote no. I'm
[7:45] just not going to vote. So, you can
[7:47] always abstain,
[7:48] » But this is that's not the reason.
[7:50] » I know there's a real reason why you
[7:52] want to see if you weren't at the first
[7:54] meeting and that's not a problem. It's
[7:55] going to get changed. But I just want to
[7:57] make sure that everybody knows that you
[7:59] can always abstain. You don't you're not
[8:01] required to vote.
[8:04] » Okay. [clears throat]
[8:04] » So So I just want an understanding on
[8:05] this. Uh so uh if the board member was
[8:10] not at the first meeting and did not
[8:13] hear the record of the first meeting
[8:15] prior to the second meeting where the
[8:18] board member was present, the board
[8:20] member still cannot vote. Is that
[8:22] correct?
[8:23] » That's correct.
[8:24] » Okay. Let me let me let me let me play
[8:26] this scenario out one further. Let's say
[8:29] let's say the applicant wants to put
[8:31] warehouses on a major site that goes for
[8:33] five or six meetings. The app the the
[8:37] board member can only vote if if they
[8:40] were absent for one of the five or six
[8:42] meetings that they uh listen to the
[8:46] record. So
[8:48] it comes down to a multiple meeting
[8:51] event. the the the one can only vote if
[8:55] one's heard previous record if not
[8:57] present.
[8:58] » Yes. Correct.
[8:59] » And then certify that.
[9:00] » I just want to make sure I understand
[9:01] this.
[9:02] » Right. Right. And that Jerry
[9:04] done that.
[9:05] » Right.
[9:05] » Okay. The motion.
[9:07] » Right.
[9:08] » Right. Right. The motion is still on the
[9:10] floor.
[9:10] » I I will I will move that motion if you
[9:13] didn't hear it.
[9:15] » Um
[9:16] » So is
[9:17] » 2603.
[9:19] » Okay. So ED2603 I have the motion to
[9:22] approve the uh the resolution by Simon.
[9:24] Anybody second?
[9:25] » Second.
[9:26] » Second by Alan. Uh please the role
[9:29] eligible with the vote.
[9:32] » Mr. Shtel.
[9:33] » Yes.
[9:34] » Mr. Pancco.
[9:35] » Yes.
[9:37] » Councilwoman Jvers.
[9:39] » Yes.
[9:40] » Mr. B.
[9:45] » Miss Bar. at stadium.
[9:47] » Okay.
[9:48] » Miss Applegat,
[9:50] » Yes.
[9:51] » Vice Chairman Hobberman,
[9:53] » Yes.
[9:54] » And Chairman Cart,
[9:55] » Yes. Thank you.
[10:01] » Okay. Next up on the agenda is
[10:03] resolution PB26-04
[10:06] BLG Westwind LLC amended final
[10:09] subdivision with variances one middle
[10:12] road block 911.
[10:16] just very brief. Um,
[10:17] » Yes, that's a COGO chair resolution. Um,
[10:22] and that was actually approved some time
[10:24] ago. Um, took a little while getting all
[10:26] the input we wanted to get. Um, and it
[10:29] just provided that it was primed. uh the
[10:32] only
[10:34] changes that are necessary was they said
[10:36] this was a city if they were proposing a
[10:39] subdivision for tax purposes and because
[10:43] of the supervision line it necessitate a
[10:46] couple of variances so there really
[10:48] wasn't much to it at all
[10:51] » Right okay I'll entertain a motion to
[10:54] approve that well if I have changes or
[10:57] amendments or clarifications
[11:00] » So okay of motion to approve resolution
[11:03] PB264 by Jordan. May do I hear a second?
[11:07] Second by honest please call the role
[11:10] eligible to vote.
[11:15] » I'm not eligible. I was absent
[11:20] » You.
[11:23] » Yes.
[11:27] » Yes.
[11:28] » Mr. D.
[11:29] » Yes.
[11:29] » M. Yes.
[11:33] » Yes.
[11:35] » Yes.
[11:36] » Yes. Thank you.
[11:38] PB 26.
[11:41] Um, [clears throat] thank you.
[11:44] » Next up is PB26-05
[11:46] Woodstone Residential LX LLC Major Site
[11:50] Plan 2000 Far Road 86 58.02.
[11:56] Jerry, please very brief um description.
[12:01] [clears throat]
[12:04] » Yeah. Um application. This is part of
[12:07] the affordable housing program in the
[12:08] town. This was a um 80 um I think it was
[12:12] 80 units uh with a 25% set aside, I
[12:16] think. Uh was it 80 units?
[12:18] » No, the 35 units, I believe.
[12:19] » Oh, 35 with a 25% set aside.
[12:22] » Uh nine affordable units. Um it was what
[12:27] they they had originally had approved
[12:29] there was a commercial site.
[12:30] » Yeah. So the the original application a
[12:33] subly portion is a child care center
[12:36] child day school that's still under
[12:38] construction. The northerly portion was
[12:40] to be medical office. They subsequently
[12:42] then asked to be part of our housing
[12:44] plan. They were included. The site was
[12:46] reszoned for uh 35 total units including
[12:49] 26 market and non affordable. So this
[12:51] was a right across from Woodstone. has
[12:53] approved originally to be an office
[12:56] medical office building and now it's
[12:58] going to be uh residential.
[12:59] » Okay,
[13:00] » Great. Um any any um clarifications,
[13:04] changes, modifications to resolution?
[13:06] Yes.
[13:07] » So I was uh present on uh when this was
[13:11] approved and uh I will be yes
[13:15] it says absent here and
[13:18] okay
[13:20] you got that cherry for page 16.
[13:23] because uh yanked.
[13:26] » Yep.
[13:27] » Okay. Modification will be made. I'll
[13:29] entertain a motion to approve PB26-05.
[13:33] » So move, Mr. Chairman.
[13:35] » Okay.
[13:36] » Second.
[13:36] » Okay. U motion by Simon, second by
[13:39] Allan. Please roll for those eligible to
[13:41] vote.
[13:44] » Yes.
[13:45] » Mr.
[13:46] » Yes. Councilman.
[13:48] » Yes. Mr. D.
[13:51] » Abstain.
[13:53] Yes.
[13:57] Yes.
[13:59] » Yes.
[14:01] » Yes.
[14:03] PB26-05
[14:04] approved. Thank you. Last but not least,
[14:08] um resolution PB26-06
[14:11] Clark Plaza signage flavor 217
[14:15] Clarksville Road, lot 10, lot 14. Any uh
[14:19] mod changes?
[14:21] to this one. I know who's present and I
[14:23] will include yes.
[14:25] » Okay. So, Dorica, it's Lisa is absent.
[14:28] She should be a yay.
[14:31] Okay. Anybody anything else? Anybody
[14:34] changes? Um please uh a quick summary of
[14:37] this one.
[14:37] » Yeah. Um this is this is Village Square
[14:41] and of course they've had real problems
[14:42] with the uh with access and they've now
[14:44] proposed a um proposed a new sign. Dave,
[14:48] do you want to describe it real quickly?
[14:49] » Yeah, of course. Uh so this is the uh
[14:51] Clarksville Shopping Center or Clark
[14:53] Plaza. Um they have an older sign up
[14:57] front right now. It has a height about
[14:58] um 12 and 1/2 ft and 60 square uh 12 and
[15:01] a half ft tall, 60 square foot. Um they
[15:05] have been having a lot of difficulties
[15:07] uh for a number of reasons. The first
[15:09] being that the uh some of the buildings
[15:11] are set back far from the roadway.
[15:14] Secondly, probably more important right
[15:15] now is the closure of the bridge which
[15:17] is really cutting off a lot of traffic.
[15:19] um their individual tenants have been
[15:21] requesting a new sign to identify the
[15:24] individual units there. Uh right now
[15:26] there's just a sign that says plaza. So
[15:29] they uh asked for permission and
[15:32] received approval for a new sign to be
[15:35] 16.25 ft high, 12 ft wide and
[15:38] approximately 126 square ft. Uh it will
[15:42] have 14 delineated tenant spaces which
[15:44] will um encapsulate 14 tenants there
[15:47] with a font size of seven inches. Uh
[15:49] there's traffic testimony or the traffic
[15:52] memo that we submitted with that uh sign
[15:54] would be internally internally
[15:57] illuminated and um
[16:01] it's basically in the same setback as
[16:02] the prior sign and with a couple of
[16:04] conditions.
[16:05] » Yeah. One one correction on that. The I
[16:07] was over there for dinner tonight. It
[16:09] says the village shopper. Oh, the There
[16:12] we go. Yes. It's like an older name, I
[16:14] think. Yeah.
[16:15] » It's tragedy. What's happened with that
[16:17] bridge for them?
[16:18] » Oh, really?
[16:18] » I haven't been on I haven't been down
[16:20] there probably since the bridge went
[16:22] out.
[16:23] » And the other the other issue there is
[16:26] those businesses that are between their
[16:29] » Yeah.
[16:30] » Strip mall and the bridge. Yeah. They
[16:32] they're in the process of moving.
[16:35] » Yeah. You can't even get to them really.
[16:36] Those those those businesses
[16:39] » Used to support the
[16:41] » You mean the office?
[16:41] » Office?
[16:42] » Yeah, the offices.
[16:43] » Wow.
[16:43] » Oh, yeah. I can imagine there's probably
[16:45] a bunch.
[16:46] » So, they have to bring in new new uh
[16:49] Sounds like a warehouse is going to go
[16:50] in there.
[16:52] » World tape.
[16:55] » Scratch scratch. [laughter] What? What?
[17:00] » The county go business at the village
[17:04] » Store
[17:06] $10,000 each each.
[17:08] » Wow.
[17:10] » That was the county.
[17:12] » Yeah. Yeah. Also to France. They g
[17:15] [clears throat]
[17:15] » There was supposed to be a temporary fix
[17:17] that would allow at least one lane
[17:19] through.
[17:20] » There is one lane.
[17:21] » But uh
[17:22] » Is that ineffective?
[17:23] » Who knows when that's going to be
[17:24] » Oh, that isn't even
[17:25] » Is that even in effect yet?
[17:27] » No. No. Well, I mean it's it's in the
[17:29] planning.
[17:30] » It's
[17:31] » Uh I'll entertain a motion to approve.
[17:33] » So So6
[17:37] approved. Um a motion by Simon, second
[17:39] by Jica.
[17:41] » Uh please call the role of those
[17:43] eligible to vote.
[17:44] » Mr. Shakal,
[17:45] » Yes.
[17:46] » Mr. Panov,
[17:48] » Yes.
[17:48] » Councilwoman Jvers,
[17:50] » Yes.
[17:50] » Mr. B,
[17:54] » Miss Barry,
[17:55] » Yes. Miss Applegate.
[17:56] » Yes.
[17:57] » Vice Chairman Hobberman.
[17:58] » Yes.
[17:58] » Chairman Cart.
[17:59] » Yes.
[18:01] » Uh, resolution PB26
[18:04] is approved. Thank you.
[18:07] » Okay. Environmental commission. Anybody?
[18:10] » Yeah.
[18:11] » Okay. Please.
[18:18] So, um I was present at the last
[18:21] meeting, but uh I think in June,
[18:25] um I have a sen.
[18:27] So, there's there's a $1,500 hand check
[18:31] grant and there's discussion about
[18:32] putting the following model and some
[18:35] science related to that investments at
[18:37] community park.
[18:39] um a representative came in from Duke
[18:42] Farms and talked about preservation of
[18:44] fireplace to facilitate wildlife.
[18:48] Uh just something to remind the law the
[18:50] planning rules you can then develop
[18:52] applications that new developers are not
[18:54] blocking wildlife access to their
[18:57] habitat.
[18:59] West Township has partnered with
[19:01] sustainable Jersey and PSG to offer free
[19:05] home energy assessments to residents.
[19:07] Residents can receive a free home energy
[19:10] assessment to understand their home's
[19:11] energy use and discount ways to reduce
[19:13] waste.
[19:15] Uh plus it looks like energy saving
[19:17] products and store with low cost
[19:20] some use on the program.
[19:22] » I'm sorry can I interrupt? How do you
[19:24] how do you apply for the home
[19:26] assessment?
[19:27] » I believe it's on the website.
[19:28] » On the website okay
[19:31] » Send email time to time. I got the email
[19:34] from PNG that they can have US.
[19:36] » I I went through that a couple years
[19:38] back. It it was very uh
[19:39] » I know somebody that had it done and I
[19:41] thought well they live in East Windsor
[19:43] so I was thinking that maybe
[19:45] » I don't know I have to I I don't
[19:47] remember getting an email. Okay, thank
[19:50] you. I'm sorry.
[19:52] Um yeah, so some of the um u gadgets
[19:56] that they, you know, they might be
[19:57] willing to install or one of the
[19:59] recommended um smart thermostats, LED
[20:02] light bulbs, faucet heaters, efficient
[20:05] flow, shower heads. They're obviously
[20:08] not installing heat, but shower head
[20:11] adapters, advanced power strips, water
[20:14] heater byation.
[20:17] » Okay, that's nice.
[20:18] » Thank you.
[20:20] Okay.
[20:23] Okay. Next up,
[20:26] work session on revision to RP1 district
[20:29] ordinance amendment to AV redevelopment
[20:32] plan pursuant to settlement agreement
[20:33] between township and AB.
[20:37] » Okay.
[20:38] Anyone?
[20:40] » No.
[20:41] » No.
[20:42] » Work session.
[20:43] » Got it.
[20:45] » Okay. I have a I have a question before
[20:48] we start on this. A couple questions
[20:50] actually that you can maybe Who's gonna
[20:52] start?
[20:54] » Um David.
[20:55] » Yeah, I can start. Well, yeah. Um
[20:58] » Let let me go to my questions. Couple
[20:59] things. We don't we don't have the
[21:01] reference docs, you know, the original,
[21:03] you know, the docs from the um you know,
[21:06] with the site plans and all that stuff.
[21:09] So, it's hard for you know, to remember
[21:13] what I looked at
[21:14] » With location.
[21:15] » Yep. location and what we agreed upon.
[21:19] That's number one. Number two, um, and I
[21:22] guess we'll get to it. Like, did Chief
[21:25] Lynch opine on anything with the changes
[21:28] to the height of the buildings? And
[21:30] maybe I I you know, maybe I'm jumping
[21:32] the gun here.
[21:33] » That's good question.
[21:35] » Well, it is. Yeah.
[21:37] » Yeah. I was I was curious. I don't know
[21:40] how how how tall is it story? Like it
[21:44] says 85 feet, six stories. To me, I
[21:47] always thought a story was 20 feet.
[21:50] » No. No. Um
[21:52] the tip of the story depends on what
[21:54] type of building it is, but generally on
[21:56] a ground floor, you see a story height
[21:57] of maybe 12 feet or so and 10. But it
[22:00] depends on what type of building is. So
[22:04] there's something say for example
[22:05] special needs housing or senior living
[22:07] housing. If there is some sort of
[22:11] medical component involved in that, you
[22:13] will see a higher floor to ceiling
[22:14] height for that type of equipment.
[22:16] » I guess I'm, you know, I'm used to
[22:17] Manhattan, so I think those stories are
[22:20] 20 feet probably because they have
[22:21] equipment in there, high ceilings and
[22:24] Okay, so that's why I wasn't I was
[22:26] saying 85 ft, six stories seems a little
[22:29] low.
[22:30] » I know. So this is um so to refresh
[22:34] everybody about where this is, right?
[22:36] » I'm gonna say one thing before you
[22:37] start. Sure.
[22:38] » Uh to add to Michael's uh intro, um as
[22:42] we go through this this process, uh I
[22:44] really want to know the why of all the
[22:47] changes as we go through things instead
[22:49] of just the nitpicky this is the change.
[22:52] » Uh the short answer is and I don't hate
[22:54] to say it like this, but short answer is
[22:56] because we have to um as part of a
[22:57] settlement agreement.
[22:58] » We have to
[23:00] be the short answer. I can give you some
[23:02] of the background but the short answer
[23:04] is
[23:04] » An agreement with Avon
[23:07] » Uh with Avan. So
[23:09] » When when we submitted the house fair
[23:12] share plan it was approved by Judge Ali
[23:15] but there was one and the program member
[23:18] who was Judge Jacobson with one caveat.
[23:21] Um Avalon at this point had objected to
[23:24] the plan because they were saying that
[23:27] the uh
[23:29] assisted living facility which is
[23:31] immediately adjacent to the train
[23:32] station um and it was over 200 units as
[23:36] I recall etc.
[23:38] » It was 155
[23:39] » Originally 135
[23:40] » Originally 135.
[23:41] » Okay. Right. But it was like a 20% set
[23:43] aside and Avalon came and say you know
[23:46] what we had a partner they bowed out. We
[23:48] we can't do it. We just can't do it
[23:50] anymore. So, we're we're objecting. We
[23:53] wound up settling with them to get it
[23:55] finished uh of they can build up to 170
[23:58] units, 10% Medicaid beds, which we could
[24:00] which are affordable housing beds. Um
[24:03] and we we would have a an amendment to
[24:06] the redevelopment plan, which we've
[24:08] agreed to with them, and an ordinance
[24:11] implementing the changes to the zoning.
[24:13] We didn't think at my office's end that
[24:15] we actually needed an amendment to the
[24:17] zoning ordinance because we thought the
[24:19] redevelopment plan was sufficient, but
[24:21] they wanted to do it. That's what's
[24:22] before you. They basically prepared
[24:25] that, but we signed off on it. Um, and
[24:28] what what's going to happen, this is now
[24:30] going to go uh basically the council,
[24:32] they have a meeting on I think the 8
[24:34] introduction on the 18th and then uh a
[24:38] second reading in September. Um if this
[24:41] is approved then we're finished with
[24:44] that but they have to come back in for
[24:46] site plan review right then. So
[24:48] » Yes don't they have to come before the
[24:49] board to um lay out their plans after
[24:53] they need site plan they they'll need
[24:54] site plan approval.
[24:55] » Good.
[24:56] » So I just wanted to give some background
[24:57] here.
[24:58] » Yeah and that's 100% right. Um just to
[25:01] Mr. German answer your question.
[25:02] » Um isn't it this is the W squ.
[25:05] » Yep. this W square. So this right next
[25:07] to the Z that lot right next to the
[25:09] train station. If you guys remember that
[25:10] you have
[25:11] » And I'm going to I'm going to this is
[25:12] going to be correct for the record but
[25:14] I'm going to use my hands to demonstrate
[25:15] everything.
[25:15] » There's lot there's open lot there's
[25:17] lots there where I guess they're going
[25:18] to put some of this stuff.
[25:19] » Yeah. So, if you know where the train
[25:21] station is, then you have kind of that
[25:22] uh plaza area with the two mixeduse
[25:24] buildings on either side
[25:26] » Originally. And then right ahead there's
[25:28] that uh condo building supposed to be a
[25:30] hotel.
[25:31] » To the left of that,
[25:33] » The township approved a
[25:36] uh senior living building that 35.
[25:39] » It's between the parking garage and Vond
[25:42] drive extended. That is the empty site.
[25:44] » It's so crowded there.
[25:46] » Yeah. I don't know how they're going to
[25:47] fit this that stuff in to be honest with
[25:49] you. I when every so often like I'll
[25:51] drive in to see the progress they made
[25:54] and it is packed in there.
[25:55] » Yeah, it does it. It is. Yeah. I mean
[25:57] that was the whole point in a high
[25:59] higher density mixeduse area.
[26:00] Unfortunately, when you get as much
[26:01] commercial as we originally had uh
[26:03] envisioned in that area,
[26:04] » We got a day some
[26:06] » We got a day.
[26:07] » Yes.
[26:08] » But but we didn't we had initially
[26:10] initially conceived this as the new
[26:12] downtown for this. kept getting scaled
[26:15] back and scaled back. Let's
[26:16] » What about the the property on the other
[26:18] side of the train tracks? What's I'm
[26:20] sorry I'm digressing here.
[26:21] » No, which which property?
[26:22] » The uh
[26:22] » Slumber.
[26:23] » Slumber property. That thing's been
[26:25] vacant forever.
[26:26] » Uh we looked into that. It's still very
[26:29] contaminated.
[26:31] » Okay.
[26:31] » Now, just and this is a very technical
[26:34] term, very contaminated still.
[26:36] » Oh. So, don't aren't they responsible
[26:38] cleaning it up? They are, but the
[26:42] » Just
[26:45] to be clear, the um
[26:48] the special special needs housing is a
[26:50] separate building.
[26:52] » No, no, it's my understanding that this
[26:53] would all be something that would
[26:55] replace that uh previously approved 135
[26:59] unit building. That's my understanding.
[27:00] So that new building would be some sort
[27:03] of senior living building that would
[27:05] have some sort of combination of whether
[27:07] it's age restricted um nursing home,
[27:11] special needs, assisted living
[27:13] » All would be in that building.
[27:14] » The the basic idea was um now with 170
[27:20] 10% this is fewer than we had planned on
[27:23] when when we did our compliance plan.
[27:25] So, we worked out a um an arrangement
[27:29] with with uh Avalon where whatever fee
[27:33] that has to be paid by them for um for
[27:36] the the affordable housing improvements,
[27:38] they would now put put in place five
[27:43] special needs uh beds. And those would
[27:46] those would be basically group homes
[27:48] where they would shift existing market
[27:51] units in their development both both
[27:54] east and west to to a couple of two or
[27:57] three um
[28:00] um group homes in uh w with total of
[28:03] five beds. So we would pick up five more
[28:05] beds and there'd really be no increase
[28:07] in the number of units or the density.
[28:10] So the group homes would basically have
[28:12] just the beds in there for special needs
[28:14] and whatever else goes along with that.
[28:17] » Exactly. And you would get a credit for
[28:18] that.
[28:19] » They'd have their own living facility,
[28:21] kitchen, somebody.
[28:22] » Yeah. Right. Exactly.
[28:24] » How many of How many of those are there?
[28:26] » They would the the contemplation is
[28:28] five.
[28:29] » Five. Okay.
[28:31] » Five is okay.
[28:32] » Yeah.
[28:36] » Would those count to the next round? the
[28:38] round four of
[28:39] » No, this is actually counting for round
[28:41] three.
[28:41] » They would count for round three.
[28:43] » They allocated for round three. They
[28:44] just haven't been yet.
[28:46] » Exactly.
[28:47] » And and the way we came up with five is
[28:49] when you added all the credits we
[28:52] thought we could take for where we were
[28:54] with round three developments and that's
[28:56] basically pretty much everything.
[28:58] Although we have um
[29:01] Frank Petrino on behalf of Tri-State and
[29:04] WWM claiming, you know, a lot of all a
[29:07] lot of these things are never going to
[29:08] be built, etc., etc., but if we ever get
[29:11] to a hearing, we're going to show that
[29:12] in fact they're proceeding. Um but when
[29:15] you added the numbers now with the
[29:17] reduction of 10% of the 170, we were
[29:20] five short of a required number. That's
[29:23] how we came up with a five. Yeah.
[29:26] » Yeah. It's a lot of it's, you know, I I
[29:30] you guys all like the affordable housing
[29:31] process. A lot of it is sometimes more
[29:34] mathematics than it is planning.
[29:36] » Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Okay.
[29:38] » Uh but this is essentially and Jerry hit
[29:41] the nail on my head too. This is step I
[29:44] want to say step one because that was
[29:46] probably the second but this is step
[29:47] three in a 20step process. So
[29:49] » Exactly
[29:50] » They will have to file an amended site
[29:51] plan application. they will have to
[29:52] appear in front of you and every
[29:54] question that you guys might have in
[29:55] terms of safety, in terms of
[29:57] circulation, parking, everything like
[29:58] that.
[29:59] » So, so the Chief Lynch memo would take
[30:03] place during their application process.
[30:05] » Okay, that makes sense.
[30:10] » And I believe, yeah, probably a minute
[30:12] site plan.
[30:13] » Yeah, because they already have a site
[30:15] plan approval for the 135 with a 20% set
[30:17] aside.
[30:19] Now, are we okay with six stories in
[30:22] some places?
[30:24] » Uh, I believe we only plan for six
[30:26] stories in some other affordable
[30:27] » As long as it's no big long larger than
[30:29] 85 ft tall.
[30:31] » Yeah.
[30:32] » Yeah. So, for example, the R5E district,
[30:34] which is um the former BMS site, we're
[30:38] allowing a height of up to Oh, no, I
[30:41] just Sorry.
[30:45] I had that lined up and I just lost it
[30:47] for you guys. Sorry. Oh, six stories and
[30:50] 70 ft there. So,
[30:51] » Six stories, 70 ft.
[30:53] » Yeah.
[30:53] » Why is this one 85?
[30:56] » Uh, that was something that was
[30:58] discussed with them. I think just to
[30:59] allow for that flexibility and again
[31:00] understanding that if there is special
[31:02] needs or some sort of nursing home or
[31:05] assisted living, it is a larger door to
[31:08] ceiling height.
[31:08] » Okay.
[31:09] » Uh because again, you need to fit that
[31:11] equipment in
[31:13] that
[31:14] » Statues. No, it's it's architectural.
[31:17] Yeah. Uh when we were we've done a lot
[31:19] of work with like certain hospitals for
[31:21] example. Um so we had to do a lot of
[31:23] like Florida ceiling height studies and
[31:26] because of the medical equipment you
[31:27] will see it for a to ceiling height then
[31:30] it hit like family resident.
[31:34] » Yes.
[31:36] » Yeah. We uh you know uh Valley Hospital
[31:39] in Ridgewood they open.
[31:41] » Yeah. We represent Valley Hospital. How
[31:43] how tall is the height of the parking
[31:45] garage?
[31:47] » Pretty big.
[31:49] » The one that's right next to the site,
[31:50] right next to the other
[31:51] » The one off of V.
[31:53] » How tall is that? That's pretty big.
[31:55] » I can see what the allowable height is
[31:56] there. I forget what the
[31:59] height was. But I believe we actually
[32:01] did an increase. I think that goes back
[32:03] to another zoning amendment for this
[32:04] site where we increase the allowable
[32:05] height there.
[32:07] » Yeah,
[32:08] » I believe they had another four. We give
[32:10] people
[32:11] » I think we increase that that was when
[32:13] they the idea was a hotel right
[32:16] » Um I I I forget the patient there
[32:21] is
[32:22] » You remember
[32:24] it's pretty massive you think they got
[32:25] to fill that up
[32:28] » Uh based on their projections
[32:33] » Okay
[32:35] » So people could walk around and shop
[32:40] Yeah. [clears throat]
[32:41] » Okay. Well, parking free in the Wallace
[32:45] road block on weekend. So,
[32:48] » Um the parking structures, we did do an
[32:50] amendment to the ordinance. They are
[32:51] allowed to be up to six levels.
[32:55] » Okay.
[32:56] » So, here's a question. On the third
[32:58] page, um at the end of permitted uses
[33:02] before parenthetical number three,
[33:04] there's pet daycare facilities.
[33:05] » Yeah, I know. Is there a requirement for
[33:07] exterior space for a pet daycare
[33:09] facility?
[33:10] » No,
[33:11] » Not at all.
[33:13] » Don't forget most most of this is the
[33:15] existing RPA.
[33:15] » Yeah, most of that is existing. So, that
[33:17] was another amendment that we did for
[33:19] » I I remember I think it was a planning
[33:21] board application when we did the
[33:22] veterinary place next to the Starbucks.
[33:26] » Yeah.
[33:27] » Yeah. Near Lowe's, you know, that had
[33:29] exterior space for the facility
[33:31] » The because it was a pet related
[33:34] facility. though and would that would
[33:36] the requirements for a pet daycare
[33:38] facility be elsewhere in the zoning code
[33:40] for that use?
[33:42] » You mean the standards?
[33:42] » I mean it's listed as a permitted use
[33:45] but that yeah that's what we had
[33:47] exterior space for the pets.
[33:49] » All right. So um we did adopt an an
[33:52] amendment to the ordinance for pet
[33:54] daycare facilities in the RP1 district
[33:56] which is specific to the RP1 district.
[33:58] » Right.
[33:58] » It has um separate standards that are
[34:01] unique for that zone. Um buildings and
[34:03] or tennis spaces must be soundproofed to
[34:05] a certain uh vessel bullet rating. All
[34:08] buildings shall be of adequate
[34:09] construction maintain a good repair and
[34:10] secured in order to protect animals from
[34:12] injury or escape. Proper and ample
[34:15] ventilation of all animal areas and
[34:16] building shall be demonstrated to the
[34:18] satisfaction with uh board. Um all
[34:21] animals housed in the facility shall be
[34:23] kept within the confines of a building
[34:25] between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00
[34:27] a.m.
[34:28] » Provisions shall be made for the
[34:30] removal. page. Which page?
[34:33] » Oh, it's on the top page.
[34:34] » The pages the pages that are not
[34:36] numbered.
[34:44] » And it was actually
[34:45] » Thank you. Thank you for no outdoor
[34:47] facilities were to be permitted. So,
[34:49] you're actually not allowed to have an
[34:50] outdoor facility for
[34:53] » Me. It was something from that.
[34:54] » This answers my question. Thank you.
[34:56] » Yeah, I think it was something from that
[34:57] one. Paul
[35:02] probably due to the due
[35:03] » Yeah. Right.
[35:07] » Um I don't recall I don't think they
[35:08] ever follow a cipher application for
[35:10] pandemic.
[35:19] » Anybody else?
[35:20] » The other other change I'll point out um
[35:24] and you might ask why it seems silly. Uh
[35:27] senior housing um we reduce the parking
[35:30] requirement from 7 to 0.5.
[35:33] » Um
[35:34] » Oh yeah,
[35:34] » That lines up more with um
[35:38] residential site movement standards for
[35:39] assisted living which is actually 0.5
[35:41] parking spaces per unit.
[35:43] » I I could I mean it makes sense for
[35:46] lower parking because if there's seniors
[35:49] there they could be single, right?
[35:52] because one spouse unfortunately passed
[35:54] away or and a lot of them don't drive
[35:57] anymore.
[35:57] » Right.
[35:58] » Right.
[36:00] » So that kind of makes sense
[36:02] » Which is good that it's near a transit
[36:03] facility.
[36:04] » Yeah.
[36:04] » Right.
[36:05] That's
[36:06] » They had proposed at one point that they
[36:08] would be willing willing to do a project
[36:11] with um more more than 10% set aside but
[36:14] it wouldn't be non-agger restricted
[36:16] » And the thinking at the in the side of
[36:18] the township was keep it as age
[36:20] restricted which has a lot of
[36:22] implications financially and yes schools
[36:24] and in terms of site design too. on a I
[36:27] guess slightly related note. I saw that
[36:29] uh I think West Windsor Plainsboro high
[36:32] schools have the highest SAP scores or
[36:34] some of the highest SAP scores in the
[36:36] » Highest what?
[36:37] » Highest SAT schools in the state.
[36:39] » Really?
[36:39] » I think that the the schools were number
[36:41] two and number three.
[36:42] » Very number one was
[36:45] » Our two high schools.
[36:49] » Average SAT score that is
[36:51] » I believe it was I think it was SAT.
[36:52] » It was it was an NJC article. Yeah, like
[36:54] yesterday heard David work.
[36:56] » Oh, I got to check it out. I saw it.
[36:57] » Well, Odysius is uh Matt Damon who went
[37:00] to West Plainsboro, Ohio.
[37:02] » Yeah,
[37:03] » Matt Damon.
[37:04] » Yeah.
[37:05] » No, Matt. No, you're thinking of Ethan
[37:07] Hawk.
[37:07] » Ethan Hawk.
[37:08] » Oh, okay.
[37:08] » Matt Damon's from Massachusett.
[37:09] » Ethan Hawk went to the Hunt School.
[37:11] » I thought Matt Damon was a New York.
[37:13] » Ethan Hawk is a Hunts school graduate.
[37:15] » And Matt Damon grew up with Ben Affleck
[37:17] in Massachusetts in Boston.
[37:18] » Yeah. New York. No.
[37:20] » Everything what I've been telling
[37:22] everybody. They're both [laughter]
[37:24] » He's in Hawk.
[37:25] » They've been humoring you, J.
[37:26] » He's in Hawk went to school here and he
[37:28] went to Hunt.
[37:29] » Okay.
[37:29] » And And he didn't give any money to Hunt
[37:31] as an alone.
[37:33] » Just so you know.
[37:34] » You would know. You would know.
[37:35] » I would know. So So where are we in the
[37:38] review of this? Uh this
[37:39] » We're still reviewing Matt Damon and
[37:41] Ben. [laughter]
[37:43] » Uh as from one Greek tragedy to the
[37:45] next. Um
[37:47] » So St. P
[37:49] no
[37:51] St. page further down um on both does it
[37:55] mean that
[37:57] isn't that
[38:00] is there a regulation you know or I see
[38:04] requirements
[38:08] » No that so that is a um that's actually
[38:10] an existing regulation and
[38:13] um it does make sense so the way we
[38:18] crafted or the way this redevelopment
[38:20] ordinance was originally drafted was
[38:23] come up with those types of standards
[38:24] based upon the totality of the
[38:26] redevelopment area. Because sometimes
[38:28] what happens is in these larger
[38:29] redevelopment areas where you have
[38:32] different entities that are operating,
[38:33] right? You might have one developer or
[38:35] one operator for one housing unit,
[38:37] another for another type, then the
[38:39] commercial, they'll get chopped up into
[38:42] different lots just for financing
[38:44] purposes. Much like that happened with
[38:46] the fog of the show. They're not
[38:48] supposed to be operating independently
[38:51] from one another. So sometimes when
[38:54] ordinances are a little bit too strict
[38:55] in that, they'll apply say F coverage
[38:58] setback requirements to those individual
[39:01] lots when really they're not supposed to
[39:03] be functioning individually. They're
[39:05] supposed to be connected. So sometimes
[39:06] you'll see those FS spike up because the
[39:10] lot line completely encompasses the
[39:12] building, right? Or they won't meet the
[39:14] setback much like the photo to show. So,
[39:17] when it comes to the individual lots,
[39:19] how they're being arranged for financing
[39:20] purposes, it doesn't make as much sense
[39:23] to apply individual
[39:26] um bulk standards to those chopped up
[39:28] lots as it does to the entirety of the
[39:30] district because you're making the
[39:32] assumption that everything is going to
[39:33] operate as one cohesive development even
[39:36] if they have different operators for
[39:37] different lots.
[39:40] I'm sure. So are you saying that it
[39:43] doesn't make sense to describe how
[39:46] descriptive they are or see?
[39:49] » Oh no no no we we No no no no if it's
[39:52] like do so for example if you look on
[39:55] » Just for
[39:56] » Just for the individual lot for the
[39:58] district we have for the overall
[39:59] district we have an improvement coverage
[40:01] of 95%. for example, that's for the
[40:03] entirety of the district. But when you
[40:05] chop it off into individual lots, you
[40:07] might have one lot that says surrounding
[40:09] a building just for financing purposes,
[40:11] » That'll have a 100% coverage, but then
[40:13] maybe the plaza has 20% coverage.
[40:15] Really, it's the totality we care about.
[40:18] » I I have a question regarding um 7D
[40:21] parking struct on there's no I don't
[40:23] know the page number.
[40:25] » Parking structures attached to buildings
[40:27] or principal permitted uses may be up to
[40:29] six levels of 70 ft.
[40:31] » Yes. Yes. Now, you're talking about a
[40:32] standalone parking structure like a
[40:34] garage, that big garage. Because to me,
[40:37] when I read that at first, I'm thinking
[40:39] like you have a townhouse and next to
[40:41] the townhouse is a sixtory,
[40:44] you know, you have apartments and then
[40:45] next to a six stories and garage can be
[40:49] I don't know how you get the car up to
[40:50] the sixth story, but but you know what
[40:52] I'm saying? It needs maybe a little bit
[40:54] more specific there.
[40:56] » Well, those were already built.
[40:57] » Okay.
[40:58] » Yeah. The only things that are getting
[41:00] changed in this ordinance are in red. So
[41:01] that that parking structure attached to
[41:03] the building that's already
[41:04] » That that's that big massive parking
[41:06] structure. Okay.
[41:07] » Building E5 and E6.
[41:09] » Okay.
[41:10] » A shame at least know those numbers at
[41:12] this point.
[41:14] » Yeah.
[41:16] » That's fine.
[41:22] » Anything else in here we need to
[41:26] exchanges?
[41:28] Yeah, that's all we that's all we focus
[41:30] up.
[41:31] » What's that?
[41:32] » Yeah. Number two, the senior housing.
[41:34] » Yeah, that's where the that's where the
[41:35] p the changes are.
[41:36] » Yeah. You know,
[41:37] » And again, we're keeping the number of
[41:38] family units the same. It's just senior
[41:41] housing, which is kind of an
[41:42] all-encompassing term for um age
[41:46] restricted
[41:48] needs, nursing home.
[41:49] » What was it before? It says in addition
[41:51] to the 800 family dwelling units, the
[41:53] redeveloper may
[41:56] um construct up to additional 170 senior
[41:58] housing units. Didn't we have allocated
[42:01] some senior housing prior to to this
[42:04] change?
[42:04] » That was originally going to be the 135
[42:06] number.
[42:07] » Okay. We need we need to make we need to
[42:09] have that kind of language in there that
[42:10] says that it was increased from 135 to
[42:13] the 170 as opposed to it looks like it
[42:16] wasn't any uh proposed and all of a
[42:18] sudden we'll put in 170 additional
[42:24] am reading it incorrectly
[42:27] » Probably
[42:32] » Yeah normally you wouldn't put that in
[42:34] an ordinance that like more of like a
[42:36] wear ass Okay. Okay. Got it. Yeah. No,
[42:39] that's
[42:39] » That makes sense.
[42:43] In addition to the up to 800 family
[42:46] dwelling units. That sounds weird.
[42:48] » In addition to the up to 800.
[42:51] » Yeah.
[42:52] » Yeah. The wording doesn't sound right.
[42:54] Get rid of
[42:56] » I agree with
[42:58] » Oh, yes. In addition to the up to
[43:01] » So maybe in addition to the maximum up.
[43:03] What I would I I think there's I think
[43:06] there's a number of language
[43:08] improvements that could be made. This
[43:09] was actually drafted by Avalon Bay and
[43:12] just for for simplicity of of process I
[43:16] would just leave it the way it is. It's
[43:17] going to be before council. Well, it's
[43:19] going to be before council and first
[43:21] reading in uh in August second reading
[43:25] September and if we want to make changes
[43:27] then that would be that would be a place
[43:28] to make them.
[43:29] » Okay. Um, but something that I agree
[43:32] with you, Jerry, but something like
[43:33] stands out like this, it just really
[43:35] makes no sense. We should fix that. But
[43:37] and then I agree with Jerry that when it
[43:39] goes to council, then that's when the
[43:41] final verbiage takes place.
[43:44] » You express that to them.
[43:46] » Well, we're going to get um there'll be
[43:48] another session to to
[43:50] » For us
[43:51] » For us to um nail down the final
[43:54] verbiage.
[43:54] » Yeah, it's going to come back to us
[43:56] after first reading. It'll come back to
[43:57] us.
[43:58] » Okay.
[43:59] Well, we should change we should change
[44:01] this language because it's it's not even
[44:03] clear.
[44:05] » So, let's let's change that. And then
[44:07] again, you know, let's not nitpick now
[44:09] because the final uh version um will
[44:12] come back to us
[44:14] » Where that's I agree with you
[44:15] » One senior traveling unit that whole
[44:18] thing can be moved up to
[44:21] another sentence already. I uh that will
[44:25] be done at the later stage but I this
[44:29] addition to the up to 800 needs to be
[44:31] fixed.
[44:32] » Just make it maximum
[44:33] » I would say um
[44:35] » A maximum of
[44:37] » The maximum of
[44:40] units. Yeah, something like that.
[44:43] » Yeah.
[44:44] And then you know when when we re when
[44:47] we revisit this and we come up with the
[44:50] final version that's going to
[44:52] » Then we need to wait till
[44:54] » Until it's all cleaned up and then
[44:57] » Right when when does this come back to
[44:58] us Jerry
[45:00] » Those changes are significant
[45:02] » In September
[45:02] » We go back
[45:03] » No then we'll change we'll change the
[45:05] verbiage we'll change the words we don't
[45:07] like this sentence we'll remove it we'll
[45:09] move it up we'll move some down
[45:12] Okay.
[45:13] » Right. We're gonna nitpick now and then
[45:15] they come up with that version.
[45:17] » It may not it may need to be totally
[45:20] redone anyway.
[45:21] » So, let's all do it all at one time.
[45:23] » Yeah. And I think um
[45:24] » Am I understand this correct?
[45:26] » Yeah, I I agree.
[45:28] » It's usually something like this. It's
[45:30] it's
[45:32] » So council in a separate work session
[45:35] and and asking all sorts of questions
[45:38] and stuff.
[45:39] that they introduced. Then we got 45
[45:41] days to get it back to the plans board
[45:44] » And then you have to
[45:47] » So can can we have another working
[45:49] session that gets closer to a final
[45:51] ordinance uh ordinance for council?
[45:54] » We can this this is um going to go to be
[45:58] introduced by by council on the 11th. So
[46:00] that's a very short time period.
[46:03] » The next
[46:05] » Oh the 18th I'm sorry the 18th. No, it's
[46:08] the 23rd, right?
[46:10] » August 11th
[46:14] » Through the 25th.
[46:17] » Okay.
[46:18] » Yeah. And also
[46:19] » Yeah.
[46:23] » Yes. 24th is the next
[46:26] » And also I noticed,
[46:29] » Right?
[46:30] » Yeah. And and Jerry, I just realized
[46:32] too. Um,
[46:34] so I I we had worked on a separate
[46:37] draft. Uh, this was from Malan. I I
[46:40] think the numbers are wrong, too. Um,
[46:43] » Because this would allow for
[46:48] » Yeah. Which I thought it was going to be
[46:49] 9.
[46:50] » Yeah. 903 all together.
[46:52] » 903. No, 970.
[46:54] » No, I know. I don't think it's Yeah, I I
[46:56] don't think it's supposed to be that
[46:57] many. It's 800 plus 170.
[47:02] » So then we
[47:04] » Oh, they slipped with the numbers.
[47:06] » So that needs to be fixed 100 that needs
[47:09] to be fixed like right away
[47:12] » Because if originally
[47:16] » So then there's not 800 right now
[47:19] because if you say it was 135, now it's
[47:22] 170. Didn't they already build 800 there
[47:26] » Or is it seven totals?
[47:28] » So, um they were approved for eight
[47:33] 68 I thought.
[47:34] » That sounds familiar
[47:36] » Because they originally had something.
[47:38] » They originally allowed 800 units as of
[47:40] right and then if a hotel was not
[47:43] constructed, they were allowed an
[47:44] additional 68 units, right? So, that
[47:46] would be 868 total units they were
[47:49] approved for. Oh. of which 135 were
[47:53] senior, right? So 16 or 868 minus 135 is
[47:57] 733.
[47:59] » And then if you add now 170, that's 903.
[48:06] » Okay, now that now that makes sense.
[48:08] » Yeah. So I I
[48:11] » But the way this is written, looks like
[48:13] they're going to put a they're going to
[48:14] squeeze in another 170 senior housing
[48:17] units.
[48:18] » Yeah. I don't know if that was a
[48:19] conversation after the fact, but when I
[48:20] had first looked at this,
[48:21] » No, this language, no, this language
[48:24] needs to be fixed because
[48:27] you're getting from 9003 there's 970
[48:30] there's an additional 67 units that was
[48:33] not approved.
[48:39] » So I don't this language needs to be
[48:41] cleaned up and fixed
[48:44] » Before it goes before the 11th.
[48:48] I mean, I guess one week before good
[48:51] » Catch uh the meeting on the 24th is when
[48:54] the council president set the agenda,
[48:56] but sometimes it's a date or two later.
[48:58] We go out to the public
[49:01] on a Thursday,
[49:04] » Right?
[49:10] » To me, it's a little confusing. I think
[49:12] it be 800 units. I know.
[49:16] Isn't it interesting? They they they
[49:19] crossed it out.
[49:21] » Look at the number they crossed out
[49:22] there.
[49:24] » Cross this out.
[49:25] » I don't know.
[49:26] » 68. See the 60? It was 67, I think.
[49:29] Right.
[49:30] » What a 68. The 68 is crossed out.
[49:33] » And then how conveniently they added the
[49:35] 170 back in.
[49:38] » Yeah. What I would recommend is
[49:43] um
[49:46] Establishing a maximum of 93 dwelling
[49:50] units
[49:53] of which at most 170 shall be
[49:58] senior housing, assisted living,
[49:59] whatever it is. Um,
[50:05] most
[50:06] » Because they already have the rest of
[50:08] the residential constructed. So, we're
[50:10] only doing those seven
[50:14] and it was in um
[50:17] think that was a ceiling as well. They
[50:18] weren't willing to agree with just in
[50:20] case
[50:25] a quick question
[50:27] number two 68.5%.
[50:30] What is the exact
[50:31] » Oh, that that's Yeah, I would have to
[50:33] work those numbers that this has become
[50:35] almost like a Frankenstein ordinance.
[50:36] Um, it doesn't this these numbers don't
[50:39] add up. I see the 800 and I see the 68.
[50:42] That's your original 868.
[50:45] But then there's nothing no mention of
[50:47] the 135 originally approved senior
[50:50] housing
[50:52] and and then the 68 goes away. It all
[50:55] instead of they just add back the 800.
[51:00] It should be 800 less um it should it
[51:04] somehow the know they're playing with
[51:06] the formula
[51:11] right it should be it maybe up to um
[51:17] » It should be
[51:19] 170 senior units
[51:22] less
[51:25] » 868.
[51:26] » Yeah, that's the um 68 or something.
[51:29] That's 67
[51:32] to get you to 103
[51:37] » Or up to additional 170 senior units
[51:40] which in which includes I don't I don't
[51:44] know what the right verbiages you just
[51:46] don't know
[51:48] » As an example
[51:52] » I just know the numbers don't jive so
[51:55] gets picked
[51:59] So they're squeezing they're they're
[52:01] they how Avalon Avalon is the one that
[52:05] crossed the stuff out, right?
[52:07] » Yeah. The edits.
[52:08] » Okay. So then Avalon is trying to pull
[52:12] one full fastman.
[52:14] » No.
[52:16] » No.
[52:20] Um, yeah, I have some preliminary
[52:23] numbers about what I I thought the unit
[52:25] counts.
[52:25] » I don't know how to word it, but I know
[52:27] the numbers don't
[52:28] » I I would I I I would keep it relatively
[52:31] simple, right? I would say 93 units
[52:35] total at most 170 senior housing.
[52:39] » Um, work backwards. Now, the set aside
[52:41] for the family units is going to be
[52:44] slightly more at 16.64% 64%
[52:48] » And 10% for any new
[52:50] » Okay
[52:51] » Senior housing
[52:52] » Well the 903 total units which can can
[52:56] include up to an addition which can
[52:58] include
[53:00] 170 senior units take out the 170 you
[53:02] get 733
[53:04] » Yep.
[53:05] » So 733
[53:07] is the 86080 minus the original approved
[53:10] 135.
[53:11] » Yes. Somehow you've got to word
[53:14] wordsmith that.
[53:17] » Yeah, I Yeah, I I I will work with uh
[53:20] I'll work with Jerry. So,
[53:21] » Because it can't it it can't stand the
[53:24] way it's it is because it looks like
[53:27] whatever they have there, they're going
[53:28] to stick another 170 senior units there.
[53:31] » Yeah, I think the 800 family devel
[53:36] approves this, they're breaking ground.
[53:42] So you have to have to come before the
[53:46] new
[53:48] » Hard.
[53:49] » Yeah,
[53:51] » I don't like it at all.
[53:52] » I'll entertain a motion to change this
[53:54] paragraph.
[53:57] [laughter]
[54:03] » I'll agree with that.
[54:05] » I'm having called a role.
[54:09] Can they separate out the senior um I
[54:13] think
[54:13] » Housing units versus the family dwelling
[54:16] units?
[54:16] » I think David has it right that we
[54:18] should say they can build up to 733
[54:21] family units and up to 170 senior units
[54:27] and that's and that's it. That's what
[54:29] we're all saying I think.
[54:30] » And then and do we know what number
[54:32] that's there now? Right now they're
[54:34] approved and how many is physically
[54:37] built because they're done building.
[54:39] » Oh, no. I I mean they I don't know how
[54:41] many have been coed, but it's going to
[54:43] be 733.
[54:45] » Oh, so they they know there's 733 there
[54:48] or broken ground or maybe maybe not not
[54:52] COD, but the build the frames are up,
[54:55] the buildings are up and
[54:58] » Yeah, that's okay.
[55:00] » So that then Okay. So then
[55:03] if you if this was approved
[55:06] [clears throat]
[55:07] » They would probably put another
[55:10] 67 to get up to the 800 and then shove
[55:13] another 170 in there.
[55:15] » Yeah. I I again I haven't been too
[55:17] involved in discussion but I I thought
[55:18] it was just the 170 for senior. Uh
[55:22] um
[55:23] » So yeah, you got to word smith it to
[55:26] total of 93 units with up to 170 senior
[55:29] units. However they want to do it,
[55:32] right? They have 733 there. Well, then
[55:34] they can max out at the 170.
[55:37] » Mhm.
[55:38] » Right. You can't have the the number 800
[55:41] in here.
[55:42] » Yeah.
[55:44] » Yeah. I agree. Well, I I think as I
[55:47] said, I think the most straightforward
[55:48] approach is just to say you can build up
[55:50] to 733 family units and up to 170 senior
[55:55] units.
[55:59] » Like how do they do that? Unless are
[56:02] they going to say the senior units are
[56:04] all in one building or are they going to
[56:06] be
[56:06] » Oh, they're going to be that's the
[56:08] assistant living.
[56:08] » Yeah, but to say that it's all senior
[56:12] senior housing will shall be in like one
[56:14] building.
[56:15] » Oh, in the
[56:16] » Two buildings or whatever it is.
[56:17] » Well, we think the assistant living
[56:22] » Everything else is built out. So, they
[56:24] only have that like vacant space towards
[56:25] the like the westerly portion of the
[56:27] site. That's where this building goes.
[56:30] » Space for 170 seat. Is there enough
[56:32] space for that?
[56:34] » Yeah, that's why they're hanging on the
[56:36] floor.
[56:37] » Yeah, but they have the footprint for
[56:39] that for building that size
[56:41] » Footprint for the
[56:43] » Hotel.
[56:47] That's a lot of units.
[56:48] » Shares of parking.
[56:51] » Okay, got it.
[56:53] So, it's not shares.
[56:55] » Okay. because that's a lot of units in
[56:57] the one building.
[57:03] » So, just so it's clear, it's going in a
[57:05] separate separate building, the senior
[57:07] housing.
[57:08] » Yes.
[57:08] » Does it say that?
[57:09] » It's it's attached to the garage, but um
[57:12] does does this say this?
[57:14] » Does it say separate building? No, I
[57:15] don't think so.
[57:16] » How how are they doing that?
[57:17] » What do you mean?
[57:18] » I mean, how
[57:20] the senior housing units, let's say the
[57:23] 170, where where are those going?
[57:25] They're not distributed with the u
[57:29] one building.
[57:29] » Okay. Does does this say that it be a
[57:32] separate building for senior housing?
[57:34] » Yes and no. So it doesn't say separate
[57:35] building, but senior housing buildings
[57:37] are allowed to be
[57:38] » Up to six stories. So they're they're a
[57:41] separate building height established for
[57:43] senior housing. So presumably all those
[57:46] units are going to go to that sixtory
[57:48] building. They in this language they may
[57:53] have the option if they choose.
[58:09] » Yeah. I mean
[58:13] » Yeah it's it's gonna end up being in one
[58:14] building but Fran is right. The way this
[58:16] is rain, it would allow for
[58:17] » Each unit have different amenities
[58:21] » So they could move them.
[58:23] » Yeah, because every floor has an
[58:25] elevator. So that's one or
[58:30] I think
[58:33] units with an atrium.
[58:38] Stairway
[58:40] to the
[58:41] top floor.
[58:45] Here's
[58:48] if you start distributing senior housing
[58:51] throughout then the other buildings they
[58:54] go up to six story they say well wow we
[58:55] have some senior housing in here senior
[58:57] units for the rest of market
[59:00] » Yeah regular family
[59:02] » May maybe uh maybe
[59:06] » Buildends
[59:14] to be a higher
[59:17] add
[59:22] » And those are technically both already
[59:24] mixeduse buildings and so even if they
[59:26] did have senior living in there right or
[59:28] an age restricted unit or two which
[59:30] again I don't think they're going to do
[59:31] but because they're mixeduse we have a
[59:33] separate height or mixeduse building so
[59:35] they'd be to that
[59:37] » Yeah they they wouldn't mix a se
[59:39] designated quote unquote senior housing
[59:42] unit in a regular building that wouldn't
[59:44] make any sense.
[59:46] » Well, part of
[59:47] » A lot of things in this didn't make any
[59:49] sense.
[59:49] » No, I know. But that wouldn't make any
[59:50] sense cuz what what's the benefit of
[59:53] having a senior unit inside a mixeduse
[59:56] building? There's no there's
[59:59] » You know there would have to be in I
[1:00:01] guess income restriction that would that
[1:00:03] make it an affordable unit. You know,
[1:00:05] you the apartment 2D you have to be 55
[1:00:08] and over. I I you know I don't know if
[1:00:10] that
[1:00:14] » It's going in a separate building.
[1:00:16] » I think it's got to be
[1:00:16] » I think we're overthinking this.
[1:00:18] » Yeah, I think
[1:00:19] » What what is wrong with with saying you
[1:00:21] can do 733
[1:00:24] family units
[1:00:26] » And you can do up to 170 senior units in
[1:00:30] the assisted living facility.
[1:00:31] » That makes sense. I like it.
[1:00:33] » Yeah, I like that. Simple.
[1:00:35] » Yes.
[1:00:37] You got to be clear that that's what we
[1:00:39] want the
[1:00:40] » Senior living facility.
[1:00:42] » Yeah. Yeah. That make that makes sense.
[1:00:44] They're designated that the senior
[1:00:45] housing goes into the assisted living
[1:00:47] building.
[1:00:52] » And it's really unfortunate that we
[1:00:54] actually have this because as I said
[1:00:56] earlier um we we've already done
[1:00:59] amendments to the redevelopment plan
[1:01:01] which deals with all these issues,
[1:01:03] » Right?
[1:01:03] » Um and they said, "Well, we need an
[1:01:05] ordinance also." So I said we don't
[1:01:06] think you do but
[1:01:08] » Um
[1:01:09] » If you want to do the ordinance you can
[1:01:10] but you know it's created as many
[1:01:12] problems obviously.
[1:01:14] » Of course absolutely
[1:01:17] » What do
[1:01:18] » Yeah.
[1:01:22] » Well I think they still I I think the
[1:01:24] limit is still the 733 right now and the
[1:01:27] up to 170. Let's we'll make these change
[1:01:31] and we'll we'll get off to them. doesn't
[1:01:32] do that.
[1:01:34] » Did Did they send us information about
[1:01:37] us
[1:01:37] » In your housing?
[1:01:38] » No, they just sent it a few days ago
[1:01:40] actually.
[1:01:41] » Yeah.
[1:01:41] » Includes nursing home, senior citizen.
[1:01:45] » Yeah. Yeah.
[1:01:50] » This was was this was part of the
[1:01:52] settlement?
[1:01:54] » No. This
[1:01:55] » Or No.
[1:01:55] » No.
[1:02:00] » So, where where do we go from here? We
[1:02:02] we reddraft this section. Dave and I
[1:02:04] will do that. We'll get it off to Avalon
[1:02:06] this week.
[1:02:08] » Good.
[1:02:08] » Yeah. I Yeah, I have link already done.
[1:02:11] Um
[1:02:12] » Every everything else that's not in red
[1:02:14] was the existing ordinance.
[1:02:15] » Oh, yeah. Everything
[1:02:18] Yeah. Okay.
[1:02:19] » We're adding in the um description of
[1:02:22] special need. Does that have to be put
[1:02:24] in?
[1:02:26] » Yeah, we want to keep we want to keep
[1:02:27] that in. Yeah. But in the definition
[1:02:30] section at the beginning of the article,
[1:02:33] you're a whole different cate.
[1:02:35] » That's a good point.
[1:02:36] » Yeah.
[1:02:38] » Um,
[1:02:39] special needs housing is defined as
[1:02:41] housing of a bed that is reserved by. So
[1:02:44] if we have an ordinance book that has
[1:02:46] definitions that need to be included
[1:02:51] » Special
[1:02:54] » Well it says it's defined in NJSA 341B
[1:02:58] » Whatever
[1:03:00] » That's a state code
[1:03:01] » So okay
[1:03:03] » Yeah but it doesn't say special needs
[1:03:05] housing for seniors or senior I
[1:03:07] » I think we could keep it I think it's
[1:03:08] best keeping in this section tell the
[1:03:10] truth
[1:03:14] Special needs housing is separate from
[1:03:16] senior housing. It's se it's a separate
[1:03:18] item.
[1:03:19] » Yeah.
[1:03:20] » Could be a senior.
[1:03:21] » Yeah. It could be anybody. It could be a
[1:03:22] senior or it could be a kid.
[1:03:23] » Anybody.
[1:03:26] » Yep.
[1:03:31] » Well, they want to make sure that it's,
[1:03:33] you know,
[1:03:35] microscope.
[1:03:36] » It's group homes for people with special
[1:03:38] needs. Yeah.
[1:03:41] » Are we going to discuss windows too,
[1:03:44] » Anderson or Pel?
[1:03:47] » No. No. Whe the bedroom has a window or
[1:03:49] not.
[1:04:01] » So, so it has to have a window.
[1:04:05] » Well, that was for
[1:04:06] » No, when We've we've we've resolved that
[1:04:10] elsewhere.
[1:04:11] » Okay.
[1:04:12] » Yes. Thank you, sir.
[1:04:13] » Okay.
[1:04:15] Anything else that Jerry and um David
[1:04:19] are going to rework that? I think
[1:04:21] everything there's no
[1:04:24] Is there nothing else in red that we
[1:04:26] need to revisit?
[1:04:28] » No.
[1:04:34] » My
[1:04:35] » Okay.
[1:04:38] have what leads you about.
[1:04:41] » Well, yeah, you have the first page you
[1:04:43] have the special needs housing.
[1:04:46] » Then you have
[1:04:47] » We need to define that, right?
[1:04:48] » Yeah.
[1:04:49] » And then B2 you have everything there
[1:04:52] regarding um the number of units
[1:04:56] that needs to be revisited, re uh
[1:04:58] worded. We're
[1:05:01] » Yeah, I think on page one under tube A,
[1:05:04] it's sufficient the way it is now.
[1:05:06] » Okay.
[1:05:07] But do we need to add this definition to
[1:05:10] the ordinance book under definition?
[1:05:14] » No.
[1:05:14] » Why? Because it's already defined.
[1:05:16] » It's defined right here. You better off
[1:05:18] here rather than having somewhere else.
[1:05:22] » Sometimes it could be used.
[1:05:24] » Yeah, I believe. So, yeah. So, it's just
[1:05:27] defining it to that.
[1:05:29] » So, then B2 needs to be rewarded.
[1:05:34] Uh we're okay with the six story. It's
[1:05:36] 85 ft. We're okay with the parking is
[1:05:41] um.5 versus 7.
[1:05:45] This time we have
[1:05:48] » The six stories to have the chief
[1:05:51] comment on that. Well, that'll thatation
[1:05:56] » But the c well the council would um
[1:05:58] introduce folks right before the plane
[1:06:01] and board gets
[1:06:02] » Well. Do we need an opinion from him
[1:06:04] that you know
[1:06:13] » Address?
[1:06:27] » Well, we have five. I don't want to have
[1:06:29] to buy another $2 million fire truck
[1:06:31] because half doesn't go off that high. I
[1:06:33] I I honestly I don't know.
[1:06:36] » I would want to know now.
[1:06:45] » Yeah. Exactly.
[1:06:48] » And this is
[1:06:51] again I know it's a different product
[1:06:52] and different population living there,
[1:06:54] but originally that hotel was supposed
[1:06:56] to be six doors and 85 CD. Okay. So,
[1:07:00] nothing's changing
[1:07:02] » As far as the height is concerned in the
[1:07:04] storms.
[1:07:06] » Yeah. I mean, the maximum height of the
[1:07:07] hotel is supposed to be 80.
[1:07:08] » So, he
[1:07:10] » Do we know do we know if Chief Lynch
[1:07:13] will find on the sixtory hotel?
[1:07:17] » I think Chief Lynch will be fine with
[1:07:19] » Okay.
[1:07:20] » They have long host. He has he has a
[1:07:23] very long host, Chief Lynch.
[1:07:24] » Right. So basically, like I said, then
[1:07:26] he's going to have a valable needs in
[1:07:28] the building,
[1:07:29] » Right?
[1:07:30] » And if and and if he doesn't have a
[1:07:33] ladder truck that could reach that, then
[1:07:34] he's going to insist on sprinklers.
[1:07:37] » This ladder truck will reach it.
[1:07:41] » I heard he has a very long hose
[1:07:46] » For neighboring municipalities.
[1:07:50] um points five parking spaces and that's
[1:07:53] pretty much it. Okay,
[1:07:57] » We're good to go.
[1:07:58] » Yep.
[1:07:59] » Okay, we're good to go.
[1:08:00] » Yep.
[1:08:02] » So, David's going to
[1:08:03] » David and Jerry are going to re
[1:08:05] » I already have I already have some like
[1:08:07] draft language specializing on numbers
[1:08:09] and then reooking the set aside.
[1:08:12] » No, no,
[1:08:13] » No,
[1:08:14] » No, no, no. We're going to get it off to
[1:08:15] to Avan.
[1:08:17] » Sorry. to
[1:08:18] » I think we've gotten the in we've gotten
[1:08:20] the instructions we need. If we get it
[1:08:22] back to the board, this will go on
[1:08:24] » For an extended period of time.
[1:08:27] » Okay. You you know what we want. We want
[1:08:29] no more than 93 units with 170 total um
[1:08:33] max senior.
[1:08:35] However they get there, she's fine. And
[1:08:37] since they already have 733 built
[1:08:40] already, they're locked in for no more
[1:08:42] than 107,
[1:08:45] right? They're not getting away with an
[1:08:46] extra 67 units. They're going to squeeze
[1:08:49] in.
[1:08:50] » I That's my story. I'm sticking to
[1:08:56] » Okay.
[1:09:03] » Okay. Um
[1:09:08] council would be introduced and 45
[1:09:11] review by the planning board ordinance
[1:09:14] that's introduced. Yes.
[1:09:15] » And it comes back to council if
[1:09:17] something passes and eventually either
[1:09:19] side of plan.
[1:09:24] » Yes.
[1:09:27] » And and before there's even a site plan
[1:09:29] application will be TRC meetings about
[1:09:31] this first. So look at it technical
[1:09:35] details. So there's a bunch of steps
[1:09:36] done
[1:09:40] staff meetings.
[1:09:46] Okay, we don't vote on this vote. Okay,
[1:09:50] » Any other business?
[1:09:52] » Close the motion to close the public's
[1:09:54] hearing.
[1:09:55] » So move.
[1:09:56] » Moved by Allen. Second.
[1:09:57] » Second. All in favor say I. I.
[1:10:00] » Okay. Media journey.
[1:10:04] » Look at that. Not bad.