One item on the agenda was the proposed master plan amendment, which aims to introduce small-scale logistics facilities as a principal use within the Light Industrial (LI) District. The amendment followed a settlement agreement between Hillsborough Township and Lin entities, responding to a lawsuit filed in 2023. The lawsuit contested an ordinance that had removed warehousing and shipping as principal permitted uses, leading to the issuance of 87 certificates of non-conformity primarily in the LI District.

The proposed amendment seeks to balance maintaining the character and economic viability of the LI District with community concerns. The LI Zone, established in 2009 from the General Industrial District, encompasses approximately 300 acres, with only 43 acres remaining undeveloped. The amendment sets specific parameters such as limiting building sizes to 41,000 square feet, reducing height limits to two stories or 35 feet, and restricting loading docks to one per 5,000 square feet.

During the discussion, questions arose about existing structures in the LI District and their compliance with the new height restrictions. Clarification was sought regarding whether any current buildings exceeded the proposed 35-foot height limit, with specific reference to a facility associated with RC Fine Foods. It was confirmed that any structure exceeding this limit would require a variance for reconstruction if destroyed.

Public concerns were voiced by Brian Tarantino, a local resident, who commended the township committee for previously eliminating warehousing as a permitted use. He argued this decision was beneficial for the town, reducing the potential for high-intensity developments. However, Tarantino expressed apprehension about potential loopholes in the new amendment that might allow developers to construct several smaller buildings, cumulatively leading to the same intensity issues the ordinance sought to avoid. He cited a previous proposal from Village Shoprite, which faced challenges due to its scale, warning that the new amendment might allow similar developments without necessary subdivision, potentially undermining the ordinance’s original intent.

Further concerns were raised regarding the proposed square footage limit for logistics facilities. A participant stressed the importance of preventing property owners from exploiting loopholes to bypass regulations. This was aimed at ensuring the ordinance’s intent is preserved and not undermined by creative interpretations of the provisions.

The discussion also touched on the broader implications of the proposed changes. Concerns were voiced about potential claims from property owners alleging devaluation of their assets, possibly leading to further legal disputes. An ongoing legal dispute with a property owner was noted, though specifics were avoided in the public forum.

The board also reviewed zoning regulations, particularly the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the district, and discussed how this relates to the draft ordinance. While the master plan amendment did not specify a maximum square footage, the draft ordinance proposed a 41,000-square-foot limit, intended to manage the scale of new constructions within the district.

In addition to the master plan amendment, the board discussed the fourth round of affordable housing obligations. The conversation highlighted critical upcoming deadlines related to new housing laws, emphasizing the necessity of committing to certain housing numbers by the end of January to maintain immunity from builder’s remedies. There was a resolution noted, which the committee needed to adopt, outlining both current and future housing needs. This includes new construction and rehabilitation of existing units occupied by lower-income families.

The discussion detailed the process municipalities must follow in response to housing numbers provided by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). A member noted potential challenges to the municipality’s determinations from developers or housing advocacy groups. The DCA’s initial figure of 565 units for future need was mentioned, with a consultant recommending a proposal of less than half that amount, yet to be finalized.

Questions arose regarding the timeline for the vacant land adjustment process. Clarifications were made on the planning consultant’s role in developing strategies for future housing obligations and the challenges posed by vacant properties. The board acknowledged the need to address environmental and zoning issues in the master plan update to mitigate development obstacles. It was noted that new affordable housing laws would require municipalities to fulfill these obligations within a ten-year timeframe, contrasting with the previous twenty-year requirement.