31:43A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussions about affordable housing and the development of the fair share plan. A member of the public, identified as Mark, voiced concerns about the board’s historical performance in producing affordable housing units, claiming that only 1.2 units have been produced annually over the past 30 years. Mark urged the board to adopt a more ambitious strategy, highlighting an opportunity for developing 42 affordable units at the vacant firehouse site on Broad Street. He criticized the Summit Common Council for attempting to exclude this site from consideration, arguing that it contradicts their previous decisions and limits options in an area with scarce suitable development sites.

58:32The board also faced public scrutiny regarding transparency and accountability in the planning process. Another individual, Dennis, raised issues about the lack of available information on the city’s progress in round three of the affordable housing plan. He pointed out that reports detailing the city’s housing production and the use of the housing trust fund have not been accessible to the public for the past two years. Dennis stressed the importance of prioritizing family housing over senior housing in future planning and criticized the previous use of overlay zones, which did not result in the creation of new housing units.

The board acknowledged the urgency of developing the housing element and fair share plan, noting the tight timeline imposed by the state. The calculations for the realistic development potential (RDP) and its impact on the municipality’s housing obligations emerged as a focal point. The board discussed the implications of these calculations, which could alter the number of units Summit is required to build, currently estimated at 345.

The meeting also addressed recent litigation from the borough of Montville, challenging the redistribution of housing obligations among municipalities. This case highlights broader concerns regarding the fairness of the current framework, particularly in how obligations are allocated between urban aid municipalities and suburban or rural counterparts.

20:39In addition to housing, the board discussed updates on the Development Review and Regulatory Ordinance (DRRO), focusing on issues like stormwater management, drainage mitigation, and tree clear-cutting. These areas may require more robust regulations, and the board is considering revisions to Chapter 29, which protects trees. The topic of fence height on commercial properties adjacent to residential areas was also introduced, warranting further review due to resident requests for higher fences.

25:30The board reported nearing completion on cross acceptance efforts, with a draft of the new state plan expected soon. This plan carries less authority than its predecessor, raising concerns about its implications for variances and land use applications. Public discussions have identified three main planning priorities: empowering local stakeholders, mitigating environmental impacts of rapid development, and investing in transportation infrastructure. These priorities will guide future planning efforts, emphasizing the importance of ongoing public engagement.

01:04:28The importance of public participation was underscored, with future sessions planned to collect additional input. As the meeting concluded, preparations for a closed session were made to discuss litigation and attorney privilege matters related to the housing element and fair share plan.