##VIDEO ID:7-vq4GaWRow## okay everybody we'll get started um this is a regular meeting of the Fair Haven planning board adequate notice of this meeting has been given pursuant to the provisions of the open public meetings act at the time of the board reorganization in January of this past year the board adopted its regular meeting schedule for the year notice of the schedule was sent to and published in the Asbury Park Press on January 6 202 4 and the two River times on February 1st 2024 as well as supplemented by published notice of July 11th 2024 to advise of the hybrid format that notice was also posted on the bin board and Burl Hall and has remained continuously posted there as required by the statute a copy of the notice is and has been available to the public and is on file in the office of the b cler a copy of the notice is also been sent to such members of the public as have requested information in accordance with the statute adequate notice haven't been given the board secretar is directed to include this statement in the minutes of this meeting uh so why we start with theall b here here Mr here Mr here Mr here Mr here Mr Anderson here Mrs Mr Bailey here Mr bletcher uh so let's uh start aliance to the flag the United States of America and to the repic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for uh we have no old business uh or new applications to hear um so we'll start with um just the approval of the meet of the August uh meeting minutes those minutes were distributed uh by the board secretary before the meeting does anyone have any comments or concerns on the on those minutes no I'm making approval yes yes yes yes record Mr bletcher is right mrch yes thank you yeah are we so we're carried okay good so um so I'll set the table here so we have um we we've started now over the last uh last three meetings to talk about the the master plan uh reexamination um going through that that discussion and hearing last month from uh from Mike Sullivan at CCH our our board planner uh we learned about um the housing element part of the master plan has um some time sensitive uh deadlines um prior to when the full master plan reexamination is due and so given that we have two separate we have a a housing element planner and and a full board planner um we we we invited uh Mike Edwards who uh who who handles the uh the housing element part of the master plan specifically the fair housing um statutes um that are uh that we're required to comply with uh there's a deadline as I said June 2025 and so I I I know Mr Edwards has done they've done work already on on those requirements and we were going to be briefed um here tonight I'd like to understand I mean for myself we just like to understand you know what the what the requirements are um you know you know what what the progression has been has there been any public Outreach anything like that what discussions have been had elsewhere um for that um uh for that element um so that's that's where we are and then we can continue our discussion once once Mr Edwards is complete we can hear from any members of the public or anybody on Zoom uh that wants to ask a question uh and then we can continue our discussion from from last month um anything uh Doug anything to add to that I was asked earlier whether or not Mr uh Edwards could appear by way of video conferencing since this really is not an application since this is information we based to bring us up to speed with that I uh see no problem that I see that being instinctly different than holding a hearing or taking testimony in those we have discussed that we past so this will allow Mr a to come update you on those materials and see have to any uh any comments from from members of the board really any any uh any other guidance we can give to Mr Edwards in terms of what we'd like to hear about all right let's uh turn it over to Mike okay well thank you Mr chair and thank you all for accommodating me um and permitting me to practice on Zoom I can you guys see me on camera or no no doesn't seem to give me the option to my camera's on um I guess that's okay um it's weird though um so yeah I'd like to start kind of super high level and some introduction to the Mount law Doctrine I'm sure many of you on the board know very well what it is in its history but I think contextually um it's kind of hard to understand where we're going if you don't understand the the roots of the doctrine and what's changed as we move into what is quote unquote round four um so OB viously The Landmark decisions were Mount lur 1 and mount lur 2 Mount Laur 1 being in 1975 Mount lurel 2 being in 1983 um Mount Laurel one said you know towns you can't use your power to Zone to explode low Moder income households but they didn't really put any teeth in in into it and the towns that were ordered to not utilize their zoning power that way kind of did nothing about it and then so it went back to the Supreme Court in 1983 and now they're all pissed off and they do and they decide Mount Laurel 2 infamously created the Builder's remedy um and quotas you know they refer to it as a fair share but it's a quota that you need to comply with through affordable housing so the theory was if you don't beet your quota a developer could sue you under a Builders remedy Theory because of the lucrative nature of the Builder's remedy um obviously there were lawsuits filed throughout the state of New Jersey it was kind of on fire so much so that in less than two years you had sweeping legislation adopted in 1985 called The Fair Housing Act um and kind of the intent and spirit of the Fair Housing Act was we're going to create the Council on affordable housing we're going to create an agency solution we're going to incentivize Municipal compliance and the incentive for municipal compliance was immunity from Builders remedy um kind of both during the deliberative and planning process while you submitted your plan and kind of bounced it around um COA and objectors and all those types of things and then to the extent your plan was approved on how you would meet your quota in any given round you got subsi of CER ification or if you're before court a judgment of compliance and Repose so that was the theory you know broad Strokes of the fair housing act COA functions properly in round one um which is 1987 to 19 uh 93 you'll notice it was then six years it kind of keeps growing after that in terms of the the period of a round um round two 1993 to 1999 uh so you got a new construction quota in round one you got a new construction quota in round two um and let me just back up for one second there's a rehabilitation component I'm not going to spend any time talking about that because you guys have a zero unit Rehabilitation component so I'm only going to focus on new construction so you got new construction obligation round one new construction obligation in round two that takes you all the way to 1999 in 2004 COA adopted regulations for round three which was then 1999 to what would have been 2014 in this first attempt in 2004 be share housing center uh uh advocacy group oriented around ground representing the interests of low and minor income households sued to invalidate those regulations and does so successfully in a 2007 Appel division decision um COA goes back at it and they adopt new regulations in 2008 those are again invalidated um this time in a 2010 opinion um there's a bunch of stuff that goes on between 2010 and 2014 But ultimately uh COA tries for a third time to adopt valid regulations but they gridlock 33 and nothing gets adopted so in 2015 on motion to enforce litigant rights from F housing center the Supreme Court declares COA the agency that had processed Municipal plans more abund and throws us all back to the courts um so that's 2015 now it kind of starts to become specific to Fair Haven you guys hadn't had any land to comply really you've never had since the Inception of the doctrine you really haven't had sufficient developable land to comply there's a whole history of mission creep as it relates on how vacant land towns you know towns that lack vacant land um need to comply in terms of unmet need or you know what um what you could redevelop effectively even even with your land constraints um and that mission creep really has has gotten to a whole another level as we approach what will be round four in 2025 but in any event so round three is 1999 to 2025 the Supreme Court's decision is you know in the latter third of that and now we're thrown back into court Fair Haven starts to you know work on its plan a little late we could have filed in 2015 but they started to work on it 2017 2018 they submit to the court um ultimately what you submitted to the court ended up being very close to what was your your overall plan that the court approved but there were some objections and interplay with Eminem a developer that you guys are familiar with and he had an application before this board um and then ferish housing center that same advocacy group that invalidated the regulations we spoke about in the 2000s um so so ultimately you reach a settlement fair housing center and that forms the basis of your housing government fair share plan that this board adopted I think that was in 21 um so so your settlement fair share and your housing government fair share plan and your judgment of compliance and Repose which approves that housing government fair share plan all sing the same song basically they say Court our cumulative obligation going all the way back to 1987 and going all the way forward to 202 5 for new construction is 371 we have enough land however for four of those units and that four is referred to as your realistic development potential or RDP and the 367 that are lost in that equation are referred to as unmet need um there's a significant legal distinction between them and there's a tortured history really unmet need isn't a term in the Fair Housing Act that's the beginning of the mission creep Co made that up in round two um but just put that aside for second you relative to your 4unit RDP you have an obligation to create a realistic OB uh opportunity for the construction of those four units which you've now done um through Eminem and Habitat for Humanity as of 367 unmet need um in round two and really in round three the primary mechanism for addressing that was overlay zoning you guys have you know a lot of land overlaid as as part of your round three housing government fair share plan um and you also did a mandatory set aside order which said if there's any discretionary rezoning for multif family um you know D variance for uh Redevelopment plan whatever the mechanism is for for a density bump resulting in multif family you're compelled to capture a set aside um in addition to that you have an accessory apartment program where you permit accessory apartments that would be destricted in certain parts of town so that's your round three housing government fair share plan that brings us I think to to round four which is formally won't start until July of 2025 but there are some there have been some deadlines in the new legislation that was adopted uh in the beginning of this year so there's several iterations of that legislation our firm you know vigorously opposed it for for a lot of reasons but one we'll we'll talk about a bit tonight I suppose um but ultimately you know some concessions were given maybe they took that F legislation and they made it a a D+ or D minus or whatever but it's not a great piece of legislation uh there was reason for the opposition um and you'll we'll talk a little bit about the Mont Bell lawsuit though I have to be careful um in how I how I weigh in on on that particular lawsuit so in any event the deadlines that have passed were primarily reporting requirements the the burough had to submit reporting require uh reporting information on its trust fund and for those who might not know you have development fee ordinance um well you all know that you have a development fee ordinance that money is collected and put into a trust fund that trust fund can only be spent uh as part of an approved spending plan and um the the the program which we'll talk about in the DCA um now have reporting requirements where you have to provide information on that trust fund spending and Collections and then also uh you have to provide certain information on the affordable housing units that have been constructed in the burrow um so those deadlines are passed your reports have been submitted they have a new system for the input of that data we couldn't quite get there's tons of bugs with it they only Unleashed it like a week ago and it's it's been very Troublesome and problematic I would say 90% of municipalities were unable to utilize that system so we'll eventually have to upload it on that but for now you're compliant with the plain language of the statute um so the next kind of significant deadline is the well let me back up the new legislation does a lot of things but it it primarily abolishes COA formally the the Council on affordable housing the agency we talked about um you know from the 1980s 90s and you know Mor abund or defunct in the 2000s early 2000s um and in lie of COA it charges the DCA with certain rule making functions with coming up with quote unquote advisory calculations of your number um and kind of related tasks and then it creates the program which is supposed to be comprised of three to seven retired judges we now know who those judges are um and then there is some residual kind of Court interplay here as well there it's IG it's poorly written but uh there's kind of a a strong implication that a municipality could circumvent the program and instead file a DJ action directly to court I don't know that too many municipalities will do that um because of the kind of cramped timeline associated with the program and maybe having some judges with more intimate knowledge of the mountain loyal Doctrine I suspect most towns will go through the program process to the extent they're going to comply at all um and then so so there's the DCA there's the program the program is charged with effectively resolving disputes among other things they're going to review and process your plan hear objections to it and try to resolve and kind of mediate disputes um so those are the three kind of pillars of the doctrine that replace COA or three entities to as we said two deadlines have passed trust fund reporting and your uh your compliance reporting on 1020 the DCA as one of its functions is supposed to provide a calculation of your round four quota they're relatively constrained in that calculation the the new legislation itself says you're going to take um Co data in the state and by each individual region of which there are six um you're going to take that household growth between the 2010 and 2020 census and you're going to assume 40% of those households are LMI and you're going to assume the same growth moving forward and that's how we're going to calculate the number for the regional obligation and then it really just becomes a question for the DCA of how you allocate the pi on one of well on three factors vacant land um jobs and income are the three factors which dictate your allocation so they're supposed to come up with a number on 1020 that number is advisory I don't know exactly what that means because I know that it to the extent you deviate from that number you're going to have uh sharp opposition seeking to trip your immunity so I don't think it's so advisory in practice but in any event the buau will have to adopt the resolution committing to that or another number um honor before January 31 of next year so 2025 um if there is no dispute to that number in the resolution it will become your binding number on March 1 2025 to the extent there is a dispute it's supposed to be resolved between now and March 31 or between March 1 and March 31 of next year and I'm sorry just so that number gets added to the four okay so we could stop on the quota for a second because this is the substantive kind of deviation that most affects Fair Haven so let's assume that no new Parcels have become available developable approvable and suitable for affordable housing and So you you're going to calculate your vacant land adjustment all over again at some point in 2025 it will be the the kind of foundation of your document so let's say that the DCA says your number is 100 you're going to say well thanks DCA I don't have any land still so my RDP is zero um and then then we're in a posture where we're talking about unmet need and traditionally there's been no there's been no real parameters uh it's been extremely subjective as to what passes constitutional muscle in terms of addressing unmet need um where this really really deviates and was one of my main points of contention in Trenton is this says in that hypothetical I gave you where your number is 100 and your RDP is zero it says you still need to create realistic Zoning for 25 and I don't know what that means so realistic opportunity is a term of art that basically means the density is sufficient to incentivize financially the production of the affordable housing how you do that in an unmet need context I don't really know no I will say this I had I litigated a case in moristown where a developer came in on an unmet need site an overlay site and said well this doesn't pencil out and I said well that's not relevant um it doesn't we don't need to create a realistic opportunity for an unmet need site show me where that is anywhere in the Corpus of the mount L Doctrine and ultimately I won that trial um even though that in that particular case their expert opine at the rate of return was something like 1% so so and in that case it was it was like 15 or 20 units the acre that they still didn't feel like they had a sufficient incentive to knock down the building redevelop and provide the affordable housing so in this setting in my hypothetical where I say your number is 100 and we we suspect it might be a little bit more than that but let's just use that because the math is easy um the court is going to say you need to examine your mapping and try to create realistic zoning really in the context of Redevelopment for 25 units um and if you were to try to achieve that in in um you know traditional inclusionary zoning you're talking about something like 125 units to get that 100 in um or to get that 25 unit set aside so there's a lot of debate um ongoing about what that means does that mean capital r Redevelopment do you have to have sufficient sites that you know meet the Redevelopment statute criteria um that you could address that because there is a provision that says or otherwise demonstrate why you can't do so so you know what does that mean so there are a lot of questions um but I I think the way this plays out from a municipal perspective and we're in the process of deliberating on these issues now and kind of trying to piece out where we're going to go is we want to be in the posture where we our RDP is whatever it is it's I think it's going to be zero or one or two or something very small and I think realistically you know as we look at the zoning map there's not a tremendous amount of opportunity left in Fair Haven that we already haven't overlaid or addressed one thing that you know Fair sh Center might say is well at density to your existing overlay zones but I think that's problematic because we're we already maxed out those in terms of what we can accept from a a sound planning perspective so we need to deliberate on that as a A subcommittee in the first instance and the governing body and hopefully as with as much collaboration from the planning board as we can um so we don't know exactly what the housing government Fair air plan is going to look like just yet we don't know what our numbers are um but that's kind of the interplay between the DCA number and our form of adjustment in terms of vacant land so so in there's another component of the statute which is unclear which is do we in that January 31 20125 resolution where we commit to a number do we say okay we accept your DCA number of 100 but we're entitled to a vacant land adjustment that yields an RDP of zero they didn't say that prescriptively and they did not say that you would think you know as someone who practices this that that's not what they meant that they meant youj the off the top number and we'll deal with adjustments later and I'll talk about that in a second as we get closer to um some of these deadlines so that's January 3125 that's your number is theoretically going to become calcified it's at some point in March March one if there's no dispute March 31 if there is a dispute I find it very difficult to believe that the program is going to resolve all affordable housing disputes on the number in a month but we'll see how that plays out that's theoretically how the statute's written and how it's supposed to function M we have somebody that has a question sure thank you thanks um just the the whole premise of of having space to develop what H what happens when we have lots that are subdivided does that count as new buildable space I would say it depends on the the nature of the subdivision so it would have to be sufficient a sufficiently large parcel that it it could fit at least five multif family housing units so it has to be available developable approvable suitable for housing um and it really has to have a net acreage associated with it of at least 3/4 of an acre or so so in that hypothetical you would get at least five units and one affordable to generate any obligation yeah I just I mean I think theal situation we have is we have some lots that are like 200 by 100 or 200 by 200 and they can now be divided into 100 by you know 100 or you know whatever 50 by 100 so I just was trying to understand if that new you know for every one lot that is today now becomes two lots in the future with two houses does that actually become buildable space that feeds into that equation in the in the examples you gave no they'd be too small to support at least five units in a multif family setting without violating principles particularly if they're in a single family zone so I I wouldn't be too worried about subdivisions that that yield single family lots oh uh earlier you had mentioned accessory Apartments could you give some more background on that like for instance if someone adds an apartment above a commercial building in our business district would that then be part of the um equation for uh fair housing um probably not unless it's prescriptively in your settlement um and in the zoning because you know let's say if you guys granted a variance to permit an apartment um if it were if it were it wouldn't be a variance where where it's permitted right so um if you just permitted it without requiring specifically that it's affirmatively marketed to the Region's low and Moder income households it wouldn't be credit worthy so in order for it to be a creditworthy affordable unit it needs to go um you can't just rent it out to to your mom or your in-laws or whatever you need to go for the regions kind of Lottery process and affirmatively Mark it to the Region's low Moder income households it has to be destricted for a period of at least 10 years and that's even if it would be one or two apartments or is that only if it's several Apartments so it would depend right so if you have if you if you permitted five Apartments you also have in addition to your accessory apartment ordinance right you have a mandatory set aside ordinance so if you had in the hypothetical where there's a subdivision permitted it was a single family Zone but you permitted five units you're compelled to capture one affordable housing you can have four market rate and one would be destricted okay thank you sure going back to the um the single family zoning you said that the first requirement is availability can you can you talk a little more is there is availability based on the fact like the the land is for sale or owned by the town or or or something along those lines how do you know if there's an open lot somewhere in town that's one acre how does that become available is it simply that the owner sells it or chooses to let it be included in the in the affordable housing calculus or is there effectively that means availability clear of title um but but you know so so vacant and it has to be V it has to be first vacant or red developable then it has to be available developable suitable and improvable for and for multif family such that it would yield at least one unit that's a criteria um so so vacant or redevelop able and then available available was at one point subjective you'd reach out to the the land owner and see if they were interested in multif family um it became more objective As Time moved on and what that really means is clear of title so no deed restrictions or or easements or whatever that would preclude its use for affordable housing so a theoretical question can somebody take a one acre property at the in the middle of range and build five you know five units of affordable five units of housing Within for even in that yeah so the whole idea of of of compliance is that you get to dictate where those things occur um so in the hypothetical where there's a 1acre site could they do it they could if you permitted it what grounds so you know approvable I mean so there's does the fair you know does the does the does this is not fair share but this override go you know the zones or you know what's you know what the density restrictions I mean I guess this is this override density so on Range I'm not sure exactly what the dens you know what you know exactly what the density is but I can assume that that's it could be subdivided in half but not much more could they in theory does this do these rules override and such that you could take that lot that one acre lot and ignore that density and build those units on you know in that in that zone so right in the definition I think what you're asking is does your zoning factor into the definition of approvable and the answer is no a site may be approvable although not currently zoned for low and Moder income housing so the the the definition of approval site means a site that may be developed for low modern income housing in a manner consistent with the rules and regulation of all agencies with jurisdiction over the site a site may be approvable although not currently zoned for low and modern income housing Mike it's what mford did in rson yeah that yeah the mord r yeah I mean it's somebody comes in under Builder remedy and and forces the town to allow it to happen but but it presumes you have an RDP right it assumes that you have a a need that you can't meet right right that's why they got the build REM and the town didn't have anything to go against it right but if if you have that as a town again we know our obligation is going to be one or two units better find a piece of land that you want develop Mike are you saying that Our obligation maybe 25 minutes is that what I I'm thinking your obligation is going to be and this is all very poorly written so so we're g to fight a lot about this I want to be measured in what I say in public um your obligation is going to be your realistic development potential whatever that number yields plus you need to now create a quote unquote realistic zoning whatever that means for 25% of your unmet need so in my hypothetical where I said your number was 100 and I'm I'm really just making that number up like our proxy for you guys is 125 it could be 200 it could be 100 there's a lot of variability in how the DCA is going to allocate the pi but just to make the math easy let's assume 100 let's assume nothing's changed your RDP is zero no new sites have become available develop approvable suitable and vacant or red developable um in that hypothetical they're saying 25 units you need to create realistic Zoning for at least 25 units via Redevelopment and it doesn't use capital r development but there's an argument to be made there um um or otherwise demonstrate why you cannot do so but you we we said our unmet need was 367 that's your that's your cumulative unmet need go for rounds one two and three this is 25% of your round four unmet need okay so nothing happens we don't have to do anything with the unmet need from rounds one two and three that's certainly our interpretation of it I think it's the only credible interpretation of the statute so then that's just it's dead we don't have to do anything okay and then it's dead it's dead except we are going to get in into this potential fight so let's say that you had and I know you guys don't have this kind of land but let's just let's just use this hypothetical let's say you had a 20 let's say you had a 10 Acre Site that was overlaid at 10 units an acre so that would yield if it were to all redevelop that would yield 20 affordable units right because 10 acres times 10 units is 100 20% of which is is 20 um and then you as part of this realistic zoning obligation said well you know we're going to do we're going to do a capital R Redevelopment plan for that same site and we're going to change it to 20 units an acre and we're going to do a pilot at 10% or whatever you know that's the lowest statutory pilot um so we're really really incentivizing that development I would argue and I'm going to argue that in that situation we've created realistic Zoning for 40 Fair Ching Center is going to argue that no no no no no you created realistic Zoning for 20 because you need to deduct the round three overlay from that equation so that would be the only kind of situation where I see it as the you know your unmet need mechanisms from round three is relevant but what we're talking about in terms of the 25% obligation is perspective in nature so 25% of your round four unmet need so then 25 that's what it turns out to be we get added to the four effectively yeah yeah okay and then there was like we're actually hard required to have call it 202 but aren't the four already met W weren't the four met through M and then and then Habitat for Humanity yeah you're done you're done with the you're done with the now we're talking clean for clean from 367 we've got the four from Eminem and of the the scario I think you're going to find that the that the settlement that was reached before and the ordinance that you adopted and it was like 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 to 10 and you created the opportunity to resolve those issues you had to affordable housing Zone who amended the housing element in the fair share plan that was all done 2021 and I think that took care of from what I'm hearing your round three but it's not stat yeah so so so with the one caveat that that unmet need doesn't ever go away like if you're Tire Town you know what I mean like it's there any but tomorrow but yeah but conceptually I I really think that you can think of round three round one two and three is dead what we're really planning for now is whatever your new RDP is 1 two 3 4 Z Plus 25% of your round for unmet need that's what your housing government fair share plan is going to look like when we come back to you guys in June and that was kind of the next part of this timeline and that yeah I'm sorry just just to make sure and then that 25 let's call it for argument sake I know it's not real yet the the 25 then is address like in order to address them we stay within those overlay zones right like we we those 25 units would be developed based on the overlays that we've already established correct no no no that I think I they would have to be distinct they'd have to be distinct in new you know they could be distinct in a few ways they could be Redevelopment plans as opposed to overlays they could be and that's the hypothetical I was arguing about you know a minute ago that we're gonna get in a fight about I this so then overlay zones that we that those overlay zones those are also gone with the with the three phases as well those they exist but they they showed the court how we could theoretically meet theor okay so now so those overlay zones will not apply to what's going forward they won't help you for the 25% kind of kicker unless unless you increase the density or do something unique and distinct about them in which case we're going to argue about net increase with fair housing center which is we're gonna have to do that because there's no other place I mean you can't no no this is all hypothetical B we're not because historic district and whatever right it that's the they've I just want you guys to chew on this for a second though so let's say that we look at this and we genuinely look at our plan and we say within the context of sound land use principles because you guys have traffic and you know there are new D regulations coming out every day on storm water and flood zones and that type of thing you might legitimately look at your map and I'm not saying this is where it's going to go this all deliberative but you might look at your map and say well we can't increase the density in those overlays without violating Sound Land Ed principles and we have nowhere else to put it so we're in the bucket of we can't comply with that 25% so you we may be there I don't know and and you know who knows how hard we're going to get into fights about what the criteria are to be able to be sufficient to demonstrate that you really can't meet that requirement so there's a there's a lot uh of ambiguity I'm just trying to give you kind of the conceptual framework we're going to be operating under Mike real quick so if we get into the situation where we can't meet the needs um when we have a plan in place and approved and we have overlays somebody can't come into H and build five units on a one acre thing because it's not in our overlays it's not part of our plan correct whether it becomes available or not what they would do in that situation is what they could do in that situation and typically like you're not going to litigate over five units you know it's just it's too expensive but let's say that somebody did they would come in and they would say judge you know we did this like let's say that we perfect our plan and we remain immune the entire time and we get round four approval and then somebody comes in and says or during that process says I have this Acre Site I could get five units on it I could get one affordable unit the town could or the burrow could Zone it for five of which one is Affordable or it could do that one unit somewhere else it could do a group home a four-bedroom group home and say now we've not only met your your number we've exceeded it so it might generate RDP because your RDP isn't stagnant but that doesn't title them to a builder's remedy or site specific relief okay thanks the timeline again is on 10:20 you're saying October 20th of this year well that's depending calc pending calculation comes out and then between now then in January 31st the burrow needs to adopt the resolution and then March if you don't right and then it gets adopted March adopted March 1st or not March yeah one way or the other from the DCA or actually I'm sorry the program you should have your number in March and then from that point in March until June you have the the planning board will adopt a housing government fair share plan honored before June 30th of 25 and then you'll submit that or the buau and you will submit that really in a perfect world The planning board would adopt and the governing body would endorse prior to June 30th and then we would submit the program but it would be sufficient that the planning board adopted it and we submitted it in any event then would be Challengers get the opportunity to say you know your plan sucks what about my site whatever they need to say honor before August 31 of 2025 and then there'll be a whole another opening of dispute resolution um and we would have till December of next year till the end of next year basically um to respond to that objection or modify the uh plan to account for it then you know we fight about that in front front of the the program they issue some kind of advisory opinion we can make the tweets that they suggest or we risk losing immunity and at some point you know in 26 in March if we can't resolve our dispute by March of 26 March 15 um we can remove to court and fight it out in court so that's the timeline so March 2026 so we would can I ask another one yeah yeah I'm trying so so if if October 20th is when the quota calculation comes out I know I checked our planning board meeting is October 15th next month would it make sense for us to have a a meeting or move our meeting to digest that quota information I mean are we going to know on the 20th or is it like you know that's I don't think you can say it is a firm date Mike unless you tell me I'm sorry it's not a firm date that is what they're proposing at this point okay we don't need to just a planning word calendar I think you'd want to wait till the number actually till the calculation comes out and well I mean I let's be guided by what Mike has to say well so so the number it's actually prescriptive in the statute that it's honor before the 20th I there's no real penalty to DCA for not doing it and uh I I think it'd be foolish to assume that they're they're going to do I I suspect they will but I I wouldn't be shocked if they didn't and in terms of you know the board and what it might mean for them um I I'll leave it to your discretion as to how you want to handle it I think typically how these things work is you know you have a mountain laal subcommittee they kind of come up with a proposal and you know what this might look like and what this might mean and I like and I'm not sure if that's the case in in in Fair Haven but I like at least one planning board member on that subcommittee so that he can keep you all informed um I I really just don't like the situation where the the governing body you know decides all these things and then dumps it on the planning board and says adopt this plan like I would like you guys to have some representation on that subcommittee to the extent you don't already um and to be fair we haven't really met a ton because it's difficult to meet and deliberate without a number so um we have so who is are I mean we haven't elected one I know we meaning the board hasn't appointed someone we don't subit at the moment we not that I know of unless but we have I don't think we did last time I think we I was not here I think we did it the entire board we didn't have submitt discuss this last time the entire board and Todd went over this thing deliberated it Todd was on Todd was on the in the mount Lis subcommittee and he was you know critical in those meetings right and then we we discussed it in our planning board meetings right right so I I mean another big reason we we wanted to hear from you today Mike I think this is this sort of gets to the heart of the matter really is is as a board you know given this timeline what I I guess where should we be interjecting ourselves or having these discussions with the appropriate people on the on the go in the governing body and and when should those discussions take place right like I don't I don't think it's productive to have like you know have you know we got to let some of this stuff play out I think but at the same time to your point Mike we can't just have you know something a draft of something put in front of us you know a month before it's due the council is the governing body also discussing this in the same way with you as we have tonight should we be and it's a shame that uh counc C here um to understand what they what work they've done what um how far have you gotten with the with the Council on on this subject um well so we've primarily worked in the context of the mount L subcommittee and I believe we've only had one meeting um maybe it was two um but I think that you know and I don't want to describe what the subsided feedback from those meetings was at this juncture but I would say that once the number comes out we'll be meeting fairly regularly as a subcommittee probably at least once a month um and I I'd recommend that a planning board member be on that subcommittee who who is on the subcommittee now I don't know off the top of my head I know Chris Chris York is is here via Zoom I don't know if he knows yeah and and I don't know if it's a formal subcommittee or an informal like towns do resolutions appointing members and some are more kind of informal and floating um so I can get back to you on that hi Chris he's on ask can you ask him to Chris it's friend you're on mute if you're trying to speak all right well takeway we should we should have um we got to find out who's on the sub we got to find out who's on the sub commmittee and we should nominate somebody if there's going to be it's not going to be done with within the planning board meetings which I actually think it should be with a council representative as opposed to the other way around exactly um which is the way I believe it was done last time and there was other subcommittee meetings that were happening un us you know what I'm far as we concerned the board we handled it yeah and then report it back to Council on Vice person I I didn't catch all of that but but I I would say it's it's more typically I mean most of this happens at a burough level in terms of implementation because it is it is a zoning case primarily um you guys obviously are charged with the housing fair share plan it's very important but in terms of deliberation it is typically more oriented towards governing body yeah it's know when the next meeting is and you can decide hasil meetings because I anticipate that once you do get a number there will be increased frequency sure make those subcommittee meetings and then keep the board prised so we'll find out who's on and then we'll have to appoint somebody next meeting I think that would be great and that actually wor that'll be 10:15 that'll be a week before the number of photos out we can be ready to react and then what so so when would we be when when would we have to like I want to distill it back to our meeting schedule when would we have to approve something 10 would have June 30th of next year to adopt a housing element and fair share plan I would say you know it's really it's really crazy to me that you could have potentially a situation where you don't know if your numbers resolved via dispute until March 31 and you're expected your experts are expected to draft a comprehensive housing elment fair share plan and then get it before the board to be adopted on before June 31 but but that is the nature of the Beast so your your next action is isn't going to be until June um but that doesn't mean you shouldn't see drafts you know as soon as they're readily available right okay so so this since that's way ATT tracked when you had your 2021 ordinances you may recall that we knew where we needed to be settlement was there we had a series of meetings where and they were Zoom if you recall I remember that por of the new meetings to then change your master plan to adopt your uh affordable housing Zone your housing element and those things that that all occur before want okay um Chris was saying is trying to unmute but not having okay but we can create what did he say but we can create a subit okay um and he can answer via text if you'd like well I just think that mean does that mean that we don't have is well okay sounds like no time like the president we resolve it um so I I mean this has been super helpful does anyone have any any further questions I mean I this has been really great because it gives all the context I think that we needed and then um and now we have a timeline as to when all this is happening we know as board we don't have a formal action to take until June 30th um and so we'll have to make sure we're obviously we've seen drafts of this before so that when we're asked to to approve it it's it's more or less perfunctory at that that last meeting the other thing is is that draft is that something generally that we would solicit public feedback on so I'm just trying to work backwards no no okay it's a okay Mike is there anything else that we should be thinking about now as a a planning board within the affordable housing conversation that's going to it sounds like it's going to get start getting very active in the very near future from a from a prep standpoint um but other than making sure that we form a Mount Laurel subcommittee where there is a and we nominate a planning board participant in that is there something we should be doing in the next month or two well I mean to to a degree you guys know the sites you know better than the the governing body so you know I gave you some of the loose criteria for when a site might be available developable approvable suitable you might want to start putting your thinking caps on And discussing those sites sites that you think are opportunities or that might be Troublesome for you you should start discussing those sites with your appointed member when that member is appointed um but other than that you know I I would say just just keep an eye out um Doug you could reach out to me anytime you want to the extent that you want to have an ex as we move along here um as it becomes more litigious and more deliberative um so however you guys want to do it but just just keep an eye out for these things and be mindful of it is what I would say and then one last question if we approve so so obviously we will approve something on June does that can that just be incorporated by reference then into the the master plan reexamination so then basically we've satisfied since our our master plan reexamination is due in 2026 we could just is does that satisfy the H housing element part of the reexamination I would think it would unless there was something else that unless un there something else you you would do just last time so the adoption of the housing element fair share plan amends your master plan um so really to to to Doug's point you just kind of touch on that and piggyback on it and say this is what we did just last year um you did and then so so just okay you would advertise for your public Hearing in accordance with the timelines you'd make sure that there were copies out to the count County planning board that there were copies out to the contiguous municipalities just as you would with any of the other things that you did but you would just be focusing at that point in time you could treat it as as I as I said before you can always do a reexamination anytime you want but you must do it at certain times right this could be the reexamination just of your land and housing element and then you would not readdress that year later you would just as we said reference that you will re exam at that point so it's already done so we're not touching okay unless there were other issues in land use you wanted to deal with yeah it's like a section of the land use it's it's it's usually your one unless you have a zone change which is why that was done as the affordable housing Zone at that point in time you sort of did everything it once uh I I don't have anything else for for Mike and so Mike we thank you oh anyone else questions anyone from the public yeah anyone from the public have questions great well thank you very much Mike I really appreciate you being able to uh brief us tonight this was really helpful well thank you all for your time thank you for accommodating me and honestly thank you for taking an interest because like I said I mean I think the best results end up coming when the boards and the and the governing bodies are talking and thinking about these things so I do appreciate your time thanks be well thank you thank you y you may you may find that going back to what we designated in last plan is that still wider I know we talked about potential plans we the church property maybe in the future it if it came it ever got sold if it ever got sold that would that was an opportunity I know we specifically that resulted into some modifications to the Department of Public Works area where we arranged that approach with that go towards Habitat for Humanity as part of the S might look at that because you you do have to jump off and I think probably what usually triggers things most in smaller municipalities like Fair Haven is the event that you had you know not where you know the gas station design suddenly here's an opportunity and you know it's when those types of things trigger unless you see someone suddenly putting lots of parcels together to do something and then you can enforce your existing ordinances to say okay that's fine we want to build you you have this property you want to build a mixed commercial residential Wonderful by the way your affordable housing obligation is going to be you know part of your approval it will enter into a developers agreement with you part of your approval process will be that of the units you have some will be set aside for affordable housing and then that will go into the administration of The Bu so we should be looking for redevelopment area potential well I I that's one way to handle it sure you know I mean that's that's in a sense what you did remember the element available you know vacant land is easy well don't have count the number of parcels that you have bacon land in period you know if it's not available and you know this is something that would suggest you I take over the discussion because many folks that know more about you know there are things that are shifting your Wetlands your storm water you know your buffers youres they are changing that may no longer be available you know in some of these when you take a look at some of these parcels and I can't stand familiar with the chur parcel is there is there a portion of it now that may so that where we thought we had a certain amount of acreage that acreage is no longer available as a matter of law you know you you can't build there so there's there's a lot of moving parts and things change as you come along with different regulations but you must be mindful when you do have a development that you know someone's got a developing this by the way how are you how are you complying with your affordable house well we're not well stop we need to plan about so I just want to ask a question I don't want to like go into a rabbit hole but just everyone keeps referring to like the third third Act and the the so is that something you can explain relatively easily and quickly or is that like a very detail I think the best way to to explain it easily is your unmet need is always in the air if there's an opportunity that presents itself say that that number is 325 right now since there is no realistic way to meet that need we've at least place a plan in front of a court that said If These Things become available it's viable that we can meet that need but that need is always going to be there and it's really it's really not going to be a hammer on you until an opportunity of Avail of an available and realistic ability to fulfill that undb need the difficulty is while that number is up there this next round but does it call out specific Parcels it does so like am I assuming River Road like like uh it's a map yeah um the whole business district is considered part of it there's there's a piece of DPW was overlay part of it there's a piece of fair fields Church property is a part of it and again the lady from the church came in here and was like does that mean you're eminent domain of me we said no no we're saying the church ever decides to sell the place and somebody decides to buy it and wants to do affordable housing that's the area of town they can do it well like in currently on River Road in the B1 B2 you're limited to one residential spot if you're doing exuse is that is that change that doesn't there U of the affordable housing Rel and I think if I remember correctly I think it's 20 units per acre in the B1 and I think certain partials in B2 were 15 units per acre as the affordable overlay do you have to have an acre or is just a portion of that the they are it's codified at lots that are 20,000 ft L if I remember correctly so I don't disagree with anything he said right and but but however remember right if if a developer comes in and says I want relief and I don't meet the 20,000 square feet and I want to you know I want to utilize this site for mixed use development and I want to contribute my 20% to your affordable obligation right that opportunity exists right he wants to he would argue that he doesn't want that he should get approval because this is an opportunity that's notet land in the overlay Zone corre that that if he's was to buy the property can use that to yeah so it's like if B1 said you can only put one residential unit there but this overlay says you could put five yeah I could come as a developer and say I'm going to put five because I'm going to contribute to the and only those overlay not you know not on bat was it interesting because in the reexamination from last time like that's a a section that gets a lot of call out is is that limitation in the in the business district yeah which was taken care of at the last round and that's what we're saying like as you look at this obligation there aren't many available partials and by the way I think there are only one or two partials in the business district that maybe there are three that are North the 2,000 square feet the vast majority of them are sub that right so uh do we know why the I'm sorry do we know why the Soko plan hasn't progressed you seem to be in tune this we talking about that like we don't well I don't I don't either I hope to find out right like there's there's like we have we have our solution for round three seems like the approvals were all there we're all part of it and they haven't had the whole was a county approval which I thought had come through using that as like the storage site for all the the seage the water take when the last compliance view is done rich rich rich in coordination probably look news as to where they were with compliance of conditions that's usually what you we in we we hadir res what the outstanding was one was radius may have it when it came in we probably just do a quick search on him and [Music] the curve the radius but it was a County Road not our we don't State Road we don't own the road perfect yeah and they did they did though they I thought they did they were GRE so why they haven't P thegg so that's what I'm like if these guys are so hot to you know develop property like this it's I don't understand why they space yeah building with nobody exactly yeah they want because it's a lot of retail space it has to be filled sure yeah uh so I wanted to we we we I guess we we left some uh some time on the uh well actually not even on the administrative items so that's good but uh a the side I I mean what we wanted to do also tonight was to have a look at the uh the the reexamination plan and sort of create a scorecard as to what was done what wasn't done what areas we wanted to address and then try and form uh or at least start to form the the the different um you you know staff in each area and who is going to be in charge of it I I don't know I'll be I'll be I'm not ready to have that talk tonight um kind of ran out of time on on all those documents um it happy to start talking about it people have done done work or have questions or have have uh elements they want to share from from any of the research that they were able to do but otherwise I think maybe we just pick that conversation up next meeting I mean I don't know what other work folks have done um I I did kind of put some notes down ahead I did read through it um just Advance the conversation I think you know 2016 reexamination certainly addressed things like bike safety and the affordable housing I thought this round three obviously that's going to you know be reintroduced um it's funny enough I was I had written down what are Redevelopment areas according to state law as we have a Redevelopment area section I feel like that was answered tonight by Mike and that's that's actually really I think it's good for us to kind of think about the example or the scenario where we are going to have to come up with another um another plan if we have a few if we have an unmet need that we TR call through um so so I guess we think about that in the next month or so um there was a lot talk in town about the trees um obviously there's there's a before the the incident at Community Center Fields this past weekend which is super scary um there there was the the tree preservation ordinance had been re brought up at Council and I don't know where they got with that but um that was something that I was involved in a few years ago on shade tree commission where we had the burough attorney draft a new tree preservation ordinance that was you know it was it was super detailed compared to what we have now and it kind of got set aside uh and never really made it to the council chambers um there was some question of enforceability I think uh but anyway so I do think that like as we're kind of going through this it would be topical if we had that may be part of the survey like what you know what do the town people want the tree preservation ordinance to to to encapsulate does is it more about you know is it tree preservation is it h prevention is it the balance of the two um you know can bur help when you know tree removal is expensive for a private citizen and is there something I these are just things are kind of going through my head on on the trees um I wanted to open up for discussion I don't know if anybody's familiar with about this but liquor licenses in town obviously it's based on based on population but I have my understanding is that a lot of that changed at the beginning of this year and I don't know what changed and I bet you there's somebody in this room that does know more about it than I do you're smirking I feel like you got some insight but what what are the changes to the I don't know that it has been passed so I'm not that up on it but they were they were talking about opening it up um significantly more broadly similar to what happened to like the taxi cat medallions um back in middle 2000s um I don't but there's major money to work out major major money I mean these are people's retirements oh yeah license same same thing with the grading at a million and a half bucks and they're down 100 grand 50 Grand alcohol think the same thing yeah same thing I don't think they've changed yet um from what I understand it has been looked into to see if the two liquor licenses that exist in this town are compliant and evidently they're doing just enough to satisfy license law um if that or you know if they do open up it will have it could have a interesting impact on the ability to have a viable real restaurant restaurant yeah so that that is why I I mention I think how is that a master plan I think it's more I'm actually thinking more about the survey of the town like what people might prioritize from for master plan and a lot of these master plan conversations seem to be wish list things they don't necessarily have to be accomplished they can be like kind of the the the topical ideas that the the citizens are are are ruminating on and I think that that if that liquor license if the rule rule do change I bet you people in town would love to see more res oh yeah and so I think you right like so I don't know I'm just wanted to mention these whatever prep I did for this meeting yeah I just have a quick question I missed the last meeting so are we green lighting for sure another survey or we're still like kind of questioning and if so when will that survey be offered to um to resident looking through the minutes I could see some mention of it but I think I was the first yeah first first step is what we wanted to do or try and do tonight was was was and what Mike Sullivan recommended we do was look through the the reexamination in the context of the the master plan so that reexamination is reflective of what the town thought at the time it wanted to do needed to do and then go through each of the elements and decide what had been addressed what had not been addressed and then use that as a sort of starting point for what elements were going to you know what needed to be reexamined in this uh in this next window and then that would get you know that would then sort of inform the type of questions that would be would be iner yeah with this but it sort of encapsulates by way of the example what you're going to see in your next round of reexamination report at least with regard to affordable housing which I think you're going to see a mention of all those ordinance that we referenced before that came down in 2021 right to create those zones and those kinds of things with a caveat that and planning you for you know round four which was which hopefully we get re will have been addressed earlier this year in 2025 and address then those ordinances we did once we had what our new number was and how we potentially are going to meet that need in the future so that'll be that section with regard to the housing element they use affordable housing we pretty much have an outline for how that's going to be written in that the examination report and if we have adopted certain things those are result the new number referencing that and how the master plan was formly revised so so check that check that thing off under list and again going back through the other things that you had I think we also see if there were references to the DPW yeah I mean there that there's all sorts stuff I mean three of the residents would use the par more if they have more access to N River since then they bought the property down right so like you're saying that that's reviewing the last Master reexamination what do people want what to be accomplished what still needs to be accomplished and of what still needs to be accomplished does it really still need to be accomplish everybody feel the same way about or they not feel the same way it goes back to that discussion we had earlier on when I said there there been some Law changes these are the Law changes that LE reference yeah and that we already took care of that the you know the habitable square footage marijana yeah the buildings are def well we can say this is being addressed and this being addressed and addressed move to the next thing I mean some of these things I don't know if they were but I guess that would be the point of us all readers like circular driveway regulations for C driveways I don't think an ordinance or anything is written into about C driveways right no but do we need it I don't know but I'm just saying that's kind of the review this that happen and a bunch of it was was cured I think we have to figure out away so I I thought it was interesting and I I don't know how you do it but with these surveys right there were 500 some odd people that responded in the town of six however many thousand right 7,000 which I think that was 900 for the community survey got it not the master plan right the yeah and and and and if you look at the breakout like I think that right A lot has happened since 2020 and there have been a tremendous amount of changes with our residents you know and thereby I'm sure something planning like if you look at the breakout of that survey it was something and I don't remember offand I need to look at it again but it it was something to the effect of 60 or 70 of the responding lived in R Haven more than 16 years you know then it was like 5% were there between 15 and and 12 years or whatever broken up a lot after that yeah and then it was really small after that so I think that you know the new people who have come to town didn't have much of a voice in there and and perhaps it's it's access right like I know I lived here then I had no idea surveys were happening right so it it it and and I certainly would have here's do you want the number it was so 45% lived in Fair Haven for 16 years or more right 20% were residents for five years or less yeah which seems not Balan to me it's not as bad as I remembered it right but another 20% were 6 to 10 years yeah yeah so 40% 10 and under and 45% 15 yeah I think we need more responds I think we probably have even more go out loud I guess that's right yeah so because I think that's going to be important right to really understand what the what the community Wants What the residents want so seems the only time you know what they don't want there's a variance for a use or something like that you get people out or lot of people coming into the room very loud they don't right we Bas it on a lot of it on like what was accumulated through 2016 I mean the short answer is if you get to page 16 in the document like all those are done the community facility section like check Che majority of it yeah and then but when you get to open SP Recreation and you get to land use I mean it's it hasn't really I mean with aside from you know some of the I think it's aside from what's been required to by stat it hasn't been touched yeah and I I argue as someone who's relatively knowledgeable of it it's pretty hard to kind of put together all the land use bits with affordable housing being like planted right in the middle of it um so if we had any chance of drawing people in who are business or development oriented I don't know how they would I don't know how we would Market it to them because so it's hard they know it's hard they they know it's hard they know it's there also right people to do that or very on the towns but but I do think there are towns that are that signal their desire for somebody to come in and assist with their affordable obligations and um and give some insight into you know how you think that can be accomplished but I will be willing to bet that almost all the developers have been BW all of our sites and theyve determined that they don't pencil out whether it's density land cost couple construction cost and interest rates and all of it but I think that is likely the challenge because you know the question is so cool and that and I think that that knowledge true knowledge of coming in you know from what people are looking for let's like the historic district as an example then like we should be a lot more smarter about how we ask questions and how we decide what is the right land use for that if it is never going to be something that all those sites get built you know bought up and Consolidated and we do you know Town parking and then what are we offering the homeowners or the business owners of those spaces now all along river so I I mean I think that to me that's the the big lar in bit is as you look through this you know it's no we don't have ch that's that's just a loose group of business owners that's that's more social and a little bit organized but to me that's just like that's like my take away from looking at is it's it's the land use and it's the Open Spaces we've invested a lot in our our Municipal built spaces and we've we really haven't touched on how we preserving our our open space so so Dave you asked about the survey but I think I mean if people have not looked the results when survey from 2019 it is it is a pretty interesting exercise I think to actually maybe go through and see what questions are still relevant because there's a lot of stuff that we can reuse and then we'll figure out which ones we want to add but I think a lot of like to your point about maybe shifting demographics here I agree with that I from 19 to now you're going to get a lot of going to be a lot there's going to I mean there's new people moving to my block with little kids I got kids going to high school and college like the ages are changing every around so these assume these answers would be changing yeah and those the I don't know if anyone read through like all of the responses the comments 179 I I didn't make it I made it through a of album before I I mean some of them are just your entertainment value were great I you know some of them were some of them are of them are are are good pretty lines that's right that was up early yes yeah there were there were some that were important pretty good yeah yeah yeah but there were some of value in there though I couldn't make it through all of them I got between re and the master plan of what we thought was a need you can kind of go through check off what we did what might still be a need based on this do a new survey and kind of mash them together say here's the 10 things we think I think I think if I was m ful of question nine prior to the Dunkin Donuts application are you in favor of allowing Drive bus where 63 62. 23% which represented 346 people said no I could have guessed that the hearings were going to go that yes I think you also I think that that would still be a good question to ask you know most buildings of the business question 10 most buildings in the district contain single use that You' be comfortable with mixed use builds I think largely among develop for those and again 62.7% representing 346 348 saying yes so I think you on track of those kinds of things it might you know I think I I'm pretty sure there was a question in there what businesses do you want to see attracted here you know question that's I think that's always a question that you want because things change the one's coming you know 20 years ago yeah somebody said Blockbuster well not so much now you know you're going to see and I think that will decision I agree that you go through your L survey highlight each of you highlight what you think are still viable questions good questions to go through so's point but like I think as looking at looking at Fred's um timeline here which I think actually was a lot of work so good job doing but I do think the next the next meeting is begin construction of draft survey why don't we all as a takeaway take a look at the old survey and just check the one that we we should keep into the next Ser you know the things that are going to have you know answers that form what you think we need to look at the class master plan reexamination check I I don't know if we need to be asking questions that we've already solved here just bu yeah that's like like one page you can fully cross out like next page like you might find one that you think is still at the same time yeah yeah I think the master is important and it's pretty quick to the master problem pretty quick together and this this is entertaining actually some I kept having to step away from it you know I in and out of it but I was there were some where I was like that was a more thoughtful response than I thought you would get otherwise just like it's ugly not really was the worst Pizza I think for GL something his worst Pizza like whatever like thanks um so clar K hits uh if you haven't had a chance to look at the Princeton the Princeton master plan also done by CCH really comprehensive I didn't get more than 10 pages into it but it like started off great I thought it was really set did we get that sent is that the only is that the only master super Park was in there Park was the survey the surveys were in there as well or no no the Sur I may have S previous I coup don't plan was in there asb's master was in there our 16 reexamination was in there and then okay there was the shade pre commission stuff [Music] thank you Sheila for putting all yeah thank you Sheila all right well anybody else have anything else open public oh yes open any any public comment one more time yeah SE before we close no thank you oh come on something great I'll move to close thank faor all favor than every