we have a um an ordinance for the city of summit uh which creates a Morris broad Crossroads overlay Zone district and um although that was number six on the agenda I I think we're going to move it up now and just give uh a chance to go through that now tonight we'll hear from uh two professionals to lead us off on this matter I've asked Mr Warner to give the board a summary of the legal parameters of what a consistency review is which is what we're being asked to do tonight and uh which which is guidance as to what our legal responsibilities are and what we we are and are not going to consider tonight after that we'll hear from Mr Burgess who will explain exactly what the overlay does and uh how it how it impacts the master plan and how it is impacted by the master plan so I ask Mr Warner to to start certainly Mr chairman thank you this is a section 26a of the municipal land use law referral of the uh ordinance uh to our planning board as we've done before uh in the process the uh governing body the common Council introduces uh development regulations uh dr's uh and uh those are referred to under the mlul the planning board for master plan consistency review after which there could be a second reading by the common Council and a public hearing at that time uh so section 26a sets forth our statutory responsibility uh uh for a referral uh prior to the adoption of a development regulation the planning board shall make and transmit to the governing body within 35 days after referral a report including identification of any provisions in the proposed development regulations which are inconsistent with the master plan uh sometimes uh the question arises is this a public hearing the answer simply is no it is not a public hearing the public and nor is the planning board considering the merits of the ordinance uh whether you're in favor or against that has nothing to do with the planning board's narrow statutory Authority on a master plan consistency review uh in fact the Cox conic tretis refers to it and says clearly the statute does not require a hearing uh nor uh does it require the matter to be open to public comment uh uh and uh the no one is deprived of an opportunity to speak to concerns raised by the ordinance because when the matter is returned to the governing body the common council with the board's recommendations on master plan consistency review uh that is when there's a public hearing uh and uh that is when all members of the public have an opportunity to weigh in on the actual ordinance itself uh so again the narrow frame of reference and Authority for the plan planning board is simply whether the ordinance is and we do the double negative for a reason not inconsistent with the master plan uh the reason it's not inconsistent as the standard is because and I'll read uh uh from the statute 62a it requires every zoning ordinance to be either substantially consistent with the land use plan element and the housing plan element of the master plan or designed to effectuate such plan element and the Supreme Court in the seminal manalpan realy case weighed in on what substantial consistency with the master plan is and the court said that clearly some inconsistency is permitted provided that the ordinance does not substantially or materially undermine or distort the basic provisions and objectives of the master plan so uh all saying about close is close close enough close is more than close enough uh substantial consistency is simply not substantially or materially undermining or distorting the basic provisions and objectives of the master plan so that is your standard of review that is your charge as a planning board um we provide a one-page I am capable of drafting a one-page resolution here's proof uh we provide a one-page resolution that simply uh says uh base based upon the report of Mr Burgess who we hear from momentarily our planner uh the board hereby finds and determines the ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan and that's the report back to the governing body if that is what you find um if you find otherwise we can remove the word not easily enough uh from from that phrase so it's up to you to make that determination after hearing from Mr Burgess um the reason we provide the onepage resolution is so that you can move right to adopting the resolution which is your report back to the governing body uh so you don't have to do it in two steps thank you Mr Warner okay I hope that clarifies it at least a little more than it might have been before and just to reiterate so uh our deliberations today are a discussion among uh the panel uh it is not a public meeting for that purpose though there will not be public comment invited today but there is a public meeting on June 11th when the public will have an opportunity to at Council that that's absolutely correct Mr chairman my understand is the ordinance was introduced May 21 it's scheduled for a second reading and public hearing before the common Council on June 11 well more than 10 days which is a statutory uh requirement and again we are within that uh uh interim period uh to do our job which is to weigh in on the master plan consistency review councilwoman H yes well and if I may u correct me I'm wrong uh Mr Warner but there will be a point at which the public can come back to the planning or Zone zoning boards upon whether or not the council approves of the overlay Zone that is the that is the part that is the public facing process in which they can talk about all of the things that they want to talk about development parking noise all of those things correct sir certainly in the process not only will members of the public have an opportunity uh during the public hearing which is currently scheduled for June 11 before the common Council to weigh in on the ordinance itself uh the merits of it not tonight but then uh but also if that ordinance is indeed adopted uh then ultimately nothing would happen development wise until there was an application for presumably site plan and maybe some variance relief uh uh presumably before this board as opposed to the zoning board so there would be that another opportunity after June 11 uh to weigh in on an actual development application assuming the ma uh the matters proceed to that thank you thank you for that clarification so this is just an administrative function only and there there will be an opportunity from planning or zoning again but it will only be after public bid would be for this property cor correct this is yes this is just the master plan consistency review all right thank you than you that Mr Burgess okay thank you I was glad to hear the councilwoman use the word administrative function um it is such an administrative function in contrast to a public hearing function that I don't even get weren't in because I'm not technically testifying correct um the statute's interesting you have 35 days from the time the council refers the ordinance to you to take an action and you you could decide that it's consistent or inconsistent or partially consistent um and you make that recommendation or comment back to the governing body then the governing body can do as the they wish anyway um they could accept your recommendation in hall or in part or reject it in H or in part um so it's a pretty fluid process that the the state legislature had had established but with respect to this ordinance um I think everybody's aware that it consists of four lots and the four Lots Encompass a total of 1.6 acres in size and the property fronts on both Street and Cedar Lane as well as mors Avenue and three of the four Parcels are already owned by the city Lot number one is the Chestnut public parking lot that's at 406 Broad Street a lot number uh three is the firehouse property and as I think everybody knows the firehouse is going to be relocating to a new site sometime the summer and that's at 384 to 392 Broad and lot number four is developed with an office building at Seven Cedar Street Lot number two is the one lot that's privately owned that's a 20 foot wide sliver there's a driveway on the pro on that property at present in terms of the ordinance itself it's designed to its purpose is designed to accomplish a few very specific things it specifically talks about encouraging inclusionary multif Family Housing Development it talks about encouraging a certain amount of public parking it also speaks to the issue of encouraging some uh usable open space and in addition it talks about providing some accessibility to St Teresa Memorial Hall all of that has to be done within the context of a comprehensive integrated design and that is why one of the ordinance Provisions uh requires a minimum of at least one and a half acres uh to ensure that the property will be developed as an integrated Hall rather than in peace meal development um the permitted uses are four specific categories of uses they include multif family residential development it includes mixed use development um with atg grade uh retail uh establishments uh it also includes office uses exclusive of medical and dental offices and it also includes townhouse development including stock townhouse design uh it has the conventional accessory use category just basically saying anything that's customarily incidental to a permitted use would be allowed it does expressly permit prohibit a certain number of specific uh accessory uses including drive-through facilities including detached garages and sheds and also Standalone parking structures there's a whole host of area in bulk requirements associated with this zone I'm not going to list them all but some of them were significant ones are that minimum tract area of one and a half acres there's an F standard of 115% and that is specifically designed to encourage the use of the overlay zoning rather than the underlying business Zone it permits a maximum density of 30 units to the acre it does however if you do something less than that it still does in fact require a minimum of seven affordable units to be constructed on the site there's an interesting limitation that restricts the maximum length of a building to 180 ft on the property and I think that was truly a function of a lot of the comments in a a recent hearing uh on a portion of this property uh building Heights are limited to three stories and 36 ft there is a provision whereby it can be increased to a four story 46t tall building provided that that Upper Floor is set back farther into uh the building design and there's a whole host of um building design criteria a lot of which is already spelled out in the ordinance and every Anyone Who develops the site will have to adhere to those to those standards if the council were to adopt this ordinance now there would then be a request for proposals From perspective development ERS and um that process would have to play out in front of the governing body um and as Steve had mentioned once that takes place it would be at that point where it would eventually come back to this planning board for site plan review now one of the other things that this ordinance does it does mandate that prior to the formal submission of this to this body there's a series of technical review meetings to ir and out some of the tech technical details of an application and ensure compliance to C to the maximum extent possible now as Steve had indicated you know the bottom line issue really is all about is this consistent or not and everybody calls this a consistency review in point of fact it's actually an inconsistency review and um as you know from our memo um we have concluded that it the resoning is not inconsistent with the master plan we looked at both the 2000 master plan and the 2015 downtown plan and the 2016 master plan revision reexamination report as well as the most recent uh housing element in fair share plan and all of those documents are pretty consistent with each other in terms of its goals and objectives they talk about uh implementing parking strategies at priority prioritize parking for visitors and residents and workers in the area it talks about promoting mixed use development it talks about encouraging inclusionary red development and it talks about encouraging a compatible intensity of use that is not inconsistent with the established development pattern in the municipality so recognizing that in each and every one of those instances this ordinance is consistent with those Provisions um it's safe for us to have con uded that this ordinance is in fact consistent with the master plan and therefore you can determine that it's not inconsistent with the master plan and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions from the board yes well Joe I'm not uh not going to call you you did a great job so thank you I will um make one correction for public record if I may um I think correct me if I'm wrong I think you might have made an error in saying that um the maximum is 30 units but in fact that's the minimum I think it was just um I think it was just I just want to clarify for the record we're on the same page the minimum is 30 units the maximum would be 48 per tract right I I'm sorry what I heard was at 30 per acre 30 per acre okay make sure which still gets you to 48 because it's 1.6 okay got it I just want to make sure we're on the same page so John sorry I just want to make sure I'm like okay I'm listening um so in the instance of if a developer picked 30 units on one tract or they let's just say 30 units the minimum affordable housing in that tract would be seven correct correct which is what is that 23% something less I just want to make sure okay I thought I heard you say the maximum was 30 and that's that's the only thing I just want to correct and make sure we're on the same P it's 30 to the acre and 1.6 got it okay perfect thank you that's that was the only one from a practical perspective Joe I mean how can the planning board be helpful I assume to the conversation that the public should be having and that the mayor and common Council should be having it's easy to got to check the box on inconsistency or consistency but I assume we're kind of spurring a conversation that should arise in the next the next hearing yes it's the governing body's responsibility to have that public hearing and that's where the public comment will take place and both U myself as well as Tom from my office will be at that hearing to assist in that is it best to focus on the goals for example from the 2016 reexamination and make sure that in Broad Strokes if this conforms with the intent of that particular document or the others that are mentioned here yes okay if I may add Mr chairman with your I like to refer to the planning board as the gate keepers of the master plan that is uh uh we alone uh separate apart from the governing body um uh adopt the master plan as and uh uh and are in essence The Gatekeepers so that is why the governing body comes to us for the review of consistency or inconsistency uh I thought only lawyers use double negatives now I know planners use double negatives as well which is gives gives us company um so uh that that is the the narrow scope uh and that's the way we can in my opinion and the ml's opinion uh best facilitate the process uh for the next step the governing body can we pick up on one thing you had mentioned is that the review is meant to assess the consistency or substantial inconsistency however you want to look at it between the master plan but also the housing plan elements you called that out specifically Bally in one of your your comments there yeah the the the uh well every uh every municipality's master plan will have there's uh mandatory uh uh uh plans and a housing plan and a land use element those are mandatory elements so those are somewhat of a focus if you will for consistency purposes but really it is the and please correct me if I'm wrong with spurges or planner uh it is the master plan in whole all elements are relevant to the inqu recognize um a master plan can can consist of many different elements the statute identifies about 15 different elements uh the only obligatory ones are the uh land use plan and the housing element and fair share plan and the statement of objectives and the statement of that's always part of the master plan or land use plan um I might have neglected to mention the housing element in fair share plan but that was designed to implement the settlement agreement that the municipality has with fair share housing center and in that settlement agreement it specifically does talk about encouraging um inclusionary R development and that's why it really all ties together nicely I You' mentioned in your memo here site is not currently listed as a plan mechanism in the city's 2018 housing element and fair share plan so if we want to put a special emphasis Shine the Light on the housing element for just a moment if anything this codifies makes consistent perhaps even argu a deas point improves the likelihood of development and by codifying that um affordable housing will encourage the affordable development affordable housing correct as and what's interesting is that in the settlement agreement and then in the implementing ordinances for the M housing element and fair share plan there is a requirement for a mandatory set aside ordinance for any multif family development so that really ties to Bow around at all okay I'll be quiet for a minute through you Mr chairman Steve I think it's such an important point and I spend more time in this document the housing element and fair share plan from 2018 and if you really read it you've been doing so much work on this for so many years Joe and and it literally lays out all of the overlay zones what they are what they were designed to do um so this is not something that the common Council just came up with and I I live and breathe it but I want to make the Other M members of the planning board I know Matt delori lives in Breza too but you know you want everybody to feel comfortable and and know that you should feel comfortable reading this document and and that we've been doing this for years these overlay zones the eight or seven seven eight I think we have eight eight um they have very specific there were very specific reasons in our settlement agreement that we created those overlay zones they were required for a reason they were mandatory C acides for a reason and you should feel very comfortable in my opinion in reading that document and knowing that that this is consistent in that same path it does thank you have any other comments or questions from the board well thank you very much Mr bures okay my pleasure um at this time um I think well we have a one-page resol resolution from Mr Warner uh which which um allows us to refer uh this matter back to the council and uh with the decision that it is not inconsistent with the master plan if that is your vote and so um at this time I i' take um a motion to approve the resolution sorry Mr Zucker is there meant to be more substantial deliberation or have we kind of kicked the tires on it and we just proceed you know what I'm happy to deliver it more I just thought we got our question I just want to be useful to council and kind of the process but is there anything else Mr Burgess that Tom's going to be up there at the podium at the next meeting wishing we had said or discussed no actually I think we covered it all okay pretty comprehensive Mr burges just one one question uh the the document doesn't specifically for instance reference the design guidelines that we've worked hard to include but they are by implication included I take it in every and any proposed plan for that site uh that is correct and in the ordinance it actually does identify the fact that you have to comply with those design principles thank you very much the I have one more comment I just want to be clear on um can you opine on the Open Space Mr Burgess as far as like what that will bring to the community it's not necessarily it's it's obviously you can what what the ordinance this is one of the the many things I I did Skip because I thought um yeah that other application uh the ordinance does specifically say that at a minimum there has to be 9,000 square feet of um contiguous open space with a 100 foot linear Dimension along Broad Street and it's designed to ensure that we get a substantial amount of common open space that will really add a visual feature in focal point to however the development takes place on the site so it's mandatory and um I think there's really no getting around the requirement the way it's spelled out in the ordinance I think through you Mr chair this is something that is not prescriptive right we're not designing what's going to go on this site and I think it's important for the public to understand that um this is something that uh is going to be a public process a public bidding process and and that's the most important thing that we're not stating what's going to be on that site it's a flexible space and and we've been talking about getting these properties up for sale for a long time while also achieving our affordable housing goals so that's why I'm happy to support this ordinance maybe just to double tap on what de was saying too is when I looked at the 2016 reexamination the first goal which is guiding development to maintain and enhance the character Summit the overlay Zone as proposed is not overly constrictive is not out of conformance with um our drro with even our experience frankly and other planning or zoning applications that we've seen in recent years and certainly reflect of a public comment that we've heard in Prior in recent years um focused intensely on that site um so if anything this will through the able guidance of Mayor and common Council and the city Administration hopefully open a process where we'll see a diversity of viewpoints and interest and cre creative ideas that'll land this really the best possible end results for that I too could support uh the resolution as Steve has drafted I won't even try to Tiptoe Through The Double Mages any other comments or thoughts from the board no I'll just I'll just add on that I think this is a good um transition zone that allows for Flex ability I I did watch a little bit of the council meeting saw the presentation which went into more detail in terms of density minimum maximum the flexibility to allow for um business while also promoting uh mixed residential use um so with that and some of the concerns I've heard over the past and looking at the master plan um certainly will be in support of this as I do not think it's uh not whatever the double negative uh the right the right way so I'll be supporting I would just like to add that um you know this this board has been looking at this project and this piece of land for years we have found um similar development large actually larger development uh somewhat consistent or not inconsistent and this this program actually uh really I think gives the public a chance to um to get the best value out of this property and and to move this this this uh project forward um I don't see how it in my view it is certainly not inconsistent considering that uh we have we have already uh been looking at this for years and uh this is really what we're looking for so okay I make a motion to you could just adopt the resolution adopt the resolution providing uh that provid that the ordinance is not inconsistent with the city's master plan you got it how about that make that Mo thank you Mr do I have a second second Mr Filman thank you okay chairman zooker yes Mr spur yes Mr felmet yes council member Hamlet yes Mr delori yes Miss mcke yes Miss Bowen yes the motion carries