All meeting minutes posted on the township website are unofficial minutes. Official copies of minutes may be obtained from the township clerk.

Minutes: September 22, 2022

A. OPENING OF REGULAR MEETING

1. Call to Order

A regular meeting of the Randolph Township Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Potter. This meeting is held pursuant to the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act. Adequate notice of the meeting has been provided by posting written notice of the time, date, location and, to the extent known, the agenda of the meeting in Randolph Township. This notice was posted on the Bulletin Board within Town Hall, it was filed with the Township Clerk, and it was provided to those persons or entities requesting notification. Notice was also provided to the Randolph Reporter and the Morris County Daily Record on November 19, 2021, by emailing them the annual resolution adopted by the Council on November 18, 2021. The annual resolution, which included this meeting date, was advertised in the Randolph Reporter, the official newspaper of the Township of Randolph and the Daily Record on November 24, 2021.

2. Roll Call

PRESENT:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

Also present: Township Manager Greg Poff, Township Attorney Edward J. Buzak, Attorney Keli Gallo (via phone), Township Planning and Zoning Administrator Darren Carney, and Township Planning Consultant Kathrine Sarmad.

3. Pledge of Allegiance

Mayor Potter led the Pledge of Allegiance.

B. OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Seeing and hearing none, the public session was closed.

C. PROCLAMATIONS

1. Proclamation Honoring Richard T. Irwin

Councilmember Veech made a motion to approve the proclamation. Councilmember Forstenhausler seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None

D. MANAGER'S REPORT

Manager Poff reported the following:

The 2023 budget is underway. Capital Project requests are due in from the departments on September 23. The operating budget requests are due in mid-October. The department hearings will be conducted in November. The draft budget should be prepared and ready for initial discussion by mid-December.

E. COMBINED ACTION RESOLUTIONS

Item #3, R-203-22 Authorizing Award and Rejection of bids from various bidders for MCCPC Contract #15-C (Utility Vehicles, 2023 Models) and Item #6, R-206-22 Authorizing Rejection of all bids for MCCPC Contract #15-F (Cab/Chassis with Dump Bodies, 2023 Models) - Manager Poff explained that the township was recently notified that the Ford Motor Company would be cutting off ordering for a variety of vehicles on November 10, 2022. He explained that the township's bid specifications do not allow for cutoff dates prior to January 1, 2023, therefore the resolutions that were published previously needed to be amended as the contracts that were to originally be awarded for those vehicles would no longer be awarded now.

Councilmember Loveys asked when the modifications were made. Manager Poff explained that the resolutions were published on Friday and notification form the Ford Motor Company was received this week that a number of vehicles do not comply with the specifications of the township's public bid so the award for those vehicles were removed from the two resolutions.

Item #17, R-217-22 Appropriating Funds or Bond in the Event of an Actual Net Funding Shortfall - Manager Poff explained that this item was requested by the Township Attorney. In summary the resolution provides that if there is not enough money to fund the mechanisms identified in the township's recently adopted spending plan from the township Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The township will appropriate funds from another source or authorize the issuance of debt to fund any actual net shortfall necessary to fund these specific mechanisms. He explained that the Township Attorney's Office has added language that protects the township's interest. He added that they have had success in having special masters accept the form of resolution that the council is being asked to consider.

1. R-201-22 Renewal of Membership in the Morris County Municipal Joint Insurance Fund (JIF) from January 1, 2023 - January 1, 2026

2. R-202-22 Authorizing Award of Bid to Nielsen of Morristown, Inc. and Rejection of Bid from Whitmoyer Ford of MCCPC Contract #15-A (Police Pursuit Vehicles, 2023 Models) Items #1, #2 and #3

3. R-203-22 Authorizing Award and Rejection of bids from various bidders for MCCPC Contract #15-C (Utility Vehicles, 2023 Models)

4. R-204-22 Authorizing Award of Bid to A&K Equipment Company, Inc., and Rejection of Bid from Tony Sanchez, Ltd. of MCCPC Contract #15-D (Service/Truck Bodies)

5. R-205-22 Authorizing Award of MCCPC Contract #15-E (Hybrid Vehicles, 2023 Models) to Nielsen Ford of Morristown, Inc.

6. R-206-22 Authorizing Rejection of all bids for MCCPC Contract #15-F (Cab/Chassis with Dump Bodies, 2023 Models)

7. R-207-22 Authorizing Award of MCCPC Contract #3 (Rock Salt & Liquid Calcium Chloride) to various bidders

8. R-208-22 Authorizing Award of MCCPC Contract #31 (Calcium Chloride Bags) to Extech Building Materials, Inc. and RMAC Supplies

9. R-209-22 Resolution to Remit Small Balance Taxes - 12 Nina Place due to a posting error in the amount of $25.73

10. R-210-22 Requesting Permission for the Dedication by Rider for Freedom Park Improvement Donations

11. R-211-22 Endorsing a Treatment Works Approval (TWA) Application for a sanitary sewer system for Performance Ford Lincoln at 971-989 Route 10 and 64 Canfield Ave., Block 44, Lots 1,2 & 56

12. R-212-22 Resolution to Release Police Detail Escrow to Jessica R. Kekovski and Michael Kekovski (Pelister Construction) - $2,304.80

13. R-213-22 Award Contract for Mountainside Road Retaining Wall Project to Kulpeksa Land Imp Corp of Rockaway - $99,550

CERTIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

Dated: September 22, 2022

As required by N.J.S.A. 40A:4-57, N.J.A.C. 5:30-5.3-5.5, and any other applicable requirement, I, Deborah Bonanno, Director of Finance for the Township of Randolph, have ascertained that funds are available to award a contract not to exceed $99,550 to Kulpeksa Land Improvement Corporation for the Mountainside Road Retaining Wall Project as detailed in the contractor's bid provided to the Township.

Deborah Bonanno
Chief Financial Officer
Budget Accounts: 04-215-55-990-326 ($71,061.26)
04-215-55-998-331 ($9,351.93)
04-215-56-002-325 ($19,136.81)

14. R-214-22 Authorizing Various Parks and Recreation Program Refunds totaling $2,225.00

15. R-215-22 Authorizing Execution of a Contract for Online Auction Services with USGovBid/Auction Liquidation Services

16. R-216-22 Authorizing the Release of Contract performance Bond and the Acceptance of Maintenance Bond and Release of Final Payment for Calais Road Park - Veterans Park to Rochelle Contracting Company

17. R-217-22 Appropriating Funds or Bond in the Event of an Actual Net Funding Shortfall

18. Raffle License, On-Premise 50/50, RHS Cheerleading Booster Club, Inc. at Randolph High School, 511 Millbrook Avenue, Randolph, on November 20, 2022, from 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

19. Raffle License, On-Premise Merchandise, RHS Cheerleading Booster Club, Inc., Randolph High School, 511 Millbrook Avenue, Randolph, on November 20, 2022 from 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

20. 20. Raffle License, Off-Premise Merchandise, Mendham Football Booster Club, The Meadow Wood, 461 NJ-10, Randolph, NJ, on November 16, 2022, from 7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.

Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia made a motion to approve the Combined Action Resolutions. Councilmember Veech seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler - Abstained to Item #13 (R-213-22)
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None

F. UPCOMING EVENTS

1. Clean Communities Day, Saturday, September 24, 2022 - participants will meet at their assigned site
2. Country Fair at Veterans Community Park, Saturday, September 24, 2022, from 10:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Rain date, Sunday, September 25, 2022
3. Confidential Paper Shredding, Saturday, September 24, 2022, from 9:00 a.m. - 12 noon in the Municipal Building parking lot at 502 Millbrook Avenue, Randolph, NJ 07869
4. Randolph Community Tashlich; Celebrating Rosh HaShana at Brundage Park on Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 4:30 p.m.
5. Mission Gratitude 2022: Recognizing First Responder Heroes - hosted by Pediatric Dental Associates of Randolph, 390 Rte. 10, Randolph on Sunday, October 2, 2022, from 10:00 a.m. - 12 noon - ceremony at 11:00 a.m.

G. ORDINANCES: SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING

Mayor Potter explained that the township has fielded questions to be answered by the township's professionals. Mayor Potter went on to direct the following questions to the township's professionals:

How will the proposed development in the Mt. Freedom area affect the township's vision of a Village Center?

Ms. Sarmad explained that the township has had long standing planning studies to create a vision for the Mt. Freedom area. She stated that the proposed element in the Mt. Freedom area meets the goals found in the 2017 planning study update. The goals include mixed-use development, linkages via a well-designed pedestrian system, parking requirements. The goals included:

• Development regulations to promote a diversity and mix of uses offering variety and flexibility to respond to market demand.
• Proposed zone changes still allowing for the development of village scale shops, stores, and services along Sussex Turnpike with walking distance of local residents.
• The provision of linkages with the rest of the township through a well-designed pedestrian system.
• Parking required to be provided behind the buildings along the commercial core of Sussex Turnpike.
• Higher density housing for a variety of lifestyles and incomes being clustered around the commercial core.

Why can't Randolph Township just buy the land and only build the affordable units that we need?

Manager Poff explained that the costs and requirements for the township to build its own affordable housing is prohibitive. The township is subject to any number of laws and regulations that significantly increase construction costs and those costs would have to be borne by local taxpayers.

He explained that for a 100% affordable municipality sponsored housing project, the township would have to demonstrate to the court the realistic opportunity to develop the project. This process involves the identification of a site, demonstration that the site is suitable, developable, and approvable; the adoption of a resolution of commitment to fund the project by the issuance of debt; the providing of pro-forma to demonstrate that the project is viable; and the development of a construction schedule; among other things.

He referred to the Morris Habitat for Humanity project as an example. The project is currently under construction on Bennett Avenue and is a municipality sponsored project of 25 100% affordable units in which the township partnered with the Habitat for Humanity Non-Profit organization. The project was originally proposed to be completed before 2014. Environmental cleanup resulted in a substantial delay in the beginning of the project. He explained that the public bidding requirements made the site work cost prohibitive as a township project and the land was transferred to the non-profit along with some financial assistance for completion. The project had to stop construction last winter over lack of funding and is only continuing at this point because a $3 million in federal funding was secured in March 2022.

What rights/control does the township have through the Planning Board hearings when the applications are submitted?

Attorney Buzak explained that the Township Planning Board is a critical component in the development process. He stated that what the council's considerations this evening would provide realistic affordable housing opportunities under the Fair Share Housing Act. The development and construction of such housing is subject to Planning Board review under the terms of the Municipal Land Use Law.

He explained that while the rezoning ordinances being considered this evening would allow the Township Council to meet the terms of the settlement agreement, any property owner or developer seeking to build must submit development plans for the site plan approval to the Planning Board. There is a detailed and extensive checklist of materials that comprise a "complete" application for site plan approval which then starts the development review process by the Planning Board. During the process of site plan review, the Planning Board hears testimony and makes recommendations designed to ensure the layout of the site functions properly. These recommendations may include the need for an environmental impact statement and traffic analysis. The state of New Jersey has adopted Residential Site Improvement Standards establishing requirements for streets and parking, water supply, sanitary sewers and stormwater management. The application submitted is measured against those ordinance standards and made to conform to them by the Planning Board. The need for any deviation must meet certain statutory criteria in order to be granted. The application is handled the same as any non-affordable/non-inclusionary multi-family housing project.

He stated that the Planning Board would exercise its responsibility under the law at such time that development applications are submitted by a property owner or developers, which includes a detailed and extensive checklist of materials that make up a "complete" application.

Why are the density levels so much higher on the Mt. Freedom properties versus the Route 10 developments? What is the distribution of affordable housing development in the Housing Element by neighborhood?

Ms. Sarmad explained that the density levels in Mt. Freedom were not significantly different from the other proposed affordable housing developments including the sites on Route 10. The average density along the Route 10/South Salem corridor is 12 units/acre and the average density in Mt. Freedom is 14 units/acre.

The residential units in the Housing Plan are split between the Route 10/South Salem Street corridor with 954 prospective units and the Mt. Freedom area with 519 prospective units. The average density for the Route 10/South Salem Street project is 12 units/acre, this number is weighted by the density of the Toll Brothers site at four units/acre. She stated that both of the properties are impacted by severe environmental constraints. The average density for the Mt. Freedom area projects is 14 units/acre.

What are inclusionary zoning policies, and why are developers permitted to develop 80% market units and 20% affordable units.

Mr. Buzak explained that inclusionary zoning policies are intended to create dedicated affordable housing units by requiring or encouraging developers to include a specified share of below-market units as part of market-rate rental or homeowner developments. Such policies leverage the private market, generally allowing new affordable units to be created with little or no public subsidy. Inclusionary zoning policy can also be an effective way to ensure that affordable units are integrated throughout the project and throughout the community.

He explained that historically, COAH has adopted regulations establishing a set-aside rate of 20% for for-sale affordable units and at a set-aside rate of 15% for rental affordable units. As a result, the township's affordable housing ordinance states, "...to ensure that any site that benefits from a rezoning, variance or redevelopment plan approved by the township that results in multi-family residential development of five dwelling units or more produces affordable housing at a set-aside rate of 20% for for-sale affordable units and at a set-aside rate of 15% for rental affordable units."

He explained that for certain projects where there were intervenors or interested parties seeking to get their property rezoned, the Township negotiated for a set-aside rate of 20% in rental units (Canoe Brook, KAB, Avalon, Heller, etc.).

How does the township propose to deal with the stresses on service levels and infrastructure impacts, including traffic congestion, should all 440 units be built on the three parcels proposed in Mt. Freedom?

Manager Poff explained that the courts in New Jersey had decided that a municipality is not "free to chart its own course" and may only impose off-tract impact fees that have been duly authorized by statute. In the land-use arena, the Municipal Land Use Law is the paramount statutory authority, particularly with respect to contributions for off-tract improvements. These contributions are limited to only water, sewer, drainage and street improvements. Under a prior version of the statute, contributions could also be required for other improvements a municipality found necessary in the public interest. This version granted a municipality broad discretion to impose impact fees for questionable off-tract improvements. However, the court explained that because this former "omnibus grant of authority" was omitted from the revised statute, municipalities are now constrained to impose impact fees only for the list of enumerated improvements.

He explained that the township will recognize revenues in four forms:

1. Uniform Construction Code permit fees, during construction.
2. Added & omitted taxes, as construction and occupancy of buildings occur during construction.
3. Connection fees for connections to sanitary sewer and water systems.
4. Property taxes and utility rents, in the form of new improvement assessments and new utility accounts, once construction is completed.

He stated that additional property taxes and utility rents would be shared between the township, schools, and county as is currently the case with existing taxpayers. Specifically, the township will adjust its appropriated expenses to address the new demands for municipal services created by these developments. The township has steadfastly refused to grant PILOTs to developers. The payment in Lieu of Taxes process allows for agreements with individual developers in certain circumstances whereby they make defined payments to the township in amounts less than they would otherwise remit in property taxes. Under that program, the township realizes greater revenue because the payment is not shared with the Board of Education.

1. Ordinance No. 21-22 to Repeal Sections 15-20.5, 15-20.06 and 15-20.7, and Section 15-90.10 in Article III (Zoning) of the Chapter XV (Land Development Ordinances) of the Township of Randolph, and to Enact Section 15-54 (Affordable Housing) Under Article IV (Supplementary Zoning Regulations) in Chapter XV (Land Development Ordinances) of the Ordinances of the Township of Randolph

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, An Ordinance to Repeal Sections 15-20.5, 15-20.6, and 15-20.7, and Section 15-90.10 in Article III (Zoning) of Chapter XV (Land Development Ordinances) of the Township of Randolph, and to Enact Section 15-54 (Affordable Housing) under Article IV (Supplementary Zoning Regulations) in Chapter XV (Land Development Ordinances) of the Ordinances of the Township of Randolph, be read by title on second reading and a hearing held thereon.

Manager Poff explained that the purpose of this ordinance is to update the township's Affordable Housing Regulations that are currently set forth in the township's Land Development Ordinances. The ordinances are to be updated to be consistent with the Uniform Housing Affordability Control Rule as prescribed by state regulations and the Fair Housing Act, which provides assurances that low-and-moderate income units in the township have the appropriate controls on affordability so low-and-moderate income households can occupy those units.

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Seeing and hearing none, the public portion was closed for Ordinance 21-22. Councilmember Veech made a motion to close the public hearing. Councilmember Forstenhausler seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, An Ordinance to Repeal Sections 15-20.5, 15-20.6, and 15-20.7, and Section 15-90.10 in Article III (Zoning) of Chapter XV (Land Development Ordinances) of the Township of Randolph, and to Enact Section 15-54 (Affordable Housing) under Article IV (Supplementary Zoning Regulations) in Chapter XV (Land Development Ordinances) of the Ordinances of the Township of Randolph, be passed on final reading and that a Notice of Final Passage of said Ordinance be published in the official designated newspaper according to law.

Attorney Buzak informed the public that the clerk's readings are standardized requirements for the process. He stated that it is technical, not substantive. He explained that all of the ordinances were reviewed by the Planning Board as directed by Municipal Land Use Law as it relates to the Master Plan. The Planning Board determined that Ordinances 21-22 thru 27-22 are not inconsistent with the Master Plan.

Councilmember Forstenhausler made a motion to adopt the ordinance. Councilmember Carey seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None

Attorney Buzak explained that ordinances adoption is a statutory process that includes notice through newspaper publication, and copies being made available to the public. He explained that the public has an obligation to examine and review the ordinances. He added that Mayor Potter has directed the public to speak with township professionals to understand the ordinances. He explained that public hearing is for sharing particular issues with the ordinances after review. He stated that there are many documents available and at the public's disposal. He added that ordinances up for hearing within Randolph Township are paired with a brief explanation from a township official familiar with the ordinance; this is not requirement for the process. He stated that it was unreasonable to expect a detailed explanation of the ordinances and the purposes of each of the sections during the meeting.

2. Ordinance No. 22-22 An Ordinance Repealing Section 15-91.3 (Development Fees for Low- and Moderate-Income Housing) of Article VII (Administration, Enforcement, and Fees) of the Chapter XV (Land Development Ordinances) of the Ordinances of the Township of Randolph, and to Enact Sections 15-55 (Affordable Housing Development Fees) Under Article IV (Supplementary Zoning Regulations) in Chapter XV (Land Development Ordinances) of the Ordinances of the Township of Randolph

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, An Ordinance Repealing Section 15-91.3 (Development Fees for Low and Moderate-Income Housing) of Article VII (Administration, Enforcement, and Fees) of the Chapter XV (Land Development Ordinances) of the Ordinances of the Township of Randolph, and to Enact Section 15-55 (Affordable Housing Development Fees) Under Article IV (Supplementary Zoning Regulations) in Chapter XV (Land Development Ordinances) of the Ordinances of the Township of Randolph, be read by title on second reading and a hearing held thereon.

Manager Poff explained that the township has an existing ordinance in Section 15-91.3 that establishes development fees for low and moderate-income housing. The purpose of this ordinance is to update the regulations that govern the collection of both non-residential and residential development fees as set forth in the township's ordinances, as directed by the NJ Superior Court, and to be consistent with existing state statutes, the NJ Uniform Housing Affordability Control Rule, the Affordable Housing Council's Substantive Rules, and the Fair Housing Act. The fees are to be used to assist the township in satisfying its affordable housing obligation. He stated that a copy of this ordinances was and is available in the Clerk's Office and online.

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Connie Mitchko of 32 Albert Court stated that she understood that the council has been working diligently on the Affordable Housing Settlement Agreement. She felt let down, and commented that a few things could have been done differently. She referred to Attorney Buzak's comments about information accessibility, and stated that many of the actions were taken during the COVID-19 Pandemic. She stated that all the ordinances on the agenda relate to modifying the 2017 Master Plan. She felt that the ordinances multiplying unit densities in small areas across town contradicted the Master Plan. She explained that she has had experience working within municipalities and was a para-legal during the Mount Laurel Litigation. She did not understand how the changes could be approved and implemented without the completion of impact studies. She suggested that older Planning Board applications should be made available digitally.

Attorney Buzak and Mayor Potter informed the public that comments should be reserved to the particular ordinance the hearing is designated for.

Patrick Jags of 32 Bonnell Lane referred to the incompletion of the 2014 Morris Habitat for Humanity Affordable Housing Project, and asked how the Planning Board would ensure that similar mistakes would not be made moving forward with these ordinances. He shared his concerns with the construction time period, and traffic issues. He added that he was concerned about how the fees would affect the township if a mistake was made. He stated that he supported affordable housing as long as it is done effectively and environmental considerations were examined.

Madeline McAveney of 14 Memory Lane asked for clarification on the development fees; she asked if it meant that the builders would be paying the fees to the township. Ms. Sarmad explained that this ordinance imposes development fees on all developments that do not generate affordable housing. She stated that there is a state mandated 2.5% non-residential development fee. She explained that if a non-residential structure goes up, 2.5% of the difference of what use exists on the site and the assessed value is paid to an Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

Ms. McAveney asked how builders are found and made to pay the fees to the township. Ms. Sarmad clarified that the fees imposed by the ordinance are not meant to attract developers. She explained that when permits are obtained for a project's construction, a portion of the development fee is paid to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund as obligated by state. According to COAH regulations the trust can be used by the township to pay for professionals and be directed toward affordable housing projects. She stated that the ordinance codifies the requirements of who the fees can be imposed upon and when and where the fees can be collected.

Kathy Stokes of 9 Clover Lane asked if the development fees generated would be sufficient enough to support the infrastructure. Manager Poff explained that the revenue that the township will recognize as a result of development fees comes in four forms:

1. Uniform Construction Code permit fees, during construction.
2. Added & omitted taxes, as construction and occupancy of buildings occur during construction.
3. Connection fees for connections to sanitary sewer and water systems.
4. Property taxes and utility rents, in the form of new improvement assessments and new utility accounts, once construction is completed.

A resident clarified that Ms. Stokes was asking if the fees would be sufficient enough to support the infrastructure impact or would the residents have to absorb the cost in taxes. Manager Poff explained that the Affordable Housing Trust Fund is not permitted by state regulation to be used for infrastructure improvements.

Connie Mitchko asked about the present status of the Developer's Fund Balance. Ms. Sarmad stated that the fund had approximately $250,000 as of August 2022. Ms. Mitchko asked who was going to pay for the influx of affordable housing units coming in if there is only $250,000 to support all the units. She was concerned about the economics of how the units would be staged and phased.

Jeff Bashe of 29 Clover Lane expressed his confusion with the entire situation. He asked if there was any certainty on how the projects would impact the municipality's tax rate. Manager Poff explained that the ordinances being considered by the council only established the bulk requirements for the projects; i.e., setbacks, density, parking, etc. He explained that the tax rate impact could not be determined at this time, since there are no developer applications up for consideration. He explained that when a developer submits an application to the Planning Board, they must specify the number of units to be constructed and other infrastructure that would be associated with the project to examine the potential impacts and preliminary calculations.

Mr. Basche stated that he understood that it was too early to understand the impacts. He stated that many people were concerned because there was no clear picture of the end product, results, and the community impacts.

Seeing and hearing no one further, the public portion was closed for Ordinance 22-22. Councilmember Forstenhausler made a motion to close the public hearing. Councilmember Veech seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, An Ordinance Repealing Section 15-91.3 (Development Fees for Low and Moderate-Income Housing) of Article VII (Administration, Enforcement, and Fees) of the Chapter XV (Land Development Ordinances) of the Ordinances of the Township of Randolph, and to Enact Section 15-55 (Affordable Housing Development Fees) Under Article IV (Supplementary Zoning Regulations) in Chapter XV (Land Development Ordinances) of the Ordinances of the Township of Randolph, be passed on final reading and that a Notice of Final Passage of said Ordinance be published in the official designated newspaper according to law.

Councilmember Carey stated that the ordinances were required for the township to conform to the statute.

Councilmember Forstenhausler made a motion to adopt the ordinance. Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None

3. Ordinance No. 23-22 Amending Article III, Zoning of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph, to Establish a New VCR-1 Multifamily inclusionary Zone (VCR-1 Zone) - Avalon Bay - Berger Properties

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, An Ordinance Amending Article III, Zoning, of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph, to Establish a New VCR-1 Multifamily Inclusionary Zone (VCR-1 Zone), be read by title on second reading and a hearing held thereon.

Manager Poff explained that the purpose of this ordinance is to establish a new VCR-1 Multifamily Inclusionary Zone that allows for the construction of inclusionary development and assists the township in satisfying a portion of the Affordable Housing Obligation. The ordinance is associated with properties that are otherwise referred to in the Housing Element as the AVB Berger Track, Block 224, Lots 83-86, and 1-4.

Ms. Sarmad explained that the VCR-1 Inclusionary Zone Ordinance allowed for a density of up to 240 multifamily dwelling units. The property is approximately 15 acres and is located at the corner of Brookside and Sussex Turnpike. She shared that the property requires a 20% affordable housing set-aside, or 48 affordable units. She explained that the site allowed two residential buildings that could be up to four-stories in height and continued to summarize the sites bulk requirements which included minimum setbacks, open space, common area, amenities, parking, and other elements required to meet COAH regulations.

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Jason Munch of 177 West Hanover Avenue shared his concerns about potential traffic issues on West Hanover Avenue and Sussex Turnpike. He explained that traffic control and safety hazards already exist on the roads. He asked how the additional units could be placed in the area when the road did not currently have the infrastructure to support existing commuters, local traffic, and school traffic. He asked that the outcomes and purposes of the 2007 and 2017 studies be shared. He understood that there was a need for the units, but was concerned that the impacts on the community had not been evaluated. He stated that the construction elements would be costly for the township and that money could be saved via the bid process. He was concerned that emergency services would not be able to sufficiently respond to the developments. He feared that the ordinances would be solving one issue and creating many more.

Joseph Amaral of 14 Holly Drive stated that he was passionate about the development of a Town Center. He suggested that people use this as an opportunity to propose what the development could be. He trusted the township experts. He stated that the complexes could spur the development of a cultural center for the community and help businesses be more successful.

Jenny Stevens of 16 Bonnell Lane stated that Sussex Turnpike and West Hanover Avenue already had traffic congestion issues. She stated that the commute was long on the road and there were no side roads to alleviate the congestion. She expressed concerns about the congestion becoming worse.

Glen Johnsen of 1 Cushing Court referred to Joseph Amaral's comments. He explained that the owner occupancy rate in Randolph is 74.5% and the rental occupancy rate is 25.5%. He compared the figures to surrounding municipalities such as Mendham, Chester, Mine Hill, Roxbury, Morris Township, and Rockaway and pointed out that all the neighboring municipalities, with exception of Dover and Victory Gardens, have significantly higher owner occupancy rates and significantly lower rental occupancy rates. He explained that he moved to Randolph for its community, schools, and semi-rural scenic atmosphere. He stated that a key component of the Fair Housing Act was the requirement to preserve the welfare of the community. He explained that Builders Remedy Lawsuits would require three components to win and stated that that third component of suitability could not be met as the area has wetlands. He concluded his comments by stating that issues with water supply, additional vehicles on the roadways, safety issues, emergency support, and infectious disease would be a result of the developments.

Deborah Toner of 17 Brookside Road stated that she was previously told that nothing could be built on the area because of the wetlands. She asked what changed to allow a development to be placed there. She shared her frustrations with the lack of communication about the development and stated that she has asked numerous times about the status of the area. She stated that the township and schools could not afford the additional people and children coming in. She expressed that many people were stressed about this development. She added that the road presented a safety issue for children.

Edward Frisch of 9 Morey Lane asked what the total obligation for affordable housing was and how much of it had been satisfied. He asked why the 494 units had to be constructed within the density of one-quarter mile in diameter. He expressed that there were many areas in the town, and asked why the development could not be placed somewhere else. He asked how the density would affect the Village Center and the Master Plan. He stated that there would be no place for a town center if the units were placed in the area.

Ms. Sarmad informed Mr. Frisch that the township's obligation as mandated by the court is for 643 affordable housing units, she explained that in 1999, there was a prior obligation of 261 affordable units. She added that the 261 units had been previously satisfied in the past. To present day, 165 affordable housing units exist in the township and are credited towards the 643-unit obligation. She explained that as of today the plan includes 320 affordable housing credits. The obligation must be satisfied by 2025. Ms. Sarmad clarified that these are for the affordable housing unit credits only; it is multiplied by the shared market rate units. She explained that there are areas along Route 10 to South Salem Street where affordable housing is proposed. Mr. Frisch stated that the township has to look elsewhere.

Attorney Buzak explained the process the township utilized to address the 643 affordable housing unit obligation. He stated that the process was comprehensive; every vacant site available in the municipality was examined. The Township Planning and Zoning Administrator analyzed all those properties and the Township Council, over a period of years, looked at those sites and made decisions initially based upon the best interest of the municipality to satisfy the obligation. He explained that it unfortunately was not solely in the township's hands, as the process allows property owners, and/or contract purchasers of the property to come forward and offer their sites; which may not be a site the township had determined for providing affordable housing.

He explained that if a property owner comes forward seeking to develop the property with an inclusionary element, that offer becomes something the township is required to consider. He clarified that it is not a Builders Remedy Suit. He explained that the Court and Special Master favor the sites that are offered for development because the overall objective is to produce the housing. He explained that the legal obligation is to create a realistic opportunity; the process has been modified over the years to include more provisions for the municipality to move offered opportunities to the front of the list. The township is compelled to consider those sites due to the judicial process. He stated that the council understood the public's concerns and recognized the issues, but the process is not controlled by the council, it is controlled by the Court System, Special Masters, and developers in the industry. He explained that every municipality in the state is working under this system.

Allan Coraff of 8 Blue Fern Lane stated that he was concerned with the potential impacts on the lake. He was worried that part of the property was near the Shongum Lake Watershed. He was worried that the township would not be diligent in the building of Site #15 or the other properties that would feed into the aquafers. He shared that he has been complaining for years about the run-off issues from resulting Freedom Park.

Josie Scanlon of 5 Knights Bridge Drive stated that she had done her research and was disappointed with the lack of due diligence and poor planning. She was disappointed in the council for agreeing to the Settlement Agreement without public input. She stated that the town had been backed into a corner due to bad planning, and bad foresight by the township's predecessors and council. She understood that the town knew about the obligation for a decade and had not acted, and suddenly ended up in a court case, with a Judge and Special Master, who oversaw better settlement agreements in other municipalities. She shared that she and others have created the organization called Citizens for Responsible Development to fight the council. She stated that she and three other individuals; Patrick Skidmore, Meghan Lynch, and Christopher Matthews, would be campaigning as write-in candidates for Township Council if the council did not vote no. She stated that the four of them were prepared to present a plan that considers the community, environment, and public interest.

Beth O'Conner of 8 Hemlock Place shared that she has lived in the community for twenty years in a neighborhood that does not have access to water or sewer connections. She has asked for the connection numerous times. She stated that there were not enough resources to handle the incoming development when she could not have access to such resources on her own property.

Kathy Stokes of 9 Clover Lane referred to the Harbor Consulting Report and stated that the report concluded that the Berger and KAB properties were suitable to build upon and there would be no impact on wetlands. She stated that the report was inaccurate. She explained that the council was recently notified by a resident that the Highlands Counsel and NJDEP have stated that the area is a C-1 stream and part of the watershed that supplies drinking water. She asked that in being given this new information, if the council would be reevaluating the layout for the housing, and if not, why.

Ms. Sarmad explained that the report did not conclude that there would be no impact. She explained that the housing element includes a section known as Site Suitability Analysis which is statutorily required by COAH regulations to include that those sites are suitable (context of the site), developable (site incumbrance), approvable (can it be approved), and available (title). She explained that the Site Suitability Analysis is in no way a final determination or a placeholder or substitute for Planning Board approval; it is simply required to state the known conditions of the property based on publicly available data and, if supplied, intervenor or developer-provided information. She explained that the statement about the wetlands includes that there are generally wetlands included in public data, although the resource value and locations are not known, nor is it known if NJDEP permits have been obtained. The information will be known when the developers provide it as it is their responsibility as a part of their applying to the NJDEP.

Ms. Stokes asked if the township would have the oversight to make sure the developers are doing their due diligence. Ms. Sarmad confirmed and added that those permits would be required. She stated that if the ordinances pass, the developers would need to obtain Planning Board approval and NJDEP permissions; if the NJDEP does not provide the developers with permitting, the developers will not be able to move forward.

Ms. Stokes shared information about the wildlife habiting the wetland area. Ms. Sarmad explained that the developer would have to get approval from the NJDEP. She stated that if there is suspicion of endangered wildlife, the NJDEP would take the steps to determine if the property is developable or not. She stated that such a thing could render the property undevelopable; as she has seen in some cases.

Ms. Stokes asked how many units are proposed to be built in the quarter-mile of the Mt. Freedom area and how many of those units would be designated as affordable housing. Ms. Sarmad stated that including a site that had already been zoned, the number of units is approximately 500; of those units, she estimated that there were 100 affordable units. Ms. Stokes asked who dictated the site for the 500 total units. Ms. Sarmad explained that it was largely dictated by property owners bringing proposals to the township.

Ms. Stokes referred to tax liens relating to the property owner and asked why the property owner is allowed to continue to build. Ms. Sarmad explained that the title of the site is a misnomer, it is locally known as the Berger Site/Tract; she explained that there is a contract purchaser known as Avalon Bay proposing to purchase the site for development. To her knowledge the individual Ms. Stokes was referring to was not involved with the development.

Ms. Stokes asked what the zoning requirement was for building heights in residential areas. Ms. Sarmad explained that the requirements for apartments vary as there are a handful of multifamily developments with different zoning requirements. Ms. Stokes stated that many people do not want a four-story building development. She asked if the council would vote no and asked if the area was still commercial and if the building would be built on top of a Town Center. She asked if buildings that currently exist along the Berger Tract along Sussex Turnpike from Brookside Road to Millbrook Avenue would be torn down or wedged between the development buildings in Kensington Square.

Councilmember Loveys explained how he viewed and understood the vision of the Town Center as possibly being in the Harvey Terrace area or near the Mt. Freedom Jewish Center area to the intersection of Brookside Road and West Hanover Avenue. He explained that the Berger and KAB Tract was currently zoned for Village-Center Residential. He described the area of the Saltz Hotel, where Village-Center Commercial is currently zoned and is sometimes referred to as the Heller Properties. He explained that there were a variety of reasons for how the proposed residential use line was drawn around the area where West Hanover Avenue bent from the gate to the back of the property. A zoning ordinance has been passed to allow this. He explained that applications have been submitted to the Planning Board for review of completion and stated that the developer is required to apply for a host of NJDEP-regulated permits and applications.

He referred back to the Village-Center and explained that the piece that was rezoned was previously zoned for Village-Center Commercial use. He stated that the change was made through the course of the evolution of the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan. He commented that no one was satisfied with the circumstance. He provided a brief history of the 2018 Mercer County Court Case involving municipal Affordable Housing Settlements and stated that Randolph was one of the last municipalities in the state to settle its obligations. He explained that other properties were considered from time to time, but the township does not own those properties. He shared his frustration with the process.

He explained that the town did look at other areas, but the plan morphed and evolved over the course of the years. He stated that the information could be repeated and dug up, but it was not as simple as just fighting the obligation. He cautioned the public to be careful of what they wish for. He stated that he did not appreciate his integrity as a councilmember being questioned as he has spent 12 years serving the township. He stated that while the impacts and implications were not known, he could say with certainty that the impacts of not preceding with the settlement agreement and voting no on the ordinances would be far greater.

He explained that the Declaratory Judgement filed in 2015 ensured that the township was protected from Builder Remedy Lawsuits and that the township is pressured by the Court and Special Master to satisfy its obligation. He referred to the Mercer County Trial and explained that a decision was rendered and the Judge came up with a methodology to assign the number requirements to the municipalities and set a precedence. He stated that the housing obligation plan offered by the township was deemed far lower than what the Fair Share Housing Advocacy Groups felt it should be. He stated that the methodology and process was convoluted which is why the township requires the expertise of Ms. Sarmad and its other professionals. He stated that he accepted and appreciated the public's comments, and added that there were very few that he disagreed with. He stated that as per the NJ Supreme Court ruling, Randolph must abide by the law.

He believed that the law was passed and enacted with good intentions, but over the years it has morphed into something that it was not intended for. He stated that the affordable housing issue needed to be pulled out of the court system and that COAH or another agency needed to be designated with those responsibilities as the court just wants to clear the docket. He explained that the conditions are required to be satisfied before the hearing with the Judge the following week; if the Judge deems that Randolph is not in compliance, the township's immunity and protection from Builders Remedy Lawsuits could be stripped.

He stated that it was almost a guarantee that the impact of not satisfying the obligation would be far greater. He explained that the township was providing a realistic opportunity and that nothing was being built. He clarified that the ordinances are just meant to satisfy the court order. He explained that the process involved negotiations and litigation. He did not know of one case where a municipality was successful in a Builder Remedy Lawsuit and stated that the builders would reap the benefit of bypassing the ordinance. He explained that in that circumstance, the township would be responsible for paying attorney fees associated with the suit and may be put into the position of bringing the infrastructure to the builders. He invited the public to call him to discuss it. He stated that he intended to vote yes as he believed that it was in the best interest of the township.

Ms. Stokes appreciated Councilmember Loveys' comments. She understood the positives of Randolph delaying the settlement and having protections from Builders Remedy Lawsuits. She stated that many members of the public wanted and supported Affordable Housing. She asked if it was possible for the number of units to be negotiated down. Councilmember Loveys stated that he did not believe the number could be negotiated down as the units were negotiated with the developer interveners over the past three or four years and had been accepted by the Special Master, Court, and Fair Share Housing.

Councilmember Veech added that that plan did not necessarily mean that the NJDEP would approve the total number of units, as the organization will assess the environmental factors and could approve a lower number.

Councilmember Loveys explained the history of the Supreme Court Fair Housing Act Ruling in 1975, and the COAH formation in the mid-1980s. He stated that the township satisfied its first and second rounds of obligations, and stated that the third-round rules issued by COAH had been hung up in the court system. He explained that the third round of court proceedings lead to the NJ Supreme Court ruling in 2015 that COAH was not providing its responsibilities and the process was turned over to the courts.

A resident asked if the remaining units would be passed off to another area if the NJDEP did not approve the site for the full amount. Councilmember Loveys stated that it was likely. The resident asked why other sites could not be examined. Councilmember Loveys informed the resident that it was not an easy simple solution. He stated that the township was not done with the process, and he invited the public to contact him to discuss where he thinks the situation will ultimately go. He informed the public that the process would again begin in 2025. He shared that there was an ongoing movement to pressure the executive branch to get Affordable Housing out of the court's hands.

Chiara Gough of 1524 Sussex Turnpike thanked Councilmember Loveys for his comments, service, and insight. She asked why the township could not pay for a study that could demonstrate to the legal system that development would not work.

Ms. Sarmad explained that the municipal obligation with the COAH regulations is to provide a mechanism for affordable housing. She stated that the purpose of the ordinance is to provide a realistic opportunity which basically meant rezoning the site for redevelopment. She referred to a previous question regarding what happens if a site is found to not be developable, and stated that it is not known, but the township will have fulfilled its obligation and sustained its immunity from Builders Remedy Lawsuits without incurring costs of wetland studies, etc. Ms. Gough suggested that the cost of studies be undertaken. Ms. Sarmad explained that the property is privately owned.

Ms. Gough shared concerns about developers finding loopholes and claiming that their developments will not affect endangered species, runoffs, etc. She felt this was the time to find loopholes and make them work for the township. She asked what could be done if the vote is no. She stated that most people are fine with the number of units, and are just displeased with the location.

Jonathan Torres of 22 Prince Henry Drive stated that he used to frequently drive on Sussex Turnpike to commute to work, but abandoned it when the pandemic resulted in lighter traffic on Route 10. He believed that there has been a pattern of the council's delayed action resulting in the creation of unnecessary crises that require unpopular decisions. He explained that the third round of obligations running from 1995-2025 requires 643 units, of which 207 have already been satisfied. He stated that the remaining obligation of 266 units is proposed to be achieved through many of the ordinances discussed under the current meeting. He asked why there was a delay in the township fulfilling more than half of its obligation with three years before the deadline. He was dismayed that the township had to concede to developers without having enough time to find the resources to fight. He suggested that the township could have offered adequate financial incentives for developers to approach areas that are more appropriate and simultaneously deliver on promises of a town center. He commented that the council did not inform the public about the development until the eleventh hour, despite knowing about it for years. He stated that the council sought to insulate themselves from retribution from the public response. He did not think the council had a choice on the vote at this point.

He stated that the community could have collectively developed and executed a plan to increase housing while preserving the community setting. He explained that the community would now have to deal with developers who plan to overdevelop a vital community intersection, which could result in catastrophic traffic implications, disrupt the town, tear up roads, disrupt travel, and put additional strain on the two-lane country road. He shared his frustrations with the lack of impact studies on traffic and environmental considerations. He stated that the KAB Agreement was signed in August 2021, and the public found out about it two weeks ago. He felt the year was wasted. He asked the council to commit to developing a plan to assess the community's safety and environment for future development that could cause disruption. He understood the legal implications of voting no and asked that the council table the vote and delay it to the next meeting to allow time for preliminary investigations. He asked the council to listen to the residents and formulate and act on a plan that would avoid similar circumstances in the future.

Marc Shortino of 32 Barbara Drive stated that the ordinance was specific about the height of the buildings, and the minimum of two buildings. He asked if the township has already agreed with a builder on what is going to be on the site. He asked if not, why the ordinance was being passed now when it is unknown what the builder will propose. He asked if the ordinance could be rewritten and still be in compliance.

Ms. Sarmad explained that the Special Master and the Court had ordered the township to sit down with the developer that introduced to the property to the township for the purpose of discussing what the township wanted to preserve. She explained that one of those discussion items was the requirement of a minimum of two buildings, which was purposeful, as there was a potential for one massive building. She stated that many of the requirements in the ordinance are intentional, and are meant to alleviate what the 240 units would look and feel like, much to the displeasure of the developer. She explained that it was essentially a negotiation and that the discussion was reflected in the ordinance in that it accounts for creating a realistic opportunity to allow for 240 units, while maintaining setbacks and other requirements.

Mr. Shortino referred to a previous discussion about a Toll Brothers application in regard to affordable housing units being built on the buildable acres of the property. He stated that this development was more than double the Toll Brothers project allotment and on less than half of the buildable acreage. He stated that the density on the lots would be massive. Mr. Shortino referred to the 14-acre tract and explained that if only half of the acres were found to be buildable, 200-plus units would have to be built in the small area. He was concerned that the NJDEP could determine that the useable space is even smaller and result in a six-story building being built on the small tract of land to meet unit requirements. He stated that he had learned that the Planning Board determined that the ordinances comply with the Master Plan; he did not think those meetings were open to the public. He was concerned that all the requirements were being squeezed onto the small tract of land.

Ms. Sarmad referred to Mr. Shortino's concern about the NJDEP determining that the useable property is smaller, and the township amending the ordinance to allow the building a six-story building to meet the requirements. She explained that this would not happen as the township was ordered to engage with the developer to only provide a realistic opportunity. She stated that such limitations could cut into density and force the developers to build fewer units. She explained that it was the developer's risk and responsibility as the township agreed to the specific provisions outlined in the ordinance. The developer's affordable housing obligation would remain the same. She explained that the township would not be penalized if the developer could not build the market-rate units.

Kyle Gehan of 160 West Hanover Avenue stated that he shared many of the environmental impact and traffic safety concerns previously mentioned. He stated that the township has an obligation to provide work and transportation opportunities to the people in those developments. He explained that the development was in a non-accessible area with not much opportunity for the people who would be residing in the housing. He felt that rather than creating a space that would bring the areas of the town together, the development would divide the town as no one will want to go through the intersection.

Ms. Cheng of 4 Brookview Circle stated that she trusted the township professionals, their expertise, and the time they have dedicated to this process. She stated that the public only sees the tip of the iceberg. She did not believe the public comments would change the council's decision. She stated that she trusted the council and hoped they were making the best decisions for the community as they have done in the past.

Terri Ford of 7 Floral Drive referred to a previous statement about the public's responsibility to know what was happening. She stated that the development was a dramatic change to the community and that she did not think that it was right that the information was not advertised. She shared that she found out about the developments through the website NextDoor. She advised that this not be done again to the community as there were many people in town who could have found solutions. She shared concern about the traffic impacts on the town. She understood that it was the public's responsibility to check the website, however, everyone has a busy life. She stated that it was not right that the public was left in the dark.

Manager Poff explained that various samples of the township's communications regarding affordable housing were displayed for public viewing during the meeting. He stated that there have been a number of articles that have been published over the years in the Quarterly Newsletter, there were also postings on the township's website in regards to accessing a variety of planning documents that have been referenced this evening and as the attorney indicated, there were a whole series of public notices that the municipality is required to provide.

Ms. Ford referred to the Swift Reach 911 system. She asked why she would not get a call about this dramatic impact when she gets calls about garbage.

Harry Lufft of 21 Musiker Avenue stated that he was disappointed. He understood the council's position. He stated that the #16 and #17 development sites were important environmental sites and asked if anything could be done to mitigate the size of the developments because it would make the situation on Sussex Turnpike worse and dramatically affect infrastructure and emergency responses. He asked that better communication be coordinated with the public so a similar situation does not occur again. He stated that the public was depending on the council to protect their interest and that members of the public are on their side and ready to help.

Pat Costello of 72 Radtke Road asked if the builders would have to submit environmental studies. Mayor Potter and other councilmembers confirmed that they would need to submit studies. Mayor Potter explained that the Planning Board would also evaluate the studies in accordance with their checklist; she added that the Planning Board has public meetings and these applications would be reviewed. She understood that the public wanted the information to be blasted when applications are received. Mayor Potter directed Ms. Costello to the township's Site Plan Submissions Details and Requirements Checklist in section 15-85.3 of the Municode Library.

Seeing and hearing no one further, the public portion was closed for Ordinance 23-22. Councilmember Forstenhausler made a motion to close the public hearing. Councilmember Veech seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, An Ordinance Amending Article III, Zoning, of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph, to Establish a New VCR-1 Multifamily Inclusionary Zone (VCR-1 Zone), be passed on final reading and that a Notice of Final Passage of said Ordinance be published in the official designated newspaper according to law.

Councilmember Hathaway thanked the public for attending the meeting. He stated that the council shared many of the concerns that were previously expressed by residents. He shared his experience as a recently appointed councilmember and his viewpoint in analyzing the township's affordable housing progress. He dug into the history of the town's progress and researched and asked questions much like the residents that spoke during the meeting. He explained that the council was not voting on the ordinances as a result of 'kicking the can down the road', but as a result of COAH regulations the township has been pushing back on for years. He explained that the township's obligations today were significantly reduced from what it would have been seven or eight years ago. He commended the council and their predecessors for their efforts in minimizing the burden.

He understood the frustrations with the agreement not being better, as he felt the same way. He expressed his disappointment with the state system and agreed with previous statements that the process did not work in the court system, and the state and court systems do not care. He explained that he viewed the vote for the ordinances by the legal requirements of the court order mandate. He explained that a yes vote would fulfill the township's obligation and a no vote would result in the township's failure to comply with the mandate and a failure to protect the township and its residents from uncontrollable developments and Builders Remedy Lawsuits. He stated that it was an unacceptable worst-case scenario, and added that there would be financial consequences and costs to the township's quality of life. He stated that voting otherwise on the matter would be a breach of the public's trust.

Councilmember Veech stated that as a councilmember, she swore to uphold the laws of the state whether she likes them or not. She explained that she was frustrated with the laws coming from the NJ Supreme Court and shared that she has been working on this endeavor for over seven years. She explained that information had frequently been published in the Township Quarterly Newsletter and she expected residents to read the publications as important information is communicated within. She referred to a previous concern about the potential for a ten-story building, and explained that a taller building was initially apart of the development, and it took them years to negotiate the site to only allow the four-story limit. She explained that the process required years of negotiations with developers and interveners, and many executive sessions.

She echoed Councilmember Loveys' previous statement and agreed that the matter should be out of the court's hands. She explained that towns voting no would have their Planning Board considerations taken away and developers would be able to do as they please only with NJDEP considerations. She explained that the reason a Town Center had not been developed yet was because water needed to be connected to the site; this process took years and millions of dollars. She explained that the township did not own the property for the Town Center and that they could zone areas to make it possible; it was ultimately up to the property owners who own the land. She explained that the council has not been wasting time, but has been fighting for years. The initial obligation was for 1500 or 1200 affordable housing units. She informed the public that the issue could be fixed at the state level as that is where the obligation is coming from. She explained that a no vote would result in lawsuits, and the township losing control of all developments. She stated that they were trying to do the best for the township.

Councilmember Carey shared that she reviewed the audio of the prior meeting and has since responded to many questions from residents. She shared that many of those individuals understood the township's affordable housing obligations and some people have given suggestions. She stated that every suggestion the council received were points they have been fighting for, but ultimately did not prevail in. She stated that the council fought for the best possible outcome.

She explained that during her time as Mayor and Deputy Mayor she participated in numerous meetings with the Court Judge, Special Master, Intervening Developers and Fair Share Housing. She stated that no one thought the settlement was perfect, as Fair Share Housing wanted many more units, as did the developers; it was a result of a negotiation. She referred to suggestions to vote no, delay action, and appeal, and stated that the township would be found in contempt. She explained that voting yes would make the developers go through the Planning Board to approve their projects and set restrictions. She stated that voting no would result in the township losing its immunity and local control, and possibly paying the developers' attorney fees. She stated that although it was not ideal it was the best settlement that could be fought for; she concluded her statement by sharing that she intended to vote yes.

Councilmember Forstenhausler thanked the public for attending the meeting. He appreciated the concern about the community and the Mt. Freedom area. He echoed Councilmember Loveys' statement. He informed the public that he has served as a volunteer fireman in the community for 27 years and has served on the council for nine years. He stated that every action he takes as a councilperson is done for the benefit of the township. During his nine years on the council, the township has been discussing affordable housing, and the councilmembers have lived those discussions daily. He sympathized with the public feeling that the information was new to them, although the township has worked to put out as much information as possible.

He explained that much of the information could not be shared as it was in the midst of on-going litigation. During his time as Mayor, he met with the Judge, Special Master, Interveners, and Case Lawyers. He stated that he was just as frustrated and angry as the public because he spent countless hours in negotiations to bring about the best deal for the township. He agreed that the matter did not belong in the courts, and commented that the State Legislature did not want to be involved. He referred to the comment of the township 'kicking the can down the road', and stated that the township could have settled the matter years ago for the initial 1200 affordable units, instead of the current agreement for 643 units. He stated that they have battled over many years to mitigate as much of the impact on the township as possible.

He referred to the question of why the township did not purchase the land and build the affordable units itself. He explained that the process would require an exorbitant amount of funding for construction and labor costs, and sustaining an entire rental structure. He was proud that the township has been able to prevent an increase in the municipal tax rate for the past six years and explained that if the township took on the burden of building the units that would change and the township may have to take out bonds as well. He explained that they delayed the settlement by a year when arguing that water was a scarce resource; the courts did not care. He explained that the township has been working over the last seven or eight years to try everything they could think of to work out the best possible deal for the township and mitigate the impacts. He stated that the township had a moral and legal obligation to provide affordable housing. He added that a property owner has the right to develop their vacant land in accordance with ordinances and the zoning.

He referred to the question asking why the development was going in the Mt. Freedom area. He explained that an agreement was signed in August of last year with the Skylands Developer for 300 units. He added that the township tried very hard to keep the Mt. Freedom area out of it. He explained that the property owner of the Skylands site backed out of the agreement to pursue another avenue for that property and restated that the township did not own the property and could not force the property owner's hand. He explained that the township had to go back to court and report that Skylands backed out; the Judge directed the township to find space for the units and emphasized that it be done in a timely manner to settle and get the case off his desk after five years of negotiations and litigation.

He stated that the township did not want to do this, and he did not like the deal, but he understood that after all the years of negotiations, this was the best the township would get. He echoed previous statements about information not being permissible to share because of litigation. He shared that an initial proposal of a ten-story building had been negotiated down to four-stories, and commented that the township has been fighting back. He was not happy about the four stories, but it was better than ten.

He spoke about a family member's experience with wetlands, obtaining Planning Board approval and working under NJDEP restrictions and the agency's Letter of Determination when she wanted to build a house on her property. He stated that the development process would work similarly and that developers were also not allowed to build on wetlands and are required to stay within the restrictions identified by the NJDEP.

He stated that the Planning Board determined that the ordinances fit into the Master Plan. He referred to a previous statement alleging that the determination was made in secret and explained that the comment was untrue. He explained that the Planning Board is required to have open public meetings and shared that the meetings are published on the township website and meetings calendar. The Planning Board by law had to discuss the ordinances in public in order to determine if they met with the Master Plan.

He explained that municipalities not satisfying their obligations would lose their immunity and, in most cases, have or will lose in Builders Remedy Lawsuits. He stated that the township and its professionals fought as hard as they could and he did not take it personally that the public was upset as he felt the same way. He again summarized the outcome of what would happen should the township not agree to the settlement conditions.

He stated that the township has been negotiating for five years and has examined many different things. He believes the township received the correct advice because Attorney Buzak is among the best Land-Use Attorneys in the state and he has been involved in numerous negotiations and lawsuits. He emphasized that Randolph was among one of the last municipalities in the state to settle because the council did not want to approve whatever the builders wanted; they wanted to look after the best interests of the township. He stated that the Judge had no more patience after five years of negotiations and that if the ordinances were not approved, the court would likely hold the township in contempt and subject the municipality to many fines.

He informed the public that the township will be meeting with the court next week to present the approved ordinances. He stressed that the township did not delay the process to kick the can down the road, but to try and get the numbers as low as possible. He explained that if the ordinances are approved and presented at court it will require developers to go through the Planning Board for approval.

He stated that if the NJDEP finds the wetlands in the area to be unbuildable, much like the scenario of his family member, the developers might not build at all. He commented that there was a reason these properties were vacant which may be found out later through the process. He explained that the Planning Board would be able to examine environmental impacts, traffic impacts and more; the board would require the developers to do right by the community. He stated that he took the obligation seriously and that the Township Council, Township Manager, and other professionals have done everything they could to make the best deal possible and mitigate the impacts on the township.

He explained that after losing the Skylands site and moving to the Mt. Freedom site, the township stressed the importance of maintaining a semblance of a Town Center along Sussex Turnpike. He believed that it was possible that an influx of residents in the area could help stimulate the Town Center. He referred to a previous question asking why there was no Town Center and stated that the township does not own the property. He summarized the process by explaining that it is up to the property owner to determine how they want to develop their land, or if they want to open a business.

He stated that virtually every concern shared by the public had been considered by the township and its professionals and that he agreed with almost all of them. He understood the public's concerns and felt their pain. He explained that this was not the end of the process; it was only allowing for the zoning for the potential of building. He concluded his comments by stating that the council could unfortunately not refuse to approve the ordinances because there would be too many negative impacts.

Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia stated that he sincerely appreciated the public comments and the people who reached out to him over the past few weeks to discuss this subject. He respected how much people cared. He explained that during his four years on the council, he and his colleagues have been exploring many different solutions. He stated that he has listened to the concerns about traffic, schools, and wetland protection and he agreed with them. He did not feel this was the right direction for Randolph, but unfortunately, avoiding the court order is not an option. He stated that he was not opposed to affordable housing, but he was opposed to forced overdevelopment.

He referred to statements of not much open space remaining in town, and stated that the process of filling it with inclusionary affordable housing units was challenging, if not impossible. He stated that it had been made very clear that opposing the rezoning would eliminate what little control remains for the township to oversee the development projects. He was sorry that the settlement is what it is. He had confidence in the Planning Board and in the township's professionals. He thanked them for their countless hours of work.

Mayor Potter stated that the council could vote yes or no to these ordinances. She explained that if the council votes no the judge could revoke the township's immunity against Builder Remedy Lawsuits. She explained the significance of the immunity and how it provides protection against builders and developers suing to install developments of their choice to satisfy the township's affordable housing obligation and bypassing the township's Land-Use Boards.

She shared that the Planning Board has a 72-point checklist that they use to review proposals; the check list can be found on the Randolph Township Municode Library. The checklist includes items such as wetlands, solid waste management, flood plans, traffic safety plans, traffic control devices, tree removal, landscape plans, lighting plans, and impact plans for education, the environment and traffic. She shared that the Planning Board meetings are open to the public.

She explained that if the council votes yes it will allow the public to examine the individual applications and comment on them during the Planning Board meetings. She understood that the public wanted the meetings to be announced clearly when the applications come out and stated that she would make sure that happens. She hoped that the community would come together to examine the presented applications. She added that public input would provide additional data about the community's needs and aspirations, and bring diverse viewpoints. She expressed that the public's input on the applications would increase transparency on the direction of Randolph's development future. She emphasized that a no vote meant that the Planning Board, township professionals, and residents would have diminished oversight and input on future applications and be at the mercy of the NJ Superior Court.

Councilmember Carey stated that some unacceptable comments were made about the township's professionals. She shared that the professionals working within Randolph Township were outstanding; she referred to Ms. Sarmad, Attorney Buzak, Attorney Gallo, Mr. Carney and Clerk Luciani. She stated that they did not deserve those kinds of comments and commended them for their work.

Councilmember Veech added that many surrounding municipalities have already begun experiencing developments going up; she referred to Denville Township and Parsippany Township. She believed that there would be a saturation of the housing units in communities around Randolph Township. She stated that many of those buildings were near completion and would have people moving in. She explained that it could take years for developers to obtain NJDEP approval and get to the point where they could begin working with the Planning Board before any building could occur.

Councilmember Forstenhausler explained that the state has taken away the municipality's control of running and planning the township. He stated that state law comes before municipal law. He suggested that the public contact their State Assembly Representatives and tell them that they are stepping on municipal toes when requiring mandates that do not allow for proper zoning that the municipalities deem appropriate.

He stated that the general plans for these developments have been presented, but that there were no specific plans. The specific plans have to be drawn up with all the dimensions, layouts, setbacks, etc., and have to be presented to the Planning Board, and be accessible to the public. He urged the public to contact the Planning Department to obtain copies of those plans, whether they be physical or electronic, to review and share their comments with the Planning Board and have their concern addressed with the developer and/or engineers when they are present at such meetings.

Councilmember Carey made a motion to adopt the ordinance. Councilmember Veech seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None

BREAK: A ten-minute break was held. The council reconvened at 9:43 p.m.

4. Ordinance No. 24-22 Amending Article III, Zoning of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph, to Establish a New R-9 Multifamily Inclusionary Zone (R-9 Zone) for the Franklin Road Properties

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, An Ordinance Amending Article III, Zoning, of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph, to Establish the R-9 Multifamily Inclusionary Zone (R-9 Zone), be read by title on second reading and a hearing held thereon.

Manager Poff explained that the purpose of this ordinance is to establish the R-9 Multifamily Inclusionary Zone. The rezoning will allow for the construction of an inclusionary development that will assist the township in satisfying a portion of its affordable housing obligation. The ordinance is associated with properties known as Franklin Road, Block 196, Lots 2-4.

Ms. Sarmad explained that this ordinance is a little dissimilar from the previous ordinance in that these properties are generally rezoned. She provided a description of the properties which included frontage on Route 10 and Franklin Road, and adjacent settlement to the Curley Stone property, South Salem Street, and commercial businesses. She stated that because there are three properties, the ordinance generally allows for development as a whole with 15 units per acre, or separate development with 12 units per acre. The setbacks are 40-feet from the front tree line. She explained that the principal building is able to be in two different forms; townhomes or multifamily type buildings. She summarized the bulk requirements for the site which included a minimum area of 5% dedicated to open space, parking, landscaping, indoor amenities and more. She explained that the parking is required to be pursuant to the Residential Site Improvement Standards which set forth different types of requirements for different types of housing.

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Carol Creter of 1 Patty Lane stated that she had learned a lot and thanked the council and Ms. Sarmad. She referred to Franklin Road, and the partial site on Route 10 and asked if the area was currently zoned for commercial use. Mr. Carney confirmed. Ms. Creter asked if it was normal to change a commercial zone to a residential zone. Ms. Sarmad explained that the properties were identified largely because of the township's limitations and obligation, and because the court requires the land to be vacant for consideration of rezoning. An additional consideration was the sites access to a major roadway.

Ms. Creter asked if the rezoning would eliminate the commercial zoning. Ms. Sarmad confirmed that the current zoning would be eliminated for the new zoning. She stated for full disclosure that they did attempt to rezone the area for an Overlay Ordinance to allow both uses, but the Fair Share Housing Center shut the idea down. Ms. Creter asked if instead of an overlay ordinance, would a mixed-use zoning be permitted. Ms. Sarmad stated that mixed-use was not contemplated for the ordinance and explained that it has a certain context that it works well in. She stated that there was some mixed-use proposed for the Mt. Freedom area where there is pedestrian walkability and access. She stated that this site was determined to be more auto-oriented and mixed-use would contribute to additional traffic.

Ms. Creter asked who denied the Overlay Ordinance, Ms. Sarmad explained that in part of the process and settling, the Fair Share Housing Center was party to the township's litigation, they speak up at the court to either endorse or oppose the settlement agreement. They have said that according to COAH regulations an Overlay Ordinance is not something permitted for inclusionary developments for crediting purposes, they found that it was not a plausible way to seek credits for the units. Ms. Creter shared that she knew of another town that completed an Overlay Ordinance and received credit for one unit. Ms. Sarmad explained that Overlay Ordinances can work in certain circumstances, the COAH regulations do allow for it, but they are different circumstances from what Randolph is in.

Joseph Amaral of 14 Holly Drive thanked the council for their words. He stated that he has been talking to a lot of people about this topic and their needs. He appreciated everyone's honesty, but felt that there was a high number of people who wish to stay in Randolph, but cannot afford the taxes associated with home ownership, or are students wanting to live in the community. He stated that if the apartments do ultimately get built, he hoped that the mentality of begrudgingly voting for it would change to making the best out of the situation as possible. In terms of traffic, he encouraged everyone to go to Quaker Church Road, and Center Grove Road as he felt the roads were not backed up with traffic from apartment flow.

Jonathan Torres of 22 Prince Henry Drive asked what the standard procedure would be if companies decide to not move forward with the development. Ms. Sarmad explained that the municipal obligation according to the COAH regulations is to create a realistic opportunity with a zoning ordinance. She stated that whether or not the developer moves forward it was not the township's obligation to encourage developers or incentivize them any further than putting the zoning in place. She explained that the Fair Share Housing Center as advocates have started to put measures into place that allows developers to follow-up and seek remedies. She stated that the zoning was in place and the market would determine if another developer finds it viable to develop on the site.

She explained that for the past few years the Fair Share Housing Center has been aggressive about questioning the lack of developers and fixing sites; this often comes up during mid-point review. She explained that Randolph would not have a mid-point review, but she was sure that by 2025 if the developments were not built, despite being rezoned, the Fair Share Housing Center would likely question what happened to that site. She stated that they do not know what Fair Share Housing Center would do, but it was not on the municipality to do anything further than satisfy the obligation of creating a realistic opportunity.

Mr. Torres asked if in the event Skylands were to build residential units would they not be required to provide affordable housing. Ms. Sarmad stated that they would be required to provide affordable housing, as indicated in the township's ordinance. She stated that for any site developing over five units, a requirement of 20% affordable units would have to be set-aside. She stated that the township would continue to capture units outside of its settlement agreement and plan so that affordable housing is captured appropriately to address any future obligations.

Mr. Torres referred to the Restore Morris Habitat for Humanity property and the costs for rehabbing the land. He asked if the township was tied to the costs of the land rezoning. Ms. Sarmad stated that the township was not tied. Mr. Torres asked the council if there were any constraints on using the Township Facebook page to advertise information such as this meeting, since a large portion of the public was involved. Mayor Potter stated that they would work on improving marketing things through social media going forward, especially with regard to the Planning Board applications coming forward.

Carol Creter of 1 Patty Lane asked if the township would rezone the area to revert it back if the quota was filled by the Skylands site possibly being developed and the township getting extra bonus units. Attorney Buzak explained that in terms of the settlement, the township was required to keep the zoning in place till 2025 at least. He explained that such an event would entail the council rezoning the Skylands property. Ms. Sarmad further clarified that in order for the Skylands site to be allowed to build a residential development it would have to be rezoned. She stated that it would essentially be a rezoning swap after 2025. Ms. Creter asked what the differences were between a R-9 Zone and a R-8 Zone. Ms. Sarmad explained that they were name designations.

Seeing and hearing no one further, the public portion was closed for Ordinance 24-22. Councilmember Hathaway made a motion to close the public hearing. Councilmember Forstenhausler seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, An Ordinance Amending Article III, Zoning, of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph, to Establish the R-9 Multifamily Inclusionary Zone (R-9 Zone), be passed on final reading and that a Notice of Final Passage of said Ordinance be published in the official designated newspaper according to law.

Councilmember Forstenhausler asked Ms. Sarmad to clarify that there could be differences between the two different zones based on the ordinances. Ms. Sarmad explained that the reason behind the slight name differences was that the zones contain something substantively different, it may not be major, but there is something slightly different.

Councilmember Loveys asked if the zone's water supply was through the Town of Dover. Mr. Carney explained that it currently was outside of the Dover franchising area. The township has had discussions with Dover; they are agreeable to include it within the franchise area.

Councilmember Forstenhausler made a motion to adopt the ordinance. Councilmember Veech seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None

5. Ordinance No. 25-22 Amending Article III, Zoning of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph, to Establish a New VCR-7 Multifamily/Mixed Use Inclusionary Zone (VCR-7) for the Mt. Freedom Properties

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, An Ordinance Amending Article III, Zoning, of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph, to Establish the VCR-7 Multifamily/Mixed Use Inclusionary Zone (VCR-7 Zone), be read by title on second reading and a hearing held thereon.

Manager Poff explained that the purpose of this ordinance is to establish the VCR-7 Multifamily/Mixed Use Inclusionary Zone that allows for the construction of inclusionary development to assist the township with satisfying a portion of the Affordable Housing Obligation. This ordinance is associated with properties known as the Mt. Freedom Properties, otherwise known as Block 101, Lots 6,7,9, 10 & 11, and Block 100, Lots 1, 2, & 4.

Ms. Sarmad explained that this ordinance differs slightly from the other ordinances in that it is very similar to the existing zoning that is currently in place for the properties. She explained that the difference was that there was a slight uptick in the allowable density from 10 units per acre to 15 units per acre to allow the properties to support an affordable housing set-aside. She explained that the permitted mixed-use is allowed along Sussex Turnpike and Schuman Road. It was found to be appropriate to continue to promote the use as per the Village Center Plan for Mt. Freedom. She stated that many of the bulk requirements currently existed for property and that residential use would be towards the back of the property. She explained that the township sought to utilize the existing zones without having to do anything foremost to the Mt. Freedom area. They wanted to utilize the existing zones for crediting towards the affordable housing plan, but because many of the properties are occupied or built, it was not allowed. She stated that there were property owners in Mt. Freedom who were interested in redeveloping their properties and so they were willing to sign a letter endorsing to the court that they were okay with the rezoning, and committed to the affordable housing development, despite their properties already being developed.

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Julie Finco of 45 Clover Lane shared that she spoke on behalf of the Shongum Lake residents. She stated that she was a member of the Shongum Lake Council and the Conservation Committee. She wanted to express resident concerns over the environmental impacts that such a development would have on the community. She asked that the Shongum Lake Council be permitted to work closely with the Planning Board, and she hoped that working relationship could be fostered to minimize any impact that such a development would have on the lake. Councilmember Veech suggested that Ms. Finco's committee attend the Planning Board meetings.

Councilmember Forstenhausler explained that the council appoints members to the Planning Board. The board's responsibility is to review plans presented to them and make decisions in the best interest of the township. The council does not tell the Planning Board what to do or influence them; they are a quasi-judicial board. He stated that as a member of the public and a member of the Shongum Lake Council, Ms. Finco was welcome to go to the Planning Board and share concerns.

Greg Johnsen of 89 Woodmont Drive explained that he was present for the Planning Board's review and approval of the ordinances. He referred to the quarter-mile of strip of 500 units on Mt. Freedom. He understood that the Planning Board examines projects individually. He asked if there was a mechanism that could be implemented to allow a more wholistic view of the quarter-mile strip, as opposed to looking at it in pieces. A whole view would allow a more contiguous understanding and encourage a semblance of a Town Center. He hoped that the Planning Board could work on something like that with the council's support. He asked that the township go on offense and be more strategic when considering what could be done as another round of affordable housing obligations begin in 2025.

Mr. Carney explained that the Planning Board conducted an update for the 2017 Master Plan. The plan changed drastically with the adoption of these ordinances. He stated that there could be a discussion with the Planning Board to revisit the Mt. Freedom Plan to complete another update.

Seeing and hearing no one further, the public portion was closed for Ordinance 25-22. Councilmember Forstenhausler made a motion to close the public hearing. Councilmember Veech seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, An Ordinance Amending Article III, Zoning, of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph, to Establish the VCR-7 Multifamily/Mixed Use Inclusionary Zone (VCR-7 Zone), be passed on final reading and that a Notice of Final Passage of said Ordinance be published in the official designated newspaper according to law.

Councilmember Forstenhausler stated that this ordinance was an example of one of the things the township was trying to do in order to keep the concept of the Mt. Freedom Town Center viable. He explained that in passing this ordinance, the township was looking for the potential of stores on bottom levels with affordable housing on top so it would resemble a village or downtown area with limited height and numbers with retail underneath.

Councilmember Veech explained that one of the items on the 72-point checklist requires that the Planning Board evaluate the architectural feel of the buildings and ensure they take on a consistent look that conforms with the township's aesthetic.

Councilmember Loveys stated that the concept was to bring the retail use upfront with parking designated behind the building.

Councilmember Forstenhausler made a motion to adopt the ordinance. Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None

6. Ordinance No. 26-22 Amending Article III, Zoning of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph, to Establish a New VCR-6 Multifamily Inclusionary Zone (VCR-6) for the KAB Properties

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, An Ordinance Amending Article III, Zoning, of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph, to Establish the VCR-6 Multifamily Inclusionary Zone (VCR-6 Zone), be read by title on second reading and a hearing held thereon.

Manager Poff explained that the purpose of this ordinance is to establish the VCR-6 Multifamily Inclusionary Zone that allows for the construction of inclusionary development to assist the township in satisfying a portion of the Affordable Housing Obligation. This ordinance is associated with the property known as the KAB Mt. Freedom, otherwise known as Block 224, Lot 5.

Ms. Sarmad explained that this property was adjacent to the Avalon Bay property that was discussed earlier. The site includes an allowance of up to 75 total units, of which 20% or 15 units must be set aside for affordable housing. She explained that similar to other ordinances; no matter what the total density of buildable area, a minimum of 15 units are required regardless of what the market unit share is. She explained that the building setbacks from a residential zone was 40ft from the property line, 30ft from non-residential zones, and 30 ft from any right-of-way. She summarized various screening and buffer landscape requirements, open space requirements, indoor amenity requirements, and parking. She stated that the ordinance was similar to the other ordinances in that it codifies the affordable housing requirements under COAH regulations and the township's Affordable Housing Ordinance.

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Seeing and hearing none, the public portion was closed for Ordinance 26-22. Councilmember Forstenhausler made a motion to close the public hearing. Councilmember Carey seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, An Ordinance Amending Article III, Zoning, of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph, to Establish the VCR-6 Multifamily Inclusionary Zone (VCR-6 Zone), be passed on final reading and that a Notice of Final Passage of said Ordinance be published in the official designated newspaper according to law.

Councilmember Forstenhausler stated that Ms. Sarmad and the township's professionals have worked very hard to specify the amount of open space on these properties, and the restrictions for indoor amenities, outdoor amenities, etc. He shared that the plans have been negotiated carefully for over five years. He stated that it has been an unbelievable amount of work and quite challenging, especially with developers. He thanked Ms. Sarmad for all her work.

Councilmember Forstenhausler made a motion to adopt the ordinance. Councilmember Carey seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None

7. Ordinance No. 27-22 Amending Article III, Zoning of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph, to Establish a New R-8 Multifamily Inclusionary Zone (R-8 Zone) for the Route 10 Properties

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, An Ordinance Amending Article III, Zoning, of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph, to Establish the Multifamily Inclusionary Zone R-8 (R-8 Zone), be read by title on second reading and a hearing held thereon.

Manager Poff explained that the purpose of this ordinance is to establish the R-8 Multifamily Inclusionary Zone that allows for the construction of inclusionary development to assist the township in satisfying a portion of the Affordable Housing Obligation. This ordinance is associated with properties known as the Route 10 Properties, otherwise known as Block 44, Lots 8-10, & 13.

Ms. Sarmad explained that this zoning ordinance includes properties owned by three separate property owners. A few of the sites are adjacent to one another and one site stands alone; all the sites are located along the Route 10 Corridor. She explained that the sites require a 20% affordable unit set aside and allow for a variety of different development products such as multifamily apartment units, townhouse units, and stacked townhouse units, and because of the variation in size and ownership of the properties. She explained that the properties range from 4 -11 acres, with a gross density of 15 units per acre on each of the sites. She summarizes the minimum setbacks for the sites and heights for the principal buildings. She reviewed the requirements for open space, amenities, parking, and landscaping. She stated that this ordinance was similar to the other ordinances in that it codifies the affordable housing requirements under COAH regulations and the township's Affordable Housing Ordinance. She explained that the properties are situated between the Canoe Brook site, and the Toll Brothers site, which had both been rezoned and approved by the Planning Board back in June.

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Lisa Dietrich of 11 Diane Court explained that she planned on pushing back on the ordinance by sharing that building on the site was not allowable because the site contains protected wetlands and hundreds of trees that would impact the community oxygen intake if cut down. She surmised that her arguments needed to be made to the Planning Board once plans come forward. She stated that much of the council statements and explanations were very helpful, and she thought it was unfortunate that much of the statements were made after many residents walked out. She stated that she and many of her neighbors were on board with Affordable Housing in Randolph. It was helpful to understand that these zoning ordinances were in an effort to fulfill a legal obligation and that it does not mean building is starting tomorrow. She appreciated the explanation regarding the township's considerations of all other properties in the community and how the process was not just the township randomly picking properties to build on. She understood that the township had to work with developers and get them to be amenable. She asked if there was a way to summarize the information the council shared that some members of the public may have missed as she believed it would go a long way for those who left feeling angry.

Michael Power of 5 Diane Court explained that he was surrounded by the Toll Brothers development, Caddy Corner, and Canoe Brook development. He stated that 335 units were already approved for housing. He stated that he understood the situation, but he was dismayed by Councilmember Hathaway's statement of the public "asking what can be done to make things better." He stated that he has attended Planning Board meetings to discuss light, sound, erosion, wetlands, traffic plans of all the plans that have been approved.

He referred to previous comments regarding the lack of traffic studies, and stated that studies have been done and commented that Canfield Avenue has many traffic issues. He referred to statements relaying that there was nothing the township could do because the power was with the state. He asked the council if the township could do better. He asked for the council's help in getting beyond a situation that sucks a little bit less, and live into the aspiration of "how do we actually make it better." He shared that the residents in his neighborhood would be attending the Planning Board meetings.

Mike Malone of 9 Diane Court thanked the council and township professionals for their hard work. He reiterated a previous comment about the public seeing the tip of the iceberg. He asked when enough would be enough as the many development projects surrounding him have been affecting the neighborhood. He was concerned about the decrease in the property setbacks and the possibility of four-story buildings. He echoed previous comments about being present for the Planning Board meetings.

Russell Moserowitz of 10 Diane Court thanked the council for their time. He stated that this meeting has been very educational. He commented that the tone of the meeting changed once the council provided statements and explanations. He emphasized the need to address communication issues. He understood that it was the responsibility of residents to review the information the township publishes in the Quarterly Newsletter and the website. He stated that he always reads the Quarterly Newsletters, but he thought it was important that communication be improved. He understood that much of the information could not be released. He suggested that the township not rely on published print materials and instead use an email opt-in list for notifications. He shared that his backyard backed up to the Gottesman Academy and recounted that when trees were taken down in the area, he learned that there was a diameter limitation. He asked that the council do something to prevent hundreds of trees with small diameters from being taken down as there was a Planning Board requirement.

Mr. Carney recalled that he spoke with Mr. Moserowitz about this issue years ago. He explained that a permit to remove a tree under a certain caliber is not required. He stated that there was also an issue of residents encroaching onto the private property that added to confusion on where the property line was. He stated that the Planning Board could review and make suggestions to the council if they wanted to revisit that. He explained that non-single family residential sites require approval from the Planning Board for clearing brush. Mr. Russell stated that he was not talking about brush, but specifically trees that are smaller in diameter.

Ron Ladell of 105 Hammel Street, Westfield, New Jersey shared that he was the Senior Vice President for Avalon Bay Communities and the Planning Board Attorney for Livingston Township. He explained that he has been the party negotiating with the township over the past few years. He clarified that there was no negotiation for this ordinance and stated that he submitted a draft ordinance to the township on August 16, but never received a response. He was not aware that the current ordinance was proposed as it was never given to him, nor was it given to the other development partners. He explained that he submitted a letter to the council on September 1 via the Township Clerk's Office and Attorney Buzak. The letter indicated that if the ordinance was adopted it would not provide a realistic opportunity to provide affordable housing on the site. He added that he has not received a response to this letter.

He stated that Attorney Buzak explained to an attorney of one of the other Route 10 developers that Randolph took on a blanket civil ordinance across the Route 10 properties without regard to any site-specific constraints; he commented that this was not done in the other ordinances. He explained that the contents of his September 1 letter included asking to meet with township representatives, and notification that the Special Master agreed to the request. He stated that he was told in response from the township that the ordinances would proceed with adoption. He explained that the letter also offered consent from the Fair Share Housing Center and Judge to extend the September 29 hearing date to October 6 to allow the township to revise the ordinance to create what his agency thought was a realistic opportunity. He did not understand why the township would proceed with the ordinance after years of negotiations and spending money. He explained that they filed with the court to pause the action, and if in the event the Judge objects, they would appeal. He stated he has yet to hear back from Attorney Buzak, Ms. Sarmad, or anyone from Randolph to discuss the concept plan and their objections with the ordinance. He asked for a response.

Councilmember Loveys believed that it would be inappropriate for anyone to respond personally. Mr. Ladell stated for full disclosure that his agency and another developer filed an objection. He stated that he could not predict what the Judge would do. He explained that Attorney Buzak was aware that the Special Master would be issuing a report prior to the September 29 Hearing; he was confident that the report would reject the ordinance with regard to his site. He stated that a representative of the Fair Share Housing Center would also be filing an objection with regards to the ordinance.

Attorney Gallo stated that depending on the council's wishes she could respond to some of the statements or not. Attorney Buzak stated that the matter was now in litigation and referred to Mr. Ladell's indication of filing an injunction. He stated that the injunction was not heard, and that the township was required to act on its compliance plan prior to the deadline. He referred to Mr. Ladell's mention of a consensus that the hearing would be put off for a week and stated that no one contacted him to let him know that, nor would he want to put it off. He wanted to move forward to have the compliance hearing done and have the court rule and abide by the ruling or appeal the decision.

Mr. Ladell stated that the letter he sent to the Township Clerk on August 31 stated that Avalon Bay had no objections to extending the time period for the township to adopt the ordinance to October 6. The letter also requested that the Fair Share Housing Center and Special Court Master support such an extension to resolve the issue in an amicable fashion. He commented that someone attempted to reach out to Attorney Buzak multiple times, but they were told that Randolph has made a decision to not engage with any negotiations. He referred to previous statements relating to negotiations with developers to create realistic opportunities; he asked why this ordinance was being treated differently from the other ordinances. He asked the council to vote no on adopting the ordinance and stated that he would support the township next week in front of the Judge to obtain an extension and withdraw his objection.

Seeing and hearing no one further, the public portion was closed for Ordinance 27-22. Councilmember Forstenhausler made a motion to close the public hearing. Councilmember Hathaway seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, An Ordinance Amending Article III, Zoning, of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph, to Establish the Multifamily Inclusionary Zone R-8 (R-8 Zone), be passed on final reading and that a Notice of Final Passage of said Ordinance be published in the official designated newspaper according to law.

Councilmember Veech asked if the council could go into an Executive Session to allow Attorney Buzak to provide an explanation on what the developers were seeking and why litigation was involved. Ms. Sarmad asked Attorney Buzak if he thought it was appropriate to allow Mr. Ladell to share his objections with the ordinances provisions to aid the council's understanding. Attorney Buzak stated that he had no objection to that.

Councilmember Forstenhausler reiterated Councilmember Veech's question in regards to going into Executive Session. Attorney Buzak stated that it was up to the council and he was prepared to discuss it.

Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia and Councilmember Veech stated that it would be helpful to hear from Mr. Ladell.

Mr. Ladell stated that Councilmember Veech's comments concerned him and asked if the council received the letter that was sent to the Township Clerk on September 1. He explained that their objections related to bulk standard requirements and tolerance levels. He stated that the site was not yet engineered and that concept plans were being utilized. He stated that he never proposed a ten-story building and that they never had a discussion about this site.

Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia asked Mr. Ladell to summarize his issues with the ordinance.

Mr. Ladell explained his objections which included maximum building height - he was seeking an increase to 4.5 stories, and the wall-to-wall minimum separations for a single building. He went on to explain how the wetlands should affect the flexibility of the bulk standards.

Councilmember Forstenhausler did not feel it was appropriate to have this discussion due to the involvement of litigation. Attorney Buzak stated that Mr. Ladell was welcome to put his proposal on the record. Councilmember Forstenhausler explained that Mr. Ladell was entitled to six-minutes under the public portion and filed a lawsuit against the township; he felt uncomfortable with having a legal discussion with a party suing the township. Attorney Buzak stated that if the council wishes to hear the changes the developers are seeking in the ordinance it was a different matter from legal discussion.

Mr. Ladell went on to summarize his objections to elements of the ordinance, which included reducing building setbacks, street parking and parking requirements, cost generative minimum amenity requirements, and options for adult disability housing.

The council decided not to move into an Executive Session.

Councilmember Carey made a motion to adopt the ordinance. Councilmember Forstenhausler seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None

8. Ordinance No. 28-22 Appropriating $150,000 from Sewer Capital Surplus for Additional Capital for CCM Pump Station Improvements

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, An Ordinance of the Township of Randolph Appropriating $150,000 from Sewer Capital Surplus for Additional Capital for CCM Pump Station Improvements, be read by title on second reading and a hearing held thereon.

Manager Poff explained that the purpose of this ordinance is to provide funding for the CCM Pump Station Improvements. Bids were received for the project; the lowest responsible bid received was $957,498. This bid was approx. $35,000 over the available appropriations for the project. He explained that there are additional costs associated with the project which include construction, inspection services, shop-drawing reviews, and a natural gas service connection for an emergency generator of approximately $115k. He stated that the available appropriations and additional expenses contribute to the need for the ordinance.

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Seeing and hearing none, the public portion was closed for Ordinance 28-22. Councilmember Forstenhausler made a motion to close the public hearing. Councilmember Hathaway seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, An Ordinance of the Township of Randolph Appropriating $150,000 from Sewer Capital Surplus for Additional Capital for CCM Pump Station Improvements, be passed on final reading and that a Notice of Final Passage of said Ordinance be published in the official designated newspaper according to law.

Councilmember Forstenhausler made a motion to adopt the ordinance. Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy Mayor Nisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None

H. OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Tim Potter of 11 Highview Terrace asked when meeting minutes are posted. Clerk Luciani stated that the minutes are posted after they are approved. She explained that the next set of minutes would be approved during the October 6 Township Council meeting. Mr. Potter asked what the requirement was for the timeline of posting minutes. Attorney Buzak stated that there was no requirement for the time; the minutes must be prepared promptly. Mr. Potter commented that promptly meant months. Clerk Luciani stated that the approval of minutes was not placed on this agenda. Councilmember Carey informed Mr. Potter that the minutes are approved at Township Council meetings.

Mr. Potter referred to the Drug Rehab Facility near his home, and shared that there have been incidents of police calls, and facility residents leaving trash all over the place. He stated that the facility was another thing that the council had their hands tied on. Mayor Potter informed Mr. Potter that the township was continually working on addressing the issues of such facilities in the community.

Kathy Stokes of 9 Clover Lane stated that lanternflies and beetles have contributed to trees dying in the community. She asked if an ordinance could be developed to hold developers responsible for replacing trees they remove for site construction. Mr. Carney explained that every tree that is removed between 12 and 24 inches inclusively requires a two-for-one replacement. He explained that if developers cannot replace the trees on site; they have to pay funds into a Treebank for the township to replace the trees elsewhere in the community.

Seeing and hearing no one further, the public session was closed.

I. COUNCIL COMMENTS

Councilmember Veech stated that she would save her comments for the next meeting as it was not urgent.

Councilmember Forstenhausler referred to the previous statements from the public session of Ordinance 27-22. He stated that it was an example on a minimal level of what the township and council has been going through for the past five years. He stated that they have been working with the developers to get to these ordinances and the Fair Share Housing numbers. He stated that it was an example of the battle the township has been going through while they have been trying to mitigate the negative effects of what the builders and developers want to do. He added that builders and developers have one way of viewing things, and do not care about the community as they leave once the projects are completed. He was glad the developer was present as it provided the public with a glimpse of what the township has been going through.

Councilmember Loveys stated that while he agreed with Councilmember Forstenhausler's comments, he wanted to say that Avalon Bay was a reputable developer. He did not anticipate that anything they put up would not be something they are not proud of, although they may not have the township's interest in mind. He thanked the remaining public members who were present for the meeting, one of which included the Township Communication Director. He thanked the public for coming out. He wished there was more engagement during the previous meetings.

Councilmember Carey reminded everyone that the Country Fair would be held on Saturday, September 24.

Mayor Potter thanked the public members for their time.

J. EXECUTIVE SESSION

No Executive Session was held for the meeting.

K. ADJOURNMENT

Councilmember Veech made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 12:07 a.m. Councilmember Carey seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilmember Carey
Councilmember Forstenhausler
Councilmember Hathaway
Councilmember Loveys
Councilmember Veech
Deputy MayorNisivoccia
Mayor Potter

NAYS: None