Page 16 of 50

provision allowing the affordable housing units to be part of a separate homeowner’s association is contrary to section 244-224C.

  1. Items 7 – 11 in my previous memo have been addressed either in the discussions with the parties or through provisions to the ordinance.
  2. The revised ordinance hasn't addressed any of the issues (clubhouse and bedroom restrictions and small minimum lot sizes) raised in Item 12 of my previous memo.
  3. The draft ordinance references section H.(1) the “maximum permitted gross residential density of a PIC shall be 1100 units.” First, 1100 units is not a “density”. The ordinance should have read the “maximum number of dwelling units in the PIC Zone shall be 1100 units. As written, since the minimum size of a PIC Zone is 100 acres, EL could technically claim both halves of the site are separate PIC and an entitlement of 2200 units.
  4. Section H.(2) contains the following language: “The development of the PIC shall be subject to the applicable Affordable Housing Agreement and any applicable amendments to the Affordable Housing Agreement, unless inconsistent with the terms hereof, in which case the provisions of this ordinance control.” I will leave the legality to Township Counsel of whether this ordinance would supersede an Agreement approved pursuant to Court Order, however, in my opinion it is unacceptable as illustrated by the preceding item above.
  5. Several items discussed at the November 1 meeting, and which I assumed to have been agreed to, are not reflected in the revised ordinance:
  6. The EL @ Jackson representatives offered a 50% veterans preference on the affordable units within the PIC; and
  7. The revised ordinance was to provide that detached single family and duplex lots were to have a 40% maximum building coverage requirement and a 60% maximum impervious coverage requirement.
  8. As a general comment, notwithstanding the right per Court Order to do up to 1100 non-aged-restricted units on the site, EL’s current plans to keep substantially intact the roadway configuration approved for the age-restricted community will result in a development characterized by a significant percentage of the units comprised of very small lots with large detached single homes lining long curvilinear streets which, in my opinion, is not particularly appealing.
  9. Exactly how between 192 and 220 affordable units are to be placed within the townhomes, stacked townhomes and 3-story “flats” comprising the remainder of the residential units in the development is undeterminable as the ordinance is currently written.

Attorney Cipriani advised pursuant to Court Order, it was required that the Council consider this ordinance. You have heard and I have read into the record the comments of our Affordable Housing Planner who is extremely familiar with this site and the Township’s needs. Council had no questions or comments for Attorney Cipriani.

There was no motion or second, therefore, ordinance dies and does not move forward. Applause.

PUBLIC HEARING – JACKSON TOWNSHIP FIRST AID – REVERSIONARY CLAUSE PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 40:60-51.2

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:60-51.2, the Township of Jackson will conduct a public hearing on the Township’s intent to extinguish a reversionary clause relating to property known as Block 6506 Lot 82. The subject property was conveyed from Jackson Township to the Jackson Township First Aid Squad pursuant to Deed dated February 25, 1986, which deed contained reversionary language that is the subject of the proposed public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED.

NO ONE CAME FORWARD.

MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSION CLAUSE WITH THE JACKSON TOWNSHIP FIRST AID SQUAD BY: CALOGERO

MOTION SECONDED BY: MARTIN

YES: CALOGERO, MARTIN, UPDEGRAVE, BRESSI, NIXON