June_26_DM_2003

Source page 1

Minutes of the Deliberation Meeting of June 26, 2003.

PRESENT: Paul B. Carroll
 James F. Fitzgerald, Jr.
 Gregory L. Pando

ALSO
PRESENT: Attorney Mark Bobrowski
 Sue Franco, Recording Secretary

 Mr. Carroll opened the Meeting at 4:30 p.m. and stated the purpose of the
Meeting was for the Board to conduct deliberations on the petition of Roseland Property
Company.

 Attorney Rich Gallogly, counsel for petitioner, was also present.

 Mr. Carroll stated Mr. Pando was very clear on his position regarding the petition
at last week's meeting. He stated he was very moved by the remarks of the neighbors
and their hope that legislation at the state level would hopefully be changed in terms of
the 10% mark.

 Attorney Bobrowski stated that in terms of numbers, the Board should only be
concerned with 10% and 2%. He stated to meet 2% of the affordable housing, the town
would need 164 units and to meet 10%, the town would need 173 units. He stated the
town does not have a DHCD endorsed housing plan and, therefore, cannot meet the less
than one percent regulation recently passed. He stated if the Board approves the
Roseland petition as it has been presented, the town would reach the 10% mark provided
there is no appeal. Once an appeal is filed, the town can not count the case that is in
appeal in their housing count until the appeal is settled. If the Board was to deny Pequit
View and Village based on the fact that they approved Roseland and that brought the
town to 10%, they would appeal their decision based on the fact that the town was not at
10% at the time of denial because Roseland would most likely be in appeal.

 Mr. Pando asked whether traffic concerns could be grounds for denial of a
petition.

 Attorney Bobrowski stated you have to have a compelling reason for a successful
denial. He stated one option the Board has is to approve Roseland with reduced density
and with conditions and whatever portion of the package Roseland offered that they
could agree to. The likely ramifications of that would be Roseland filing an appeal with
HAC to claim that the reduction in density made the project uneconomical. There also