Another “Routine” Agenda: The 2/17 Connell Density Bomb

John’s Notes on the 02/17/2026 Berkeley Heights Town Council Meeting

The agenda for the next Town Council meeting is not only massive but impactful.  We are going to go in reverse and start with the more significant items.  

Back in August residents raised concerns that earlier decisions benefiting Connell, such as the reconfiguration of Plainfield Avenue, which involved removing shoulders and likely worsened runoff, already increased the Township’s infrastructure burden. The new the MU Overlay reduces the Plainfield Avenue setback from 125 feet to as little as 25 feet in some areas which may raise more concerns about stormwater, traffic, and long‑term public costs.

Here is a break down of the three ordinances starting with Mixed Use.

Ordinance 2026-02 | Mixed Use overlay for Connell office park parcels

This ordinance amends the Mixed Use zone and creates a Mixed Use overlay seeking to transform a traditional suburban office park into a multi use district.

Six points buried in the ordinance aren’t small.

• Density Doubled: The “Maximum Buildable Area” jumps from the previous cap of 2.25 million sq. ft. to a massive 4.5 million sq. ft.
  • “The gross floor area of all buildings, excluding parking decks/stuctured parking facilities, in the MU Zone shall not exceed a total of four million five hundred thousand (4,500,000) square feet of gross floor area (the “Maximum Buildable Area”).”
  • In the prior MU, there is a line with a strike through currently that reads: “The gross floor area of development in this zone shall not exceed 800,000 square feet of commercially rentable office and/or research space or space normally associated with office and/or research use.”
  • So it seems the Ordinance started with an 800k cap which was removed in 2021 (based on the strike through) and now a new MU that significantly increases that cap is being introduced.
• Keeps the existing 328-unit Third Round cap but allows another 480 units for Fourth Round and potentially another 120 units under certain contingencies.(a total of up to 928 units).
  • “…an additional four hundred eighty (480) multifamily rental units… shall be permitted to be constructed in the MU Zone.”
  • “then a further additional one hundred twenty (120) multifamily rental units, inclusive of 20% set aside, shall be permitted to be constructed in the MU Zone,”
• Impervious Coverage: Remains high at 75%.
• Plainfield Ave Setbacks Weakened: The prior MU code required buildings to be set back 125 feet from Plainfield Avenue. The new overlay changes how that edge is treated, including allowing a much tighter setback in parts of the overlay.
  • Prior MDU: “Setbacks: all buildings within the MU Zone shall be setback a minimum of 125 feet from the boundary of the MU Zone along Plainfield Avenue and a minimum of 25 feet from all other boundaries of the MU Zone. The building setback requirements shall not be applicable to accessory structures, including, but not limited to, walking trails and fitness equipment.”
  • New MDU:”Setbacks: all principal and accessory uses, buildings and structures, with the exception of any passive recreation trails and walkways, within the MU Zone (other than in the overlay portion) shall be setback a minimum of seventy‑five (75) feet from the boundary of the MU Zone along Plainfield Avenue and a minimum of twenty‑five (25) feet from all other boundaries of the MU Zone. For those properties within the MU Zone Overlay, the minimum setback shall be twenty‑five (25) feet from Plainfield Avenue… and a minimum of twenty‑five (25) feet from the municipal boundary to the west.”
• Retail Rules: The prior MU code capped retail and entertainment at 190,000 sq. ft. and limited any single retail tenant to 45,000 sq. ft. The new ordinance moves away from hard caps to minimum tenant size rules, changing economy and scale of the retail that can land there.
  • Prior MDU: “The maximum square footage of retail and entertainment venue uses available to the public within the MU Zone shall not exceed 190,000 square feet.”
    and
    “No single retail tenant within the MU Zone shall exceed 45,000 square feet.”
  • New MDU: “Except in a building containing two or more principal permitted uses, no single retail tenant within the MU Zone shall be less than one thousand (1,000) square feet.”
• Open Space Reset: prior MU required 5 acres of open space (built in the initial phase). This ordinance raises the min to 7 acres and still requiring 5 acres be constructed in the initial phase.

So while open Space increases by 40%, Development Intensity increases by 100%.

What we can ask, now, not later

• How many total multifamily units does the ordinance allow when the Third Round (328) and Fourth Round allowances (additional 480, plus potential additional 120) are combined, and what triggers the additional 120 ?
• Why is the “Maximum Buildable Area” doubled from 2.25 million to 4.5 million square feet?
• Where is the traffic analysis for 4.5 million square feet of mixed-use development?
• Where is the Stormwater analysis and does it address our history?
• Given the scale of benefit being granted to a single developer, has the Township Attorney reviewed the developer’s history of campaign contributions to ensure there are no conflicts of interest or required recusals for this vote?

Ordinance 2026-03 | Raise rental affordable set asides to 20% in downtown zones

This is going to increase rental set asides to 20% in downtown related zones, has the potential to change project economy and something like this often becomes a bargaining chip later on. It is important for the council to convey, in specific detail (not vague terms) how this connects to the township’s actual obligation numbers

What we can ask, now, not later

• Updated obligation numbers and planned production strategy
• How this interacts with the other zoning moves in the same packet

Ordinance 2026-04 | Major affordable housing code rewrite and development fee rules

This is a long one and it’s where the money and mechanics reside. Development fees, trust fund rules, enforcement and exemptions matter even if this looks like another boilerplate.

To begin- the 40+ page document doesn’t provide a plain English summary or a redline against the prior code and as it is written fees and trust fund language that increases the risk of residents losing track of how affordable housing money is made and spent.

Buried in the updated fee schedule regarding “bonus” development fees.

“developers shall be required to pay a “bonus” development fee of 6.0% of the equalized assessed value for each additional unit that may be realized, except that this provision shall not be applicable to a development that will include affordable housing.”

Ordinarily, if a developer receives a “d” variance to build more density than local zoning requires them to pay a punitive 6% development fee (four times higher than the standard 1.5%) which is intended to discourage over-development.

This ordinance exempts developments that include affordable housing from the 6% “d” variance bonus fee. In practice, that can remove a financial deterrent that would otherwise apply when developers seek density above what zoning allows.

What we can ask, now, not later

• A plain English summary and a redline
• Current trust fund balance, spending plan and timeline
• Why does Section W.3.a.ii exempt inclusionary developments from the 6% density variance fee?
• By removing this surcharge, aren’t we incentivizing developers to propose oversized projects?
• Does this exemption apply even if the developer creates the minimum required affordable units or is it reserved for 100% affordable projects?
• Do we currently have a court-approved spending plan for development fees? If not, are we collecting fees that cannot legally be spent until that plan is approved?

Remember – because these are ordinances and given our current form of government (Faulkner)- residents can put any of these three items up for a public vote.

Resolutions    (NTE = Not to Exceed)

Littel-Lord Farmstead

Pre-qualification regs for exterior restoration which can be legit for historic restoration but can also narrow competition depending on the criteria

What we can ask

Who drafted the standards and how many firms are expected to qualify?
Will scoring and the shortlist will be available to the public?

Bill list @ $1,152,738.73

An 88 page packet with no itemized list. A seven figure payment vote with no line item. detail in the packet.

What we can ask

Put the full detailed bill list in the packet every time
Flag any payment above a threshold and point to the contract it’s connected to

Sustainable Jersey grant application

Grant to revise the Natural Resources Inventory –  good planning step, especially since flooding issues are on the radar.

What we can ask
When the ERI will be published and presented to the public
How will this be worked into stormwater and redevelopment decisions

NJDOT award extension request – River Bend – anti flooding project

Six month extension request for a $400k NJDOT Local Aid Infrastructure Fund award because environmental permit applications aren’t approved yet.

What we can ask
Which permits are pending and with which agencies
Revised schedule to bid, award and build

Agreement with Elizabeth for STD clinic services

Berkeley Heights will use Elizabeth Health Department STD clinic services –  $250 per patient.  Certifies funds NTE $1,000 pending budget. The agreement is ratified back to Jan 1.

What we can ask
How many residents used this last year
How much did it cost?
Is $1,000 is realistic or a placeholder for a later amendment

Shared services agreement with Madison, confined space and trench rescue

Annual cost is $10,200 then $10,404 plus reimbursement for actual incident costs.

Maybe a sensible safety move but also a recurring cost with variables the public can’t easily forecast.

What we can ask
How often these incidents occur in town
How reimbursable costs will be documented and capped, if at all

Professional services cap increase, CGP&H affordable housing admin agent
Amends a professional services contract with for affordable housing admin. agent services, increasing the NTE cap to $12,500- ratified back to Jan 1.

As noted above the Town is also rewriting affordable housing rules in the same packet.

This is a system overhaul.

What we can ask
What specific work drove the $4,200 increase

Hourly rates and deliverables for 2026

Mayor’s Special Task Force on Flooding

Council establishes a mayor’s task force on flooding, citing the July 14, 2025 storm and long term pressures from infrastructure, development, and severe weather. The task force sunsets Aug 17, 2026.

A task force can help but can also absorb public pressure without delivering binding commitments.

What we can ask
Will meetings be public?
Will recommendations be published?
How Council will act on them and report progress?

Passaic River federal funding application

Berkeley Heights as lead agency status can mean administrative burden and costs

What we can ask
Who writes and manages the application
Whether BH will incur unreimbursed costs and how they will be tracked
What segments are targeted and how success is measured

02/17/2026 Agenda Packet

Prior Mixed Use Ordinance