Where are you? >> Hell a small world. >> I can never understand. >> It was it was sort of a fun fun way a fun scenario
another night, >> right? Secretary, Mr. Chairman. >> In accordance to the open public meetings act, please note the following. All burough planning board meetings can be held in person in the meeting hall in the second floor of the Burns Munville
municipal building. Six. The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. The YouTube live stream access for all meetings is YouTube at Bernardville Buroughstreams. This link will also be available on the agenda for each meeting which is posted
on the burrow website burnerville burough.org and on the burough hall public open board at least 48 hours prior to meetings. Notice of these changes has also been mailed to the Burnal News and Courier News by posting a copy on the bureau website and by piling a copy with
the municipal clerk on January 22nd, 2026. There's the intention of the board not to continue any matter past 11 p.m. at any regular or special meeting of the board unless a motion is passed by the members then present to extend to a later specified cutoff time and same
shall be announced at the opening of each meeting. In addition, the board does not intend to begin new a new hearing after 10:00 p.m. nor begin testimony of a new witness after 10:30 p.m. Any hearing conducted by the board is a quasi judicial proceeding. Any
questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision. The quorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call.
>> Mr. chairman. Mr. DeMarco is absent. Miss Galler >> present. >> Mr. Graham >> here. >> Mr. Malia is absent. Mr. Morrison is absent. Mr. Sto >> here. >> Mr. Trainer >> here. >> And Mr. Van
>> here. >> Yes. >> Okay. Any minutes? >> Uh, we have a November. I didn't get to benefit this number. Motion to approve. Oh, suggest if
there's any changes. >> I'm good. >> Motion to approve the minutes from November 13, 2025. >> Second favor. >> Mr. S was listed as
>> No, not on the 13th. on the 11th. >> This just the 11. This is just the 13th. We don't >> give whoever was in second. Was anyone else actually
char I suspect? >> Yes. So eligible members for DeMarco Graham Malia and Morrison is not here.
Hi >> okay. >> All right. Does letter data have communications application for freshwater? That's both of these related to. >> Okay. Send me where the municipality is.
>> Thank you. >> So 61 candidate postard. It's a small house in the garage and mall is >> all right. But this is work that was is
being done to your board of board adjustment. They're just getting notice I guess. >> Well, the first notification they were a board adjustment application. >> Oh, they were. >> But now they're getting their copy on that.
>> Exactly. >> Okay. Business and visitors related to the agenda. >> Visitors. All right, we did miss review and approval of bills.
>> Um, but there was one bill that sent you an email that looked like it was a bill council that was for the board of adjustment. Are you talking about Russian? >> Yes. >> No, it's it was here. >> Yes, because it's going to probably
going to be coming here. >> Well, >> I don't know. >> But it made reference to VA. There was a BOA application that was denied. >> Okay. >> But then the Well, after you can probably explain it better. >> Well, there don't need to get into the substance subject matter of it, but I
was called upon by the attorney to assist with regard to that. >> Okay. So, >> put in the wrong place. >> Yes. B still, right? I mean BOA just because they reject it that doesn't impose it from a financial perspective.
>> Defer the administration as the out of hand. >> We're going to just run it as a board expense basically because we have no escro question. >> Well, no we don't. But
so it should go through the DOA. >> I don't know. It's unusual. Can we leave it that Denise will look into it? Is that appropriate? >> And if in fact it is appropriate, um do we give her do we can we approve it that
but we'd like her to look into it to make sure because we don't have an escro for it. How can we work then? >> Is it build under general state? Um >> I might have told that he was planning general not
make sense. >> Yes, you did. >> So I guess it's Jack asking you to look at it. >> I assume he had authority as well. they actually >> well and that's not the entire that's
only a portion of that particular invoice. Well, but what is in it is all is is >> how much how much is in >> uh one and a half hours or other
>> invoice 5124. I put this together last week, but um next time any ideas probably it sounds like if Yeah, if asking for it
expense is going to adjustment and then try to see the tax assessor to having testament supervision and der. >> Yeah, I guess I can speak to Nancy to see whether they want to pay out by the board general or borrow.
>> Yeah, just >> and and and if they want to change it, we can I can get back office to it. I mean, unfortunately, there's not really escrow because I think they were just like >> and actually October 31 same thing it's
not just December 1st these >> it was a fairly extensive >> yeah documents double call temple would be used etc as I thought I don't want to >> yeah actually situation of giving advice
but one option may be to contingently approve subject to uh the appropriate >> yeah uh That's not an escrow or general account, but it involved a bill that for
my firm. So that's just a hypothetical approved. You can confirm that it didn't come from an espro because it was actually two dos. It was the 31st and the thirst. You mean of whether maybe that you're
saying that it shouldn't come from in school? Well, it wasn't built as just where it should go. >> Where should it have been built? >> And if it's to the planning board, then we approve it. But we would like you. >> In theory, it's Jack asking. In theory, it's
not planning board. We have nothing before us. >> But that's an opinion, too. I >> know. matter where maybe >> okay so anyway a motion
>> motion to approve the bills pull up again >> 1650 $16,1950 >> second roll call >> subject to Denise He's checking those invoices. >> Mr. Brian,
>> yes. >> Miss Geller, >> yes. >> Mr. Salo, >> yes. >> Mr. Trainer, >> yes. >> And Mr. Pop, >> yes. >> The motion carries. >> Okay. So, our new business item is the review and adoption of the 2026
housing element and fair share program. Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to tee it up. As as I say, from a legal perspective, I will designate myself as the opening act. The main attraction is Mr. Port level perspective, the uh amended housing element fair share plan. But
from a legal perspective, as with all elements of the master plan and the master plan itself, we are the gatekeepers, as I always like to say. uh and uh with respect to this particular housing on the fair share branch, I'll get into the details of it and the
history no doubt um but uh I'll just simply say that the notice was provided pursuant to the municipal land use published in the newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing given to the clerk of each adjoining
municipality at least 10 days prior by certified mail. I believe it was correct. email. >> Oh, email. I'm sorry that correct. Which is permitted now by statute and given by either service or certified mail. I believe that might have been certified
mail to the office of the planning advocacy in the county planning unit. uh and we have all the uh affidavit of proof of publication confirmations of service and receipt to to all the aforementioned all at least if not more
than 10 days prior to this evening consistent with the municipal land use law. So procedurally we are sound procedure at the public hearing. Um I do have a resolution drafted um uh because there will be something activated by the
board. I anticipate uh I anticipated the action that he's adopted the housing element fair share plans particularly uh as evented particularly since as I understand it uh it is consistent with a mediation agreement between fair share
housing and the bureau. It is also that mediation agreement was approved uh by way of recommendation from the program judge uh the former mouthal judge and then it was ordered by the current mouth
judge and it is all in connection with as I think you're aware uh the March 15, 2026 deadline by which if we do not continue uh to among other things adopt the sound fair share plan as well as the government
adopt all the implementation ordinances associated with resolutions. Uh we can lose our community. Uh so uh that is my expectation that we will adopt this this evening. Uh that is
why the resolution is drafted the way it is. Of course ultimately the board will make that determination. Um the so I at a point there's any questions for me to end the opening act and turn
it over to the main attraction is coral. I would ask uh if I can swear her in because it is a public hearing. Thank you. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony about the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes I do.
>> Thank you. And I will not lie her because she's been steering the state of New Jersey licensed as such and she is our affordable housing planner. So no need to do so. I assume the board will accept as such. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Mr.
Warner. Jessica Caldwell burough planner for the record. Uh, as the board may recall, the planning board adopted a housing element and fair share plan on June 26 of 2025 that was submitted to the dispute resolution program uh for
review under uh the current fair housing act. Uh there was a deadline of August 31st for challenges to be made against that plan which was submitted to the program uh by June 30th. The bureau received three timely
challenges. One from Fair Share Housing Center, one from Aaron Duff, a municipal resident, and one from JMF Properties, the contract purchasers of one of the U projects in the plan at block 66 lots
10, 11, 12, and 14. There was additionally an untimely challenge that was filed by Dan Bro Properties LLC the contract purchases of another set of properties in the plan located at
Bernard's A uh block 100 lots 2 2.01 and 13. So the burough went through program negotiations with the parties. uh the Damro properties uh challenge was dismissed because it
was untimely. Uh but the other three challenges were uh kept at the program and the burough went through negotiations with the various parties. Uh there was a settlement reached with Fairchair Housing Center as well as with
JMF Properties and a partial settlement with u Mr. death and the remainder of his settle of his challenge was dismissed by the court. This housing element and fair share plan was updated to reflect those settlement agreements
that were um completed as Mr. Warner stated through the program recommended by the program judge and then ordered by the Mount Laurel judge. Uh we are under the deadline of March 15, 2026 to adopt um all implementing
uh ordinances as well as the updated housing element fair share plan in order to retain immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits. Uh the majority of the housing element and fair share plan uh the housing element portion was pretty much
uh remains the same as was adopted by the board last year. Um what was updated was in the fair share plan with respect to uh the settlement agreements uh with the various parties which I'll just review briefly and then I'll be happy to
take any questions. Uh the prior round essentially res re remains the same as 127 unit obligation and answered um with the units as proposed in the prior plan. uh the third round
settle the third round proposal uh obligation still remained at 215 units. Uh what did change with respect to that proposal is fair share housing center uh challenge the quarry site uh if you recall there's an inclusionary zone in
the in the third round of the quarry property. It was what's called a durationally adjusted zone, meaning that it was outside the sewer service area. Um, the bureau has not as of yet brought it into a the sewer service area. And fair share housing center essentially
challenged the validity of that zone unless the burough was going to take action to um move it into the sewer service area. Also, as part of uh the challenge for Mr. deaf. He requested that or was challenging the fact that
the burough did not include the downtown districts um as a mechanism within the plan uh as part of the discussions and settlement. It was agreed to include the downtown districts to a certain extent
in the third round. Uh, and essentially we decided as the burough to remove the quarry zone because there really wasn't um a I guess we just weren't sure how valid the zone was and there wasn't a desire to go through a whole process to
try to bring that area into the sewer service area. Um so the downtown district essentially replaced the quarry zone where we applied because of the um minimum densities or maximum densities
permitted in those zones of 35 units to the acre along with what's called a mandatory set aside ordinance which requires 15 or 20%. We're required to increase that now to 20% across the board um of any development that comes
in this residential. >> I'm sorry if I may interrupt the so but just for clarification the requirement for set aside 15% and 20% is that 15% rental 20% owner. >> Yes, that's correct. See 20% across the
board meaning both for rental and for owner occupy they're both at a 20% set aside meaning one of the uh of the development would be for affordable housing that be accurate >> yes >> rounded
and rounded one rounded bunk down >> well 20% 20% there's fractional units I'll leave that to >> that's what I'm part That formula is not just 20% >> this year addresses that. Now I'm not
thousand pound >> but you know but but it's >> you can round down below.5 and round up over >> point. Yes. So the downtown districts with a um we
proposed 23 units would be met through in the third round through the downtown districts. Also um Mr. Duff raised the fact that there was an approval by the planning board that was not included in the prior housing element in fair share
plan at 24 to 26 Claremont Road uh which the planning board approved February 15, 2023 to construct 28 apartments uh five of which were required to be affordable. So we also included that in the third round. Uh that along with all of the
other prior round other third round mechanisms uh remain the same and that answered the 215 unit obligation for the third round in the >> 24 and 26 that the gunshot and 56
degrees in clear. It's the um it's the parking >> so that was included. Uh and then so the fourth round uh again the quy was in the fourth round as well. So that's now removed and uh
the mechanisms are essentially the same but there were some increases in some of the projects. So 65 Claremont Road stayed the same to 28 apartments with a 20% set aside for six affordable units. Uh the Claris redevelopment uh they were
one of the challengers. Uh we agreed to increase that number to uh 96 units from 94. purchased a slight increase which allowed for 19 uh age restricted affordable rental units with
a 20% set aside at that project. The inclusionary zone at the I2 Bernard's Avenue site uh the density on that was increased to allow for 180 family rental units with a 20% set aside for 36
affordable units. And then the extension of expiring controls >> is it much more at the I2 at the burnouts. >> Uh previously I believe it was at 125 units. So that was increased
um exactly I heard you sitting on the radio. Yeah, it was for 125 family rental units with 25 affordables and was increased >> to 180 or 36 affordable and that covered
some of the loss um from taking out the zone. >> Yeah, I'm sure that that's a lot of units under data units. >> I'm sorry. That's a lot of units that >> and then uh the extension of expiring
controls we had in in the plan. Uh we were unsure when we started uh the last plan how many of those we would be able to count. Uh the burough initiated uh letters and requests from the property owners within the Pineriidge condos and
the rolling hills condos. they did get interest from 29 property owners to extend those expiring controls. So, we upped the amount of uh number of units to 29 and we may be able to get up to 35 if we
get more interest and and the bureau has agreed to 29. The original number was how many and now it's 29 or there was no original number. >> There was uh I believe let's see just double check
>> we had 13 in the prior plan. So we increased that to the maximum that we could um based on the interest that we had >> and again that may go up even higher. Um so for the fourth round summary the I2
Bernard Zab uh with some bonus credits uh for redevelopment of existing commercial site we get 54 total credits. The extension of expiring controls is 29 credits. uh the ClariS redevelopment area uh 19
plus six for a redevelopment um of a commercial site or also that's within a half a mile of the train station uh 25 credits and then uh the 65 Claremont is six credits. So we answer
>> uh because we cap out 25% of the total. So unfortunately we can't blame all of the credits. There's always a catch. >> There's always that I know.
>> So yeah. So unfortunately we were it is half a credit per unit but it gets capped out at >> 25%. So we're at essentially 114 where our obligations 113. Um so we're meeting
the fourth round that reflects our settlement with um all the parties that were referenced previously and um the proposal that's before you this evening for housing element for shareh Yes.
I mean, I'm happy to answer any questions or, you know, through anything else that you'd like to go through. The rest of the plan is the same as what was adopted previous went up a lot. And is that still is that
going to be three twotory supposed to be twostory residential or is there special there is an indication there might be special zoning? Yes. >> Yes. So, we have new zones for all of those properties that are before you for
review consistency. >> What's the height zoning for that height called it? Whatever that 180 units >> uh five stories, 60 ft I believe. Or do we reduce that?
um remember but keep in mind this property you look at the property it's it over the so here burners and then it's the property slopes steeply down so you basically when you're on burners have it
you're like probably have about three or four stories that's going to be below the wind's at >> right so the ideal zoning is you're entitled to one but I understand where you're you're going is expanding the concept of slow. >> Yeah. The idea being that most of the
building, you know, presumably you could be >> on the street like five stories high street like >> two or three and a half >> 60. Yeah, it's a really even though it's a larger property, it's really
constrained and there's a lot of slope issues. So, >> Well, okay. But we decided to put 180 units on that constraint property. service wanted to cover, you know, was it just part? Well,
it's huge, right? >> Yeah. And it's also there also wasn't really a lot of other options. I mean, it was sort of like we actually it was actually more than that at one point and we kept pushing it down down as far as we could to get it. >> How many acres is that property?
>> 3.67 there. Let me zoom in on this. Do you have the exact one? It is. >> Yeah. 6.14 acres. So, it's >> a little over six acres total. So, it is
a larger property. >> So, it basically you're still under Well, you're still around 30ish whatever per acre. >> 20 units per acre. >> 180 units. Six acres. Yes.
30 unit. It's 30 units per acre. >> Oh, sorry. I was looking at the wrong. So, >> just, you know, a different sanity check. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Was the was the um
prospective developer at that one about any of the requests? Do they want to be >> they labor? Yeah, trying to a little bit. >> They they did particip well didn't
participate but they were uh you know at the table so to speak somewhat >> they kind of have to be if they were pushing from 120 to 180 >> they did express interest. I mean, one of the main objections for Fairchair Housing
Center was whether or not there were was interest in development of the zones because all of them are existing developed properties. So, when you have something like that, they either want you to have redevelopment or a developer who's interested. So since we had that
developer come forward that actually did help us settle the case because they knew >> they knew there was a developer in play. >> I was just going to add maybe one or two. >> Sure. the uh
would it be uh true that the uh proposed 2026 housing fair share plan in your opinion find will guide the use of land in the bur protect public health safety and promotes the general welfare? Yes, I do.
>> Your opinion that that the 2026 fair share plan designed to achieve access to affordable housing to meet the town not all constitutional affordable housing obligations uh and considers the lands that are most appropriate for construction and housing
in accordance with the fair housing. >> Yes, I do. Yeah. So they're all inclusion area. I mean the whole foreground is inclusion area. There's no >> dedicated. >> Well, no except for the extensions. >> Yeah.
>> Oh >> yeah. >> I guess I meant there's no development dedicated affordable. >> There's no 100% affordable. Yeah. No, that the rural council's moved away from that.
um given the cost that was associated with the prior round third round proposals >> the sanctions of affordability controls we looked at as 100% affordable without any construction >> so um so we handle this and then we deal
with the consistency review >> that will be the appropriate back it is a public hearing so misswell is done in the third draft presentation and the board attending board professionals without asking your questions. I would
just request Mr. Chair that you offer it up to the public for any questions or comments. I will swear >> speaking I will swear anybody. It's open to the public for any questions or seeing the public. Yeah, it's not
bringing anyone in. >> We can proceed then. As I mentioned, if there's nothing further, we do have a resolution uh drafted which side of the statements the questions I asked that will answered
in the affirmative. Uh it adopts the 2026, housing fair share plan. Uh I believe there may be a slight modification to the density of that one uh inclusionary project. >> Yeah, I'll update that. It's it's
incorrect. So >> the change from 20 to >> approximately 30 >> approximately 30. >> Just double check what it should be, but it's >> what's that? >> But if there's no other correct code, the motion would be to adopt the housing
fair share plan that one non substantially transient change. Uh the uh and then assuming the adoption would be by resolution motion second call vote uh majority passage uh
the uh uh board secretary will forward a resolution the housing fair share plan to the previously mentioned uh the office of public planning the excuse me the county planning board uh and uh also
note to the join post newspapers. We still have newspapers at least for a few more weeks. >> I wanted before we vote and they do that on the record. >> No, I think I mean the board can
deliberate. uh it's public hearings and certainly more than delivery but uh so >> no I understand and and today is primarily about um reviewing all of the resolution that's come legally and we we
have boundaries state requirements and the um resolution that the state and the land owners have come to. I'm going back to when we first looked at this of this isn't what we're talking
about, but the underlying um evaluation and summary of what Bernard'sville is in terms of housing and the community has changed. I just wanted on the record that has changed so
much postco that that portion of it isn't really I understand you have to work with the census information but I don't know that it accurately reflects what the community is what the housing is who works from home who doesn't and
that's not what's important today because it was already discussed the last time you presented but if we're going to approve today I just wanted that on the record that the census information that you work with in 20 isn't necessarily accurate postco
and and that's with respect to the housing element portion not with respect to fair share >> correct but I just wanted to put that comments separate and apart from the fact that we have um we have parameters
that we have to meet today noted I need a motion or a resolution stated. >> I'll move it. I'll >> second. Roll call. >> Meller. >> Yes. Mr. Brian.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Sasso. >> Yes. >> Mr. Trainer? >> Yes. And Mr. Viano? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Okay. So now the um
ordinances for consistency we're doing. >> Are you presenting that also? >> Um Steve had just asked me to stay. >> Yeah, I think we're going to uh have the same opening act. Um but we're going to have a different main attraction.
consistency reviews of our our planning will be panled into those as I understand it. Um, but you're starting at the elder, but I never get top the the the uh the uh and you're as you're very much familiar this is the uh with
all land use ordinance development regulations, zoning ordinances uh we as the gatekeepers of the master plan can't say we uh after introduction of those ordinances they are referred to us under section 26A of the municipal land use
law for review and deter determination as to the consistency. We can say uh that they're consistent. Uh also we say they're substantially consistent, not inconsistent or if for some reason you find an ordinance to be inconsistent,
that's a possibility as well. Um, in light of the adoption of the housing and fair share plan, uh, it's my anticipation here at Wells Manor that these ordinances actually are affirmatively consistent with the housing fair share
plans. Well, sorry. The opening act is overlapping. Oh, boy. Well, there you go. We should we should rehear. But the in any event, it's not a public hearing. um for what that's worth. Uh and uh I
will now relatedly turn it over to our main attraction board planner uh to handle while the memo handles both ordinances uh in them. As always, I'm going to ask the board to consider uh each ordinance separately uh with the
covering resolution uh finding each find each uh consistent management plan time for the main attraction. >> Okay, stole some of the drafting part. But um
>> I can't imagine that interesting part. Go ahead. >> The um as the you know as the plan board you have 35 days to issue your report back to the governing body as to whether you deem these two ordinances before you as
not inconsistent. The first of the two ordinances that you are to review is the 2026 death 2040 which seeks to amend Ric 13 other land development regulations
specifically with regard to your set aside. Um, as we said or as um your burough planner just said, currently that portion of your code states that any
um multif family developments that generate five or more units. There's a requirement to dedicate 15% of the of for rental development for and 20%
of a development of that nature and this sale is required to be applicable. What this revised ordinance would do is essentially just give a blanket 28% requirement across the board regardless
of tenure. So if it's rentals they're building or sale units that they're building, it's 20%. either um the second ordinance. >> No, no, on the first one.
>> Okay, sorry. Go ahead. >> Does the ordinance indicate the rounding formula? I think it does, right? >> Sorry. So it does specifically say when any calculation of the percentage of affordable units required to be divided
results in a fractional unit of 1/2 or more that you'll be rounded up to the next full unit and vice versa less than one half will be rounded down. >> So you're reaffirming normal normal grounding.
>> Okay. >> Yes. >> Thanks. Um, does anyone else have any chat? >> I have one question. You find that affirmatively consistent with the fair transform especially since
it's administrative region consistent with the UPAC regulations and the fair housing act and it facilitates the creation of lower housing that I would my memo specifically says
that it's not >> could you go a step further and say it's consistent >> yes it is reve. >> Okay. So, your second ordinance to review this evening is 20 26 2041
and as it was just presented to you in the the housing element presentation. This ordinance um simply seeks to adopt uh zoning regulations necessary to as we just said implement the foreground settlement agreement and
that it's proposing to add the following sections to your code and they're the following affordable housing overlay zones AH8 ah9 and a H sorry a H data
um and it also seeks to amend the burough's zoning to reflect those community law. Um, AH8 is what is referred to as the Cremont
Road and is expected to yield six affordable units for their requirement. The um H-9 is what was described as the Claris redevelopment area with plans to yield
19 affordable units um with a total of 25 credits for the 113. And as was stated previously, the ah owed that 10 zone the the death to Burn Avenue with the
plans yield 36 affordable units of the total 54 credits towards the the requirement and it is in my opinion that this ordinance as well affirmatively is consistent or in other words it's not
inconsistent clarification if I could, Mr. Chairman. Um, since it matches what is in the amended housing fair share plan again, you're comfortable finding that it is actually that this one is actually consistent with
>> No, no, that's okay. Um, what's the density of the project? And you resolve they they resolve the zoning constraints on the property the adjacent property that can't be developed. It's part of the ClariS unit. >> ClariS is the 48 units per acre total of
96 units. Which one? >> So the property going to >> Yeah, that is going Yes, that is going to be it's not in the ordinance but believe part of the settlement discussions for that the reserve is a
park in space. So, okay, the the date restriction. Okay. Yeah. Sorry, I digress, buddy. We're looking at it. >> So, what's the density then of the >> You just said 40 >> 48 >> and the height
and the and the the zoning because it's a special number. Four stories or 50 ft. >> What? >> Four stories. >> Thanks father. >> Actually for the matter consistency
as well as together. Thank you. Well, number so in the ordinance for that CL company 09. >> Yeah,
>> there will definitely have to be very precise language as to the height. >> It says four stories from >> from Route 202. >> It just does height requirements.
>> Yeah. Okay. That's probably not unknown. >> That goes up that road. >> Yeah. Because the road goes up and we don't know what they're going to measure it from. And they'll say, "Well, it's not really the stuff closest to 202. That's not really, you know, we could we could go up five stories there because,
you know, >> that much from the corner to across from what is the main?" >> Yeah. Yeah. There is much >> question Jessica if we the I think there is similar language in the Marmont
Avenue that says like the height is measured on the street not from the average elevation would that be considered a substantive change that would require introduction >> question for >> yeah well
for the affordable housing counc But >> yeah, just concern through just the >> to the council and they could consider it. >> Yeah. You can be part of the recommendation along with recommend.
>> Yes. >> And basically it can't be the street. It can't be church street where it's measured from. It has to be from I believe the slot there was from 202. >> Okay. >> Up church have to be based on board stories.
at 202 >> at 202 >> not four stories along church. Yes. So there's so one question is whether it would require the ordinance to be reintroduced which would >> which would be a problem on the our
immunity to my totally out of my expertise. Well let's assume that it's just a clarification and not a substant of change. So that would be good and then uh then it's this question whether the courts would accept that as a reasonable you
know whatever but so you know but I think it's it's a fair recommendation it it may work out the way you originally suggested it may just be 40 ft mute column of the street and what I I'm trying to think of to get all these units in place right you may need a
stair step you may need the front buildings uh four stories But then halfway up church you you because of the the landslope you may need to go four stories from church
>> but from but what they can't do is say well we're going to start it at four stories in church and we get the bonus >> right >> uh floor along 202 because of the shape of the land or well we measured we measured the average height
uh the baseline the formula where they go around the building essentially and say this is where the uh defined ground level is. >> Yeah. >> There there just needs to be clear we
can't be in a situation is where along 202 it's five stories. >> Okay. Is it this is a redevelopment plan or it's anticipated all? >> Well, >> it is anticipated that it will be redevelopment. So, but I mean obviously
>> this is the wrong >> this is the zoning ordinance but I think yes I agree even if it potentially could be a redevelopment zone we still want to make sure that the ordinance even it's not is you know good my recommendation
with respect to the recommendation uh would be the board certainly can make a recommendation uh the governing body and council uh will uh make a determination as to whether or not
it's whether or not they wish to make that happen and then if so whether or not >> we will send them a note back that says this is what we need the computation what the effective ground level is there's a computation for how to
determine that that's going to be 8 ft above ground at route 202 >> that the the the normal computation for ground level. So we'll send a response back to them if it if we approve this.
>> Right. I was just we don't need to worry about whether it is or isn't >> but that they'll the governing body will decide whether they wish to uh take the recommendation and if so the impact it has on the ordinance. >> It's outside of our but we have the
right to make the recommendation. just clarify. >> So I think I have the recommendation >> and it'll be uh if the board so desire to close accordingly, it'll be included with the uh consistency fund.
Okay, you got enough to cherry back with me again. >> Nobody's off. Um only cons one concern I have about that property, the Claris property is is
there any provision and maybe yeah, of course there is the driveway. Uh we don't want this project closing off access that road and the driveway. And maybe that's okay cuz it's part of the I think on the other side of the driveway is
where the preserved area is. But um you don't want like take a drive through it or something. >> Yeah. The developer has agreed to essentially preserve maybe not an exact configuration but preserve essentially
the parking that's behind there now. >> Even the parking. >> Yep. >> Um which is used by the library and the high school. It's more than I just wanted access, but if they wanted >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's it's that's figure it out. Yep. Good luck.
>> Does anyone else have any comments about these? I know it's very subjective. And you said there are restrictions on the Claremont properties too. It's the under what was just proposed. >> Yes. Is that
>> Is that the same as Rossy's too? Because on Rossy's property. >> Yeah. Is um >> Is this everything up to Russy's property? Pretty much it's >> kind of stuff
includes right smaller than >> Yeah. >> So, so because that property is pretty is also very steep like much more steep. I mean it goes from Claremont really drops down. Yeah. >> So the height under that ordinance the building height shall be maximum of
three stories of residential apartments fronting on the fairmont way if a low grade parking is permitted behind the building provided that is not visible in Fairmont with the exception of driveway entrances meaning like the maximum building height is the lesser of 50 ft as measured from the
average elevation of the property which is what you're talking about or 40t measured from the average elevation of all the building. So the idea is that it's the average elevation of this too right there. So
>> so three stories 40t. Yeah. Would imply the lesser. >> No meaning meaning like measured from Yeah. It can't go higher. You know it could be less even if you measure the average elevation but I suspect that drop is pretty neat. I bet you the average is going to be higher. So the
average elevation will be important for those first couple properties where the the art 56 degrees. So the gallery and then the gun shop because that's up on a hill. >> I don't know. >> Well, yeah, this property is beyond that further north of that. >> You say the other,
>> right? There's a second property there. There are two on Claremont. There's the one where the >> not in this though. >> Not in this. >> Okay. So this >> this overlay zone is just the property from
>> Mil Street going north to to the Yeah. Hen up until and I think including the um I think it's slow too is it >> lots up through Canada. >> Okay. So maybe
>> it's in the um fair share plan is >> yeah there's a map of it. It doesn't include that building that's perpendicular search parking lot. Okay. Pretty incredible.
Like you were saying any other um I I just out of curiosity back to the Claris zone or the ah9 the last required condition mentions
that some of the affordable units may be age restricted and the market rate units may be non age restricted. So that was >> seems like so then they could just be whatever they want is >> they have they could have um they could
age restrict the whole property if they elected to um but the bureau agreed that they could age restrict the affordable units. Um but then they want the remainder of the development to be market rate. the limit right of how many actually age
restrict right it's 30% of our obligation or something like that >> right >> we can't do >> that's correct and they those were the only age restricted units in the fourth round >> we had other age restricted units in the third round what it helps them with with
the size of the building is that they can do all one bedrooms for the age restricted versus having three bedrooms you have to have with the family units and it just was tough with thorough layout So they asked for the all age restricted. >> It needs three bedrooms. They're the
same for the family units. >> If you have family units, you have to have some three bedrooms. You have to have 20% the ratio single bedroom, >> right? Whereas in market rate, you could have just one and two bedrooms if you want. You don't have to have three
bedrooms. So they'll essentially consume their singles aotment using the age restrict and what they're left with is >> um the opportunity to have them all the two and three bedroom.
>> They won't have the subject of the two and three bedrooms. Those will be market rate and they can develop. >> Yeah, it'll be up to the developer. silk. >> Okay. >> Singles unless they have a problem fitting it in.
>> Uh was there is it part of the developer agreement or is there some aspect of parking associated with the zoning? >> Well, that's in the settlement. >> So, the ratio the the parking spaces is
part of this. Oh, the ratio of parking spaces. I mean, we just put them at I think at RSIS for this or they do. >> Oh, we have it basically set to what it is for the downtown district, which is
pretty much RS RSIS, but there are some um variations for some of the smaller units. The one bedrooms have a little slightly different calculation under the downtown zones. So, it's basically whatever it is.
>> Downtown. Okay. I mean, >> it's okay because there are a lot of senior single units there that would tend to bring the average down anyway compete. So, >> right. >> But it's basically you're following the
downtown formula, >> right? is the answer. Yeah. As opposed to RSIS explicitly. >> Yeah. There's nothing else. Uh and since this is not a public hearing, so we do not have to have a question and comment from
the public who is here this evening. The the um I would just ask uh as I always do that we draft each resolution separately. Uh so first the 2026 2040
uh the fines uh consistent with met plan ordinance or 2640 uh the uh board administrative ordinance uh involving the set aside provisions that our planner opin was consistent
with the master plan. Uh if you agree with her professional opinion uh then I assume there would be a motion to second a call both to uh adopt resolution associated there with which has the number but I hope there is but I don't
have it. >> I'll move 2026 2040 we'll call we'll use the roll call >> yes Mr. Brian. Yes, >> Mr. Sasso. >> Yes. >> Mr. Trainer,
>> yes. >> And develop. >> Yes. >> And then the same as to the resolution associated with ordinance number 2026-2041 of the ordinance that adoptions necessary
for ground set agreement and amend various sections of the land development code. And the resolution of course as consistent with the opinion provided by our board planner uh finds that that ordinance is consistent with your own
master plan. >> The chance to get a chance to say that. Did you get a chance? >> We got it. I just wanted to be sure that the opening act didn't work on your >> subconsc
attracted one together starts bound. >> Okay, I'll move uh 2020 2041. >> Second >> 2026 2030. >> Second
roll call. >> Miss Gell, >> yes. Mr. Grant, >> yes. >> Mr. STO, >> yes. >> Mr. Trainer, >> yes. >> And Mr. Biano, >> yes. All right. >> Thank you very much for your time.
Good to meet you all. >> Okay. So, we have a resolution for adoption unit 73 as the board will fall.
They are here not too long. uh January 15 was a excuse me preliminary final major site plan B design wavering the third floor existing mix building for an
auxiliary dining room uh as an event venue associated with the restaurant located on the adjacent lot sub properties of lot 9 block 7769 board unanimously
uh 80. Uh we found uh all review to be justified and granted the same. There were numerous conditions of approval to mitigate the associated with the deviations and the sought
board planners memo board of engineers memo. uh you'll qualify approval conditions uh that continued to stand same amount inconsistent with the approval. Uh the maximum number of patrons was a significant as I believe
it uh condition that would remain uh with respect to uh this venue as well as the restaurant facilities on uh lot eight uh at any given time. and the maximum being 90 patrons seats. Uh and
the event space itself would have a seating path to be maximized at 40 patrons. Um and getting again the two were very tied varants believe was limited so far event space functions as an auxiliary space for the restaurant on
lot E only and specifically says that the lepir it's no longer associated with the restaurant occupying building on lot eight when we tie them together both the affirmative and
beyond Uh and the resolution would have to be reported with the county clerk's office so as to provide actual notice to all conductors and title uh and uh ordinances must be complied and there
were many other conditions. So if the board if if the board finds that if the resolution finds the resolution to be an active memorialization of the board's determination to approve that application with the conditions associated there with then I've done my
job and we'll get a motion to second the roll call vote to adopt the resolution. I thought it is that >> yes comment that there was testimony that there would be no outside music or sound
in this is that a condition >> I think that sometimes what happens is and I'll double check the the um there in one of the reports. So when we incorporate the report comments, >> you could just double check it. I'm just
>> Yeah. But uh we we can approve with the contingent on it being within one of those reports or in the alternative as modified and I will add it. >> So roll.
Okay. I'm sorry. I Mr. Sasso, sorry. The train >> yellow. >> Yes. Mr. Graham. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sasso. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Trainer?
>> Yes. >> And Mr. Velian? >> Yes. >> The motion carries. >> No public hearings. >> No. recreation open space. That's the fitt
>> any comments? More comments. I sent out obviously section 8. I think there was a I didn't work on a discussion about potentially eliminating word section Microsoft Word section of the
section 8 but um I'm just glowing it into the table but I'll take another look at it and then I sent out section N I tried to eliminate things that were no longer relevant and brought and arrange
them. >> Just a real general comment. Um, I thought it was fine. I I started getting into it and quite honestly it was like my reaction was this is like so much detail for a master plan that it seemed and it's fine being there I guess but it
seemed like more like and it was very a lot of like let's put in the you know fountain let's like pave this path or let's make this ADA accessible. It seemed like things that probably the recreational department should be doing anyway and like maintaining them and
improving them. And my thought was um you know like not to like you know um uh you know have this go off the rails and we should move forward and adopt this if everybody's happy with it but think about like what I'd love to see is a
little bit more um strategic long-term planning around what do we need as a town from a recreational standpoint? Is you know pickle ball is getting more popular than tennis? Do we need more pickle ball courts? you know, is lacrosse getting
more popular than baseball or whatever. Like whatever it is, like thinking about, you know, are the parks in the right place? Do we need a new park somewhere else? Like that kind of like long-term planning as opposed to like this park needs, you know, new, you know, work done. And it's a bigger
obviously that's a bigger project than just sort of reviewing this and making sure it's it's consistent and updated. Um, but that would be something I think would be worthwhile doing at some point. sooner rather than later. I mean, and and I'm happy to, you know, jump in
there and with with the, you know, I think with the support maybe and even leading it, the record committee should be, you know, pushing that is is kind of what I think they're part of the job. >> I I would concur with that. I mean, one thing that I was struggling with when you get to the actual list, trying to
follow what is a priority and what is not a priority is is extremely difficult. Then you get to the actual master plan and it has drawings and renditions of what heaven will look like for each each area that's going to be redeveloped for recreation, but it's
only in some. It's not in others. So, it's hard to follow. What is the the eventual strategy and how do we get to Yes. Um I I just I think it's missing that. >> There's one biging factor. It's part of
this session which is in each case the consultant recommended before you do anything to a park do a master plan for the park >> right and and so even though they delved into a lot of the details they sort of
said don't do any of this unless you do a master plan for the park >> and I'm thinking even like one level higher is like not complimentary what you're saying which is what's the strategy >> like an even higher level one which is like are these parts in you know, are these should we continue to invest in
this park or should we, you know, I don't know. Who knows? And it could be going a lot of different directions. >> Well, an overarching statement about playing fields. >> Yeah. >> Okay. What is the what is the overarching strategy for playing fields, >> right? >> Yes. No. No. Please.
>> Should they be all, you know, her or, you know, how many should be and where do you get the most bang for your buck? there's very limited funds for the for recreation >> and that's the one thing that I can't get out of this is how I mean >> what's our fiveyear plan to get the most
bang for our buck >> um and I'll even go one level higher than that so getting meta now but um what was a little frustrating to me was I you know I went in both in you know in connection with what we did earlier was this is this
consistent with the master plan and is this wreck you know and I and I pulled up master plan under the Burough website and it's like 20 documents. Some of them are drafts, some of them are from 2003 and it's really hard to figure out like
what is the master plan. Like it's it's not like all consolidated in like one place. Um because the w plan I don't think should stand on its own. It should be part of this like overriding master plan that that all makes sense and then you can kind of like grab one document
and kind of like refer to each other. So, you know, that's that's a big undertaking. Um, but I think it's something that that that >> we have to do, right? What's the >> new dates on >> every 10 years you have to reexam master
plan re-examination report >> and that would cover you for 10 years. I'm not saying that that's the bare minimum. And I think the last one was 2019 if I'm not mistaken. 2020. >> That's um correct. I'm gonna check it right But even like I'm not like even
just the simple exercise of like can we just like clean it up on the website and like have like one document, you know, with a table of contents. You don't even have to like change anything at this point and just say, okay, here's here's the master plan. It's got, you know, eight, you know, nine sections,
whatever. And here they are. >> Put them all in one PDF and then like >> Yeah. like and in and in some sort of like order and you know with a table of contents so that you can like see what is actually in the master plan. >> I was just kind of surprised cuz I've
been like kicking myself. I'm like I read parts of the master plan but I'm like I got to sit down and just like look, you know, kind of read through the master plan >> and it's really hard looking the way it is now. >> Right. And that happens when you take one element.
>> Exactly. 25 30 years you put it all together in one. I said it costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time and effort. Not to say it's not worth it. Say it's not worth living but that that that
evolution is not unique. That is yeah common thing. So sorry to you know kind of that was off on a tangent but that was sort of my takeaways when I started getting to this I just was like oh thinking about it
sens a higher scale. Yeah, certainly master planner general Greg Miko uh referred to as aspirational >> um as opposed to detail oriented
>> but they could have other just for thought. Um, and I guess we get back to their their commission. That's good. Um, we we kind of owe it to them to get this thing, you know, approved, you
know, kicked it over. You know, they all thought as they all thought it was done, said done and finalized and so forth and said, "No, it's not." So, we do need to get it over the finish. I'm open to the suggestions. you know,
it's just part of it. It's just the mechanics. We got to have a public meeting and yeah, I mean, I didn't find anything offensive today. I wanted to like, oh, we can't approve this. There's more about like they let the rec look at it. Yeah. And
comment and reorder things, eliminate some things. >> They just want to know what the priorities are. How do you get to them? It's not the final Well, they do prioritize. Oh, wait.
We've had some we've had some discussion recently council about um so it's a little weird in terms of because w the wreck plan and the open space plan sort of get merged together and >> yeah and so at one point I think there
was an open space committee and then that got like that's debunk and they kind of moved all of the open space stuff to the rec >> as opposed to the >> the environmental committee and I my feeling is that the environmental committee should be like the rec committee should be focused on like w
facilities. What are the priorities for like active recreational >> services and facilities? >> Yes. >> And then the open and the environmental committee should be responsible for like open space like where do we want to put our open space going and what's available.
They said that was that they that the council was talking about separating engine >> we said back that we would be to take that on. >> Yeah. >> And um and I don't think it's a huge undertaking because it's like maybe once
a year you look at it's almost like a reexamination. You look at it and say okay you know here's our our already list of focus space. Has anything new come across anybody's, you know, radar? Has anything changed with any of these properties that would make them higher
or lower? Valuation changed? I mean, it's a pretty simple exercise. You just keep that list fresh. >> Also, funding, >> right? Where's the funding? Yeah. >> Well, I think it's more dynamic than that. And you look at how
two 50 B is handled. That's just shouldn't be happening that way. >> That's the uh >> building. Yeah, >> that was um arrived as an opportunity
>> for aggressive. Now we have to tell you that um without a lot of death and there's the one next to it, right? But abandon the house and that's
part of an estate possible to deal with but that that would have been you know an ideal use of profit. So there's stuff in open space because ostensibly that would be it could be both right. could say well no part of
like 59 was like part of part liquidation essential thread and even part administrative all movement of the staff they said oh put staff there so I I don't know that it's a once a
year thing I mean now maybe once a month was I mean it could theoretically all come under the bas planning board and the master plan but you know my feeling is like division of labor it's like why now have these committees
>> because you want people working as the master princip. >> Yeah. >> You know, not like every time something comes up, it's not tack I I think you want to move this along. >> Yeah. So we would need to schedule
public hearing hiring notice where as we did similar what we just did with housing on share plan development of the master plan. I have one question my recollection is that the scrier of this plant or at least the original scrier uh
of this plant um was announced that may not be coming back. >> I'm sorry. Was it was it topology? >> Yeah. >> That might be >> Yeah. No, they would be coming,
>> right? The the question becomes um who will be >> presenting it >> presenting this plan uh as a as a plan element with the expectation being that
it's our board planner notwithstanding the fact that our board planner and our board planner firm did not draft this document. What is that? What are the expectation rec committee chair? I'm sorry, the rec
committee chair. Well, it's I mean we could have other people but generally there would be a planner involved in the presentation of a master plan. >> Did they ever give a a price to come
back to do the presentation or do they just refuse to come back? I can't remember. like a third buyer. Uh >> I basically we'll just talk about how much you're going to pay and then come down to required that you have to have a binder. >> You know, it's that's an excellent
question. the the uh the ML well I don't doesn't wire a plan to present a plan element and certainly some are more planning
oriented than others and this is so it may be able to be presented solely by the rec department wasn't it previously presented and adopted and this is just revisions >> well We never adopted it,
>> but it was presented and by by I'm sorry the council wasn't the council. It was presented at the council. >> No, no, we have to as an element it would have to be presented here. >> Yeah, >> but candidly I don't recall specifically
the history >> we're going to have to look that up like what is the history so we have at least a baseline where where we are >> you know like what six years old. >> Yeah. >> Right.
>> Well, yeah. >> Wouldn't we've had people require us to meet in these six years where 10 years? >> Committing. It's like, well, because it never made it. and and we did do enough research to find out that it was never
officially adopted into the master plan. >> The key is what was done. In other words, like where does it sit? So we know and we can state this is >> and if it's done in 2026, do we have till 2036 or
>> Well, first of all, you don't go by either. We we we we we're going to we're double checking now as to what the call had our last master plan examination. If you look
>> right. So that would be we have till 23rd. >> Either do another full-blown master plan or master plan examination. >> Well, September 23rd. Excuse me for being dense though, but I mean 2020 the
master plan for the town was >> well the reexamination. >> Okay. You go yeah you go through your and you decide through what what it looks like then
I think it should look like it the objectives what have been met what haven't been met or have they changed your aspirations if necessary right >> it was I I mean unless I missed the big part the sense of what I looked at today
was pretty thin the reexam like it was like oh everything looks And then there was some stuff on land use and they like there was like two or three little things they changed in the downtown core and I think that led to the resoning of the downtown court. Other than that there wasn't really much change. >> Yeah. Rexamination report.
>> Yeah. >> Y as long as they cover the five or six items that they need to cover. We had a couple at least. >> So we have to do the climate change one too. >> Climate change. Well >> when you reexamine you have to do the climate change that you sell.
you plan that reexamination report and of itself that obligation to do the climate change vulnerability assessment. But anyway, the the short of it is is we
have no statutory obligation intended on us. Now it's discretionary. We do what we wish to do. Um the national plan exam blow master plan
certain elements like the space and recreation plan keepers though it does make a lot of sense for it be one cohesive document and easy but navigable for for residents to be able to build to the sessions
>> even though it it is separate documents I don't believe there's any problem organizing it in a fashion on a It won't be that hard because I didn't go back all I think 2003 was the original master plan. >> So at one point there was one big plan
and then over 20 years you know little pieces have been changed the housing element, the land use plan, the w plan. So it's almost like taking whatever is the most recent one and just inserting it into that that section element. Yeah. >> Yeah. And then you're done.
>> Yeah. It certainly can be done on a website even though there separate documents. there's no prohibition against organizing over the I will tell you what it's worth nothing but but I I'm privileged to represent a lot of
board municipalities and um in the vast majority uh the last full-blown master plan was done between 20 and 25 years ago uh and in the vast majority they're all talking
about hey I think we got to do another Yes. >> And I will also tell you in the vast majority they haven't yet done. >> So for what it's worth, we're not unique. >> Yeah. No. Yeah. I'm not surprised. Um
and it sounds like we got like four years or so. Um for the you know before even then you only you only have to do a little examination before but >> exactly >> it would be worth at some point saying you know is it worth repression you know
part of this all this and how much you know you just it's like it's like eating all the tastes like chicken um the mechanics of the paperwork for this.
>> We have the the original PDF, right? >> I believe so. Yeah, >> we have the >> What's that? That's yeah, that's all the
share. >> Uh, you need whatever the word section 8 word document becomes. >> The section 8 Excel spreadsheet >> and the section 9 Excel spreadsheet. And
we'd have to just mechanically figure out how to get them into replacing the sections that are there. Now >> section just one part.
>> Yeah, there's some strategy and some But like this like this isn't on the bur. This is what I was looking. >> Well, it's on the website. >> Is it? >> Yeah. >> Recreation. >> Under recreation. I was looking under
master plan. >> So, >> no, it's not part of >> we haven't. >> So, but there is. So, right now the master plan doesn't have an arts and recreation open space element. There's just an old
break. >> But the idea would be from your good fresh eyes going at the same Yeah. I was just looking at stuff. So this is not this is what's in this is what the rep department in the master
plan and I mean all zipped all >> yeah it should >> and they and they provided mine just reflects what their latest input was which is I'll No, we can't do that. What you said broke, you know, we're not
going to build an end. We're not going to be >> So, they put this together in 2021 and then recently the record committee said, "Oh, some of this stuff we No, no, we we said we this has not been approved." We found out this hadn't
been approved, you know, had not been progressed. And we're going to research exactly what the status is of this, right? It needed to have a public hearing which got hung up like who's going to pay for it, when's it going to be and all this other stuff and it and it needs to be
then the resolution needs to be made to make it part of our adopted essentially as a millennium and that had not been done. >> But the reason you were calling out section 8 and nine because that seemed to be like a little outdated. uh
>> even if there's the more obvious things that they there's some progress made and so forth, right? What's the >> two different new people basically what are their priorities? >> Yeah. >> You know, the recommend what what do they really want to do? >> Um as and and since this was done, so
like I said, they've got a completely different opinion about what 271 can be used for. Sorry, no amphitheater, no disl which they've worked on, you know, like the trailers and so forth. So the idea was try to get the obsolete or
redirected stuff into the latest version. >> It didn't go through and look at all the chapters one through seven. Got it. Make sure it's your machine. >> Well, I didn't realize that there tape recording here.
>> Well, that's good to know. I will definitely I'll at least peruse it if >> especially for strategic if there's something really really >> Maybe it's just like to keep that one, you know, part of it in as the m part of the town's master plan and you get an stuff. That's more like a
>> Well, I think they just fit in with the rest of it already done. I said that was and then that was their accounting like well here it all is and here the result of this engagement and here's our deliverable and I see I guess my point is that they have this like more strategic plan that doesn't that's good
for oh five years you get into that like that tactical stuff >> and it becomes sales so quickly that like you're looking at like why am I even looking at this master plan it's like stuff that we already did or that you know and
But I'm just wondering if it's what you like people doing to do what you're going to do with big question. >> Yeah, that's a huge piece of it. Okay.
So, I wouldn't say but yeah, there's that whole preface to it and and maybe maybe there sections like what the survey said, you know, should should not be part of the news like it's it's not only just the detailed sections, it's
like all this, you know, research that they did like well that's what's in here, but doesn't have any any role in the master plan other than a summary statement or two that the survey said
this, survey said that and and so here's the vision. So take a crack at it, get pressure and >> see what you said. I think shrinking it certainly a possibility maybe I'll identify certain sections that would become part of the master plan and
others that are part of the project. I don't know. Okay, anything makes sense. So, um, our next meeting is in a month, right? >> Our next meeting is at the beginning.
>> We only have a little bit of Okay. >> The agenda says March 12th is next week. >> Yeah. Unless that I'm looking at it for as I was
but the calendar says the 26th. >> Yeah. By the state. I just didn't update this from the last agenda. >> Okay. But whatever. Obviously, it's the same crazy >> maybe. Crazy.
>> No, no, I'm glad I mentioned it. >> So, if anyone else wants to just take a look at what I said, I'll take another crack. I hope that
whether there's we should keep such um even in section H. Should we keep the word? Yeah, the spreadsheet which I said I would do. >> You'll take a bracket >> big
and then we will put it on our agenda for the next meeting >> to discuss >> for discussion again. >> Yes. If you search recreation
under the main recreation >> something it may have gotten >> okay I just pulled it up on that >> yeah little search >> the website post
>> now is our planner participation supposed to me and uh I I I like the idea that the rec committee presents it. It you know looking ahead right to the open to the meeting we should reach out the needs to
>> um it's I'd rather not have the planner present yet don't make sense I'd rather or it could be two it could be a tag team that could be someone from environmental
in open space involved. >> They're not saying they should be involved. It's their open space plan that they can give space yet. >> Yeah. Right. >> But
>> oh, they haven't. >> Well, the key is in a month and a half someone from Mentoire. settlements this >> and you want them to present
>> and it could be there's not much change, you know, like they could just be fine with it. What do you think? >> Oh, they should, you know, it' be great if they read it in preparation for thinking they're going to have to talk to them and then it will lead to some
discussions >> as to whether it still holds that really >> actually went through um open space through Terry, >> right? >> So I know because I I sent them what I had >> and I think they shared their
permanence. >> Yeah. So, and that went through came in through Reck's comments, but I will I will um reach out to Rob because I think they'd probably be one or somebody who would be very happy
>> to be actively >> makes sense to have like a little like working group like meet like someone from wreck and someone from environmental someone from the planning board and just like quick I mean not quick but like somebody
said we're going to take this and try to present it in a public session in in a month and a half. Um >> bring us to when do >> March 27 26? >> Yeah, it would be the 26th because
February and March 28 days it's the same. So the meetings will be the 12th and the 26. Okay. Now um you should approach the topic to see both the presentation and the you know
collaboration we work with >> I don't know uh people have school age children we want to make sure they're not >> well we want to make sure it's not during a spring break or something like that I don't know >> Easter is the first week
the public schools tend to have parade around Easter which is the first weekend in April this year and um Passover is the week before that. So 6 >> Passover I think Passover is Yes. Well,
April 5th and Eastern Okay. So we definitely want to get it that number. >> Well, it just depends. >> It depends. Sometimes schools are off, sometimes travel and >> as you said, there's no there's no like
we're not under the gun yet, right? 10 April. >> Well, I always say let's look for 26 and find out. And there's a real problem with it because that's when people are gone. That's always been the case. want
to do in the summer people >> 2016. >> Now the key is whether that has been effectively folded over to this which it should have been. Yeah, I'm just wondering if perhaps since public perhaps some of this can be
done offline mean I mean >> it doesn't >> logistics logistics dates and whatever it is it'll be >> we're done. This is the last item on the'll be it'll be obviously mandated in
advance. is starts the 3rd of April this down the floor. Still a candidate for party. >> Yeah. Anything else anyone's got?
>> You might have any require It looks as if the next application that's pending only was shift received. So, it's unlikely to be uh ready for the next hearing date, I would imagine. >> Yeah. No, definitely not. It was just
contributed to >> my point other than the discussion item ongoing discussion item of the recreational space management plan and the theoretical possibility of a man consistency review of an ordinance that's introduced by the governing body
that relates the land development, but probably not. uh in the next week we're probably just going to have an instruction and 10 minutes >> which is fine. Anyone else want to sign
up to do the first chapters? Okay. So we'll try to have next session elaborate their opinions the franchise and the context. Okay, then we are chair.
>> Thank you. Good job. Where you seated? I see you went from 16 and went from 13. >> I So what I was doing was I I was searching and then I guess it searches all the documents. Yeah. >> And then it then it would spill it out. >> Yeah. Okay. But I but if you go I think
I the this is this is one because you >> there's I found a recreation folder and it is in the >> but it's not in the math the one from 2016 I think
Yeah. >> Street. that sounds brother. Oh, do you >> nothing child. I will say the longest it's ever
spoken to a lot of people think That's what >> tries. two resolutions >> for that reason because it changed things >> shut down. I just didn't turn the projector off.
>> It's not good. You know what? It's actually good for