testing. I was just checking the live stream. Testing, testing. Ready to go, guys. Good evening, everybody. >> Good evening. >> Happy 2026. >> Mhm. >> And uh in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act of 1975, adequate
notice, this meeting has been provided. Should any member of this board have reason to believe this meeting is being held in violation of that act they shall so state at this time hearing none. We will start with a pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it
stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Roll call. >> Yes. Mr. Vizair >> here. >> Mr. Jones >> here. >> Mr. Riggs >> here. >> Mr. Crowley >> here.
>> Mr. Gorgon >> here. >> Mayor Mullik. >> Deputy Mayor McDade >> here. >> Mrs. Reid, >> Mr. Lhome >> here. >> Mr. Badus >> here. >> Mr. Krippen >> here. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we have a reorganization
tonight on the agenda. Uh, we'll start with the election of a chairperson. >> I'd like to make a motion. Bill Bazer, please. Second. >> Any other nominations? >> We'll just do we'll just do a voice foot vote. >> Okay. All in favor?
>> I >> election chair, vice chair. >> I'd like to make a motion for uh Mike Jones. >> I'll second. >> Any other nominations? Okay. Voice vote. All in favor? >> I >> Okay. Excuse me. Can we do the oaths?
They're oaths of office. There are a few members who have to take the oath at the top of the >> sorry oath of office. Who have to oath of office? >> Everyone >> want to do them all together. >> Do we do we all have to do them? >> I'll be glad to do them. But who is uh >> who who hasn't
>> who's up? >> Oh, I have I gave you a list >> this list here. Okay. >> I think it's >> Deputy Mayor McDade, myself. >> Okay. The people that I have that are being >> renewed, none of them are new members. They're all being reaffiricted. guess is Mayor Mullik, Deputy Mayor McDade,
Justin Riggs, Dennis Crowley, Robert Garone, Michael Jones, and Carrie Badus. Okay. All right. What I'm going to do is I'm going to read this and then ask you to affirm it. Um, you do you do solemnly swear that you will support the Constitution of the United States in the
state of New Jersey. That you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to the governments established in the United States and in this state under the authority of the people. and that you will faithfully impartially and justly perform all the duties of the office of planning board member according to the best of your ability
and that you will not use your office to grant preferential treatment nor to seek personal gain, favor or advantage not available to the general public. Do you so swear or affirm? >> I do. >> All right. Thank you and thank you for your service everyone. >> Okay. Thank you, Karen.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Appointment of board attorney. Motion for Mr. Mr. King, >> a motion. >> Why don't we do the same with the engineer? >> I'll make a motion. Mr. >> Both both of them together.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I second. >> I'll second. >> Either way. >> Okay. So, Mr. Lundholm motions. Mr. Crippen seconds. Do you want me to do all in favor or read? >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay.
>> Uh, >> thank you everyone. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Well, you do a good job. >> You're welcome. Both you guys do. I didn't mean to just single out Rich. >> I didn't take it that way. >> Okay. Uh, appointment of conceptual review committee members.
>> I'm not even sure we had that. Did we? >> I think I didn't know who they were. >> I think it was Dennis, Bill, and Bob. >> Is that right? Dennis, Bill, and Bob. >> I think I was on it last year, Karen. >> Okay. Dennis, Bill, Bob, and Justin. We
can have four. Dennis >> and Dennis. >> Dennis. >> You guys want to do it again? >> Sounds good. >> You hear my point? >> Um, >> is everyone in favor? >> I just chairman. >> Oh, okay. Okay. Oh, all right.
Appointment. >> Um, the question came up about a conflict engineer and a conflict attorney and also the adoption of Robert's rules. Um, I sort of spoke to Rich about that and Craig a little bit and I'm not sure that we we really have
to do that. Um, and I think in particular with the engineer and the and the solicitor, there may be times when that one person we suggest that we that we nominate is not in a position to be able to do that. So, we may have to have a pool that we choose from as opposed to
just limiting it to one person. So, >> because they're going to have a conflict, too. Thank you. >> I I think conflict engineer for for this purposes we were proposing Paul Dietrich who is the city engineer. Paul obviously as city engineer would have no conflicts
and I did >> consult with Mr. Hurles about this. >> It's a very good idea. Um before I was not doing much private work. So I I hadn't I haven't had a conflict in Kate May in my entire career here. But now
that I'm doing more private work, the possibility exists that a conflict could arise sometime. >> But you won't take anything. >> No, I I don't I don't anticipate it. And I certainly can't do anything within the city, you know. >> So, >> but if he's sick or something,
>> you you you would like to have Paul as the >> I would propose that it would be Paul who is a licensed engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey. Um as that >> specifically on the engineers, everybody okay with that? >> Sure. Okay. Voice vote. >> I >> I
>> as to the uh uh uh the solicitor. >> I I think >> I have some thoughts on that. I I wasn't in favor of doing it. Um but that's not up to me. I'm going to give you some thoughts why from a practical perspective like as an attorney who like
works for a living. >> Uh two reasons. >> As opposed to attorneys who don't. Well, I mean, aside, you know, this is the I only have I only have three government jobs, right? The two here and or two here and one at West Kate May. Most of my practice is
>> lawyering. Okay. Yeah, like a private practice is the word I'm looking for. Um, first, if you appoint a conflict engineer, I admit I don't know if that person can appear here regularly. Okay? If they're the conflict engineer, meaning they have a a contract with the
city to serve if there's a conflict. I am not 100% sure that they can appear and do applications. So I'm not sure that Ron Gazunis can be the named identified conflict engineer and then come before this board as if he's not connected to the board and appear for applicants. >> We don't want to hamstring somebody.
>> I don't know that 100%. And the other reason is a little more selfish. >> Even when we have a even when I have a conflict, okay, uh rarely do I even know the applicant. It's usually my partner has done some contract of sale at some point is in a in a contract of sale
somehow for the person. Okay. Um and I still want you guys to have the flexibility on who you pick for the conflict because you may there may be one type of application that is going to be really hot and heavy. You're going to need a litigator to do it. I mean I
happen to be a litigator. A lot of attorneys aren't like Ron Gazunus doesn't do litigation, >> right? >> I love Ron, but he doesn't do litigation. So, if you guys have a high-profile, heavily contested, you know, the the the hotel comes in, right? Ma comes in with
the hotel and I have a conflict. All right? And you know, it's going to be a big a big deal. You you might not want Ron, okay? You might want somebody else and someone who's going to go to court and be do that. on a regular application. Ron's awesome. I mean, he's
my friend and he'd do a great job. Okay. So, if it was just a regular variance for something, you know, a sideyard setback over in New York Avenue, okay, well, then that's perfectly fine. So, you guys might want to have the flexibility of who you pick for a particular application as your attorney.
I thought Paul Baldini was our conflict attorney for >> So Paul Paul is at the reorg meeting of the council >> was the city's >> but he also attorney >> we we happen to ask him to do that. He was not >> we happen to just ask him every time to if he's available.
>> Oh okay fine. All right. I I wasn't aware of >> and and I'm not sure he can do both planning board and that uh I'm not sure I don't think I could be the city attorney and the planning board attorney. So, um, now and Paul, >> he did. >> He did. >> He did.
>> He was the conflict city attorney and the conflict planning board attorney. >> Okay. We've never appointed a conflict planning board. He sat in on a particular application one time. >> He did about I think three meetings. >> Last year. >> Well, two. >> He did more than one.
>> I think there was I think there's virtually zero chance of that. >> You weren't here and you weren't here. He was here. >> Correct. He did at least two meetings. >> Oh, okay. No, >> it was the Jetty Motel. Wait, >> I only remember one. >> Hold on. He did two meetings because maybe the application went
>> Yes, that's correct. The Jetty. >> No, there was two separate applications. >> My history is not that strong. >> He was definitely I remember them raising. >> Oh, it was Kathy Healey. I thought the Healey application. >> He was here definitely for two
applications. If it's an issue, we'll move on. Let's leave that open. You also had the other the other young man from >> Yeah, I I think we could we could leave it open and you know if Mr. Baldini is one name one it doesn't matter to me. I'm just saying that you also have to think that that attorney is going to be
available at night because they have private >> um they all have meetings. We never had it before and we've when we've needed and we've been >> Let's keep it open. Let's keep it open. Keep it open. >> Yes. >> That way we can choose depending on the situation. >> If you guys have a reason you want to
appoint someone then go ahead and do it. I'm just pointing out the realities that there's some advantage for you to have the flexibility to just get someone to do it. >> Brought to our attention because council has one, but I think that we're a little bit of a looser situation. We were more fluid situation than so we'll just we'll
ride with it the way it is. >> It's not up to me. I don't vote. >> We all we pretty much >> I'm just giving you the the thoughts of it. I we've picked individuals for certain types of applications in the past. >> Okay. That's what we're going to keep doing.
>> All right. Uh, appointment of secretary. >> I nominate Karen Keenan. >> I second that. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. >> Just making things official this year. >> We have meeting dates and times. Everybody's looked at that. >> Yeah.
>> Motion to approve that. >> I'll make the motion. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. >> Adoption of Robert's rules. This is something new, too. I don't know. Um, >> if I could just speak on that, Mr. chairman, if that's okay. Um, this was
brought up last year at a certain time. Um, and actually it was Mr. Baldini that that brought this up. So, Rich, I'm glad you're here now so we can talk about this. There was a particular reason why he brought up that we may want to
consider adopting Robert's rules as our official parliamentary procedures just in terms of if an applicant were to come back and ask for a reconsideration or what does that process look like and there was just some specific reasons why
he said we should adopt it but I'll I'm here to suggest so >> I mean I I don't A board is permitted to adopt bylaws um as to how you run your meetings. So you can adopt whether it's Robert's
rules or a different set of bylaws um to run your meetings. Uh, if you want to pick Robert's rules, I'm not I'm I'm familiar with Robert's rules in the sense that maybe the way most people are familiar with Robert's rules, there's a
little spat in a meeting and someone says Robert's rules and then everybody thinks that they've, you know, way to do it. It's like the the movie The Quiet Man or something. But, um, I'm fine if you want to adopt Robert's rules. I don't know that their particular
applicability in a zoning meeting. Does Robert's rules say how long an objector can speak? Does it say whether attorneys speak before the general public? Does it say that 200 feet speak before other people?
>> I'd be more inclined if you really want to do it. I I wouldn't adopt Robert's rules because I think that's for more general meetings for the Elks Club or something. I think you would adopt a model set of bylaws that kind of
addresses the things that are of concern to us. Um, you know, so >> is there a reason why we would want to have Robert rules? Is there a reason that we would want Robert's rules? >> I'm sorry.
>> Is is there a reason that that um >> What's bringing this to light right now? >> Yeah, >> that's the question I have. >> Yeah. Why are we why are we talking about this now? We've never had it before. >> It was a like I said, it was a suggestion at some time last year that
in order to have some form, I don't think it's an issue for this board right now. However, it may be an issue down the line and somebody down the line is going to say, "Well, why didn't the board address this back in 2026?" So, if you guys don't want to address it, move
on. >> As long as as long as Mr. King's our solicitor. I don't think we ought to do it. >> Well, I'm going to do this. I'm going to make a motion that we adopt Robert's rules and we can vote. >> Why don't we do something different, though? Because a motion to adopt Robert's rules when no one has read them
is a is an improved thing to do. Why don't we just agree that we're going to have Karen distribute Robert's rules and I will also find a model set of bylaws and then you guys can look at them and then you may say, you know, this is a good thing to have because it is a nice thing to have. I mean it may be Robert's
rules or it may be like >> sure >> a version of Robert's rules but I mean >> I think it's >> I that would be to make that makes sense to me and then and then we can look at those two things and say hey this is cool we're going to take Robert's rules but we want to add that >> um because a lot of things do come up I
agree with you like and some of them I don't know the answer to one thing I don't like is when an attorney represents four people and then the attorney speaks and then the four people want to speak too. Uh I mean you either have a representative or you don't. uh that that that you know >> exactly >> so we can we can develop rules if we
want to have rules uh you know the length of speaking >> so Mr. King, I'm in favor of at least reviewing the documents and and some model bylaws. I think that there are times where rather than just having >> um every, you know, you go through and
you tea up, as I'll say, how we're supposed to vote, I think it would be nice if we were more consistent in that how we defend or, you know, or don't support things. And I think that should be part of the bylaws. I think that there should be a statement that everyone sort of says why they're voting
for or not voting for. And it's a should in some ways just as an example should be substantiated. >> I think that's a that's a good example. And I also like the idea of you know when when we have an application come in if we have wait let's have one guy one one talk one
>> if if we have you know 25 people but they're represented by an attorney. You know we may want to have some rules on hey do we want that person to go first in the order last in the order? They may >> discretion of the chair. do the 25 people just let the attorney speak. You
know, we just want to tighten up what we possibly look at it. And by the way, I think I officially have been here for 10 years now. Uh we've never really had a problem. So you may look at them and say, you know what, >> between Mr. Bazair and myself, we kind of have this, you know, worked out. We kind of go through things and then you
say, "Forget it." But you you want to look at it and it might be >> I don't think it's an issue right now. But like I said, I don't want 10 years from now somebody to say, "Well, why did the board look at this and consider it?" You know, >> I I have a question. What set of rules
are we currently operating under? >> Or or the ordinance >> the ordinance and the MLUL and the chairman's discretion. >> So, it's it's a it's a per issue kind of a set of rules. >> Yes. Well, it's it's we we follow a
format. I mean nothing it doesn't vary >> but it's not written down somewhere. In other words, somebody can't come and say I want to see your rules of operating your meeting. We don't >> it's not it doesn't it doesn't obiate the the meeting >> the existence. I understand that but there's no documentation or there's no
adoption of >> by practice >> zoning. It's been by practice but I don't think that since it's been brought up. I just think we should all just look at it and weigh in on whether or not we think it's necessary or not. That's all. rather than just saying no to something
that none of us have reviewed. I I don't think that that's >> going to get some bylaws from some other towns and see what they look like and you guys can look at them. >> We may find that we don't feel it's necessary. >> Seems like more trouble than it's worth. Do it if we like some of the stuff that we can >> you can do it. >> We don't have to do we don't have to do
this tonight. >> No. >> Moving on. >> All right. >> Yep. >> All right. >> Everybody's good with that. >> If you find you want me to look at >> Okay, >> move on. All right. Uh, designation of the official newspaper. There are three of
them, I believe. >> Star Wave, Herald, and Press. >> Everybody's good with that. >> Yep. >> Motion to uh >> I guess we just we just designated, right? >> Just so we're clear on that. Didn't I do a resolution?
>> You did. So, do resolutions, too. >> Yeah. There's there's two new there there's a couple things about that that I just want to focus your attention on real quick. First is there's a new law about doing things posting them electronically. Um and that um the the the
secretary I won't call you secretary the >> you can't call me that now it's official >> whatever whatever you are my boss um has to has to provide a link where things will be posted for the board and
that's in that resolution. Also, I have clarified something that's always been my position and I think a court someday will agree with me and I've spoken to several attorneys who run boards and they agree with me that it's very confusing when you say you pick a what do we have the Herald
>> the Herald and then you have backups. You just say backups are Atlantic City and >> Star. >> Okay. What happens is it's my opinion that if a newspaper is publishing, in this case the Herald, that the community has the right to look
in that paper and know what's going on. I shouldn't have to check three newspapers. Okay? And what happens is, again, because I operate in the in the real world, um attorneys may miss the deadline for the
Herald, but the star and wave is still available. So then they publish in the Star and Wave because they can get under that deadline. And now what you have is four of your applications are in the Herald and one is over here in the Star and Wave. And I don't think the public should have to check the Star and Wave.
So I always when I'm asked to write these, I'm not always asked to write them. When I write these, I make it clear that it's if that paper's publishing, that's the paper. And the the other two are in case that one isn't publishing. Not Not just because you
missed the schedule. Okay? Because I mean my firm has used that maneuver too. Okay. I'm not saying >> are we are we consistent in what council does? >> Probably. >> Yeah. >> I want to be consistent. I think we want to be consistent what what the city council does. >> We have the same paper. I don't know if they have the same um the herald was
>> this herald was the >> they're not a stickler like I am about that. >> This is the town council is different though. Here's why it's different. >> Because I had to edit I had to edit this to I couldn't just steal their entire ordinance. They don't have applicants,
so they're always doing the publishing. So, they control where they publish it. All right. Ours is a little different. We're not just saying where we publish. We're giving direction on where others are to publish. >> My my only thought is if you're if you're if you're looking at, you know, what council does. Why Why are we doing
things differently? >> We're not doing it. >> I know we're not, but that's what I think we ought to be consistent. >> I All right. Okay. So the Herald the Herald is the primary newspaper that that at the reorg meeting was appointed as the official newspaper with backups of the Star and Wave and Press of
Atlantic City >> if if the others are able to function. >> Correct. If and that's if hey for example the Violin Journal went belly up and a lot of boards were left scrambling trying to designate a new newspaper. We want this board to be able to still
function and move forward with publishing. Right. >> So, so, so it's it's C County Herald period. >> That's what we that's what we rely on. >> That's not what this is >> unless unless unless they go out of business. Yes.
>> Said it's primary and for any reason Ken Herald is not publishing or unavailable for Brent and not merely due to any difference in deadlines from the ultimate newspapers. >> Okay. >> All right. Yes. >> All right. >> Yep. >> So, we're good with that, guys. I don't
know that we have to vote on that, do we? We just We just Oh, it's a resolution. We did that yet. Okay. Motion to adopt that resolution. >> Make the motion. >> Make a motion. My second >> So, Mr. Gorgon motion. Is that correct? Is that Is that correct or Mr. Krippen?
>> No, that was Mr. Gorgon. >> Mr. Gorgone and Deputy Mayor McDade seconds. All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. So, um, do we need to do these resolutions for the other things?
We just >> Yes. >> Okay. We're going to we're going to do the resolutions for the board attorney, board engineer, and official newspaper all together. The other two are leaving after that. >> You did. >> Conflict engineer.
>> Conflict. We did. We did do that one. >> So, uh, 01. Yeah. >> Attorney and, um, the newspaper. We already did the newspaper. So, basically the attorney. >> We're holding off on Robert's rules. >> No, we I think we need a motion for
resolution one, two, three, and five. >> Yeah. I'm going to >> We already did. We already did conflict engineer. >> We just did Paul. >> Now, you're doing the resolution. >> We're doing the resolution. >> Now we're doing resolution. >> All right. We'll do those three resolutions now. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I'll make a motion to adopt resolution
0113 2026 1 2 and three. >> Second. >> Okay. Deputy Mayor McDade motions. Mr. Krippen seconds. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. We have minutes of December 9th is
next. >> Make a motion for approval. >> Second. >> Mr. Jones. motions. Mr. Lenholm seconds. All in favor? >> I. >> I was absent, so I'll have to abstain. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> And we have payment of bills. >> Before we do that, did we do number five though? The newspaper resolution. >> I made that motion. >> Sorry, trying to track here. >> Okay. Payment of bill. >> Can I just say I think it was one, two,
three, and four. No, >> I was going to re number five into four. >> Five I did before the other. >> Oh, you did? Okay. My apologies. Thank you. >> Just one, two, and three. >> And then I did one, two, and three.
>> Payments of bills. Motion to pay the bills. >> I'll make a motion. >> That's for both. There are two here. All >> in favor? I I >> Okay. >> Anything else for the good board? Final motion. Nobody's
>> here. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Okay. >> Second. >> Uh, all in fa This is a motion to adjurnn. >> Yes. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you, everyone. >> Richard, good night. To you. >> I signed it. >> Oh, good. Yes. Everyone, please sign your oath of office and return them to
me or >> Richard. Richard, I'm signing mine. >> Return them to me. Yeah. So, I can notoriize them. Thank you, sir.