Pledge algiance 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. Meeting everyone. This is the meeting of the Harbor City Municipal
Land Use Board for June 17th, 2025. In compliance with the open public meetings act, adequate notice of this meeting was provided by posting on the city hall bulletin board and by notification to our newspapers of record. And I ask the secretary to make this announcement part
of that record, please. And Donna, a roll call if you would, please. Mayor Chin Patty here. Mr. Gar here. Mrs. Torres, here. Mr. Frick here. Mr. Peterson here. Mr.
McKenna here. Mr. Walker here. Mr. Tessie here. Thank you. We have minutes for May 20 meeting. Make a motion. Second. Second. All in favor,
please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Motion carry. Thank you. Uh, approval of resolution 2025-5, Dictor 3 LLC, uh, 257 259 Philadelphia Avenue. Motion on the resolution
motion. Second. Second. All those in favor, please say I. I. Should I do? Anyone opposed? And I have a comment to make. I can't vote on that one. I understand the audience. And I have a a comment to make
about that resolution. Um, a question came from outside of the board, but sometimes when questions that Don and I shake our heads at, we're thinking, well, maybe it's a a teaching moment. So, just for everybody's edification, I don't know if it's a question for you guys. Um, but somebody asked, well, why
is there a resolution when the application was denied? So, just so it is every time action, we do a resolution. um draw right out there. It it the question we actually you know it
took it took us back for a minute. So um that's that regardless of the outcome there still has to be of course put on the record but if somebody asks the question maybe somebody else has that question so we thank you.
Okay. A new business application 202504 Lago construction representation before the um applicant starts um I want to provide a brief overview I think and I'm sort of sorry that my back's to you guys a brief over
sit there every meeting terrible no matter where I sit I'm going to have my back to somebody. Um, I think it's really important to frame this application because it's really unique and Charles Wilson and I have had a number of conversations. The applicant
has put together a beautiful application and Ry and I have had two uh two conversations a month apart about this. And when it this issue first came up, I looked through all my books and scratching my head and um what the I'm
not telling you how to vote. But this is what you need to know. This is a property that fronts, as you know, on San Francisco Avenue. When the construction permit was first submitted, it showed despite the ordinance that
prohibits it. It showed the driveway in the front. The ordinance, and there's two parts to all of our land use ordinances as far as uh zoning requirements. and they're broken down most practically
for this conversation into setbacks and things like that. And we know that if if the applicant's not going to do exactly what the bulk variances say, it's a variance. The other part of the ordinance that governs this location are considered
waiverss. Could somebody really come in and argue hard that this is a variance application? Absolutely. And when Mr. Wilson and I had this conversation, we wanted to make sure all of the uh eyes were dotted and tees were crossed. So that's the application. But Ryan and I
having discussed this in detail and having reviewed the ordinances that govern this, it's my opinion that this is really a waiver request and you really can't deny it. I'm not telling you how to vote. I'm only the
lawyer. I'm not a member. But the ordinance that governs this parcel of land says that driveways have to come off the terrace. While your tax map shows 13th terrace, it doesn't exist. It's not there. There's no way for the
driveway to go where the ordinance says it needs to go. So Ryan's going to fill you in with numbers and stuff and of course we'll have conversation about this. But that's the overview. The ordinance says one thing. Well, the
ordinance says two things. The applicant can't comply. So, we're at the end of the meeting going to suggest that we as a board make a referral to council to address how do
property owners comply with the zoning ordinances that govern properties like this. So, thank you. That's my legal input before we dive into this. And I you you can ask them as the applicant and the professionals as many questions
as you want to source, but I've told them that probably less where they don't need to convince us of the facts that I just laid out for you. Okay. Yes. My name is Charles Wilson. I'm attorney New Jersey. I represent
Construction. Mr. Francesca is here as a representative of Construction. Uh and he his family is also the owner of the property which is own team
actually his parents own the land. He owns the he's the contractor. The house is essentially complete. The building itself is up close in a couple minor housekeeping things he
has to take care of and he's going to there is a house is under contract. So, as soon as we can get final approval from the town, uh there'll be a closing and there'll be
uh transer to couple new residents of a harbor city. Uh basically, I agree with Miss Kolock.
What we're asking here is official and no matter how you call it, but we want permission to let us construct a driveway here. No garage involved in this construction so that
people can park in front of their house on a concrete driveway. Okay. Um, it's my understanding you'll hear from the expert, but that's pretty much the only place you can put that on the property.
Uh, and there's no way to go out the back. There's no practical way. It's practical difficulty, almost impossible to go out the back without no caving back there,
shrubs, trees, etc. So, we're gonna I guess we're start there. It goes right to the back of there. Exactly. So, we'll start with and Mr. Everything you offer tonight will be the
truth. Absolutely. State your name. Andrew Scher. Okay. So I I believe that 13th terrace from our surveyor does exist but it's a dirt gravel could be road some people along the street have access to it
however uh we would prefer to go to San Francisco Avenue and if we look at this there are six people in the block already on both sides of the street that already have curb cuts and driveways onto San Francisco Avenue and We are asking for
the waiver, variance, whatever it may be determined that required to be able to do the same thing so that we front and access street rather than an unproof street. Do you want to mark that? I'm happy to.
Thank you. I guess it should be that should be P2. The other one should be P1. A1 the aerial day one and site plan which is the same as what's already been submitted.
And are either of those dated? Well, this is actually a portion of the site plan that's already been submitted. Okay. No, I don't have date on it. And the aerial is taken from Google Maps today. Okay. So, um, do we have to do the criteria
and all that? Ryan and I agree it's a waiver, so the board just has to find that it's better rather than not. You don't have to go through the positive and negative criteria. Correct. Okay. Ryan, do you want to comment before we have discussion from the board? Um, I'll give a little context on why it's a
waiver, not a variance. Um the city's land use ordinance has a section and we ours is set up as a table where it talks about what's permitted and where what the setbacks are and all that. And then there's a site plan um section talks about site plan subdivision requirements. Um all relief from those
are typically considered variances. This requirement is found in the design standards section. So anything that's a design standard we typically consider to be a waiver from a design standard. It's not doesn't rise to the level of variance. So that's that's why we're going this route. Um, other than that, I mean, I think they covered it fairly
well. Uh, as Mr. Schaeer alluded to, that the terrace exists technically. I mean, there's there's Google Street View there, but it's a winding dirt road. And I should have used the word unimproved. Sure. Right. And and on top of that, I'll have to add I'm itching to say it. Um, it's probably not plowed in
the winter time if it snows where San Francisco is. That's a safe bet. Yes. To live there. So, yeah. And then as as Carl noted in my recommendation section, I actually sort of discussed like um you know if the board feels that potentially this was an oversight in the drafting of the ordinance, we could recommend back
to city council uh to update the ordinance to say that this section only applies when there's paved terrace or access to a paved terrace at the rear of the subject property. So other than that, that's all I've got. Discussion board members, questions of the applicant, anyone?
Thank you. I had I had a question. I was just reading over the attachment to the application about about the property and in the application it says that the uh 13 terist completely unimproved. It's only a paper street. Um it is covered with trees and underbrush. Neither of
the two adjoining residents uh use the terrace. Uh there's no payment, not even gravel at the intersection of 13th and Easter. There's no curbing for the entrance to the uh unimproved terrace. Now I went there today and actually it's
it's not a paper street. It's actually an improved street. I think we have our public utilities water and sewer coming from the terrace. Um it is gravel. Um there is curbing at Easter and 13th Street. And if I got a picture that your neighbors parking their trucks and their
boat off the terrace. That's accurate. So So it's just a little misleading if you look at the application without physically going to look there. But it's not improved with paving. It's not paved. No, but everything else in there wasn't correct. That's what I'm saying.
Cuz Yeah, I'll take responsibility. Okay. cuz I didn't look to at it until last week after I filed. You know, there is if you're on the side street, there's little curbing that goes
around and so they cut halfway in because of the wetlands. But then somebody I saw there dumped a load of millings, okay, which probably doesn't comply with your
engineering standards, okay? So that they probably could get access, but that's not according to. So part of that's my oversight. I looked at the Google myself. I didn't see any
current. Yeah. Okay. Well, I I have a photo. I just went there today. Yeah. And the neighbors are using it because they're parking their boat and trucks in the terrace. And it kind of reminds you of Jack Peterson's uh terrace. Same thing. It's cut halfway in which is gravel right behind your house. It was a
mud street until I put stone down. Oh, so you put down cuz I don't have a driveway in the front either. No. Right. Yeah. I just I just I saw that. So I just, you know, I just want to make sure that that is mine for the terrorist. It's also like New
Orleans Avenue. The one half of New Orleans Avenue. What is it? The three, four, five, fifth, sixth, seventh street. They're not paved at all either. And that's their front. Yeah. So to me, I was out there as well and I saw the same thing. It's a beautiful terrace. I
mean, it may not be paved, but it's really there's no bumps. It's actually better than some of the terraces that we have, I have to say. And there's plenty of parking in the front. You don't have to worry about any of that. My concern is that school children when you back out over there. That's what that's what
I'm concerned with. Let me just address the thing about you're not according to the ordinance peritted to have parking on the street. Pardon me. You're not permitted to park at on street parking. There's no on
street parking there. Your missile ordinance says no street parking there cuz that would have been I was going to tell a client parking let the people park on the street but you can't there's signs stating there's no parking
there or do they have a driveway though? No. No driveway. There's no driveway in the front now because it's not equal. Can one be created or no? Yes, that's that's what we're proposing. Is a driveway to San Francisco in front
of the house. Half the houses on the street have driveway. I I think one more is not going to hurt anything. I agree. Right. I I mean I think it's just fitting. I mean, you try to make your decision based on what that section of the neighborhood has. I
agree. Sure. vision for that block if it was three blocks over I think most people would have a hardship with it but that block it's very fitting I I am confused on waiver versus variance there there is a
cutaway there and there is access and utilities come there then it is a so it's it's only because of the section of the ordinance that that it falls in if this was in earlier in the ordinance where it's under site plan subdivision standards or in um listed on the table
where we have like sideyard setback and all that stuff. That would be a variance because it's in the design standard section. It's a waiver, but it's it's only because it's not in that like primary section. It comes later in the ordinance. It's not a primary standard essentially. That's the best way I can
put it. It's it's really just comes down to wording. Effectively, you need relief from it one way or the other way. It's a variance or waiver. So, just to clarify, going forward, yes. another applicant. Mhm. 300 block wants to do the same thing. Is that is that then a variance or is that a waiver? It would be a
request for a waiver, but the warrants would not if they have a paved terrace behind them, it it wouldn't be warranted essentially because this requirement um requires you to have access off the rear of your property, but if you don't have a paved road to the rear of your
property, you know, how do how do you apply this standard for someone to have to install their driveway where there is no paved access? That's Okay, that's right. I'm just trying to understand the difference. Yeah, I I think it's fine because the rest of the block has the same setup. Great.
And my question is how many other properties in the city have the same situation because I'm on a first terrace and my terrace is not paved. I have a driveway though on North Poke Avenue which I take in. I'm on Beethoven,
right? What? Certainly. This this would come up on any unimproved lots that have terraces that are dirt behind them. There's not a ton of them, but there's certainly a few. So, if anyone were to build a house on a a paved street that has a dirt terrace behind it, they're kind of stuck in this loophole where
they they can't put a driveway out of the front, but they don't really want to put a driveway on the dirt road. Um, and and as Mr. Shaver pointed out, like that's not going to get paved in the winter, or I'm sorry, that's not going to get plowed in the winter and all that. Um, so any anyone in this situation who would build a house um that has a street out front and a dirt
terrace behind is going to want a flat access driveway and presumably would be entitled to that. Okay. Well, that's a good question on my part because I have two lots on North Oak Avenue and again I don't have a paved um terrace and if I built a house there, which I have two lots, I can build two houses. Sure. I
would have to go through this, too. Right. Correct. You'd have to apply and seek. Okay. Not good. Well, that's that's why at the end of my letter, I sort of suggested like, you know, rather than put people into the situation, maybe we condition that requirement on having a access terrace at the rear of the
property. So, if you have an improved terrace and you want to driveway in the front, then you would have to seek variance, right? Yes. Okay. Any other questions, discussion? Uh, do we have a a motion frame that uh
what would we public comment? I'm sorry. Anyone from the public wish to speak? Thank you. No one. Okay. Then we'll need a motion. Um the the motion would look like um
this that you are approving. You don't have to vote yes, but we like motions in the positive. So, it's very clear that the application that was submitted um at our advice for a variance, but now is determined to be a
waiver from the requirement to have access in and out of a lot um that fronts on San Francisco, but um has uh rearrange on the rear line, I should say, on a terrace um is granted because
of all the reasons placed on the record tonight, specifically that it's that the terrace is the 13th terrace is not paved. Um getting back to this particular lot is um impractical
and the driveway where it's shown on the map is the least intrusive and more appropriate um design for this particular site. Would someone offer I make the motion second motion and seconded roll. When we
do this, can we like last time just say a little blurb about why? Yes or no. So I can put that in the resolution. Thank you. And I heard you guys did a really good job about that last one. Rachel said neighbor. She's sleeping in really really well.
Mayor Jim Petty. Yes. Because it conforms to the other houses and driveways in the neighborhood. Okay. Miss Hessie. Yes. only because they can't park on the street.
Mr. Gors, yes, for the same reason. Okay, Mrs. Torres. Yes, yes, I'm in favor. I'm in favor. Okay, Mr. Frank. Uh, yes. Uh, because it's not paid in the
terrace, Mr. Peterson. Yes. For reasons stated by other memory. Mr. Mr. McKenna. Yes. Um same as everybody else because the terraces are improved. And Mr. Walker? Yes. Because the other houses
all have driveways. I don't see how you could tell this. Could I ask one Could I ask one question of them? Is it too late? I just wanted to know why didn't you um have the driveway on the left hand side? Why are you having it on the right? Isn't it wider on the left hand side than the
right hand side? Just out of curiosity. Just me. Isn't it wider? Not a good reason except they may have asked for that in case we have a garage too. Wouldn't it be better on the other side? [Music] Oh, water retention. So, this is a pine
lands lot which means we had to do a water garden. Okay. It looks like you already have your sidewalk in here. So, if you're going to put the driveway, you're going to have to use a portion of that for the driveway, right? There's not much room left, right? So, there'll be a curve cut
made. Yeah. And an apron. Yeah. So, that's already Yes. Yes. That's what I meant. Yeah. So, it will be far enough away from the neighbors on the other side, I'm guessing. Yeah. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay. Other business uh discussion regarding redevelopment area resolution 119 2025. Sure.
I'll take it on. Um so the city has been receiving considerable interest on uh the neighborhoods creek subdivision project. Um but there are a couple of issues at the moment. Um one is that the current redevelopment plan technically
expired six years ago. Um it had a 10-year lifespan. Um so that the the plan needs to be amended for numerous reasons, but that is one among them. Um I'll go through some of the others. Uh there's a reference to the gateway redevelopment area that we're planning
to remove. Um we need to update the list of properties. The city has acquired some properties uh since that redone project started. Um there are there's no references to a requirement for pylons approval. We want to make that clear. Um the city intends to remove or was
suggesting that we remove the requirement for the street pattern that is referenced in the current plan um which is the extension of the avenues and terraces. Um and there's a couple other things um that are just sort of minor to wrap up. Um the other portion of it is that the city um is requesting
that the planning board um direct uh I guess me to conduct a study to determine whether the areas in in need of redevelopment, not just in need of rehabilitation, which is the current um finding that was uh arrived at by Mr.
Nickel, Tim Nickel, the city former city planner in 2009, I think it was. Um so there are some um I guess advantages or some tools that are available to the city uh when an area is designated to need redevelopment instead of just an
area need rehabilitation. Um but you have to conduct a study to see if it meets the criteria and then bring that back and have to accept those findings and then recommend it back to city council. Um so that's the city's trying to initiate that process. um so he needs
to kick it to you guys uh because that the the redevelopment plan document and any study um is an exercise of the board and not of city council. So we would need a a motion to uh authorize you to conduct a study for the redevelopment
plan. That would be the clearest way. Yeah. Discussion. Is there a redevelopment plan already? Yeah. So there's I I know the old one, but the one you're talking about now, the newer one, is there ideas out there? Has it has it been discussed
already? So, we're actually just going to amend the prior plan and then extend it out to a 30-year. Um, at least that that's the consideration is to extend it to a 25 or 30-year term. Um, but yeah, I mean, the changes are relatively minor. Um, we can't address things like density because you'd have to go back to
Pinelands and they're going to throw a fit. Um, so we've kind of maximized the density and what the current plan is. Um, so it it, you know, as far as as far as we're consideration at this point would be still single family at the density that it's shown currently. Um,
you know, at minimum at that density, whether it town or anything like that were even considered, you'd have to still maintain the density. So, um, so yeah, it's not not like a major overhaul. We just kind of have to update it. And then um like I said, the the study determined what the way that it's
worded is is very complicated. It sort of dances back and forth and and probably uses the terms rehabilitation and redevelopment interchangeably in some places. Um so we just need to make it clear that this is an area declared in need of redevelopment and this is a
redevelopment area that applies to that redevelopment um designated area in need of redevelopment. Right now it is an area designated in need of rehabilitation with a redevelopment plan that applies to it. Um so you just you don't have the same uh ability to work
with developers and do some things that you would have if you had that designation as an area need redevelopment. The street configuration stays the same. So the way that the project is currently approved, there's 50 or so more lots that are currently approved. um building them as they exist
now on paper is not economically feasible. Um we've had numerous discussions with with um several developers and all of them agree with that conclusion. It's just it's not you'd have to spend more than you would get back and that's not you know what building up is about for developers. So
um the city is sort of opening up. We have a a concept plan um that we got from a develop or an engineer working with Dr. Orton number of years ago that sort of shows a possible way to do it. Um there there's a couple different ways that you could reconfigure. Um but the
idea is essentially um you know respecting the uh pattern that's there to fill out some of the infill areas um and then you know modifying it as needed to eliminate the terrace potentially narrow the streets a little bit um because they're they're all 36 foot wide
streets. Um so that those are the kinds of things that we are trying to open up uh as possibilities and then have developers sort of present to the city um you know what their concept is. So are you saying that the contractors can't make money with single family homes the way it's laid out now?
Correct. With the the stormwater management facilities as they're currently laid out and the street grid pattern that's currently laid out. There's just too much pavement area and too much um length of large diameter stormwater management piping and things like that. that they couldn't recoup at
at market price to sell the house. They could not recoup the cost to build it as shown on paper. So, so they're looking to remove the terraces pretty much, right? Um remove the terraces and reconfigure um some like the the way the summer management basins are laid out. We did it uh when the city proceeded
with the uh design 15 years ago, um the rules are different than they are now. So when somebody goes to re to apply to the pine lands to, you know, modify this this design, they're going to have to meet far different storm management rules. They're going to need uh a basin
for every two and a half acres of contributing area. We had like 30 acres go into one large basin off in the corner. You can't do that anymore. So, um there's it's those kinds of things in the plan that we just need to, you know, understand that that the new layout for
that area will be different than what's shown currently and the plan language needs to be different to reflect that. So, I'm sure most of those properties the driveways and the garages will have to front off the front and figure out. It's funny as I was viewing this I was
like this is a perfect time. Um, so yeah, all all of those houses presumably would have front access drive, but I would imagine the houses would be deeper on the properties. Yeah. So that's we we'll have to deal with that with a larger front setback because the the city's current setbacks are all designed
around a rear detached garage and rear access and all that. So yeah, as as we modify this, we'll probably increase the front yard setbacks a little bit to push the houses back a little bit and give a little bit more room for driveways in the front. And then also would they stay
single family homes or there is there plans for condominiums or anything like that or town houses? So the the intention right now is the plan currently says single family homes. Um I mean we we could switch to town homes or other things but what really uh makes
those more profitable is that you can increase density. You can have more dwelling units per acre than you can with a single family configuration. But the Pinelands has limited the density. So if you can only build to that density, building units closer together just means you have to dedicate more land to those same units. So the
advantage isn't really there to build denser um you know unless somebody came up with some configuration to have fairly large town homes spread with with open space around them. But I can't see any way that the condos would really make sense because just the number of dwelling units per acre would
necessitate a whole bunch of restricted, you know, open space that wouldn't wouldn't make sense. So this won't be the first time that we will deal with this. Correct. Once they do the study, it goes to council and then council kicks it back to the land use board. Well, the study will come back to you
guys and then you guys will be able to to send it back to council and then council can take it from there. Okay. I knew there was a but Yep. No, you're close. So, did we shoot ourselves in the foot by creating that detention basin
years ago to um which which one? Well, you you took the middle of was it Norfor Avenue or the temporary basin? Yeah. So, the the concept plans that we have looked at with Hammer and and frankly I have sort of spent some time dabbling with a couple years ago um actually have
an interesting concept on what to do with that. Um the basin having a street there a a 36 foot wide street where you can only put houses on one side is part of what make it makes it not economically feasible. the homes that face Philadelphia Avenue are actually
full depth to that street. So if we flip that so that the what would have been the terrace becomes the street and the homes face that and back up to the basin and then back up to the backs of the other homes with the exception where you turn on. It's a little awkward because
one house is facing forward, one house facing this way. Other than that, everything else kind of fits. So, um, you know, while it was a intended to be a temporary facility originally, um, having a basin behind your yard separating you from the high school sports fields doesn't, you know, that's
that's pretty good fit. Um, and then the rest of it kind of lines up. So, so, so you're telling me that the new rules, each individual property has to have its own storm water management. For every two and a half acres, you need to have a separate storm management facility in
order to meet the green the state's green infrastructure rules. So in order to have a green instruure facility, that facility needs to infiltrate storm water and it can't have a a contributing area larger than two and a half acres. So two per block, right? Uh well, so by the
time you would lay out a city block, it's going to be about one per block. Um but yeah, so essentially every city block in the current pattern would need its own stormware management facility. Great. Yeah, that's state and pelandines rules. So that's just where we're at
now. Um but again, if you get away from the typical street and terrace layout pattern, you can fit the basins in a little better. You can do a street here and a street here with a gap in between and a basin in between them and all the houses just sort of, you know, directly flow to there. So it's lowc cost
infrastructure which allows us grade down to it. Um you don't have to collect it. You don't have to pipe it. Um so there there's other ways around it but you cannot accomplish that with the street and terrace pattern. So do you think that the Germans that laid out the town in the 1800s
that there was going to be a pine lands? Uh I I think their focus was not so much on water quality based on the tax map layout. No. Okay. So then we need a a motion to I got ahead. Sure.
So when you do this, do you come up with suggestions for zoning requirements and things of that nature? So the the plan already contains um essentially its own custom zoning for this this project. Um all the setbacks are listed. All of that's already there. Um our intent is
not to really mess with that too much other than potentially considering a larger front yard setback to accommodate driveways and to allow for front access. What I'm getting to, and I bring it up enough that I'm tired of beating this horse, but sure. Every municipality
around us has a recreation ordinance. As you well know, every one of these developers, Wharton, all of them build it, but every one of them don't blink for two seconds because it's not a waiverable thing. They don't care. Sure. They pay it. So, the the current plan
does have a recreation fee incorporated. And we've had a couple discussions obviously preliminary at this point about um whether to require like a tot or a playground be integrated in or whether to just keep the recreation fee and then for the city to um you know
take a small parcel and build some kind of playground or recreation out there. Um but so that yeah that that language is in here like I said for the fee already but whether we massage that and and require them to build recreation per number of units or something like that
um that's that's something we can incorporate in the redevelopment. I I know most municipalities have a a waiver that you either set aside a certain amount of property for the recreation or you contribute the money. It's a it's an end
or correct? Um so um it's or rather you can't you don't have to do a combination of both. Yeah. Right. You would either do the contribution or you would and then the city would take that money and apply it for recreation as they see fit. Correct.
And where they see fit. No. I think you would have to keep it in that neighborhood, right? If they I mean technically no. If the city has a recreation fund and the developer developer pays into it, it doesn't have to be dedicated to that specific area that would Yeah. I mean, the city could say, "Okay, well, it's more appropriate,
you know, a couple blocks down here where it would fill this neighborhood and the new development." It's It's not limited. I know we didn't do that with Haber. We We didn't build anything took his money, but he that's how we build out a key rep from them, right? There was a recreation
fee that he paid on each lot as Yep. And hopefully the fee is is fitting with our surrounding municipalities. We'll review that. I I can't remember it was 1,500 or 2500. I think Gallows was 5,000 if I remember. Well, that's we close to eight grand right now. This
redevelopment plan's from 15 16 years ago. So, yeah, we'll have to review that and make sure that it makes sense. I remember when I came here last time, well, we we can't afford to do that home in every other town. Yeah, we're all here for the same reason. You know, part of the problem,
John, is that it's harder to sell houses in El Harbor City, and we hear this from the developers because of our tax rate. So any help we can give them I I hear that I see I I watch you see house going for sale they sell pretty quick and they sell them for good money in in town. Yeah a lot of them are tax exempt now
too working on that part. I think that would make it easier for them to sell the houses. What's that? Having a recreation having a recreation you know having a playground right nearby. Well then they should make that part of their plan. Well yeah the recre
one way or the other. We just need to make sure that the fee is high enough that it would make economic sense for them to build it rather than to pay us. Well, they won't form out of the return on the investment on on a lot. Mhm. For a home versus what it
would take to make it a tennis court, you're federal pay into the fund and building a home. That's why they do it into a maintenance plan. Who's who's responsible? Well, so typ typically the city would take responsibility for a playground or Yeah.
But it is cheaper for them to do it than it would be for us to do it. Well, yeah. I mean, for them to do it at their cost, they can do it a lot cheaper. I mean, that tennis court cost us $200,000 with all the rec. The handicapped accessible was 90,000, right? Was it
the grant was 60, but that was just the equipment and mulch. like the site was already think about maybe somebody comes in and just wants to buy the 50 lots that are um buildable. If you charge them $5,000 or even 10,000 for
recreation fee, you're not really talking all that much money to build recreation facilities. What do we have now? Yeah. I mean, at the end of the day, the developer doesn't care if it's $20,000 towards the city and 5,000 towards wreck or 25,000 to the city and zero towards wreck. It's $25,000. It's
all they care. I'm sure the city can sign some city other city owned property to say if you develop this right it's cheaper for them to do it because they don't play doesn't have a playground every two
miles no I agree township only has has them scattered here right four or five miles apart that's why contract you should just pay the fun isn't north a lot further For people, they can't just really walk there for the most part. They have to drive there.
Well, it would make sense if you're going to put all those homes in to have a playground out there. Also, I don't think they usually do that. Said they they they're separated here and that would be a Yeah, you're going to have a cluster of homes. You might as well have a place. And if if the project was fully
built out, I mean, you're talking around 300 houses. So, yeah, that's it's a pretty good size. Okay. Further discussion. Someone offer the motion to make a motion. Ryan do what he has to do. Fair enough. Second. Second. All in
favor, please say I. Anyone opposed? Folks, uh, any old business council report resolution? That was the beginning. I have a question about fair housing. Do
you guys do anything with We're involved with so many business other is that the COA you're talking about? Yes. We we decided not to pursue that only because we didn't feel that the risk for a builder lawsuit was high.
So we're kind of letting it on the back burner for now. But we may have to rethink that depending on how Egg Harbor City North goes. We can talk more in detail. Okay. Uh, anything from council?
Well, we we do have I I don't know if you guys are CCed on the emails, but we're making a lot of progress on the um property on the way Pike, which shall remain remain nameless, but so that's a good thing. Okay. Any public comment?
Any more comments from the board? I have one. Uh if you drive down to White Horse Pike, all the businesses The grass is about 24 in high on a white horse bike. So maybe we'll they're addressing it.
Yeah. Yeah. Out driving around. Yeah. They're addressing a lot of things, believe it or not. Okay. Motion to adjourn. Motion. Second. All in favor, please say
I. We're Thank you, folks. seeing everyone. Oh yeah.