All right. Please open. >> This meeting is called The provision of the open public meeting law this morning meeting of October 14, 2025 was included in a list of meetings notice sent to the career news on January 6, 2025 posted on
the bullet board pro on that page and has remained continuously posted as required. In addition, a copy of this notice is and has been available to the public and on file in the office of the >> cler, please >> here
>> vice president >> here. President Parker >> here. >> I'm here. Um the audit uh order did not make it tonight. So he will be here any northern Monday night uh meeting will
the council um I know is also on tonight. Uh I just have a couple things um on my report. Uh actually that was one of the two things I have. The other thing is is I just want to let the council know
since you know already that uh the county did a public safety grant recently. We did apply um we were awarded um not as much as I hoped uh for the police building. We got a total of 29,000
5,000 of which is supposed to be used. Uh I think every municipality got like five grand or something towards an OEM uh connection system. Um so we actually besides that we actually would receive $24,000 to be used to department which
will cover uh there's electrical deficiencies that were uncovered recently um which I think the quote was like 17,000. So, you know, we have another 5,000 to put towards something else, but it's um you know, it's a drop compared to
what we need to continue pushing forward on that building. So, that's uh it um right, Councilman Parker. >> Um the only thing that I have to report on is that we're moving forward with the
grand opening of the hotel and um uh Courthouse Square. There are going to be some delays due to them getting electricity for the hotel. I was thinking Oh, Jack is here. Okay, good. So, Jack can talk about it. But we um we
actually have a strategy in place um and going to execute and things will probably be starting towards the end of uh November. So, really really happy about that. The other thing is that we are going to have um a significant amount of people from around New Jersey
for downtown New Jersey here at Stangle. um that will be on the 23rd. I will be making a to make this um uh speech. So, I'll be speaking at that. So, that's right.
>> Sure. A few things. Um sorry, scrolled down. Uh police department. I'll have a much more comprehensive report next time with some numbers. Um just some dates and events for you. October 24th, we will have the 4th annual witch walk stagle. That road
will be closed. Uh October 31st, obviously Halloween and Triple Treat will be happening. You'll have um closures at Broad Street and William uh to Pennsylvania Park Avenue to Shields Avenue. November 27th, looking forward, this is 33rd
annual Turkey Trop Road Race. Uh I'm sorry, 5K Road closures there. Um December 5th, we're looking at the 103rd Flemington Christmas tree lighting. So there will be closures there. And finally, uh the 6th, the next day, we'll
have the uh holiday holiday break. And that's uh anticipated road closures then. So just a heads up on that. Uh we we'll have some times as we get closer. Police station constructions uh slowly progressing. Contractor advised the lobby bathroom is projected to be
completed by mid to October. Uh the message to the community from the department is as the fall season settles in, the Flyington Police Department reminds all residents, stay mindful of changing conditions in our community. Shorter days mean more dark hours, so please use extra caution when driving, especially near schools, crosswalks, and
even wet leaves on roadways can create slippery ser uh services, so reduce speed and allow for extra stopping distance. With cooler weather, many will be using fireplaces and heaters, so be sure to check your smoke detectors and practice fire safety at home. Lastly, outdoor activities continue through the season. Please remember to drive
attentively and keep an eye out for pedestrian cyclists and trick-or-treaters later this month. Unfortunately, I must report that patrolman Michael Chrisadora will be moving to Florida and has accepted employment with the Naples uh police department on December 1st. So, his last day with us for the Fleming with the
Flemington Police Department is going to be November 14th. Uh but on a positive note, I was able to meet and interview two officers a couple weeks ago. I'll more to say when we get to those resolutions. Um, OEM, I'll have more next time. Fire, uh, we'll be discussing with the department some ideas what to
do with that, uh, generous bequeles of money, uh, for the fire rescue squads. All right. September, uh, had, uh, 296 emergency incidents. That compares to 290 uh, calls during September 2024. It's a
2% increase. the breakdown of calls for municipality. I'm just going to mention two, us and Ron Township because this is our one of our shared services. 70 for Burough and 204 for Township and a few sprinkled throughout the area. Uh in
order to handle calls during September, Squad made 348 vehicle responses. Some of these instances required more than one ambulance. Uh Squad Mercy medical technicians interacted with 257 patients, treatments, and so forth. That was up slightly from 255. Small
increase. And the duty crew uh system. I'm sorry. Did I miss something? I did. Volunteer members contributed 1,331 hours of duty time during September with the career staff providing additional 1,98 hours. This duty crew system allows
the rescue squad to staff the ambulance 24 hours a day as important emergency responses continues to rise. Uh so as a result squad wants everybody to know that they're looking for new members and you can check out the www.frfs.org join now website for more information.
Tomorrow night the uh next lysum slated to handle 6:30 at the Hunter County Chamber of Commerce. Lecture title is the role of the arts in supporting creative civic participation and as I report >> uh Katherine Levit.
>> Thank you mayor. Uh, at the Environmental Commission's last meeting, we reviewed one site plan and sent in our comments. The next meeting will be on Monday, November 3rd at 7 PM. The Sha Tree Commission will be meeting next Monday on October 20th at 7:00 p.m. instead of its usual time. The following
meeting will also observe an unusual date. It will be on Monday, November 17th at 7:00 p.m. And finally, uh, I think we all attended the Harvest Festival, and I got to say, it was fantastic. I thought putting it on Main Street was a great idea. And uh a lot of businesses told me that they had some of
the best days or you know they'd seen in years or ever for some of them. And I honestly think we need to do this kind of thing more often on Main Street. And I of course want to uh thank our police DPW FCP and all the other volunteers and people that made it happen. That's my report. Thank you.
>> Sorry. >> Uh just two things. The library board uh meeting last Friday is moved to this Friday. We had a scheduling issue and then tomorrow evening there's a planning board bylaws committee being led by Melissa Swingle which includes myself,
Don Eckle and legal representation where we will be reviewing the bylaws of how the planning board operates. >> Hopefully ends earlier. >> I I will keep that into consideration. >> Okay. >> Anything else? >> Nope. That'll do it.
>> Thank you, Councilwoman. Uh, thank you. Um, at my last council meeting, I had happily reported that we had been told that the New Jersey Film Ready Commission was all ready to get um our
our um our film ready partners with Freshtown, Clinton, Lambertville, and ourselves on October 22nd. that press release has been cancelled. Um,
apparently the film ready commission wants us to as well as Lambertville and Frenchtown to go back and document a few other buildings. The um county um econom
development uh authority and uh tourism commission put together these applications. And frankly uh I felt very bad for Mark Sal. He was pretty disappointed. Um I think the I think the uh goals keep the goalpost keeps moving
on them. So they're a little frustrated, but we are being patient and uh whatever the commission wants us to do, we will be updating the ordinance if needed um and providing them some additional uh photographs of a couple buildings in
town. Um and anything else they need. >> I think I think it came down to Burough Hall. They need a lot more paper towel >> and the post office >> because they wanted to know if the post office was successful was would be filmed ready. >> But it's not just us. Uh the mayor of um
was very disappointed um >> and I we didn't hear from Frenchtown, but I'm sure they are the same. So we will get it done and we'll have our little Hollywood fun on um Main Street another day. Uh, so animal control, there's always some fun wild animals
that we find here. So for September 2025, there were nine calls, two bites, one other one uh four strays and two stray animals in pounded uh two wild just two wildlife, but there were three
listed in the report. So that was a little confusing. Uh bat, fox, and squirrel. So nothing new. I was a little disappointed about that, but otherwise, okay. Um, and of course, again, the animal control solutions thinks that some of our areas are
actually in uh Ritin instead of Fington. So perhaps that call number is actually 80. At any rate, we'll make sure that we're not charged extra for the call to RA. Um, also the rabies clinic is
November 8th from 9 to 10. um animal safety on leash and um let's see uh next week we have the parking committee meeting with the council and mayor >> Susan did you know the fears of coyotes
that's running around in um uh Liberty Village >> I've seen them before around town but >> he's not on the reports >> he seems but he's he seems to be getting closer and closer and he's trying to
gated his offenses, but he seems to be I was I was there with with Kane the other day and we saw him and he's coming closer again. So, just just to let them know to be aware of that. >> I'd be happy to we've seen them around
New York. Yeah, surprised. >> Uh, anything else? No, that's it. Thank you, Councilman Rice. >> All right. So, I got two things tonight. So, for Saturday at the San Feling House, we did a pumpkin carving and that was success. You know, there was a bit
of rain, a little chilly, but Kelly uh actually brought out some squash soup. So, I think that warmed up everybody up a little bit. There's also a pumpkin pie out there and yeah, it was really cool, really nice. Um, it was a great time. I believe all the kids had fun. They had their own little mini pumpkins and then
they also have other big pumpkins. So, yeah, it was a great time. And then our the second thing I think it's probably going to be exciting for uh my friends at the HPC. So, it'll be exciting. It's it's exciting tonight because we're going to be announcing an introduction to an ordinance amending the historic
preservation ordinance. And I think we'll talk about that later tonight. So, um, I want to split intent to that later tonight. And, uh, yeah, that's about it for me. Thank you. >> Thank you. Your public comments number one. If you have any comments for the
public, you're on the line, please raise your hand. If you're not, step up to the microphone one at a time. Please try to keep your comments down to three minutes. >> Sure. And if you're here to talk on either of the public hearings on dumpsters or film ready, uh you need to
wait till the public hearings otherwise your comments will not be taken to the record. >> Hello. >> Hi. >> Yes, thank you. I also need your address. >> And for full disclosure, those who don't know, I'm chair of plen where where I've
been a member for seven years with both Susan Todd and most of you want to dance for at least a year as you move forward. I may not be the longest serving planning board chair we've ever had, but to borrow a council person Parker's phrase, I'm a change agent. Um, I do believe it's healthy to have a change in
personnel and leadership to bring new ideas and ways of working to the floor. A change is as good as a rest, so they say. I wasn't able to attend the last meeting, but I watched the whole recording and listened to the comments from both the public and the council regarding the zoning. And I must say there was a lot of reasoned and
impassioned statements but also a few misunderstandings and mischaracterizations that I feel I'm well placed to address if you'll indulge me. I've worked to implement change since becoming chair in my professional life and results not process driven. So when I recognized that we were facing
increased appeals of zoning denials causing increased cost stress and confusion for new businesses I sought to understand our problem and amend the process. The changing zoning officer had brought to light the antiquated state of our ordinances. And I want to be clear, Mr. Raldi was doing the job we were
paying him to do. But his implementation of our ordinances brought to light issues that could have been addressed over the last 15 or 20 years or so. And so we proposed removal of the SIC codes and worked on new definitions that reflect modern business practices and needs and introduced them in our
proposed ordinance. We've also implemented a checklist process to make the application process more transparent for applicants to save time and money. We're currently working on updating our own procedures to ensure we provide the best service we can including looking at escrow accounts to ensure taxpayer money is not misused by
applicants on the zoning. Let me start by saying there's much to appreciate in this ordinance. Much I heard a lot of business owners concerns about doing business in town and I want to let them know that we on planning board share their concerns. In fact, this was my personal driver to initiate the zoning
changes we proposed last year. Meeting with applicants who were appealing zoning denials and understanding the cost and time they were having to expend that and the other recommendations were rooted in the goal of revitalizing Main Street while supporting all businesses in all the other districts too in supporting landlords and building
owners. If that ordinance had not been tabled by council, we could have all been benefiting from those changes for the last year. When council announced the tableing, it was to undertake multistakeholder review, a process PB was assured it would be involved in. I had hoped this would include the two subcommittees working together. However,
when I requested a meeting as such, I was turned down by council. To the point made by one member of the public, um there was should have been more public input in council's process, he was absolutely right. It would seem that businesses have been listened to and certainly from one council person's statement, at least one landlord, but it
seems not the public. And I want to make it clear to the public now that the planning board was not consulted either. Suddenly in August, we received a draft and we were looking forward to finally being involved with the process. Eight days later, when I asked for clarification on the timeline and comment because despite Mr. Parker's
statement in the meeting asking for input that we were to not rush because we wanted to do this right, I was told secondhand to provide our comments the next day. And then I was accused of not wanting to wanting to participate when I explained this wasn't possible because of the planning board meeting.
Once the ordinance was formally introduced, planner voted planning board started the regulatory required process of having a report prepared by a registered planner to review the ordinance's consistency with our master plan documents. Let me be clear for those who aren't aware of the requirements. Planning board has to
compare the ordinance directly with the master plan and report differences. The report which concluded that many aspects of the ordinance were substantially inconsistent with the master plan is not a matter of opinion or political rhetoric. It's a matter of facts. I
heard here from the previous chair that a report stating something is substantially inconsistent means we just didn't think about it at master plan stage. Whilst that can be true for smaller items such as the pop-ups being extended to Stangle rather than just Main Street as we had to report what we actually on plan board agree with. that
is something you can look at and change. To suggest that the level of inconsistency of this current ordinance is trivial is a very misleading understatement. Those of you who have served on PD may not have encountered one of these reviews. We don't do them that often, but when we do, the most I've ever seen
us say is that something is not substantially inconsistent. We always talk about these words confusing, but it references that it's one step above perfect. One or two small items are not consistent, but the overall document is. Again, let me reiterate these facts were prepared by our planner. It's not
opinion, it's fact. None of our professionals have ever seen a report from planning board have to use such strong language as substantially inconsistent. >> It usually triggers a pause in the process because it's highly unusual for council to move ahead with an ordinance of this level in consistency. It
suggests more review and discussion, perhaps even a master plan change in appropriate. The items we really really want to see reviewed in more detail are the bulk variances, addition of housing, and the change of the setback limits. For those who don't know, in order to help support main street business, there will be an ordinance that removes
minimum parking requirements. In this ordinance that allowed TBR to occupy their new space despite the limitations there, for instance. It's all good stuff, but in conjunction with this ordinance, those possible unintended con consequences that could be detrimental and should be studied. I've heard much misunderstanding about our concerns that
amending bulk standards and setbacks need to be carefully addressed to consider all unintended consequences. I heard that we are fear-mongering. One speaker say that the bad consequences suggested won't happen anyway, and one council member suggested we can just change it later if it doesn't work. Well, then why are we even including
something in an ordinance that won't happen or will change again soon? Why not just leave it out now? This veto gives the council the opportunity to listen to the weight of concern and objection to those changes while allowing the rest of the positive outment to be enacted. I've heard that
landlords and businesses need these both standards, but what an insult to the responsible landlords and building owners who've managed to create amazing spaces for their tenants within our rules. Why aren't we enacting property maintenance ordinances rather than changing the ordinance like this? >> In concluding, I'm really sorry. In con
in concluding, I'd like to just be given a few extra minutes because of my role and I appreciate it. In concluding, I want to come back to the role of master plan in this process. It's a document meant to encapsulate the goals and objectives. It's created through lengthy public hearings on a regular basis. Both it and the planning board are meant to
act as checks and balances in our system to ensure while change is implemented, it's done through a measured process with council and planning board working together. Considering we've been accused of not being business friendly, I would I do hope I've dispelled for most of you. Do
you think it's a good look for council for our town to be openly hostile to the planning board and on to actively seek to undermine the recommendations? Why rush to implement the contentious and inconsistent parts of this ordinance? Do you think it's a good look for businesses or investors to know that you'll ignore the master plan? Do you
think it's a good business environment to take the unprecedented step of continuing forward with an ordinance that is reported as substantially inconsistent? I would ask what legal advice did you take before making this unprecedented move to put the burough at risk of a lawsuit. As someone who's here for the long haul, we're here in our
prayer home. I implore you to all listen to the residents we elected you, the professionals, and your planning board who want to work forever together. >> So, we've listened to you have a 30 minute talk before. I think I can have a couple of more minutes. your planning
board. We want to work together with you for the good of all stakeholders in our wonderful town and support the veto to allow through the great part of the ordinance and reassess the items under consent. Thank you. Apologies for taking a few extra minutes. >> Need your name and your address for the
record, please. >> Hi, Jack Cus. Good evening. the microphone on >> again asking for three minutes if possible. >> I'm good. I'll be >> okay. Your addresses, please. >> Good evening. Jack Cus, a nine clubhouse drive, Reington Township, uh developer
of Courthouse Square. Uh I I'm here this evening to give everyone a positive update on Courthouse. Uh I want everybody to know how uh how well the progress is going. First of all, I want to thank all the burough officials who have uh helped us really move the
project along. I mean, it's the police department and uh Department of Public Works. Everybody's been very helpful and you know, there's a lot of activity on Main Street and we're moving in the right direction. Just to give everyone an update, um we had an we have an
intended opening of December 18th, but as Tony mentioned previously, uh we've had a setback getting the power connected. We do have some of it connected. Uh we don't have all of it connected. It's been it's been a delay of about 30 to 45 days. So, that date is
really still fluid and up in the air. We're doing our best to hit it. If you're around Main Street, you see that we're working seven days a week to try to make that happen. So, uh it's all best efforts to try to hit that date. Um as far as where everything is, um if
you're familiar with Courthouse Square, there's a north residential building and a south residential building. The north residential building is scheduled to uh start leasing in November. Uh it's just about 100% complete subject to the utility issue.
The new part of the hotel is almost completely finished and again that's subject to the utility issue. The older hotel, the original Union Hotel is going to be beautiful inside. The top three floors are almost finished. The hotel lobby floor is the last floor to be
completed. And uh I think everyone's really going to enjoy seeing it when when they see the finished product. Our goal is to really have the entire exterior of the property completed before the holiday so that it'll complete. Whether we're open or not
remains to be seen, but we want to have the scaffolding off. We want to have it set up and hopefully even before the parade so that it really gives a nice impact to the town. Uh the south building will be finished in the first quarter of um of um 2026,
but uh we're we're really on track. I think everybody's going to like what they see. We tried to preserve the three main buildings as best we could, and I think you you'll really like them when you see how they come out. And uh and that's really the purpose of me coming here tonight. It's just to give everyone an update and let you know what's
happening. So, we're excited about it and we're looking forward to it. So, you think that during the parade people can stand on the steps? >> I'm hoping. I'm hoping that, you know, I'm hoping that we can walk in a courtyard and, you know, we just have to get a lot done. So, we're we're excited about it. So, again, thank you for your
time. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else from the public? >> Yeah. Just wait before you come up. >> Oh, I'm sorry. No, it's all right. I don't >> know. You can't see behind you, right? >> Unless you're a teacher.
>> Uh, Colleen Rosetti, 36 Pennsylvania Avenue. I My comment is a compliment. I love how the resurfacing of uh Main Street happened. It's my car thanks you
actually from all of the the uh potholes and whatnot. So, I'm just curious where those funds came from. So, um in 2019, um under Mayor Driver's administration,
they secured 1.2 million as a loan from the I Bank DOT, which I for infrastructure bank as a U mostly loan partial grant forgiveness. Um then uh
that was part of a of a large pot of money to do some other stuff. Um that money just sat and wasn't used. It might have been might have been later than 2019, might have been 2020. And um in
2023 when I became mayor, uh the D the DPW and I sat down and they did a master list of all the projects that needed to be done. And their biggest concerns in order and what they cited was the underground sewer and water lines um on
mine and Maine had not been changed out for probably close to a hundred years and they were having a lot of problems and issues. >> So uh I brought to the council um the idea of holding off on doing the just the top surface road which is what the
burough's been doing for 50 years instead of the infrastructure as well because that's why main street kept crumbling is that the infrastructure underneath it was rippling and broken and the concrete original road was all broken. So you know the town kept
putting good money into this and then within a matter of years there were failures again and all the everything was breaking apart. the council agreed to hold off on it. Um I've been doing this a long time and um the I bank has a second bank which is the it's with the
DP and um our town at the time possibly going forward at least another year qualified um for funds to do the sewer and water infrastructure at 100% forgiveness. So, we had a bond for that money um
which was a couple million dollars and also all the galvanized lines underneath as well, which is a different pot under the eye bank under their lead abatement program. And um so we were able to use the money from
that was gotten years ago as the top code. I think DOT was willing to wait. I mean, we were on a deadline, but they were willing to like it was a lot of luckily they have the same attorney and I beg DOT and I beg DP because if they didn't know the same attorney, this probably wouldn't have been able to
happen. But um so the plan is once we get once we fully pay for all the work that was done uh I know they've got some work walkthroughs and whatever um those bills get sent down to Trenton to get totally certified that the work was done
and then the IV will reimburse us for the sewer water and galvanized lines 100% and they'll be reimbursing us some percentage for the road. I don't know if it's going to be 25% or 50%. And then
hopefully we'll be able to roll that money over since it's already part of a bond um to do the last section of Maine, which is the traffic light, a church to chorus place next year. So hopefully we'll be able to get that money back.
So, even though on our books we have a couple of million dollars in debt for that, it's it's not going it's not going to be felt because we're going to hopefully be able to roll that money to Maine and then hopefully to mine as well, which has the next oldest
infrastructure in town. And >> that was a wonderful description and I want to thank you, mayor, for being able to orchestrate all of those avenues with government and bonds and whatever. But >> appreciate that a really long time.
Well, we appreciate that and uh we do need all of that infrastructure and my car thanks you for the beautiful black top, but we thank you for your expertise and being able to organize those sorts of things. >> Thank you.
>> I I have a question. Was it one of the three utilities included in that the original paving um money as well? I felt one one utility was there and then that was the reason why it was being held as well because we all you you we all wanted to
put all the utilities in the same we don't want to rip it up and then do >> Yeah. No, none of the utilities were included. It was curving. It was curving. It was the traffic light bringing the entire traffic light up to date >> and it was the top coat, but it it it didn't include anything in the ground
originally. >> Okay. But we wanted to wait on it in order to make sure the utilities were in it. >> Yes. which is water. Yeah, the galvanized pipe thing happened later because >> they changed the rules. Yeah. Hello. Just for the record.
>> Hi, Marie Andy of Broad Street. >> Excuse me. Could you get closer to the mic? >> Yeah, you can barely hear you. >> Marie Andy Broad Street. Uh my comment is that I believe Brandon should not
have voted in the ordinance or will be voting because he or his family member have a vested financial interest in the outcome of it and uh whether it be for the their business owners and owning up
building on Main Street and uh I think maybe he should recuse himself for this my beta. That's my comment. Thank you. >> Sherry Ryder, 35 Elwood Avenue. Um, I would like to, um, compliment our mayor,
Marsha, for all the work and effort that she puts into our town and helping to keep it, uh, realistic and appropriate for us citizens to live in. Um, I'm here tonight because um I really want to support the mayor's veto about um not
putting apartments on the main street. That we need tourism here to keep the town alive and uh that means bring putting in retail stores that are appropriate uh to the main street and bringing the main street back alive. I
spoke a couple of weeks ago about watching Red Bank die in the 60s and 70s and come alive with more and more retail stores. There was antique stores which we are having now. And that we too can bring this town back alive after so many
years of being so dormant and to really reconsider not putting any any more apartment buildings. I know there's some talk about adding more. I know there's one, but where the um gas station down on Main Street, they're supposed to be putting in apartment buildings there. Um
the Away, not the you know where the Aguway was, that that's already a done deal. But if you um there's some com conversations about putting apartments behind the area where um um the post
office is on that side of Main Street, behind those stores. and I've driven back there and I see it's all like parking in there. To put a parking houses over there would really I think be very detrimental to the town. And I think that people need to really consider parking spaces that if we're
going to have these retail stores here and more tourists, they need to have places to park and there's really no amount of parking. Thank you. Anybody else in the public? Hand up.
Yeah, one person. >> I'm always started. I am a resident and taxi. >> And your address, please. >> I'm sorry, but I did not have to give my address. I checked. I just have to say that I'm president of the ferno and a taxayer.
I'm disappointed in the poor decision that four members of this governing body made when they voted to adopt ordinance 2025-21 as presented on September 29th.
I hope the second chance that you're being given tonight will result in a different and better outcome. Many of the changes permitted by this ordinance are not only inconsistent with
the burough master plan, you heard the planning board chair speak and certainly her reference to substantial inconsistencies should have some bearing on your decision.
But not only is it not consistent with that plan, but more importantly, it's not in the best interest of this community and in my opinion and in the opinion of several other
people that I've spoken with, it will not result in a more vibrant main street. And if that's our goal, we're on the wrong track. You were elected to represent the citizens of this burrow, not to inflict
your personal preferences and desires on us. At the September 29th meeting, many of those present in this room expressed concerns and asked for a pause or a
rewrite, other such words, requesting that changes be made. But the four of you ignored their concerns and requests. I am appreciative of Mayor Carol's continuing efforts to get this right.
Please accept the the veto of certain parts of this ordinance so that we can move forward on a more vibrant downtown, which is what we all say we want. Sometimes I wonder the issues are all
given in the mayor's letter to the burough clerk and I believe you each I inquire I believe you each have a copy of that letter. So I hope you will reread it before you vote.
the parking problems current and to come with the completion of another 660 dwelling units that are already approved. 660 approved for this little 1.1 mile square
burrow. It's just unacceptable. Our infrastructure cannot accommodate the increase in traffic that will be brought by people who come here to live in these 660
dwelling units. An elimination of any parking is pure nonsense. You heard the previous lady talk about the area behind the shops down by the post office. People park there all the time to go to
that restaurant and to go to the post office. Sure, the post office has their own place, but it's not adequate. Elimination is just nonsense. People just don't go where parking is not conveniently located.
>> I was thinking to wrap it up. >> They might go once, but they won't come back. Certainly rear delivery has been an improvement. How well how will this be able to continue if new dwelling units are permitted to the rear of the Main
Street properties? We do not need more dwelling units on Main Street or as far as I'm concerned anywhere else in this burrow. Look carefully at paragraph 4 of Mayor Carol's letter where statistics given by the burough tax assessor are
shared. Most current residents of this community do not want to live in that type of environment. And any conversion of office and rental space on the first floor of Main Street properties into living units will not contribute to a
more vibrant downtown. We need more green pvious areas to combat climate change and help this burrow improve the quality of life here. Flemington is already a heat island. Let's not make it worse. Rome was not built in a day and changes
to our downtown zoning do not have to result in monumental change to our main street area all at once. So why not wait as the planning board has suggested and as the mayor has suggested and other people have suggested. Why not wait
until the impact of the already approved increase in dwelling units is known and then take further action if at that time it's needed. I ask that you use common sense and good judgment and relook at
this ordinance. And my last request is that when you speak, would you use the microphone so I don't have to keep calling out? Use the microphone. Where is it online? Wait, hold on. We're gonna do
um sir, who's ever coo my iPhone? >> Hi, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Good evening. I'm Dennis Shopee, a resident of Flemington at 194 Main
Street, and I would like to comment about the mayor's recommended line item veto, to a few items related to the Main Street ordinance change. I strongly encourage the burough council to seriously consider those recommended changes. The ordinance would still
include the items that business owners strongly recommended like popups, including on Stangle, which seemed to be a big concern. Uh, at the last meeting, I didn't hear any residents supporting the ability with the proposed ordinance
to allow more apartments on Main Street, especially on the first floor. In addition, I didn't hear any residents supporting the ability to build additions behind buildings on Main Street and take up valuable parking
spaces as well as making it difficult to make deliveries behind the buildings. These were the major concerns from the planning board as they are not consistent with the master plan for the burrow. There are several beneficial
parts of the ordinance and I ask that the burough council also listen to us residents since there wasn't a resident forum to give the council input. By removing these two items, it will ensure that the council has recognized the
planning board's significant concerns with the ordinance not being consistent with the master plan instead of ignoring the planning board's concerns. Thank you for your consideration of this request to ensure that Flemington Burough
residents wishes are respected and taken into account. and thank you for all you do. >> Thank you. Anybody else? >> Excuse me. Thank you.
>> Good evening. Robin Litus, FCP, FID Executive Director, 50 Stangle Road. Um, I just want to say that I don't know how much longer our businesses can wait for businessfriendly
um for a businessfriendly environment. We've seen so many businesses leave and go out of business over the past six years that I've been here. It's it's tragic. And I think that um this concept
of othering landlords uh property owners, people who rent is really divisive and really unfortunate. Tonight, everybody is talking about us listening to each other. And I have to
say it's only been of recent that business owners have been listened to or talked to or included. We are not on we're not on the planning board. We're not on your parking commission. We're not on your committees.
We're absent. So if you really want to listen to what people have to say who are working so hard to bring business to this community, chocolate, ice cream, all the things that people want, it's what everybody says they want. We also
need people to live on our main street. that if you look at how main streets survive, they generally put more people living on a main street because one, they take care of the street, two, they look out for the businesses, and three,
there's somebody there for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. And without a few more people living on Main Street. The reason why we've had new businesses come is because the hotel is being built and there's apartments and people are going to live on Main Street. Um, I just I I
feel like this whole conversation about listening to residents or listening to businesses is really sad and disheartening. And, you know, businesses need customers. We don't currently have what it takes to keep businesses alive.
And it's it's um they have told you that they need more flexible zoning and uh the ability to do more things in within the confines of a
business. And I think that waiting any longer is just going to cost us more businesses because there are people who want to move to this town and when they say they want to teach education to and and and have an art gallery, they're
denied. That's what we're talking about. So, it's really painful to not allow these businesses to have the opportunity to open in our town. And that is really what the case is. But the planning board
chair said it herself. We have denied and turned away too many businesses. We need a combination of things. But I think uh pushing this back really just means that the 10 next 10 people who are
going to come to try to open a business here may not even bother because we're sending such an anti- businessfriendly message and that really concerns all of the business owners here. Um, and you
know, businesses do open every morning of the day for the residents. They're here to serve the residents, but we don't have enough of a impact for them to be successful. And that is
really what we're talking about. It's about finding some balance where we can have enough people living here to keep our businesses alive and to have enough opportunity to welcome new businesses into the buildings that we have. And our buildings are complicated. So, I thank
you for your time and um I hope that we can uh do better at relating to each other in the future. Just as a a point, you don't have to step around, but just as a point so people understand
um the law on vetos um whether the veto is accepted or not accepted by the council, the clerk has to publish the ordinance with or without the veto and then it takes effect. So this isn't pushing it back at all. Uh if
they accept the veto, that becomes the law as soon as it's published. If they don't accept it, that becomes the law as soon as it's published. So it doesn't push back anything. Just to be totally clear on how this looks. >> Thank you. >> So anybody else? >> Can I do another?
>> Let's see. Anybody else? >> Anybody else follow? >> Did you want me to read these letters or the comments that I >> uh I guess >> I don't know. >> I mean, were they for us? We receive
reference them for the record. Carlo >> Eric Eric comment. It's hard to hear you. I'm sorry. It doesn't go any further. And I see that and the other one
>> and that and that was asking the council to uphold my veto. >> Yep. >> Um Yep. And the other one also to uphold the veto is Mark Ters from uh 35 Brown
Street. >> Anybody else got a copy? >> That's it. It's the two, right? >> Yep. And she read this letter so the public knows what these people have listened >> once again. >> You read Mr. Liss. This is
>> okay. >> You can't just read one and not go ahead. >> Okay. >> I apologize for not being able to attend in person tonight and request that our cl Okay. I ask that our council council members vote to sustain the mayor's
mayor's line item veto of ordinance 202521. I ask this for you for three reasons. It supports our main street businesses by allowing their key requests to go forward. This include includes the changes in the SIC codes, the support of
popup events and support for first offers. Number two, it delays additional additionals in caps housing on the first floor of Main Street. Additional housing on Main Street is not in caps in
alignment with your constituents desire to have a more vibrant Main Street. This is especially true with hundreds of approved new units due to to come online in the near future. This decision should be delayed until after we see the impact
of these upcoming developments. Number three, it gives us time to assess the parking impact of the courthouse square project. We know that the hotel project will materially impact parking on Main Street. While it may be
appropriate to change the reserve space behind buildings to allow for additional construction space in the future, we should table that for now and protect this space for parking until after the hotel project is complete and we have time to judge its impact on the parking
situation both on Main Street and in the surrounding neighborhood streets. People will be reluctant to visit main street businesses if parking becomes a even bigger challenge.
That is from Eric Litz on Maple Avenue. >> This is a long one. >> Um his name is Mark Papers. I live at 35 35 Brown Street and I've been a resident in Fington Burough for 10 years. Um, I
want to again start by thanking you for your continued work to streng strengthen our community and improve Easter. I review May Tarot's veto carefully. Why I understand and respect the goal of promoting growth and revisitation.
Can't get that word. >> Yeah, there you go. Revitalation. I share the mayor's concern regarding the provision she vetos. Um, section B.4 3.4 conditional uses permitted/dwelling
units on the first floor. Section B. Ear yard height and building coverage. Section B1D.5 dwellings located on the first floor. My concern is is that these sections, if left in place, could unintentionally
open the door to developments that eliminating eliminate existing rare parking areas and increase the number of apartments or other residential units on Main Street. I fully understand the desire to encourage investment in activity downtown, and I think many
parts of this ordinance do that well, such as the inclusion of popups. But my main concern is that these particular provisions could lead to outcomes that might make it harder, if not easier, for our downtown town to thrive.
The rear setback changes have the potential to allow building expansions into areas currently used for parking. I understand that many of you believe this ordinance is necessary now to support growth and give businesses flexibility
needed for economic development. But I respectedly suggest that parking is economic development. It's how residents, visitors, and business customers access main street. If those spaces are gradually replaced by building conditions, we may find
ourselves in a situation where the town's limited parking supply can no longer support the businesses we're trying to attract. As a resident in town, I can envision wanting to swing by a store on Main Street to pick something up and deciding against it because I
don't want to deal with the parking. If I'm thinking this, I can imagine someone coming from a distance being even less like likely to travel or to visit. Once those lots are developed, there's virtually no going back. It's highly
unlikely any property owner is going to tear down a building later to restore parking. It's simply not financially viable. That's why this is so important to get this right the first time. I don't want to overstate what might happen, but I do think it's reasonable
to be concerned that remove parking, removing parking, especially before we see how 500 new apartments, including 400 on Main Street, will affect demand. This could create new challenges for businesses, residents,
and visitors alike. The mayor's letter highlighted that partying is a critical resource for businesses already in existence, and that Luden more of it could make Flemington less attractive as a place to live, work, or visit. I share
that concern deeply. I also appreciate that many of you believe this ordinance is necessary now to keep momentum going. I respect that perspective and I believe removing or amending these particular sections, the ones dealing with rare setbacks and
first floor dwellings would ensure that our growth remains balanced and consistent with many residents have shared. I'm not here to oppose development. I'm here to ask for thoughtful development by removing section B.D.4.
4 B and B I point D.5. As the mayor recommended it, the council can retain the positive forward looking parts of this ordinance that support businesses while reducing the risk of unintended
long-term impacts on park and main street brutality. In my view, the approach represents responsible planning and responsive leadership. One that reflects both the council's vision and the community disputes. Thank you for
your time and for your continued commitment to doing what's best for 202. >> I just have a short comment. May I do that even though I spoke once? >> Sure. >> Yes. >> Colleen Rosetti. uh Flemington resident. I was unaware of
the issue of um uh what do you call it when you have a dual when you have a business? >> Conflict of interest. >> Conflict of interest. Thank you. I was totally unaware of that. So, who is it on council that has a conflict of
interest with a business on Main Street? I proposed that it was Brandon because he and own Mexico and they they own the building as well. >> Okay. So best interest in the outcome. >> I think that has to be considered with
this vote. If you have a building within this realm that's being voted upon that being reclused from the vote is a strong point to be made that you could have financial advantages
in in your vote. So I ask that you consider that that this person be reclused from >> only only Councilman Rias has the power to make the decision that he is recused.
>> Okay. So I ask you to consider that because you are on Main Street. You own a business. You own a building there. And so there is a conflict of interest. >> But he's also a resident of this town. >> He's a resident of the burough. >> Uhhuh. just just as many business
owners. There are several business owners that are residents of the town. >> Correct. But on council and so >> allowed to vote. >> Okay. But >> consider that. >> That's fine. Thank you. >> You should in all good faith consider
that before you make your vote. >> What does the attorney say about this? Mayor Carol accurately states the the uh the uh case that the recusal is Brandon's. Uh I could counsel Brandon but I cannot make decision for him and
this is the first time I'm hearing this issue. So Brandon wants to chat to chat with him but that is his decision. >> He doesn't need to make that decision now. >> Anybody else from the public have any comments?
Well, comments that questions please. It's just a comment on this issue. Um I question I guess for Chris as well on that topic is planning board has we have a rule um nobody takes part in discussion or votes on a application
that's within 200 ft of their house for this very reason and we have a disclosure of financial or peculiary interest in a in a situation. Is is that not the case? Is that same? Is it different in planning board and council then? Could you just confirm that for me?
>> Uh the joint rule does not exist council the uh the council's governed by local government ethics law. Um which I'm happy to consult with Brandon if that's his desire. Um at a time of his choosing
to discuss it right now I guess I'd rather not today. Yeah. Yeah. They also both have any comments? >> Yes, seeing none. Thank you so much. Again, u it was council long last last meeting said it was for whatever reason,
it's good to see 7050 coming out. There will be another public comment period at the end of this uh meeting if you choose to stay that long. Um we don't have any minutes to approve. Um, we're going to get quickly through the
rest of this until we get to resolution section. I think of the consent agenda. Resolution 2025-163 resolution authorizing the street closures for the 4th annual spang on witchwalk on October 24, 2025.
Resolution 2025164. Resolution authorizing the street closures for Halloween trick-or- treat on October 31st, 2025. Resolution 2025 165. Resolution authorizing turkey trot street closures November 27, 2025. Resolution 2025166. Resolution
authorizing the closure of certain streets for the 103rd Lington Christmas tree lighting on December 5, 2025. Resolution 2025167. Resolution authorizing the closure of certain streets for the holiday parade on December 6, 2025. Resolution 2025 168. Resolution authorizing a contract
with CarGa Land. I think it's Cara. I think there's an emac in there. Landscaping LLC to evade public safety hazards at 110 Broad Street, block 39, lot 2 and authorizing the tax collector to lean the property. Resolution 2025 169 resolution authorizing the release
of $250 road opening bond to Dana Klein. Does anybody want anything removed off the consent agenda for separate vote? Seeing none, can I have a motion, please? >> Move. >> Is there a second? >> Roll call, please. >> Yes. >> Angel,
>> yes. Pasara. >> Yes. Council >> Levitic. >> Yes. >> Council Vice President Long Wong. >> Yes. >> And council president. >> Yes. >> Thank you. We have two ordinances. Sorry. One one or two ordinances for discussion. Ordinance 202526 bond ordinance amending Impart bond
ordinance number 2020-18 adopted on December 14, 2020 as amended by bond ordinance number 2021-4 adopted on March 8th, 2021 providing for various roadway improvements for the Bureau of Flemington in order to increase the appropriation therefore by $173,500
representing a grant received from the state of New Jersey Department of Transportation for a total appropriation of $1,928,628 and to amend the purpose thereof authorized in and by the bureau of Flemington in the county of Hunter in New Jersey. Um this is really a cleanup
bond ordinance to catch up a bunch of old ordinances that weren't necessarily done correctly. Can I have a motion please to introduce >> move? >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Um Councilman Harris, >> yes. >> Counciloman Ninghart, >> yes. Woman, >> yes.
>> Council Mclo, >> yes. >> Council Vice President Law, >> yes. >> And Council President Parker, >> yes. uh hearing scheduled. I think it's October 27th. Is that correct, Carla? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> October 27th is the hearing and then
ordinance 2025-27, an ordinance amending the historic preservation ordinance of the Bureau of Lington to comply with the requirements of the certified local government CLG program. And I have a motion to introduce. Please win.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Roll call, please. Councilman Eris, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Inglehart, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Visar, >> yes. >> Council Levik, >> yes. >> Council Vice President Long, >> yes. >> And Council President, >> yes.
>> Thank you. Public hearing scheduled for October 27th. We have two public hearings. >> Oh, that's right. Yeah. >> We have a date. >> No, no. sometime in November or December. >> I don't know how we do that if we don't
have a date certain. Wait, what are the public hearing? Well, we can't do the public hearing. There's no reason why we can't do the public hearing >> as long as there's no changes. >> But there's changes. >> There's going to be >> to the ordinance itself, >> I think. So, >> yeah, they said there might, but it has to be all reintrod.
>> All right. So, this is going to get tabled indefinitely. >> Yeah. Ordinance 2025. There's 25 will be tabled indefinitely. It'll have to be >> they made a lot of red lines and we're waiting for the
>> actually in the ordinance >> that's actually in the ordinance but they made a lot of red lines and so we're waiting for the red >> though we're going to have to introduce all start all over again. Okay. >> Remember this one is just a very narrow >> That's what I thought. >> It's a very narrow to comply with the
chiefs the proper ordinance has been amended. >> Yeah we already did the main ordinance. This is the like accessory ordinance. >> They given us comments after >> my concern is that whatever changes the state wants us to do may affect this. Okay. So it just doesn't make sense to
do it. >> That's what they that's what the the uh email alluded to is state making some changes. >> Okay. >> So I mean anyway you want to do it and then >> Well, anyway you want to do it is fine. do it because they >> 23.
>> I know. I >> Yeah. >> I mean, I'm saying if there's not going to be any significant changes, we could do the public hearing, >> but can may I suggest since we know there's going to be changes on one, why don't we just do them both at the same time? >> Definitely. That's fine. All right.
Ordinance 2025-23, an ordinance amending chapter 4 licensing of the municipal code of the Burough of Flemington to create a new section 4-18 entitled dumpsters. The hearing is now open to the public. Anybody wishing I'm sorry. Have a motion to open the public. >> Is there a second? Second. All in favor?
The hearing is now open to the public. Anybody wishing to speak on this ordinance um you can come forward to the microphone. I can briefly just tell you this is at the request of both the DPW superintendent and the chief of police. We've had an an inordinate number of
dumpsters in town just being left >> committee and the parking committee, but they've just been sitting in the street and not collected after the construction has been done. So, this ordinance basically requires people to get a
permit through a construction permit at no extra cost or a permit from the extreme police. Um, again, no cost, uh, for 30 days with a 30-day renewal. After that, there will be fines. Um, so you can have a dumpster in the street for up
to 60 days to do whatever work you need, but then it's got to go. If it's in your own driveway, it's indefinite. You don't need a permit at all. You can keep it in your own driveway indefinitely. So, uh, anybody wishing to address this, please come to the microphone, state your name and address for the record, please.
Beth, Broad Street. I just want to say amen and mouth time. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Anybody else? >> All right. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing to the public? >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Roll call. Um I'm sorry. All in favor?
>> I have a motion to adopt. >> Move. >> Is there a second? >> Angelard second. >> Any discussion? Roll call, please. Counciloman Marius. >> Yes. >> Counciloman Manglehart. >> Yes. Councilwoman Sarf. Yes. Counciloman Levit. >> Yes. Council vice president. >> Yes. Council president.
>> Yes. >> On the regular agenda, resolution 2025-170 resolution formally designating Heidi Hush as a full-time employee of the public library. The motion please. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? Roll call, please. Councilman Harris.
>> Yes. >> Councilwoman Inglehart. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Pacari. >> Yes. Council Levit. >> Yes. >> Council Vice President Long. >> Yes. >> And Council President Parker. >> Yes. Thank you. Resolution 2025171, resolution appointing Tracy Lions as a part-time contemporary and finance
administrator at the Fington Public Library. There motion, please move. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any any discussion? >> Can I just ask a question? What is What does it mean temporary finance administrator? Is it Are you looking for a permanent and this is just person
filling in? >> No, this is literally temporary part-time finance administrator. >> So, it's for a period of time. She just cleaned things up. >> Yes, she's cleaning things up. This is our This is our um forensic account doing all of the inepth work to get it.
>> Okay. Thanks, >> Councilman Marius. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Nel, >> yes. Councilwoman Pora, >> yes. >> Council Lev, >> yes. >> Council Vice President Long, yes. And Council President Parker, >> yes. >> Thank you. Resolution 2025172 resolution of the bureau of funding to awarding an
implenary retail consumption license with hotel motel exception type 36 pursuant to NJSA 331-12.20 uh to 19.1 and 19.2 to the Sage Coers LLC for the New England Hotel property. Can I have a motion, please? >> Move. Second.
>> Uh, any discussion? >> I just quick uh clarification on this one. So, this was what we had a couple meetings ago. I had rescended something related to this. >> Send it what we did. >> We sended what we did >> and then we had
>> Yeah. >> And then this one >> all these stages that has to be done properly. >> Yeah. But the next thing on our agenda is like the second part of it. >> Yes, this is >> final. Thank you. Roll call. Councilman Harris.
>> Yes. >> Councilwoman Angel. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Facar. >> Yes. >> Councilman Levit. >> Yes. >> Council Vice President Long. >> Yes. >> And Council President Parker. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Resolution 2025 173. Resolution of the burough of Flemington issuing a new plenary retail consumption
license with hotel motel exception type 36 pursuant to NJSA 331-12.20 to 19.1 and 19.2 stage coach Liquors LLC from the union of tough property. I have a motion please move. >> Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Any discussion? Roll call, please. Councilman Eric, >> yes. >> Counciloman, >> yes. >> Councilwoman, yes. Councilman Lever, >> yes. Council Vice President Long. Yes. Council President. >> Yes. >> Resolution 2025174 resolution
authorizing the hiring hiring of Michael J. Gallagher as a Flintington police officer. Motion, please. >> Move. >> Is there a second? >> Angelart will second. >> Any discussion? Roll call, please. Councilman Harris. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Angelart. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Fisar.
>> Yes. >> Council Le. >> Yes. >> Council Vice President Long. >> Yes. >> And Council President Parker. >> Yes. Thank you. Do you know when they're going to be sorted? >> Oh, it's [Music]
>> I think it's on the resolution. >> Excuse me. Could you just move other chair so we could >> Oh, I got to do this too. So, I can't >> Well, then >> I can't It doesn't That's it. >> You can't hear me? >> No.
uh November 3rd, start B contingent upon the completion of their background investigation. Uh a couple other things. So I'm just looking if the other guy was not saying date I think. Yeah. No. >> Okay. Resolution 2025. Thank you. 175
resolution authorizing the hiring of Elijah as a Flemington B police officer. You have a motion, please. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? real quick uh regarding these two hires. Uh I was uh able to hire uh sit down and interview with
them. Uh they were both uh very compelling candidates. Um both actually come from both have military backgrounds. Michael Gallagher uh served in the US Marine Corps um and is now transitioning from corrections to now
policing. Uh he's a proud DellBow graduate like one of our other officers also Castro back there. So, uh, so yeah, we're getting a 100 county grown officer and Elijah Degrrad is a very bullying, uh, character. He's
originally a West Coast guy. He's he did a lot of, uh, touring with the army. And I think one of the things I noted about him in the interview was he's got to bring a West Coast sort of attitude to the police department. So, I don't look forward. That's it. You have any further questions? When
>> we have hurricanes, he'll be surfing the streets. It'll >> be all right. Surf him. >> Okay. Resolution 2020. I'm sorry. >> Councilman Eric. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Angelhart. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Sara. >> Yes. >> Council Le. >> Yes. >> Council Vice President Long.
>> Yes. >> Council Prince Parker. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Resolution 2025 176 resolution approving Gregory Zo's accumulative leave paid leave. Long move. Is there >> a second? I'll second.
>> Any discussion? Roll call, please. Councilman Eric, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Englehart, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Furo, >> yes. >> Councilman Levit, >> yes. >> Council Vice President Long, >> yes. >> And Council President Parker, >> yes. >> Resolution 2025-17
overriding the mayoral veto ordinance number 2025-21 pursuant to JSA4A 60-5D. Is there a motion to override? >> Parker motion. >> Second. Angle heart will second any discussion.
>> Do you want me to do that? >> Whatever that was. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Um, so I guess I'll go first. Um, this ordinance proposed by the
planning board last year, 2024, um, came to this, um, council, I believe in November, very late November around Thanksgiving. Um, and I believe the >> I'm sorry, >> October. >> October,
>> right? Uh, okay. You're you're you're right. Like I said, I don't remember the exact date. late late 2024 it came to us. Um and I believe the variations on that same ordinance that we proposed this year in 2025
um you know I want I want to make sure that we're taking a measured and pragmatic uh um and holistic approach. um when we tabled the um previous ordinance um that was in November uh
2025 uh 2024, excuse me. Um you know, we heard um a a huge amount of feedback from both business um owners, property owners, and residents. Um and
the same thing happened this year. I recognize the points of concern that Mayor Caro um that caused Mayor Caro to veto this ordinance. Um however, the items in question contribute to the creation and um support a vibrant,
sustainable um safe where people want to live, work, visit, and socialize. And I think that's something that everybody um has agreed upon um up to this point. Um the ordinance is basically 90% beneficial to uh businesses and
residents and 10% frankly an unnecessary distraction fel uh fed by the uh simple confusion that is the nature of a zoning ordinance. These things are not easy to read. Um you kind of have to go back and forth
between a lot of different sections and subtaragraphs. Um, it is these types of unnecessary distractions, however, that have held this town back often over the years. I believe the overall intent of this ordinance is vital for our economic
future. But as elected officials, our first duty is to listen to the community. I listened carefully to all the comments uh at the last meeting tonight. Um, we've received uh uh calls, emails. I've
received a lot of questions, and I've received a lot of messages um from in the last few weeks from residents, property owners, and business owners. Um, and I'd say, believe it or not, I know there's a lot of people here that
are uh against this tonight, but they were uh uh many were positive and and many were uh like like you heard tonight um um against, so it wasn't as uh kind of weighted one side or the
other. Um, I also reached out to not less than uh six current planning board members to discuss and I I really had some great conversations and I really appreciate all of their time uh that I've had um with them listening to their concerns and comments. Um and I heard
the business owners and the residents voices and perspective perspectives. I want to make this clear. What this ordinance does not do this this ordinance does not increase the impervious coverage. Um the surface
ratio does not change. It is still 75 which means that when you go to the planning board with a site plan approval uh uh application of any kind, you have to meet that requirement. It does not reduce minimum public parking
requirements per section 2629. That also appears to be a rumor or a misunderstanding that's been circulating. We are not removing the parking minimums. If you're required to park something now, you'll still be required to park it later. If you change
your site plan at all, you're required to add or depending on what the site plan uh proposal is, increase parking minimums. And that's standard with any type of planning board application. The
impact of current residential projects does not influence any future site plan review of other parcels. Existing residential unit um development has to be self-parked as well. Any application
has to be self-parked with the exception of the one incentive that we've had on the books for years and that is retail which we want. We want that incentive. We want people to be able to come and park and we want people to continue to put a a retail um use over a um office
use which is why the incentive is in there to begin with. That didn't change at all. This ordinance does not increase the height at all. It is currently 40. It is not being proposed to be changed. And finally, it does not propose locations of residential units that are
not already recommended in the master plan. And I'll get to that in a minute. Of all these important bulk st standards that are not changed, um this um this uh which greatly limits the size and coverage of
any future site plan proposal. Any building improvement outside the existing footprint of a building is required to file an application with the board of adjustments and the planning board and must either a meet the ordinance minimum standards or b grant
of be granted a variance by the planning board. Everybody's on equal ground when they're applying uh with an application to the planning board based on the ordinance. We have a lot of common ground here. We've talked about this at length. um even many of the things
initially that the planning board said were inconsistent and sometimes because the master plan is a few years older than the ordinance in some cases sometimes you have to say it's inconsistent but as the mayor's letter said like some of this stuff anyway um
the the eliminating of the sick codes were all on board with that um that defines permanent uses um using larger categories and it eases the bur burden of business owners and zoning officials, more importantly, smoothing the path to e economic development in the burrow.
Um, we all agree that expanding permitted uses invites new businesses and cultural institutions that contribute to our local economy. More things to do, the popup conditional uses in all zones provide that more things to do solution that we hear over and over
again. Um, we heard businesses. There was an amazing cordial discussion between the residents and the businesses last week. I think Councilman Long mentioned that and we could really see that up here. It was actually really quite nice to to
see. Um, and you know, in the future, we always can suggest an overlay um uh of the exact changes if there is some concern with office uses. But for now, it sounds like, at least from what I
have gotten both privately and publicly, um that we all understand that for now filling our vacancies is the most important thing no matter, you know, what the um use is as long as it's within the ordinance. Um updating the
front yard setbacks also I don't think is um anything that I had heard was a main issue. It basically improves the consistency of the f facade on Main Street and more importantly protects us from big box design. Um, one of our things our planners said was um if if
like a building gets burned down and you're there's a new application, the way our ordinance was written before, you could actually put parking in front like a CDS could go there and you which is what a big box does. They put the parking in the front. So that again was something that um the planning board in
years past had had con consistently said was a worry and I believe it was in the previous um uh proposal that the planning board um put forth a lot most of these things were in regards to housing. I I I think this
has been really blown out of proportion um and I understand the fear that people have. I I really have empathy for that. Um, and but it it's not about fear or the free mar. It is really about the free market. I know we as residents and
neighbors are better than this and I've really seen some kind of ugly um uh interactions in the last few weeks and it's been extremely disappointing to me. Um the public discussion around the DB
section entitled conditional um uses permitted dwelling units uh on the first floor area yard height and building coverage and dwellings located on the first floor of the zoning ordinance seems to be the most contentious part of this ordinance. So that's where I want
to focus right now. I believe one thing is clear. This single part of the ordinance seems to h have uh been the biggest source of unnecessary division. We do not want our residents pitted up against our business owners and vice
versa. I want to make this very clear on page 36 of the 2022 master plan. It makes this direct recommendation and I quote, "The district standards should be amended to allow firstf flooror
residential uses as a conditional use. First floor residential uses in the downtown are appropriate where they do not disrupt first floor active commercial uses. As such, firstf flooror residential unit uses may be appropriate
where they do not face a public street or where the unit occupies a minimal area minimal minimal area to accommodate the residential entrance," unquote. Codifying the conditional use of these
first floor dwellings as specified in the master plan provides that additional flexibility to property owners preventing extend extensive variances that um that depreciates property values
and are very expensive to go through the planning board process. In addition, there's some confusion about this 8 foot width that also was in the original planning board um proposal. So, I just want to clarify that as well. The and uh
the residential entrance is documented in our proposed ordinance reflects the 8 foot question that a few people have been asking me about. It's intended to accommodate but limit entrances from Main Street to upper story apartments. 8
ft is quite small and simply intended to limit the destruction of the regular rhythm of walkable storefronts while still providing access to whatever residence is either existing now or proposed. The alternative would be to leave it to
interpretation and I frankly prefer an objective standard to give that the planning board some teeth and argument um and property owners clear guidance if they do come for an application. This allows for new and renovated
residential units but only in certain circumstances. This still pro prioritizes commercial retail and engaging businesses on the first floor while allowing for retail in spots that you do not see. This 8-oot proposal was included in the planning
board's draft of the same ordinance from November or October 2024. Why was this first floor language in the master plan to begin with? I think that's something that's also just confusing. You know, if you got a call that said they're building stuff behind
the, you know, behind the the post office, I want everybody to understand why this was included to begin with. Existing residential units um are existing non-conforming uses. Right now, there are if you look behind
um all the DB district um there is a lot of um uh residential units right now. Many of them are of low quality and I'm hoping that some of the property owners want to fix up these units and improve
their properties. Um if they have nicer um units then their rate of you know investment goes up. right now they're if if if they are now conditional uses. Um it it doesn't trig if it if they're right now they're
condition if they are now considered sorry if they're now considered conditional uses. Um it doesn't trigger a rejected zoning official review when the property owner goes to renovate their property and improve it. In addition, one of the things the planning
board does every year is they go through all the different variances that they issued um throughout the year and see if there's any uh patterns. And over the years, multiple variances have been issued allowing for rear first floor
residential in the DB district, including two property owners who frankly openly oppose the Union Hotel. um which is a bit self-s serving, but they benefited from those same variances
granted from a planning board for residential in in the um rear of their properties. Um when it comes to decreasing the rear yard setbacks, that's the other kind of the two things that are the biggies that I'm hearing
from people in the downtown district. Um from a suburban 50 uh feet to a a more uh appropriately scale DB district of 20 feet. This still allows um this still only allows for the heights to be 40t
tall, for the um for the uh imperous coverage to stay the same and no additional no parking to be removed. I want to stress that no parking is being removed. As a point of reference, the typical height of homes on like Broad or
Brenell are approximately 32. These types of considerations and more have been discussed with our experts, the planning board and with the public. Um, and what the dis what the decreased setback
does offer businesses perhaps is some increased options in the way they can maximize their property uses. Excuse me. Perhaps eliminate a potential variance request, encourage property improvements while
allowing for increased revenue opportunities and creative design options with an awkward shaped 300-year-old parcel and bring existing parcels more importantly into compliance. These are barely minimum changes to the bulk standards. and and because we are
holding the height, the impervious coverage in the parking, frankly, I don't necessarily know if any of these changes will be significant and probably pretty inconsequential, but I want to make sure that we're telling our
property owners that we'll give you this small carrot and encourage property owners to take advantage of some of the federal opportunity zone incent tax incentives now. And if we don't see any movement on some of these properties,
then we come behind with an enforcement stick. And um you know, I've really been encouraged the last year. I've gotten to know um Dave Giuliani really well and really appreciate the work he does here. And he does come through uh uh with the
stick. for example, you know, we we didn't did a uh resolution today um uh for a property owner that we put a lean on for that sole purpose. So, um I do have a concern about one section um that
I found a typo in, but I will let um anybody else speak on this matter and then I'd like to um make a motion. >> The motion's already been made and seconded. So this is a discussion period. >> All right. Well, I can How do you want me to do this then?
>> I think it's finished talking first. >> I'm sorry. Every >> then I'll >> There's a desire to amend a motion later. >> I I would like to mention one thing. Um Councilman and he can speak for himself, but Councilman Aras's building is in the
DB2 district, not the DB district. Um, and I don't believe these uh the proposals, especially the ones of of major concern would even affect >> one of DD is in DD2. >> Well, like I said, that I think that one
may be that one may be changing. >> So, um, anybody else got any other discussion? >> Um, yes, like just just comments. Once again, I I I listen to understand not respond. So, I do not have can comments
ready, but just a few things. I absolutely love the popups. I love that. That's what we were doing last year, right? We we we want these different uses. I You know what? You guys broke adult business or took adult businesses out. Doesn't bother me if you're done at
the end of Main Street all the way down. I don't care. Give us billiard halls. Give us things that adults can do and walk to in this world. Wonderful. >> That's not what we meant by adults. You meant adult like >> I don't care what people do as long as
it's behind a door. I literally don't care. I don't Yeah. >> No, I I knew exactly what I meant when I said that. >> Okay. Yeah, I did enough. So, I'm giving you guys a compliment. I actually really like that and that's what we looked through last
year when the planning board did this. I do have extreme concerns about the stress on our infrastructure, both our water and our sewer, and what we will be able to manage and control. We have hundreds of apartments coming online in the next few years. And this has been
the work not just of members on this council. This goes back to Mayor Grinder, Mayor Driver, who some of you served with. Most of you, some of you have served on the planning board for 10, 15, I know the last time you had someone here 20 years. Um, but I'm not
convinced that there was any thought about that. Um, of note, the planning board did not say that it was inconsistent. Planner Jim Kai did. That's who said that it was sub substantially
inconsistent. We took this professional planner's advice and what he said to us and we read it and we understood it and he sat in front of here. sat with us and he explained to the planning board why that decision was not just made in
regard by we made it with the advice and consent of not only our attorney but a professional planner um then finally I've heard I heard last in our last meeting this meeting
that we got the master plan and so when I looked at the master plan and I went back to 2010 2015 202 22. How many years and how many variations do we allow it to be gotten wrong? And what
took so long after the planning board last year started looking at these variances and seeing why does this continue to happen? Why is it so hard for a business to come in and out? And ultimately, I guess I don't know what to think about our master plan. Seriously,
I does it suck? Maybe it does. Maybe it just sucks. I heard someone who'd been on uh on the on the planning board for 20 years say at our last meeting, well, maybe we got it wrong that you know what, there's a lot of us who own homes
for 10 to 15 years and we don't have time for you to keep getting things wrong. We just don't. So, I my my my quest my question for for our chair of our planning board is maybe we need to look at that. Maybe that needs to be
something that we consider. The last master plan has people that are sitting on this council today as members of the planning board. So what changed in just the past two or three years and why was it ignored three years ago
in terms of um just one more thing uh businessfriendly environment and the the concept that this is uh you know some sort of fight between people who are homeowners, renters, business owners and uh
residents and homeowners. I don't think that I think there's more being more hay being made of that than actually is happening. Um I think most of people who lived here and invested in properties here as homeowners have been begging for
years for something to do on Main Street. We've been begging. We look at Stangle. Hey, let's recreate that. Um, it's not it's there's there seems to be this concept that if you're a renter, you're I don't know where it's coming
from or people think renters are hated. I rented for years in New Jersey. It never felt that way in the Somerville area, which at the time was going through the renaissance that Flemington was. So, I think we need to stop making so much of a deal that homeowners and
business owners are like at this this these odds. I'm not seemed. When I was walking around at the harvest festival, I had no fewer than 11 either couples or individuals come up to me and make what should have been an enjoyable afternoon
a little bit rough. I was able to say with pride that I do not support all of the the the additional potential for housing. I just do not do that. I just can't do it. Um, so I will be supporting
the mayor's veto tonight. Um, and I will caution you that there some of the feedback I've got in is who are the money interests? And that drives me crazy because I'm a very moderate Democrat. And we all know what that means. When if you're on the left,
I don't know who's here. I don't care. But when people start saying money interest, they start talking about like establishment, whatever. I don't think we really have those moneyed interests. But I would suggest to this council that as you vote to to override this and to put this in place, I would really
suggest that you get out in front of it with our constituents, our homeowners, some of them are working class, and make sure that they understand like, hey, what is your intent was positive. It's positive intent. I truly believe it's positive intent, but I as a council
person have anxiety when someone says something like that to me because I know that that's not what's going on. So, um, and I support my other the council members. It's a great effort. There's just things that I don't I I just can't I just don't. So, anybody else?
>> I wasn't going to say anything, but I am now. And I think Tren's going to talk, but >> So, there's several things here. Do not mistake that we have not gone out talk to the public. We have talked to the public and as a matter of fact,
we've knocked on doors and talked to the public. So, it's not like we have not talked to citizens. Listen, I appreciate everybody that's here and there's this small microcosm of 4,000 people who live in this bureau, right? There's 4,000
people who live in this world. You're a small microcosm. I absolutely respect everything that you're saying. I respect your concerns. What I don't respect are the personal attacks that's going on and this infighting because there is no fight as far as I'm concerned. There
isn't. There is a there is a disagreement in terms of how we see the world. When you say and you mistake he did not say that he got it wrong. What he said was there were things that we didn't think about when we were putting together the master plan. And that's
that's to be understood. But also understand that the world has changed since the master plan is gone. The town has changed. The town has changed because you've got now almost 500 new people who've come into this town in a
matter of five to five to eight years. The mere fact that that has happened changes the dynamics of the town. It changes the politics of the town. It changes the way people see the town. It changes the way that people see how they want the town. It changes everything.
Right, wrong, or indifferent is not for me to say. What I'm saying is is that if there are change, listen, I told you guys I'm a change agent. That's been my career. This is nothing new about change. This is nothing new. All
of this is to be expected. I I think I said this when I was talking to um reporter. I said this is actually very normal because then people start trying to jockey and figure out how do I hang on to this, how do I do this or whatever the case may be. Listen,
nothing is perfect because we're not trying to be perfect in an imperfect world. However, that said, there are things that we did try to do and we did extend an olive an odd branch to the planning board and it was like, okay,
but we're going to take our time doing this. No, there wasn't a take your time. We needed to We wanted some information. All we wanted was information. All we wanted was some information. Just give us something to knock on. That was it.
It didn't have to be perfect. And it could have said here we're going to give you this and not that. And I actually said that I said just give us something something. That's it. So you know what perception is our people's reality. So
if it is that perception then I will respect it. But that's not the reality. The other thing is is that I just don't like what I what I the worst thing that has happened through all of this and listen this is to be expected because
>> you know believe me I'm like I I really don't care if you're Democrat, Republican or Mr. Magcoo. I don't care. That does not matter to me. That doesn't make a decision. That doesn't do anything. What is unnerving and this is what
people have told us when we were walking knocking on the doors and when we were at the harvest festival is the reason why people feel like renters are being b like being beaten is because it keeps coming up about renters versus others.
That's where that perception is coming. I'm just telling you that's what that's what we're getting. That's where that perception is coming that that renters are not renters are not respected. Not saying it's true. Absolutely 101% not saying it's true. But I go back to
perception. If it's my perception, it's my reality. If it's true to me, it's true to me. If you want me to change my perception, you must change the way you're saying it or change the way you're doing. That's it. It's just that simple. In terms of the ordinance, listen, we worked hard just like you
guys worked hard. We worked hard on it and we did get a lot of input. We just didn't voice all the input we had, but we did get a lot of input. And the whole thing about the housing and it's just I mean Susan put it succinctly. It's just been totally
overblown and it's not true. And to me, it's just refocus. Just refocus. Again, this is a small microcosm of what this town is made of. And I respect everyone's opinion. I hear you. When you start throwing darts, that's when I shut
down and say, "I'm not listening to this." But I hear what you're saying and I hear the intent. I think to go after Reyes is um Aerys is just that is just total nonsense. That is just total nonsense. It's hard enough to get people
to step up on this console. It's hard enough to recruit people to be on console. So, why would you want to throw darts and things like that at somebody who is just trying to be a part of the community and contribute to the community? I just think that that is so
disrespectful. I really do. Um, and that shows a sign of desperation and we don't need desperation. This is not a desperate measure. This is just something that's going to happen. And is it permanent? Who knows? The bottom line is it could
change tomorrow. It can change when the next council sets in here. It can change when the next mayor sets in here. Listen, this whole council is probably going to change in the next five years. The planning board is going to change in the next five years. So the bottom line
is as people start coming in, new ideas come in and new visions come in. That's just what happens. That's just called life. It just happens. I don't like what I'm hearing. I don't like these these
darts. I don't like the abuse. I don't like the bullying. It's just not necessary. This town is this big. You don't need to be nasty and abusive. And it just doesn't make sense. At the end
of the day, you pay taxes like I pay taxes. You pay a mortgage like I pay a mortgage. And we all belong here. Bottom line, we all belong here. I don't give a damn how long you've been here. It matters not. It matters that I am contributing
because I do the same thing you do. So this has got I don't care where this goes. I don't care this. The abuse and the negativity and the attacking of people has got to stop. And if it
doesn't stop, I'm going to call those people out by name. and I'm gonna let everybody know that they're doing and I believe me I don't go on Facebook. I don't go on any I because social media to me is just it is a bullying technique
is for people who can't say who cowardly go on instead of saying it in someone's face. So I just don't pay attention to it. I refuse to go on it. I don't think you're on it. Um, from what I understand, um, I I limit myself to newspapers because again, it tends to be
biased. BBC I will listen to. Um, but but this is what I mean. So all I want is when this is said and done that everybody just relax. >> Just relax. It is what it's going to be.
It is what it is. And then you know what? We pick it up and we figure out how to do it better. That's it. >> May I make one comment? Hostility will always be met with hostility. And even though you may not perceive hostility, there are people who have perceived
hostility. And there's nothing wrong with meeting it back. All of us come from different backgrounds. I did not come from a background where you just somebody perhaps signs on you and you just take was never taught that. Hold your head high. Be who you are. stand up
for yourself always. So when people are met with hostility and we as elected officials when I'm met with hostility, I work for you guys, okay? I can't do anything with your hostility, right? But I actually welcome hostility from my
constituents because I can hear so much so much in that anger that I've encountered. I hear so much in people's anxiety, some of our older residents, their anxiety. So, we making sure that we're really listening to what people
are saying and how they're saying it. Um, >> Adrian, you took that out of context. What I'm saying is hostility amongst here >> on the council. >> I'm talking about hostility around here. I'm talking about hostility around the planning board. I'm talking about hostility as >> that's not going to change. It's not
going to change. It is what it is. >> That's fine. >> And calling people out will only get >> That's fine. >> That's what's going to happen. Councilman Parker, >> excuse me. Stop yelling at me. >> I'm not yelling at you, >> but you're I'm proceeding that you are. So, please stop. What I'm saying to you
is is that this is where we are and we can control this. That's what I'm saying. You can take that any way you want. You can do I mean, hey, we all grew up in whatever d. That's not the point. I just want when this is said and
done when this is done there is >> but then >> so I will talk to everybody else except Adrian all I'm asking is is that we all I'm asking is that we do a level set when this is s all said and done that's all I'm asking
>> okay >> whether it's done or not >> any other discussion up here any comment >> yes >> yeah I Sorry, you want to talk? >> Uh, yeah, just very briefly. I mean, I
just want to uh echo Susan's comments. Um, yeah, I I mean, this is explicitly uh listed as a recommended change in the master plan. Uh, number one, and number two, this, you know, the change to the bulk standards. Uh, do not change the parking requirements. Do not change the
impervious surface uh requirements. Even if you you know as it stands today you know uh the lack of parking requirements is for retail only. So if you built a four-story building maximizing the use of the site you wouldn't be required to provide a single space of parking whether that site was given a 20ft
setback 50ft set back uh in in a in a very roundabout way uh allowing first floor retail or first floor residential or office almost ensures that more parking is required. Um, and I I didn't say it during my initial council
comments, but I I just need to note that somehow during the harvest fest, uh, we managed to fit and park all of the people that visited Fleming that day. And and I know that is not indicative of, you know, the permanent demand that things like the hotel and and other
sites will bring. Uh, but somehow we managed to fit everybody there without issue without any of the lots on Main Street or any of the street parking on Main Street. And that's that's it. Thank you. >> Anybody else?
>> So, I'm just going to very quickly Hello. I got elected here to represent the residents by elected here to represent the I believe the businesses here as well come from uh business owner perspective as well. uh hope you know that you know I'm not here just for my
own self-interest to keep it short and my father know what's like to open a business here how rough it is to do it been here for 24 years now and all we've done is give back and invested in this town as many years we've been here as well and what uh all that stuff that we
have to go through to open a business I hope that we can make it easier for the other businesses that want to fund here and invest in this town as well so that's just my point of view from it and I hope that you Okay. So, don't think anything other than just thinking about
myself or business. Yeah. So, thank you. >> Yeah. Uh just I'll keep it as brief as possible, but I you know I just wanted to kind of talk about you know I I had been sharing with the council members you know my feeling and and publicly I
think it was clear you know when I opted and and suggested we table it um for just maybe look at it um and and of course that didn't happen. And so for me uh it was always about the process and I
said okay you know the planning board came back and said these are inconsistencies and I said okay well I mean I spent a couple years ago planning board as a plastic myself. Um so I got to understand that process very very well.
So then you flip into council mode and that for me was a hangup and I just didn't get it and I didn't get a lot of the you know we did talk about what these items were. Um, but then you know
the mayor's veto came through and you know I want to thank Councilwoman Spanglehart for her I mean she's this has this technical understanding and and it's just you know bar none I don't think any of us up here
no offense uh are as studio studied in this and and I say that because when I look through this I mentioned her technical skills I'm going to be very simple, okay? I looked at the veto. I didn't read your
letter first. I looked at the ordinance. I said, "All right, what's up?" So, I went through page one, two, three. I saw nothing touched by the veto pen. Said, "All right." And these are
all the things I really wanted and I agreed with and I know were hashed out and worked through. And then I'm turning through page four through page five untouched by the pen. Finally get to page six. I have the 12page document and I see things crossed
out. There's the veto, right? Um page seven, there's some beta and these are the things that have already been discussed and when we hash it, but I ask myself, is is this a problem? Like for this ordinance? I'm sorry, but I want the business
stuff. I really want that and and that, you know, the listing of all the, you know, when we talk about plan, the planning language, it's in there. All this all this stuff we talk about, you know, uses and regulations and you know what are permitted principal uses and you get things like retail sales, retail
services, artist artisan studios, health fitness facilities, higher education training, learning centers, museums, apartments on the second and upper floors, offices, medical offices, single family detached homes existing as the adoption of this ordinance and municipal uses. I say well that's all this stuff. I mean, this is it that I see on page
eight. More crossed out, but less like this is not to me. When I looked at this document, I didn't see a a heavy veto. I just didn't see it. What I saw were things that I had concerns about. And
look, I don't have to 100% agree with the mayor, and I don't on some stuff. The previous mayor, same thing. But no harm, no foul as far as I'm concerned. But I did agree. I said, "This makes sense. This makes absolute sense." And
so, you know, when I looked at this, I weighed that. And again, I'm keeping it simple. I'm turning pages. And if I saw six pages of crossed out stuff, I'd be like, "Well, that's a that's a veto. Wow. That would be problematic because now there's stuff in there that's not
going to happen ever." But for the work that you know my fellow council members did for the work that the planning board has done everybody in this process I think it's important that we can satisfy everybody we can satisfy everybody we
can satisfy residents we can satisfy the business owners and satisfy and that's really at the end of the day it's what this is about. You're going to walk away from the table. Hey guess what feel like you did all right everybody's generally okay with it. That's my impression of
it. So when I you know veto is Oh, it's a scary word, right? But to me, the the heaviness wasn't there. So for me, I have absolutely no problem staining the veto. I think to to get this out there
like, let's go. We got to give these people the ability to kind of run with this, loosen things up for their business. We're going to see some good stuff happening. So that's all I want to say. But again, I want to thank everybody and commend everyone on this. This is a monumental task getting all
this stuff worked out. Um, it's not easy. It's hard. It's late nights. It's a lot of calls, a lot of emails, a lot of reading. Um, we know the work, but I commend everyone up here and and I appreciate just every single perspective on this. And at the end of the day, it's
not a heavy, you know, it's not a heavy lift. I'm I'm cool with it. That's it. Um, I just want to weigh in on on some of the the work that I did before I did this veto. Um,
as far as I know, I am the only person who actually contacted our construction office to find out exactly how this ordinance would work. As far as they knew, it was already law. They were already looking at how they were going to uh work with this 8- foot door
concept and housing on first floors. And so they were looking at it to enact it. And what I was told by our construction office was that other than basically getting um an acknowledgement if because
of the contributing area from the historic preservation um commission who really has no jurisdiction over a lot of a lot of the language in this can't really say no that putting in
an 8ft door at the front of a building on Main Street and a 1 hour fire rated uh sheetrock corridor to put apartments in the back was not a heavy lift nor did it require going to the planning board. All it would require was a refacing
permit from the construction office to reface the front of a building. That's it. So, that came directly from our construction office. And again, I don't believe anybody else talked to them about how hard or easy putting apartments on a first floor was going to be. Regarding the parking areas in the
back, I mean, the only good thing I can see about any of that is they have to come back to the planning board. Anybody with 100% impervious coverage like we have in so many of these parking lots who wants to build a building in the back will you know hopefully be forced
by the play board to follow our zoning which requires a lot of pvious coverage and not be granted the variance to keep it all impervious. However, I called Jim Kyle, who is the municipal planner's partner, who did the work for the
planning board, because I wanted to make sure I had this exactly right. Exactly right, because words really matter in government. And he confirmed 100%. Now, I'm going to take the New Market
building for example. It has one of the largest parking lots in the burrow, privately owned. It is a mixture of office on the first floor right now like A.G. Edwards and some services like the vacuum cleaner repair guide and some
retail restaurants like Market Roost. And Jim absolutely confirmed that um only the office use is required to have any parking at all under our ordinance. The retail uses are not. that New Market
could build in addition to their back per this ordinance. Um 40 feet high up to a 50 foot setback and then go down to 35 ft up to a 20ft setback and provide
enough parking under our ordinance for apartments with one to one and a half parking spaces per apartment, which is all we require. that that parking lot is big enough to sustain a very large building. I don't know why anybody
thinks it's not. I am not trying to fearmonger. All I am saying in this veto is we have 523 apartments approved in this town. This isn't against renters. It's about balance. We have a 2700 units. I'm
sorry, not even 1,800 units in this entire town, of which 63% are already apartments. 523 apartments are not built. 117 town houses are not built. We have the Union Hotel, which Jack C said today was going to be coming online
hopefully around December, opening up half >> a year, >> half of his apartments at 100 apartments. It's building 205. Spice Factory with 68 is currently leasing. We have a 100 approved at Captiva that's waiting for a D permit
that they expect to get within a year. They are fully approved by the planning board. That's 300 apartments on Main Street. um 200 which will be open in a few months and another 68 on
church and broad that will be open I don't know when soon because it's all finished and they're leasing and then they've got permission to build another uh 40 or so units there as well plus Perkins is now doing demolition to put 10 units over on Panel Street. All my
veto says is build out what's approved. build out what's approved before allowing more. Let's see what happens before taking away parking, before allowing parking lots to be turned into additional buildings, before putting apartments on first floors that are
going to take away from retail parking. Just wait. And this exact what I said earlier, this would be law in the exact same time frame as you reaffirming it, which is the next ordinance on the book. If you accept my veto, all it does is
pause all this extra maybe necessary, maybe unnecessary apartments until everything that's approved or at least the first couple of hundred that are in different stages are built so we can see what happens. That's
all it does. It doesn't ban it. It doesn't stop it. It doesn't say Marshia Carol, you know, writes hers. It talks about the balance that we have like 300 single family homes in this town. This is why a single family home goes into bidding wars in this town because we
don't have enough. We don't have enough housing stock. We have lots of apartment stock, not enough housing stock. So, all this does is say like, let's wait until what's approved is built and then we can
come back and do whatever later. But with 523 approved apartments right now, 400 of them on Main Street, 200 at Union Hotel, 100 at Captiva, and 100 at the Guitar Boy, which is also
being held up by the DP, but they don't have planning board approval yet. Um, I mean, that's what this veto does. And I'm asking for support on this because I think it's common sense and it is not fear-mongering. I mean, like I said, I was very very careful to talk to
the right people to talk to Jim Kyle who is the senior partner on the phone we use and to talk to our construction office about this first floor and how easy it would be and again it doesn't require any planning board approval whatsoever for anybody to do interior work and put in apartments. So that's my
piece. Um I just want to make something clear. We used the planning board ordinance proposal from November 21st, 2024. And
in that proposal, it specifically says with the exception that it may include an entrance that does not exceed 18 with that came from their language, not ours. And I will take exception. I definitely
spoke to um uh our code official, our fire official, and our um uh code enforcement officer. >> Why did it after me? >> Uh actually, it was probably before because it was as we were um developing this this summer.
>> Um so I I definitely did um speak to him. Um can I make can we have based on the based on the discussion that we had part of the meeting um I would suggest that you um amend your motion to include the following language at the end of the
resolution as proposed Carl I I'll send this to you but it's would follow the statuto citation the language would be except as to section 5D4B which the burough council hereby resolves to accept you should amend your motion to
>> so I amend and I'm recommending that the council vote to concur with the mayor's veto on section 5D 4B and to override the veto on all other effective sections. >> It's a motion.
>> That's a motion. >> You should ask a second. >> I can on that reason. Section 5D 4B >> is what we'll accept.
>> Second. >> Wait. Yeah, I know that. But this Susan, do you want me to tell them what that is? >> I can read it out. I can read out loud. Would you like me to do that? >> Yes. >> No. Hold on. Let me get pencil on the
right here. >> Uh, yeah. It's right here. This >> paragraph right here. >> This motion will distort the following language. For lots located north of Captain Street or south of William Street, first floor dwellings may face Main Street. provide that the subject
building exists as of the date of this ordinance and no building addition shall occur along the street basing street basing facad doesn't restore it we're accepting her veto on that >> I'm sorry that's not that that language shall be
excised yes right um >> yes we back that language shall be excised the rest of the language shall be >> right which I will note would affect the DB2 question that
council may just question on earlier. >> So this is only in DB in downtown not downtown too. >> Um you know I that one doesn't I I looked at that one but that one's not
that one does not it's not in there. That one's not even >> and it does not you are not removing the B rate standard changes and allowing both just the one just the the 5D 4B.
Um, you know, I can I can also say that the I'm not sure why this one's the um I would also go so far to say that we could accept the um
I'm going to get this right. 5 E as an egg 5 E as an egg one four the buildings or portion thereof because I don't think that even applies anymore because the height thing doesn't apply anymore that
was from the summer. So that one I'm fine removing as well. resilience. >> Uh, >> so with the chart >> 5E one,
>> no 5 E4. Thank you. 5 E4. >> So you you would like that one. >> That one I'm recommending for the council to uh compare as well. >> Excise that as well. Give me a second, please. 54
or >> right. So the language would then be accept as to section 5G4B and section 5. >> The law council hereby resolves to accept and that language would be excited.
That is the motion >> and to override the veil on all the respected steps. So what's left is what's left is well located on the first floor portion of the first floor of the building which the use is located is not
face it's hard to really slash through it not face the public street with the exception there may include an action associated area that does not exist what's left in both DV and DB2 >> correct that >> yeah nothing I didn't change anything I
didn't accept anything I didn't concur with anything that's section five >> there there was a second is there a second to that as well Any other discussions?
>> Can I just have one moment to check one last thing? I just wanted to look over. Give me like two. >> Well, I think um Jeremy has a comment. So, why don't you look at what you're looking at and then Jeremy can comment. >> I'm just trying to understand what what's happened here. So you're
amending to >> this will come out because she's proposing this gets gets thrushed out and we're >> agreeing they're overriding they're overriding allowing certain things and concurring
with certain texts. >> So concurring we're concurring with this one here and flip the page that one there. So what's staying in your override located in city 4A.
Dwellings located on the first floor per portion first floor of the building in which the use is located does not face public street with exception that it may include an entrance and associated area that does not exceed 8 ft. >> Yes, >> in the original >> parking for all residential uses shall
be provided consist of a section 2629. >> What? And also the vulgary senator >> is saying that chief also is setting changing this up action 15 to 20. You ready?
I mean my concern is that it's still taking away parking and it's still allowing apartments. I mean, I still have concerns over this because it's still allowing the loss of parking in this town. People would know what happens. It's >> I appreciate I mean, I appreciate like
you doing a little bit, but I appreciate but I I my argument was that it's it's private parking now. Um, and any changes that they propose, they have to get planning and zoning for just approvals.
>> You have something? >> Yes, it's Trent ready. Never never mind. I was confused on something, but I I found it. I'm good. Thank you. >> So, the the bone situation here, I was just trying to understand is so what I'm
hearing is people will have to go to the planning board >> if they want to build an addition. Yes. >> But would this open up even that necessity to go to the planning board? Like if if this was >> anything and that's the point they have to go to
the planning board. They always have to go to the clinic or building or maybe they don't have to do one or they know that's why >> at the parking committee >> Yes. Sorry. >> That's okay. That's cool. >> No, this is yours.
>> Yes. Um that's that's why at the parking committee I've been asking the this, you know, for a draft ordinance for consideration to allow these landlords who have an abundance of parking to be allowed to rent them out privately to places or people that need that the
parking rather than tempt them with, you know, some some long-term destruction of a parking lot. Um and I'm not opposed to that's another tariff, right? That's another way we can do a carrot. This is one way. That's another. I think
>> your way, Susan. I'm sorry, but it's basically irreversible because once somebody builds a building, it's it's not coming down. And if you have a shortage parking, then what? >> If if they propose something, they have to go to the zoning board, they have to
go to the planning board. I that's the way it's always done. I don't skip speaking. There's no way they're going to not build something. >> All right. >> I I want to stress this. I want to stress this. >> We did not look at this as a housing
ordinance. We looked at this as a DB changes. We looked at your ording lot >> is a large part of it as well. So it's not it's they're they're not, you know, >> but they have to hold the parking they have for their uses now and they have to
provide parking on site for any uses that they provide in the future. >> Except the town removed the requirement to have parking at all for weeks from >> years ago. The town's been dead. It's been working great. But now that the town is
coming back to life and that's going to take a couple years, >> but that's not going to be that's not going to be immediate. >> We have a very active parking committee that's been solving a lot of these little problems little by little. So I believe in that. >> I was on council when you did the
parking mess. >> We did that. It's great. >> Okay. I can't disagree with the mayor that combined with the potential to build a building in parking lot that will take
away park and it takes away the attractiveness and the allure of the that thing we did with parking. I just I don't know that I agree with that. But here's the thing. The bottom line is that I think everybody is it's like this chicken little thing. It's going to happen. It's going to happen. It's going
to happen tomorrow. It's not. Listen, that building that and I think everybody's putting the stock on Main Street into is going to take several years for anything to happen to see any type of real big impact. It is if you go
and talk to other towns and you talk about what's when they went through this process, they will tell you that it didn't happen overnight. It took several years and they adjusted as things were happening. I just I I just I just like
>> I know I've told this this story >> tired of hearing I's here's what I need. >> My problem is that I get what you're saying about adjusting but if somebody goes and they do build an additional or whatever they take away parking we're not getting it back. >> And that's why I'm like why can't we
just wait till we see what happens after a couple years when all these places open up? And I've I've told this story before. >> My son's second birthday was at the Union Hotel. >> He's now 22.
It closed that year, like just a year or two later. I went into labor 4 hours after we approved the cut glass site. That boy is turning 17 uh in December. It takes a very very
very long time to get projects from conception to the end result. And some it's not any one person's fault. It's the marketplace changes, the economy changes, the the
developers come and go, the the residents come and go, the elected officials come and go. It takes a very long time for even all of this housing that some of is approved and some is not is gosh I think Captiva was 10 years
ago. It's a very long process. I I don't even remember how long ago that was >> with Captiva. was uh the yeah actually uh yeah but before that um Erica was there we did we declared an area needed redevelopment with Erica I believe the
the captiva site wasn't called the captiva at the time so again it's a very long process all these things aren't going to happen all at the same time so we need to put things in place so we can look to the future I'm not going to be
here when this stuff gets built and none most of the people on well we We we did get two young guys elected, so maybe they'll be here, but all those old people won't. So, like Liberty Village, George Flo walked in here in 2019 and he's
constructing now. >> Yeah. For sale housing, >> not apartments. >> Spice Factory was only approved a few years ago. >> That was the second developer though on that. That was the second developer that that owned that. that the first
developer was years and years ago. >> Burus was approved last year and they've done demolition and they're ready to start. >> Some go faster than others. I'm not saying it's all like that. >> Well, exactly. Some do go faster than others. And again, all I care about is
why are we pushing this now instead of just waiting on this parking lot thing? Because once you build it, those spaces are gone forever. >> Look, I got a motion on the floor right now. Well, somebody else
I have a question and it's very simple and I just I don't care who it is. Give me one reason why this portion this bulb grade standard why is this good? What is the benefit? I
just don't understand. That's what I'm not getting. I need to know >> because year after year after year there's been variances for for for the the uh uh rear the rear access and you
need to show property owners that you're willing to work with them. The small gives the extremely small gifts we're giving to them are are minimal. Really minimal. I don't even see with the with
the impervious coverage. I don't really think this is going to do much good, but it's showing them a carrot. It's showing them that we want to work with them. It's showing them we want them to be inspired to invest in their properties.
And this is a a good time to review the entire ordinance and do it. >> Yeah. Well, if somebody's selling me something, I want to know what I'm getting out of it. So, what does Flemington get? I do not have I am sorry, Jeremy, but I don't have a crystal ball to tell you. I I can't do
that. I am not a psychic. We don't have a psychic anymore on the main streets. >> So, there's something in it for the business owners that care, but there's no WFM for the burrow itself as a >> Oh, I see the downside that we're going
to lose parking. >> What are you talking about? to build to build the parking garage that we're going to need. We're going to get tax. There you go. >> All right. Can I roll call, please? Council, >> this is on this is on Susan's.
>> As amended. >> As amended. Do you want me to re >> No, it's okay. >> No, Susan's amended. >> Ymen. >> Oh, yes. Uh, Councilwoman Mangler, >> I just want to make sure I understand my if if I'm >> voting yes to the resolution.
>> I'm voting yes to the Yeah. >> Sorry. It's very >> Oh, sorry. >> Councilman, this is >> Council Vice President. >> No, this is mine. This is >> Council President Parker.
>> Yes. 20 comes off then you can move to next >> ordinance. How do you consider legal now? Move on. >> Okay. >> No, I I figure that this is pull on 20 >> 25.
>> No, you do not do not reach the question. >> All right. Okay. We have we have no work session. I'm up to public comment section number two. Anybody wishing to make a comment in public comment section number two, please come to the microphone. Raise your hand. Lois
your name for the record. Your accused it's fine. >> Lois Stewart resident exper Trent mentioned four stories. Is that what we're talking about? >> No. Maximum three.
>> It's 40. It's 40 feet maximum three down to 35. >> Okay. Um, and also I was wondering, uh, how many liquor license, uh, does the Union Hotel have access to
you to approve it tonight? >> Right. They're going to do a place to place or another liquor license in the future. So, they'll have to write >> because they're going to have three separate bars facility. >> Yes. >> And how much does the town charge for
each of those liquor license? $2,500. >> Is that the maximum the state allows? >> 3,000. >> Well, I would recommend that this borrowed council seriously consider raising the last time we raised our thermostat.
>> But that's a lot. 3,000 for I mean the Union Hotel will make money, but maybe somebody else is struggling. So, you got to look at it that way too, >> right? If we raise it for them, we have >> Yeah, you got to raise it for everything. like little >> tremendous amount of money on labor in
this town. Even though the mayor has done a stupendous job and getting us relief from some of these projects, we still need lots of money so that the taxpayers >> you have to raise other fees. You don't have to raise that fee.
>> That's not a necessity of life. Liquor is not a necessity of life. So that's How many police now? One's leaving. We're hiring one. How many >> How many police? >> How many police?
>> 17. I'd have to get We have the exact same number we had a year ago. >> So like didn't tell me anything. >> Okay. Whatever it was 17 or 18. >> 17 or eight. >> Yeah. >> But even though we've lost four, we've hired four.
>> Um. Oh. Who is Gregory? Somebody who's getting accumulated leave today. >> Officer who resigned. And so we pay him for the leave that he did not he was he was whatever is
contractual. >> Thank you. Oh, I was wondering how many you talked about um how many people um Mr. Parker that you went around the houses and knocked on doors. How many residents did
you actually speak with? >> So when I was working with campaigning so it was when it was during a longer campaigning. So we did street. So if you we did park >> park park we did park park and then we
did um we did summer broad. did park. We did um >> Well, just a round number of how many? >> I I I I don't even know. I I don't even know. I'm not giving a round number. >> Well, I didn't hit your house. >> Pardon? >> I didn't come to your house.
>> Nobody did. You came here. >> Anybody else from the public comments? >> Seeing none. All right. uh for the payment of bills authorizing payment of bills in the amount of $966,76.74. Can I have a motion please?
>> Second roll call, please. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Vice President. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> We have a very very I hope brief
executive session. Uh let's take a five minute break to get the brief. >> Wait, do I have a motion? >> I have a motion to go into executive session. >> Second. >> Second. >> I'm going to put you on mute for a minute. She did not follow
this.