All right, thank you. I'll call to order the planning board of adjustment meeting for Lington Burough, Tuesday, February 10th, 2026. Um, please um
I'll do the same statement. This inperson and virtual meeting is called pursuant to the provisions of the open public meeting act. Both adequate and electronic notice of this inperson and virtual meeting has been provided as
required >> by the municipal language law public meetings act >> by the municipal language law and the open public meetings act. In addition, notice of the meeting was posted on the door of the Burough of Flemington Municipal Building located at 38 Park Avenue and any handicapped accessible
entrances there too, posted on the municipal website, provided to the municipal clerk and distributed to all persons if any requesting copies of the same. This meeting is being recorded with both audio and video and may be rebroadcast. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are
relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and decorum appropriate to a judicial hearings be maintained at all times. Please rise as you are able for the flag. >> I pledge to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Right. Roll call. >> Uh, Mayor Carol here.
>> Council Vice President Angelhart here. Mr. >> Campion >> here. >> Here. >> Waitman >> here. >> Mingle >> here. Mr. >> Shove. >> Mr. Schlanger >> here. >> Mr. Dasha
>> here. >> Mr. Eckle >> here. >> Mr. Hay >> here. >> Mr. Havers >> here, >> Tony Kazinski here, engineer clerico is excused. Uh, planner Kyle >> here, >> and engineer trapman is excused.
>> Thank you. All right. Item one is a public period for public comments. This is for any items not currently on the agenda. Um, there's nobody here in person. So, online, we have one attendee. If anybody wants to make a
comment on anything on not on the agenda, please raise your use the raise hand feature. I'm not seeing anything. So, I'm going to move on to Mayor comments for you guys, too. >> No, I don't have anything today. Okay. I have some fantastic comments.
>> I don't have any either. >> What the We had a really short meeting last night. >> Yeah, we had a really short meeting last night. >> Okay. I have some full HPC comment. >> We We didn't have a meeting since last
one, so I have no comments. >> Dennis, can you confirm the date of the house tour? >> Yes, it's June 6th. Saturday, June 6th. >> Um, and then we're hoping to do Sunday,
December 6th, excuse me, for the holiday house tour. So, Saturday, June 6. >> Sorry, Dennis. A question that came up last night. When is the house tour tickets going on sale?
>> Um, probably March or Okay., you know, later March. That's when we did it last time. >> Great. Thank you. >> All right. Item five is professional reports. Um, we're missing two. Do you
have a report, Mr. Planner? Kyle, do you have a report for us today? Other than other things on the agenda, >> I do not. >> Excellent. Um, item six, approval of the minutes January 13, 206 minutes. Those were distributed. Anybody got any
comments or questions or adjustments on those before we get a motion to approve? >> No. Then can I get a motion to approve those, please? >> Move. Take a look. >> Whitesman. >> Yeah.
>> Mayor Carol. >> Yes. >> Uh, council vice president. >> Yes. >> Mr. Champion. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Miss Whitesman. >> Yes. >> Miss Wingle. >> Melissa. >> M. Wingle.
>> You don't have Do you hear me? >> We did. We can now. Thank you. >> Mr. Show. >> Yes. >> Mr. Siner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dasha. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. We've given Cara her mic now. So, she's going to be >> Thank you. >> All right. Item seven is resolution PB 2026 for bless application 20250. So last week there was last meeting sorry there was just one little
adjustment that needed to be made. We resolved now. >> Yeah, we did resolve it. Um the board professionals and council for the applicant uh listened to the uh tapes from the last meeting. We circulated the revision uh to the conditions. Um
>> and what was the answer? And the answer was that we said alter the drive aisle between the building and Rael Avenue to a narrower oneway by expanding the size of the landscape island adjacent to Rael and adding landscape island adjacent to the
>> else we did. Everyone was in agreement on that along with all the other changes that I placed on the record at the last minute. >> Okay. So, we need a motion and a second and the people that are ineligible. So, Mayor
Carol, Miss Gifin, Mr. Dashna, Miss Swingle, Miss Whitesman, and Mr. Schlanganger are all eligible to motion and second. >> I make a motion. >> Second. >> Okay, that was Justin. >> Yes. >> Y >> and Mayor Caro.
>> Yes. >> Adam Gifin. >> Yes. >> Sasha. Yes. Um, Swingle, >> yes. >> Miss Whitesman, >> yes. >> And Mr. Schlanger, >> yes. >> Perfect. All right. All right. Perfect. Thank you. All right. Excitingly, um,
resolution number eight is resolution PG 2022607 approving Hoy as the permanent planning board secretary. Um, you see she's not here tonight. She had person. How would you pronounce it? Maybe Carlo has it last night. Howie or Ni?
>> Howie? >> I I I think it's Howie. She's the clerk in Califon where I'm the planner. >> Howie. Okay, then I apologize. I'm just going off my letters. >> It's okay. >> So, yes.
>> All right. Anyway, um she will be with us at the next meeting, I believe. I'm going to confirm she before. Yes, she will. Okay, say that out loud. Um, and a resolution um was done at council last night. I believe we did.
>> Yeah, I guess I could have reported on that. Sorry. >> I'm doing it now. That's what counts. >> Um, so um appreciate >> my words. >> All right. So Josh
and >> Mayor Carol, >> yes. >> Uh council by Singlehart. >> Yes. >> Mr. Campion. >> Yes. >> Gifin. >> Yes. >> Miss Whitesman. >> Yes. >> Miss Swingle. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sh. >> Yes. >> Mr. Schlanganger.
>> Yes. >> And Masha. >> Yes. And so I look forward to greeting her next meeting and we'll get her on board and get things moving and I'm very excited for that new chapter in our in our lives. >> Please let her know. Um I know she has
experience which is wonderful. But you know if she needs anything, give her my cell, leave her, you know, >> pass that along gladly because she will she's going to need some she's very switched on but she's still going to need to get up to speed with what we the way we do it. Absolutely. Thank you. Um
okay we've added next that number nine is resolution 202608. It's appointing Joseph Sordillo as a conflict council for 2026. As we know one of our uh current applications um will be conflicted out of so we will need him
for that. So that's why we're appointing him for this point. >> Um so any questions on that or >> is this this person who was the for us right? >> Yes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. He's um um said he's willing to do
it for us and happy to do it. Um I don't know how else to call. We need somebody. >> Make a motion. >> Thank you. >> I'll second. >> Mayor Carol. >> Yes. >> Council vice Mr. Campion.
>> Yes. >> Gen. >> Yes. >> Miss Whitesman. >> Yes. >> Miss Wangle. >> Yes. >> Mr. Shopee. >> Yes. >> Dlinger. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dash. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
All right. So, um, item 10 is a consistency review of council ordinance 20262, the ordinance establishing section 264, the bur of Fton zoning ordinance entitled admin and enforcement. Um, Susan, you want to speak to us on what this is about? And
so what um or do we need Jim to explain on consistency what we need to do on this? >> And Jim, I'll definitely go through consistency. I They can both speak to it. Sure, if they want. >> I prefer Jim to take the lead. >> Well, only because I
because when I rolled off of parking, then I'm, you know. >> Okay. Um, so Jim, could you care to explain what this is and what we need to do about it? >> Sure. So, which which one are we going to talk about first?
>> The um O2, the um admin and enforcement of >> O2. Okay, I got it. Yeah. >> So, much like we did back in September of last year with the DB, the DB2, the VIS, all that. Um, when council
introduces an ordinance that is part of the zoning requirements under the provisions of the municipal landing slot has to be referred to the planning board to determine if there are any elements of the ordinance that are inconsistent with the master plan. And the finding,
if the board agrees, would be that it's not inconsistent with the master plan. It's some strange wording that they have in the MLUL. So, this is an ordinance. Um it is part of the zoning code but it's really more about administration and enforcement.
Um it sets out enforcement provisions uh for viol zoning violations uh requirements for zoning certificates of occupancy. Uh it establishes penalties for violations and
talks about records that the zoning officer needs to maintain. Um, essentially this is a pretty common aspect of most elements and the enforcement mechanism in these components is good because it it gives
it some teeth um, you know, for zoning scoff laws that we have to go after. So, uh, as I review this, I I don't believe there are any provisions here that are inconsistent with the master plan. Uh, this is not something that's really addressed in the
2022 master plan. So, I think this one's fairly simple on its face in that um it's not d addressed directly. However, I don't find that there are any provisions here that would be consistent with any of the policies in our master plan.
>> But if you want me to add this was um initiated originally earlier last year by Dave Giuliani, our code enforcement officer. Um and one of the things that we're having trouble with is um when
he's trying to um enforce some of our zoning um code, the courts are kicking it back. And so we're spending a lot of time and frankly money going after certain elements of
the code that are not the the wording is not clear. We've actually had Chris Garcinia, our attorney, worked on massaging it a bit and we changed that. That didn't help. So, we asked him to kind of go go about it a different way
and apply this ordinance versus that ordinance. That didn't help. Um, so we think after I mean correct me if I'm wrong, Marcia, but I we think after kind of reviewing all of this, this is going to allow Dave well now Chris because
Dave is um recovering from surgery today. Um, so we wish him well, but um, uh, allow the code enforcement officer to be able to um, hold people accountable to your zoning ordinance. So
we is it that we didn't have any enforcement things or they were just spreading all places. So we >> it wasn't specific. The courts wanted specificity on finding. >> He was he was referring to a like an overall number and the courts kept
taking it back saying no it's got to be more more than that more than that. So this allows um that detail that the courts will are so we could we can enforce one part of the code but we could enforce the zoning it kept getting kicked out. So this way it's a little
more detailed and he can identify on the on the ticket or the fine a specific um zoning ordinance number. So is it is it related to it it lives in the planning like it lives in the the the uh the part
of the code that yeah this this board oversees but is it related directly to the master plan? It's on the on the you know on the edges. >> Right. So >> well yeah but in in in like you say as
the way that um it allows our um our offices to um enforce what resolutions we have put forward agreement forward through through comp being compared to the master plan it all under the umbrella.
>> Right. Right. you have you have the intention and the goal to when you're putting something in a resolution, you know, you must do this, you must do this, you must do this. And then when and we we want that enforced, but >> if the law is kicking it back, we're not
actually seeing through the, you know, the the council's not seeing through your wishes. So, >> yeah. And this and this has been prepared by the council's planner. I haven't gone through council. >> No, this was No, prepared by council. Oh, okay. All right.
>> It was reviewed by Dave Giuliani. It was reviewed by our fire marshal. It was reviewed by our construction code official. Um, >> and it was reviewed by uh um our planner here. So, but it was
written and produced by our attorney's office. >> Okay. All right. Does anybody else have other questions on this? Um, but Kyle, he can answer or Susan can answer about whether we have concerns about it or I feel this is what's going to help that office, then you don't want to stand in their
way, man. >> So, typically, as Jim said, he's found that he's recommending to the board that this ordinance is not substantially inconsistent with your master plan. You're also allowed to make any recommendations uh back to council for when they do their public hearing on
this. Um we will do an ordinance based upon your ordinance a resolution based upon your vote for the next meeting. Um but just let me know if there are any recommendations that you want to include in otherwise we'll just do the resolution adopting tonight's vote fine that it's not substantially
inconsistent. My only question and maybe this has come up when you discussed it in council too. I don't know the the fine amount is that a standard amount on these the boiler or because it doesn't seem to be that if if he's spending on time that doesn't really cover that time. The attorney that promulgated this
on behalf of our municipal attorney's office >> um is also a municipal and a planning board attorney in other jurisdictions. >> And this is similar or put together even better. He took the best of the best
because he was able to do it for us and not inherit it. And it is pretty much standard fine amount and up to amount. Um that is typical without being considered what user by the courts.
>> So and that fine can be love you every day. So it's up to 500 >> and for each Yeah. For each violation, >> right? >> So these things doesn't sound like a lot. >> It can be a lot which was the case with the old like that was Dave's intention
with the old um system as well. He, you know, he did the fine and and pointed to the to the other overall number and then stacked them and presented that to court as well, but it just kept getting kicked back. This way hopefully those stacked
fines would >> Can I Can I ask just I have no problems with this. Just just what what's the volume of problems like how how was it was the running? >> All the time. All the time. So, you
know, we can talk about specifications. >> That's why I'm not asking a location. >> There are there are chronic uh concerns. Well, I I'll mention one publicly terms. >> That one that one's been in and out of court over and over and over. I think
they just the judge and the owner just came to some kind of terms two weeks ago on fix and roofs, >> but it's constant constant and he doesn't take it seriously. other fines that we put against against them have buffer um because it's not related to
zoning. So it's only the zoning ones that are being kicked out. >> Gotcha. Okay. >> Because we don't have >> because this we need sense. >> Okay. >> Then I will move that we find this uh ordinance not inconsistent with the
master plan >> and without any >> without any uh recommendations to the governing body. >> Second. I'll second. >> Mayor Carol, >> yes. >> Visual, >> yes. >> Mr. Campion, >> yes.
>> Gen, >> yes. >> Miss Whitesman, >> yes. >> Mr. Swingle, >> yes. >> Mr. SH, >> yes. >> Mr. Ser, >> yes. >> Mr. Josh, >> yes. >> All right, everyone. >> All right, let's move on to item 11,
which is a similar thing. This is a review for ordinance 20263 which is the ordinance amended in chapter 12 land development definitions and chapter 26 of uh the zoning of the B code and this is related to parking spaces. Right.
>> Right. This is this is related to u uh parking in um my god my word in parking areas that are not >> offsite. Thank you Jeff. >> Thank you. Again, it's regarding off
allowing off-site parking. Um, so that whether it's a whether it's a resident who, you know, doesn't have a driveway or has too many people living in her house and they're looking for an extra parking space or whether it's um a
a a business like like Barkclays that doesn't have a parking lot. This enables both individuals and businesses to negotiate with uh owners of parking lots throughout town um to on an annual basis
based on their so their current usage um and their requirements on parking spaces to negotiate uh renting um offsite parking. >> All right, thanks for that mention. Um, >> I had had one quick question. I did talk
to Beth and Chris about this. Um, Jim, I'm sorry. I don't think I had asked you, but I I just want to make sure we vet this out. Do you think that we need to amend any other ordinance section to allow off-site parking in all zones or
do you think >> Yeah, it's an interesting question. Cara and Beth and I did talk about this today. Um, so the issue is that typically ordinances are structured to allow parking as an accessory use,
but that accessory use has to be accessory to the principal use on the lot. Now, we're allowing someone from an off-site use that's not associated to utilize parking on that site. It's it's nuance. Um, if we wanted
to be ultra safe, the thing to do would be in the districts we want to allow this, but it sounds like mayor that we're going to allow this everywhere in the burrow. Um, >> that came out committee. The recommendation was why not?
>> Yeah. So, I it it's it would be safe to do that. Is it absolutely necessary? No, because it's up to interpretation. So if we all understand and the zoning officer understands that this is how we're
interpreting it, then it's not an issue. >> Maybe >> but you might get that one. >> Yeah. You might get that one person that you know raises an issue and you know if they challenge something in court, are they correct that it's not permitted technically?
So maybe what we do is, you know, Jim will go through his consistency issue, but um when we get to the vote, we could say that, you know, the planning board is of the understanding that this is interpreted to be allowed in all zones, off-site parking be allowed in all
zones. The recommendation is down the road to make it perfectly clear um you know, the council may want to consider amending it um to allow for you know, amending the specific sections of the zoning ordinance to allow for it, something like that. So at least there's something on the record
showing that this is what was understood in case there's ever a question before that happens. >> Yeah. And then at the end of your year summary, you could say one of our recommendations is to >> correct >> uh you know update the ordinance the next time you take >> Well, it would be more I think the
recommendation wouldn't wouldn't be to we're amending this ordinance. The recommendation would be the sections of ordinance land use. >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, >> but I think it is important. >> Yeah. And you know where this you know where this could become an issue is if we change zoning officers in a year. You
know, the zoning officer has sole discretion to interpret the ordinance. If he or she interprets it differently and starts uh enforcing it the way that we didn't intend, that's where we could run into an issue. >> And that's his right as zoning officer. He doesn't answer to us. He answers to
his own interpretation. So Jim, correct? >> Exactly what I was going to say, Jim, is that we need to make it clear to John what our intention was and if he did. We did run this by John though.
>> I don't think we did. I don't think we did. Uh Beth wrote it. Jay looked at it. Uh parking committee looked at it. >> We had a couple of iterations. the parking committee. >> Parking committee, right? Parking last
year on the elected officials on the parking committee looked at it. >> Uh Chris Corsini looked at it. Um >> maybe we should have John look at it before it's voted on just to make sure that he understands at least what our intention was,
>> right? Because one question I have just as seeing it from like worrying about what what could be the problem that could happen if somebody starts to right if an entity wants to rent out effectively we're letting them rent it out or whatever whatever they want to do
with some people on a regular basis is the idea I'm imagining to two or three people or whatever if they have spaces. Now, how do we know like if if if somebody's currently if they're not parking their
related to that business or that entity or whatever the use is, there is some sort of we can enforce something for the building owner. But if we don't know who they gave these, we're not getting involved in permitting these spaces, right? The individual owner of the space
is going to do that. But how do we how do we or the zoning or enforcement or anybody identify who that might be? You know what I mean? If somebody's parking that illegally, how do we differentiate that? How >> the way that So, we left it as this is a
this is a private transaction and just like if someone were to pull into your driveway, >> your it's it the town doesn't get involved to a vehicle that didn't have permission to park there. That's between you and the individual, right? And so the idea was
>> zoning. >> No, no, but I'm I'm but but this was this is where where we got to was if in the determination of the zoning officer that a retail use had 10 spots in the lot and they only needed seven. So they
could they are permitted to lease out three of those. Okay. >> Then they they can they can do it. They don't have to do it and it's a private transaction and the town doesn't get involved at all. If if at some point the use changes and that retail store becomes a restaurant and the restaurant
needs all 10 of those spaces um or a doctor medical office or whatever and it changes the number, the zoning officer is empowered to then say, "Hey, property owner, you you we said you now need all 10 of those spaces. You have you no
longer have permission to to >> to do this." >> So that's only a permanent thing gets >> right. >> Right. Terminated, withdrawn, whatever. and and because we we originally thought about doing this like every year registration and it was like and we realized talking it through the parking committee that that got really hard and
complicated necessarily >> not necessarily. So this was so so it empowers the zoning officer if there's a change in use to make that determination is is there excess capacity that could be it doesn't require anybody to do it right and you know part of this is you
know uh residential parking you've got extra you know you got teenagers all of a sudden have a car you need a spot to stick it or it's you know the Barkclay situation or one of those other retail uh you know situations on the DB zone >> um
>> there's there is nothing right now at all that even if we had absent this ordinance right now if there's a parking lot that's not a municipal lot it's a private parking lot there is nothing at all whatsoever that has the town doesn't
have any jurisdiction to enforce >> and I've been I have been told I've talked to a couple businesses about this ordinance that are having parking issues and I have been told this is already happening illegally all over town >> all over Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> So then this this then just protects them from with doing that. >> It actually protects the planning board when they when they come or Yeah. zoning board, I'm sorry. When when when when an applicant comes here and has to prove that they've got, you know, they're they're they've got adequate parking.
You then have the power to say, you know, okay, prove it. And the zoning officer then has the power to say um you know you got to get your your rented parking uh leases you know uh rid of
before this uh before this planning board resolution you know takes place >> but we we don't get involved in that transaction in that thing at all. So we wouldn't nobody would even know what was set up. I guess my >> well you would because there's a zoning permit. So if they someone gets an
approval from this board and they're required in connection with their approval to have five parking spaces, but they're lot can accommodate 10 >> as long as they can continue to comply with what they're required to do by your ordinance and by their approval.
>> They could lease out those five. They show the zoning officer, the zoning officer zoning permit. Here you go. You got five free spaces to do with what you will. >> Except we don't require parking spaces for anything. >> Except for which very well may be. I'm just saying >> offices we do >> and especially because it's going to be everywhere. >> Well, I mean if you pick um let me see
like an office building um the de parking lot. >> Right. >> Right. It's all offices >> and it's a huge parking lot. Um they do have a requirement for parking. >> Right. Versus um
uh Shaker Cafe >> which has no requirement on parking. So, you know, they could effectively leave if they wanted to. It's a restaurant, so they're not going to like rent out all their spots. >> Well, that's and that's the other piece of it, right? So, a property owner is
not going to lease out spots. It's going to hurt their own business. >> No, but I get that and I agree on principle with the idea. I'm just trying to think of >> the tenant is certainly going to protect their parking spaces if a landlord wanted to rent out. So, >> I'm I'm just wanting to make sure. I
think that although it's it's a private transaction between the the lot owner effectively and who they rent them to that there may be because we are codifying this and allowing it. Are we getting that that there might be somebody who rents
one out say and then the owner says no you can't do that now and then there's this whole there's a thing that then now we get wrangled. Well, so so let me let me let me let me clear here. The wei that gets wrangled is not the planning board. >> The wei that gets wrangled is the burrow,
>> right? They don't want that to happen either, >> right? But I mean that's their problem. But um but like the the the governing body is may have to amend this thing at some point if an issue or deal with some of the enforcement questions. But the only place where this intersects with us is
>> if if this board has given an approval where there's parking was a condition of of that requirement and we have to make sure that that's enforced or someone is changing a use and it either they come before the board because it requires relief from something or it's the zoning
officer who is making a determination that's a permitted use but that there has to be they need like so that's the only place where it touches us >> and the thing is not like this gives like like a place like Barkley Please legally they cannot >> right >> send anybody to offsite parking except the municipal parking lot
>> legally. >> This allows the legal transaction to happen. >> Um >> it also allows property owners to you know the 100 years of planning law as you know it says that a property owner has the right to make money on their property. Right. Well, that's really
>> And so this, you know, so this allows um property owner to maybe make a couple more dollars on their property, which is, you know, good. >> So Susan, I want to ask you a question. When you said about checking with John Tilson and holding this off until he sees it, what would he like?
I mean, what what would you expect him to change in this? >> Because he's the zoning officer. You know, it just it just occur I said it out loud like did we actually ask John? We've asked everyone else, but it does touch his office. >> No, it's not. It has to go back to you guys.
>> But my question is, it's not about the courtesy because we can give him that courtesy before it comes to the council. >> But >> well, because of the interpretation, remember >> that's what I'm asking you. If he's >> if he says I don't know what like Well,
I think I I'm trying to remember. It was last year and I had this conversation with John and it was about a completely different subject then I said I'm not going to remember what the subjectly was but he was having I specifically said I was I it was from years ago and I said I
was on planning board at that time and I remember I remember saying John I I I know what the spirit of that resolution was and this is what the spirit of it was and you're just going to have to take my word for it when it came into
regul you know regulatory um enforcement. So the same thing would hold here is let's say all of us are gone. John is is you know not here either and there's a new zoning officer and he looks at this from
scratch. Are are is there any goingbody going to be saying you know as as Jim said um zoning officer needs to understand that it is our intention that we're interpreted interpreting this you know this ordinance this way. So why
can't we put it in the the resolution saying that? So it's part of the record >> possibly that might >> I don't know what we would tweak in the in the language to say this is what we need. You don't do that in ordinance. >> The the other well what Cara said is
what you would do is you would actually amend each one of the zones or the you know to say hey this is allowed in each cell. That was would be the solution of concern. What I what I would suggest we do is as Carol laid out, put that as a recommendation from this board
>> that in future revisions to specific zone chapters the zone zoning ordinances to make it explicitly clear that that this is permitted uh to satisfy this question of that off-site use parking was which is auxiliary to the principal
use in the structure. we're allowing for it to be d like that and then we leave it like that because then the planning board has put it out there. It's on the record at this at the public hearing for the governing body uh when you consider it and have your hearing and vote and then it's clear in the record and then if somewhere down the road the zoning
officer is not doing it the way that then council has >> to the then I I think you I mean you show >> and hopefully it's already done. >> But I don't think you need to I I I don't think it >> you don't think we need to amend this one. I don't think I I don't think there is an amendment in this part this
chapter of the ordinance that solves that problem. I think it has to >> it has to go in this individual zones >> which we can do later but for now I think it's >> Paris suggestion everything is what how it works >> and the communication of all of this and any of this and it really it speaks also
it's the same situation with any of our resolutions or any of our approvals that we give need to be communicated to the officers so that they can interpret them correctly. So it just ties into that same communication process basically. >> So basically what I'm hearing is that we we release it in whatever tonight back
to the council and with that recommendation >> Susan is liaison to zoning shows this to John Titson and also lets him know the intention that all ordinance land use areas in the future are going to get amended as they come up
>> to have this isn't allowed for so no confusion. That's what you said. >> Essentially what car said. >> That's what Cara said. That's what >> is this strictly for commercial properties? >> No. No. This is for you know if the
Union Hotel residents don't have enough parking in their structure or you know it if it's too expensive for some of the residents to pay for or going to Susan's sons with you know her kids and her parking situation or Melissa when her kids are start driving. They're like on
the edge right now and like they can go rent spaces someplace or >> on a on a private residence. >> Not on a residence. It's got to be in a parking lot. Like you can't I don't think you can go rent a space to somebody like I >> Well, I think that would create a zoning
issue because then it would be considered commercial, right? >> Yeah. You know. Yes. But but not if we allow in every zone off-site parking. That's where >> but but 26 and Jim maybe you can confirm this but 2629
the part that we're amending parking number of spaces that has to do with parking in where there's a parking lot. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Right. It's not talking about private residences Justin. So like Okay. Even if
it's a so even if it's a multi if it's a multif family structure that has a parking lot it would I think fall under this if I'm not mistaken. Um and theoretically a landlord could but I don't think would I only would ever happen because no one's going to overbuild the parking lot of an apartment
>> but >> no but it could be a parking lot in a residential zone like Ernie Fletcher the electrician. He's a commercial, you know, 100-y old business in in a residential neighborhood. Could be a church. Maybe >> it could be a a church would be allowed
to do this. Yes. So would we need to expressly are we saying we should expressly forbid it on residential properties? >> No. Because we don't No, because because this is not because we're not regulating properties from regulating zones. And so
the the the problem is we can't we can't prohibit it in the R1 if we're going to allow Fletcher or the church to theoretically rent down extra spaces if because they exist in those zones even and churches are conforming in
residential zones even if you know the electric place may be existing non-conforming. But if Justin if Justin Schlanger wanted to rent part of his driveway during the week to a high school student, he would be allowed to.
>> And that's I don't think I don't but I don't think so because it's not a parking lot. >> Right. >> Right. >> Well, what constitutes a parking lot? Is there like a certain number of spaces or like is I don't think it's clear what constitutes a parking lot. >> Can we just look at something real
quick? So Jim, if we look at this is just relating to subsection F. >> Yeah. >> Right. The entire of 2629 talks about parking in all types of developments >> except for single family. That's the only thing. It talks about parking
spaces starting with two bedrooms, three bedrooms. Well, no, that's single family detached. So when we go to F, we're taking out that whole first paragraph. So technically, >> well, because we're moving that language down further. It's it's repeated. >> Where's that down?
>> So it's with I actually raised this question with Beth when we were talking about at the committee last year. It's it actually it's it's duplicative of what's an H. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> But yeah, maybe I'm just looking into this too much. >> Yes. >> Um
I just feel like F could apply anywhere. though it does apply to single family. >> I mean, I feel like it it could. Now, whether that was the intention or not, again, I don't know. >> It wasn't I'm going to do a double negative. It wasn't not the intention.
If you look at the, you know, if you look at the um, you know, the restriction um, east of Main Street about permanent parking only during the day on the street, it was because the Hunter Central kids were parking on
street and nobody could park in town, including people who wanted to go like, you know, from Bloomfield Avenue to Main Street or Broad Street to Main Street. like like the people on William Street and Spring Street, they they couldn't find parking spaces at their own homes. So, but you know, this wouldn't stop
somebody from renting a spot to a high school student if they park in their driveway, which is probably also going on right now. >> Well, it's definitely going on whether they're paying for it or not. I mean, >> well, Melissa, those microphones are really wacky tonight.
>> I said it is happening. Jeff's right. There are people who rent uh visitors passes on Broad Street and surrounding areas. >> Well, we know that they're renting visitors spaces because Jerry is aware of that or chief of police, but it's
it's you know the you know allow like I said it would allow with the the when Jerry starts when we put in this new system that we've got everybody has to get new visitor spaces. They are very specific and that stuff is going to get
cleaned up. So this would allow those homeowners to then rent their driveway if they're so inclined. Transactionalize. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I I think I think Yeah. I think part of this parking >> this is this kind of stuff is happening and what this the ordinance the goal was
was to formalize what is happening already and kind of have some way to have a mechanism of enforcement >> and give a lot more opportunity and allow anywhere. >> Right. Yeah. as we said as I think Marshall said at the beginning and the
the committee said why not like >> if it helps somebody make some more money great if it >> and solves somebody solves somebody's problem if it if it if it's not a problem and then nothing happens then why it doesn't matter >> but you know right now you know a place
like Barclays can't even like legally go talk to somebody else about off parking >> so maybe the recommendations are um you know it's not substantially inconsistent Um, we're going to just run it by, you know, recommend that it be ran by John just to take a look at.
>> Well, that'll happen before it gets to the council. >> I don't even know that. >> Okay. Okay. Um, it's the understanding, and I think this should be documented that the council intends for this to be allowed in all >> districts, all zones of the burrow. And
it's recommended that the ordinances be amended, the appropriate ordinances be amended to to show that and leave it at that. So it allows the barking. It puts in that that's the understanding of how it's applied and then it recommends that we change the actual zones to allow it everywhere.
>> And if somewhere down the road >> churches there is a there is a a a loading capacity in church and it's an assembly use. So there is a parking minimum that they have to meet. >> Is that just for Sundays? >> No.
>> No. It's a it's it's an assembly use. So there is a certain amount of people that can assemble in a a space by code and that is then reflected in the parking car with four people. >> So I so honestly I don't necessarily
know if any of our church parking lots could even >> None of them are big enough. >> Yeah. My point is is I don't think that even applies because the building code the number >> one for three seats. Our requirements are one for three.
>> Let me ask this question. This is what just came to me and I don't know what the answer is, but if there was a big event on Main Street, this thing goes through, there's a big event on Main Street, could the owner of the cut glass property open up his parking lot that
has not been used at all, mow it, clean it up, and then charge people $5 a day to park there for the whole day, >> but because he's operating a parking business. >> Okay. It's not current. >> That's not a It's not a parking place. business.
>> Well, chat though, it's not a parking lot. If this is going to apply to single family residences, does this have to be a parking? >> So, like, right, what designates what is a parking spot? >> But couldn't he only do that up to how many parking spots is currently allowed on that?
>> He has no zoning. He has no zoning at all. The whole thing is >> No, I'm just using that as an example. >> No. No. Okay. So, no, let's talk that through. So, if that's So, obviously any of the approvals have long since lapsed on that side. So it would be whatever by rights is permitted on that on those box
by zoning. So that's DB >> and has whatever commercial and whatever zone and so and so we know the use. You don't have a parking uh calculation. I don't know how the I don't know how the zoning officer would interpret an abandoned lot.
>> I would say in that instance that parking would no longer become an accessory offsite use. It would then become the principal use which wouldn't be allowed be denied. >> Okay. >> I I I think >> for $5 a day >> well >> for an event >> unless you want to change it and allow
that to happen but >> could solve problems. >> Sarah, can this be a source of tax revenue as well? >> Um >> not the way it's structured. >> Yeah. No, the intention was not to nickel and dime people. This the intention was to allow property owners
to make money, you know, but not nickel and dime. And parking lots aren't an improvement. They really don't pay taxes, >> right? >> They don't unless we have a parking authority, which we're not going to do. There's no there's no way to make money doing this. >> So, it's intended for major major rent.
It's meant for >> So, the question is, do we want Justin Schlanker to like rent out his driveway? >> Why not? Okay. But like so then the question is >> how many cars can he depending on this
>> you do like is there is there a way to >> it's up to him sizes in there. >> No no it's got size because the zoning officer >> is going to if the zoning ordinance determines how many spots a single he would >> need on the street. That's
>> No, but I mean like like if Justin >> So like if I'm his neighbor and I don't want to have him rent out his whole entire driveway so I can see five cars there every single day of my life. >> But would Justin rent out five spaces when he and his partners have to come
and go? >> Well, we don't have to come and go because we have parking permits to park on the street during school time. The other thing is if Justin owned five cars, >> I'm not saying I'm doing that. I'm just >> saying, >> right? Nothing to say that
>> my next door neighbor is >> nothing to say has three cars. >> Right. >> Right. Nothing is what is that ruling about housing and judges? Like who's going to tell eight judges they all can't live in an apartment together? >> But but like back on what you were
saying with the with the the cut glass, but same thing with like the old Away building. Correct. that's sitting there. So is it should verbiage be in there of a operating business? >> Well, let's say if they operate it as that then use
a really good point. >> Take global a forget the old a site, but take global act where there's actually an approved site plan that hasn't been executed on because they're waiting on D approvals, but there's an approved site plan for global a site. There is a paved parking lot, but there's painted spots
and painted spots. It's like there's a there is there is actually parking infrastructure on on the global a site. >> Um theoretically they haven't abandoned the fire use >> right >> there is a parking lot they could they
could under this ordinance I think could rent out spots there >> but couldn't only access what they need. >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> Because they were going to put >> what they need for the commercial business that's still sitting there. what they need for another department
>> for the approval >> for with the approval >> right so the approval I mean I don't know if there was that Beth and I had talked through this and that you know what are they going to look at and that'll be one of the things that they look at >> but does that >> they wouldn't be able to do it because that loan wouldn't cover
>> correct enough well so then would somebody coming in say but I want so I know I don't need that many spaces but I do want to rent those spaces out when we try to convince them to take away spaces is >> when we >> Oh, you mean like if they're in front of the board?
>> If they're in front of the board and we want them to take to add more green space, but they're saying, "No, I want to rent my space." >> That's But this is part of an application approval versus what you know they end up with, >> right? Would that be a conversation they try? Someone could have
>> they could try >> but they want your but they want your vote for this but >> what if we turn them down and say no we we don't want you to keep a lot and then they >> as of right >> complain that this is the it's the eyes of right question. So let's say that
they are if they have met all of our landscaping requirements in terms of buffers, they are they are not seeking relief for impervious coverage, right? They are by applicationarian. There's no variances in terms of use or or parking standard and and they and they say
>> and then I say like I want >> hey I want more green. I want more green. >> They can say no. >> They can say no >> and there's not much I can do about it. >> Correct. as long as they're not. >> How many how many parcels in this town with all our weird shaped correct, you know, none. >> None. Yeah. Some over in high.
>> Yeah. We're not like like perfectly square New urbanism uh community. We we're 350 >> and all those parking lots are very old and very very hot. >> The odds of them that happening are slipper. >> That's a good question. But if they are
asking for a leave and then it comes up as a question, would that be an issue that we say no, we don't want you to reduce the size and he wants to keep them and we deny him that deny them um >> because we want then would they be
if someone's if someone's here for site plan and they don't seek any variance relief and we deny site plan approval for by rights application no >> we're going to get sued We say, you know, they they need 20 and they've got 40 and they're looking because they've got too much impervious
coverage and we want them to reduce it. And they're like, but we want to rent these out. We're going to be like, too bad. >> You have too much impervious coverage. >> We're hot. >> Correct. Period. >> Now, again, this is a very difficult question, I think, to answer because the reason has to be related to the relief
in the impervious coverage situation. Yes, you want an impervious coverage variance. No, you got to remove the parking. If they want a height variance >> and we're saying no, we want you to reduce the parking. Well, then case >> by case I think we >> but everything that everything where
we've done that which like Bank of America which was right aid bless Wellness it's been because they they've got too much impervious coverage. >> So and we actually did it the first wellness site too I think. >> Right. Same place same thing but the
tree they want to take down. Can I that it's it's spelled out like for motor vehicles. So if I want to rent a spot from in back of Matt's Red Brewster and I want to park my boat there. >> So I'm renting a spot but I'm not going
to park a boat there or a motor home. >> Is it like >> would be something different though? Right. >> But I I think as long as it fits in the spot, right? when we start just like if your neighbor >> No
complaint it's like oh this guy's now letting >> rented out out as like a a boatyard. >> Yeah. Like if it's if it's spelled I don't know that's it to go for like for a boat motor vehicle. Not that somebody rents a spot and I'm going to put a
>> a shipping box a pod box or something there. >> I love a dumpster >> should be limited to passenger cars. Right. Well, the the dumpsters are dumpsters are regulated >> only on the on the >> on the public right away. >> If somebody wants to put one in a spot >> in a parking space.
>> Yeah. I don't know. We're just trying to think of all these weird >> If it's a private driveway, they are allowed to do that. >> If it is a parking lot that's a private parking lot, I don't know if we could we prohibit that or not. >> As long as it's not like a health and safety issue, right? Like they can't put a >> And we don't prohibit it with boats and
we don't prohibit it with RVs. Mhm. >> So, I mean, there's routinely an RV that parks in a municipal parking lot periodically >> or a day or two or three. >> No, but it's not crazy if someone wanted to win their boat in a lot. >> Well, now you've got you've got recreational vehicle storage
separately dealt with here. Following requirements apply to recreational vehicle storage. I don't know if this is in all zones, but I'm assuming it probably is. um has to be inside trailers, boats or boat trailers with 21 feet or more in length. Parked or stored
inside buildings only >> boat stored inside areas. >> I I'm picking this really quickly, but >> okay, because we got RVs and trailers and boats all over the place in this town that are in buildings. >> At no time shall any recreational
vehicle parked or stored on any lot be used for living or housekeeping purposes. Okay. Um each occupied single family residential property may have outside parking or storage upon it for two recreational vehicles or trailers. >> Okay. >> In safe and effective operating condition
current state license can exceed 40 ft. So I mean you've got some some guidelines on that. >> I just didn't want somebody to >> but this doesn't limit it >> things that may pop up because that's where it's going to cause a connection.
to a question. You said that if somebody wants to do this, they still need a permit to do it. Did I understand that correctly? >> No. Well, >> well, don't they Well, they need to go to the zoning >> to make sure they have access to verify they have access, >> right? Isn't this isn't this isn't the intention of this just to like have
everything documented? >> Yes. Right. >> So, so Barkclay's approach is um new market or tent spaces. They want them signed for Barkley customer use only. New Market comes here, verifies they've got more than enough. That's where
Market list is. Yeah. >> Um, more than enough parking and they get some kind of form permit from our zoning officer and now they've got it documented and he's got it documented that they're going to be running out 10 spots. >> So, what's the enforcement mechanism if
they don't do everything you just described? >> So, there's no enforcement on Oh. Oh, you mean if they they just run them out without coming here first? be a zoning violation. >> Thank you. Thank you, Tim. >> And and and and under the prior
ordinance, they then actually they can actually enforce. >> Right. >> Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. >> Okay. Anybody else have any um things that pop up in their head? >> The only other question I had was about the recommendations. Um >> uh so this more for me to try to
understand if we send it back with recommendations for a later date for those ordinances to be updated for the individual zones like what references back to that recommend like how how do we ensure that that happens? Hopefully somebody's gonna
remember >> and that's kind of my question >> whether it's somebody in here or somebody at the council. >> And that's part of part of the procedure is that when we send it back to council as part of their deliberation, they're supposed
to address at least as part of the public hearing the stuff that we put in there at that report. But there's no there's no like checklist or something in a process that when somebody goes to review something they look at all the previous recommendations or anything like that. >> I don't know Jim do you got do do you
like keep something like that or car do you keep something like that? G >> um well well we have the mayor and council president on our planning board so I think you know and look the planning board can prepare ordinances and forward them to council for consideration. So the board could do
that or if the mayor or council president say, "Hey, by the way, the planning board's recommending let's let's go ahead and either have them do this or you know, whatever the case may be." >> So are you recommending that we think about addressing this immediately or
sooner rather than later to get the rest of the administrative code codified with this included into it, changing all the zones? I mean it's it really it may not be not sorry Jim but I just happen to be on
this section. You've got section 2627 that says standards applicable to all districts. I mean you might be able to put something in there with regard to it. It's one shot. You're not changing every single section but you could put something you know in there. >> Yeah. Cara, I I like that because in
this section we address community shelters and family daycarees, you know, uses that are permitted under the municipal land use law in all, you know, either residential or non-residential district. So, we could just add rather than going through each individual zone
district, just put a general standard. It's a oneline amendment to the code and add it here. Would that be a recommendation in this consistency report that that this one line be added to the
code? >> I I think so. Yeah. But it it won't affect this ordinance because this ordinance is a different section. So, we're not we're not recommending any changes to this. We're saying >> recommending it that that in conjunction
with this this line be added in the future at the earliest available time >> to the code. >> Yep. >> Seem to be best to strike while they're in the top and get it all tighted up easiest for enforcement.
>> Is there any form of grace period then once this gets adopted though for people to then be like okay you got it like Well, they won't know until, you know, right, it either gets sent out by, you know, in the newsletter or
>> or um, >> you know, the tap guide writes something or the bid sends something out to all the businesses that this is now happening >> website that this is allowed. Um so there is a
grace period that you just have to ask publicized >> maybe curious >> one follow question I have then when we talk about the residential um that also has to get a zoning permit. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. So I think we've got some
good recommendations pulled together that counc not substantially inconsistent. Is that the right word? Um, with the >> not not inconsistent. >> Not inconsistent. Sorry. >> Correct. >> All right. >> Not substantially inconsistent. >> No, he told me if I take the word
substantially out. Not >> No. Yeah. Not substantially. Just not inconsistent. You're mixing up your variance criteria. Car. >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. >> Not inconsistent. Yeah. >> And with the recommendations,
do you want to go through them car or we've already kind of gone through? We just went through. >> Yeah, I think it's just that one. I just put it in that section. >> Okay. Can I get a motion then that thing? Anybody feel comfortable? >> Move. >> I'll second.
>> Nice. The team today don't know. >> Mayor Carol. >> Yes. >> Council Vice Anglehart. >> Yes. >> Mr. Campion. >> Yes. >> Gen. Yes. Miss Whitesman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fingle. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sh.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Slinger. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Josh. >> Yes. >> Awesome. Thank you. All right. Item 12, consistency review, Ordinance 20264, Development Free Ordinance. Sorry, I
couldn't print it out. Can somebody um go over what this one is? >> Yes. So, so this one's pretty simple. So, these next two are related to our affordable housing compliance plan. um state of New Jersey Department of Community Affairs while we had after we
had already prepared our housing plan um amended the uniform housing affordability controls as as well as created what are called the affordable housing rules that are codified at NJAC 599.
Those were adopted on December 15, 2025. So the development fee ordinance and the affordable housing ordinance amendments are to bring those ordinances into conformance with the regulations promulgated by the department of community affairs.
>> Okay. >> So pretty pretty straightforward. These um these came out of model ordinances that were prepared by the affordable housing professionals of New Jersey. So they went through U-Hack and 599 and put
it into an ordinance form and now all the planners are essentially using the same form because we want to have consistency uh across all the statewide. So, the development fee ordinance just specifies um when we are going to
collect a fee, how we're going to collect a development fee, what the development fee can be used for, things of that nature. >> Okay. And does it cross correlate with any other arguments that we need to
>> It replaces Okay. it was easier and cheaper to throw out the old ordinances and replace them with these. >> So that is what this ordinance these two ordinances leave that you know it gets rid of whole sections and replaces them
with these. >> And Jim, the reason why it's coming here for consistency is because it has to do with our housing element. >> No, it's in the zoning ordinance. >> Okay. Yeah, I got you.
>> Actually, I'm saying that, but the development fee part is I think Hold on. What section is this in? 2632. >> Oh, yeah. It's in they're both in the zoning zoning viewing it, but it is it is talked about.
>> I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> No, no. My question is what are we are determining that this is consistent with what? because it's it's it's consistent with the housing the housing element of the of the of our comp plan because it's not in the land use element, right? I
mean, >> yeah, but I think in this case, yes, the these things are discussed um in the housing plan. >> And then this is um you know, we're is there any provision of this particular ordinance that is inconsistent with the
master plan? And I think the answer is no because this is discussed in the housing plan element fair share plan which is an element of master plan >> and you know this is essentially a requirement that was um included in all mediation agreements
with fair share housing center that these regulations at the local level had to be updated once the regs were finalized at the state level. So listen this rate just to make sure that we're all just tidying things up which more work for us.
>> Okay. >> Yay. >> All right. So that being said, does anybody have any other question? I mean I don't any other questions or concerns on it before we vote on that leaves us not inconsistent with our
>> Jim. You think we could do this both together? >> Yeah, they're they're related. They're all out of the affordable housing regs. So, >> okay. >> All right. So, no recommendations finding that they're substantially consistent. I need a motion in a second.
>> So, moved. >> Second. >> Mayor Carol. >> Yes. >> Council by Singlehart. >> Yes. >> Mr. Campion. >> Yes. >> Gen. >> Yes. >> Miss Whitesman. >> Yes. Mr. Bingle, >> yes. >> Mr. Show,
>> yes. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Dasha, >> yes. >> And that was for both items 12 and 13, ordinance 2026 4805. Yeah. >> Thank you. All right, that skips us on to item 14. Um, the completeness
determination for West Allen LLC, which is actually application 202601. Um thanks to um our engineers wonderful report um the applicant is resubmitted so we have to wait for them to resubmit.
Um we don't have a date when that might come and when it does I'll let you know. >> Yep. Uh I do want a motion in a second that I deem the application incomplete. They've been motion >> second. >> Mayor Carol. >> Yes. Council by Singlehart. >> Yes. >> Mr. Pampkins.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Miss Whitesman. >> Yes. >> Miss Wingle. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sh. >> Yes. >> Mr. Schlanger. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> All right. Item 15 was the public hear
application 202502. Says adjourned. We got a letter from applicant that they want to adjourn to the March 10th meeting. Um, and they've given us until the end. Did I read it by end of March or end of April? >> Um, but I don't recall.
>> They wrote something in there, but >> I don't recall. I have to go back and check. Um, I did get a a text from the uh attorney earlier today. Um, just confirming that we got that letter. They are submitting new plans. >> So, what they are
>> dependent on when they come in even they're they're asking for March 10th. Depend on their submission. >> Correct. So we'll do the adjournment to March 10th. This is for public hearing on Spark Car Wash application 2025-02 block 49 lot 6. Adjourn to March 10th
without further notice. Uh and we will await the resubmission. Um let's see what time it >> if they don't get the plans in like by next week then we're starting to push it. Right. Okay. >> Yeah. That's why I'm making the point like they're asking for March 10th, but
it it's reliant on what they submit. That's on there. So, we'll see. I'll just let you know makes this a little quicker than this. >> Um, all right. Chair it. And we're going to add on um the housing element/master
plan subcommittee. Um, here's what I'd like to do. We're going to restart. We want to start that subcommittee up to cover the housing element items that we've previously discussed. Um, and it can start work. Um I'd like um Dennis
show please um still be on and the the mayor um I was going to ask um Mr. Schlanganger to go on that committee. >> Yes, please. >> Ask um Mr. Duner to go on for me. >> Okay. >> Would you be okay to do that?
>> Sure. with your experience that makes sense that um so if that subcommittee can um pull together and and obviously my will be involved in that one as Jim can you circulate dates to to the four of us
please >> I'm sorry say that again mayor >> circulate dates to the four of us that are good for you >> sure >> get the process moving and you might want to like I'm I've got Dennis genally has the most constraints on
So, >> okay. >> Still on the Texas term. >> All right. Um Oh, wait. Thank you. Um we look forward to hearing what you're doing. Uh the next one is um I moved this out of an agenda item just because it we we pulled it together, but I
wanted the board to talk about it whether we and we'll bring it forward next meeting if we agree. So um as well as having our conflict attorney, we talked at one of the meetings about um having a conflict planner and engineer and we found that this was the company
that we appointed previously at Remington and Vernick. Right. >> Correct. I found that this was back in 2023. >> We had a resolution >> um that individual that's appointed in that resolution is still there. >> I have not reached out to any anyone
yet. uh wanted to talk to you guys first, but uh assuming that you're on board, we could certainly do that. >> The municipal engineers, so >> and they're they're great. >> Thank you. >> Right. Okay. >> So, I think um if we'll agree, we'll ask her to reach out to see if they're interested and then we can bring that up
at the next resolution to see >> I mean hopefully you don't need we've had this scrambling before. It's I think it's better get it ahead of get it scheduled so we know where we're going with that. >> All right. Thank you. What do you think about the bylaws at all?
>> Oh, do you know? >> I thought that I thought the bylaws I thought we got them out again was not on the agenda. >> I don't know why I missed it on the agenda. I apologize. >> It was a very long one. >> I thought I'd put it on and I'm sorry
that it's not on that. We certainly can talk about it now. I'm happy to bring it up as chair items. Those were >> circum just discuss it because we're not voting on it. They didn't put on the agenda, but we can vote on it next meeting, but we can certainly have a discussion because while we've got nothing else
going on, >> I Anybody have any comments? >> Yeah, I have two comments. Um, one is u the removal of the mayor and council comments and making it something else. I think that's silly. Sorry, whoever did that on the bylaws committee. just leave
it the way it was. Um, and the other comment, that's my comment, so you guys can all say no, you're wrong, but that's okay. Um, the other one is under article 5, section one, meeting procedures. It currently says the board shall not um,
this is about moving the meetings to close at 10:00. And it says the board shall not commence any new matter after 9:30. I would like that to include uh the board shall not commence any new matter or begin any new testimony after
9:30. >> So >> I guess you mean as as a new a new a new um >> witness >> witness. >> Exactly. >> Because the testimony would continue but >> it could be in the same matter and then I can just hear like George Malone
saying oh just let me finish my you know I'm in the matter it's my the same matter. So, you know, so I'd like to see it because that's the way township operates. They don't allow any new witnesses to start after 9:30 at night. >> I think that's what we'd have to add it
in as it's new new witnesses in giving testimony. >> Yes. >> In a public hearing only or in anything else public new witness. >> So, yeah. So, so yeah. So not allow any new matter or any new witness testimony
to beginning after 9:30. >> Right. No, I I think Yeah. Because that then gives us some teeth in terms of um suggesting that we back up we know when we start testimony it t it takes longer than half hour for sure.
>> So my only my concern on this one and I understand the motivation and I don't want to stay up late. I'm not is and and I don't disagree with the suggestion that Marsha is making about clarified in that language. My concern
and we and I may get out of here and that's fine. My concern is that if we chop the hour off that we're proposing to do here and we only meet twice a month. My concern could be that a complex application,
>> we like to talk on this board. We like to ask lots of questions in a good way. My concern is that we're going to have applications that are just because we only meet twice a month and other jurisdictions meet more often that have separate zoning and land use boards. >> You're combined board. >> We're a combined board. I'm worried that
things it's going to be more hearings to get through a particular application. >> But we can always we have the right to change. >> Correct. And I'm pretty sure there's language in there that says >> I think no because it says the curfew hour may be extended by the chair purpose for the purpose of executive session. It has nothing. It doesn't
>> change that. Well, that so that so then if we can change that >> we can add that because like if they get through we get through a whole hearing and it's 9:30 and they've got like one person left who's their planner and planners never wrap up and they never take that long
>> and we just want to get it over with. We have I think we have to make decision >> as long as as long as there is some if if we can make that change I'd feel more comfortable. I just I would hate for us to be in a position where we were stacking up subsequent applications
where we're like, "Oh, this this is going longer than we thought." So, someone's paying out their professional sitting here. >> But I'm thinking like George Voluone trying to reach his LSP on our time. Right. Right. And this thing is dragging out and he's,
>> you know, telling his professionals what to say and what not to say. and the testimonies going on forever because of the way he's in. Look at the look on Car's face. You guys cannot appreciate this on screen. Um, but that's what like, you know, like that's just so unfair to us. That's so unfair.
>> I I don't disagree with that at all. I I'm there and I'm the guy who like ran a meeting till 1 in the morning. I I understand that I'm culpable. Oh yeah. >> We have said to applicants this is not being presented in a way that we can
handle it at 8:30 and say go back and >> fix the plan fix your whatever and come back to us. So this has a lot of discretion >> and this is the idea behind this is to give the chair more teeth in being able to ask say to applicants we are stopping and closing it down. And I think are you
will do you want to carry that's the point I was going to make. We still have the flexibility always to say are we comfortable with go and we do we've you've said it all said it >> we think hey are we can we keep going are you okay that's >> but I think they know if we're stopping
at 9:30 they're going to come in better prepared >> maybe hopefully that's the intention but also >> but also to Jeff's point I think as well when we when we know there's a big one coming up >> everybody we maybe we have the discussion in Chairman's like look a big one's coming up
>> be prepared to stay later. What is our general feel? Are we going to say suggest go later or are we going to notice for an extra meeting if we really think it might you know what I'm saying? Like we could have that discussion ahead of time now. But then I think the main aim of this is to give it more teeth in terms of be really clear to applicants
and everybody that we are not going all night with these things. You need to either go give us the cliffnotes version of what you want to say so that we can come to a determination or think about >> time wisely. as long as as long as there is a
mechanism for us to clear give us the ability to extend more than just an executive session and that we are understanding that that that I really was just worried about workflow since we're only meeting twice a month and I hate >> you know I want us we try generally to
to to work with applicants to get something we try to get towards approval in most cases and that does take time and yeah maybe it does help them >> be more judicious within him. So that was one thing I just wanted to to point out. The other thing and this is minor
um because I know the the bylaws has been worked on for a while um is that section 31 publication of resolution on page 15. We may need to tweak that language based on the new law of um notice because it says
>> the notice published in the official newspaper of the municipality. >> These are done before everything. >> So I just wanted to flag that make sure we caught that. Um those were the two things that >> Thank you. >> Yeah. And if anybody has any further
thanks, get them in within the week so that a version the a version amended from what we just discussed now can be sent out in enough time for us to put it on the agenda in the vote next month. >> Next meeting too. >> Fair enough. >> Yes. >> Please get any you're going to tweak
that language to add the flexibility factor because that's that's definitely my intention. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. >> Yeah. No, please listen. These are bylaws that are not ordinances, are not statutes,
and they are there to help guide the board and help the public understand how things are done. >> You always have that discretion. You can make a vote at any point in time >> to do whatever it is that you wanted it. >> So, you know, provided it doesn't violate some other law.
So, you know, >> but but but in the interest again of, you know, transparency, get letting everybody know how we're operating and having some guidelines, which I think is important, >> you know, let's get it how you want it. >> But going back to the limit, Jeff,
starting a new matter after 9:30. >> Yeah. No, no. I don't want to start I don't like I know it was it's >> it's not there. No. Just for Cara's amending this, the no new matters will be started after 9:30 is a period and
there new testimony from an a continuing matter uh will be allowed after 9:30 at the discretion of the planning board. >> Something something like that >> something something I mean >> something like that. >> Yeah. And and the the sentence that follows has says that that the rules can be spent only to go to executive
session. And I think if that I think in that second sentence we can >> could it be executive session or other matters at the discretion of the chair something like that. >> I want to have I want to have a paragraph in there that gives you the discretion to do whatever you want whenever.
>> So that's good. >> So then that way it's up to you it's up to the rest of the board. Something's not fully cleared. Jeff will never be allowed to have a meeting until one o'clock meeting. Yeah. >> Why? That was my fun drive home.
>> I wanted to talk after that meeting. >> Not for nothing. It was our first meeting back after being remote for so long. I think I was just high on being with everybody. >> It was a love fest. Good one. Jeff, >> excuse me. >> But yeah, that should not have happened. I mean,
>> when it got to be in tomorrow, it was too late. Look, and the other the other piece of this is that and we we've had like we try to be smart about scheduling hearings knowing, hey, this is going to be a complex application. This is going to be
a straightforward application. I think we're usually good about that. >> And we're usually pretty good about telling applicants, hey, you want that date, but just so you know, such and such is continuing. They're going to have x, y, and z happening. I mean, that's my I just want to make sure that we we
don't want to find ourselves in a spot where applications are stacking up and we're getting a a bit of a a log jam because we're we don't have enough meeting time. >> And I think in that case is when we say, do we need to add in a new meeting or we're going to go that's when we need to have a discussion. Absolutely. Great. We
don't want to get things stack up. We've got timelines. We've got all sorts of things we've got to make sure regulatory wise that we cover. Don't want that. If it ever comes to that, then we'll have to rethink this. If it comes to that state, >> and you're already much more cognizant and concerned about this than I would say 90% of the boards in the state. So,
I think >> we just got to look after our own mental health. >> The we look we we we have we've done we've done a decent job with this. We've definitely in the last three years have had meetings where there hasn't been any items on the agenda, so we canled. So,
it's not like it's not like we have a problem right now too much. I'm just worried like >> we did have a point last year where we had some where there were applicants waiting to start another planet and I had to kindly suggest to them that we weren't going to get started without telling them they weren't going to >> but they insisted in coming.
>> Yeah. And I always try to say don't sit around all day. This is not but I can't actually tell them go away. your complaints are happening at home. >> Something will help that >> help because because what the worst thing that happens is that >> you know this application cost me so
much money because this board didn't have its act together and then we become we get the reputation of being difficult board. >> Yeah, that's not the intention. All of this is meant to also make it simpler and more clear exactly what what happens going to expect and I think in that
situation where we have two public hearings stacked then we have to have the conversation because we will never get through two by 9:30 right so we'd have to have action as a few hours of we're not going to get through a complex plan in two hours out >> we have to we have to >> much that we have to put on the record
it's not even our >> exactly so that's that's an understanding I think it's just with The intention that we're getting this out there to our applicants who are regulars and they know that this is the way we we're respecting you all as volunteers and all our time. That's that's the
intention going forward and hopefully the message will get through. Yep. >> Since you're under chair, items, just since you're talking about your >> setting up the agendas and stuff like that, >> since there's like we get emails and I
know HPC does an update on different stuff, but like where we have sign committee reviews stuff. >> Should something be said with the rest of the board because not everybody's >> through that
report like HPC does. You want just to say, "Hey, we we got one for attachments for a new sign." >> They used We used to do that. We used to have little sign updates. >> Yeah. >> Me, it was a long time ago. I think what
I think Todd would first >> when Todd would first kind of give a summary >> it's a good reminder to put it in whether we do it as a form I think maybe we should add them in as a formal section then >> or to because they are officially they have a full purpose on on the planning
board right >> I don't know if it needs a like a >> time most of the time it' be a quick skip over >> just a reminder >> so we after HBC yeah why not Or do you want it to just be
>> do you want to just do an email? >> See, that's where I was thinking. >> Just being like whatever we approve that copy down the approval each time. >> Well, because it's because it goes to the like the committee. So the committee each person says yes, it's approved. Then Moren says >> we send her approval to Moren and then
she follows >> done. But just as just as the board since it does come before us that Jeff's not on the sign committee, >> you could you could send it to copy Caitlyn on it and have her distribute it to the board, >> right? >> And each approval >> just like the HBC approval.
>> HBC, right? Jeff. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's a good point. >> Okay. I just want to say Jeff and I and I believe Mark too, probably Marca, you remember when we used to actually review. >> Oh yeah. We have some long about
>> sign very thankful and give your sign committee Christmas cookies every year. Be thankful process, >> but I just figured it's an update in our we've had one already. >> The agenda is being amended to include the environmental commission which is
statuto >> that's in there on the agenda. >> I'm now writing the sign committee on the agenda. No, we're not adding. >> No, we're not adding it. >> No, that wasn't what I heard. But if you guys just see and
you see the board approved. So when we send our final approval, we'll we'll send that to Caitlyn also the plan the secretary who will then distribute. >> Does anybody on the bylaws committee want to refute my feeling that the mayor and
council should just stay on the agenda and not be some kind of governance figure out some kind of name as the current bylaw? I mean is there to do that? >> Well, we did kind of just give it an overall title. It's still on the agenda. We just gave it its own section and a
title. That's all. So, it has its own priority versus just being like a subsection. We tried to give you guys some priority, but hey, we can take it back. You can be just boring like the rest of us. >> Well, no, mayor and council already have
a priority on the agenda. >> Well, no, they're technically after they're all the way down. >> We moved them. They're down and the >> I'm just saying just leave the way it was.
>> No, I think the difference is but in the bylaws they were because it's not how we've been running for the last >> Yeah. So, let's look at the list of agenda items and priorities in the bylaws versus what we do. >> Maybe that I'll take a look. >> Okay, I get it. I understand.
>> So, sheating inconsistency there next week. Yes, understood. >> See, because that's the way it's going to go forward. >> Thank you, Mark, for having the SRC idea in that.
>> Um, I love this timing. So, I'm going to say let's move on to item 17 of the the bills, auditing the bills. >> Were there any? >> Yes, there were. >> She didn't leave me with a packet. She was with us. >> There was one sent the whole agenda packet. I
>> the very last one. >> There was so many items. I don't think I scrolled all the way down. I must have >> Yeah, it's it's in there. So, let me >> Well, it's super long. I don't I was I mean >> I don't know. I'm used to um videos that
are about like shoes and jackets. So, I was like, >> okay. >> Well, the last one's one page. I don't think it was the last one. >> No, there's a lot of words. words. >> I was trying to read it. It was
>> okay. There's >> Yeah. Um >> this >> Oh, is this the um >> Savo Schlucks Corsini Warner Gillespie? This is This is Chris Corsini. Um >> there's a lot there's like council stuff in there. >> Yeah, there's some council stuff in here. It was just like
>> there's bills from Chris Garcini in here >> and there's um a bill from there's several bills from Chris Corsini in here. >> There's something in here for like a tax appeal. >> There's like in because it was about um anything for planning or did she just
help >> and there's an RV bill for Liberty Village about um observing stuff on site for storm pipes. That's not planning. No, that should be coming out of their their >> I'm just wondering if she attached the wrong
>> perhap is we table this confirmation. >> Okay. >> Yeah, there's one I would like to have conversations. I know. >> Thank you. >> All right. We'll move on to item 18.
Executive session. Do we ever need to go to exe executive session? >> Awesome sources. So um um 19 um we have a motion to adjourn at 8:31. >> So moved. >> Yes. >> All in favor?
>> I >> I >> Excellent. >> Take care everyone. >> Good night. >> Bye guys. Good night. >> Good night. Right, stop recording. Start running out your parking lot.