All right. Good evening. This is the Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026 regular meeting of the Flemington Borough Planning Board. This in-person and virtual meeting is called pursuant to the updated provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act. Both adequate and electronic notice of this in-person and virtual meeting has been
provided by way of publication in the Hunterdon County Democrat and Courier News newspapers beginning in January of 2026. In addition, notice of the meeting was posted on the door of the Borough of Flemington municipal building here at 30 Park Avenue and any handicapped accessible entrances there, too. Posted
on the municipal website as per the new OPMA requirements, provided to the municipal clerk in addition to all persons, if any, requesting copies of 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 hearing must be maintained at all times. Let's give everyone please rise as you are able for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call, please. >> Mayor Carol? Here. Mr. Campion? >> Here. >> Council Vice President Engelhardt?
>> Here. >> Mr. Doshna? >> Here. >> Mr. Gittens? >> Here. >> Mr. Schlanger? >> Here. >> Mr. Shaw? >> Here. >> Ms. Swingle? >> Here. >> Ms. Weisman?
>> Do you want to say your name? >> Mr. Haines? >> Here. >> Mr. Apple? >> Here. >> Mr. Papers? >> Here. >> Thank you. Attorney [clears throat] Kasinski? >> Here.
>> Engineer Clarico and Engineer Chapman and Planner Pyle are excused. >> Thank you. Um relatively late agenda this evening. Um as we have uh at the beginning of at all of our meetings, item number one on the agenda is a period for public
comments for items not currently in front of the board. If any member of the public online or in person wishes to make a public comment in the uh speaker register. Okay. Welcome. All right. If you wouldn't Yeah, just you can grab a seat and sit there if you wouldn't mind. Uh we do need uh name and
address for the record. Yeah. >> My name is Tom Bresha. I reside at 52 Velt Street in Farmington. Um I want to thank the board for having these public comments. Um I understand you're in the process of reviewing application for River Crossing Lights CA
regarding the pool reconstruction and management. >> Uh Mr. Mr. Chair, uh that is a pending application before the board, so we cannot have any public comment um outside of the actual hearing. Um I believe, according to my notes, that's
scheduled for the July 7th uh hearing [snorts] date, so certainly Mr. Bresha can come back at that time, but applicant is not here, counsel is not here, so we can't have any public comment on matters that are already before the board.
>> I don't understand that. I had talked to two members earlier, and I thought the public could give comment on things that are pending with some suggestions and concerns for their consideration when they review the document. >> Yeah, I'm sorry, that's that's not accurate. If it's a pending application
before the board, all comments have to take place during the actual public hearing in order to give the applicant uh the opportunity to hear and address them. But you can certainly come back on July 7th and you can make ask questions, make comments. There are a number of times
during the public hearing you'll have the opportunity to do that. >> Okay, thank you. Can I leave written comments with the board reading the website? I thought that was a >> Yeah, the board can also not entertain written comments. The reason for that again is that the individual making the
comments has to be present in order to be cross-examined or questioned or again have the opportunity for the applicant to hear and and make comments and questions also. Sorry for your inconvenience. It was not intentional. >> And that's scheduled for July 7th, is
that correct? >> I believe so. Yes, yeah, there's public hearing. And I and I I apologize as well if there was a miscommunication about that. We want we want to hear what you have to say. We want it we want them to hear it as well. So if you've got suggestions then we want them to be able to
appropriate that. So please help. We'll get to that. I'm glad you brought that up. >> Thank you. >> Do you have a clarification? Is it the public allowed to submit public comments for the next application now? Not now, but before the hearing on the
>> No, we cannot take written comments without Now, certainly if he wants to prepare written comment, come before the board and state it in person, that's perfectly fine. But we cannot accept just written comments because the comments have to be subject to cross-examination and questioning.
>> Okay. >> I thought I understood, but now I'm confused. >> Please come to the meeting on the 7th and if you have it written down and want to read it, that's great. If you just want to speak off the cuff, that's fine also. There'll be every single witness that is giving testimony, you'll be able
to ask questions and then there will also be a period for comments to be made. So um that's you have you should have multiple opportunities to ask and have response from them on >> But I cannot provide any written comments or verbal comments to any members of the board prior to the July
7th meeting. Is that correct? >> Right. There are New Jersey laws are very specific that all of these things have to happen in open public meetings. >> I and I apologize that I'm getting council rules and planning board rules mixed up. So, my apologies. >> But thank you.
>> Thank you. Anybody else? Let's see. Anybody else online? Okay. Item two on the agenda, mayor's comments. >> So, I probably should have called Cara ahead of time and asked her this question, but
there is an item on the agenda, which is item 12, request for extension >> to get to that. She's got an answer. >> See, you know I have to say but >> I have the answers to everything, mayor. Come on. Don't don't don't worry about that.
>> Anybody want to take that? >> I I I know it. I know it. I'm pretty sure I know what the answer is because it's my question. Anything else? >> No, I have nothing else. Thank you. >> Council comments. >> Yes, I actually have two updates,
general updates for the board. I did mention this at the council meeting last night. Um but one of the two I mentioned at the council meeting last night. So, council mayor was all invited to a meeting last
week. Um and it was a meeting that was called by both the um Liberty Village developer and the owner of the railroad. Um apparently the two of them have been
talking to DOT, specifically their railroad division, um because part of the site plan, approved site plan by the planning board, includes improvements to the existing cross on that west side of the
111 for sale housing units. Um where right now the Black River, you know, that people get on and off the train in that area. Um the federal government apparently has program to
um improve and eliminate um railroad crossings. Um Basically, the federal government gives the state money and the state then passes that money along to whatever applicant they, meaning the railroad and
or the the um the developer in this case, I think it would be the railroad in this case, to improve and or replace crossings. And I want to make And um is Mike Oh, yeah, Mike's on the the call as well. So, he was also in attendance. So, he and I
both kind of said we would give you guys an update. Um I don't And I said this to the council last night. I don't necessarily know if this is pie in the sky or if it's really realistic, but um they had this meeting. They called us to
the secondary meeting um where essentially the railroad and the developer is proposing to extend Church Street to um Stangle and move the
railroad crossing from the west side of the Liberty the approved Liberty Village plan to the end of Church Street where it kind of bangs it would bang through. Now, this is something that I know in our long-range plan we have both encouragement of either extending Fulper
or Church to to Stangle to make that whole business area more um viable um and uh pedestrian linear movement east-west as well. Um the linear park um, that's proposed is also in you know,
obviously in support of that. All this is long-range planning. Um, I like I said, I don't necessarily know where this is going to go um, or um, if anything would happen. Um, the only thing I know is that if there
is any change to the site plan um, that George would have to come back for a um, uh, revision. Um, I I honestly I don't necessarily think the proposal is um, would affect his site
too much, but I think that's certainly, you know, in in addition to everything that would be on our checklist, certainly a revised site plan and certainly a a traffic study would be required among other things, but I just wanted to bring it to your attention. The I wouldn't be
surprised if the owners of the railroad and the development would seek um, a audience with us to entertain this idea. They did come to council last fall. The the owner of the railroad came to
council last fall and kind of told us about some improvements they were doing along the line and kind of presented his uh, wish list. Um, um, that this Sunday happened. So I guess he's been really um, trying to
engage with the DOT um, to make this happen and it is great if if that's you know, if they can bring it to fruition. They um, in the end as far as the municipality goes, what they'd probably be looking for, in fact they definitely would be looking
for would be in addition to the process of whatever of um, review for site plan, um, they would probably be looking for some sort of letters of support to go to uh, um, DOT
um, and to the the feds in order to, um, encourage that. It's a little, uh, there's a there's more to it than that. I don't I don't really necessarily want to even opine any further because it was it was literally called a pre-discussion meeting or I can't remember the exact
wording, um, but and we haven't even received the, um, the, you know, the minutes from the meeting yet. It's called a pre-diagnostic meeting is what it's called. Um, so I just wanted to bring to your attention, um, I know I know that Melissa, this is near and dear to your
heart, so, >> Yeah, I looked at the site plans, people. I it's been a while since I looked at them, but I had thought being the plans that we approved that fencing had already been built forward. >> Yeah, and that's I I don't know cuz I wasn't I wasn't involved with those
approvals. Yeah, and I and I wasn't involved with those approvals. I can tell you that they're supposed to send me, um, >> The vehicular >> Are you talking about the pedestrian crossing by by the female or you talking about the vehicular crossing at Church Street?
>> The the the vehicular crossing at at Church Street would be the new crossing. >> That's not on the site plan. >> The site plan did talk I think you're thinking of the pedestrian. Yeah, that that's I agree with Marsha, that's not on the site plan. So, what what they're
basically planning proposing is instead of upgrading the one it would be swapped for another. Yeah, um, and because it's so close to each other, the DOT because it's like within a quarter mile, they they they consider it the same crossing cuz it's within a
certain. >> Who considers it? The DOT? >> yeah. The the the the railroad arm of the approvals of the DOT. >> In the state, but there's also a federal transit safety administration which is probably where the money's coming from. >> Yeah, CT DOT is really about tracking
down the grants and stuff. >> So, I think this is a good opportunity for them. And you know, so I want to make sure that's something that we um at least um engage and uh hear them out. But, there's there's other things
uh well, in addition to uh planning board uh responsibilities that would have to happen. Right-of-ways and yeah, well, and some other stuff, too. So, I I saw flaws related to those items. So, I I just said I don't want to get down the road too much, but I do want to let you
know that you may be seeing a um a presentation come down the road and perhaps a site plan amendment um if if it gets that far. Um and finally, um that I mean, I I don't know if Mike has anything else to
add to that. Mike, you were there. >> Uh well, the owner of the property on Stangle, he should have been at the meeting. >> I agree. >> [clears throat] >> I mean, it was great that we met, but this will not happen without the owner
of the property that's going to lose property if we relocate that railroad crossing. And the other key one was if the railroad cross is not installed completed within 2 years,
the developer, not the state, the developer will be on the hook for the cost of everything. >> Is he aware of that? >> Yes, George was there. Yes. >> Okay. So, if
good in that it's if it's it's a long-term goal on our in our master plan, great. Um but, let's just see where it where it goes. I We did um we did get a uh I didn't want to forward the plans that they provided to us after
the meeting, but I will provide them to the all the um planning boards so that you can see what we were given as far as graphics and so you know you can kind of see see in in graphic detail what we were presented. So that's number one.
Number two, there um if you're not aware there was a state law that was passed in late December related to uh uh consumption of wine in
from wineries teaming up with right now there's like a ABC law with outlets but this was a new law that basically encouraged wine by the glass and several of our local businesses
um signed up and applied for this ABC license specifically to sell wine by the glass. However, one of the things that um I don't necessarily think that the
developers of the law maybe didn't vet out or make it clear to um people that they apply for this license that the public drinking consumption isn't consistent statewide. There's no
one state law that that covers that. It's done by local ordinance and our ordinance it's 5.61 and 5.62 relate to public drinking. Now, what does that have to do with planning board? This is where it gets
complicated. Remember during COVID we created a after dining ordinance, right? So there's lots of of our and that is in our zoning ordinance. So this is where it overlaps a bit. Our
zoning officer is charged with enforcing that the after dining and, um, they have to submit a plan, and etc., etc. Um, so, if somebody has an >> If it's on public property. >> If it's in the right-of-way, I guess. Well, I'm sorry, I should make that
clear. This is all on our side. Yes, it's it's it's regarding the right-of-way. Um, so, some businesses who applied for this special, um, ABC license already have areas that they can provide this service
outside the right-of-way. Some of the businesses that applied for this license in town don't have They have approvals for uh, outdoor dining, but they're not allowed to serve in a public right-of-way.
Um, so, it's very possible that the council may decide to consider updating our ordinance, and that would also affect the planning board because
of the, um, outdoor dining ordinance. So, again, you may be seeing something like that come down road, but honestly, this is days old, so I don't even want to opine on how that would look. But, you may be seeing that in the future as well, or some adjustment to those ordinances in
the future. Does that make sense? >> Thank you. Uh, item four, HPC comments, Dennis. >> All right, we had our meeting on June 17th, and we approved, uh, 40 Pennsylvania
Avenue windows. Um, also just want to mention, once again, that we had a very successful House and Garden tour with over 470 attendance, uh, attendees, including volunteers. Um, we'd definitely like to recognize
the house tour planning team, Jen Williford, Wendy Orr, Kim Tilly, Todd and Kristen Cook, Christina Hutchinson and Maria Shob. And thanks to all the many volunteers to help make it a successful event including the DPW, the
police, the cert teams and also the environmental commission. So everyone really made it a very successful event. That's what I got tonight. >> Thanks Dennis. Environmental Commission, Melissa. >> We met on June 16th. We reviewed the
request from River Valley YMCA for the EIS waiver. We had some general business and on our agenda It's really nothing much. If I had to pick one it is the National Wildlife Federation's
Mayor's Monarch Pledge and that'll be going to council once we do some research on it. >> Thanks. Item six, professional reports. Uh I will say just just that Jim Kahl is dealing with a personal matter and he's
unable to be here this evening. So I don't have an update from him. And Cara on the escrow. >> Yeah, Jim and I are working together to finalize that. So once he's back in the game, we'll discuss and then circulate the
final draft to the board. >> Thanks. Item seven on the agenda is approval of minutes from We've got two meetings worth of minutes. Those were both circulated in the docket ahead of time. First up is the minutes from April 28th, 2026. Can I get a motion on and a
second? >> Moved. >> Second. >> Any discussion, clarification or correction on minutes from April 28th? >> Mayor Carrol. >> Yes. >> Mr. Campion. >> Abstain. >> Council Vice President Engelhart?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Dashner? >> Yes. >> Ms. Giffin? >> Yes. >> Mr. Slanger? >> Yes. >> Mr. Shobe? >> Yes. >> Ms. Swingle?
>> Absent. >> Mr. Hayne? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh next are the minutes from our last meeting on June 9th, 2026. I could get a motion and a second. >> Move. Second. >> Move to second.
>> All right. Uh any discussion, clarification, or corrections on the minutes from uh June 9th? I see none. >> Mayor Carroll? >> Yes. >> Mr. Campion? >> Abstain. >> Council Vice President Engelhart?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Dashner? >> Yes. >> Ms. Giffin? >> Yes. >> Mr. Slanger? >> Yes. >> Mr. Shobe? >> Yes. >> Ms. Swingle?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Hayne? >> Yes. >> Item eight on the agenda this evening is uh was to be discussion and adoption with potential of the resolution memorializing action on the Spark Car Wash application 2025-02.
I understand Cara that we're close but not quite there yet. >> Yes, we received the redline from applicant's counsel yesterday. I've circulated that to all the professionals. Um they've already incorporated my comments and Bob's comments. We just want to see if Jim and
uh Jim and Jay have any additional comments. If not, we'll circulate the redline to the entire board and uh it should be ready for adoption at the next meeting. >> Okay. >> Thanks. Item nine is a complete determination for the application from the Florence
and First Aid Rescue Squad building, block 48, lot two, 26 Highway, State Highway 12. At the last meeting that application was deemed to be incomplete. The applicants had let us know that they were working on it. We checked in with them and they're still working on
meeting the outstanding requirements. I think it's >> That's right. >> Right, that's right. So, we're going to So, it is not on the agenda this evening. Hopefully, it'll be on our next meeting or or the other meeting in July. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, that's that application.
Item 10 is the Shade Tree Ordinance discussion. Um There That should have been circ- That was circulated to everybody and it's just for clarification. This is an update of the ord- has not yet been introduced to council. This was
uh Councilman Levin let me know that he wanted to have it circulated to us for discussion and comments. Um And if there was any suggestions we wanted to make before it finalizes language, I I think it's confused. So, I don't know, Justin, if you wanted to
jump in or if somebody else had any thoughts. >> like to wait until Kyle's available for that discussion. >> So, I'm fine waiting. Everyone has it. So, if I can ask everyone please to make sure you read it and I'm ready to talk about it and we'll hold that till the next meeting.
>> I'm excited that we got it and I really think she needs to help. So, yeah. >> And again, this is different from the official review upon once it would be introduced to council. This is so that we can get what gets introduced to council to be the way we want it to be read and we got to work that out ahead
of time. >> I really appreciate all the work Shade Tree did. I Did Environmental look at it? You guys saw it? >> Uh briefly, yeah, we did a rough review. We'll review it again it comes to us. Okay. >> Great. So, we'll we'll hold that and put it on the agenda for the for the next
meeting. All right, item 11 is a request for extension. >> Where? Please remind. >> Yeah. >> You want us to where? >> This should take 5 seconds. Hold on. All right. This is for a request for extension of
fire approvals for Central Station LLC Block 34 Lot 7 39 Main Street, sometimes known as Bergens. >> Formally known as Bergens. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Stephen Gruenberg on behalf of the applicant developer.
Um, we have been aggressively and actively pursuing the development of this property including securing the demolition permits, um, securing the water and sewer. Uh, my clients are very eager, I can tell you from the phone calls I get, to proceed
forward with building this uh this uh development. Um, Mr. Clerico has essentially signed off on everything from an engineering standpoint. Um, Ms. Um, McManus's prior report indicated that the HBC issues have been uh resolved and we're just waiting for the
final review from uh Kyle McManus >> [snorts] >> uh to give us the sign off. We also submitted HOA docs that I think Mr. Clerico was okay with. I don't know if Ms. Kazinsky is going to weigh in on them or not, but obviously we're
proceeding forward with this development. We're asking for our first 1-year extension of time of final site plan approval, which would take us to June 24th, 2027 pursuant to NJSA 40:55E-52A.
>> And Karen, do you want to weigh in? >> I don't have any additional comments at this time. Um, as Mr. Gruenberg indicated is the first 1-year extension. He's indicated the reasons why he's waiting for them. Hopefully, they can be resolved fairly quickly and it sounds to me like they're hoping
to get it done prior to a year, but other than that, I don't have any additional comments. >> So, we need a motion and a second to grant the one-year extension. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Is there any further Is there any more
discussion? >> I'm sorry, who was the second? >> I. >> Who Who was the second, Caitlin? >> Mr. Hayne. >> Okay, thank you. >> Any discussion? Okay, seeing none, please call the roll. >> Mayor Caro. >> Abstain.
>> I recuse. >> I recuse. Can I call us? >> Okay. >> I hear Mr. Campion. >> Yes. >> Mr. Goshna. >> Yes. >> Ms. Giffin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Slinger.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Shobe. >> Yes. >> Ms. Angle. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hayne. >> Yes. >> Mr. Apple. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Peters.
>> Yes. >> Thank you all very much. >> Good evening. >> All right, thank you, board members. >> Is this public? >> Item 12 on our agenda is No, it's also a request for extension. We received The board received a letter which was circulated by Attiva Main
Street LLC. Cara, please. >> Take it away, May. >> Okay, so excuse me. We received the request on June 11th and since then we've been taking a look into some of the events that have apparently
happened since then, one of which I believe the mayor was referring to earlier, which if she wants to elaborate on it, she certainly can, but it was my understanding that the council a few days ago adopted a resolution
um terminating the designation of Captiva as well as the associated redevelopment agreement because they did not take certain action that was requested prior to the date of that meeting. Uh Mayor, is that pretty much in line with what happened?
>> So, yes, so there's that as as redeveloper and all rights thereon to were revoked on the 8th. They were notified um week earlier that they were given a deadline to communicate with me directly
if they wanted to continue and to set up a meeting immediately. There were no communications. Multiple letters were sent to their attorney uh who responded to at least one and then stopped responding at all and
um their status was revoked. Um this letter came in from a totally different attorney. And uh the redevelopment attorney um seeing this letter immediately wrote to that that attorney and said they have
no status and no standing as a redeveloper. And at this time the council is not willing to entertain anything. >> So, Cara, can you let let us know the board know what your conversation this afternoon was? >> Yep, so as result of that, I reached out
to attorney Spizzarro. Um I ultimately ended up speaking with one of his either associates or colleagues, Ms. Jennifer Steed, and she informed me that Mr. Spizzarro is on vacation and in Italy and won't be back until July. I
explained the matter that was on before the board tonight. I explained what had happened at council, and she said that she just learned of that action taken by Council and they didn't have any knowledge of that. Um so what I had said
to her was there's the request for the extension. I said the board has to make a determination. I said I can certainly recommend to the board that since you haven't had an opportunity to review what happened at
Council and you do not have the ability to appear tonight that they can put it on the next agenda and give uh Mr. Spizzirri the opportunity once he gets back from vacation uh to address not only what happened at Council but also what's going on and
been requested from the board. Uh I said but ultimately you know it's the board's decision as to what happens. Um not knowing every single thing that happened before the Council I can't really you know weigh in on you know whether and I have no reason to assume
it wasn't done properly but I can't really weigh in on that. I don't know if they will have any objection to what happened um and I guess my thought process in recommending to the board that we table the request is for a couple reasons.
Number one we have plenty of time because the it's not going to expire um until after our next meeting. Number two even if it does expire request for extensions can be retroactive and number three I wouldn't want the board to be in
a situation where it denied the request tonight for those reasons um and then have to unwind it ultimately if in fact once there is this dialogue there is a change. Not that I expect there to be um but since again it was represented to
me that they did not know about it they didn't have an opportunity to respond which based on what the mayor says it doesn't sound like that's really the case um but again better course of value probably the safest thing to do um is to table this to the next meeting and then see what happens and um if in
fact everything is the way that it has gone with council meaning they've been stripped of their redeveloper rights and their redevelopment agreement is terminated then that would be the logical step that they don't have the jurisdiction or the capability to ask
for this extension but you know again my suggestion would be table it to the next meeting give them the opportunity and then take a vote at that point when they have the opportunity to address the board. >> But then there's other things that were happening today and um I have 100% like
100% confidence that they were properly notified by the redevelopment attorney of the bureau. um and I don't believe in coincidences at all especially in politics there's no coincidence that there's a different attorney now acting on behalf of the re-
the ex-redeveloper. um the attorney who was communicated with who represented them here in this room back last year. um they had an extension that goes through August which our redeveloping attorney advised the bureau we basically did have to give them because they were
our redeveloper and under redevelopment law we had to give them a little leeway and as of today he advised that we don't have to do anything for them now because they are no longer our redevelopers. um like I said there's more going on in the background that I cannot talk about there is a redevelopment committee
meeting scheduled for later this week. Am I correct? The 30th The 30th of this The 30th of June um but I have full confidence that everything was done legally and um I also truly believe in things and
in coincidences that their revocation was uh June 8th and they were told that in the letter that it was going to happen on June 8th if they did not contact us and that this letter uh add a letter to our our engineer asking for a FEMA
review of that flood plane all occurred after June 8th. No coincidences. >> So, what my explanation is that we're going to vote they they don't have standing and then this is a moot point anyway. So, I I'm inclined to just based
on Cara's suggestion just to give if the redevelopment committee is meeting next week just to push this to the next meeting on the 7th and then we'll either make a determination that they don't have standing. One of the conditions of the resolution, if I remember correctly, is that they have to be the developer. And then if they're
not then then there there's no way to block it anyway. So, like there's six different ways where this is not an issue. So, um but yeah, I as soon as I saw the letter come in I reached out to Cara to figure out what was going on here. So,
thank you for the update. And if that if there's any any objection I'd like just to we'll just deal with it officially at the next meeting. No, I think I've given words in a minute. >> [laughter] >> I don't even know if there's a next meeting. Um not to comment, sorry I shouldn't have done that. Um but that's >> I did I did
I did state state that our the redevelopment attorney did send out a letter. I have not seen it, but um when this letter came in to the planning board I forwarded it to him and he immediately sent a letter to this uh attorney uh in Italy letting him know that their
status was revoked on June 8th. Um I have not seen it, Cara. I would have forwarded it to you if I had a copy, but I know it was sent cuz then you know, there's been like I said all kinds of stuff happening today. >> Yeah, that's okay, not a problem. And pretty much Jennifer, you know,
confirmed that that they just found that out. Now, you know, what just means I don't know. He's apparently been in Italy for a while, so you know, again, just trying to take the safest course of action, but you know, it pretty much sounds to me that this is going to end up where it's going to end up.
>> All right. >> That doesn't change the fact that they haven't approved site plan, does it? >> No. >> Okay. >> No. >> They may have to build a whole site plan, but they haven't approved site plan. >> Yeah, well, they have not satisfied the conditions
associated with that approval. So, as a result of that >> Getting a DEP approval? >> More than the DEP. >> One of the conditions, Cara, go ahead. >> Yeah, one of the conditions is that they maintain their designation as redeveloper. >> Okay. So, they whoever has to start all over from scratch.
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah, pretty much. >> Okay. >> So. All right. Um item 12 is chair item. So, one thing I just I forgot to do this at the last meeting. I want to do this officially on
the record is um by borough ordinance to sign review committee, one of the members is the chair of the planning board or their designee. Um Karen Giffen has graciously agreed to stay on the sign review committee. Um so, I am officially
naming Karen as my designee for stay on the SRC. Next Next, I think it's easier for everybody for continuity reasons. Um and I thank her for for being willing to do that. So, that's on the record officially um for now. So, that still means that our
candidate as as planning board members as well. So. >> Can Can Can I just interrupt for a minute? Can we uh let the record state that Hannah joined us, and I don't know if she had joined us at agenda number 10, 11, or 12, but somewhere in there she did.
>> About About About 7:30, I think is when when she jumped on the meeting, right? >> I'm so sorry. Motherhood got in the way, not that that's an excuse. I'm so sorry, but I did hear 11, not anything before that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks. So, is the sign committee I don't remember where we left off on that car
will Leon sign number 12? Where did we leave off on that? We did Good. >> I think we were supposed to hear back from or we didn't hear anything. Nothing has been told to us other than what we've noticed visibly, but I thought we
were supposed to have someone go through um >> Yeah, so I don't know yeah, I don't know when when we talked about this a little bit >> A while ago planning board yeah. >> Um so I did um speak to Dave Yellico on the same month
ago, so I probably had my memory a little bit fuzzy fuzzy on that. Um I'm going to have to get back to you because I don't necessarily know if you're going to like the the I recall it was
I don't I don't want to say publicly what I think because I need to I need to go back and look at the minutes. >> I know what was said cuz I have it all in writing. You can go ahead and give me I didn't see anything in the Basically our construction official approved the sign and he didn't check the zoning. >> Yeah, I mean that's what happened. I
believe >> That's what happened too but about it. And I don't know what to do. >> I don't either. >> I have noticed the top of the sign is not lit anymore. I don't know if that was somehow influenced by any of that. >> Oh, maybe. >> But it's still the bottom of the sign
still. >> I think they're like it was a a lighted sign It's even more even more again than Arizona. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yes, so it's the swings it's the swings at place up there as well. Um so um let's So So Carol, what I'm going
to ask you if you could look up for us for the next meeting is if there's anything to be done if our construction official approved something that didn't go through the process it was supposed to go through. And I think I know the answer, but if you could just report back at the next
meeting. Appreciate it. >> Yeah. >> Um the only other thing I have under chair items is just remind everybody that our next meeting because of the holidays our next meeting is July 7th and then we've got one on the 28th. And our
meetings in August are more kind of the regular second week of the month, but um July 28th we've got I know um >> Meeting the 25th. >> 28th. Yes. Yeah, yeah, Charger Banks. Um
uh and that's on July 28th. Um >> It says the 25th on the agenda. That's why I just wanted to clarify. >> July July Oh, yes. >> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. >> looking at August. And then July 7th we've got um the Y is
is is is for public hearing. We've got a few of these other items here um and then one or either of those may end up continuing depending on the length of those applications. I'll just remind everyone please as you're traveling for the summer if you wouldn't mind just making sure that
you send an email to to Caitlin um and to me and to Melissa just so we know who's um planning on being here at the meetings in case you that's what you to be remote or whatever just let us know. Um does anybody else have anything else
under chair items? >> Um no. >> No. If you're in communication with you Kyle, I'd also like to know you know where he is on the uh Turntable Junction redevelopment review. Please. >> He will not be available this week.
He's sick. >> Okay. Anything else? Okay. Um were there bills? There were bills. Yes, there were bills. Can I get a motion on the bills? >> Second. >> Swingle, yay.
>> Mayor Carroll? >> Yes. >> Mr. Campion? >> Yes. >> Council Vice President Engelhart? >> Yes. >> Mr. Goshaw? >> Yes. >> Ms. Giffin? >> Yes. >> Mr. Schlanger? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Shobe? >> Yes. >> Ms. Swingle? >> Yes. >> Ms. Weitzman? >> Yes. >> Mr. Hayne? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um Carol, do we need to go to executive session? >> We do not.
>> All right. Uh can I have a motion to adjourn? >> So moved. >> Second the motion. >> All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> All, good night. >> Thanks, everybody. Have a good night. >> Thank you. Sorry, everybody. Thank you.