getting ready. We're almost there, folks. Yeah, I'll try and vote. say chithat you want to know >> it's good on your own
like people like me you and you're the only partic there's something very already. >> Thank you. >> You're very welcome. >> Anyone else? >> Thank you very much. >> Can you move the agenda?
>> Right. >> Call to order the uh Tuesday, March 30th, 2026 planning boarding board of adjustment meeting for Flemington Burough. This inperson and virtual meeting is called to the provisions of the over public meetings act. Both
adequate and electronic notice of this inpersonal virtual meeting is being provided um by way of publication as required. Um and any was posted in addition notice of the meeting was posted on the door of the bur to the municipal building located at 38 Avenue
and any handicap accessible entrances there too. on the municipal website, provided to the municipal clerk and distributed to all persons with any requesting copies of the same. This meeting is being recorded with both audio or 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. A tutorial appropriate judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Please rise as you are able to reflect
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 we have.
>> Man Carol >> here. >> Councilwoman Engelhart here. Mr. Campion >> here. Miss Gifin >> here. >> Miss Whitesman here. Miss Swingle. >> See her. She's here. She's enjoying the sunshine.
>> Oh, she's frozen. >> Maybe the video. Maybe Melissa, you need to just go. Uh, we'd love to see your face, but audio. >> Let's come back to Melissa. Oh, there go. She's trying here. That's her show.
Mr. Schlanganger >> here. >> Mr. Dshma >> here. >> Mr. Eckle. >> Um, he sent a message through Melissa that he wouldn't make it, so I guess he's excused. >> Okay. Mr. Hayne >> didn't hear from Mr. Hayne.
>> Mr. Papers. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> We go for the attorney Kazinski. >> Oh, okay. Sure. Sorry. Attorney Kazinski. Engineer Clerico >> excused. >> Planner Kyle >> here.
>> Engineer Troutman >> excused. >> All right. Thank you. Um All right. First item on the agenda as always, public comment. Um this is for items not currently on the agenda. We have zero people in the room other than ourselves
and there's no attendees that aren't panelists. So, I'm going to assume we have no public comment at this time. Item two, mayor comments, please. >> Uh, I just want to let planning board know that there was an incident over at Liberty Village uh with
all the rain. Uh, apparently one of George Malone's contractors uh, and the dispute is whether it was his site work excavator or the guy who did demolition demolish the storm water
lines that go along the back of Frere and several houses flooded with all that rain. Um, of course, George, you know, it was not intentional. George is furious because one of the plot plans,
it's marked in huge letters. >> Uh, do not remove any of these sewer water sewer motor lines until new ones are installed. And um, they either didn't read it or ignored it. And uh George as of this afternoon had already
ordered uh new materials per design by our engineer Remington Vernick and he said that he should have them tomorrow or first I think Thursday. It's about a one day installation job. He's expecting to have it done this week and have it
all replaced. Um, I know one homeowner who has been extremely tolerant uh and very kind and very um understanding. Um, as of this afternoon when I talked to George, he had agreed to reimburse her
and go after his contractor for uh reimbursement to himself. Um, so I don't know about other people. There were three halves that had water in their basement. So um so that unfortunately that site you
know has but this was just like a really unfortunate accident for lack of a better word. I mean nobody would have done this intentionally. So, but the dispute is between Remington Vernick believes that it was the demolition guy and George believes
that it was the excavator doing the site work and the excavator doing the site work is denying he had anything to do with it and Remington Vernick believes him. So, but that's a private matter between the redeveloper and his subcontractors.
Is is Remington Vernick our um site in our our municipal site inspector for this project? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So when is there um you know is there a timeline as to the last time Remington Verdict was on site and did they do a
site report? >> Oh no, honestly I don't know. >> Um maybe we could find out when the last time they were out there. Um and a canal. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Um on that note, if it's slightly
related just it's that site, is there any update on the roadway that opening reopening that back up which when they came here it was I mean it was meant to be like eight weeks. >> I don't I said yesterday that they're pushing dirt making big piles.
>> Yeah. The only place they're working right now. >> It's just it's on the road, right? >> Yeah. Good. All right. >> Question. What about that pond that's over there on the other side by the Is that supposed to be like that? I couldn't >> by the busy where the bus stop used to
be. That's Yeah, that's design. >> That's design that great big pond. That great big pond was a requirement of DP, >> right? No, I I wasn't sure if it was finished. That's why I was just like what? >> Nothing buy into that having just >> it's it's it's that's that piece of it I
think is the um >> it's the wetlands. It's not No, that's the wetlands swap area, >> right? I know that it's constructed, but it's got a lot of water in it. >> Supposed to I guess I'm just curious on whether or
not that's there's no like greeny final state. Yeah. Usually the way these once the once the pipes get in then they'll put the vegetation on it and right now it's just basically attention based.
>> Yeah. >> Beautiful. >> Well, it wasn't I had to convince my go. >> Well, I mean >> it's not. >> Okay. Anything else, Matt? >> Nope. That's it. Okay. I had some three
kinds of comments. >> Um well I last time uh mayor you had gone over what um the council had done the night before regarding the introduction to the um ordinance. So um
it >> is true. I >> is all about this board. >> That's fine. That's fine. Uh so last night the public hearing for ordinance 20267 um amending chapter 7 um and 7A which is
the traffic and the traffic schedules. um just uh cleaning up a bunch of um uh parking on specific streets and and you know going forward with with some of the um clean up on the streets around um
Bloomfield in in specific was the one that we kind of waited on and and and did this. So that was um the public hearing for that was last night and passed. So, um, that's all I have.
>> I do have one question for Cara. Um, the resolution compliance ordinance that you were going to work on, what's the status >> when you say the resolution? >> Well, we did the council did the one to give property maintenance of teeth
>> to go after bad actors like the owner of Turntable Junction or whatever. and you were going to do something to go after people who weren't following the resolution. But >> I had sent some comments over I'll follow up with Chris. I don't remember if I would know I was
>> I will I will but I remember I mean they were very very minor because I don't really think we need too much. Did I copy you Karen? >> No, but I remember in the in the meeting we said there wasn't much to do. Yeah, I think it was really just from whatever called maybe one sentence or maybe two
additions to two different sentences, but I'll I'll get back. Yeah. >> Yep. >> Here, please copy me on that. Sure. >> Okay. Anything else? >> No, that was it. >> Okay. Thanks. Um, item four, HPC comments. Dennis,
>> we didn't have a meeting since our last meeting, but just a reminder, we are hosting a house and garden tour on Saturday, June 6 from 11:00 to 5:00. If anyone's interested in volunteering, you get a free ticket for helping out. And I
look forward to item number 12, discussion on the agenda. >> Right. And what's that um cleanup that you mentioned last time that were that date set now? Was it finalized? I think you were in discussion, >> Melissa. Um right, I think there's a
townwide >> uh cleanup day, right, Melissa? On >> the Saturday before. >> Yeah. >> And Sunday if it's rain. >> Okay. Well, well, that segways right away into item five if it if that's a thing. Environmental.
>> Okay. >> And your agenda item. Uh we haven't met since the last meeting. We meet next Tuesday. So we're gonna be discussing Spark and trying to plan a little more for the cleanup before the house tour.
>> Melissa, can you send a newsletter article in ASAP about that cleanup day with details? >> I did ask Trent andor Adrian to do one. So I'm guessing if you're asking me, they did not. So I will put >> they have share it with me, but I doubt
that. So, >> um, >> well, maybe transit because he's a, you know, he collects them, too. >> No, I collect them. >> Oh, I collect some good work on that as well. >> I collect them and I approve them when I send them. He has them, too. And so does. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But
>> has it? >> All right. On the um >> question on the cleanup day, just a followup question. Is it just the Saturday? Because last time I had it Saturday and Sunday, but maybe it's just the one day. on the rain. >> No, the date is Saturday with a rain date for Sunday. >> Got it. Okay.
>> Oh, Saturday is the rain for >> No, Sunday is the rain day for Saturday, >> right? Yeah, >> it's going to be on Saturday unless it rains. It'll be on just Saturday was the rain day for Saturday. I misunderstood. It's all right. Having uh
having the thing in the in the in the book, um Melissa just raised and I just want to Oh my make a note. Um, we need to double check this. This the new the spark application thing came in the new one.
It went to the professionals. It also needs to go to the board and it needs to go on the website. I noticed that the spark is the previous submission. So if we can get that on the website and um when we distribute them to professionals if we can then distribute everything to
the board at the same time. Please I apologize to the board. It's I I see things and I forget that they didn't you know what I mean? Like it always used to go out with Eileen and so I'm still in that mode. >> And you're talking electronically, not hard cop. >> Yeah. The one they we haven't been sent
it but then I thought well if it's been put online then it's okay but it's not even online. >> Yeah. >> So we need to get that online for the public and um public hearing and >> because there are and Bob is working on the report and he'll get that to us. But
we'll talk about that in a minute when we get to >> what's currently on the website. Does that get removed and >> No, I believe it. It's all part of the It's just this new stuff is still just keep adding it on. >> It's always best to have more more documents on there than >> unless the applicant
>> No. Yes. That's there. It's all part of the application. >> Never remove. >> Yep. And that that will help down the road. I mean, there's >> that definitely help. >> Absolutely. No problem. And I'll touch on the other item as we
get down to that. Um, okay. Anything else from environmental Melissa? Was that it? >> That was it. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, professional reports. Anybody got anything? >> Jim. >> No, I'm okay. >> Okay, perfect. Um, I wrote approval of
minutes and then didn't write a date because I didn't know which ones, right? That was the last 24, right? 224. So, apologies for not on the date on 210. >> 210. Sorry. >> 210 came out.
>> Not 224. I know. I saw 224. Maybe that >> you sent 220. >> But then there was something that I And this may not have gotten to the board, but the two 10 minutes that were sent out by Carla earlier this afternoon. >> Oh, I don't think I
>> may not have got Right. That didn't look now. >> And that was the one she was looking for the >> but she now has vote. Don't vote on >> but she has it now because she was able to get the audio. >> So we can only vote on 224 which the
ones Kate did. >> Yeah. But we didn't get them. >> Yeah. >> Three people on this >> list the three people. >> Okay. So >> and and and I need to go on record. There was no meeting on Oh, wait. Two.
Okay, I'm sorry. Sorry. Sorry. >> That's right. I think it's just All right. Well, we're gonna we're gonna get it. >> It was missing on the on the because she there was >> I was on >> Normally they're attached to the
documents for the meeting. >> Yeah. So, when we do that packet that you did, that would be great. But >> as well, >> okay, >> do it for the next one then. >> We'll have to do them for the next one then because we haven't seen them, right? enough. >> So, approval
>> as I'll send that Carla did as well. >> Yes. Well, both and we'll and when you we'll send them as soon as you have them. But then also the agenda packet like you did. >> Yeah. >> Um the sooner we can do that the better obviously. Um if you can come Friday before is great. Gives people time to
read it if they've get a scoop. If I don't have everything, should I hold off until I have everything or should I send them peace meal? >> You're talking about the agenda.
>> You guys, >> I like as much time as possible. >> I prefer you to send everything on Friday that you've got. You can always amend the agenda and send it out again on Monday. >> You know, I'm just saying like if I, for example, didn't have a resolution. Do you want a packet without the resolution
or do you want to wait until I have the resolution? >> If you know it's going to be on the agenda but you're waiting for something on Monday. I rather I rather have as much as you've got on Friday. That's my first thing. >> Yeah. Let's send out what we have on Friday and let's hope let's aim to get most of it there. Right. Then it's it's
folks it makes us do it right. >> Yeah. I just >> especially the professional reports if they're good time. I'd like people to have as much time as possible because I don't like to assume people are sitting around waiting for these things. So, I'm ready to give you. >> Thank you. We'll get into this Kate.
Yeah. Thank you. >> All right. So, we'll move on to Oh, by numbers. >> It's 77. >> Yeah, that's that's what happens when you have me write these just >> not pleased. Exactly.
Um so the public hearing um spark car wash um is adjourned to March 24th at applicants agreement. They've also given us an extension of date within our dates. >> Um if I I can if I can I can report why
this happened. We know can I espec um with the consent of the applicant at the applicant's request. Uh no further notice required. Uh and hopefully we'll proceed on March 24th. >> Okay. Um that did trigger
item new item 10 which we can talk about then I guess. All right. So new item nine is resolution 2026 10 memorializing the decision of the application of 202506. Magdalins. >> Yep. >> That was issued right.
>> Yeah. that was issued it was issued um either right before the last meeting or maybe it didn't even make it out to anybody um and that's why we carried it. The question we were trying to work on with the applicant that we've since resolved is our record said that the applicant agreed to um remove all
lighting of the uh crucifix. There was a little question. They thought it was just the upward lighting. Um, but we did land on the applicant has agreed that our record is correct and they one of the conditions is that there will be no lighting of the crucifix period. So, the
resolution can be voted on if no one else has any questions. Um and the individuals permitted to motion and second and vote are Carol Englehart, uh Gib Spangle, Joe Schneider, Dash E.
>> So we don't have one second. >> Mayor Carol, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Angleart, >> yes. Miss Gin. >> Yes. >> Did you say Miss Whitesman or No, >> no. Refused.
>> Refused. Miss Swingle. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sh. >> Yes. >> Mr. Schwangard. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dasha. >> Yes. >> Perfect.
>> Okay. Now I can sign it. All right. Um, item 10 is resolution 202611, appointment of a conflict attorney. Did I get that right? Scott Wilhelm Espire. >> That's correct.
>> This has come about because the previous conflict attorney we appointed point pointed out that he's actually in conflict for that for that application. So, he just can't make this up. >> Goodness. >> Emailed me and um car recommended somebody. Um, we've looked into it. He's
happy to do it. work. He's um be a good advocate for us, I believe. So, that is where we have a new resolution to appoint a second conflict conflict. >> Correct. >> Replacement conflict council. I do have to add the vote in there, which I'll do after we vote tonight.
>> Just need a motion to a motion. >> Second. >> Mayor Carol. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Englehart. >> Yes. >> Mr. Campion. >> Yes. Miss Gifin. >> Yes. >> Miss Whitesman.
>> Yes. >> Miss Swingle. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sh. >> Yes. >> Mr. Schlanganger. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dasha. >> Yes. That's good. >> Yep.
Right. Perfect. Thank you very much. Um, okay. Right. Finally, item 11, review bylaws of planning board. The new ones were issued at anybody any questions on they reflect all our discussion we had last time.
>> One minor typo. >> The bottom of page three, >> section five is subsumed into section four. This doesn't state. >> If the text is all there, the text is all fine. just did someone >> the reformatting. So I have to bald
section five and do that. I think we can if the board is so inclined I think we can approve this tonight. >> Yeah. >> I don't think it is >> space just make up. >> That's perfect. So,
>> so with that change and then again if the board's so inclined to vote tonight, I'll add on page 14 the date of tonight's meeting. >> I have a a question and I do apologize because you guys worked on this very hard and long last year so I was not
privy to the for the conversations. we'd had um in my previous lifetimes, we had revised this set a number of times and I was looking through this a couple days ago and I got interrupted. Um can can
can any of you guys remind me or explain was the three minute rule discussed and or andor changed at all in our bylaws >> in this version? >> In this version, yes. of that. >> Yeah, I didn't I didn't think it was or
it wasn't. I just didn't know. I like I said, I wasn't privy to last year's conversation. So, I >> wasn't because that hasn't that one driver for that's still there. We just And also we implement that as necessary. If it's necessary, it's there, but we haven't had to
try and get the meeting for I guess. Yeah, >> it's there. I stand with the >> right lady try to discretion or get the environmental commission on an agenda. It's statuto. >> Yeah, it was some minor things really. >> That was the that was the that was the
only minor thing. The the only other thing that I had uh remembered again from years ago and of course we just ran into this um in the last eight nine months was the at the
beginning it refers to the board secretary and that of course Caitlyn is is now appointed as such. Was there any reflecting back on the the you know the lack of secretary for a small period of
time was there any thought of perhaps um adding in when the secretary isn't available because like sometimes remember Eileen went on um you know some continuing education or maybe Caitlyn I don't want to guess the flu you know
something like that was there any that's Yeah. Well, that's what I mean. It's like, was there any uh I didn't see it in here. >> That's substitutes when Caitlyn is a isn't available. >> Yeah. Look at the bottom of page three. That section five that uh Jeff had said
was kind of submerged into section. >> Yeah, maybe that's why I didn't. >> That's why I didn't see it. Okay. Thank you. That makes sense. >> See, everything that makes sense. That's why I didn't see it. >> Okay. Yeah. Uhhuh.
>> And that was basically >> effectively subsumed into chair duties. The chair worked as what happened in the past. >> I just wanted to know you guys discussed it at all. >> Well, it does happen, you know.
>> Yeah. Right. >> It's not going to happen again. Ever. >> Not allowed. No. She's never going to be sick again. >> Well, and we did talk about it. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Well, we had someone to do it because we had to do something legal. We had to appoint somebody to do something
specific for we had that conversation. >> Yes, we did. >> But it's allowed for in the MLU. So, it's like it's okay that >> I just wanted to make sure that was covered. That's all. Thank you. >> And then as I understand it, Co, we this
can just be it's adopted by a majority of the planning board as it is right now, won't it? That's it's just a majority. If they all agree, if the majority agrees, then we just that's the vote and it gets adopted. >> 2/3 language. >> There's an amend there's an amendment in
>> there for two. >> Yeah. Just let me double check. >> Oh, two. I think >> I think it's 2/3. >> I think it's I think you're right. >> At least it's a larger number than majority. >> Yeah, >> it's a majority. >> Right. Okay. Sorry.
>> Lawyer. >> No. No. a majority >> page 13%. >> Yeah. >> Right. So we have nine. Oh, so nine voting members because we have So
because we have six alternates today or so the alternates don't vote in this case. Yes, they do. Yeah. >> No, we can only have nine. >> We have Right. But because >> because two main members are missing. I mean two alternates would vote. We have nine votes. So it's a two3. So it's six
vote positively, three vote negatively. Is that we don't have any? >> Yes, we do. In our old bylaws up top, it says that alternate the board shall be no more than nine people and alternates shall fill in. So they are me they are voting, >> right? But what I'm saying is we have
nine board members tonight without the alternates. >> That's what I'm trying to say. >> Yeah, we do. >> Yeah, you do. I >> do you know because they've been I don't know. Yeah, you're absolutely right. That's me. I I was like, "Yeah, >> everything is great."
>> Great. >> Everything is changing. M was a full member, right? Everybody remembers that back in the day. And he was take Yeah. he was taken off. Then he's back. So, >> the alternates will vote in order to make a full nine member board. We need
2/3 of that nine member board. Tonight, we don't need any alternates because we have a full nine member board. Right. So there we go. Just a normal vote and we have to have six positive matters. >> We have to have six eyes for it to go through. >> So would anybody like to do we need to
have a mo a motion then? Yeah. Let's do a motion. There we go. >> Thank you. >> And Whitesman. >> Mayor Carol. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Englehart. >> Yes. >> Mr. Campion.
>> Stand. Miss Gifin. >> Yes. >> Miss Whitesman. >> Yes. >> Miss Swingle. >> Yes. >> Mr. Shob. >> Yes. >> Mr. Schlander. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dasha.
>> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yeah. The the abstension is technically a vote. So yeah. So it's eight for one abstension. >> It's carried. It's carried. >> Yes.
>> Finally. Thank you to the committee. We've achieved what we wanted to achieve. Thank you. All right. Um the next item is item 12. Um I've read a discussion of escrow requirements in the ordinance. Um this came up because well
Eileen had mentioned this before she left that we needed to update this ordinance and um it came up again recently um that the escrow amounts I uh were insufficient for a project. Um so we
asked for them to submit but the ordinance as we have it is a little loose or it's old. The numbers don't reflect what we might need. So, I think we need a review of the numbers. >> Yeah. I mean, what what it basically
says right now, did everybody get a copy of the the language? Maybe not. I did. >> Okay. It's fine. >> It basically says that um when the escrow account dips to 35% or less of the original amount, the applicant
should provide an additional 65%. So ultimately once it gets to that 35 submit 65 so you're back to the 100%. Um within 7 days of request prior to any hearing or discussion or any other work
on the matter which you know we've never really done but I think at least as far you know what I shouldn't say that I don't know how Eene handled it so I'll I'll leave it at that. Um but we do have this accounting for it and you know no
meeting, no work sessions, no work on it at all until that's taken place. Um that I think is one issue if that's okay for everybody if you want to make any changes to it. I think this is pretty standard. Um especially the part of you
know we're not doing anything. No one's doing anything until it's replenished. I think that's across the board with most of the towns I've worked with. >> Um the question is the amounts, >> right? Yeah, I think you got to look at that and decide if that's, >> you know, sufficient. current ordinance
number >> uh that that current ordinance number is 2800 >> and this >> 2800 >> this um me saying discussion and I apologize that you don't have the main thing I wanted to start process to start
um is I think in order to inform any work on this we need to and this will probably be Caitlyn effectively at this point with um with I just say it wrong Kim >> um >> with the treasurer, deputy treasurer >> Liz.
>> Liz, see I did do it. Kim surely >> uh with Liz to basically look at what the escros are and where we end up getting where we're too low before meetings and how much we actually build for each meeting.
Do you know whether we that's that was what Eileen was suggesting to me several years ago was that our our amount we were asking for was insufficient once we got to a certain point and that we and we just needed to increase those for the current amount we actually expend during
doing the work. Does that make sense? >> It didn't match our media right essentially. >> Yeah. It was being drawn down too quickly and therefore it was it was then positive. So she was looking at like let's get those numbers increased from the getgo. you don't have to keep for
every meeting and then it does put us in an awkward position although we are like you say within the orders well within our rights and this is what I've been making sure to do as well is my my big thing with escrow is if we don't have the escrow there and we expend money in another
meeting when the escrow was already low or insufficient or negative effectively we're putting the town at risk by if if if we give a denial for instance and they choose then I'm not paying those escro fees now because I didn't get what
I wanted. Then the town is now at risk to have to pay that money. So I'm really minded to make sure that this escrow is there for the town. So it seems weird to like we insist we're not going to head with a public hearing until this is is filled. But that's my view on it. I'm
going to be strict on that because I don't the town is were, you know, very tight on budgets and we've got to be careful with this and so it's not fair on the town to put them at risk that way. So that's the intention of that. So I do think it needs an assessment in some way. I'm not quite sure who needs
to look at these numbers, how we can work on these previous numbers to see where we think we should be at with these current minor preliminaries final plan. Uh >> I think yeah, I think that the the issue of like this the application fee and the
escrow fee is probably not issues. Those are relatively straightforward. Those are not >> right. It's it's the it's the it's the fees that are associated particularly with the engineering review. Yeah. Which is probably the most expensive of it. And I think we're going to need to talk to
Bob weigh in a little bit about whether or not these the numbers that are here are driving with reality is still >> um because we've had a in the last few years we've definitely had a few applicants not just one where it's been like
we need money hold off we need money we've got you like and then it's not every applicant but it's but it suggests that the replen >> like the replenishment amount might be not be the right like we're not >> we're not they're not seating on the up front, right? >> Yes. That's what I mean. Like if they
seated more up front, it'd be more realistic. I know it'd be tough to the applicant up front, but then we wouldn't have to keep >> Yeah. But the way But the way but the but the way it's tied is is is I think it's smart is is it tied to like how big of a project is it? If you're doing a million- dollar project, then you got to
put in, >> you know, $26,000 in escrow. That makes sense, right? If you're doing a small little nothing of a project, you're you're not really putting much more in there. So like that makes sense. But >> it's a standard fee. It's not a percentage. >> But there's a table here. >> The table of percentages and and and
I'll send this right after somebody can review that and look, you know, the percentage. >> Right. What I was wondering to look into rather than just asking the professionals how much recharge such a thing is if we can do a a review and analysis of past
projects of past escrow funds to see where it went and whether that's useful and whether we could glean that information from there. I don't know. We could pull the plan the yearly reports to see what was done over the past two three years and then pick like two
subdivisions, two site plans or you know however you want to do that and kind of miners. >> Yeah. Yeah. And just and make sure we have a smattering of of the different types so you could see what you're looking at. >> Right. >> Right.
So um what you're suggesting Karen is that um and Liz touch base with each other regularly some sort of regular you know schedule so that
she's got Liz has got the most recent information and Caitlyn's got the most but they've started that that is obviously something that has to happen is they they monitor and maintain what it is. This is and I'm I'm just I'm I started this process going off what Eileen said to me and using her
expertise. She said there is a problem with how much we ask for initially and how much >> I remember saying that years ago. So I guess my question is >> we need to dig into what exact the extent of that problem and how we need to change these numbers to resolve that problem going forward. >> Right. That's definitely a a good
exercise. My question is, um, how does I know because Caitlyn isn't here during the day, so we need to make sure that we've got some sort of connection between the two of them once a week, you know, or something. So, I mean, you guys are professionals and can
work that out on your own, but >> yeah. Um, I just want to recognize that their timing, you know, they they've got different times that they're they're not physically here together remind each other to to do >> they set up a meeting before this
meeting to meet in person and list stayed late. So, and and that Yeah, absolutely. Right. >> Quick question. Is there any way an e code to like know when this was updated? This section >> Yes, I asked Carla this the other day. Uh, let me remember. Um there's a if you
go on ecode there's on and I don't necessarily know if I'm going to see it on my the phone version. >> Um but there's a little there's a little um thing on the top that says newest updates is where and and I'm I'm 90%
sure I'm not I'm I'm not going to be able to see that on my version. >> That's all right. I I'll look for I just what what I'm saying >> on your computer. >> I look for that because because if >> not if if the if the escro fees have not been adjusted in 20 years, >> our professionals have all gotten raises
over the last 20 years. And so so we're going to burn through we're going to burn through the escrow faster if the initial seating isn't enough per hour. >> But this it's not that old. Like they they they update it regularly. When I'm talking like when I when I've checked in with Carol, she like, "Oh, if it's, you
know, if it's a couple weeks and even a month, but you guys haven't updated." >> No, what I'm saying is when was when was chapter 2,00 updated? Like when were these numbers updated? >> Oh, I see what you're saying. >> Not when ecode put >> Look on the It might be on the computer
and a bigger version >> because that's also part of the analysis. >> Yeah. No, you're you're right. You're right. I see what you mean. If our planner has gone from this amount to this amount >> and the escro has changed, >> it's fewer hours until we're of work until we're out of escro. >> We need to raise it just for inflation
and nothing else. But whether it's just that inflation raises necess to application fees um for some reasons here and there so we can we can talk through that. But I think that that analysis might help. There's a note at the top of 2800 that says
um miscellaneous fees was relocated and renumbered by ordinance number 20. >> So so this is 15 years old >> and it might have just been reumbered back then. It may not have actually been
changed. >> The dollar remains, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So that's what I look to see. I mean, I think it's clear we feel it needs to be done. It's just how do we go about it? Do we do it as a committee or we do do we ask do we ask Caitlyn and um Liz
to to get together to pull some numbers? Obviously, we have some board members assisting with that process. Um other municipalities, >> right? >> Yeah. Other nearby municipalities and certain professionals pay roughly the same amount,
>> right? If if anybody updated it recently. >> Why do I feel like there was a time since I've been here that we pulled feeds from other >> That wasn't as No, that was >> You remember what I'm talking about?
>> Yes, I do. And it wasn't for >> Okay. >> I can't remember. But it was not for >> Okay. So, um you need What are you looking for? like a couple board members to >> I don't know. Is that a good way to do it or is it we just ask >> I like the idea of just getting a survey
of what some of the other municipalities >> are just having the professionals at that chart >> at that table >> because I have a question just being really stupid about this but if it's based on applicantation review fees how
how when do we know the value of the project within our within our process? Well, that's why there's an application fee and then an escro fee and then once we see the size of the project, then they then the review fee for the application kicks in.
>> Isn't there isn't that information on your on your on the application? >> So, if someone if someone puts in if someone files their let's say it's it's a let's say it's a kind of a vanilla major uh uh site plan, right? M
>> um they're going to put in their $500 application fee and then they're going to, >> you know, it's based on they're they have to as part of the >> fee cap >> fee calculation determine how big the project is, they have to tell us what it is. And if our
>> and then once Bob or whoever starts reviewing it and they realize that the thing is different, then they generate as part of their >> res part of it's it's it's uh >> it's on the checklist. It's part of it's part of the initial completeness review is whether or not it's >> the the fee calculator,
>> right? But it see so and which is when you when we're talking fees and escro let's say >> the escrow is 750 or the fees are this dollar percentage dollar amount of the application fees is that become the
escrow fee this money that we have >> the escrow for for for >> for major site plan which is the bulk of the stuff that matters >> the escrow fee is in that table A1 >> the word out that's my% Okay. >> That becomes that
>> and then there's additional for the planner >> that's what >> yeah and then that's going to have to change because we don't >> I think is not going to be adequate
350 or 750 I mean >> yeah so that's what I'm wondering if we can either a two-prong thing so we could pull the nearby municipalities to see if anybody's updated them within the last few years. See what they've actually changed it to. >> Any thoughts as to which ones, >> which ones are similar, do similar size
projects to it? Because >> I I honestly think it needs to be it's got to be Hunter County and it's got to be a mix of townships and small towns. So, I think it's rare. It's a rare town of Clinton. >> White House
of Lambert. I'm thinking of places that have redevelopment projects that kind of >> but the adjacent Ritain and Ran are big enough. >> We were just looking at them. >> Why? They're too low.
>> Rarity has just like flat fees. >> Yeah, they are a little higher than ours, but we we they don't have the construction. >> Well, so we should document that and see what the other towns are. >> Yeah. So, we've got Ren, Readington,
Clinton, Lambertville. Anybody else have any anything else to add? >> And that's R Township by the way Township. >> That's looking back. >> I'm just I'm just thinking because because the county juris I don't I don't
think it makes sense to go outside of Hunter. >> No. >> And I don't think there's any other places that are either big have enough projects going on or are similar enough to the to the kind of projects that happen at Flemington >> like California's >> the more west you get. French township
doesn't matter. >> Lambertville saying >> what about Washington? Yeah, that's that's somewhat similar similar >> no seat, but it's but it's it's close to us and it's similar
Washington all the way up 31 similar mix of >> it is a lot of mixed >> and you said town of Clinton not township >> town of Clinton I'm thinking because it's more of the >> town center redevelopment small bur
built on a road. >> They don't have any build. They don't have anywhere to build them. >> Yeah. >> Right. Kind of restricted, >> right? But their projects are going to be redevelopment projects which is going to have very similar to what 31 where the municipal buildings run in 31. >> No, that's the township.
>> That's the township. >> It's like which one are you talking about? >> Township. >> Oh, I think I think the township for sure. >> I think the township's probably >> the town's almost all built out, >> right? That's horrible. >> Well, we can look them up. Let's look.
Okay. Well, the town >> You guys know Bob and I You guys know Bob and I both work in Clinton, right? >> Bob's the engineer and I'm the planner >> in the Clinton town or town. >> No, town of Clinton. >> Okay. Okay. >> Well, that's an easy ask.
>> Yes. >> And then I think there's value in um I mean you and >> Liz. See, >> good job. identical. >> Um,
if she in your discussions that you're doing now with escros, if she can maybe help you pull up some history, say just the last two years of escrow accounts and if we can see if there's any pattern, did any go in negative? How
often did we have to replenish them? You know, some some sort of snapshot of the escros for the projects in the last two years. Would that be if she needs more detail on it, have her email me. I'll try and figure out I can write up which which names of projects we
>> So I'm going to throw in the wrinkles >> just just for giggles. Is do we want is it worth is it worth us considering areas of need of redevelopment having a different kind of schedule than traditional applications or do we should just treat all site plans as site plans? Well,
that's a good question because maybe this does need amending. Although you say it's standard. I was also thinking we had the issue where we had the informal that we asked them for escro form. We don't have provision for that. We kind of had to make something up. So maybe there's a thing to add something like that in or add in a redevelopment.
It's not it's not on here. Is it not >> like like the difference? I mean, obviously, if we if we don't if we move away from the percentage >> and we just go for a flat fee there, we're not really going to be asking for anything substantively different between a Liberty Village or just
>> any other site plan application. Those are very different kinds of reviews, >> right? And a very there is a yes, it's a different situation. I think they do need to look at that at this point >> because because areas need I mean and again because areas need re need a redevelopment. It's it's it's the
planning review is different because you're looking at the redevelopment plan as opposed to the ordinance. The you know there's all these it's a it's a it's going to >> they cost more because there's more work involved in many cases. >> So the replenishment may have
so we definitely have to include those projects in there. >> I like that. >> And if there's any query simpler than ours >> it is. Yeah. Liz should Liz should probably know what they are, but I could help interject. >> That's good. So, we could move ahead
with that and just report back at the next meeting or the one after and see where we're at and then let's let start the process, see what we need to do. Okay. Thank you. >> Um, just so I don't lose train of thought, we have not adopted the 2026 annual report yet, right? We're waiting.
>> We haven't got that yet. >> No, I know. So I just wanted to make sure maybe we could >> the next meeting >> work on that. >> Yeah. >> We might work on what we cuz you sent her through everything that we've got to right the two different ones. >> Yes. >> So if I can ask you to focus on that and we'll try and do >> I don't think I got it.
>> We'll send >> I don't know if you did. Carla did. Okay. >> You know I'll I'll send something over to you. >> Yeah. >> So yeah, we're a little we're behind on doing that. I know an example. >> We're okay. We're not behind. We're just we we tend to be very good about getting it done in like by the end of February.
>> Yeah. >> We had some extenduating circumstances. We'll be okay. >> Which we're getting, >> but yes, we'll at that end on the ground. >> Is there any is it some sort of legal deadline that we have to meet?
>> Um there maybe I'll have to look. Um >> just curious. >> Yeah. But again, I mean, the more important thing is that we review and make the recommendations. I have never seen any issue with the board not doing it within any time period, but I'll take a look.
>> Technically, we have a draft. >> We do. >> Technically, we have a draft. >> Well, and and while we're on the topic, then I think there was some discussion about how much or how little detail. We had started out putting not as much detail and then Eileen started putting
in a lot more detail because that's what the board member wanted to see >> now. I'm not sure if that's still the same. Someone was saying there was too much. So, you know, maybe give us a little feedback and then >> Caitlyn >> I think Caitlyn when you get the two
examples we have a we have a slim down version of a draft for this year. Um was an example of what Eileen needs to create. maybe look at those two review and let us know because I think it could be a really good way to get you back really up to speed with all those
projects pass soon for so if we get that tune in you review it let me know and then we'll decide whether it'll be whether you'll be able to do it for the next meeting or not thank you all right
so we've got some action items for item 12 for the escro so should we close that move on to the Next item which is discussion slashvote of the HPC property list now the >> April 30th Susan
is our deadline. >> Thank you. Um the >> don't hit it. We got our hands. >> I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. >> I'm being sarcastic. >> The strong letter.
were unfunded mandates. >> Yeah. >> Um, okay. Next. So, the HPC property list, did you me we we had one that was the vast majority of the list that Dennis introduced to us last time was we we don't have a problem with moving that forward. As I understand it, there was
just one item of concern, contention we wanted to double check. >> Yep. >> Did we manage to double check that or do we have to wait for that one? >> No, I think and and Jim had sent me an email. We haven't physically had a chance to talk about it yet, but I think we're both in agreement based on what he
said that your language, although it's not that big of a deal, the changing of the designation because it's staying within the uh in the historic district, the strict language of your ordinance does say any amendments to designations have to go through the same public
process. So, you know, Jim, feel free to jump in, but I think we're we're both on the same page on that. >> So, the whole list or just that one? Just the just the one does any designation change? Let me leave it at that. I haven't got all of those, but any designation change. >> Yeah. So, that was the Union Hotel
specifically because it was they're changing the designation to um let me see >> significant non-contributing historic contemporary. >> Yeah. Because of the addition, right, Dennis? >> Right. >> Right. >> Right.
Dennis. >> Yes. >> Say it again. significant, non-contributing, historic, contemporary. It's like slashes between the three of them. So, significant,
that's the hotel, the old hotel, non-contributing, historic, and then slashcontemporary. That's what John Hatch, you know, would say it is now. That whole complex. >> Okay.
>> All right. So, not just the hotel, it's the complex the entirety of the >> Yeah, it's the address is it's 70 to 74 Main Street, but it's covering that that property. >> What about the demolitions associated with that project? Like the Flemington.
>> Yeah. So, then yeah, on Spring Street. So, um you know, we had like the Flemington Furs. So that one it's now listed as demolished on on our listing. So we have those as well.
>> But but a demolition is not a change in designation. >> No. >> Okay. >> And the reason being if you look through the entirety of the ordinance and what is to be done at each stage. It's to give the property owner the ability to come and challenge. >> So you know here it's not necessarily
the case I'm presuming. But, you know, if the building's been demolished, there's not been a challenge. >> I'm just curious, do they do they um do the designations? When I say they I mean, John, I don't even know
if he if John Hatch explained this at your meeting or not, but did he say that they look at it parcel by parcel? Because in the case of a Union Hotel, the original parcel is the the what's now still the facade, right,
of the Union Hotel. So, I'm just curious if the designations are looked at parcel by parcel. >> Just said it was parcel. It's the parcel the redevelopment plat area now parcels.
>> Fact, but the other ones were demolished. the original parcels were demolished and this is the new address designation that they had to consider. >> No, but I don't think you >> but I think I think what you're asking is that is the HBC list by address or is
it a lot blocked? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Yeah, >> by address. It's so like 40 to 42 Main Street, 48 to 52 Main Street, 56 to 66, 68 Main Street, and then 70 to 74. So
it's it's by address. That's how it's done. >> Okay. That's how your list is organized and that's how you've been running. But does the ordinance in terms of notification all the rest of it is a referred to lot because that's how most planning stuff happens because every
time we had a hearing on Union Hotel, we had to read off 22 parkings because that was how >> and if you recall, you know, back in 2010, we just started with the one parcel, >> right? original area, but this >> right and then it was another another. So, I'm I'm just more curious and if if
that >> consideration is Yeah. applicable or or to this, you know, that affects affects John's analysis. I I don't I'm getting kind of
nerdy. It's fine. Just so we're clear, the purpose of this listing is we put it on the website. So if a resident is doing some work, they look up their address, they determine
what the designation is. Likewise, if someone was interested in purchasing a property, they can look up the address to see the designation. Um, it's really street address. That's how it's been out there. Um, and we're
trying to just update the list so that we have the most current list. So, um, it's always been street address. It doesn't have block or lot on there. >> Okay. >> And it's a partial map. >> And it's partial.
>> Yeah. Denn Dennis um we are we are talking to that for that one because to to um to Jeff's point there is a map that is part of your ordinance and part of your defining
ordinance as the h as the historic district has a list that you're talking about it also has a map and that map is >> right we have the map >> right >> but that map is identified by parcel lot a lot not address it the the the map shows this the
designations of your lot. So So to to Susan's point, it must be by lot even though you're now identifying an address to that lot. Also, >> I think the historic district goes by address like do you know what I mean? Like when when you establish the historic district, if you look at that
original report, it lists address, address, address. So, but I I think our our the national historic district designation was applied by address, but I think that your map is bipartial. >> The map is by par.
>> Oh, no. I I can share the Can I share the map? I have the map. It's it's it's got addresses on it. And that's one of the things that when we were doing the in >> What's that? when we did the whole
reassessment of it, there's a map with an outline of the historic district lots >> that that by definition outline of the of the lots. >> It's a map with with addresses on each property. It's got the street address on the
property on on the map. >> I have it up. I can share it if you want. But it's all >> right. I'm looking at what was attached to >> it shows the outline of the parcels, but it does not indicate the block and lot. >> Right.
>> It just shows the street the house address is inside the building on the map. >> Right. I'm just wondering if Don would have recommended
that parcel be >> from the original building be independently significant >> and the other parcels be identified >> as opposed to changing the entire
um >> uh but can I share the It's got the Union Hotel. The Union Hotel. The old uh You want me to share the Old Union Hotel >> is on the map. Let me just get the right
screen. >> Can he do it? >> Let me know. The Old Union Hotel is on the map as significant. Can you see what I'm sharing? >> It's coming through. It's starting to >> There it goes.
>> Okay. And I may have to make it. Should I try and make it bigger? >> Zoom in a little. >> Zoom in a little. Hold on a sec. >> Okay. Can you see? So, right here. Can
you see where my cursor is? >> We're lag. >> Okay. Okay. So, this is Cordau Square. The orange that says 70, that is the old
Union Hotel. That's significant. The stuff behind it, the purple, that's all the new stuff that's saying non-contributing, >> right? So it's very specific on the properties on what pieces even though it
may be multiple properties it's very specific on which building is significant contributing or non-contributing. Does that help? >> Well on this on this map you have two you have an orange one that says 70 Main
Street and then you have the purple block is labeled 70 to 74. >> Thanks. Yeah. >> Right. What is that? >> That's all the new stuff. >> Do you have two listings for that area? >> Am I right or wrong? You have
>> No. No. So, the property is is 70 to 74. That's why it had the three designations, but if someone was doing something, we would look at, okay, is it the Union Hotel, the old Union Hotel? That one's
significant. But if it's related to behind it, we would look at which building they're talking about like we always do when there's an application. >> I actually think the map answers my question better. >> Okay. So, >> and this was my point of this whole
conversation was this this whole it's the the designation isn't downgraded. I think the word downgraded was used last time and it's not that the designation is downgraded. That parcel is still
significant. Yes. The rest of the Yeah. The rest of the the addresses are either non-contributing, historic, contemporary, but there it's it's very clear on the map. So I I'm I'm my questions answered. >> And also I would just add you don't want
to block and pro because the property could span across right to your point Susan. So um you know so it is building specific. So yes, it's building specific and that so but what what I think that the map helps answer that the the the
question what I'm asking Jim is the ordinance requirement that allow that necessitates us having this public process for change in designation >> that is that is building specific right and so where is it parcel specific or is
it mailing address specific what how is what trigger that's the be a question that follows because we're if we're going to have to do some sort of public process for some set of these buildings. >> I just want to make sure we're using the
right terminology, right? We're not changing the we're not downgrading it. We're adding these other >> um they're clarifying. If you don't want to say it's downgrading then it's
reflecting what is actually there now what they're trying to do. >> Yeah. I think the terminology someone used the word downgrade last week and I think that's I just want to make sure we're sorry to to Susan's point though I think the more we talk about this the more
we're kind of going towards definitely having to do this because yes they are new buildings so new buildings are being designated. a designation. Even if we're not changing the Union Hotel, it's an amendment because it's the same area, but it's a new building that's being
designated. >> That's where I was going. >> Okay. That's exactly right. Yes. Thank you. >> We're not actually changing the Union Hotels designation. We are newly designating the newly constructed buildings on >> adding designated buildings to the historic district. >> Correct. So we have to do the process
and it's got to be for all of the for that matter it'll be you know anything else like that follows that down the road we'll have to do this for the other redevelopment areas because the Agly buildings and all the other stuff >> I still think demo we don't have to because that's okay. So,
>> but to our original point, my my point question then coming up from this is when we then do this public hearing, what like Jeff said with the redevelopment, we had to list out all the blocks. Are we going to do this public hearing for the
redevelopment area with all those blocks and then do mass designations or are we designating by the address of the current building? I think isn't that we're going to have to really work that. >> I think Gemini and Yeah. >> Yeah. I I Dennis and we'll have to sit
and say, "Okay, let's make sure we're perfectly clear of what's happening." We have the general question answered, >> which is in these instances, yes. Unfortunately, >> based on our current ordinance, this is what we have to do. >> Um, then I think we can figure out which
ones that pertains to and then therefore what we need to do notificationwise. And then do you want to do a joint you know historic and planning board meeting because that was something we've done before to you know decrease costs. How do we want to do it? But I think if let
us identify the parcels that we're talking about and then we can >> figure out what's necessary. >> So now having said all that the other things on tenis list we're okay with and we're allowed to just say yes you can change it or just how do we go about
that now? But we just say vote yes, we're going to let them do that and then separate this one out for future process that we have to figure out. >> Yeah, because I didn't want to hold up the rest of the list. They can do the rest of the list, but we need to do something to >> But but do we even have to vote on it is my question.
>> I was just going to ask Jim. I don't think we do. >> They can just we can we have no >> their changes are not governed by the ordinance and they can go ahead and do what they need to, >> right? So does that >> Yeah, I would agree. >> You agree with that, Jim? I would agree
>> changes just so >> well I think Dennis the the things that so if we're correcting an address um if I think we've agreed that if a building is demolished
that's what you're you're just noting it demolished in the in the database but I think I mean >> based on my review of the list I I think It's anything that's a correction to reflect
maybe what's published in the, you know, the state data or whatever the case may be. Any correction is not a concern. I think the Union Hotel, >> okay, >> designation is really the only one that I saw that is a a change to the
designation. It's not a correction. >> Okay. So I I think that's the only one that requires the public hearing. >> Okay. >> Because I see a lot of correction, you know, correct.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think the general field then Dennis is everything else on the list except call house square effectively, but let's just call it that at this point because that's the project. Um >> everything except that is acceptable for you to change. Now I'm just trying to work out how we do it we is it worth
sending like a a memo from the planning board to HBC that as per this list then we can then attach that list so it's then formalized as of this date this was the list that we agreed to change so it's clear this list you can change on the website >> that's not a bad idea because it's a
record of the board's discussion and and where we ended up >> I want to be clear which ones and then it's it's itemized out what Dennis's changes that the HPC's changes that they're Okay. >> Well, >> okay. So, so I I I just want to be careful here because I'm I'm looking at the list that was circulated at the last
meeting and looking at the highlighted rows. It's not it's not I don't think it's just courthouse square because where there's it says change designation on several properties on Brown Street and a couple on street. Those are all
tied to Libert Village project. Um there's so and then there's >> so well let's go through. So there's two on Brown that were demolished. So it's taken them off the list. There are two that were not on the list. They were on
the map but they were not on the list um on Brown. So would those be included since they're they were not on the list before? >> Were they officially designated somewhere? Were they identified as dead? It's >> saying on the map they are
>> on the map and we adopted the map. We went to a full public hearing for the map. >> It was we just found that they were not on the list >> that would be a correction. >> That's that's an administrative correction that what you're saying is on the map knows it. >> Okay. Okay.
>> Right. Isn't it only about adding new designations that we're concerned >> or different? Yeah. >> Let's make sure we've been through the correct public. >> All right. That's So those are the Brown Street ones. Okay. Then Church Street. >> Yeah, Church. Um it was actually
flip-flopped um between three and five Church Street. They were wrong on the listing. Um so it's >> Are they correct on the map? >> Um I believe they were. So if there if green is correct on the
map and it's just fixing your your the database then that's administrative and that's okay. >> Yeah, >> we can confirm make a note that we confirm. >> Okay. >> Um we have Okay. But like 19 Church Street which was vacant and then they
built a building, new construction, >> right? >> That's that's got to go to a process, right? >> Um 39 church. It may be it may be easier just covering the ones that are highlighted and just doing it all
together. >> Long as I mean if they're demolished then that's different, right? Though >> I I'm I just I I we don't have the time to go through all of these right now. I'm just saying that my looking at it. It's more than just courthouse square.
And so if if Carara and if we can have HPC and Jim have a memo like was suggested and list all the ones where it's a changing designation more than just it was on the map but we forgot to put it on the spreadsheet stuff. >> Yeah.
>> We have to we we got we gota be careful right? >> Yeah we need to create two lists now. One which is administrative changes and one which which would um changes that require public hearing it. Right. >> Well that's easy. I I can just pull it out of the spreadsheet. >> Right. And the administrative ones, we
can do a memo. We'll do a memo from planning board, which we'll vote on next time. We'll create it to get we'll create a memo with that listing up behind it saying these administrative changes can be made. And then we have to start the public hearing process for the other.
>> Here we go. Put it on the docket. >> Jimmy, you okay with that? >> I am. >> All right. >> All right. So, so Dennis, if Dennis, if you and Jim can work out the lists correctly and get it to
>> car and I and then we can create a memo that we can have the board vote on sending this memo, formalize the uh the administrative changes and then recommend that we start a public hearing for the ones that require it.
>> Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. >> Thank you. >> Back to the next meeting. >> I understand you have a different chair. >> Sorry, it's just a personal administrative error. Um,
right. Um, okay. Thank you everybody. >> Item 14, chair items. Um, we'll just add the annual report to like doing the annual report we talked about earlier. Um, I'm going to keep speaking brief. Does anybody have anything they want to raise? >> I'm remote next few weeks. >> You're going to be remote, but you're
going to be in. >> Okay. Should be all right. Anyway, okay. Thank you. Um, >> I I am not here. Thanks. I think I told you that last time. >> What is this trip? You have booked
yourself. You're a nice trip. >> I will be in Puerto Rico. Although Spark's on there, I might do a surprise. >> Don't say that. >> Same time zone. >> Same time zone. >> I have been left in that a few times.
>> Can I come in just for that? Do I have to be here for the whole >> Yeah, you have to be. >> Yeah. You just have to make sure you're here for the whole thing. >> Got it. >> I'm talking right now. No, I'll be on the beach. So,
>> we don't know why they keep me on the beach with >> But I will one caveat to that. >> I don't need to see it. >> I I don't need to be jealous. >> You have to put a >> office
sitting in the hammock with my laptop. >> You know, I have three Let's take this offline. >> Strike from the record to strike. >> I wish you all
>> um 15 bills is here, but they weren't distributed. So, we'll have to do those next time. >> Were the >> Were the ones for the last meeting distributed? >> I thought we mentioned that last time.
We We did. Yeah, those are >> What I mean is these new ones were in this packet. >> Usually get uploaded and sent out the agenda. >> So, we didn't get those time. We didn't get those ones. These ones that are new
that you wanted me to look are the No, these are the last time. We don't have any new ones. >> No, there's no new it. >> Sorry to confusion. >> I was confused. >> These were last time. >> There's no new ones. The ones that were
in the last >> Wait, did we? >> Yes, >> we did. We talked about which ones were okay and which ones were at the >> Yes. Perfect. All right. Um item 16 is
an ex executive session required car. >> Nope. >> Okay, great. Perfect. And motion to catch this. >> Yes. >> There you go. >> I'm writing it down. >> Yes.
>> All in favor? Bye. >> Bye. >> Good night. Thank you. >> Bye. >> Thanks everyone. >> Bye. >> Thanks. >> Bye. >> Enjoy the sunshine. Okay.