Thank you. That looks like rock and roll. Okay. Call the June meeting to order. Please stand 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. >> Okay. Pursuant to the no public meeting act, the South Jersey Times and the Sentinel were notified of this meeting. It was posted in the municipal building
and also on the uh township website. >> Chrissy, you could take role when you get a chance. >> Mr. Mr. Leo >> here, >> Mr. >> Here, >> Mr. Polo, Mr. >> Here,
>> Mr. M >> here, >> Mr. here. >> Mr. >> Here, >> chairman >> here. >> Okay. I guess in the absence of uh Mr. Garolo and Mr. Gatana, we'll sit our two
alternates, uh Andy Ham Hamilton and Carl Terrasca. Okay. The minutes of the April meeting. Is there a motion to approve those? >> I make that motion. Motion by Dana Beseri. I'll >> second. >> Second by Richard Glacius. All in favor?
>> I opposed. >> Any abstensions? >> Got it. >> All right. We have one application on our agenda tonight. That is Arc Properties LLC. Do you want to explain the the history
of this Mike before we move forward? >> Yes. There's not actually something different before. So just to give a brief history and as to how we got here and why we're here tonight um an application was made for
12 ft of frontage for 15 application board. Um it was denied by the board by resolution in September on September 2nd.
Uh the appeal is under denial to the spirit court name party. The hearing was held on March 2nd of 6 on the appeal. Just so understood what
it appealing board decision is a little bit different as the mother. uh when the court holds a hearing, the court is not warning another hearing for testimony or two out of this. The court is only making a decision based upon the record below. He he looks at what the
transcript of that length said. He looks at whatever documents, engineering report, plans and so forth um were presented in tenants that the judge looks at. He does not have an attorney to refuse that. Um the attorneys reach
5% briefing for her position. The applicant appealing defending decision and um and then they uh the court makes decision. Okay, here's argument verbal oral argument attorney.
And so uh the ordinary order of March 17th to 26 reversing the board's decision and thereby granting the varian um and we sent it back for a very limited or purpose. We sent it back to
the board to establish reasonable conditions for the access. So they had a 10 foot access field was his job to decide how much clearing there was on sort of above the access what the base should be. So
reasonable conditions regarding the uh um so it was clear that we're not reopening the variance application that's been concluded here for the limited purpose of setting the conditions. The conditions can't be
contrary to what what the court did. For instance, you can't say the condition is going to be 50 years and the governor says they have 12. So you can't do something that's going to mate. Um so again this has to be reasonable.
We have a letter from our engineer is not here tonight. have a letter from the engineer and tell me his or submitted by the applicant and their engineer talk about what they are proposing and I can relate to
you based on letter questions. >> No, no questions. Just that I'm reading new order and it says we may not reopen evidence or revisit the grant or denial of the variance. >> Okay. All right. to
AR CR. >> Yeah. >> Hey everyone. Uh good afternoon. My name is Ben Ozeris. I'm an attorney with Cooper Levenson and I represent uh the developer here ARCR. Um as uh Michael pointed out there was
an appeal. Uh the superior court granted the variance and sent us back here to discuss reasonable conditions uh to ameliate any negative impact the 10-ft frontage would have. Um a as Michael also discussed we had some back and
forth with uh Mr. Shidig the engineer for the board on what we could do, what would be reasonable to do and what he would recommend. Um and I have with me Kyle Denny, professional engineer. he was before you uh for the original hearing and he will discuss some of
those uh reasonable conditions we worked out um just to do like a really highle review of them. I'm not an engineer so he would be better suited. We are going to comply with a driveway ordinance uh that doesn't necessarily apply to this
property but we're going to take some of the cues from that and how we are going to structure this driveway. We are going to add a section for two vehicles to pass each other. So, it will widen as it gets into the interior of the lot and one car can pull over to the side, the
other one can pass. Um, and we're going to do some other things, but we think what we're proposing will be reasonable and will really help um ameliorate, as I said, those concerns of the limited frontage variance that was granted. So, um, without further ado, I'd like to bring up Kyle and I'd like to get him
sworn in as an expert. >> Okay, raise your right hand, please. You swear to tell the truth about the testimony you're going to give. >> I do. >> Name and address for the for the record, please. >> PO Box 120, Franklin, New Jersey. >> Is anyone else going to be doing any testimony on your book?
>> We'll swear him in now. >> Um, we have with us, uh, Nick Barbetta from ARCR. I'm not sure his testimony is going to be needed for this, but if we want to swear him in just in case, that's fine. >> No, might as well. Okay, raise your right hand, please. You swear to tell the truth about the testimony you're
going to get. >> Name and address, please. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. As Ben indicated, there was some coordination with the board engineer uh reviewing of the ordinance that could apply it uh as well as possible. So, we're going to intersect
the roadway at a 90° angle. Uh any radiuses in the driveway are going to be a minimum of 40 ft on the inside. Um the proposed grading will prevent any dragging of vehicle undercarriages and as Ben indicated we have a um the
required size that specified the passing area right here. So a negative example for coming in session coming from that passing spot and let them go by or vice versa. Uh so we provided that uh also
providing the maximum visibility possible out of the road. Um it's actually greater than some of the adjacent properties. Uh and to note on the southern side of our driveway, there's actually a 13.25
offset of the right away previous subdivision on the adjacent properties. So the county came in and took an additional 13.25 ft. So all this area adjacent to us to the south will wide open. There's paving and no trees or anything like that to the county right
away. Um, and that will be the side where we will have our mailbox with the house number so there's no discrepancy on where the address is located. Uh, and our typical paving section is added to the plans and it meets what the
ordinance requires and is able to support 80,000 lbs. And as far as grading goes, we're going to meet the uh stringent storm requirements of the township county. >> Okay. What what uh do you want to go over the the engineers report then because
>> Yeah, I think >> what what do you what's the he was concerned I know about the the subbase of the of the driveway and what the driveway's going to be. Uh >> you're going to have a 6 in section of stone which is called PDA dense graated
aggregate and then there's 2 in of top paving which is the standard uh garageway just like what we did on Golden Mill all throughout the municipality. That's the required. There's some driveways that are a couple hundred ft long. There's actually other properties along standing that are all
stone and those houses are set 500 ft off the roads. And when we go and do construction, 6 in of DGA will support our construction vehicles. Uh, and that'll be compacted as they're coming in and building the house. So that without even the top paving on it, that
6 in of DGA would be sufficient to support the fire trucks. So that was my understanding when I takes minimum in travel
and restrict our engine. And before we go any further, I think we forgot to qualify Kyle as an expert accepted. I've already >> Yeah, >> that you don't have to do that. >> He's fine.
>> We acknowledge him as an expert in his field. Okay. >> Don't take us to court on that. >> The other thing that was mentioned in our letter >> clearing >> everything be kept trimmed to a minimum
of 14 ft above the Broadway service. Yes, we would adhere to that. You already mentioned the numbers being displayed at the >> entrance finaliz building the house that
question I had was the plan you have for 26 development. Yeah, there there's no other room to put any other spots as far as the fact. >> Yeah, I mean, well, within the setback factory, right, we're trying to center
it on the lot. There may be minor deviations, but they're not going to be hard set that the house size could be used down. Um but yeah, we're going to just the area that I took over all the
um developments here. That's really all that was in the um the letter from Mr. Longer than that. I guess my question was mainly regarding service being able to support emergency vehicles.
So 6 in of DJ, 2 in of asphalt the whole way. >> Yes. Yes. >> Clearing clearing to 14 ft >> height. >> Right. And how about the radiuses coming out? They're on the county right away, right? >> Yeah. They're just they're just flared
out into a typical set that radius mentioned for this radius here. So the inside radius is a minimum of 40 outside will be you know 50. >> You're talking about where that uh pass through. Yeah. So you don't have a real tight turn where it's hard to navigate. It's a gradual turn.
>> I was talking about out on the county road. >> Yeah. So this is I have a 5ft neighbor section that's out of the county. >> I'm not sure >> and that's all and we go from area
>> the pavings part. That's my home. All right, guys. Have any questions for uh the applicant? Any more any other conditions you could think of besides what our engineer recommends? >> You had said there was going to be a widening for two cars.
>> Yes, I understand. >> Based on discussion with the engineer, uh it's right here. We did a stone area close to the property line uh to reduce the amount of runoff. So if any car is coming in here, if a car is coming out the driveway, they will come all the way
down here to this bypass area. It is 10 ft by 25 ft which is required by the ordinance. So that section that's actually rectangular is 10 by 25 and then you got some additional paper. >> Okay.
>> All right. If you don't have any other questions, we'll open up to the public. Is there a motion to open this up to the to the public? Motion by motion by Russell Leo. Second second by Jim Kum. All in favor? I
opposed. Okay. Is anybody from the public like to be heard regarding uh these reasonable conditions uh with ARCR? Come forward. >> No complaints. >> Raise your right hand, please. You swear to tell the truth about the testimony you're going to give. >> I do. Your name and address, please.
Lucas Postfeld 30 whitetail pass Franklin before we start the clock. Um last time I was illprepared in terms of the 3minut uh time uh time frame. Should my wife come up with me? We have
a 4 and 1/2 minute speech. So should we come up together or should we tag team on the experience? >> Are you going to be talking about strictly the conditions? >> Strictly the conditions. >> Yeah. So can I speak for the both of us? >> Yeah, you can speak for both of you. No. Fantastic. So that so that clock is
already 30 seconds in. I didn't have an opportunity to start. >> Put it back to zero, Chris. Or 3 minutes, whatever. >> Okay. Thank you very much. This is at least at least the fifth time residents have come out to communicate our concerns in this matter. Last
meeting, I inquired as to a watershed feasibility study that would allay any concerns over storm water runoff issues into our development. This has this been done? In the previous meeting, the engineer casually dismissed these concerns. My neighbor is in the
process of building a pole barn. Brought in 400 tons of fill and gravel to raise the grade under his building over 2 ft. This work is not being done unnecessarily. a 10- foot wide, 900 ft imperous
driveway, cleared lot, and proposed dwelling all will have a negative watershed issue for those of us that are on the receiving end of the slope property. I've already noted the retention basins are not functioning properly in both Clark as well as Whitetail Pass. In the recent mailing
from Cooper Levenson, ordinance item number four references to the extent possible, the applicant will comply comply with chapter 253 design standards. This brings up additional concerns over the zoning board's documents which set minimum design
standards that all driveways shall be constructed in accordance with minimum requirements. Concerns stemming from these minimum requirements include the following. 4.1A. The purpose of the purpose of this subsection is to set certain standards
for the design to provide adequate access to properties for emergency service vehicles. The current proposed is 9 ft width in the site plan does not do so. 4.1B permit requirements. The proposed driveway locations and details
shall include on the site plan submitted in conjunction with the application for a zoning permit. Construction has already begun with tree clearing, gravel base, and silt fence installed. Was a permit approved? If not, what is the recourse to this action? 4.1
C4. Driveway shall have a minimum cart width of 12 ft. Proposed width of the driveway in the site plan submitted to the township is 9 ft. This safety standard should not be overlooked. 4.1C2 states that minimum design standards
require a driveway to be set back a minimum of 5 ft from the side property line. This proposed construction leaves inches, not feet, adjacent to multiple properties. There is no way to place a 9 or 10t wide
driveway in the existing building envelope following the township's guidelines. How can an attorney submit a statement as vague as to the extent possible and have these blatant requests be considered seriously? Residents will have to live with the board's decision long after this
evening. If these zoning regulations and restrictions are going to be overlooked, what assurances do the residents have that this property will not be subdivided allowing for more than one structure? May I continue? I we're not going to make a habit of you three minutes. I mean,
>> so that I can pass it off to my wife. Yes. Fantastic. >> Pass it off to your wife. >> Raise your right hand, please, so we could uh swear to tell the truth about the testimony you're going to give. >> Yes. >> Name and address. >> Team post 131 pass.
>> What is the point of regulations and minimum requirements if builders are able to sidestep them? Finally, we want to revisit the resident's concern of property values related to the proposed structure being built in between the developments of Clark and White Tail Pass. We purchased our property 18 years
ago being told this property was landlocked and could not be built upon. Now, a judge has overruled the zoning board eliminating the 150 ft variance without notice to the residents. This ruling is is specific to the 150 to 10 ft variance relief, not the additional
design standards, specific to chapter 253. This decision will have negative will have a negative impact on day-to-day life with the watershed issue that already floods our development, cars traveling down a 900 ft driveway in our backyards, and a direct financial impact
to all of us now that we will no longer have an undisturbed wooded lot behind our homes. At what point Is it considered unreasonable to continue to reapply for these waivers for the benefit of one individual who knowingly purchased a landlocked piece of property?
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else like to be heard regarding this this application? Please come forward. >> Are these the same? We'll swear you in, please. >> These are the same. >> No. >> Oh, okay. So, we'll pass. Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear to tell the truth about the testimony you're going to get?
>> I do. >> Name and address. >> Kimberly Hson, 2635 Main Road. I'm the property that is directly affected by this driveway. >> I understand that this variance is being forced due to a court order, which came as a surprise and also a disappointment to many of us. I'm back here tonight
asking the board to ensure that if this project does move forward any further, that it does not come at the expense of my property, the safety of my family, or my neighbors, or infringe on the right of my property, the rights or infringe on my rights as a property owner who pays taxes in this town. We still have
very serious concerns about emergency vehicle access. To help you better visualize this area and the property line, I brought some photos with you with me tonight. As you can see, this still leaves a very long stretch of narrow single lane access where multiple vehicles cannot safely pass. The twocar
width passing area showing on ARCR's proposal is more than 425 ft from the main road. In emergency situation, every second matters. Safe and direct access matters for everyone. A 9 foot wide driveway carrying up to 80,000 lbs is not a minor installation. Without
safeguards, it creates very real risks such as storm water runoff, soil instability, property damage, and has the potential for other nuance nuisance impacts like vibration and encroachment. Drainage is also a huge concern for us. I am requesting that the board require a professionally engineered water runoff
management plan be submitted that ensures zero impact in water runoff onto my property and also includes the potential impact to the aquifer below that feeds our well. If any hydrocarbons such as fuel, oil, or hydraulic fluids are redirected onto my land, that becomes not just a major inconvenience,
but also a very serious legal issue. I'm asking that a binding maintenance and liability agreement be put in place and filed with the township for this parcel. This should cover drainage and sprinkler systems, ground maintenance such as snow removal, and acknowledge a a liability concerning any future damage to adjacent
properties. During the construction phase, I am requesting that the township oversee and impose strict erosion and sediment controls along with periodic in-person inspections conducted by township officials that will be documented and available for public review during and after the inspection
process. I request the township document current conditions of all surrounding properties that could be negatively impacted by the development of this driveway and the property. My final request is that the township have a written agreement drawn up that will limit the property's
development to a single family home. Due to this 10-foot access, unless, of course, another neighbor agrees to sell additional property to the LLC. These protections must not be temporary. They should run with a property regardless of who owns it. Our property should not be collateral damage for the gain of one
property owner. To be clear, I am not asking for anything unreasonable. I am asking for enforceable conditions that ensure the development of this property does not cause harm to existing homes. Thank you. Anyone else like to be heard?
Raise your right hand, please. You swear it tells me about the testimony you're going to give. >> I know. >> Name and address. >> Tyr47, New Jersey. Um, I have a question. Is a fire truck getting down there? And yeah, a firet truck I'm sure is getting down there.
>> Okay. So, with that and it being 9 foot and we have um we have Facebook communication with the fire truck that's 9'4 in. So, if it's 9'4 in with the 9 ft driveway, I'm not sure how that's fitting down there, but >> it's 10 ft, not nine.
>> Isn't this nine in here? >> The paved part is the 9 ft. So if the fire truck does 94, aren't the wheels falling off the asphalt? >> They might be on the edge of the the Yeah, it might be >> fence on the trees. >> Okay. So then my other question or
proposal to that is the home should probably have an in inh home sprinkler system as well to protect the neighbors that are around it because that is an issue if the tires for the fire truck can't fit on the asphalt. Thank you.
>> Anyone else like to be heard? Good evening here, buddy. >> Raise your right hand, please. You swear to tell the truth about the testimony you're going to give. >> I do. >> Name and address. >> Marshall 67, New Road, Mal. Just a couple other questions. Maybe it's addressed on there. 12T is a normal for
most emergency vehicles. Obviously, it's going to be less than that except for whatever tree clearance is there. You guys, most of your least couple years are firing. You know how tight tight that's going to be to get down there in the event there is an issue. Any curves from that driveway also are supposed to be 14 to 18 ft wide for that truck to make that navigation. At the end of that
driveway, there's supposed to be a complete turnaround for all emergency vehicles that are within that township to turn around. These are state guidelines. Firemen should know this. So, I want to make sure that everybody's clear of that before this gets approved in any way, shape, or form. >> We're not It's already approved. >> I understand. >> All we're doing is conditions. These are
conditions you may not want. >> We can't change. The judge said 10 ft is is wide enough. There's the order, right? That's out of our hands. >> Yeah. >> Well, like I said, it's just it's these are concerns that should be addressed and the residents are ones that are going to be impacted from this and it's time people stand up for these people.
>> And I understand you may have to climb in the first time, but that maybe we should have done a better job fighting for that something needs to be done to stop this. There's a pattern with certain builders in this town getting this kind of and this I know wasn't it was decided outside here, but it's got it and it's going. Thank you.
>> Anyone else here? Anyone else like to be heard? If not, uh, is there a motion to close the public? >> I make a motion to close the public portion. >> Motion by Richard Glacius. >> Second. >> Second by Russell Leo. All in favor? I opposed.
>> Councilor, is there anything you would like to add the closing remarks for this? Um any what? >> Nothing nothing really to add. Uh just a few clarifications. Um again we're just here for the reasonable conditions. Uh
that code section where we wrote to the extent possible. The reason why it was written like that is because that code section only applies when you're um developing a subdivision in multiple units. Uh so we just felt that was the
most analogous code section to what we were doing that had standards already written. Um and that's where we work with Dave. If you look or Mr. Shide if you look in his review letter um he kind of reprints that code section and he underlines the certain portions that he
thinks would be most applicable to our project and those are the sections that we are working with to make sure happen. So, we think that is a reasonable condition. We've worked with him and and and we certainly think that this will work and
the fire vehicles and we'll be able to reach it and these conditions can ameliate some of the concerns of the board and we're working with what we can do here. So, we appreciate your time. We appreciate your consideration. Okay. >> Can you clarify actual list of vehicles
or >> Sure. If you you want to address some of the concerns, that's a good idea. >> So, we're not proposing any curves. And with vehicles, the standard axle width is 96 in, which is 8 ft. That's where
the tires are. Um, oversized axles are 102 in, which is 8 ft 6 in. So that's insider paving area of 9 ft. That's why we selected a 9 ft gave us 6 in on each side. >> Thank you. >> Are you are you confident that the you
the final grade won't affect anybody's drainage? >> Yeah, we'll ensure that it's graded to direct storm water either to the road or back onto our box. >> All right. Thank you. That's good. Yeah. Thanks.
All right. Any uh any other qu Andy any questions uh to >> No, I don't have a guest for Russell Jim. >> So this motion would be >> I was just going to say sorry to interrupt. Can we clarify what the
motion's going to >> what the motion is? Like what are we actually voting >> just for those conditions? >> Well, because I understand there's some there's some things that we that we're not right. We're not discussing the width, right? because that's off the table, right? Judge said that's that's
fine. So, what is the motion actually that we're discussing? >> We're voting on based upon the engineer review letter. We're talking about um the surface being as on the plan April 2nd 26 shows between the base and the
asphalt. It shows the drive ready to turn around. Um it shows the width. The other condition would be looking clear above but um I would also add that it certainly has to be maintained and once it's in it starts to deterior so the
support to be a future um Dave said that we have to adopt a resolution approving the the street frontage or that'll be in your resolution. Yeah, we're just we're just uh confirming basically the court's
order that we're position. >> Okay. So, you want to add the drainage making sure they comply with all drainage fire. >> But that that's in the in the in the engineers report which they're going to abide by.
And as far as any county requirements, they have to comply with those and any council requirements after the construction of the house. >> That's all normal. >> Still on the table. >> All right. Is there a motion to uh
approve those reasonable conditions? May I ask one that zoning board is not discussing the items that were brought up in the resident's concerns? These are in your guidelines. We we are outside of the judge's ruling.
The judge's ruling was on 150. Mr. Leo, the judge's ruling was on the 150 ft variance as a perpendicular driveway right of weight to the county road from 150 down to 10 ft. The judge's ruling
had nothing to do with the chapter 253 design standards created by the zoning board. And I don't hear that being discussed here. >> We didn't create anything >> that you uphold. Okay. So I I don't hear you discussing the fact that the
driveway is literally on the edges of neighboring property lines and it's it's superseding your own regulations of 5t width on either side. I I don't hear that being discussed. We we're not discussing it
because the judge told us not to discuss it. The judge asked you not to disc. >> I don't want to argue with you. I I don't want to argue with you, but we cannot talk about the width. >> I was going to say, Mike, if you could possibly weigh in on this, you're talking about the final on either side of the line right now.
>> That plan was submitted to the judge, which was part of the application. We showed where everybody's property was, what was so that was all on the table for those people the judge to review. So, the decision was made with that information.
May I ask then why Cooper Cooper Levenson then resubmitted this for review after that uh review from the judge? >> Respectfully the public comment portion h has ended. >> Yes.
>> That's just the way it works. And the reason why we resubmitted the plan was because this plan included the conditions we believe that can reasonably ameliate the concern. the the bypass area, the repaving
it's just okay. So, public portion is over. It's closed. >> Do you want to uh I'm going to make a motion here to do these things. We're going forever. >> Okay. >> I make a motion approving this
application as what was handed to us from the judge. We have set conditions according to what our engineer said and the conditions that you mentioned, Mike, that'll be included in the resolution
as far as the the paving and the sides, the DJ. >> Yes. >> And the grading >> and the Okay. But please, the public portion is over. >> No one will answer. >> Is there is there a second on the motion?
Why is the driver still there? Is >> there a second? Second second by Carl Chrissy. >> Yes. >> I'm still not clear before I say anything. Um
the the the judge's order or the his ruling, if you will. I'm not I don't understand like he's asking us just the Okay. the the reasonable uh conditions of the driveway. Am I looking at this right?
>> He's he's saying that he's allowing the board to set those conditions. He said that the 10 feet is approved. You can have a temporary access for a single pendant dwelling on that line. And he just wanted to make sure the court had the right to say it should be princess
clear and the base should be however many inches and maintain. So he just felt that those details should be left. Um that was it. >> But the judge overturned our previous
denial. We feel we voted and I and I know however >> and and he's basically uh sectionalizing the house and everything away from just what we're looking at now is the driveway and the
materials the the is going to be used to to build the driveway. Am I looking at that right? >> Yes. So the application was to build a single family dwelling with 10 wide access. Board denied it. It said that was not reasonable that you should have
the right to build a house with wide access. That's >> I I just don't know if everybody is clear with that in the audience and and that's that's what's kind of getting me. But I mean if we're looking at if all we're allowed to look at right now is the driveway. Right.
>> Right. How I have Yes. I vote yes on that because he's he's superseding what our our what our ordinance say. >> Okay. >> So I would Yes. Thank you. >> So was there a second on the motion?
>> Yeah. Okay. So we're ready for a vote. >> Mr. Mr. >> Yes. Mr. >> No. >> Yes.
Yes. >> Did you? >> So, how many was five? Yes. Okay. Uh motion approved. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Now we're >> Okay. Is there a motion? We need to go.
We need to go into close session. >> I make a motion we go into close session. >> I second. >> Second. Okay. >> All in favor? I oppose. Okay. Nobody addressed anything that I said
any of the things that I requested. I requested five things. Nobody said anything back to me. Thank you so much. >> You're welcome. >> I'm getting a pay. I'll be okay. They still >> Oh, thank you.
and you can go right back on the same type of thing more and so that's That's right. So now when somebody comes in and judge books about it really still lives back
and they get up here right he's done and and aesthetic and it's all because people have family here in
it's really important to join Well, he was here. He was here. I was see nothing will happen. And that's, you know, and these know how big their I don't blame them
927. Yes. >> Secondly, how big of the house? out here upstairs and we were trying to sell They're walking away and deals
people and nation and these guys not these guys. Separate all corners. And so it seemed that he was hoping to see that
they decided to Please down. Yes. >> Every one of them has had to use her channel and the channel basically on another piece around which and I can tell you
my daughter on either side. And she has everybody has not because nobody will ever primary That's why it always Okay, you gone?
>> All right, let me know if anything happens. I'll see what happens. Well, that's it. That's a good deal. Let's talk about that. And I saw every single messed up project in this.
Yeah. So, let's go. Let's go. There you go. That's harmful. Let's go. >> Okay. Okay. This is and if I was the judge and I don't if I was the judge I say let me
say something else. Okay. Is there a motion? >> But this is the guy. >> All right. Is there a motion to come back into regular session?
>> I make that motion. Second motion by Dana Cesar, second by Richard Glacius. All in favor? I. >> Okay. So, what we have to do now is nominate a a uh an attorney because our attorney is retiring, Mike, after many, many years to this township. 40 years.
>> How many years? 40. >> 40. >> Good for you. >> John's the only one who was here. >> I think I was here. >> I was born. >> So, you're getting >> I'm 42 years. >> John's 42.
25. I'll just say I wasn't born yet. >> I tried to drag John out. >> Okay. >> All right. Is there a >> I'd like to make a motion to nominate Brandon Deuce. >> Okay. There's a nomination. Is there any other >> It's actually Dustin Stanganger.
>> Dusty Stanganger's affirm, but the attorney is going to be Brandon Deus. >> De Jesus. Are there any other nominations? If there are nominals, move to a vote to vote. Uh, >> no other nominations. >> There is no other. There is
>> no there are none, they will go right to a vote to uh appoint our new solicitor. >> I make a motion appointing uh Mr. Deus and his his firm. >> Oh, we already did it. Can I second it?
>> You can do the second. That's fine. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Anything anything to confuse you? >> I'm good. >> First, >> I didn't second, but >> I will I will second.
>> Yeah, >> all in favor. >> All in favor? >> I oppose extensions. Okay. Uh, now we have to also appoint a conflict engineer. >> I I uh nominate both point >> environmental resolutions.
>> I'll second. >> We had a second down there. >> All in favor? >> I opposed. >> We have some resolutions, I think, right? motion.
>> Okay. Is there a motion to approve resolutions? >> I make a motion we approve CD 2523 and EB2601. >> Motion by Danny Deazzer. >> Second Russell. Oh, I haven't seen it.
>> I wasn't here. >> So, who made the second then? >> Mr. Ham will second that. >> Mr. Ham. >> Okay. >> You want to do a roll call for this? Yes, >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Glacius. >> Yes.
>> Chairman. >> Yes. >> Okay. Just one thing I want to bring up that uh I wasn't at reorganization cuz I was sick. But there's no July meeting cuz you you voted for not to have a July meeting.
>> Yeah, that makes sense. That's >> say so next month there is no meeting. >> Oh god. >> What? But it's uh it's on the record that uh they voted not to have a July meeting
every reorganization. >> I just want to make sure. So >> okay. All right. Okay. So is there a motion to I make a motion rejourn. Second motion. Second. All in favor. >> See how easy that was.
>> Just like that. Mr. You're free. >> Free. I gave you a quarter of my time. Break that down.