That's like seven. 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. Peter >> here. >> Mr. 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 Hamilton and Carl Terrasco. Okay. The minutes of the April meeting. Is there a motion to approve those minutes? >> I make I make that motion. Motion by Dana Besari. I'll >> second. >> Second by Richard Glaciius. All in favor?
>> I opposed. >> Any abstensions? >> Got it. >> All right. We have one application on our agenda tonight. That is Arc Properties LLC.
Harry, do you want to explain the the history of this Mike before we move forward? >> Yes, there's not actually an application. It's something different before our board. 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 school with 10 ft of frontage for fire. The application required for the board. um was denied by the board by resolution in September on September 2nd.
Uh the after killed the zoning board denial for the superior court. Uh name the zoning board and the town party. The hearings was held on March 2nd of 26 on the appeal. Just so understood what
it appealing board decision as the mother. Uh when the court holds a hearing, the court is not holding another hearing to testimony or two evidence. The court is only making a decision based upon the record below. He he looks at what the transcripts of that
length say. 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 a hearing sign to refuse that. Um
the attorneys reached 5% briefing for her position. The applicant appealing defending decision and um and then the uh court decision
here's argument terrible oral argument attorney. So, uh, the ordinary order of March 17th to 26 reversing the board's decision and thereby granting the variance that they would deny um, and we sent it back for a
very limited or purpose. He sent it back to the board to establish reasonable conditions for the access. So they had a tempt access to decide how much clearing there was on sort of above the access what the base
should be. So so reasonable conditions regarding the uh accident. Um so it was clear that we're not reopening the variance application. Um that's been concluded. We're 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 ago. Um, so the conditions have to be reasonable.
We have a letter from our engineer. He is not here tonight. Have a letter from engineering book submitted by the applicant. They have their engineers talk about what what they are proposing and I can relate
to you based on our engineers letter question. >> 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. Uh
AR CR. Yeah. >> Hey everyone. Uh, good afternoon. My name is Ben Ozirkus. 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 ameliorate any negative impact the 10-ft frontage would have. Um, a as Michael also discussed, we had some back and forth with uh Mr. Shidik, 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 highlevel 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 testimony you're going to get. >> I do. >> Name and address for the for the record, please. >> Danny, PO Box 120, Franklin, New Jersey. Is anyone else going to be doing any testimony on your part? >> 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 them 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 test 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 revealing of the ordinance. The TL 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. Uh the proposed grading will prevent any dragging of vehicle undercarriages. And as Ben indicated, we have a um the required sign that specified for the
passing area right here. So a negative example for coming in street session is also coming when you go to that passing spot and then let them go by or vice versa. Uh so he 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 to a 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 was wide open. There's paving and no trees or anything like that. It's 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 was added to the plans and it meets what the ordinance requires and is able to
support 80,000 lb. And as far as braiding goes, we're going to meet the uh stringent storm road requirements of the township county. >> Okay. What what uh do you want to go over the the engineer's 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 gonna have a six inch section of stone which is called the EDA denated aggregate and then there's 2 in of top
paving which is the standard uh driveway just like what we did on Colton 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 we'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 called the ordinance which 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. >> Yeah, that >> he's fine. >> We acknowledge him as an expert in his
field. Okay. >> Don't take us to court on that. Um the other thing that was mentioned in our letter >> clearing >> everything be kept trimmed to a minimum of 4.
>> Yes we would adhere to that. You already mentioned the numbers being subject to finaliz building the house. Probably not as well. Another question I had was the plan you have before
that house. Yeah, there there's no other room to put any other spots as far as exactly. >> Yeah, I mean, well, within the setback, 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 will be used down. Um but yeah, we're going to this is the area that I took over for all the um development center. That's really all that was in the um the letter from Mr. Longer than that.
I said my number 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. >> Right. >> And how about the radiuses coming out? They're on the county right away, right? >> Yeah. They're just they're just flared in our typical set that radius mentioned for this radius here. So the inside radius is a minimum of 40 ft. Outside
would 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 paper section that's
out of the county. >> I'm not sure. >> And that's all and we go from >> the paving part. 9 ft. >> Yeah. >> How the hell is this? >> All right. You guys have any questions for uh the applicant?
>> Any more any other conditions you could think of besides what our engineer recommends? >> You said there was going to be a widening for two cars. >> Yes, I understand. >> Based on discussion with the crew 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 in 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 papers. 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 to give us motion by Russell Leo.
Second Charles second by Jim Krum. 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 Cofeld of 13 white tail pass frame. 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, 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, Chrissy, 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-ft 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 propose 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 a 10-ft 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 Coastville 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 this 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 wershed issue that already
plugged 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? So 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 testimony you're going to get? >> I do. >> Name and address. >> Kimberly Henson, 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 shown 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-ft 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. Just where it tells you about the testimony
you're going to give. >> I know. >> Name and address. >> Tyro 2647, New Jersey. Um, I have a question. Is a firet truck getting down there? >> Um, yeah, a firetruck 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 firet 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 that it's 10 ft, not nine. >> Isn't this nine in here? The paved part
is the 9 ft. >> So if the fire truck was 94, aren't the wheels falling off the asphalt? >> They might be on the edge of the the Yeah, might be >> fence or on the trees. >> Okay. So then my other question or proposal to that is the home should
probably have an in inhome 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. 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 at least a couple years are firing. You know how tight tight it'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 feet 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 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 declined them the first time, but that maybe we should have done a better job fighting for them, but 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, but it's got it and it's gone. 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? >> Any you want to >> 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 worked with Dave if you look or Mr. Shidik 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 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. >> Would you like me to clarify actual risk
of vehicles or >> Sure. If you you want to address some of the concerns 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 inside our paving area of 9 ft. That's why we selected a 9 ft g 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 lots. >> All right. Thank you. >> That's good. Yeah. Thanks. All right. Any uh any other qu Andy, any
questions? No, I don't have a board. 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 be? >> 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? Cuz 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 holding it on >> based upon the engineer review letter. We're talking about the surface being as of the plan dating April 2nd 26 shows the base and the asphalt shows the
driveway with the turnound. Um it shows the width. The other condition would be what we put clearance above but um I would also add that certainly has to maintain and once it's in it starts to deteriorate and that's pain. support.
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 to 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 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 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. So I I don't hear you discussing the
fact that the driveway is literally on the edges of neighboring property lines and is it's superseding your own regulations of 5 foot 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 discuss? >> I don't want to argue with you. >> I I don't want to argue with you, but we cannot talk about the witness. I was going to say, Mike, if you could possibly weigh in on this on either side of the driveway. Now,
>> that plan was submitted to the judge because part of the application was to show everybody the property was the highway. So, that was all on the table for 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. >> 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 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 VGA. >> Yes. >> And the grading >> and the grading. >> 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. Secondary 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 temp is approved have a temporary access for a single tender dwelling on that lot and he just wanted to make sure the board had the right situation as clear of 14 ft and the base should be however many inches
and maintain. So he discovered those details will be left to the board. Um that was it. But the judge overturned our previous we voted and I and I know how 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?
>> Yeah. So the application was to build a single family dwelling with provide access. Board denied it and said that it was not reasonable that you should have the right to build a house with provide access. That's >> I I just don't know if everybody is clear with that in the audience 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 because he's he's superseding what our our what our ordinance say.
>> Okay. >> So I Yes. Thank you. >> So was there a second on the motion? >> Yes. Okay. So we're ready for >> vote. Mr. >> No. Mr.
>> Yes. >> Mr. >> No. Mr. >> Yes. Yes. >> Did you? >> So, how many? Five. Yes. Okay. Uh,
motion approved. >> Thank you for your time, everyone. >> Okay. Now, we're here. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Is there a motion? Do 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. Okay. I'm sure you don't. But this is
okay. >> All right. Is there a motion to come back into regular session? >> I make that motion. I second that 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. the only one who was here. >> I think I was here, too. >> I wasn't born. >> So, you're getting
>> I'm 42 years. >> 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 Dusty and Stanger's >> Dusty and Stanger's affirmed, but the attorney is going to be Brandon >> De Jesus. >> Are there any other nominations? If there are nom, we just move to a vote to vote. Uh,
>> no other nominations. >> There is no there is >> no there are go right to a vote to uh appoint our new solicitor. I make a motion appointing uh Mr. Jesus and his his >> firm
was already second it >> you can do the second >> that's fine >> yeah it'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 for point environmental
resolutions. >> I'll second. >> We had a second down there. >> All in favor? >> I opposed. We have some resolutions I think. Right.
>> Okay. Is there a motion to approve resolutions? I make a motion we approve CD 2523 and EB2601. >> Motion by Danny Desbury. >> Secondary Russell.
>> 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? I'll skip that. Mr. >> Yes.
>> Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Glacius. >> Yes. >> 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 because you you voted for not to have a July meeting. >> Yeah, it makes sense. >> Say no. 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 at reorg reorganization. >> I just want to make sure. So >> okay. All right. >> Okay. So is there a motion to I make a motion rejot?
>> Second. All in favor? All right, Rose. See that? >> Just like that. Mr. You're free. >> I gave you