Google officially saw us on the building. See, I mean based on each game societ Freddy when you are chief chief
order please folks and welcome to the uh the planning board um for tonight. That's uh March 11, 2026, 7:30 p.m. And um with that, I'm going to ask um our audience to turn or anyone to turn off their cell phones
um or silence them, please. And I will open the meeting. Pursuant to open public meetings law, this is to state for the record that adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the public by publication in the Westfield leader in January 2026 posted on the
burrow website and by posting and said notice in the office of the municipal clerk. This is a regular meeting of the board. At this time, I'm going to ask for a moment of silence and a flag salute, please. 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. And I just want to put it on the record that um that our board secretary of Del Lewis will not be with us physically
tonight, but because of her dedication as she is incredibly dedicated, um she's online and she will be doing the minutes uh remotely. So, thank you Adora. Appreciate it. And with that, Don, are you going to do the roll call? Can
>> do the roll call. Okay. Let's see. Hold on. This can't be right. May it says Mayor Vic Duca. That can't be right. >> No, I think what this is I think that the one that I have is Adele's attachment from Maplewood.
>> Okay. Mayor Blumac >> here. >> Councilman Bianca >> here. >> Steve Gre. >> Matthew Vagio >> here. >> William Nearstat >> here. >> Uh Steve Barkin is excused. Uh, Maryanne Haye >> here. >> Greg McCarrick >> here.
>> David Buyers is excused. Keith Mason is excused. Um, Brian D. Maria >> here. >> Thomas Biano >> here. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you, Don. Okay. At this time, um, if we've had an
opportunity to the review the minutes of our past meeting in February 25th, do I hear a motion? >> I'll make a motion to accept the minute minutes as submitted. Second. Those >> in favored none. Motion carries. Okay. We have um
the resolution 400 Spruce Avenue which was sent out earlier today and uh hard copies are available right now. And if um if I hear a motion to accept the that resolution as as noted.
>> I'll second. >> Oh. No quies. Uh, >> I'll take it. >> Mayor Bubistock. >> I >> Steve I Biano >> I >> Kathleen Belgio >> I >> Katy Lisak is not here. William
Nearstein >> here. >> Mr. is here. >> Mr. Barkman is not here. Uh, Miss Hay >> and Mr. McCary. >> Hi. All right. The resolution is memorialized.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um okay, let's move on to um the ordinance review. Um review of ordinance 26-07 adopting an amended guard paperboard redevelopment plan
for uh block 211 6-7 lot six. Um that's on 75 North Avenue pursuant to the local redevelopment and housing law. At this time I want to throw it over into Gabes court um from the consultants. Thank you
members. So tonight paper board redevelopment plan. The planning board's role in this is to make sure it's consistent with the master plan and the housing element. The burough council is the entity that
actually approves the redevelopment plan. Uh but the bur the planning board's role is to deem it consistent and that consistency goes to the mayor and council and they are scheduled to adopt this tomorrow night at the mayor
and council meeting and this is all related to the affordable housing which everything has to be uh approved and adopted by March 16th. So, just kind of a a little background. I know I mentioned this before, but some board
members weren't here uh previously, but this has been ongoing since 2018. Um original the initial re redevelopment plan was approved in 2018 and that included 1240 units and a storage
facility in two separate buildings. Um in 2022 the application came before this board and was approved. Nothing was built. And then in the forefront regulations came up. Our
office prepared a forefront housing plan which included the paper build redevelopment plan as providing mechanisms for affordable housing. And then the paper board
paper board developer um challenged our housing element plan and that would support mediation and a settlement was uh agreement was reached and the basis of this settlement agreement is this
redevelopment plan. Um I provided a handout. There's three different pages and the first page is the concept plan. This is the approved concept plan and what's now being proposed is a total of
212 residential units. Still the same the 154 but now the new component is 88 restricted units over and it's going to be within one
family. There'll be a wing for the age restricted. Uh they can't be in this. They can't be intermingled. There'll be a separate location for each. Uh so that is now the court approved plan for 212
units. With that approval, there's 19 affordable units related to the 124 family units. And for the new 88 age restricted, there's 18 affordable units. In terms of the concept,
um there is a minimum um community center that's been part of this redevelopment plan. Uh the community center will be minimum 4,200 square ft. There will be dedicated open space uh on both sides of the community center. Um
the castle structure that's still standing will be incorporated into the plan. The plan is still the same as the original redevelopment plan in terms of height and building. Uh it's going to be four
stories first level of parking and then it's going to be three uh floor stories of residential. The height is going to be 52 feet. In terms of the other bulk requirements,
the max building coverage increased. Um it's now 75%. This is result of the change of the concept plan. How previously was two separate buildings, now it's one building and as well the max impervious coverage increased to 85%.
The front yard setback is still 20 ft. However, there are five areas per the approved concept plan the court ordered where it will be less than 20 ft. Um, this was determined by the court that
this is permitted in these five different areas and that's outlined in the concept plan in red. The rear yard setbacks 10 ft. The sideyard setbacks 20 ft. The parking requirement per the court order is 1.7 parking spaces per
unit. That includes age restricted and family. Doesn't matter what type. If it's a threebedroom, onebedroom, it's still 1.7 parking spaces. And um this is all entailed within the redevelopment plan. Now the next step is the
redevelopment plan is scheduled to be adopted by the mayor and council. And then the next step for this developer would he would come before the planning board with a site plan application based on these standards the requirements of the redevelopment plan and he would be
in front of this board presenting the plan uh what's being proposed and it's the planning board's uh jurisdiction in terms of approving the plan making recommendations making any changes. Uh
so that would be the next step just in terms of consistency for the record. Um the master plan 2023 recognizes that one of the goals to encourage senior citizen housing construction which 88 units will
be and also to encourage development affordable housing. And this is a main component of the affordable housing requirement for the burrow as it's called the RVP where it's going to be providing a total of 37 units but for
the fourth round it's going to be providing 18 units and that is the primary development for providing affordable housing the burough. So this is the main component. It's consist obviously it's consistent with the
housing element uh affordable housing plan because it's within there uh it states that you know be providing a total of 37 units and it's the primary mechanism for providing for affordable
housing in the burrow. So, as Ben terms of planning board's role tonight is just to determine if this is consistent with the master plan and the housing element. >> Any questions?
>> I have a question. >> Sure. >> Um, if something is not mentioned in the plan like uh like uh lighting uh landscaping um architecture.
Um then it goes thenite >> when they submit the site plan to the planning board, right? Um we would go by what's in the code. >> Yes. Yes. So re if if nothing is
mentioned specifically uh there is certain standards with redevelopment plan but if nothing is is mentioned specifically then the underlying standards of Garwood applies in terms of >> the lighting and landscaping
and you know whatever um else jurisdiction yes lies. Um, I had another question. >> I'll think about it. Bill, >> it looks like you're ching a little bit. >> Well, Kathy and I have gone back and forth and um, obviously I know that's
what the standard is, but what I've indicated from the very beginning is that the redevelopment plan doesn't say that anywhere. And if it does, I sit corrected. But I went through the plan and I know I know that what the standard is if it's not in the redevelopment plan
the land use ordinance takes takes precedence or takes control when Gabe you and I have probably been and I don't know if anybody else in your professions but you know like you're sitting across from somebody and they say well where does it say that
and our redevelopment plan doesn't say that with pick lighting as Kathy said okay there's There are no lighting standards in the redevelopment plan. So, if we were to say to a developer, well, you have to do this. All, I'm making this up. Uh, all light poles have to be
less than 25 ft tall. If the developer says, where does it say that? All I've asked, and I know I'm a pain, tell Murray about that, but I know I'm a pain, but I really would love to amend
this plan to put in one sentence. has nothing to do with housing, has nothing to do with the fair share, has nothing to do with that other than to say that if something is not in this redevelopment plan because keep in mind the redevelopment plan is what 20 pages,
land use ordinance is whatever. I know a lot of that is procedure, but I would just like very much for the plan to specifically state is not if it's not included in the redevelopment plan and the land use ordinance is a controlling requirement. If the board is fine with
it not being in there, um, you know, we will obviously move forward. I'm not going to vote against this redevelopment plan because of that. But I've indicated this in the very beginning. Now, I'm just going to say I'm disappointed that the redevelopment plan does not specifically state that and I think it's
to Garwood's detriment that it doesn't state that. We can live without it and if we have a developer who will agree. But Gabe, you and I have both sat across the table from developers who say, "Well, where does it say that?" Or, "Well, I didn't agree with that." Well, it's in writing. Where?
I just hope um that uh this redevelopment uh moves forward with the understanding as Kathy said, that the land use ordinance will control when the redevelopment plan doesn't say anything. That can certainly be a part
of any motion that somebody could bring now to make that recommendation of council. Can I um am I allowed to? >> You're right. >> Not um
then something for uh the attorney would be since it is already introduced. If the council wanted to add that tomorrow, because we have to approve it tomorrow, >> would would that
be okay to add without would that it doesn't significantly change anything, but we can't reintroduce at this point with the deadline? That's all >> that's a question for the burough attorney. in terms of what this board is doing, >> right? >> This board can recommend that it be
adopted by the council as is. This board also could recommend that it be adopted with the caveat that Bill was articulating. Mayor and council will then have that recommendation and mayor and counsel can
then in consultation with the burough attorney do what they're going to do because mayor and counsel are not bound by this board's recommendation. >> Correct. So then I guess my comment rather than question, I should have had just a comment to >> call a comment too
>> to um give that uh scenario to the planning board that should the burough attorney decide that we are not able to simply add that without reintroducing, we would not be able to and still be in compliance with the state. So, I while
um I'm not voting, I would assume our council may not put that in if that is the recommendation of our bar attorney. >> Um just attorney Fraser, could we also put that in our resolution when we review site plans for the property?
>> Can we put that we do we do a resolution? >> Yes. But I don't think that really >> I don't think that really addresses Bill's concern. >> I I I get that there's more parcels here. There's court parcels that we're talking. >> It's not that. >> So,
>> it's that where the issue that Bill's articulating if that were to arise, it's not going to arise at the resolution page. It's arise at the hearing. >> So, what would happen >> concerned about as I understand is we're
at the hearing. um we want you to do this with the lighting and some applicant your paper board says no I don't want to do that and the redevelopment plan doesn't say that and to which our response might be
might be well but the ordinance does say that that's the position that Bill's articulating and Bill's view is well we'll have some additional strength in our position if the redevelopment plan says it maybe That's a reasonable point.
But in terms of what we're doing right now, well, I think it's uh commendable that Bill raises this point and it's perfectly fine. Mayor, mayor and council are going to do what they have to do with this and they will be guided, I
would think, by their very able attorney. But I just want to also point out that a a number of times um in the redevelopment uh plan it does
indicate I don't know about about uh seven to 10 times that um it does uh mention us a planning board you know with the approval of the planning board with the approval of the planning report. So, it isn't like they
forgot about the planning board. All right. Um, they didn't. Okay. It's indicated it's indicated on on a number of occasions
um um this board's uh uh jurisdiction. Um, and I personally feel like like like uh you said Gabe, you know, if it isn't mentioned
in the plan, then you would go by the ordinance like like our land use ordinance >> that specifies lighting, landscaping, so forth and so on. And that's my legal opinion as well.
But it but Bill's articulated concern which is really a belt and belt and suspenders approach is not wrong. Um and uh this board if uh it agrees with Bill can certainly make that part of its recommendation to mayor and council
>> and I would I would I think that recommendation is appropriate in the vein that we just talked about. meaning that if it doesn't fit for the our our our burough attorney and the review process for tomorrow night, then
it doesn't go in. However, if we can make it a fit and and incorporate it for um tomorrow night's meeting um for C mayor and council, sure, it's it's we can we can certainly include that that phrase uh
>> technically because all you're doing is making a recommendation. >> Thanks, >> Mr. Chairman. I I appreciate that because it's basically just a protection for the burrow and that's why I gave my comments to the mayor and council. I read them to the mayor and council two weeks ago which would give them time to
uh make a change which they did. They chose not to make so far. >> Um but um >> you made your point though. >> I appreciate that. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. I I think you know this in terms of the timeline and timing you
know if it deemed that you can't amend the redevelopment plan because it wasn't introduced you know obviously to meet the March 16th deadline go through the process but this could be revisited in the future you know just you just have to amend it to add a sentence
>> correct correct and I will say to Mr. in yourstead. It wasn't that we chose not to. This was presented to us at the last council meeting and we have not met since then. So, >> Mr. Ren, >> just put it there. >> Okay. Are there any other comments? Um,
any board members want to uh >> I was just going to say I had the same question that Kathy did about if there wasn't an issue addressed in here such as the lighting that what >> personally I think on on the site plan that's where it's going to be addressed.
I mean that's where I would interpret it to be addressed but that's just that's what I think >> but I think the statement if it can be added would be a good addition but certainly we don't want to risk it not being submitted on time. I think we will certainly bring that to our attorney tomorrow then. And if you've put that in
the resolution in your recommendation tonight, I should say um to our attorney tomorrow, >> but I just like to say that's all I've ever asked. So, thank you. But this resolution was we're reviewing ordinance 2607.
>> That's part of it, I guess. Yeah. I think we would accept No. >> Um Um what I did like about >> um like another portion of it is um
>> that the developer will need to look at the uh sewer lines also. >> Absolutely. >> Property. >> Absolutely. >> In the property. >> Yes. That would be good to put in the site plan. >> You know that because you know that is specifically mentioned >> in the
>> in the plan. Yeah. you know like like with other um things that he has to look at. >> Absolutely. Yeah. >> Okay. >> And I don't >> think it's just our review. I don't know
um if >> if this was in the redevelopment plan or will it be in the redevelopment agreement which is separate that's
burough council mayor and council um do we um there was traffic study that was to be done on our behalf and paid for by the developer.
We did that with Vermela. Like I do know that they have to have their own traffic study. >> Yes. Yes. That's a requirement. >> That's a requirement. >> It's in the red redevelopment plan that a traffic study is required. >> Is required. Yeah. Um, and I
like I said, I'm not sure if it was in the redevelopment plan. >> It's the summary agreement about a second traffic study. >> The redevelopment plan says a traffic study is required. >> Yeah. By then? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. But the there's another traffic study that was done with uh Vermela that was paid for by Vermela and I don't think it was in the plan. I think it was in the agreement. >> Okay. >> So
um Okay. I'm sorry. >> It was part of the plan. I know I reviewed that. No, >> but Kathy study Kathy's saying something different. I understand what you're saying. >> Yeah. The uh traffic study >> that that is in the plan is just a
normal traffic study like we get from any developer. >> Yeah. But like we did with Vermela who have a >> like on our behalf >> prepared for the
>> who did it um like on our behalf. >> Yeah. that they looked over the traffic study done by yeah >> the developer. Right. >> So that's not specific in the redevelopment plan, but that could be that would be spelled out. So I'll bring
that to the attorney. >> Yeah. >> And make sure it puts and we'll make sure it's put into the agreement then. >> Okay. Sorry about that. >> No, just send me a note and remind Send me a note and remind me so that when we have our meeting >> Mhm.
Okay. Um Gabe, do you have any um do you feel that it's necessary to get any public comment on uh on this particular resolution at this point in time or not? >> Um I believe it's it's would be required, right? Is
>> this my view is this is a review by the board is a review by the plane board. We're not having a public hearing. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, and it seems to me that the the substance of this has um really been addressed at public
hearings. That having been said and while my opinion is it is not required, I do observe there's only one member of the public here and it certainly does not hurt to allow some reasonable public
comment on it just as a as Bill would put a belt and suspenders approach so that there could then be no question that the public was somehow precluded. from commenting on this ordinance
recognizing that's not an invitation to redo and replplow ground which has already been thoroughly plowed before this. Oh, love the way Don phrase things and I the adoption of a redevelopment plan is
the same as the adoption of a zoning public hearing for that redevelopment plan is actually in front of council tomorrow night. So with that the process will be this. I'm going to open it up to the general public person and um and we
will uh listen or have u the comment and then I will close it and ask for a straw poll on how many of us would like to have just the what we have in front of us um going forward or um do we want to
incorporate the uh the the dialogue that we had expressed earlier on in particular that Bill had expressed and incorporate that into um a statement going forward for the for review tomorrow night if in fact that's that's
appropriate to do by according to our our legal expertise on the council. Is that is that fair? Okay. With that um I'll open it up to the general public for comment questions of of for this particular just
for this particular resolution. It will be another portion at the end. >> There'll be the usual anything you want to talk about a couple minutes at the end. >> This is only for this this review. >> All right. Uh good evening chair, ladies and gentlemen of the board. Bruce
Patterson, 325 little Avenue. Uh yeah, I'm not gonna say any earthshattering comments that detail thing changes, but it was talked about uh the traffic study and I mean I just to comment on traffic studies somewhere in the act it does
talk about where the traffic doesn't really impact the affordable housing. It might be in the law itself. I remember reading something about that. But my question is, I guess take it one step further and the Vermela traffic study actually came out where the uh South
Avenue was at 100% capacity that the intersection of Center and South was I there was D's and C's and it might have been even a B on the rating. But anyway, just take it one step further. I mean, if if the if the road is at 100%
capacity and the local intersections thereby are are say rated F, I mean, how do would that even change the momentum that's going through in approving
not only this affordable housing? >> No, no, Bill. I mean, excuse me, Fruce, what we're watch, Mr. F number 26-07. That's the >> part of it. >> I'm just referring to the traffic study.
I mean, we we do not know what the traffic study will entail, will we? >> I'm not here to answer your question, so I'm not under cross examination. >> All right. Well, anyway, well, but basically the the answer is we don't know. And I'm just saying if if the road
was at 100% intersections are a rated F, how does that impact our project that we're looking at on the paper board property and and that's it. I mean, I don't know if you're going to be able to answer it or not, but >> No, there's there's no answer to that. You know that as well as I do. So, right
now, thank you for your comment. Um, but no, I do not have an answer for that. And uh that's pretty much it. >> Okay. and and I uh actually in the beginning when I first I think it's the the fair share act that talks about
traffic doesn't really play into these projects. Is that correct? >> Yes, Bruce. >> That's right. Uh thank you very much. I'll see you in a couple minutes where the public speak. >> Thank you Bruce.
Okay, with that I want to close see one else in the in the general public. I want to close that portion of the meeting and I'll ask for a straw poll as discussed earlier. Um >> Mr. Near says addition >> that's what
>> edition at this point in time Bill. Okay, let's just go around the table. >> We're going to stayain. >> Okay, Kathy. >> No. >> Um yes, >> yes, >> yes. >> Yes.
>> Okay, this is carried. So, we'll incorporate that statement and Donna is going to articulate that. >> Okay. I'm going to articulate the motion that I think somebody might might want to maybe Bill might be Bill, might be somebody else. But the motion is for the planning board to recommend to mayor and
council the adoption of ordinance number 26-07 which adopts the paperboard redevelopment plan with the amendment suggested by Mr.
Mirstad that a provision be inserted into the ordinance to the effect that where the redevelopment plan is silent as to a subject that the default will be to the
burough's land use ordinances. I think that was the motion that somebody might want to make based upon the colloquy of this board. I love that. >> Can you repeat the wording one more
time? I want to make sure we have our >> silent as to the subject that the >> where the redevelopment plan is silent as to a subject. The default will be that the burough's
land use ordinances will control. >> Okay. Thank you. Congratulations. I was going to say, are you looking for a motion? Are you looking for a motion, Mr. Chair? Yes, I am. >> Articulate what I think a motion might be.
>> This this motion is for what? >> I got to say that again. >> Is it is it is it for the recommendation of the plan or just the amendment? >> No, I'll say again whole thing. This is what I think the motion somebody might
make would be to recommend to mayor and council that mayor and council adopt and memorialize and approve ordinance number 26-07 which adopts the amended Garwood
paperboard redevelopment plan subject to the proposed or a suggested revision that the redevelopment, excuse me, that the or you know that the redevelopment plan
should have a provision that says where the plan is silent on a subject that the provisions of the
municipal land use ordinance will control the Can I >> if you're going to say that again? >> No, I will not. But I but instead of the word subject to Okay.
>> Um I would say uh uh uh uh recommend to council. >> Yes. >> And the rest of your and the rest of it. >> Absolutely. I agree. And if that's the case, I will make that motion.
>> I don't understand a difference for not approving it. I think >> unless it's unless the same. >> Okay. But I >> I don't I don't it is my opinion. >> No.
>> So that was a motion legal opinion. >> Okay. Kathy, made a motion. >> I made motion. I'll second. We just changed the word. >> Okay, we have a second from Craig McCarrick. Uh, roll call, please. >> Did I hand back the roll call list? >> Probably did. >> Okay.
Okay. So, uh, Mayor Bloomstack, I assume you. >> Council Bianca. >> Okay. Chairman Greet. >> Yes. >> Kathy Vagio. >> Hi. >> William Mirstat. >> Hi. >> Maryanne Haye. >> I. Craig McCarrick.
>> Yes. >> Okay. All right. We have what? Steve was excused. So, uh, David Buyers, >> not here. >> Not here. Eith Mason, not here. Brian D. Maria, >> yes. >> And Thomas Biano, >> hi. >> Okay.
>> Either the I's andor the S's have carries. >> Thank you. Um, okay. We have anything for general discussion tonight? >> Anyone on the board? At the next meeting, I will have the food truck um ordinance. >> Okay.
>> Um >> now you've already handed that out, correct? >> Well, I didn't hand it out to, you know, right. >> I hand it out just to the people on the subcommittee, >> but then I sent it to Adele and she will put it in the
packet for the March 25th. >> Great. >> And Mr. Chairman, I will do the same thing with the the bicycle. Um, uh, I've not been able to put an ordinance format, but I will. And same I'll do the same thing Kathy said, get it to Adele to include in there. >> Okay. So,
did anybody have any comments so far? >> I did. I do. My comments. >> No, not yet. >> No, I just wonder you want us to continue or No. >> Do you want me No, >> I saying you want us to continue that discussion or No, I know you can.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm open if the chair is okay. you know, I don't have to do it now. I can call >> whatever you want. >> Why don't you guys discuss this? >> That's fine. >> Okay. >> Discuss it between the two of them. >> All right. What? >> Especially if everybody hasn't reviewed it again.
>> Yeah. >> Also, we're on record pace tonight. So, >> all right. Let's let's let's carry on those two um next meeting on the 25th. Um, anyone else from families, gentlemen of the board, Bruce Per 325.
Avenue I guess this question I should have asked probably the previous public speaking but uh there's a concept plan uh given out by Harbor I probably will Oprah but in summary uh Harbor was
talking about different wings of the building and he was saying the uh age restricted will be one wing and multif family another wing uh could you just give an overview to the public who who I guess is watching to just exactly a
rough layout of these wings and what it's about. I only picked up like two wings. Sounds like there's three. So that's one question. >> I don't know if you want Well, the public the public comment, Bruce, is not a
used for Q&A or to elicit testimony. I would also observe that that exact question, it seems to me I've sat here and I've listened to it at least three times. >> It's in the plan, >> but the public wasn't here. It's also in
the plan. Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, public, all these needs have been public, Bruce, >> you're talking to me. That's good. >> I'm telling you something. >> We have a good good discussion going. >> No, I'm just I'm telling you. >> Okay. Okay. But anyway, I'll all over the the uh whatever.
Paradise just something right there. You have to operate anything. It's in the web. So it's >> the overlay ordinances. >> No. >> Okay. The ones that were giving tonight
just copies of what is in the plan. So there's actually nothing to Oprah. It's all public already. >> Is not a verb. >> It's not a woman either. >> All right. Just another question after
the presentation uh the other day. I did send out some questions. Uh one of it was uh to Harbor Consultants and and I had asked this the last time also. I mean, from the lawsuit came out an additional six affordable housing units over and above what we
happily laid out of what our prospective need is and yet we add in another six. Uh, Harbor Consultants from the other planning board mentioned that somehow it it's gets absorbed. So, I'm just wondering these extra six,
where do they come from? because I mean I thought we we already had a uh a layout for meeting our HSP uh plan. So I that's a question and and I guess the last question would be um
through you chair to my buddy attorney Fraser. No, but if if the governing body This is tomorrow obviously. >> Exactly. >> Look at the looking at the overlay ordinances. I mean, if the governing if the governing body changes that criteria
because I was pushing for a 20 foot uh front setback versus the 10-ft setback that is presently in there. If the governing body does agree to that, does it have to come back to the planning board? >> Sure. uh for their subsequent uh approval of it.
>> If the if the if they don't agree to the 10-ft setback. >> Yes. >> If if they agree to development plan the possibility let's let's go let's go back to the
basics first. First, I I I the probability of of that happening is well, it's slim. >> Make it even easier. We're not here to render legal opinion,
which is what you're asking the board to do on the effect of what mayor and council may or may not do. >> I'm asking just about the process. If they change the overlay, it comes back to you. >> That's really a legal opinion.
And right now that's a hypothetical question that seems so extreme and unlikely. I think it's energy working on that or researching
that issue and expending taxpayer dollars to do that. >> Well, so so from what I understand, you don't know. I guess that's what you're saying. Is that is that somehow if they change the overlay zone does it come back here or they just move are you did you hear my answer?
>> No I didn't. It didn't even sound like an answer. >> Good. >> I figured as much as a lawyer. >> Okay. >> The answer Bruce is here. We'll worry about what happens if mayor and council
don't adopt this. If and when that happens. Thank you very much. Okay, you're welcome. Thank you, Bruce. Okay, with that, I bring it back to the board. Do I have motion to adjurnn? >> Oh,
>> uh, no, we have no claims at this point. >> I'll make a motion >> to adjourn. >> Those in favor? >> I motion. We journ. >> What? We had that March 25th the
March 25th. >> Never heard that. >> Thank you. I know you can answer but >> I mean there should be a procedure you got a procedure there is a procedure >> I will say this
question but I'm pretty