this may this meeting is being held in accordance with the sunshine laws of the state of New Jersey chapter 145 by the council and the planning board for official notices notice of this meeting posted on the B bough bulletin board and the burough website for that purposes uh
attendance can have roll call Suzanne Miss bonana Cory Mr Madden here Mr dulus here chairman Hansen here mayor Hal here Council man heren Mr famular here Mr Schmid here Mr Christie here and
Miss borer we have a quorum everybody rise to salute the flag please I pled allegiance to the flag the United States of America to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible liberty and justice for all
before we get started this evening I'd like to uh offer a moment of silence for uh former mayor Jack Maryfield who passed away last week for those who didn't know he's a member of this planning board and served in uh various volunteer roles including the governing body planning board uh Athletics in this
town he was a beloved man I think uh be I would call him a personal friend and I would hope everybody would join me in a moment of silence for Jack at this point thank you all [Music] okay so we have a couple of administrative items this evening before
we move on to our business uh the first would be we're going to swear in a new alternate and that's uh Tyler I don't have his last name chrisy chrisy I'm sorry we're going to swear and Tyler Christie as a planning board member this evening you just
rise raise your right hand I state your name do solemnly swear or affirm swear that I will support the Constitution I will support the Constitution of the United States of the United States and
the constitution of the state of New Jersey and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same I will bear true faith and Al to the same and to the governments established in the United States to the governments established in the United States and in this state and in this state under the authority of the
people under the of people I do further solemnly swear or affirm I do further Solly swear or affirm that I will Faithfully I willfully impartially and justly perform perform all the duties of the office of the planning board all the
duties of the office of the planning board according to the best of my ability ACC to the best of my ab welcome Tyler look forward to working with you um next item we have this evening is approval of the minutes of the January
16th 2025 meeting um is everybody that was there on the 16th had a chance to review the minutes there any questions or comments on uh or revisions on the minutes see none I'll enter entertain a
motion to approve I move to approve the minutes from January all in favor I I any opposed and other the noted extensions of those that weren't in attendance um before we move on to our new business one last thing um going to open the
meeting to public comment but this is only for uh public comment is only for items that are not related to a specific case so if you're here to talk about uh either of the Redevelopment uh plan items on the agenda or the two applications that we have this evening uh please hold your
comment we'll have a public participation period for each one of those uh items that are on the agenda so if if anybody has anything that's not related to an agenda item come forward at this time and we'll have our solicitors s in seeing non closed public Comet uh new
business first item this evening is a master plan consistency review of a proposed amendment to the St Mary's Redevelopment plan 14 to 18 White Horse Pike and that's block 24 slots four and five I understand we have uh the dis
distinguished Miss Fury Bruder and Miss given this evening to present what we're looking at good evening um thanks for having me uh Leah Fury Bruder um Redevelopment planner um we're here tonight because there is an amendment to
the St Mary's Redevelopment plan that has been introduced by ordinance by burough Council and as you know it gets referred to the planning board for master plan essentially for a master plan consistency review um you may recall that this Redevelopment plan yes
I don't I don't think she needs to be sworn in for for a Redevelopment plan Amendment yes she okay I'm sorry catch I'm sorry needs to okay okay okay um do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth I do thank you you're welcome um okay so yes so Redevelopment law um at section 7e provides that prior to the adoption of a Redevelopment plan the planning board should transmit to the governing body its uh
recommendations its recommendations concerning the Redevelopment plan and identify any provisions of the redevelop plan that you find to be inconsistent with the master plan and you can also make any recommendations that you see fit um so you may recall that this Redevelopment plan was adopted um last
year about a year ago um I was here in January of 2024 to discuss the full Redevelopment plan and the board did find that it was consistent with the master plan for um a variety of reasons related to uh master plan recommendations for um historic
preservation um the master plan recommends historic preservation but also recommends that adaptive reuses of historic buildings be identified so that those buildings can remain viable um it also re has recommendations related to provision of a variety of housing types
including senior housing and this Redevelopment plan um supports both of those goals and provides housing near to the central business district which is also another master plan goal is to support um viable downtown districts and the provision of additional housing
units nearby and walkable areas um supports that goal so what is the amendment for it's pretty straightforward um as you know right now there's a church St Mary's um the idea is for the church to partner with um an experienced housing
provider and a portion of the church will be retained toward the White Horse Pike and then there will be about approximately 37 um senior housing units with some of those being affordable develops more the back of the site um and there's a number of you know
improvements that are anticipated um St Mary's is either has or plans to transfer the property to a housing developer and um it what this Redevelopment plan is going to do is enable a subdivision um this essentially
the plan didn't previously contemplate that it's about a 60,000 square foot site so um it's not that big but the what the Redevelopment plan is currently going to do is enable the whole tract to still be considered as
one tract but enable a subdivision line to be laid down um you know basically dividing the tract into two separate tax Lots um and frankly it's so that the church can remain tax exempt uh and that's kind of what this all boils down to so in the propo in the
Redevelopment plan um there is there are definitions added so there's a definition of track which is the whole property and then there's a definition of lot which we all know a lot is a tax lot so in terms of the planning when they when the applicant comes in for the subdivision and the site plan you're
still looking at the tract as an overall uh but we also have standards so that there can be um a subdivision and that they can function independently but there would be cross access easements cross parking easements um so they'd be sharing their parking and access um and
probably sharing maintenance as well so essentially there's no physical change to what was prior besides a line on a tax matter yep that's pretty much it okay so this Redevelopment plan amendment makes that possible so that the applicant can propose that won't require variances and it will require
them to provide those access and parking easements um I think that's a gist of it did I miss anything no not at all um and I I have provided a resolution for the board to consider um if they do find that this amendment is consistent with
the master plan um um it does not necessarily need to be adopted this evening if the board would like time to review it you can memorialize at your next uh meeting um as long as the vote that you take this evening uh gets transmitted to Mayor and councel either
via uh chairman or solicitor um and let them know what your decision was regarding the consistency if we had a chance to review the resolution myself and uh Elena didn't we found that it was uh in good order so assuming we vote affirmatively tonight we'll uh return
that as soon as possible okay does anybody have any be appropriate to open it for questions or comments at this point in the board sure any questions or comments from the board seems pretty straightforward yeah um I guess at this
point we could entertain a motion to uh determine whether it's cons take a vote to see whether we consider it uh consistent the master plan or not this point anybody like to make that motion uh I move to consider the amendment to be consistent with
theb roll call have please hold on can the governing body members vote on this I don't know the rule on that yes I just I didn't know since it was their plan um mayor Hal
yes Miss Bon Cory yes Mr Madden yes Mr dulus yes chairman Hansen yes councilwoman Hearn yes Mr famular yes Mr Schmidt yes Miss borcher guys have it thank you both very
much we'll get that resolution right back to you thanks thank you thanks Emily thanks Leah good to see you okay um Tyler's going to return and uh our next case is a uh is case number 24-12 d1p P Michael MAA
198th Avenue block 40 Lot 19 Mr MAA Andor his professionals to come forward we'll have a we doing this one first oh we're going to do the because the mayor's gonna have to St out okay I'm just going on the order
that we had yeah yeah so I thought we were going to hear the two residential cases when they come back to the if the board would prefer to hear the other um determination study first prior to us proceeding that's more than fine with us I think we should judge him by the crowd this evening I
think we might have significant public comment so unless anybody else has a objection I would rather hear the two residential cases are you okay with that okay good okay thank you and I believe we have seven voting members
seven regular voting members this this there's a use variance aspect to this case so only seven uh can vote so it would be Michael John Kate no I'm sorry Michael John Dean
myself Jen and who's the first alternate is Kate Kate the first alternate I would imagine yes okay so Kate will vote on this case tell you still sit up here and participate but uh she'll be the V the seventh
vote apologize no please thank come forward we'll have our solicitor swear in provide your qualifications ET I think you're Cliff right he's the attorney I'm Kevin Kevin I know Joe I think Joe's good to see you as wellik go
forward we'll have you all SP um well first and foremost good evening ladies and gentlemen my name is Kevin Duke I'm the owner and principal attorney of KD law in Hatfield New Jersey it's my privilege this evening to present an application on behalf of my client Mr Michael Moda uh the property
in question this evening is located at 198th Avenue here in the burough of haton heights the property is delated on your tax M as block 40 Lock 19 and is situated in your residential 2 or your R2 Zone the applicant is seeking use and
B variant approval this evening to install a inground swim for pool as well as a accessory pool house as an accessory structure um there are specifically six variances one of which is a use variant and the other five are
bulk variants Mr manini who's our professional planner as well as our civil engineer will be presenting the the meat and bones of our application with his testimony I would ask that he be sworn in and I do have to my left Mr Michael Moda um who is the applicant as
well as the property owner so we could have them Mr chairman thank I'll have them come forward we'll have this morning we'll have our uh engineer planner Mr Bach this morning as well okay umre hand um you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth yes we'll uh recognize Joe as an expert in the field of uh professional engineering professional planning I'm very familiar with Joe and believe he's have you been before this board before Joe okay even before a lot of my boards so we'll recognize Joe unless anybody
has an objection to that very good thank you very much if you could please sure um so I'm going to reference first the variance plan that was submitted as part of the application uh as Kevin said it's 198 aab is the bottom of the plan nor is
roughly up site contains an exting st uh concrete existing concrete driveways and walkways uh paper patio Ino and shed in left rear corner um
this next plan is is the exact same visual and variance plan up a little bit a little B EAS kind of a small property so just blow it up what proposing as Kevin said we're proposing round pools left corner
uh an accessory building that's the proposed pool house um an extension of the proposed driveway um from the existing driveway ends the middle of the House of the drive dri will extend back to the pool house um as well as obviously fencing
around Theos pool and concrete patio and uh the hatched area in the middle here is a pretty substantial storm water management area that's uh designed to accomodate increase in run U the assisting shed in the back moved obviously uh and as Kevin said there are
a handful of variances that are required including a use variance for school okay if I go into those yeah please um so the use variance for the pool house might be a little bit of a head scratcher because it is something that's sort of normal and accessory to to
residential use but pool houses are not expressly permitted as an accessory structure in the R2 or anywhere in had Heights as far as I could tell so in as much as it's not expressly permitted therefore we the use variants to permit that structure uh additionally we're
asking for Relief to permit a lot coverage of 4 7.6% for 30% is allowed a variance to allow the accessory building that I mentioned which is 600 sare F feet is 20 by 30 where a maximum of 450 s feet is allowed
a variance to allow the side yard to the pool so on the left side of the property uh there's a setb to the pool decking of 5.7 ft or 10 ft as required we would note that the set back to the water's edge is 10 ft on the left side but
technically the the full decking so it's 5.7 versus 10 required same situation in the back you have 5 ft the edge of the full deck and we 10 required actually 13 ft to the um to the W's Edge and that same variance is required for the P um
equipment which is 5T from the property line 10 ft required there so those those are the B variances that are required uh in regards to to the use variants first as you know the board has the ability to hear the cases and Grant this type of relief uh and particular
cases and for special reasons and the special reason here is where the positive criteria is met uh by demonstrating the site is particularly suited to use which I believe that it is um as I said while pool house pool house is not expressly permitted um it is
customarily incidental to an accessory to a principle use and in this case visually consistent with other permitted accessory uses such as a two-car garage and be Tu Zone and we can have the applicant affirm that the structure is truly accessory um
by stipulating that this will never be used as a separate Dell unit and I think that's important and that's a concern that a lot of boards have it's intended solely for the use by the owner principal dwelling never have accessory dwelling unit used there so for those
reasons we think although it's not mentioned in the ordinance uh the site is particularly suited to to this structure um looking the purposes of zoning we found the permitting was structured with pre purpose eye of the statute uh which speaks to providing desirable visual environment but we
think the final product here uh will be aesthetically pleasing for the entire s of course the negative criteria requires consideration of whether there's any substantial detriment to the public good substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of your Zone plan ordinance uh
we do not see any vable impacts of arise from the use of this structure as proposed um again the structure itself is compatible with the surrounding uses um and is in line with a permitted accessory structure so we believe the deviation of this use would really be
imperceptible to the public so as you're driving down 8th Street you would not perceive this as a nonconforming structure look just like any other garage and in that sense would not detract from character of the neighborhood likewise I think the impact coning plan ordinance is minimal um
again because this is a normal accessary structure that's in primary use I don't think the impacts of the Zone plan or ordinance are significant therefore for the positive Reas stated the absence of anyal impact we believe the board could find a decided particularly student to allow
Full House here um and there's no substantial attachment to the public good or no substantial repairment of ten perp of Zone uh the both variances have similar criteria U but not quite as stringent as the use variant of course here I think
the The Bu will fall under the C2 criteria with Benefits would outweigh the detriment again as I mentioned the Practical impact of the uh setbacks for the uh pool are mitigated by the fact that the the actual waterers edge of the
pool was set back to the 10 ft that's required and 13 ft in the back so we just talking about some additional concrete patio around the edge there uh likewise at impacts associated with the excess impervious building coverage are mitigated through this significant drain
engine dryw system is proposed so to get into that a little bit more uh there's a trench drain that's between on the patio between the pool and pool house there yard drains near the pool house and in the rear yard area those all go to an underground chamber system um typically
when we design those systems we design them to handle the uh water quality storms particular storm event in New Jersey we handle that water quality storm for the excess impervious of go defeat from in this case this system has been designed well in excess of of that
requirement where this system can retain and infiltrate up to 25 years for Ev associated with that excess purpose so pretty substantial uh system that really mitigates any any practical impact of the excess also the extension of the
driveway which add some impervious allows us to move some Mar behind the front building setback line which we think is desirable for the neighborhood uh similar to the prior to we find the overall project for most purpose eye mpal land use law um that
the plan provides appropriate mitigation measures Associated the impact of the deviations and the backyard improvements taken as a whole are normal accessory residents uh you know pool uh and so forth obviously permitted accessory uses
so we think overall it's a desirable project that adds some value to this property in the neighborhood and therefore there's really no the public good that we saw uh and no substantial impairment intent and purpose of the zoom F uh additionally um there's no
tree clearing proposed as part of the project and we also received U the B Associates review uh there's a few outstanding comments and recommendations in that letter we would also agree to comply with any of those comments as a conditional approval we can make those
mod modifications plan there was a lot of information so I'll questions you have anything else to add at this point no nothing further at this point would okay we we'll turn it over to Steve and have him go through his revie letter before uh we have
before to ask any questions or make any comments he was sworn yes Steve was provided our February 18 2025 review the applicant has already indicated by testimony to the usance and the B variances that are required uh and the applican has already agreed to all our
comments uh the one variance for the existing sidey guard setback of 9.5 feet I assume that you would want that recognized as well yes thank you there's an existing nonperforming condition on the left side of the property that's a 9 9.5 fo step back to this portion of the
bay window that pmps out here I think 10t 10 ft is required by the that's an existing nonperforming condition to recognize that everything else that I uh indicated as requiring testimony has been provided by the applicant and any question I would entertain from the
board anybody uh well I guess we'll open it up for questions or comments from the board uh any we have any questions for Steve the applicant or Mr Mancini seeing none we'll uh close that portion and open up to the public any anybody from the public want to speak on this application questions or comments
come forward we'll have the solic swear in seeing none we'll close public and I bring it back to Elena to uh describe a mo potential motion okay so the applicant is requiring um a use variance D variance
um and also a pulk variance um I think he did good job talking about it was mostly setbacks um he said that for the use variants although the pool house is not a permitted um as an accessory structure
it is customarily um a type of accessory structure that is um accessory to a principal use um there is a lot coverage um variance being requested and that's going to be mitigated by a lot of the storm water um
improvements that the applicant proposes um on low property um he did say that for special reasons in particularly suited um like I said the it's a pretty common um accessory use for the princi use even though it's not permitted um in the
zone the purposes of zoning was um to it was purpose I under Municipal land use law for to improve the visual environment for um the negative criteria the applicant stated that he didn't see um a detriment to the zoning ordinance
or the um master plan um it did testify that it would look like kind of any other garage and for the bulk variant it was also um a C2 variant that um was going towards um to enhance the visual
environment and I just like to add the two conditions if we can specifically have in the resolution one that uh the uh accessory structure would not be permitted uh to be a u an apartment yes
um and I would actually add or or sleeping quarters it's yeah so I think I I think that's important so it doesn't turn into an extra bedroom or or anything else like that second thing is even though it's in my review letter specifically in the resolution that an adill grading plan be provided prior to
a certificate occupancy thank just to make sure everything's said is that acceptable yeah the applicant would comply perfect and per those conditions any uh further questions comments from the board I questions see one B on your
review letter you're okay we're going from the coverage issue less than 30 47 are so what we have to well the board has to decide this but uh what they have done to mitigate if you recall from other variance applications for uh
increases of imperious of lot coverage over our ordinance what is being done to mitigate that additional impervious coverage uh many times as uh Mr manini's indicated in his testimony it's storage and providing infiltration of the difference of the water quality
storm here and the water quality storm is generally considered a storm uh a twoyear storm a storm that happens with a frequency every two years they have going to step further and have the provided and submitted drainage
calculations in a subsurface system to mitigate the increase in the 25-year storm uh versus the 2-year storm a storm that typically would have happen in New Jersey once every 25 years it's important to note that uh under residential s Improvement standards
storm water drainage in Municipal roadways or roadways to be dedicated municipalities are based on the 25e storm so I am satisfied that they have done a substantial uh uh mitigation in terms of
storm water drainage for the 46 uh for 47 point 47.6% so uh I can't say I'm okay with it because it's still varant but in terms of the technical nature of it I think it's a
substantial mitigation that they proposed uh in terms of the storm water versus the lock coverage and can you just explain why you want to extend the driveway from where it is now all the way back to the pool house and pool house is going to be if it's pass it's
going to be pool house not a garage so what I'm trying to understand addition I think part of it is just getting getting parking I think generally we like to see uh parking behind the building uh we don't like to have parking in the front yard so this
just sort of allows us to do that that's that's the main reason um it also allows us to get go so our our street we can't park out front of our house because um so my wife and I have a hard time getting in and out of our driveway we
have two cars um by taking the driveway back and having it kind of fan a little bit it allows us to both pull in and come out um it also just leaves more room for parking so yeah and then with respect to the
pool house we're talking about separate it's generally caring to a garage shed you're remove a shed it's supposed to be a pass what what obviously the pool house pool house I'm assuming CH change out are there any other plans that you
have the pool house it's a single room uh it's gonna have a half bath just so that my kids aren't running in and out of the house to go to the bathroom it's just much easier to go right there and it's going to be just a giant living room probably with a front door there won't be a garage door but it's just
going to be a pretty vanilla structure so one of the mitigating factors as as that could be considered for the impervious coverage their existing driveway just goes approximately 50% uh down the side of the the house this will provide parking through the
rear of the house and and uh it is consistent in terms of location and the driveway configuration is consistent what would we typically would encourage for a detached garage under
goals and objectives of our master plan this a point to consider um in the C in the calculations of the impervious covers the pool area itself was included in that correct yes pool areas are still uh which considered impervious which we've talked about
before has there's a certain amount of storage that would be uh there's a certain amount of capacity that can be correct but you can't countle on that in the winter if they have a solid cover so that's why we always have to per de
standards we have to consider it in purpose thank you just have a clarifying question on the pool house it's just a one-story pool house right no upstairs just just a low one story low low rise Big L with a bathroom yep thank the
height would still have to comply with our accessory building standards 16t the 20 foot width Bridge should be should be okay further questions
comments uh guess we'll entertain a motion to approve or disapprove the application based on Elena's summary and the conditions that the two conditions that Steve stipulated and all the other conditions contain February 18th letter you and bulk together right
yeah we'll do them in one motion you have a motion I'll make a motion to approve the application um under the the conditions of the bo letter and the what was the other part the not to be used as a
dwelling dwelling or sleeping or sleeping and the asilt and the as builts we have a second I'll second any question or comment on the motion seeing none roll call suan
please Mr Madden yes chairman Hansen yes Mr dulus yes Miss Bon Cory yes
yes Mr famular yes Mr Schmidt yes eyes have it Project's approved so next month we'll do a resolution memorializing the decision that was made here this evening and then was that only six votes yeah oh Kate
needs okay perfect they passes so anyway we'll do a yeah we'll do a uh giv you guys this this is what it's GNA look like was this was that submitted in the application do we want to mark that as
an exhibit just to be safe to be safe we already voted so yeah so you know the appeal period obviously so after the after we do the resolution next month um once the notice
of that is posted in the newspaper there's a 45 day appeal period that uh somebody could technically appeal the decision that was made here this evening so if you proceed with the project you permits and everything you proceed before the appeal period is expired you'd be doing so at your in Risk just to make you aware very well thank you
very much folks thanks good to see you Kevin thank you thank you very much is there anyone you can email me all right the next case this evening is case number 25-1 d1p Pascal Evangelista 1304 Sven Drive
block 83 lot six let the record reflect that councilwoman Heron and the mayor who joined us guy here 13 1304 Sven Drive Mr Evangelista is he here okay here we go come forward man' we'll have our
solicitor swear you and anybody who's going to give testimony in this evening [Music] have a seat and you pull another chair right [Music]
up hello hi y uh can we have the name your name for the record Alice Evangelista your name Pat evangelist Maurice lenel
yeah all right and will you all um raise your right hand P to he can't hear okay um do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes yes thank you tell us about your project we want
to build a deck off the side of her house that is above ground 12 by 16 feet long it's tucked inside the corner of her house it's within the setbacks to the left and the
setbacks to the back and there is zero impact on rainwood runoff because it is an above ground deck with no roof so whatever so effectively the rain water should go through the slabs on the
ground back and if if you wish I can go right to our review letter let's do that thank you uh we issued a January 9th 2025 review letter uh the the variance that they're seeking this evening is for maximum loot coverage 42% being proposed
30% required in the zone and existing uh is calculated at 40% also should be noted that there are several existing non-conformities these are pre-existing conditions we just want to knowe on the record if you're successful your approval so it carries forward with your property uh and that
is uh front yard setback of 20.4 7 feet uh where it is existing and the requirement is 25 ft in the zone and then also there's an existing sidey yard non-conformity at 4.52 feet worth 5 ft is required in the zone uh we noted in
our review uh that uh uh the applicant is uh proposing uh an above ground deck just a few questions the deck will have um U uh gaps within the between the deck boards
spacing yes yes and then underneath the deck would be Earth it would not be concrete or or a hard surface or anything else like that as we noted in our review M mitigating factor is uh the njde
uh considers that type of deck to be pervious even though uh our ordinance does not and they still wish us to note for drainage purposes it's considered pervious for lot coverage it's still
considered impervious but I believe it's a mitigating factor that the rainwater that is being proposed for the additional 2% of uh lock coverage will drain through the deck and will drain into the soil beneath um also we know our review letter that uh the
improvements do not result in more than 500 ft of land disturbance and a grading plan would not be required for these proposed improvements that is all I have Mr chairman any board members have any questions Steve what's what's driving
the 40% ex% it's the calculation of current not so much what is I don't have the I don't have access to that yeah so it's just a calculation of um exactly uh they do have a masonary garage towards the rear
of the structure and they do have a driveway that extends all the way long driveway that extends all the way again that is you know one of the goals and objectives that we always have in our master plan that that promotes the character of our residential districts
uh and that is causing uh a good portion of the calculation of lock coverage any other uh questions or comments for Steve or the applicant um Maurice can you spell just give me can you spell your last name l a
n n e a uux thank you since we don't have any uh further questions or comments for Steve or the applicant will open the app this application up to the public anybody from the public want to comment on this application come forward seeing none we close public
comment bring it back to Elena to uh explain a potential motion okay so the app applicant is requesting um Fulk C variances for um their Max lot coverage
where um they're proposing 42% or they have 40% existing so it is already over um the 30% required um as Steve explained the um there are mitigating factors um and they also have um some
previous um pre-existing non um pre-existing non-conformities on to their property that are contributing um they also have that long driveway that extend that extends back which one of the goals of the master plan um so this
does sound like it's um that the applicant is potentially going for a C1 bulk variant um as opposed to the C2 so there are some like physical characteristics of their land that are um causing them not to be able to meet the ordinance anybody like to make a motion
to approve or disapprove the application also [Music] inate any questions or comments on the motion seeing none entertain a roll call Susan sure um Mr Madden yes Miss Bon
Cory yes Mr dulus yes chairman Hansen yes mayor H yes councilwoman hard yes Mr famor yes Mr Schmid yes Miss borcher yes and Mr Christie yes
motion passes the eyes have it you're approved so if I I don't know if you heard my Spiel after the last application next month when we meet we'll do a resolution that memorializes the approval that was granted here this evening and then that after that happens that not or that the notice of that
decision will be published in The Courier Post in retrospect or one of them and then from that period on there's a 45 day appeal period that somebody could technically appeal the decision that was made here this evening considering that nobody came out in opposition of the application and the minor nature of it I would say that's
highly unlikely but if you want to proceed with getting your construction permits and starting on the project before that appeal period expires you're doing so at your own risk that's it thank you well this will this be turned over to the building department now or
do we have to go back to them and reapply go see Suzanne I believe you submitted for building perm before and then you refer to the board go if you would go see suzan okay and they'll work it out all
right thank you there's nothing further you need here okay thanks folks thanks for coming in good luck with your project thanks thank you thank you okay we've got one last item this
evening and that is block 2 public hearing on the Redevelopment study preliminary investigation report prepared by penon for the following block and lots block 26 Lots 1 2 2.0 1 3
4 5 6 7.1 7 9 10 11 12 13 21 block 28 Lots 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 34.2 34.1 block 44 Lots one 1.01 16 through
20 oh that's okay I thought you were trying to stop me from having to do an auction here block 50 Lots 89 block 1 Lots 9 9.01 loock 80 Lots 1 2 2.01 and 2.03 aka
the study area I see we have Miss given again on this matter yes good evening and Matt is with us to present the yes Matt Waker from penon um why don't we just have um Matt sworn please and then any conversation that we have is just uh
sworn testify ready raise your right hand swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you uh so as the chairman mentioned uh there are quite a few Lots included in
this uh preliminary investigation which is a first step in any Redevelopment area designation um back in July um penon was tasked with doing this investigation um to explore whether or
not the the properties met the statute criteria to be declared in an area in need of Redevelopment uh a few years ago um a number of these properties were declared to be Rehabilitation areas and so that designation will not go away uh
it remains attached to the properties um the investigation that Mr Wanamaker's firm conducted uh was to look at a different portion of the local Redevelopment and Housing law in terms of whether or not uh the properties satisfied the conditions to be declared
an area in need of Redevelopment um there is an extensive report that has been submitted by um Mr Wanamaker's firm and it has been uh placed on file with the buau um a map delineating the study area has been placed on file appropriate
notice of this meeting has been published in the retrospect on two consecutive occasions um and has been provided to all the property owners who may be impacted um by the investigation um Mr monaker will go through the um
investigation the study uh I see that there are a lot of people here who are interested in in the results of the study um and I I don't know um if it would be appropriate to if allow them to to know that there
are only a few properties that actually are going to be designated um rather than um you want to let them know what the properties the three properties are that are actually that were found to be in need of Redevelopment so that if they're they're not affected or if
they're not interested in free properties that are actually designated for lack of a better term sure well the recommendation uh within this study um from Mr Waker firm um is that block 26 Lot 12 which is the PNC Bank building on
Station Avenue along with block 80 Lots one 2 and 201 and potentially 203 um the old Window Factory site the old Window Factory site uh all other properties that are contained within the study area have been found not to
qualify to be designated as Redevelopment areas um pursuant to the to the investigation that's so I I would like for uh you know everyone in the audience to understand um if their property is not one of those lots
they're not they don't qualify for re for redevelopment at this time at this time um and I those people would have everyone that's within the study area would have been noticed everyone in the study area everyone whose property is listed in the study has received notice
so everybody not everyone has received a copy of the report even though it's available and so I just wanted to make sure that that people in the audience are not uh waiting on you know for a half hour 45 minutes to hear whether or not their property qualifies only those properties um were determined to meet
that criteria at this time so to summarize everybody would have got a notice that their property was being considered as part of this Redevelopment study subsequently once the study was Final or conducted uh there were only three
blocks or two properties for lack of a better term that were designated that met the Criterion under uh New Jersey Law to be in need of Redevelopment and qualify for redevelopment which would be basically the Window Factory site on Kings Highway uh between Dallas and the
park and then the second property is the old midlantic Bank up here so if you're if you're interested in one of the properties that's not one of those two properties then your your uh property really isn't affected by the study it was not deemed to be in need of Redevelopment at this time just to just
so I don't want I don't want you have to sit here and uh listen to the whole report if you're discourage anyone from staying in no I'm not trying to discourage anyone want any okay thank you the entire time that I was I wanted to do I wanted to do what
I was concerned with I don't want people to be no I don't want to waste anybody's time it's just the bank and the bank on the corner Bank on the corner station and the Window Factory site property itself it's the it's that area back there behind and then the area block 80
and it would be lot one two 2011 and potentially 203 so it's the Window Factory Sherwin Williams behind it and then uh the Mr Neil property is what we'll be discussing we're going to discuss all of them Mr Waker is going to go over everything U but I just wanted
to make that clear so I I the one property I know that this can be stressful for people who whose property is being considered and I just wanted to give no I think that was appropriate okay so at this point I'm gonna turn it over to Matt so he can explain everything to you where's yours Matt all right thank you and good
evening I apologize I didn't get here early enough to figure this out did have a yeah oh sorry thank you no all good um we did have a presentation I can send this to you guys if you want to post it somewhere later um just real quick our agenda tonight uh first I'm going to go
through uh the investigation process then we'll talk about the parcels that we investigated and then I will discuss the results um so as mentioned um Council adopted resolution on July 2nd 2024 directing the board to undertake a preliminary investigation to determine
whether certain properties qualify as non-c condemnation Redevelopment area so our process to do that included site visits we did meet with uh the owners and occupants of each of the sites that we looked at uh parcel by parcel survey we um uh did a background report
research including tax records all kind of background research so we were pretty thorough it took a couple months and we did look at each parcel individually again um this would just list off the parcels again um we do have a map over on the right side for reference uh the
map on the the right shows the study parcel areas how they are grouped into four different study area sub areas across town and then um I guess we could just jump in I don't know how much everyone is familiar with the Redevelopment
process you guys are been through a few uh here in town so all right great so I don't need to list all the criteria but for the most part um we uh focused our activity on criteria a b c and d and also uh section three the reason for
that is you know e f and g didn't seem to apply nothing's in you know uez nothing was destroyed by fire Etc so we focused on a b c and d and also criteria three so that said sub area one which we
have now on the board on the left that is block 80 lot one two and 2011 all seem to qualify according to our research uh block 80 lot one which is all the on the left the one you see
striped uh that met criteria B and D to recap meant that's a discontinuance of use um for at least two consecutive years and also uh buildings or improvements which are dilapidated obsolete overcrowded
Etc we've also got block 80 lot two which is the green one there and that for that one we determined section three was applicable because we couldn't really um can't really uh redevelop the entire block or those other two Parcels at least without possibly using that one
for Access or um I mean that it actually shares a wall with block 80 lot 2.01 so there was a lot going on there that we didn't really feel um we could redevelop properly uh lot one and uh 2.01 without
lot two as well and then again lot two one we found uh eligible for criteria D which to restate is the dilap dilapidated obsolete overcrowded um detrimental safety Health morals welfare of the
community next sub area too if you wouldn't mind flipping that is along Kings Highway this is block 44 have some pictures on the right to get you situated and none of these
blocks qualified after our research now go to sub area three now we are uh downtown on station a you see the yellow Bo block there or box there is Lot 12 on block 26 and we
found that that was eligible for criteria B and being as you need only one that one meets the qualifications for redevelopment could you explain why it meets criteria B sure want me go just just do that one or go back through the other two uh just for this um this one
so that we don't have Okay so this again uh block 26 let me just find a place here Lot 12 um okay demonstrated conditions that align with be due to the discontinuance of use for uh we about two years while the vacancy period as
stated is relatively recent this is all in our report as I'm reading from uh the discontinuance of the commercial use on this property represents a significant vacancy that if it continues can be detrimental to the welfare of an otherwise thriving downtown street so um and we did find
some minor uh facade deterioration there was some blocks that appeared to be falling off the building so there's some some dilapidation happening on the exterior side of the building but for the most part very important chunk of your downtown that has been abandoned and we thought that that was uh critical
to that um designation yeah uh this is our last sub area four U which had two municipal Parcels uh two municipal blocks four Parcels total and we did not find that any of those met the criteria for designation for the most part that is
des yep so I can turn this to you a this is uh between Atlantic and seven 50er so we ran through each of the criteria for each lot and uh did our background uh tax research Etc and just
found that uh we we couldn't justify any of the criteria for these properties any questions I have question right so so you got with block you have lot one 2.01 I think you said 2.03 is by
necessity two is two is by I gu my question then is sorry it's the 2.03 why wouldn't that be ined as well two because that whole block or lot 2.01 goes all the way behind lot
2.03 right it seemed to us that 2.03 it just um you know the criteria says that it it you can use criteria three if it cannot be redeveloped without that parcel and we found that it
could be redeveloped without parcel 203 got it so you're saying that in order to get 2.01 use slot two right you could use 2.03 but it's that's
it's such a high bar to reach to justify that one versus the other that it made a lot more sense correct yes it could that yeah the sharing the wall it it adds an extra complication with
sharing the wall but also um if you're going to have access on 2.03 additional for a development that large might be a complication with Dallas AV um so the it is a it's just a mix of operational and you know bulk issues
that put that together Mr chairman can I answer a question I'm not writing any testimony where you U is part of your uh uh inclusion under the criteria three for lot lot two also that it does have
existing access easements that Services uh lot 2.01 it does yes so well those don't exist for 2.03 to0 correct there's not cross access Seas but there's cross access Seasons very specifically through plot two which is
to show you William Sherwin Williams property that it provides access to 2.0 okay 2.03 is more self-contained the others are all really interrelated because there's no way to get around the back from right 2.0 from the front of
2. right and and that's what uh section three is all about if they're all interrelated Parcels but there's nothing otherwise that would include that one that's when we designate that else have any questions we have anything further missg uh no um we can open that up to the
public has any we'll open the hearing up to the public at this point if anybody from the public wants to come forward and ask questions or uh any comments about the study come forward and we'll have you sworn in everyone in at
comment PR you GNA make comments as well we'll have you all three sworn in at once then just to make it easy on everybody yeah anyone who's going to give um public comment just raise your right hand um do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes thank you with Chris morzinski first me go first the ring [Laughter] leader that has not necessarily I meant that I meant that in an endearing way a loving way
only in a loving way um I so Chris marzinski 109 Third Avenue um this may have my first question may have been answered I apologize I couldn't hear uh the answer but the lot um
2.03 I'm curious why that's not recommended as part of for all the criter that we had to didn't qualify so it's in good oper flow of the property still
works the building's been maintained there's really just so my and this is a general comment if the objective is to develop redevelop the entire area the green lot in the middle is the
most complicated to get control of it's owned by a company in California it's occupied by a national tenant the ability to get that is difficult at best um at least any
reasonable amount of time so I'd encourage to the extent it can be flexible I'd encourage all the lots to be explored together and not separated so that there's the ability to do it either in
totality which would probably be ideal or if for some reason the green can't be got or you know um controlled in some reasonable time frame that it doesn't prevent anything from happening so let me ask a question then to his point is
if if and and the testimony was that the Sheran Williams property was necessary because of the access the cross a that the majority of the reasoning for that was the cross access easement to allow access to the back of the site so say that you weren't able to
secure that property would that make 2.03 more appealing or more uh appropriate as far as being necessary if 2.01 wasn't available according to State Statute very to justify to say that that
one parel [Applause] isqu well excuse me but I don't think that it would negate I think you could retain the sherwan Williams property yeah um for the effective Redevelopment
um based off of the the statute um well at the same time considering and remember this is a non-c condemnation designation and therefore the property owners are not required to relinquish title to anything and so um you have to have a willing buy or willing seller in
order to get all of the parcels into um a particular configuration that's going to lend itself to an effective Redevelopment so that's also something to consider is it distinguishing difference between these properties that lot two
and 2.01 share wall so so 2.03 there be no access there's no way to get through 2.03 to 2ot lot one lot two and oh yeah it's it's right in the middle I remember that from when andus was here
yeah and that may not even mean that the entire prop Reus I would can I add something I would um again if the goal of the burrow is to get all four Lots redeveloped at some point in our
lifetimes having on the optionality of all four of them is very helpful versus being blocked by one of the owners which sits right in the middle so the more flexibility and the more
optionality there is for somebody in the future to redevelop it that's helpful and whatever criteria you would have to look at obviously I know there's there's rules and regulations but it'd be
challenging to not have the flexibility of all four of them and you know the gentlemen that are behind me they're they'll speak to specifics I'm just talking more generally about uh you know as much
flexibility and optionality is a better outcome versus forcing it into one spot versus another so that's all I have thanks CHR anyone else
so Mr Neil correct yes so the goal my goal is to see if I can get added into this Redevelopment and you are the owner of owner 2.03 2.03 correct if I can just ask a question and
maybe um if you would uh read off the criteria three yeah I do have it yeah so I think it' be important for the board to hear about um the criteria um that could be used to include a property for an effective
planning area just for further discuss so this is criteria this is um a separate section so the criteria are a through H eight different criteria under subsection three of the local Redevelopment and Housing law this permits a Redevelopment area to include
land buildings or improvements which of themselves are not detrimental to the public health safety or welfare but the inclusion of which is found necessary with or without change in their condition for the effective Redevelopment of the area of which they are a part can I ask you a question
Emily sure when when we make our recommendation back to Council on this are we allowed to make that recommendation that we consider including 2.03 yes I know it doesn't because you find that that particular lot based on the questions
that have been raised um and your own inquiry um you feel that it does satisfy subsection three uh and should be included for those reasons that are have been put on the record okay thank
you okay and to Matt's Point um you know if this were a condemnation Redevelopment area um my opinion would be a little bit different on whether or not to um include a property like
that to property owner to participate willing property owner who in the process um and and you know I think that that lends itself to a better more effective Redevelopment area is
that sustainable in terms of if we make that decision based upon the Testament of today that we want to include that property that that that's something that could because it's notation with chall
well be because we are explaining the reasoning behind including it uh we have it on the record we have property owner here it's not objecting it's actually asking to be included um for purposes of access points um you know I think that
the based off of the board's own knowledge uh and understanding of the area the history of the site and the characteristics um you know you certainly have the ability to make those recommendations um I don't I don't want
to dissuade you from any course of action that take um and and I do fully understand why Mr Wanamaker's findings are what they are the stat fact that it's non- condemnation yeah the non- condemnation it it makes
it um extremely important to have cooperation for the criteria that Mr Wanamaker had to use to prepare the study is pretty rigid as far is pretty defined and rigid as far as what he can and cannot designate a to designate on its own under the
eight criteria that are available yeah this property simply does not course pretty new it's been a lot work put into yeah um so fact that we don't know it hasn't even been contemplated what exactly is going to go there what the layout would look like or what the use
would be then it would be my opinion almost completely appropriate for us to consider that within this greater area so that might be able to be utilized to uh to effectuate whatever the governing body comes up with and you know powers
that we come up with it's actually going to be contemplated for this site yes has a use correct it is it's Zone residential and your master plan has always been contemplated and recommended that uh rezoning be looked
at uh uh for all all four of those parcels and also in the mes this is just from memory I don't have it in front of me uh but also it's a contemplated that it be reviewed exactly what the bur has done here for uh possibly the
designation of area in need to Redevelopment again it's a non-c combination investigation that is being uh uh reviewed this evening and in my opinion you know I'm not sworn but maybe
I should be real quick we s you I'm swearing from the whole thing good so uh you have you have and I I agree with em you have the ability to say that yes in your opinion as a board that this property should be included under
subsection 3 for an effective uh uh planning area for redevelopment and I believe you're perfectly within your your your guidelines to do this plus having the property owner here indicating that he has no objection on the record is very
important thank you Steve thank you you anything further Mr I do not thank you thanks for coming in this evening to see you please good evening uh Gary Morris with lot 2011 right
behind Sher Williams and Mr Neil good to see you again so we're we're complete in agreement with the designation to redevelop that area so get no opposition from us perfect so all right we've tried I guess the last couple years get hold
of the owners of shm Williams paint but they just go unanswered forward to seeing something happen here hopefully in the absolutely absolutely so you know the Q balls here agree so good thank you very much for your time appreciate it thanks for coming
out Echo what Mr I have the 2016 Master examination part of it at the end of itcl says we're Redevelopment Rehabilitation area designation has potential to advance objectives incen Redevelopment of
properties anchor the local community to create Community value and have posi those anybody else from the public want to come forward and speak or did stand in the back when your were swearing I saw you thank you thank you
okay uh John oapen loot one block 80 and uh just wanted to clarify I I understand it's a non-c condemnation and that eminent domain is not an option here I I believe there was probably misspoken when one of the plots was referred to as possibly being taken I want to just
clarify that it cannot be taken it canot be taken as correct okay I I'd heard that and that you know little red flag um also what if you can enlighten me because I'm not well versed in this what does Redevelopment mean specifically or
what options are there for redevelopment what is that so Redevelopment allows a municipality to work closely with a developer owner of a property um to come up with ways to better develop the
property better use the property it's usually a distressed property they're you know the criteria that your property satisfies are outlined okay so outlined so you know what the property issues are
um and so the burrow then can work on developing zoning that would maximize the use of your property help with incentivizing um potentially through tax incentives uh Redevelopment area designations carry with it the ability
to Grant long-term Pilots tax exemptions uh for development there can be creative ways to work with um other property owners in the overall development of the site and then if you're doing certain types of projects
um affordable housing projects you get uh scoring higher scoring in a Redevelopment area so it allows the burrow to work outside the general scope of their zoning code uh to change the Zoning for a particular project that
best suits the Bur needs at the time uh as well as the property owner's vision for what that property should be like so it gives a lot of flexibility um but it also requires a lot of the redeveloper so um you know you don't just get
special zoning you know there's a there's a give and take it's a public private partnership uh and that's what the the words of the in the statute okay so uh special zoning is is you know I'm not looking for special zoning uh Mr Buck talk talked about how it's zoned
residential every property every building on that property is commercial and the property was commercial up till 1991 I believe it was so my question is is it going to be rezoned as commercial I can't sell or get any tenants in the building because I have to go through
use variances and it costs thousands tens of thousands of dollars and takes months to to get it I've had potential tenants walk away because I don't want to deal with it they don't want anything to do with it I had buyers walk away I've had buyers denied because of use variances so is this part of the plan to
rezone this block can I speak to that so at this point this is just a preliminary investigation I understand so it's premature to talk about what is the next step which is the Redevelopment plan the Redevelopment plan is what is the
document that creates the special zoning that read that that zoning could be in the place of an overlay Zone that only comes into effect uh uses and Zoning that only comes into effect when a redeveloper name or the Redevelopment
plan could say these uses are permitted within this Redevelopment zone so but that discussion and that aspect has not been uh reviewed that has not been generated or prepared this is only a a a discussion and a hearing do these
properties meet the criteria for redevelopment so you can go to the next step okay so without this step and without this public hearing and without an affirmative vote by by the board it can't go to the next step to review whether those type of zoning changes can
be okay but it's you're more the welcome to you know you you have provided your your uh wishes that you rather the residential zoning be changed and there'll be another opportunity when the
Redevelopment plan is in place because it will have to come back to this board uh for consistency review so keep an eye out for when a redevelop what role if any do the uh current owners of the properties have in that Redevelopment plan is that Redevelopment plan
determined by the town and then dictated to us or are we have a say in any of that so there's there's a lot of different ways that that that can happen um there are uh depending on how truncated it becomes uh if each of
the current property owners um isn't cooperative and isn't going to engage in a Cooperative type of development um and each parcel has to get developed individually um that could create roadblocks that could take a lot of
time Council and the planning board have to take a good look at what the the best uses for the site are um based upon the needs of the burrow and there are certain things that if residential development were to come into play any developer would have to be willing to
develop affordable housing because the burrow has affordable housing obligations that it has to meet so there are other considerations in working through a Redevelopment plan and process um right now after the hearing tonight this board
is going to make a recommendation back to Mayor and Council and then mayor and councel will do an official designation um and they could accept the recommendation of the the board to include lot 2.03 or they could reject
that um but at this point this after this step the designation occurs um we notify the Department of Community Affairs of the designation um and then we can proceed um with a development stage is there a schedule or any kind of
timeline set on this or what the at least the next step so mayor and Council will probably take action at their next meeting we take action at the next meeting that would then then that point
Redevelopment Give an example the last developers some developers are owners some developers are you know people that were buying proper and then um we we craft additional overlay we can craft
additional overlay Z that's pered as a revelop um as we work with said and a who helps us a plan that's be beneficial to the community it's a public private
partnership so hypothetically if you were a developer sense it does still not clear on the timeline though no yeah it's hard to say because there's no you could literally it comes to whether or not we could write a plan
ourselves put it on that space and it could just sit there never be used right or you come say I have an idea counil and then set the timeline does that sense a little so there's too
many factors to I understand yeah because there's no right does that sense it does it does really whether or not has an idea wants to come and present it potentially buying it they have to have a contractual interest for
them to to start the negotiations so it's not like I'm thinking about buying it I'm going to go change the zoning on your property that's not the case right remember the zoning never changes this is likely it will be an over it could be I there is potential to supersede the but
that's not really that's but again that's premature that's not what's contemplated here so no plans have been put in place in terms of changing any zoning this is just the first part of the process to uh to set that these areas are in need of Redevelopment non-
condemnation and then the next step would be whenever that naturally occurs uh would be to do one Redevelopment plan or multiple development plans based on the individual parcels and that really is based on uh the
Burrow's uh track record of typically only doing those type of Redevelopment plans when someone who has an interest in the property we either owner or contract purchaser is uh at the table talking about what can be done at the
property I think it's very toci and you did mention uncertainty you've been looking for investors your buyers someone certainly as what Zing is when you're designated that tends to give some certainty to investors because now it's proven that
the bur has an interest the states now the states inv is focused on making your property better yeah that add some certain potential I see that as a positive uh but I also see that this could go on indefinitely so if I needed to have my
building reclassified or overlaid as a uh commercial property so that I could have potential buyers or investors could that happen separate independently of this Redevelopment and what would it take to make that happen it it's generally
counterproductive to a Redevelopment process uh to go through a different type of a zoning um to change zoning you go through almost the same type of process um by introdu introducing that coming back to the board for master plan
consistency um and and then adopting it but then if you also contemplating Redevelopment it's just layer on layer I'm just wondering how long it's going to take if that would be a quicker process that would delay it understood okay thank you I was gonna say I I
recall testimony from Real Estate folks specifically to lot one having that they had done performance for multi family resid right and not working on lot one but you have to understand Lots actually
work that's that's where headed understood and that's why there's interest other okay thank you any other members of the public want to speak or uh ask any questions
seeing none we'll uh close public comment bring it back to the board so our action is tonight is uh making recommendation to accept the study back to council this evening with any recommendations Emily yes yes and I did prepare a resolution for you but
that that resolution does not include lot 0203 um so if you um are interested in including that I will amend the resolution to reflect that um but you can just you know I imagine hearing the various board members
tonight and uh the property owners that are involved in that block that we would probably want to include lot 2.03 so somebody would like to are there any other recommendations with respect to the report that anybody would like to make back to the governing body in
addition to including 2.03 do we need to make any other special designation for uh is that 2.02 or 2.01 in the front two do we need to make any special recommendations with respect to that since it's the the green area and not
need of Redevelopment or so that one is going to be included um I think that the idea is to still include it within the designated area Okay um but we will also add in lot 2.03 for the same reason that
same criteria green shade yeah yeah okay um does anybody else have any qu questions or comments or additions deletions so that being said I guess we're looking for a motion to uh
recommend the designation that's uh spelled out in the plan and then so it would be the designation of um block 26 Lot 12 as well as block 80 Lots one two 2.01 and
2.03 as non- condemnation as non condemnation area need of Redevelopment with the balance of the study area not meeting any criteria and not being designated thank you anybody like to make such a
motion what was the what was the first lot it's the PNC yeah I'll make a motion to approve the lot 26 and the lot 80
um with the inclusion of lot 2.03 and was there any other no other excluding the excluding the other as as put on uh the resolution by the solicit as put on balance of the
properties or Not by redel the what Emily all s roll call or any questions or comments on the motion I'm sorry seeing none roll call Suzanne yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes than you thank you Matt thank you Emily you're welcome and I will make the revisions to the
resolution I'll include everyone who spoke you want to send it to me electronically I can sign it that way absolutely okay thank you thank you so much thanks thanks non- condemnation easy right question just need to sign your Tyler we
have any other business Suzanne I have one item Mr chairman if I can add I'm sorry has other business um under administrative uh business if we could just add under roll call on future agenda swearing into professionals that'll take care of swearing in of me
once in the beginning I'm trying to do every single one of my uh board appointments so not always going like this raising my hand I'm just warning the beginning of the hearing and that and it's done is that acceptable that's acceptable perfect you just need to sign
your name on that uh line on the right you could get all kinds of different I think I might adopt that strategy that's what we do in my other boards yeah I just sign the I just SAR the professionals at the beginning we'll start doing that yeah it makes a lot more sense you to be sworn
100 times anything else Suzanne anybody anything for the go of the order with the board I haven't heard Chris just cleaning it up yeah so close yeah let me get you are you having a subcommittee on this I had several
comments on it also i' would like to be and I I think I I really think it's I know there was going to be a sub commune meeting on it several several times if we can just get it even if we do it virtually like a a teams meeting or Zoom meeting kind of go through it
and everybody pop their comments and then someone act to subscribe and we get it done uh we have a lot of technical comments in terms of lighting and Kelvin and and all kinds of things that I don't even know how to that's
fine I think if we had yeah yeah and it was very good draft it was just some of the items we want to adj yeah we need tojn any else have anything for the second
all in favor hi hi returned thank you everyone