Heat. Heat. So, the the way this is going to work for these special meetings is we're we're going to turn it over to Jennifer Beam, who was our township planner, and she's going to kind of walk through um the
re-examination. report and then I as the chairman always welcome obviously you folks are here for a reason. Um public comment and questions and you will be heard. Um you're not going to be forced out of here except there is a zoning
board meeting here at 700 p.m. But you will be heard. Your questions will be answered. No one's going to rush you along. I don't run meetings that way. I never have. And um we keep it cordial. We keep it positive. And um that's about
it. Uh we just ask that the the respect uh is mutual on both both sides. So that parkway, huh? >> I'm sorry, Andy. >> It's like >> he had to be here anyway. So don't be
that apologized. I kind of feel like I'm driving down the Parkway when I I take my uh my kids to Howell South Middle School down Randolph Road. Starting to feel like the Parkway. >> All right, Andy. Yeah. Before you can uh sit down, could you please swear Jennifer in so we can get started?
>> Do you swear the testimony you'll give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> State your name for the record. Spell your last. >> Jennifer Beam. B E A H. >> Witness is sworn. Mr. >> Thank you, Andy. All right, Jennifer. Floor is yours. So, >> and if you could put put your microphone down. >> Sorry. Thanks.
>> So, we have as a planning board at the beginning of this year had implemented back the master plan subcommittee meetings which years past we have not done because
they have they had done the master planning years prior. So there was no need to you know expend the money and do things unnecessarily. So we had initially started that process and that process is going to continue just so you guys all
know through the rest of this year and there may be additional recommendations coming out of that process later on in the year. However, this uh re-exam is uh a refocus from the 2023 re-exam which
goes back to the 2019 2019 re-exam. And as you guys and I'll reiterate it for the public know that there are a number of things that need to be evaluated in a re-exam which is the problems with the goals and objectives
from prior uh re-exams or master plans extent with which the problems continue. Are there significant changes in assumptions? are specific changes recommended
and then there's two items at the end which are are these items that are being recommended part of like redevelopment and then the last piece of it is the electric charging vehicles etc. So, we went
through the document and we evaluated the the goals and objectives from the 2023 master plan. And so, I don't really want to like rehash the goals from 2023
because we're really just regurgitating what was in the master plan in 2023. We're not reproposing them. We're just restating them. Then we get into section B and there's items where we've identified that the
goal has been addressed already, meaning that the governing body has decided that they're not going to engage or they're going to implement a master plan or a ordinance change one way or the other to address the goal. And so we went through
and talked about those things that had been addressed. Then there are some that had been partially addressed. This is like starting on page eight honestly which talks about um reviewing
definitions which is always partially addressed because we're always constantly going back and reviewing uh definitions. We should look at additional opportunities for redevelopment. We again said that was partially addressed because we are again
consistently looking for redevelopment options. Um evaluate site plan checklist requirements for bank of facilities on farm projects. I know that's been a huge issue here. I don't think it's been fully addressed. I think it's been partially addressed. I
don't know if it's ever going to be addressed further, but it's not been there's not been an end to that process. So that's why we said that it was part partially addressed. It doesn't mean that anything's going to come from this, but that there's not been a defi the
definitive decision from the governing body that we're done talking about this issue. Then we talked about significant changes, which is basically the demographics, which I'm going to lay this out from the jump. These are census documents.
I am literally not changing the census. So, if you guys have an issue with something that's in here from the census, the governing the government is more than welcome to hear your complaints, but I am not changing a census document. It's not happening. >> You mean the federal government?
>> Correct. The federal government like it's >> we are the local government. >> I understand that. >> But we're not changing what the census has put out. It's just a general identification of various demographics over the census. >> Can I jump in, Jen? Sure.
>> And just >> to make it quite clear as well, >> we will not be speaking about demographics today. >> Okay? That that is not our role here as the planning board. I don't want to hear it. If that comes up, it's over. That com that conversation's over. That will
be the one time that I will stop conversations. >> So, I'm going to jump over section D, which is recommendations, which is basically the subject of this, and go to the other the last two sections, which are very easy to address, right? The first is it is very clear that the
governing body is in is looking into redevelopment options along Route 9 and on 33. These are things that they're looking for. They've done a number of things. They're continuing to look at that and they're continuing to move that forward. That's something that they're
doing. Nothing specific at this point, but that's what's moving forward. Lastly, the EV stuff. We're compliant with the state statute, right? So, we're not looking to do anything beyond what the state requires. So, that's the the
big picture. The piece of it that is of the subject that you guys need to look at tonight is what we're recommending. And so, there's a number of recommendations under section D on page 28. And
we have identified things like we are going to encourage the review of the viability of the SED zoning districts in central and southern portions of the town. That's something that the go that the master plan subcommittee has looked
into. There's no specific recommendation at this point in terms of how that's going to move forward. However, there have been zoning changes that have moved from SUV to AR6 in the southern central portion of the town and we feel that
there are other areas that warrant additional consideration. So, that's the be all and end all with respect to that recommendation. Um, there are there's a recommendation to introduce building coverage and lot
coverage requirements in the R zones. This has come up a number of times. Uh I think the last time here was not that long ago when we had a subdivision in South >> for a uh a development in in Ramtown.
Correct. From my my recollection where >> and there was no building coverage requirements. There was one lot that was oversized. It was concerned >> and there is a concern that the these smaller lots the our zones are the smaller lots in town, right? So they're
like the the 5 10 15,000 20,000 square foot lots. So not the a zones that are 1 acre 3 acre 6acre. These are the smaller zones. They they have not had coverage requirements in the zoning ordinance and
there's been a move to to recommend that we evaluate that. So that's one of the recommendations. Secondly, there's been a grandfather provision in the ordinance in one of the schedules. I think it's schedule three
in the footnotes that says like if your lot exists as of 20 uh 2007, you're absolved of the bulk standards. That's almost 20 years ago. it's time to remove these grandfathering provisions
and then move forward uh with our new zoning because we're we're 20 years in the future here. Like it's so that's a recommendation. Um secondly or thirdly,
there's a recommendation in here to require an actual garage. If you have a single family detached home, you need a single you need a garage. Whether it's if you're on a smaller lot,
it's a onecar garage on your a larger lot, it's a twocar garage. And the recommendation would be that these garages would not be available for conversion to living space because that has become an issue moving forward. One of the things that we did recommend
here is that if you do have an existing single family home that doesn't have a garage, you're not going to be required to build a garage. You're going to be exempted from that requirement. things that move forward. New homes that are proposing garages,
they need to have a garage and that garage needs to be a garage. So, that's a recommendation. Um, we recommended that there's a requirement in our ordinance. Doesn't really come here all that much. >> This the septic one. >> Yes. It doesn't come here all that much,
but it goes to the zoning board a lot and it costs the residents a lot of money, which basically says if you're not on a 40,000 square foot lot, you can't get a septic system without a variance. Now, we have tons of zones in the town, most of which are 15,000t
lots. They come in for a variance because they can't get a permit to get a septic system because we don't allow it. We have no jurisdiction over it. It's under the jurisdiction of the board of health and I can guarantee I can tell you and
Andy can commit to this on the zoning board. They grant the variance every single time but it's costing these residents couple thousand dollar a clip to come in to get this variance and we don't have jurisdiction >> that the zoning board Andy you can correct me if I'm wrong has recommended
in their annual report that we remove that requirement for many years in a row now. >> Definitely since I've been at the board. Absolutely >> correct. So that's something that we're looking to to move. Um we are obviously one of the
recommendations which is consistent with the next section of this is continue to look at Route 9 and Route 33 for redevelopment opportunities which is consistent with the second se the next section which talks about redevelopment opportunities. So we're just making that
consistent. um which goes to the next recommendation which is in looking for areas in need of redevelopment or in need of rehabilitation. So all of those are combined into one. We have recommended
that there be a detailed review of section 18811, which is the accessory uses section, which is what the permitted accessory uses would be, as well as whether or not what their standards
would be in terms of height, number of of uses, setbacks, etc. I know there's been some concern lately over some accessory uses. This recommendation is is recommending that the governing body really review that and re and revise
that accessory structure uh section of the ordinance. Obviously, we want to make sure that the town's regulations are consistent with the state and county state stormwater rags which are in constant flux as we both all know.
And then also there was a recommendation to evaluate our buffer requirements um specifically relating to so there were a number of properties on Route 9 that were being
developed consistent with the zoning on Route 9 but across Route 9 which is a 100 foot rideway >> was a non-conforming house which necessitated the buffer which I think that we should maybe look into how
that's applied. Um, I will say that the buffer ordinance here has been sacrosanked and both you and the zoning board have been very consistent in your application of it. But there are definitely a couple of things that maybe we want to tweak. And lastly, which is
not as high a priority as others, is evaluating um the house of worship ordinance specifically related to the area associated with. So the house of worship
ordinance is a conditional use. We require 5 acres. There have been recommendations from some um legal so be some legal recommendations to evaluate that our surrounding communities
have a much lower area. This is not recommending anything specific. It's just saying the governing body needs to look at it. >> We're going to take a >> That's it. >> Yep. >> And I I want to be very clear that these are recommendations. These are not ordinances. This is this is not tomorrow
it goes into effect and there's going to be some change but that that's basically the sub and substance of what we're recommending here >> Jen um what >> in the definitions part right
>> was ex how many definitions were revised let's say I mean was there was I I don't remember there being all that many >> I mean the definition section is pretty comprehensive, >> right? >> We have amended them periodically over
the years. This is not even recommending any specific changes. It's just saying we should continue to evaluate recommendations or definitions because things change constantly. >> Okay.
And is I'll hold my question. Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. All right. Um any questions from board members at this time? >> Regards to um regards to lot coverage. Are you looking at um us identifying a
percentage? >> Not us. That's not your responsibility governing body. >> That's the governing body. So we're recommending that they look at it and recommend it. >> We're not okay. >> Recommending anything specific. Okay. >> So that will come back.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. Uh, thanks Jen. Greatly appreciated. So, um, again, I will open this up to the public. Um, when you do come up, please, if anybody's here for the planning board,
not the zoning board at 7, uh, please come up, state your name and address, uh, speak into the microphone. If you'd rather sit down, those two little, uh, rectangular things are microphones and they're on. Speak clearly. Um,
again, the planning board is an advisory board to the town council. So, we make recommendations to town council and then Councilman Rebel as representative uh takes it back to the council and they discuss it at the council meeting which is tomorrow, Michael. Right. >> Correct. Y
>> um so you know also um I think everybody up here for the most part has Facebook. We've seen the comments. I think a lot of the comments quite frankly um are not to should be not directed to the
planning board. Um uh I think there there's some uh either I don't know inferred communication that's not correct or or what but um I always get a kick out of the keyboard warriors. So keep on keyboard warrioring. Um so if anybody likes to come up and questions,
comments, please feel free come on up. Yep. Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Paula Samurell Heritage Point. I just have two quick questions. Sure. Um Jennifer. >> Hi. >> Yeah, you have to get sworn in too. I'm sorry. >> You swear the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
>> Yes, I do. >> And state your name again. Spell your last. >> Paula Samarel. S A M A R E L. >> A R >> E L. >> E L. Yes. >> Got it. >> Okay. Just >> Paula, just pull that down a little bit for you. There you go. Perfect. >> Okay. Um, two quick questions. Um,
Jennifer had mentioned about in the R zones. I think that you had said that they were like the smaller lots. I guess I live in um, Heritage Point, so I guess would that be considered what? An R zone? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, um, it was mentioned that, um,
you were going to re-evaluate, unless I misunderstood, re-evaluate those zones. And I was just wondering what kind of re re-evaluation you were looking for um to do and are we going to be able to
get copies of of of like your um suggestions, your you know re-evaluations, th those kind of things. >> So the document is available in town hall. It's been available for the past 10 days. >> Okay, great. >> A little more. >> Yeah, >> a little bit more probably. >> Okay, good.
>> Um good to know. Secondly, what we're looking for in the R zones is to create lot coverage and building coverage requirements. >> Okay. Okay. The next thing you're probably going to think this is a little silly, but um I was just wondering on Route 9, we're going to you're going to be doing the redeveloping and I've seen
that there's some new um establishments going up along Route 9. Um you know, along the strip malls, I guess you'd say, or whatever. um in the past and I've lived in how for like 40 years so it seems like the colors of the buildings are all pretty much similar
you know that light beige color um which is you know very I think it's very nice and you know doesn't like stand out but I've noticed that some of the other um newer buildings that are coming up are this ugly gray black and I don't think
it does anything to the aesthetics of of you know the Route 9. Um, so I was just wondering who who's, you know, is there like a department that decides the colors of the of the buildings? I know like in um I think Ocean Grove like all
the homes have to be. >> So Ocean Grove is a federally designated historic district and has a historic commission which dictates everything that happens there. This is totally different. >> I I that's fine. I'm just giving an example of what I'm trying to to figure
out. I used to live down in Florida. I lived in an HOA. Everybody had to, you know, there was a selection of colors that you had to do. All I'm saying is the 40 years that I've lived here, Route 9 has pretty much had the same tone
color tones of all of the the buildings. >> Who is the one that decides like what department decides what color >> the the the exteriors of the building is going to? It's before the board and it comes before my office and then I present it to the board
>> and so it's >> and just so you were clear that's not a recommendation here. I mean the board >> and a few and as this process is ongoing it could consider like you know amending or trying to create additional architectural standards whether it's in a redevelopment plan.
>> Yeah because >> but right now it's handled application by application through Jen's office. >> I will I will tell you this Paula and it's a good question. Um, we do have an architect that sits on our our on our board here and um, you know, I what
happens is they they bring an application to us, right? And it goes to Jen's office. >> If somewhere someone wanted to build a retail center on Route 9 and it was bright neon green, obviously we're going to have some issues with that, right? And recommend and there's dialogue
between the planner, the engineer, and the applicant along the way before it comes to us, right? So, I think it's kind of I don't want to say common courtesy, but it's like, you know, you're not getting away with a bright orange building here. You know, it's got to fit. But >> with a black ugly black
>> Well, to that point, you know, >> honestly, so ugly. >> Architecture is >> Who is that handled by? >> Me. >> Oh, okay. >> And honestly, architecture is, you know, your opinion of the aesthetic
is your opinion. Other people have other opinions of the >> takes precedence over >> my opinion is recommended to the board and quite frankly >> this is something we can take down as a note but this is not a master plan comment. >> Yep. >> Well, I'm just
but we're here for a master plan hearing and we have a zoning board at 7. >> I understand what you're saying to find out who >> handles it. >> I do. So, so you are the one that handles the colors and the architectural
design of So, that that answers my question. >> Well, she doesn't handle the architectural design of the buildings, but this is not this is unfortunately this is not what we're talking about tonight. I I I understand your question a whole >> So, the planning board has nothing to do
with the application by application. Your architectural plan submitted. >> It's reviewed by the engineers office, Jen's office. I'd like to suggest some Martha Stewart color palette. >> There you go. >> I will take that into full consideration. >> Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah. Come on up, sir. Just state your name and address, please, for the record. >> Sworn in. >> Um, you could state your name first. And >> Joe Banis, Colt Stack Road. >> Hey, Joe. >> How you guys doing? >> Good. >> Do you swear the testimony you give will
be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Always. And I do. >> Okay. Just spell your last name, please. >> B I Z O N O S, like the banana song. Uh, all right. So, I had a question about the uh houses of worship. Um, what what exactly is uh being discussed when it
comes to that? I know it's the 5acre. I'm assuming it's going to be discussed to go down in in acreage. Uh, second question regarding that, is that going to be uh for a commercial standard use or is that including any sort of variance or anything like that? Um,
>> so the recommendation is to evaluate the area requirement >> only. >> Right now we're on 5 acres. Every one of our neighbors is less than that. >> And there has been a discussion from the township attorney's office to the governing body that they evaluate the
area only. That's for a house of worship. It has nothing to do with any other use. A house of worship here has a separate standard in our ordinance. It's a conditional use. Any deviation from any condition requires a use variance. So right now we're at five acres. There
has been discussion of evaluating a lower acreage, but this recommendation is strictly to say they should look at it. That's it. There's no recommendation as to exactly what they should do with it. That goes back to them at the
township council and then they can decide what to do with it. >> Very good. Okay. Um I think that was my only official question. Um, as far as Facebook Warriors, I couldn't agree more. That's why I'm here in person with a few other people here. Um, I think it's our right to be here and I
appreciate you guys hearing us out. >> Yeah, I appreciate it. Thank you so much. See you guys tomorrow as well. >> Thank you, >> Jen. Just a clarification though, like in my world, right, with with uh the environmental business. >> Um, houses of worship are considered
commercial. Correct. kind of >> because in in in for >> from a zoning standpoint, they're also considered inherently beneficial. So there's a totally different scenario associated with them. >> That's why they kind of househaw
that protects them. So it is not something that should be looked at very quickly. >> Agreed. Agreed. >> So this recommendation is based upon a recommendation from the town of attorney. Well, there are legal issues,
>> correct? And so they the governing B this is saying we agree >> they should look into it. >> Yeah. No, I I guess my question is and it it it pertains to this specifically, right? >> Does it fall under
both house of worship and commercial? >> It's our ordinance has it totally separate. >> It's totally separate. Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> It's a totally separate section of our ordinance. >> Gotcha. Okay. Anybody else? >> Good evening.
>> Good evening. Sandra Vieiraa. Hi Alia Court. >> Do you swear the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Always. >> Thank you. And then just spell your last. Say just your last name, please. >> V as in Victor. I E I R A.
B I E I R A. Yeah. V I E I. Got it. Got it. Got it. >> Thanks. >> You're welcome. Um, so I was listening when you were mentioning the potential of rephrase it for me please.
No longer converting garages. Every resident must have a garage. Can you elaborate? >> So new development. So if you have an I have a single family dwelling and built in the 60s and that garage was converted to my daughter's bedroom. So I no longer
have a garage. I'm grandfathered in, quote unquote. Any new development going forward, single family, detached, >> you know, standalone house would need a garage or a detached garage. Correct. >> Either attached or detached. Yes. >> Yeah. That that sounds wonderful. My
question is, um, my house was built around 92. I I never plan on moving. Let's say someone moves into our neighborhood of houses built in '92 and they desire to now convert their garage. Does this
conversation hinder them or is it just for new construction? >> They would need a variance. Can you explain what a varian >> the council adopted the or an in order >> if if the council adopts an ordinance requiring that the garage function as a
garage and does not permit conversion to living space, they would have to go to the zoning board and ask for relief to convert that space and provide justification. Why? So, in a sense, it sounds like we're coming up
with an ordinance, but then we're giving people the ability >> I got it >> to pardon it. >> Well, ma'am, any any property owner has the right under law to seek variance from any of our zoning requirements. So, we can't the council can't zone that
away or legislate that away. So even but to get a use variance under the law is it's a very high standard and it's not easy under the law but every property owner including yourself have that right. >> The idea sorry. >> Oh continue.
>> You go. I'm good. >> The idea of the stipulations to be strict sound very appealing because as garages are converted in your case it's wonderful. it's a daughter's
room. Um, there is also the potential of garages being converted for other reasons >> that don't segue into the neighborhood that don't um >> No, we we understand exactly what you're saying. Um, you know, put it this way.
Uh, again, I think we're getting outside of of what we're discussing tonight, but I understand what you're saying. We have u development applications come here all the time. and one of us up here or Jen or um Laura who who's not here this
evening will state you know a your basement is not going to be used as a living space or your garage is not going to be used as a living space right and and the attorneys up there the applicants up there nine times out of 10 they agree without even checking with their client but it's we feel it's very
important in this in this township um I understand your concern though 100% I think we all understand your concern >> that's absolely absolutely wonderful. If this were something that were taken to the next few steps and and passed, I think the residents of Howell would be
very pleased. Um especially for the safety purposes, you know, everything. My other um the other point I wanted to bring up when you were discussing the potential of changing the requirements for a house of
worship within a residential zoned within something that's zoned for residential. So you're saying okay right now it's 5 acres. We would want to consider reducing that. >> We're just considering it. >> I I just want to be very clear. This is
not the governing body. They are not proposing anything other than the recommendation to look into it. >> Yeah. >> They haven't looked into it. They haven't. >> So these guys have zero zoning control.
They don't have the ability to limit to allow nothing. All they can do is make a recommendation to the governing body. So we have one governing body member here. He's listening to what you're saying, but this board has zero ability to
either zone for or zone against. We can only make a recommendation. That's it. >> Yeah. Well, that's absolutely wonderful. And I know a lot of people listen to these meetings online, so thank you for the opportunity to speak. Um, I guess some questions in that consideration as
it's being discussed would be, um, how would that affect if we if we change the requirements, how would that affect the safety of neighborhoods? Um, I am a devout Christian, so I go to a house of
house of worship every week, every Sunday. But seeing the amount of traffic, seeing what's required, three uh less than five acres just seems in my opinion, in my experience, it
would seem difficult to put that in a neighborhood. So, am I understanding that correctly? You want to reduce it? Uh well, as a recommendation to re-evaluate and I think that your comments and questions would be better directed at Councilman Rebel and the
rest of town council when that opportunity arises. >> Yeah. >> Now, Mike, is that >> tomorrow? >> Let's book up your week real quick about this particular issue tomorrow. >> I don't think this is on our agenda for tomorrow. >> No. So, it would be not tomorrow's
council meeting probably. Mike, you're looking at >> No, that's >> down the road. >> Yeah. >> This is a recommendation >> down the road. >> Yeah. >> That has been put forth to us from the township attorney, >> right? >> Which we've included in our re-exam to
for how to have them evaluated. >> Yeah. But I'm I'm just saying trying to give her an idea. >> It's not emergent. Down the road situation, right, Mike? Like this is >> this is a down the road situation. And just to give some perspective, the reason for these special meetings to get
these additional evaluations on the master plan is so that the governing body has the framework to take action on a lot of these things that Jen has just talked about. >> That particular one is not on the radar. >> The ones that are more amendable to
um you know the ones that we've heard about more at the council level, come to the council meeting tomorrow. I Mike, can I I'm I'm not going to sugarcoat it because I'm not on town council. So, uh, not being a council member, I'm going to say accessory
structures are probably number one on the list. Um, >> there's five inter ordinances being introduced tomorrow night that are directly pertaining to all the information on this master plan, which is why we had this special meeting so that we can introduce them tomorrow and then adopt them at the next meeting.
Okay. >> Because of issues going on in town. So, if I'm understanding correctly, this is kind of not the time or place to ask these questions. >> I would Yeah, I would save it for tomorrow night. >> Gotcha. >> Or the public hearing on the ordinance. >> Or the public. >> They're only being introduced. It'll be another hearing. >> Correct. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, it'll be a couple of times. You'll have opportunities to address the council a couple of times on these points. >> Awesome. Thank you so much. We do have a lot of questions. >> Thank you. Have a good night. Good evening. >> Good evening, >> sir. Do you swear the testimony you'll
give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> State your name for the record. Spell your >> Steven McBth. I live on Addison Road. And how? >> Stephen. >> Yes. >> All right. How you doing tonight? >> Good. >> Uh, get off the subject a little. We have a real big problem with excessive speed on our road.
>> Yeah. This has nothing to do tonight. We have the planning board's got no authority. >> Sorry. Okay. Thanks. >> Now, go to the council. Go to the council meeting or call town hall. But that's not here. >> Yeah. >> You got two speed limit signs. >> Yeah. Yeah. Oh, you should. Yeah, I
would call town hall about it. >> Excuse me if I raise my left hand. >> That's okay. No, take off your No, I'm joking. Do you swear the testimony you give will be the truth? All the truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> State your name for the record. Spell your last. >> Yes. My name's Lawrence White. I live at
15 Renway. >> I guess you're not doing any relief pitching anytime soon, huh? >> No. Uh, it's a minor injury. >> Yeah. No, I know. I wish you well. >> I'd love that, but I I had to put it in a timeout. >> Yeah, understood. >> It wasn't healing properly. So, the right arm's in the timeout. Thankfully,
I'm left-handed, so I'm not too hobbled. uh really appreciate the fact that we're uh reviewing the master plan on a short track um because of a number of issues that are already been talked about or
hinted at. Um I'm I've got my green team environmental commission hat on this evening and I noticed that in in the report that there were a number of recommendations under comprehensive objectives to promote energy efficiency conservation,
increase use of renewable energy to reduce waste and increase recycling. um reduce the use of hazardous materials, eliminate toxic substances, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and plan for mitivating mitigating the effects of climate change. And then specific goals,
it says recognize the need to adapt to the changing dynamics and demands of a diverse and increasingly globalized economy to coordinate land uses with transportation facilities to improve access and encourage alternatives to driving. And
also there were so those are environmental goals and um then on top of it there was uh in the in the review of things that were already being addressed. There were a
few things that were not resolved as yet, including the farm ordinance issues that uh uh you know, I thought we were done with that, but maybe that needs another look um
for uh banquet facilities. And and there's also uh a utility plan element which investigate appropriate locations for solar facilities, battery storage facilities,
public utilities and evaluate the utility service throughout the township. uh should consider allowing green houses on rooftops of warehouses and um
focusing public agencies on community vulnerabilities to hazards, storm and flood mitigation projects and greater awareness of environmental protection and stewardship. So, uh, as a member of the
green team, we have no budget. We have no way of funding or instituting programs. It's all got to come from the township government. We are happy to partner with the township government on any of these
initiatives that are recommended in the in the master plan, but we can't do it by ourselves. And I would implore both the appointed and elected officials
of this township to make a bigger effort and a keener focus on the things that we need to do in order to mitigate climate change, reduce greenhouse gases,
and make our township a much more livable place. We are doing our best with the green team and the environmental commission to make that so, but we don't have the power to really do initiatives that could have a
big impact on the community. So, I'm here tonight to implore you to keep some focus on that area. It's for it's for the sake of our children and grandchildren if nothing else, folks.
Okay? I don't think we have any big climate change deniers in the room. We know that we have to address this problem for our future generations. And so that's that's what I'm asking of you this evening. A as as a concerned citizen and a member
of the green team and the environmental commission. And I know and I'll be talking to council about this since they're the ones that have to produce ordinances and come up with the money in order to implement these type of projects. Okay. And we know that
ordinances must be brought forth and and voted in the majority on the council in order for those laws to come into effect and to and to be implemented. And uh to that
end, Mr. Reubel, um when I went to the agenda, there were several ordinances that didn't have anything attached to them. I assume that they're ordinances that are may be coming out of these recommendations and wondering if the public is going to have an opportunity
to look at those before tomorrow night or will the written language be introduced tomorrow night so that we can look at them between the first and second reading. Is that true? >> Right. So, we have some minor commentary
going on before we put the titles on there. The intention, right, is to get them on there before. >> Okay. I understand it's an introduction. So, >> I know it's only first reading and people have two weeks to examine those those ordinances before you vote. >> We want to make sure we get them right.
>> I totally appreciate that. I was just >> a little surprised that I see ordinances with nothing attached to them, >> but now I'm understanding why that may be the case. So, I'm looking forward to those introductions tomorrow. Yep. >> And uh we'll see where that takes us. Yep.
>> Closer to the finish line, we hope. >> All right, that's all I've got. Thank you very >> anyone else. >> Seeing none. >> Seeing none, close the public portion. >> Okay. >> In closing, Jennifer, anything?
>> No. So again, I just want everyone to be abundantly clear that we're just making recommendations. Ultimately, governing body can do what they will with the recommendations, but I would appreciate um a motion to accept our re-exam.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm getting eyeballed by Chairman Mertton's over there. I see itching over there. >> So, um okay. Uh at this time um I will I guess entertain a motion to memorialize. How
do we do this? >> I have two votes chairman. One to approve and then one tomorialize adopt the resolution. >> Okay. Can I have Can I have a motion to approve? >> I'll make a motion. >> Motion to approve. >> Councilman Rebell, do I have a second?
I'll second. >> Who's that? >> Okay. >> Who was the second? Mr. >> McNicholas. All right. >> Mr. Bato, >> yes. >> Mr. Gimble, >> yes. >> Mr. Greenfield, >> yes. >> Mr. Carbonic,
>> yes. >> Mr. McNicholas, >> yes. >> Mr. Mercer, >> yes. >> Councilman Rebel, >> yes. >> Mr. WCO, >> yes. >> Chairman Huzer, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. And at this time, can I have
a motion to memorialize our recent approval? >> Motion to memorialize. >> Councilman Rebel, do I have a second? >> A second. >> Mr. Gimble. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Bato, >> yes.
>> Mr. Gimble, >> yes. >> Mr. Greenfield, >> yes. >> Mr. Carbonic? >> Yes. >> Mr. McNicholas? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mercer? >> Yes. >> Councilman Reubel? >> Yes. Mr. WCO, >> yes. >> Chairman Huzer, >> yes. >> Resolution is memorialized.
>> Thank you. Uh just a reminder for everyone because uh I have to text Jen Beam about 400 times a week. Uh our next meeting is May 8th. No, >> that's the next special meeting. Yeah. Right.
>> That is that the next meeting? >> No, the next meeting I think is next week, right? No, it's No, >> no, no, it's because >> of National Fair Day. >> So, it's May Friday, May 8th at 10:00 a.m. >> Well, that's just a special >> That's a special meeting for
>> this. >> Yeah, it's a Zoom meeting 10:00 a.m. Friday, May 8th. And then our regular planning board in person would be Thursday, May 14th at 7 p.m. Correct. >> in this room. >> Correct. >> That's the next regular meeting. >> Yes. Correct. >> All right. I will not text you guys
anymore. I apologize. All right. Thank you everybody. Thank you to the public for coming out. Appreciate it. Have a good night. >> You need a motion to adjourn. >> Oh, I need a motion to adjourn. >> Thank you.