Good evening everyone. Welcome. Uh we were previously in close session. We're now back in public session. So I welcome everybody here. I will begin by standing with pledge of allegiance and will remain standing for moment. to the given United States.
Thank you. Please be >> seated. Officer Nicoleberry. Um she will be sworn in at our next meeting in November. Um and there's probably one new resolution then higher up on the agenda. We'll talk about that in a few minutes. But for the moment, I'd like to
begin with the approval of the minutes. Uh so looking for a motion to adopt this following S minutes um as amended and that's the September 18th meeting minutes and September 8th closing meeting minutes. Anyone have a chance to look at them?
>> So any comments? All those in favor please say I. >> I. Motion carries. Hi, administrative reports. Everybody look at the administrative reports. I'll just highlight a couple of things. Um, we received a check from Union Chill a
couple days ago for $18,573 for their month of September. Their total monthly sales in September, $937,000 and change. Um, so note that the Red Squad, I see a couple of them here this evening, uh, just sent in their report.
September 46 of their 142 calls were here in Lambertville. Um we had um 13,516 part local transactions last month. It's a lot of transactions. Uh and that generated about uh $52,000
in well that generated about 40,000 payable including the coin was about 52,641. That was the best income that we've ever had by more than $5,000. So the last two months are record breaking months in terms of parking revenue. Um, also to be
said goodbye to Jack Angelone from the police department in September. We wish him well in all his new adventures. He's a a great guy and I'm sorry that I'm sorry that he's not going to be returning the streets of Lambertville every day. Um, and for the folks that I
highlight there questions or comments, I would ask for a motion to vote. >> So second in favor, please say I. >> I. I. Motion carries. Uh we'll begin uh our first public participation constituent concern
session. Um this uh open public comment uh session. We ask every members of the public if they unless they have mobility issues to please step up to the microphone, state their name, their uh address and they have three minutes of uninterrupted time for comments or
questions. Sinci keeps track of the time and she'll give you a 30 second warning. Paul Stevens 39. Good evening. According to the project timeline on the project web page, we should be said we should be expecting a resolution for redevelopment
agreement and ordinance for a pilot uh sometime around now and wanting to not wait until it's put on to us and knowing that negotiations must be going on. I wanted to comment on this tonight. Um,
I've already shared with you my opposition to a pilot. I'm not going to go into that again right now. Instead, I want to comment on the redevelopment agreement. According to the project website, two of the key parts of a redevelopment agreement are project scope and responsibilities.
I strongly feel that environmental and traffic studies are important inputs that have to be included in such an agreement. Otherwise, the city nor the developer will not be able to know what will be required to define the project
scope and the responsibilities to safely and responsibly allow for a 200 unit development on the Landville High School site. I submit that it is absolutely necessary that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
be allowed to access um and perform in the full environmental assessment of this area. that would complement the work that NGD has performed already on the adjacent sites, thus enabling a complete
understanding of the environmental risks on the hill so that a redevelopment plan can be made to responsibly address these risks. My understanding is that in the past the property owner has legal has
exercised his legal right to restrict third party access to the site. However, now that a redevelopment plan has been modified and Khobia is the designated developer, they should press the owner to allow for such access.
Khobian should also be able to performing a traffic study now. Otherwise, how would they be able to safely plan to get the construction equipment to the site without endangering the safety and the property of the residents of the hill?
Similarly, similarly, city professionals should be allowed to access the site under this grant. The there have been reports of major activities on the site. It will be important for art professionals to fully
understand the present condition of the site prior to submission of a future application and allow for them to accurately assess the application and form recommendations for it before it's voted on by the planning board. I know
there is more to be included in the redevelopment agreement, but I felt it was important to share my view on these three areas at this time. Finally, I do not know how either side can be discussing a pilot uh until and a minimum traffic studies and
environmental studies are both completed. Thank you. >> Thanks. Uh if I'll just take a minute here to say I did note in matters uh that there >> okay sorry um I did note in matters that
our close session tonight would be uh talk we would be talking about redevelopment agreements. So that conversation is well underway. Uh and uh at this point I'm just going to say that uh we listen to your concerns. I would encourage you to send me that uh that email. Um we've already incorporated
some of the resident suggestions into the redevelopment agreement. I'm not going to go into particulars, but uh I want to assure everybody that everything that comes across our desk will be seriously considered for inclusion. If you have specific questions about the kinds of things that go into a redevelopment, I can answer those or I
can get Bill to answer those. So, um, we're very actively engaged in this problem at this point. We're not going to be engaged in discussing a pilot at this point. Um, the way this the way that we structured this, but that we were going to work through the redevelopment agreement first. Uh, so
that's where we um I really want to assure that we're working hard. um and that uh I think that I think that hopefully people will be uh pleased with the kinds of protections that we're including in that one.
>> Well, you brought up a really good point about access as well property and I just want to let you know we had a meeting with fair share Miller uh and representatives of Kahhop. That's an issue I brought up in Khop representative judge Miller that they were going to work on that to get access to product. So we thought that exact
scenario the judge cell happy to hear that be good evening. My name is Beth Brian. I live through Hancock Street. I see from the agenda that you'll be discussing the redevelopment plan for my neighborhood tonight. And I have a few questions I
hope you can address. Have the negotiations with Kabadian officially begun? And if so, how far along are they? >> So, I'll just answer no. Um, not I mean, we've had a meeting with them recently
and had a general conversation, but with respect to the redevelopment plan, we are working on redevelopment plan, which will then get sent to Kamia. So, >> that's great. It goes to my next question. Who is on the team representing the city in these negotiations and what responsibilities do they have?
>> The city council. Well, certainly council president Lambert and I are handling any inerson meetings with our council, our development attorney, Bill Opal and the city attorney, the city planner uh and the the engineer as needed.
>> Okay. And um I'm assuming the answer to this is yes, but will residents have an opportunity to review and comment on the terms of any proposed agreement before the decisions are finalized? >> Yes, we will. Yes, you will. >> And is there a firm deadline or timeline
for completing these negotiations? >> There is not. There's going to be some backwards and for back and forth here. I don't know what that what that looks like, but uh you know, we are going to be as as upfront as I can be about this. We're going to have a close session meeting on November 6 to continue our
work in terms of um finalizing the city's presentation of a redevelopment agreement to opinion. So at the early I would say I think it's reasonable to assume that if if the council and I uh
are comfortable and satisfied with an agreement at the close of our next meeting, Mr. can kind of work in whatever additional changes and we can get that get that moving on to that. So I don't want to come into a specific timeline of course but we are going to be talking about it again at our next
council meeting. >> Excuse me. >> Yes. >> Um I just want to say we really I I think I speak for all of us here. We want to take the proper um consideration as we move through
this. So rushing to meet a deadline is somewhat artificial. We have to get it done and we will work on it um you know with in good faith but we're not intending to push it through
to meet a deadline whether it be you know I don't know like Bill published something and you know maybe that deadline's going to slip. Um we've all worked on projects where dates have slipped. Um but you know the um if the
developer wants to move at a certain pace, they just need to wait. As long as we're working in good faith, um that's a reasonable expectation, >> right? There's no deadline. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And and thank you for your answers. Um I'm just
going to finish by saying this process will directly affect our neighborhood and the character of Landerville. The public have a right to transparency every step of the way. Accountability matters here. We need to know who is making the decisions on what basis and with what public oversight. Thank you.
>> That's I'll just reiterate something I said at the last meeting. All five of us are deeply engaged in this topic. Um and uh nothing moves forward until everybody is comfortable with the language or that we've been advised that something is not
possible or legal whatever. Right? So everybody's everybody on the stage deeply involved in this uh decision making process. But the I I just to clarify why there's a you and I thought about a deadline is that we did commit
to the court to adopt a redevelopment of of you know plan which we finished tonight to be able to uh work with them in terms of getting back some of our rights in terms of zoning. So that's
like the one deadline that is out there you know that was out there but in terms of the agreements other stuff and going with a plan where court had not issued you know dates for us >> and I'm confident in our relationship with the court and at this point with
Kmanian that uh we will continue to work at a steady pace at the appropriate pace um until such time as uh you know they have the agreement they've sent it back to us and we've been able to present before I signed off on.
>> So you you may want to what councilwoman Minsky said is we shouldn't confuse what we're doing tonight that we're required to do by the court with an
agreement with the redevelopment. Uh it's two different things. So >> I get that part. >> Your your your first question that the mayor answered is quite correct. The five of which are going to be working on
the agreement that's ongoing. But tonight we have to approve >> one last resolution. >> Yeah. >> So it's two different two different. >> Thank you. Judy Gleason, 86 North Union Street.
So, I have I think three things. One, I just wanted people to know that if you depending on what you request under Oprah, this happened to me and I think people need to know this. The city is providing their response through access
to the city uh web something. I can't remember what it's called, but therefore I can't share that with other citizens to say take a look at this with me so that we can do it. You they would have to individually request and individually
get a response. I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm just saying I didn't know they could answer in that way. So I didn't know that I I have to go through the things that I have to go through that take more time. So I thought people would want to know that when you request documents that there are any documents
that may be part of the process that you deal with. Um second thing with respect to the agreement I'm I'm sorry with respect to the plan there are elements of the plan that we have seen in the
agenda tonight and I just want to call attention to some of the aspects of the plan that are worthy of focus from y'all. One has to do with and I mentioned this at a previous meeting
the planning board said you should talk to us and at the last meeting where I said don't welcome their input go to them we we should let them know I
see in the information in the tonight's agenda we again are welcoming their input we're not saying, "Okay, we heard the planning board. We will actually reach out and communicate with our neighbors about what we're putting up on
their program." So, I wanted to underscore there are elements in this thing that I think the planning board spent a lot of time on and they ought to be more than, oh, it looks okay to us unless there's a lot of dialogue that we hear because we're not entirely. We
meaning many people that I've spoken with and met with in town are concerned about those things. There are also elements of the plan that talk about their responsibility for uh contamination. And there are terms in
there that are that are general enough that any attorney will tell you be more specific about what you're talking about when you say they're responsible for contamination. Do you mean contamination as defined under a super fund? Do you mean it as defined under Rickford? You might circle. What are you talking? So
you will think you're okay and you won't be okay if you have a good lawyer on the other side saying we didn't agree to that. Um so what I was going to say about the agreement which will be short because my time is nearly run but the agreement itself which you are talking about among
yourselves I guess and I I think that's great but I I don't think you can ever sit down at a table to negotiate with a plan that you can't change or it's not good faith. So whatever you all five agree to is not what's going to happen.
There's give and take. There's stuff that has to be worked out. So, I appreciate you're getting together saying, "What do you want? I want this." Okay. What if we don't get that? Would they? So, I I've said this before. I'm concerned about the negotiation process.
I'm concerned about the pressure that will be brought to bear on I guess the mayor and and president council. And I'm just trying to say we know negotiation is a tough thing, but don't tell us tonight. Don't worry, you're all going to agree and it'll be fine because it
it's going to be harder. And we are concerned about what we will know, particularly the people who live on the hill. And I'm really urging that this be a little bit more explicit. And if you can't be explicit, tell us exactly why
because people don't want to not trust y'all. But don't don't make us be in that position. Thank you. >> Hey Judy, can I have a question for you about the Oprah? Sure. >> Uh did you I think on the overall I think you can select paper copies just
so you know. >> You can you can >> so but I did not know that. So was it sent you like in a SharePoint site or something like that? >> It was your what's it called drive? >> It's into the city drive
>> and I did download as was suggested to me. I mean consider the your staff has been great but it's still hard for people to read in some cases even though >> so what I would suggest is open it up and then print as a PDF then you can send that out as a PDF. >> Well
>> I will look into that for you too have easy access because we don't want to have everyone vote for stuff but ways to use up city resources that one person's already. So >> right I I understand good points and we're working on it and I'll get back to
you. Thank you. >> Sean Ellis, 21 Velvet here. Um, I want to just echo what Paul Stevens said. I think it's really, really important that the D gets access to this property. It's unbelievable to me
that they haven't been able to get access for six months when there's known contamination and the highest contaminated site is adjacent to their property and uh we're working on a development agreement and we don't know anything about this. Um unbelievable
really unbelievable. Uh so and that's going to that's going to uh color the plan or affect the plan um because if it's contaminated groundwater and poor soil no groundwater recharge there. There go the detention bases, right? So
we're talking about um like where's all that water going to go, right? It was it was we were scared about it even with the detention basis. All right. So unbelievable really. Um and the second thing I wanted to ask is did you talk
about uh you know is there any mention in the redeveloper agreement of um public water to Kana Hill that's a separate down the road agreement but >> okay they'll
be the redevelopment plan requires that they provide water to the site there's other discussions have to take place about that. Um but under the plan just incorporating the agreement, yes, they have to provide
water at that site. Um can there's more discussions that go on council, but >> okay. Well, I I I suggest you have discussions with the people on the hill as well because our water right now, the people who have been remediated, it's cleaner than the city than city water.
City water has two parts per trillion PE, you know, PAS in it. Our water gets tested every six months. I don't know anyone who would pay the money to hook up to public water system when they know their water is cleaner and they don't
have they have it for free. Okay. So, just want to make sure that people the residents are part of that. Any discussion about that? Um that's all really I have to say.
>> Yeah. Yeah. No. Uh the the great and the one we you know want to talk about is being able to have a dialogue during this timeline and even like getting to construction to be able to have you know
regular dialogue meetings to go back and forth. There's a problem here. There's a problem there. But um also really as we've talked about up we want to do something now even to go through you know what's remaining on the DP the co
issues and the water softening issue which we are still unpacking with that. Um, we meet with them again on the on the 29th to go to again go through the the need for the filter the filter change which there's a filter fix right
now at at one lane that we're seeing that Keltran did to see if that work you know kind of tracking that. Um, but I know those revisiting the water softener issue is on there and of course revisiting and fixing the uh we got to
get a sketch from one of the contractors >> as to what he can put there. >> Yeah. >> And then we'll deal with the funding issue. >> Okay. And maybe just one last thing as Westl is we're pursuing the private well outreach brand
to bring in the $6,000 that you all raised like last picture of that to again be available for testing or issues that come up. So >> that's great. >> Wonderful. >> And I'm trying to apply to
>> apply for you won't hear some. Okay. >> Thank you. Jeff Tiddle, 33 Wilson Street. The irony of tonight is I think we had this meeting a year and a half ago and many of us got up from the audience to talk when the first plan of the 200 units
came out was June of last year that if the plan's not right then makes it tougher to do your red your developers agreement, redevelopment agreement and then for the planning order. And so here we are with basically sort of the same plan. And so a lot of those questions
and problems still remain. Um the biggest one, you know, is, you know, storm water and the dealer's at the plan really doesn't have much about it other than it's there and you're going to try to do something, but how's it going to get from there to the river and whose homes it's going, you know,
and things like that. The uh issue, same thing with sewers. when um Lambert Hill was hooked up, they didn't realize that the shock of all that new sewers hitting the trunk line on Main Street, but sewage in like 20 houses, basement. Um but these things, you know, are still
major issues facing us. And the one thing that I want to say after a year and a half, the more things are done in private, the more they're going to be that you should be meeting with people on in the community and other affected property owners and people in this development because this is going to be
the biggest disaster to hit this town and how you mitigate that disaster is really going to be your job. And how open and transparent you're going to be will help deal with the problems. It's going to be very visible. You're going to have high retaining walls. You're going to have to flatten the top of a
mountain. My biggest issue right now for you guys is the access for those big trucks that go in and out of those narrow streets with no way to get in and out. Who's going to make a left turn at the bottom of Grant? I mean, it's, you know, um the next important part to me and the most important part is the
contamination. Um not only do you have to get on that property without getting getting on the property, I'm talking about the town as well as D. you should not go forward because you're going to be doing something that could put people in danger and Hubanian has a history
whether it's in Union at Hickory uh Manor or Jersey City or Newark and other places of actually developing uncontaminated sites without having a cleanup plan and then coming back later after they give up the property. the homeowners associations are the ones that holding the bag in the town. So,
you know, it's really critical that the town given the problems with what I call the LSRP program and it's highlighted with Pavll Park and what happened there, you have to have your own independent LSRP because you whatever they're going to find up there, you want to make sure they're not playing games. Two, when
they come up with a cleanup plan, they're not cutting corners or doing things because under the law, it's the fox designing the hen house and saying it's safe and then and saying it's safe. So you have to be part of the process. And then the last piece is there is no reason
under God's green earth that they deserve a pilot. They are getting four units for every affordable. They're making a lot of money. They're getting they're looking for grants and other things to partner with another company, Michaels, to do the affordables. There's
no justification. Not only that, they're turning it over after two years and unless they change their mind to a homeowners association. And that means we're just going to be giving people with million-dollar town houses paying half taxes that someone like me, you know, who's retired is
paying on my house that's worth about half of that. Um, and so there's no reason for it. Plus, it's going to def uh take money away from the schools. And that's the critical part. They get a tax break, but we get overcrowded schools. And so I don't believe there's any
reason for it. And finally, and this is the last part of it, is that when they do offtrack improvements, they have a a history of agreeing to stuff and then suing later not to do that. So whatever you do, get the money up front if they're going to be doing something or
do it in a way where they're bonding for it because they have a long history of doing that. So, you know, you're going to be going off and fighting with some of the biggest sharks in New Jersey when it comes to development and land use. And I don't know if we're prepared because we weren't prepared for the
lawsuit. We lost that and that's why we're here today. >> D 255 Brunswick Avenue. uh a positive uh nice thing to talk about uh one of the people here at the front desk. All right. To uh Karen Taminsky for an
outstanding article that was issued about at a that the state government needs to be able to get behind this PAS in front of the PAS. All right. And have state programs, all right, that can
train uh and teach and educate and support. Thank you. I thought it was a really good article. >> Is it that um so we're working on legislation from uh Assembly Member Ali and Senator Greenstein to u ask the D,
you know, to do it to put it in law to to move ahead to do that and the League of Municipalities is supporting it. And um I redid that article for the league magazine in December. You'll see the story on it. So we're going to try to
keep moving the ball to uh get some better action. >> That's a good word. >> Um my notes uh of my speaking from here on in, and it's primarily in involving the development agreement. I will provide it to uh city clerk mayor and
council so you can have it and use it as you see appropriate. Uh there may be some red uh re repetition all right uh and I apologize for that. Will the uh this is a question all right will the city be reaching out to impacted
neighborhoods okay for their input to the agreement that you're working on? points for inclusion that have been brought out to by the impacted neighborhoods uh in the past is uh steps
to include the uh to protect the downream downhill residents and businesses from flooding. All right, that's something you know not been talked about much but it's really there as an issue. uh traffic and public
pedestrian safety. A comprehensive third-party resident uh third party uh study needs to be correct completed for our uh neighbors. Uh the uh evaluation
of infrastructure needs of the neighborhood. All right? Because it's going to be whether they're going to pay for it or the city's going to pay for it. There's plenty of vacant improvements up there and you need to get it out there. Safe pedestrian uh walkways, uh vis visual signage in the
neighborhood, speed limit signs throughout the neighborhood, uh traffic lights, light or lights uh at Route 179. If you come down one direction, what about the other direction? All right. So, it's something that needs to be
done. um that we need to have required uh construction safeguards, right, for the residents and uh and our employees. Uh limit construction uh and impact on the residents, all right, from uh 9:00
a.m. to uh 5:00 pm. uh weekdays. All right. Uh no weekends or holidays that if they're coming into our neighborhood, that's our rules and we wouldn't want to live there uh with eight hours or 20 12 hours of construction. Establish and
enforce a predetermined construction vehicle route map. All right. Uh to make sure that they have a way, they're not going through every way and across and and creating a problem. uh engage New Jersey Dot uh involvement to uh confirm
that our and the state high uh state highways can safely manage the weight of the heavy construction equipment on the roads. Uh and who will determine what of the above will be uh you know discussed or included in discussion for the uh you
know for the discussions with Havian. All right. And last but not least, who will be the final approvers of the document? All right. To go to and uh you know uh you know before it uh it goes
out the door. >> Thank you. Um well be brief. Uh there's not I don't think there single thing that you uh mentioned your remarks that we haven't already talked about uh and and this evening. So uh we are covering
all of these bases. I I I promise you I don't use that word very often, but we are we are covering all of these bases. Um the only uh there will be uh upon a hearing before the council before the final uh until final version of the
agreement is is uh isly signed by the council or whoever signed it possibly me. So there will be public input sought. Um uh one thing in particular that we that I often talk to residents about particularly the neighborhood and this doesn't need to happen tonight but
uh you know we're talking about the the city ordinances in terms of the date the date construction are 7 to 6 um and um I think the city council has heard already that some residents would rather have them start later. It's fine with us.
We're happy to set the hours according to what the residents the bulk of residents want. Um my only point in this conversation is that you know if you start clock you're you know you're losing five hours every week in total construction time. So that has a potential to expand their total
duration. But you know the council from our conversation on that we're completely open to you know we want residents to minimize all of these things we talked about and we talked already. >> May I make two brief comments? >> Sure.
>> Right. one, I would suggest that you know at at this piece, all right, for a public meeting for the residents, all right, with you, not at the end of the process, but now early in the process and let people make sure you got it. All
right? uh and and then uh then you have a a good thing that the five of you can respond to or or react to and say and I'll bet you there'll be something that will be brought up that you hadn't thought about that's worth a while think >> yeah there already has and I would encourage everybody to write to us all
five of us um somebody said excellent suggestion that none of us had thought of and we've incorporated into into the draft so um and maybe 95% of the people here would have thought of but it was a good idea Yeah. So, we are willing and we want to consider everything. Um, you
know, we have a lot of expertise uh in our professionals and in the people on the data, but we also have a lot of expertise in the community. So, I acknowledge that we're completely open to hearing whatever anybody has to say. >> Thank you for your comment. >> And I would remind people that you don't even have to send us an email like you
can go to the website, click the button, it'll automatically email everyone to. So, it has to do it. Hello, John Town Sport team Hancock. How you doing? Um, couple of quick things.
Uh, number one, Assembly Bill A5350. Anybody here familiar with that? >> Sorry. It makes it illegal for company companies or municipalities to build low-income housing. Now, this has not passed yet before we all get excited,
but it will make it illegal to build low-income property on polluted property. Now, that's been languishing for the last two or three years in in the state house, but if it does pass, I hope you guys have something else in the works
besides build high school site, which even the EPA at this point is pretty much in agreement that it's full that again, Assembly Bill A5350 and that was as of late 2025. Um, and I noticed uh
you have here on the the website here, it talks about an ordinance for tax exemption and that comes right from your your website for kah. Why? If that's even being considered, I don't
have to answer the question. It's more so for everybody else in the room. Why? Why are we going to give them even more than what they're getting already? >> That's fine. >> Uh I know there's nothing the city can do
or even the state can do to get EPA on those properties. The land owner doesn't wish >> to do that. Uh I know in the previous uh remediation of the old tourist site uh
they were given uh ability access to go to the high school site and until it came up clean and additional wells to test for pollution from what was in the ground up there. Um I don't know if those wells are still
accessible to the city or the state. If they are, maybe when we want to revisit those tools to see where we are as far as pollution goes. The last thing I also want to point out, and I said this last time I was up here, guys, the north end of town flooded,
right? Record flood hadn't happened up there, not probably not since the flood of 52. Am I right? >> Flooded on North End Town like it had. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Several times. My point is that if what happened there, again, I think it
had a lot to do with the development up by the rescue squad. We took out a ton of trees and trees take up a lot of water. >> Might want to consider something to re remediate the excess water running off the hill, not just retention pot.
>> All right, that's it. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. Oh, >> no. >> We got six. >> Six. >> Diane, do you want to go ahead?
>> Yes. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Diane, do you want to ask your question? >> Yes. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Sorry. >> Can you hear me? >> Yeah, we can hear you. D. >> Okay. I apologize. I Yeah, because it's,
you know, technology. Anyway, um, two just two comments, two different subjects. I don't have enough info on your address, please. >> I'm sorry. Say that again. >> Identify yourself, please, by name and address.
>> Oh, I'm I apologize. Diane Koshel, 22 Elm Street. >> Thank you. >> So, so two different issues. one, it's at the the bottom lower end of the agenda, something about residential development. Um, and there it it alluded
to um driveway usage and um Union Chill dispensary parking. Um I I don't know enough about you know what you're going to discuss and I will I will listen to the meeting later but um my concerns are
parking um the volume of traffic um from what I observe living in town and walking a lot is Elm Street is the busiest side street now in town and what you also listed in the agenda
was talking about closing off the Elm Street driveway. um and having entrance, if I read it correctly, um entrance for the dispensary and whatever residential development you're talking about off of
um North Union Street. And my thoughts are I would estimate about 40 to 50% of dispensary customers do not use the back lot and they park on Elm Street. So, you know, I don't know the feasibility and
and what your plans are, but just as a as a very very local resident, um that parking is an issue now and adding any other development to this end of
town with the volume of dispensary traffic. I have I have serious concerns um with that issue. So, I will I will follow up. It looks like the November 20th meeting will there'll be more discussion and I will I will follow through on that. But I just I I'm very
concerned about you know anything more happening at this part of town because it's very very busy. Um, and the other thing is is there there's a resolution, excuse me for not knowing the number, about cannabis dispensary rules
for Lambertville. And it basically I witness a lot because of my very very close location, but it basically said, you know, people should not be lining up to go in the dispensaries. Um, that does
happen here sometimes on Sunday mornings. Um, and I don't know how you would enforce that with that kind of regulation. Um, and the other thing is with not allowing people to come out and light up and hang out in parking lots
and smoke. Um, again, that does happen here fairly regularly. Um, and I don't know how you enforce it because the police are not allowed to, you know, enforce the law of not of private
consumption only, not not public. Um, but it's it's a fairly regular event. As well as um there are I don't want to get anybody in trouble, but I do witness employees of the dispensary smoking in
the back lot and on Elm Street and North Union. uh smoking cannabis of marijuana. So anyway, my those are my concerns just for whatever your discussion is on these issues. Um and I thank you for your time. Thanks.
>> Thank you, Diane. >> Thanks. >> Allowing accessory apartments in C3, >> right? So that's the only thing that's changed. >> Yeah. Bill could probably speak forward to that. the cannabis language there is the same. So yeah, sorry I'm a little thrown off here.
There's nothing being changed in the ordinance with respect to the cannabis uh businesses. Uh the or introduction to the ordinance had to do specifically with the potential uh development of the spokes site as a residential uh in a residential capacity as part of our
fourth round affordable housing uh plan. So we can talk a little bit more about that when we get to it. Um, but that's uh doesn't have anything specifically to do with with the uh Union Chill or the cannabis retail operations in the city.
>> Um, Diane, I would just say based upon what you're viewing there too. Um, the they do have to reapply for uh, you know, a permanent year and I believe there are violations that's something discussed. So, um I think you should be reporting those um to the police and
then also to um to to uh the clerk as well so we can keep track of that and certainly if you see employees um out there that is something that you show has absolute control over those are their employees. So that should be something that should be easily remedied. Uh but that is a concern and I
have seen that occasionally. I've talked to them about that. Uh and they've told me that they're you know they'll send someone out. So that stuff definitely does need to be reported. >> Uh, anyone else online? >> Have a motion to close the public comment here, please.
>> Second. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. Thank you. Thank you. >> Um we're going to probably this evening >> and uh for
the consideration thanks for her role in gathering information for the proclamation honoring the bear healthcare shop. The barex will be uh honored on November 14th and the proclamation will be presented to Mr. Go ahead. So
>> yeah, just yeah, now that the their popcare has been sold, they have a new uh new business and so they'll be doing a ribbon cutting and honoring Morty on November 14th. So and details for that to come. So we wanted to do a
proclamation. So and here it goes. Whereas for over 60 years, Morton War Wharton Morton Garnett has faithfully served the residents of Lamville as the owner and operator of the Bear Healthc Carry Shop located at 9 North Union
Street. And whereas Ford's tireless dedication to his profession and to the health and well-being of his fellow residents has made him a trusted voice and an irreplaceable figure in our community as whereas the beer apocary shop and has
long stood as a cherished local institution offering not only expert pharmaceutical services and over-the-counter remedies but also toiletries, fine perfumes, reading cards, gifts, vitamins, and essential household goods.
Whereas Lord's speedy and personalized service, his deep knowledge, his attended year, and his kind heart transforms a neighborhood pharmacy into a gathering place, a source of comfort and a beacon of trust for generations. And
>> whereas through changing times and trends towards large pharmacy chains, Morton remained steadfast in his mission to serve with compassion, integrity, and a profound commitment to
every customer who came through his door. Now therefore be resolved by the governing body of the city of Lambertville, county of Hunter, state of New Jersey and the residents and friends of Landerville would hereby extend our deepest gratitude and admiration of
Martin Barnett Baret and Janet Bar for their many years of exceptional service. And to be a further resolve that Friday, November 14th, 2025 is hereby proclaimed Barnet Day for his care, his counsel, his compassion, and for making the bear
pop carry shop place where people felt seen, heard, and helped. >> All in favor? Hi, >> sir. Going to resolution now. I'm gonna move one resolution up before the board consent agenda. I think we probably have some people here who are interested in
it. Uh, and we have the city architect here as well. So, in the interest of being mindful of their time, I hope you stay the whole meeting, but I, you know, I thought maybe we would move this up the agenda. And what I'm talking about here is find
resolution number 173-12025. It's a resolution to authorize the removal of trees in the city public parking lot at 14 North Indian Street. Um, I'll know right off the bat, I received uh number of emails from members of the public and petitions I
have here from members of the public um who are opposed to the removal of these trees. Um, and uh I thank you for for for weighing in on that. always grateful to have people sharing their views on every matter and it does matter to us um
to receive these letters and to let to understand that people are engaged in kind of local civic and political decisions. Um that said, I want to just review a few things about this uh this matter. Um the governing body reviewed two proposed plans for improvements in
the central business district near the North Union Street parking lot in order to replace the broken brick planters that are there have been broken for all the years I can remember myself. Um and uh you know back in May of 2025 when um
May 2025 this work uh during the work session with the government body the matter was discussed um there were two plans that were presented by the city architect for uh the improvements uh to the in central business district. Um the c the count council discussed them and
uh and agreed that we should move forward with the second plan which was then um brought to uh the wheels sent motion. It was reviewed by the uh the DNR canal commission which the planning board planning board recommended that we
um present it to uh the shade tree commission also the parks and wreck and the environmental commission um for for review. Um we did uh send it to the shy commission. We did speak to both the chair people of uh the environmental
commission and parks and man got their kind of informal input on that. Um and we did not present formal applications to those two commissions. Uh largely because uh you know for every time city architect comes to one of these meetings you know in Japan. So um you know I
thought that it was sufficient to have conversations with those two with those two chair people. Um and uh so it was brought to the shade tree commission. Shade tree commission uh expressed concerns about uh the trees themselves and whether they need to be removed and
requested that we seek the advice of professional arborists which we did. Um and maybe just for the sake of the public I can share a letter. um people are kind of moving up, but I guess important for everybody to understand
kind of what the rationale here is. And probably everybody should be familiar with these trees and with these great planters that are in this park line, I heard. So, uh from the from the arborist, I I received a note um saying it is common for trees growing in planter boxes to outgrow their surroundings over time. As trees
increase in size, roots grow downward and outwards to a sidewall that expand and break apart. Containers restrict root development resulting in girdling and a tangling mass of roots. Over time, treehouse affected by slow growth due to
lack of hair, water, and nutrients. Removing the container from a new one can be accomplished safely, but the new container must be double in size to prevent root damage. My understanding is that there will be no size change and a three-foot trench will need to be dug to support the size of the of the plan. The
root loss from this excavation will push these trees into decline causing growth, dieback, root rot, and eventual death. The best solution to this problem is to remove the trees and start over. Choose to work for slow growing trees that are naturally suited for containers and won't and won't outrow as quickly. If
you have any questions, please regarding this matter, please contact me at your convenience. So that was what we uh submitted to the shave commission and uh based on that they did make some suggestions um and uh we revisited those suggestions with the
um with Michael Burns. Um and I think just for the sake of u kind of further clarity rather than read all of his letter um I'll just read the last little bit um and I'm happy to share this. So he notes that we received the letter
from the armorist. Uh we presented the letter to the shaving commission on September 22nd and the commission recommended that we redesign the proposal so that the northern tree could be removed and the southern tree would remain. This would require completely redesigning the parking area and relocating the entry to the parking in
order to enlarge the brick planter as recommended by the arborist. Unfortunately, this would allow only the planter to this would allow this would only allow planter to be increased in two directions and the required excavation would continue to damage the roots of the trees in two other
directions. As such, this is not a workable solution. Additionally, the park lot redesign and relocation of the entry drive at significant cost to the project and may collab some street trees in the area. with a large oak just to the left of the drive entrance there to
a brand. We continue to recommend removal and replacement of the existing trees with the new trees more appropriate for the location. So that's about where we are. Um I do want to note that uh the last few years we've done I think remarkably well with
planting trees in the city. Um we planted probably more than 200 trees in the city. I planted you know more than 20 myself along the banks of the Swan Green. I I do acknowledge that it's an important part of our resilience plan um and the work that we do. We've gotten a wonderful amount of private donations in
the last couple of years. I think something like 10 to 12,000 for trees. Um we did get a grant for a tree inventory um in 2023 was worth about $70,000 and we have fantastic tree inventory. So this is not a decision that I make lightly um as somebody who
uh loves trees and and and and admires uh their natural beauty. I just wrote about me this week and that matters. Um so I haven't spoke to the council about their views on this matter but you know it's a decision that we have made um one way or another. I think the problem of
the trees in the existence of faith is fairly clear they're going to continue to grow and compromise those beds and uh and and their own health. So, I mean, don't know where I stand council wants to weigh in or if we uh
want to move forward with consideration of the resolution. >> Um, I just don't know this isn't concern. I think we need to take more time to to see if there are other solutions out there. Um, you know, I think sometimes when you move too fast, you get forced to make a decision that
you don't necessarily need to make right now. I don't think it's one that we need to make. So, um I don't support voting on this myself. >> I I Yeah, I love her. I I agree. I mean, be
I got to go over speak on this. I I did find uh you know, the the trees have helped me. I appreciate the tree service, but the tree service answered a question about the planters more than, you know, the health of the tree, the viability of the trees. I think the
trees need to be trimmed. we haven't really taken care of them, but um there is seems to be a lot of um a lot of different input that you know that we need to kind of have on it because like
that consensus with you know folks from the environmental commission that have been concerned from parks and wreck to be able to kind of get everybody together to talk about it. Um I'm not the arbiter of like good taste. I do like trees, but you know there's
questions on lighting and native species and you know it's not like it's an emergency to do this and the trees are lovely. They do provide a lovely canopy there and they frame it very nicely. We need to trim them. We need to take care
of them. We need to figure, you know, figure this out. But they're they're not a cradle. you know, I think, you know, we need to be good environmental stewards >> and and take a good hard look to this.
Um, look, when it comes to beautifying the downtown, I just want to add that in my thought of having money for the downtown. I'd like to rather I see a bigger that lies, you know, a part of it, but that we have an overall streetscape plan with with planters.
Maybe we need new garbage cans. Maybe we need some new banners. maybe we need to take that map out, but I I'd love to see it be a part of an overall plan instead of this little peace meal thing as well. So, I just have to put that pitch in
again um that I'd rather have a bigger plan and fun pieces of it than do this little thing without knowing what the overall streetscape is looks like. So, I'd rather not move ahead and come up
with some informal um group think on it that you know we don't have to people or do a commission but you know let's get farms in wreck. Yeah. Let's have let's have a consensus and and you know get together on it. Trees are
>> Yes. [Music] Um, I'm inclined to agree that we probably don't want to push this forward at this point. Um, it's a shame to sacrifice two beautiful trees. Um,
>> I don't know. Okay, the planters need work. >> We got to figure out a way. Like, there has to be a way to do that. Um, and I don't know what that is, but I think by getting the people who are concerned
about the trees sitting down, we've had people like you said from environmental, parks and recreation, and you know, I know Maryanne Bourch is a wealth of information uh regarding she's
a master gardener and she has tremendous background on uh native plants and you know storm water management and using natural foliage to to mitigate uh the
environmental risks. Um I I think there must be a compromise somewhere. Um having said that, I want to thank Michael and and all of the people that worked on this. You did a lot of work. Um I don't think it's I I don't think
it's wasted work. It's just, you know, it's kind of like you get to a point and you have a layer and they say, "Well, that's not a problem we anticipated." Because when we talked about this, I think you said back in May, we had no idea that two trees had to come out.
That wasn't And now we've learned that. Um, and so let's just take a let's just take a breath that I mean, I'm not opposed to moving forward with this project. I'd just like to see if we can't come to some consensus
as the council woman said regarding how we go about this so that we don't um you know throw the baby out the bath or these are all good suggestions that have
come up tonight about how to improve the appearance of the downtown, the city. I think that councilwoman Kaminsky said about coming up with a plan for the
downtown. It's uh uh it's a great goal to have. Um it's not the first time we've talked about it. Um the uh there's uh on that section of North Union
Street, the curbs are falling in that there's asphalt curves. Uh the sidewalks are being done by the property owners. They have gotten notice about that, which is great. Uh the the idea I love
the idea of upgrading uh the park not only to increase uh bench space but appearance of it from from this uh Union Street and for all the people that walk the street and
visitors to town. Uh the that lot is currently surrounded by seven trees including the one that is not in question now that is in the lot. Uh I think that covers the canopy if the if
the council wants to I have no problem with waiting on it. I think the concept of the idea to improve the streetscape in the city was a good one and I think Michael came up with a with a great uh
concept of uh you know h how to repair uh we've heard from the arborist already about uh will will the trees be able to survive any work we do there. Um,
I I certainly think that uh it's a safety issue now with with those uh the bricks all crumbling and falling, you know, away from the tree. I I see you shaking your head. I I believe you me,
I've been here a long time. So, uh, I will say one thing is that when it came to agreeing to buy certain property that the city the city did for
open space, I'll bring to uh I was on the council when we bought the man property and I know there was controversy about how much we paid. We also bought the uh oh gosh the property
next door uh uh the properties next door to preserve the hill and the trees and the the the viewshed. We agreed to buy well
but we agreed to buy the Clawson property the Hulcom farm uh to protect that shed. I think that in in my time on council, u I I think I've been mindful of of
protecting the environment and all. I think that that lot needs work. Uh I think that it's a public hazard. Uh the council wants to wait. I'm fine with waiting. I just don't want the project to disappear.
Uh but uh uh that that's kind of where where I'm at on the maybe those trees don't have to be removed. Maybe we it could be worked around. Uh if people are, you know, want
if there's more echo wanted by the council, that's fine with me. Uh I just think it's an opportunity to to improve another city property. uh uh basic basically
uh that's my that's my universal take on it. Uh you know one one other thing when people talk about >> well we're going to lose parking spaces if we if we can expand the scope and
size of the planters. Uh we at one point we this council decided to put in charging stations for vehicles that uh have not been done which would have
taken parking spaces. I'd much rather save the tree than put two charging stations in that parking lot than taking up space that could be used for uh for
other other uses. So, uh we'll have to see how it how it rolls out. And if if it comes down to not doing anything or doing something, I think we should do something. what we do in the size and scope is up
to the council, but that's where I'm coming from. >> Thank you. Um I I support this resolution because I thought it was a good idea. We've been working on a year and a half and more. um out concerns
that um concerns that just with kind of I think if we want to look at this again, we're obviously going to do that. We're going to make a motion to table this resolution. Um and we'll move forward. I
I I would you know I do want to emphasize that you know I think that between the arborist who's professional this architect who's a professional whose opinions we rely on that these planters are problematic and they're only going to uh impact negatively the
health of the trees at some point and we we're clearly not going to do this tonight and that's fine but I just want to go on record of saying that I think that you know this is a missed opportunity for us to take what is an unsightly uh situation and to
beautify it and to plant new trees there which the shade tree commission could recommend the species of the department species of we have the money we're ready with the plan um I would support it uh but it's not going to move forward and
my only other concern is that you know these things take time and uh you know I think that it's likely that if we want to do something about planters that It's possible and we talked about this earlier in the process that uh you know it's possible we can get into doing some
kind of work and find out the trees have to come down anyway once we start pulling things apart right so it's possible that if we decide to move forward with some fun of new planters they're slightly enlarged or whatever we're going to we're you know we'll see what happens basically um so you know I
don't want to bl the point on that I think on that do we need to make motion to table or do we just do I just with it. >> You don't have to. >> Okay. Well, so we're not going to consider this resolution tonight. >> So, I I think it's really important and
I don't think I don't know that there's that much distance between moving forward with finding a solution, right? Because um you know, we have people who are very interested in making recommendations.
you mentioned um Park talked about Maryanne and you know I'm sure we've learned to people I see you know people could um could make recommendations and work with
Michael and others try to figure out an approach that's amanable to everyone and if people who are passionate about saving the trees can find help find a solution, then we
should welcome that and then everybody wins, right? And we, you know, we get our beautifification project, we save two lovely trees and if it turns out that any type of work is going to harm those trees, that's a
different corner that you have to turn. But it's a conversation that I I see this as a continuing conversation, not as a well, we're just putting this on hold. Um I think we should, you know, encourage um people to
work toward a solution that is amanable to um both sides. >> Well, we'll certainly do our best. We always do. >> So, that's great. That's a great point and it's a a great point to to to make and thank you for making it because you know collaboration on this when there's
interest is is is a great thing and that's what our community is about. So it's I'm all about doing that and that's why people came here today. >> Yeah. I also have to say that we relied on Mary and Borch for a lot of things. She's given the city a lot of her time and her expertise and you know I think
we should >> I talked to Mary's office professional. >> I think we also have >> anyway we'll we'll try and find another solution. So let's just leave it at that. >> Thank you. >> So we're going to move on to the consent
agenda. Um agenda are these are resolutions that are considered routine are usually enacted by one motion. If anybody on the city council wants to see a separate discussion item, please let me know and we'll move discussion
through the consent agenda numbers 139 202 record. [Music] Um numbers 159 through 17 motion is
in favor say I. Thank you. >> Uh that's consent agenda resolution number 171-2025. It's a resolution to approve submission of death practice inventory for the city of land 42. Um something that we do
every year. Death practice inventory is completed. Thank you very much, Cindy. Largely uh almost actually totally forgetting this. >> No, Chris Christie helped please. >> Christie helps. Okay. So, our CO helps with this. Uh it's quite a bit of work and our score determines if the state will holding a state. We received a
score of 42 this year. Based on our score, we need to receive the full amount of our sav. So, ask for a motion to adopt resolution 171-202 service. >> Second. All in favor, please say I. I.
I. Thank you. Resolution 172-2025 resolution city of Lambertville County of Honor and state of New Jersey regarding the adoption of the amended redevelopment plan for the Landville High School redevelopment area. So this is just a resolution to memorialize the actions of the governing body and the
planning board of the Landville High School redevelopment area. Most of this language you've already seen uh I've read some of this at the last meeting and incorporated as well. Okay.
In that case I'm going to make a motion to adopt the resolution and second please second. All those in favor please say >> I carry [Music]
the bill. All in favor please say I fre [Music] >> ordinance number 25 20225 then amend lumber code 2014
section 254 Saturday parking chapter 8 this is an old ordinance on the books for parking in city hall lot you have anything else you want to say about this >> yeah I mean it was before we actually started leasing spaces. And on Saturday,
we've have police go down and do parking for $5, but we've now formalized it in another section of the ordinance. And I just found this when I was reading through. Uh, so we should repeal it. >> Brown doesn't want to sit in the parking lot.
So ask for a motion to introduce ordinance 125 public hearing together. >> All in favor? at least commence this ordinance 2625
amend city code 24 authorize the mayor to wave the requirements of chapter 14 streets and sidewalks section 14-1-3 with these letter C. So this will um give the mayor the
ability to wave the moratorum on roads that have been recently constructed without the approval from the body. So as members of the public may know we have five year moratorum. So for example we just paved swan streets and uh you know one of the things that approved the consent agenda was we gained the
moratorium for five years so that any a property owner can install a new water law. So this uh ordinance seeks to give the mayor that authority. It's a pretty straightforward in my view administrative almost house clean house
but it's an administrative um for moving things along efficient pay discretion to so there questions about that have a motion to introduce 2020 26 2095 public hearing
>> 20 [Music] >> uh Second. >> Second. >> Oh, I >> November 20th. >> November 20th. Did I say 30th? >> Yes. >> I'm sorry. November 20th. >> Thank you. Um, all those in favor, please say I.
>> Okay. I. Motion carries. Um, ordinance number 27-2025. This ordinance will amend the Landerville city zoning ordinance section C-400 C-38-0 general commercial affordable housing
opportunity. So this is uh an ordinance that's required uh in that will allow for the potential development of the spokes work site and you can see the commercial
and this is report [Music] this is only if they want future there's nothing proposal >> it just allows um development in the C3 or allows the
apartments as an accessory in the C3 currently not allowed. >> Yeah. And it and it helps you know us with our affordable housing. >> Yeah, it does. >> It's called C3s. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yeah.
>> That's good. Um so I have a motion to vent authoritarian adoption set. >> Okay. >> All in favor please say I >> I thank you. Motion carries. Now we're on to ordinance of second reading
ordinance 23-2025. This ordinance will amend the land code 2013 chapter 8 municipal and me parking. will amend the ordinance and then for
police city hall and shelter will increase the fee the permit fee $35 to $65 [Music] to do so anyone online
to close public All please second all in favor of closing public comment please say I um and there any comments from ask for a motion to approve ordinance number 2025
on second reading granting final >> second all in >> favor [Music] I motion carries 1242 code 2014 chapter 3 started by various departments boards and commissions
13 city clerk talk about my assist to increase a few of the the clies uh in particular a non-resident wedding fee for $200. Um, and then let's see
marriage domestic partner licenses after 25 for the first copy for $5 for each additional copy. I'll open this up to anybody weigh in on this. I just want to note that we did provide this to both of the funeral homes in our in Lambertville
because it's a little bit of an increase and nobody neither one had an issue. >> Um I'll make a motion to close the public hearing on this. Have a second. Second. All in favor of closing public hearing, please say I.
>> I. Now I would ask for a motion to adopt ordinance 2020 24-125 on second reading grant to move >> second. >> All in favor? >> I thank you. >> Another couple things for just general
discussion. Um so we talked a little bit about close session minutes. Um so you can get sent out memorandum to the council about
um the release close executive session minutes um in which she um just outlined the current procedure and uh possible options for consideration. I think this is important enough for me just to kind of go through this memo a little bit so
the public understands kind of where we are and where we could possibly go and what the rationale is for any one of our decisions. So the current policy utilized for the release of close session uh minutes is as follows. A
request is received usually through OPRA and this takes seven business days to process. Minutes are reviewed by the clerk to ensure the topics discussed have been resolved. The section we believe should be redacted. It's highlighted for consideration of the city attorney. The minutes are sent to
the city attorney for confirmation of the due date for the OPRA if applicable and the attorney responds to the musical clerk with the plants position and then the response is provided to the request ser. So this policy is consistent with our past practice and it's followed by
all prior all prior clerks in the city of Landersville. The city does not have ordinance governing the release of closed session minutes. Cindy reviewed several websites for municipalities in Han County and was unable to find close session minutes on their municipal websites. She also consulted with SDL
which is our uh our software server software program who hosts our website and they confirm that municipalities using their service do not post close session minutes on the websites. Uh she did note that while she was completing uh research for business administrator's
ordinance, she did find some um uh a policy on Franklin Township's website um that established a process for releasing a previous year's executive session minutes. Um and that is done, you know, kind of through the attorney. It's a process that's done
yearly. It's figured into the the cost of doing business with the attorney, all of that. Um and so kind of that was really the only the only place where you found anything other than kind of what we currently do. Correct. >> Yes.
>> Um and so that she noted that the following is recommendation based on input from recent council members and this requires some discussion tonight. Um you know interested in changing how we do our closed session, how we release them. You know we would need to develop a process for the release of minutes in
the home ordinance. How often should they be released? Should they be released annually, semianually, quarterly? And then how do you want to manage minutes with redactions? Do you release them with redactions or you hold the minutes until they can be fully released? So, can you just maybe talk a little bit about the redactions are? So,
in any given closed session meeting, we may have two or three topics and one of them may be something that we could release, right? Correct. >> And the other two may not be because it's possibly still under consideration, litigation. So, >> that's that's correct. I mean it's we can release when something has been
finalized and that when it's finalized it's usually either done through a resolution or an ordinance. So what we would do is in what I would suggest is that we follow what Franklin Township does. we do an annual release and in
January we add that to the the agenda the meeting agenda and we start prepping you know in November for you know the um city attorney to review and authorize for release that way anything that needed to still be redacted would be
redacted and held doesn't mean that the public still couldn't request a closed session in the interim it just means that annually we would do a blanket release of the prior year and then in the interim if somebody wanted something we could give them whatever had been
resolved but anything that was ongoing would still need to be redacted or redaction really means that it's blacked out you're you're not going to be able to read it but you you know anything that had been resolved we we would provide >> and is it fair to say that that was talk
about doing this annually it's it's probably more efficient than Well, it's certainly more efficient than sort of doing it month by month because every month you're going to have redactions and and you could be a year into some conversation, you know, and have still be part of that. So, it's more labor
intensive to do it on an ongoing basis because of the overlap needs to be redacted, right? >> That's correct. I mean, we if we do it annually, it means that we only have one time that have to go through other than unless we get, you know, an open request. But if by you know we're doing
it quarterly, it means every quarter we have to go back through three three four months of the minutes and maybe even prior to to see if something's been resolved or not and kind of resist. >> Uh so couple comments. Uh first I think
uh you know so members of the public know you know that our ability to meet in close session know we don't have to meet close session all the time. So I think one uh you know we've been doing a pretty good job about that only meeting when we really need to but I think that's something to understand that if we close session less we have less of
these issues to worry about. And so there are some reasons why we absolutely have to be close session. Uh but there are some where you know it's our decision as council. So I think we just all need to remember that. Two um I think it's important for a housekeeping perspective to remember that it's unfair
for the city clerk to have to think about like when are we going to redact this? When are we not? I think when we're meeting in the close session, you know, the city attorney and the council should make a note as to when these minutes are going to be available. For example, tonight was the redevelopment plan and know what that's been passed
and approved. There's no reason for those minutes to be closed anymore. And so, um, you know, that way if someone wants to open them, um, the city clerk can look at the notes when we had the session and say, "Okay, you know, this is included now. We can accept." And so, I think that makes her job a little bit
easier because the city attorney has to weigh in with the council as to when their defendants are going to be released. So, um I think one the more we do out in public is all the best. Um that means less of these issues for reduction. I think it's very highly to
go through once a year and have to do that. That's part of um and certainly don't want to do that every month. I think that's too much time for the city employees and we need them doing other things. Um and so I don't have a problem with the the one year. Um, you know, I
think we can do a good job ourselves when we're meeting in in close session as to letting the clerk know when it's when it's going to be available. >> Are you sick? Are you suggesting that it may have just been the way you said it is that when we go on a close session
other than what Cindy reads, we should say what we're discussing in close session? I I think we should let the city clerk know when these minutes are going to be available and it might be something where we don't know because there might be a thriving lawsuit that hasn't happened. >> Well, that wasn't my question. >> Yeah. No, but but so when we go into
close session, she's going to read the reason why and then I think we say, okay, these are the three things we're discussing. You know, uh issue one in 45 days, you know, this issue is going to be right to we can disclose these things. So issue two, we might not know
and we might have to wait and that will wait until the >> So was it the way you said it that we went into close session to talk about the redevelopment agreement? be are you saying that rather than read the state statute that allows us to discuss
contracts and all that we should list what we're talking about before we go so public knows why we're going to the extent I think we don't do that >> we haven't done it at all I think to I think it's the first time I've ever talked about the explosive close session
agenda no matters no more meeting and to the extent that I think that we can like things like development if everybody knows that they're working on that we have to work on I think it's fine to say that that's one of the things but there may be other things that other topics that are not appropriate to sort of
identify in the correct >> there could be litigation there could be issues that we simply that's why we have closed session but um you know some of the stuff again I think it's it's always important to be as transparent as
possible um and so uh I think the close session minutes we want to get them out as soon as we can. But I think the reality is it costs money and there's time for us to do that. So we got to balance all that out and I don't think we can expect uh the city staff to go through every month to do that. I think
that's an unreasonable expectation. Um I think one year to me sounds reasonable. I don't have an issue with that. Uh but I think there are going to be some issues where we don't want people don't want to wait a whole year to get those closed sessions and you know this
process I think will um will expedite the release of those closed session. So may I ask Bill a question? So if we if we had a we have a close session bill, is there anything from the council point of view at the end of the close session,
the five of us saying, you know, as we go into public session, we can announce that we talk about this or make a decision about what we, you know, share what we talk about and they're obviously going to moments when we probably won't do that. But so tonight for example, he has two topics on the close session
agenda and said that we that we talked about the the council could potentially say, "Well, we're not going to announce it's a contract and we're not going to talk about that at the moment." Right. So in in terms of transparency, is there an issue with us deciding as a body based on your advice that when we come
to close, we can say, you know, this this evening we talked about 30 development. No issue involved. >> No, I don't. Yeah, it's something we consider our case making these cases. But yeah, I mean to the extent we discussed it >> I'm very comfortable with that. The
council's comfortable seeking, you know, at the end of each closed session taking a minute to say to the attorney, is there something that we shouldn't be at least >> Yeah. And it's usually like contracts or or or personnel issues or something that you know you wouldn't talk about public,
you know, if you're racing somebody. So um but otherwise I think the topics are pretty you know >> well I think legally of course talking about personnel we can't even do we can't
>> right >> but just so people know but that's that's like off limits >> agreed >> okay so is everyone comfortable with the idea of releasing minutes annually in January >> yes >> sure
>> unless Unless there's a request before the matter. >> The only issue I would say and I don't know from their perspective is that a bad time of year guys to do that is there will be a like because we have that ability to say well you know we'll pick the time that we're going to do
that. So >> if it would be best if we waited to adopt that resolution in February because then he's got the full year to review in January you know and then release. But this gives me something to get started with writing the ordinance that we'll introduce at our next
meeting. I will try to have a draft ready for the for discussion at the November 6th meeting so we can be introduced at the November 20th and adopt by the media. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Well done everybody.
Um again brief discussion because uh I can't talk tomorrow then just a few things about is the whole house. So we talked about this as a conversation we want to move forward. Um I did meet with um Paul Har
the construction code official punk matt the house and sent the council of a brief memo about potential uses of the house just noting that um the the path of least resistance according to Paul for utilizing the house would be keeping it as a single family home or changing
the property to a museum would be the second easiest option. anything beyond that, uh, you know, we'd have to get the UCCC involved. It would likely require more extensive work, changes to the building to comply. So, I haven't gotten up there yet with the fire official. Um,
and I do think that your uh, you know, the council do think we should be considering how to use the property and whether we have some people here in town, whether it's people from the historic preservation commission or local volunteers kind of spearhead the effort
or whether we want to consider hiring a consultant to use the Heritage Consulting um, as a group that does specifically this kind of consulting work. Um, so we don't want to want to continue moving this conversation along and I don't know if we're going to have there's anything more to say tonight
unless you have specific ideas about moving forward and how you want to have this conversation. >> Yeah, it might be good to have a consultant because I I think that know we're we're always, you know, um, it's great. We have a lot of input from folks, but you kind of need a person who
can who has good resources and may, you know, and does this, you know, for a living that can bring that expertise to the table that, you know, we we don't have, you know, to try, especially if we tell them, you know, kind of our parameters of what we're thinking of
>> and what our like kind of budgetary constraints may be or concerns or or they may suggest, you know, ways to fund it. the um I I think we we also have that I I agree
with hiring a consultant for this. Um the uh you know the the overarching question and maybe the consult or the state can help us out with this with Jimbo
um is what can we do and what can't we do to the facade? Is the facade of the building protected? is the addition that was put on the building like 60 70 years ago. Uh is
that protected? What do we have? What are we protecting? Are we protecting the inside? Well, anyone's been in the inside, you know, it's not original anymore except for the fire downstairs.
Um uh the uh you know it's about what what do we see that building in the future going to be? Uh a museum is an idea. uh you know you just got to see what you
know what's economically feasible to do and what's not economically feasible to do because first thing that comes to mind if it's a public building you got to get access up to that front door or back door which means have to be
accessible all there's the bathrooms inside they're not original but the bathrooms well the outhouse is But the uh the uh you know there's got to be accessibility to you or maybe
there's u you know a checklist you can go down where you don't have I don't even think there's a a bathroom on the first floor. >> There is on the way to above your head every time you're standing. >> Yeah. But you know if you have to make you have to make it accessible then it's
not. So there's a lot of of of things you have to consider. You won't fit, Steve, in the bathroom. >> That's right. Yeah, not fit. I put my head in there. So, you're out. We're out here on the second floor at the out house. All right. So, here's what I'm going to do. Uh I'm going to reach out
to a couple of consulting uh companies and begin conversation. We'll begin professional evaluation of the property. >> Yeah. And and basically the this person who I who I sent you that actually came through Mike mentioned the historical
society is uh you know has has done research about existing um or now it's passed but you know past buildings in municipalities or towns
where they decided to go one path and then didn't have the funding to finish and that's that's a big concern as well. So you got to make sure that whatever is done is limited. >> Got it. >> And and that and there's money in the
bottom for that for the for the >> resolution. Yeah. >> Yeah. Probably. Okay. >> So this is assuming we would retain ownership of the house. >> That conversation tonight. Uh yeah, this
is assuming that we would retain ownership of the house. Yeah, >> because I think we have to look at the whole, >> you know, owning a house that's really old. >> I think that's why we should get a consultant who's going through this before.
>> I agree. I agree with the consultant. >> Okay, good. So, let's start with a consultant >> and that that was >> I like that. >> Perfect. That was my question about what has to be preserved about >> Okay, we're gonna move on. >> Councilman, um discussion property test
raise period for eligible federal employees and federal contractors for certain circumstances. So, if you're a federal employee and you've been furoughed, you can't pay your taxes, come see us. >> Um, New Jersey Transit public hearing. I
don't know anything more about that. >> Just another one of their public hearing about their circulation and prices. Mayor, regarding the discretionary property tax grace period. Yes. >> I think we need to have some type of a
motion to uh authorize that in you know >> soon. >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Um are you prepared to do that? Should we move that to the November 6th agenda? >> Sound we prepared anything? Right. >> We have not asked other municipalities.
I don't have anything yet. Although this we got this notice that if you know any federal employees who aren't receiving anything right now and this grace period would extend it beyond November 10th to allow them to you know pay their taxes and
>> period it's November 1 >> November 10th is our so we can do this in the sixth >> on the sixth. Okay. >> So we'll do that then. >> Um and they have each letter in response to the city's request for a study to rapid rectangular plat beacons at
various location in the city of streets. >> That's um as I may add um I took the DOT in the beginning of the week and on the pedestrian you know that's the resolution that was submitted to them to kickstart the best safety plan and DOT
is going to be using a consultant as a designer. So, they're waiting for the proposals to be submitted to them and then they're going to be selecting a a consultant to help them and they'll be coming up. They'll take a look at traffic patterns and then they're going
to suggested design and then we get into the back discussion stage. >> Thank you. Um announcements parade uh will be held next Sunday October 26 at 2:30 start
park um and we'll proceed to daily deal at the north street and is it >> Delaware or Perry Perry Street um always a good time trick-or-treating is October 31st from 6:00 to 8:00
North Street and Corel 5. Um I just want to talk for just one minute about Cabalo Park. So I put some information in landlab park. Um this continues to be really just a project that will not end. Um the the LSRP is unfortunately going
to have to come back with another proposal because of additional testing required for these eco samples which are outside of the park. Um and uh and you know I've met with the D I've met with Green Acres. with D and Green Acres
together with our LSRPs. Working really hard to get this move, you know, get this closed out, get the paperwork submitted by the end of the year um and the park reopened as soon as possible. We did a technical uh kind of assessment
with the D and the LSRPs provided a lot of very technical information in this meeting and we got some good feedback from the D in advance the final submission. So, we've kind of frontloaded the crops a little bit here. Um, working really hard. As you can see,
most of the the soil's been removed now. Um, and they'll be bringing in the clean fill. We have been down there. I've had people down there every single day watching every single activity. We're not going to do anything, but it's going to get us into any kind of delay. Um, so
I just need everybody to show some continued patience with the project. Um, it's been a tough one that I think in my four almost four years my mayorship has been the project that's been the hardest one um to deal with. It's very complex uh and it just it's well just doesn't
seem to be stopping. But anyway, >> quick question. >> Yeah. >> The the testing outside the park where they did it they say where they wanted >> Yeah. Well, so the testing's already been started and already and so it's called eco sampling. So the the work
that's in the park itself will be complete in the next week or two. And if we could submit all of the paperwork for that, we'd be good. But because the D requires sampling outside of the park to see if the contaminants have spread to other areas, um we have to do this
additional testing. And uh and and it's a completely separate set of testing. Um, and I'm not going to be able to explain it very well, but it it requires different again different um different testing methods, uh, different analysis,
much more in depth, and it it it's complicated. Um, so >> are they going to be testing the state par? >> No. So, yes, the testing is along if anybody's interested in the plants that I'm happy to send them to. that eco testing is on the banks of the canal and
on the banks of the back race and you know what LSRP is finding is consistent with just natural contamination related to flooding events and rain events right doesn't seem to be really kind of matching or dubtailing with the kind of contaminants that we're seeing in the park but it's still a requirement in
order to to close out >> they should they should be as diligent in the park as we want them to be on the hill >> okay Um, yes. So, have we made any claim against the insurance company for the people?
>> Not yet. It's on my list. I want to get I want to get this closed out and >> Oh, yeah. Very eager to >> Well, I think what we need to do, we need to ask for loss damages for this. I mean, this is a city park. Kids have not been able to use this. This is a significant period of time. So, it's not
just the damages and the costs that it's taken for us to fix it. It's our inability to use this very valuable city park. Uh so I really strongly pursuant >> thank you as the plaintiff's attorney on the uh on the day here but necessary
they happy to assist with that. >> Okay great I'm happy to I'm happy to get it underway. Believe me I feel like somebody should pay for this um >> the canal. >> All right. Um so that's what I have for announcements. We'll move to the second
public participation period. Same uh wills apply. Name, address, three minutes of time for comments and questions. Lindsay, keeping an eye on you force. >> Jeff P 33 Wilson Street. If you do sue, my grandkids will claim it because they
and it cost the town money because they end up staying in New Came from Florida. My other grandkids are even more upset. So, >> I've got a 10-year-old home that wants Yeah. you know, but you got to stand on one block from there. Um, I just want to pull over something on the open public
job meetings act because I've been involved with this issue for a lot of years and in many of the towns that I've dealt with or even lived in closed minutes tend to be released within after an issue is done, especially like litigation or something
that's important and and that's usually the policy. Hillside was like that. Ringwood was like that. Uh, I mean back in my days at Hillside we didn't have the internet to post stuff but I mean but that was be in a library or or whatever and then the other um thing
from my work with foundation open government and others on on the again on the open public meetings act the standard practice for most communities and and I mean we've been slipping since sliding I mean I was one time down in South Jersey and suddenly
people from town could testify at plan board meeting which is ridiculous but the policy that usually is in place is that you don't go into detail, but you say, you know, discuss, you know, the redevelopment plan or, you know, potential litigation over a park or
whatever. Not much detail, but that's usually how they do it. And, you know, also Larry is a little bit different. Most of a lot of towns do it after. So, there's usually an agenda and they go into closed and come back out. So you do it before, but in most of the towns that
I've been involved with, um, it's usually on the agenda and then they go into they have a talk and then they go into close and they come back out again, which it is an important issue, you end up waiting around a long time. That's but that's how most I can give you the citations.
>> Judy Leon, 86 North Union Street. Um, a little bit further to the closed meeting issue. So, I wanted to thank Council M for for bringing that up, but also Jeb's made the what a point that I would have made. I had to deal with this when I was in state government and you usually have to say more than just potential
litigation and stuff and I looked it up on the on the open records decision thing and they do usually want a little bit more information than that. It's not exhausted because we understand the concept of closed, but it gives a better indication of what roughly is going on.
Um but the second thing is about the is about the redevelopment plan and as I mentioned earlier and you all passed it without a word. So I just want to remind you that there's several places in what the council I mean what the planning
board said and what was included in the what you passed today when it says when you have said and I'm saying that's good. But I'm just asking you to not forget it have said that there are places where the planning board will have an opportunity to make recommendations and set and set
requirements. I don't know whether you have to accept the planning board. You don't have to accept it when they say inconsistent with the with the plan you know the national whatever we call our plan. Do you have to accept what they come up with, what the planning board
says when they look over what the developer is doing? Because a lot of what we've said here in terms of that's okay, the planning board. Oh, that's okay. I just want to be sure that we're actually
looking at what we're saying here, the planning board will be able to do it. And one of the areas in specific is for example uh having to do with traffic study and what that's going to actually be because it doesn't actually say what it's going to be or what it's going to do or what
it's going to try to do or what it's going to mean or anything. And when we say hey not to worry anymore will look at it. If you don't accept what they say I think you have to do more than just say not to worry will
look at it because there needs to be more input with all the input that you all are getting. Um similarly my favorite communicate with West Amwell. We really need to consider how we're
going to handle that as a as a good neighbor, as a town, as a whatever. Because all it says is in terms of one of the things is encourage cooperative agreements with the county and adjoining municipalities for provision of needed service in the regional area. And one of
the things having to do with this development, we say that oh yeah, um we'll continue to explore opportunities for the provision of necessary services if and when certain needs arise. I'm not going to say you
don't know that means, but I don't know what that means. And if we're really going to be good neighbors and if we're really going to hold these people, speak to the fire a little bit, Konian, I mean, we have to we have to carry through some of what you've said in response to what the planning board
talked about. Similarly, welcome any communication with I really don't think it's that hard to reach out to them and communicate to them. It seems like it's part of what we're trying to say we're going to do that we care about.
Uh and finally talking about access uh draw people to facilities, structures etc. talks about some of the areas um in connection with the redevelopment plan and says the city may
may also explore further opportunities through the redevelopment agreement. I looked at all the places where it says redevelopment agreement. Please go back and look what you said about what the planning board said or what whoever put that together about the redevelopment agreement and the planning board will be
required to provide further review during a site plan application process. Do you have to listen to them? You don't have to answer me now, but I'm saying otherwise we're getting out of this by saying planning board and then when the planning board says you can say oh we don't have to listen to the planning
board. So, I mean, we'll feel better out here the same way we will on closed meetings if you tell us as soon as you can tell us or if you follow through with the things that you seem to be prepared to follow through on. It's not that you're not going to. I just know
how easy it is to get lost in detail. I mean, no one can keep track of everything. So, I'm just asking you to look back over what you had in your resolution and make little circles for when you talk about the agreement because you put a lot of comfort on the fact that we have an agreement, we have
a planning board, and we're going to deal with the things that the people on the hill have brought to your attention. And so, I think I think you want to do it, and I think you you should do it. Thank you. >> Bill, was going to ask you to clarify.
Um so when the redevelopment agreement has been negotiated and signed by both parties uh and the developer goes to the planning board or site plan you does this come back to the city council
at any point? No. Right. So this so once so once the agreement's signed and we've done our it becomes a plan and we don't get to weigh in again. Right. So so great. So that yeah I wanted to make sure that you understood that because it's an important part of the process. We lose our jurisdiction only goes to
the to the to the sign redevelopment plan the redevelopment plan adoption of and then the redevelopment agreement and then whatever other arrangements are made with respect to financial planning whatever and then it goes to the planning board for their review and and we're out of it. Correct.
>> Yeah. It's it's all the steps toward process. The way the revelment plan worked was right in accordance with the the revelopment law the site plan application is going to be in accordance with the land use law and all the procedural requirements and um
jurisdictional requirements that are there and I think you know I'm comfortable saying that there's going to be a requirement in the red board track study it's not going to be discretionary issue supporting
>> can't hear you can't hear It's going to be >> there's going to be a traffic study in the redevelopment plan in the redevelopment agreement. We've talked about 86 general and I know for example Beth had been you've been kind of paying close attention to some of this. I mean over the course of several months uh you
know I've said that there are things that I'm going to insist on in the redevelopment plan. Now that we're talking about the redevelopment plan in close session I'm probably not going to highlight those in a public way, right? But I I want to assure again take just a minute to assure everybody that
everything that everybody said I I think we've talked about right we'll go I'll go back and look at the planning board letter make sure that whatever can be worked into the redevelopment agreement is so um and at this point you know having all of these important um uh
comments come our way um you know I can't speak for anybody else obviously but I'm eager to share what we have with the public at this point, but we can't until until further down the line. So, um, all I can do is is reiterate that we've listened to everything everybody
has said and that we have the best interests of the city uh, in mind when we have these conversations and everything that everything I think that we've that anybody said tonight has been discussed already at the council level uh, with respect to the redevelopment agreement. So, I know it's tough to wait
to be out there and not understand and not under, you know, we have to say these things again and again, make sure that we feel like we're listening and that we're incorporating what we can, what you've said. But we are. Um, so and I think I feel very confident in saying that when we have a public hearing, um,
and show the the public the redevelopment agreement we've put forward that you're going to see everything you you've commented on, Jeff and and Judy and Beth and anybody else, Dave, um, that all of those things have been one way or another.
Um, is there anyone else who wishes to make that statement? line. Okay. Is there a motion to close public comment per second? >> All in favor say >> uh then I will um ask for a motion to
a second. >> All right. Thank you for coming everyone. It's good to see you all.