because there's nowhere else. >> Good evening everyone. Uh welcome. >> Uh we were uh previously in close session. We are now in open session again. Uh and uh as is our custom, we will rise for the pledge of allegiance and remain standing for a moment of
silence and honors children. I alian Thank you. See that? We begin this evening with the approval of the minutes. Um like to know if all the
council members have uh read June 5th, 2025 close session and the June 26th, 2025 session have a chance to review them. Have a motion to uh please move second.
All in favor can hear >> I >> I >> Okay. Uh, next on to the administrative reports. Uh, again, has the council had a chance to look at the administrative reports? >> Yeah. >> Okay. I'm going to point out a couple of things about the administrative reports.
So, this month, the Lambertville New Hope Ambulance and Rescue Squad have began to submit uh monthly reports to the council. Um, and uh with them yesterday, we want to make sure that we're always uh partnering well with them. And I think that uh this is some good information to have. So, they are
now submitting monthly reports to the city. uh and uh you're giving us some basic information. For example, uh Lambertville City had 51 calls in June and uh 283 from January till June. So we're we the city represents about uh
this year so far about a third of their calls. Um so we are uh the number one uh municipality that they serve in terms of uh in terms of calls. Um, so if anybody has any questions about that, please feel free to see me and we can certainly
send it back to the public if you're interested. Couple of other things from administrative reports, uh, from the DPW. Uh, the boom mower is working well, which is great. Uh, we bought it last year for $1,500 at an auction, so I'm happy about that. Uh, the center reot
was all repainted and striped recently. Um, clerk continues to uh, register landlords. the $2,300 in landlord registration uh fees last month for late landlords. Uh thank you ladies for that work and for all the work that you do.
Uh parking revenue last month uh was uh just over $50,000 and uh with the exception of January and February, every month this year has exceeded the past year in parking revenue. So our partner revenues are strong and that's some always welcome always welcome news.
Unless there question or entertain a motion to accept the administrative replace. >> All in favor? >> I um so today I'm going to do things just a little bit differently. Um the the we have a couple of uh couple of things
to consider. Um what I'd like to do is to work through the agenda uh the principal uh items in the agenda first and then move on to um questions about the judge's order afterwards. So um what I'm proposing tonight is that in the
first public uh participation constituent concerns we uh we discuss just those items that are on the uh on the agenda. So the resolutions and the ordinances, we have a couple of ordinances tonight which are second reading and public hearing and those ordinances uh will have their own public
hearings. Uh and um once we've moved through the agenda uh and we have time to talk about the court order uh we will have a a separate public comment period for that and we will have extended time for that so that everybody can spend uh time uh you know making comments or
asking questions for that. I think it's it'll work best if we get through the bulk of the the regular business first. Um, and I think it should be a fairly uh fairly quick uh process. So, um, bearing that in mind, uh, if you do have a question or a comment about
those items early on in the agenda, uh, please step up to the, um, the microphone. You have three minutes of uninterrupted time. We ask that you, uh, say your name and address for that. You can Good evening. Uh Mike Redmond, 23 Perry
Street. Uh at the last council meeting when uh the mayor was talking about the resolution for Clawson Farm. He mentioned that he wanted to go into direct talks to sell the homestead market. And I found that comment very
surprising. It would be my view that anything that's sold should be sold to the highest qualified bidder. I actually believe that the council has a fiduciary duty to sell anything that we own to the highest qualified bidder bidder um when
times are taught and uh that's all I wanted to say. >> There will be public comment during that uh during that ordinance reading as well. >> Okay. any response to that or >> uh I'd prefer to talk about it when we talk about the ordinance
car 57 Avenue. I just want to say thank you to Jeff for getting some wells tested for free out there through Garden State. I want to say thank you to Carol Mincy for coming out here and reaching to us to help us with this little fun or some people that needed help there. I
think my main question to you is what do you envision for the future for Lambertville and why did you run for mayor? What was your vision? Um so one thing about I'll answer this question but one thing about public participation we don't uh you know it's
not directed to any one person on the deis that's part of the ordinance and that's just because we work as a team. I'm happy to answer that question. Uh I ran for mayor because I thought that I uh I could do a decent job. I could do a good job and I committed to working full-time as the mayor and I show up
every day at 8 o'clock in city hall and work until 4 or 5 and I often work on weekends and so there's a lot to be uh done over the course of a day and over the course of a period of time and uh setting priorities overseeing capital
projects uh constituent concerns on hold office hours all these things really important because I I believe that for me and I've said this many times my life has worked out very well. My husband and I have uh have enjoyed measure of success. We have great children that
have grown up here and uh this was for me a way to express my gratitude for the community and each other. >> And as far as the community, the community, it seems like you don't listen to what we have to say. It's kind
of like your way and that's it. >> I'm not >> Maybe I'm wrong, but >> I don't want to get into a back and forth here. I would welcome a conversation with you. um be happy to set up a meeting and to have a conversation. >> I just wanted it all record because a lot of stuff is being done and it's not on record. So I just want to hear
opinion of what your thoughts were for the future for Lambertville. >> Well, I have many thoughts for the future of Lambertell. Uh and I'm not prepared to discuss them all right now because they're not what's on my mind at the moment. But I'm more than happy to have a conversation with you. >> Oh, about Lambertville and my thoughts.
And every year during the during the winter uh you know we do a state of the city speech in which I lay out kind of what I think are the priorities for the coming year and coming years. Uh and a lot of that is centered around community uh benefits whether they're capital projects whether they're budgetary
concerns or questions um potentially new ordinances that I think would be beneficial to the community things of that nature. Jeff Tiddle, 33 Wilson Street. And I want to start off and say I object to this change in in how we do business
here and a change in the agenda that this is again more manipulation that is happening in our town whose silence confused or keep the public voices from being heard. This is one of the only towns that I've ever dealt with limit speech to three minutes. Uh every town I
deal with is five and you let me go until you repeat yourself. We still doing that. We're stifling descent in this town. We're stifling public opinion. And we're stifling the right of the people to redress their government in uh with their grievances. And government that works everything closed doors and does everything with
redevelopment and goes into close for everything without knowing what's going on behind closed door is never doing the government's business. And so I'm really objecting to what's going on here. And I'm going to leave with one thought about the future. This week we saw horrific floods in New
Jersey. Last week we saw hundreds of people die because of flooding. The reason that flooding happens is because you cut down mountains, you cut down forest, you cave over open space and you can't control the water. And Far Street is going to turn into Route 22. It's going up on top of that hill. And we
don't have an alarm system. We used to. And people don't know. I have my phone has a Princeton exchange. So I don't get the alerts for over here. So, what I'm saying to you is not only don't you listen to the people, you're setting us up for a tragedy. >> Okay. Suzanne Davis, Aren Avenue,
Lambertville. And actually, Mayor, this is addressed to you over there. I know it's not a corner. You may not address any single person on the day. So anyway, it seems that um when Mayor Norwick um became
mayor, I have to believe that he had the best interest of the town at heart. And I know that he used to do these walkabouts that we would hear about and they were terrific. I did this, I saw that. Absolutely wonderful. Um and even
one time we needed a stop sign somewhere and I emailed his office. The next day there was a stop sign. They were very responsive. However, somehow it seems that things started to get a little darker. And I'm thinking like maybe a chapter in Gordon ship down where the
rapid sees all these machines coming to destroy Gizwire. And I'm just wondering um what the plan is for Lambertville. Like how are these new developments going to enhance and enrich our little town that we love so much? So those are
my thoughts on that. Not directly to you, Mayor Herbert. Uh, Judy, listen, 86 North Union Street. So, I'm sorry at the decision to change the way we're doing the public comment. I don't think it was the kind of thing that we should all have had to wait till
now to hear. There are people who are here with other obligations who may or may not be able to stay till the end. I don't know. But that's sort of not a good way to communicate changes in the public agenda, I would suggest. Uh secondly, I understand what we're not
allowed to talk about now, but I will say I did have occasion to look up in our code what the duties of the mayor are. Not a particular person, it's the role of mayor. There's particular duties and
serving powers. and I went through it with some care and was unable to find anything in there that seemed to be responsive to some of the actions that appear to have been taken in various areas. Um, and I'm concerned about that
and I'm concerned because I have seen our council take positions contrary to our mayor and yet I've seen an outcome be a position that is not was not supported by a majority council. So, I understand we're only going to talk
about specifics later in the meeting, but these are big. We're living in a world now where people who are doing things that do not fall within their duties and powers at high levels of government has caused everybody concern.
And I did not expect to have that concern in this little town. But recently, it has become more and more the case that that is a realistic concern in this little town. And whether we're talking about something that we're going to talk about later in this
meeting or whether we're looking toward the future and issues that will again fall within se I'm sorry closed sessions and stuff going on. This is not a a good way to feel as though the town is
working together with its council and its officials. So I really ask that that be something that is borne in mind going forward. And yes, you'll probably hear from me again later. Thank you. >> Sean Ellis 21.
>> Um I I Junior kind of stole my thunder here because I did want to say that um it does not seem that like the council is working as a team. Uh like you just said, Mayor Nook, um it seems that in
fact there's a routing around democracy here. >> Um the council has been very eager about their opinions and about what they would like to see happen. And that has been in
conflict with what the mayor would like to see happen. And um I'm very concerned that there was this undemocratic resolution to um
to to this uh development um that seemed to be and I'll talk about this more later because I don't I know we're not allowed to we're inhibitive um from talking about it now, but it seems like uh number Number one, the council
doesn't actually function as the team you are thinking it is, mayor. And number two, I'm going to ask you >> any comments to anyone's individuals on the DES, please. >> Um, it seems like the council is not uh
working as a team. Um, they're being thwarted by one person. And uh I think that the priorities, you know, again, the things that you're you that the mayor
says he's doing, he is prioritizing things. He's just not prioritizing the things that the community cares about and uh that the council cares about. Um and that I see as a huge disservice to
our democracy here. It's very good evening John 99 Street. I'm here to speak about what's taking place at Cabllo Park
relative to about 7778. Um fellows here decided that they like to upgrade Park from a place where the kids were running down the trucks and the geese and their four-wheel drives drunk and
make it into a top park memory of the young man who lost his life, Jimmy Cavalo. I think that was his name. But I do know still after a number of meetings uh we met with Jim Hamilton who happens to be
the gentleman who painting hangs in the back here and we went down to the DNR canal commission when it was back in 70 late 70s at the west state and Calhoun Street and we gave a presentation of
what Cavalo Park should look like. at which time we went through all of the mechanics that were required. And considering who I was running in a four-h horsese race with, the only other person being Barbara, I did all the paperwork,
13 different letters, 13 different approvals, including the fourth naval district. What they had to do with it, I had no idea. But I do know this. Yes. When I saw the $150,000
in Memphis for benzo pynezopy, you got to be damned. And I'm using light language here. Uh that's grilled meat. The worst being chicken fat
beef not so bad. So every property here in the world has got bedings on it and $150,000 to clean it up. I hope you got paperwork
folks from the green acres and the green acres know nothing about at all. It says they don't. So, if this $150,000
gets spent to clean up chicken fat and beef, well, I think we'll have to take it to a next level. I uh I find myself in a situation
that every day of my life now I look across the street at the hill and it is slowly losing all of the trees. And at quarter or 3 in the morning, my house shakes when they set off illegal
blasting, which may be a contributor why some of the very tanks or whatever the hell I said them is gotten into our aquifers. So, we have a very serious problem. Benzopy better go away.
We do not want to get involved with the folks in New before and they probably still do now. When you start talking about what is occurring the trees that Mr. Pill mentioned stop
water have been removed and that's all along the fascia of the of it of the tree line on what they call the north side of the quarry. The important thing, however, is that we
cannot tolerate now a heavy rainfall. It's going to come down and if we're the ones that are involved in getting injured, I assure you it's been at least depraved in the difference that
caused this problem. And I will take it to the highest level that I can. and they're forcing us to go into the enemy camp. That's how I view the way the Justice Department is being run right now.
There'll be more. >> Thank you very much. >> Uh the other thing I have to say about Green Acres is that we have in fact been in regular contact with them about the park. I the attorney and the LSRPs. So
any >> give me a name. Attorney give me a name. >> Yeah. His name is Connor. >> Conor Milligan. >> Conor Milligan. >> Conor Milligan. >> I'd be more than happy to send you a long line of emails that show that we've had regular communication with them. >> Okay. I have a person who's the
compliance officer has no clue what you're talking about. >> Well, we've been uh in fact, I just asked >> that could be a issue here that there's nothing wrong with the val park. We don't have to spend $150,000 to clean up chicken fat.
>> We have a well established record of what's happening at Kaval. >> So why I wouldn't be here otherwise. >> You got to be able to talk to justice blindly. >> Thank you everybody for your attention. >> Is there anyone online who wishes to
speak? How many people do we have online? 19. >> No hands. >> And motion to place the public commentaries, please. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I resolutions. Uh we have a consent agenda
this evening. Um no uh routine uh resolutions and shall be enacted by one motion. If anybody on the council seeks to see a separate discussion of an item, uh, please let me know. Uh, I just wanted to point out I think on
um, so unless there are any comments or questions from the council hearing none, I would ask a motion to adopt the resolutions. listed on the consent agendas number 119 2025 through 127 2025 >> second.
>> All those in favor please say I. >> I motion carries here. Uh our next resolution is resolution 128-2025. It's a resolution to update the bid threshold to $53,000 as per DCA as per
DCA regulations. Um, this uh resolution is uh authorizes the increase and it's also uh necessary for auditing purposes. Any questions? All right, I'll make a motion to adopt uh resolution number 121 128-2025. Is
there a second? >> Second. All those in favor, please say I. >> I resolution number 129-2025. This is a resolution to certify the 2024 audit. Um the audit has been posted on that city website and I was pleased to
report that uh there were no recommendations this year. We had a perfectly clean audit which is uh which is great. A very complex uh well the finance um and the council members have all signed off on this uh and so I would entertain a motion to accept the audit.
It's resolution number 129 2025. So move >> second. >> All in favor please say I. >> I. Thank you. Motion carries. Approval of the bills list. Uh would somebody make a motion to approve the bills list, please? >> Second. >> All those in favor of paying the bills,
please say I. >> I. >> I. Thank you. Motion carries again. Uh first reading ordinances. Ordinance number 18-2025. This is an ordinance to amend the Lambertville city code 2014 chapter 7 to add a handcap parking space in front of
79 Street. Any questions from that council? Okay, we have a a motion, please, to uh introduce this ordinance. >> So move. >> Second, please. Second. >> All in favor of uh introducing on first reading ordinance number 18-2025 of the
public hearing schedule to August 21st, 2025, please say I. >> I. Uh we are also introducing uh amendments to ordinance uh amendments or yeah using a amendments to ordinance number 19-2025.
Uh this would amend the Lambertville city code 2014 adding chapter 18 special regulations for major motion pictures. So this is an ordinance that will amend the city's ordinance and bring it into line with the state of New Jersey. Um major changes include the table of
adding the table of contents changing the person of authority to the municipal clerk who was l who is the licensing agent for the city and some other minor edits and minor fee schedule changes. So we uh adopted this ordinance before the state had completed their ordinance
their sort of standard for ordinance to be a a community in which a film ready uh designation was made. Uh as you know we've already had one major film uh work here in Lambertville and they did work according to the ordinance at the time and uh it went very well. So this is
bringing us into line with the rest of the municipalities uh in the state uh our film ready uh municipalities. Are there any questions about this? Okay. Um, I'll make a motion to introduce on first reading ordinance
number 19, 2025 with the public hearing scheduled for August 21st, 2025. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Moving on to the second reading
ordinances. Uh, we have ordinance number 15-2025. This is an ordinance to amend Lambertville City Code 2014 chapter 7 handicapped parking to include the space in front of 67 York Street. Uh and as is required when we do a second reading we
have a public hearing on this. So if there's any member of public who wish to speak just to this specific ordinance, please step to uh to the podium line wishes to speak to this handicap park space. Okay. Have a motion to close and hold the comment please. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> All those in favor of closing public comment, please say I. >> I. >> All right. >> I. >> Any further comment from the council on this ordinance? >> All right. Then I would ask the motion to adopt ordinance number 15-2025 on
second reading granting final approval. >> Second. >> All those in favor, please say I. >> I. Thank you. >> Now we have ordinance number 16. Yes. Ordinance number 16-2025. This is an ordinance of the city of
Lambertville County, Pon State of New Jersey adopting the Hulcom farm redevelopment plan pursuant to local redevelopment housing law. So this uh ordinance was introduced and uh and subject to a public hearing at the planning board for consistency with the
master plan. Uh they did recommend approval. Uh did find it consistent with the master plan. Um and this uh ordinance is to amend the Hulcom farm redevelopment plan and this would permit the sale of the farm market to fisherman's mark and also authorizes the
city to work with Rariton Valley Habitat for Humanity to build six for sale affordable housing units. I will open the public uh hearing for this ordinance. So your leg please state your name and address. Offer your
comments. of Paul Stevens 39 Corey. U this comment would have made a lot more sense if we've been allowed to comment up something that's being held to the end, but I'm going to go ahead and make it anyway. Uh I feel strongly that any related uh activity any activities
related to the sale of any portion of the clawson exclusion zone property fisherman's mark be put on hold until we figure out what we're going to do about the u high school site. Okay. How could that?
Um, yes, selling the property to the farmer's market, um, will bring in a one-time drag launch of money to the city, but it's not going to bring in any future ongoing revenue, and there's a good chance we're going to need it.
Okay? Hopefully, we will need it because hopefully we'll be fighting this. Um then more importantly, it's the only property that the city has that it owns right now
where we control the future of what goes on there. And as we heard from Norwest GAP on on activities of the affordable housing committee, um the biggest issue with nonprofits being able to develop
affordable housing, which they don't rely on developers, um is having property to do it on. Okay? And that's what we're doing with Habitat for Humanity, but we might need to do it with the rest of the property. And
here's a for example, okay, Clark is sitting on has according to their 2023 form 9990, they have $1.3 million in cash in non-interestbearing accounts. That's their surplus and they
have capital assets with the cost basis of 1.4 million. It would seem to me that Fisherman Mark could help out with our affordable housing. I bet you they're going to want to rebuild that uh building that's on there.
This plan they have all the while their plan is more you discuss it right. Um but what we convince them that maybe they ought to think more creatively put some affordable housing and apartment units on the center.
Um that would help us out in the future. Um and Oh, and then one other thing here. It's interesting that the development plan that you put uh that you're talking about right now actually shows that for
the last four plus years that fisherman's marks been in violation the zoning of that property. Yeah. So anyway, they food is not one of the permissible uses in LR or whatever
that means up there. Thanks for your time. Like I say, I I really think we're getting ahead of ourselves again. Every time we do this, we end up tripping over ourselves down the road wishing we might have done something differently if we've been
smart, thought out about it in the future. Thank you. >> Thank you. Peter Halls, 123 North Frank Street. Uh I'm very curious and concerned about the process comes this brings us to this point on the resolution for the designation of
redevel of of of designating the property in need of of redevelopment. Um, I looked at the 2022 uh minutes and uh the rationale given for designating the property in need of
redevelopment was um questionable at best I think bogus and frankly just completely wrong. It was questioned by one planning board members that questioning was dismissed. The criteria were just not accurate. It's a dilapitated
facility and all that. Um uh uh the mayor stated that he uh was actually that the reason for it was to est to enable the city to use the property for storm water. It's in the minutes and um
so that's curious. Um, but what's disturbing is that in the uh in in the in the uh the uh plan that you're I about to jump through, there is no mention of an extremely consequential project going on in that property right
now. Everything else is mentioned except the project ongoing now for storm water management on property which in my opinion well and maybe I'm the only one that likes to look at stars unimpeded by lights in my eyes or have the only view
in town over town over looking over to over the city. Those are the only place that you can do it. Those are going to be obliterated when this project comes to fruition, as will the sledding hill. The project is completely incompatible
with sledding, so there will be sledding on that hill. I'm I'm astounded that this is something that's moving forward without question by anybody. And I'm very disturbed about that, especially in light of what we're seeing has happened at Hub
with that issue where we just go through these things without thinking it. So, I I'm really hope you don't just approve this thing without thinking about stay. Thank you. >> Just a couple of thoughts on the u on
the park. Uh I I believe you're referring to the $322,000 grant that we the city's uh working through for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which has been very well vetted public through the parks, right? We're I'm responding now. So, you can um uh So
that is still ongoing. That is a major project and it will be dealing with storm water by adding green infrastructure. Sledding hill uh you are incorrect. The sledding hill will not be compromised. The field will be mowed. Uh we have made that commitment uh a number of times in meetings. So uh I I can
clarify that for you right here in this meeting on the record. Um so so uh that project is continuing and will have a a beneficial impact to houses across the street for example. uh and uh storm water in general and it also serve a very important educational uh function.
Uh there will be signage that talks about the importance of green infrastructure and ways in which we need to be addressing storm water management and resilience through a multitude of different uh programs and and and functions. So uh that's
>> so the project will not do that is what it is stating it is going to do. >> You can call me and we can set up. Well, you're about to prove this thing. That's just >> Thank you. I'll be back. >> Good evening. Uh Mike Redmond, 23 Perry
Street. Kind of just want to revisit, you know, what I said in the earlier comment section. Uh there's a lot of contention going on in society right now, right? And I think it can lots of things cost it but one of the things is
the abuse of language right we abuse language in our society suggesting that the cost of farm is an area in need of redevelopment is a lie it's an abuse of language we were told that we had to buy it to protect the viewscape right you don't
protect the fusecape of an area in need of redevelopment so abuse of language is a problem in our societ sign and then uh abuse of the spirit of law. Right? Our law has a spirit to it, right? The government buys something, it buys it
from the lowest qualified bidder. The government sells something, it sells it to the highest qualified bidder. I know fisherman marks a charity. I'm sure they've helped lots of people. I'm sure they have a beautiful record. It doesn't matter. The government needs to set examples and how it does things. And if
Homestead Market is going to be sold, it should be sold to the highest qualified bidder. And I actually think the council members have a fiduciary duty to the taxpayer to ensure that that happens. Thank you. I appreciate any thoughts and comments. >> Thank you. Uh the council's talked about
this a number of times in public meetings uh in terms of our fiduciary responsibility to pay down the debt. Um and uh you know while the terms of the agreement uh I don't remember Bill if we've talked about this in public but you know the property was uh was
appraised uh it's been appraised in and in three or four different ways uh in different segments so that we can understand what the value of a certain part of it was and the value of other parts of it was and uh you know fisherman's market has agreed to pay the about the appraised value of the
property. So that's all I'm going to say on that subject at the moment. >> So Mayor, um you know, these comments have given me pause and to reflect on and and and recall some of those conversations uh that we had. Um I remember
specifically advocating for putting the sale out to bid to get the highest qualified bidder. Um and it it just kind of moved along in a direction. So, I want to go on record saying that I
support that um that that stance for the reasons that Mr. Redmond mentioned. It's it's a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers to get as much money as we can for our coffers. It doesn't matter if we
sell the property to a um you know to a benevolent organization at a discounted price versus high qualified qualified bidder at a slightly large higher price. Um we would still have the opportunity to pay down the debt with that money. So
I I just want to you know go on record of saying that I do support uh the reservations that are being put forward. >> Well, we will be hopefully moving this to a vote. So, uh, you can express it as you will in the Bible. >> Uh, Jeff Tunnel, 33 Wilson Street. So,
I'll just off answering Mike's question. The reason you make it an area redevelopment is so you get around the bidding laws and get around zoning and you get around everything else. And that's been one of the biggest scandals in New Jersey. In fact, I won a court case up in Warren up of Franklin
Township in in Warren County where they made a farm an area of redevelopment. the court ruled that it couldn't be because it's open space and open space is a higher use in development. So just so you understand that this was done so you could do a private sale versus doing
a public and I'm not necessarily against the project. I just want to make sure people understand that redevelopment is how you hide stuff from the people. It's where you get around. The other point I'm going to make and I get one more was that we don't know what the cost of the infrastructure improvements are going to
be as part of the sale. the cost of that road that's going to cost a couple hundred thousand dollar the cost of storm water improvements and everything else. So this is not going to be a money maker to pay down the debt. This is going to be a money maker. And my final point is that that house that site was supposed to get five units of affordable
housing in round three. The former mayor took it off. They moved it to the police station which then they wanted to put a a police station in the flood zone or a blunt property here or put it on Boston farm. We had nowhere to go. But those five units that stood out there is one
of the major reasons we lost the lawsuit to Henry because we could not get certified because we had no place for those five units and had we put it back on farm after we bought the property we would have a different out. So this is this is a tragedy a complex of mistake.
You can call it whatever you want. In the army they had another word that starts with clusters but only that for a second day 250 glide runs Avenue uh on the issue of the sale of the market. All right I have said here many times all
right this should go out to a public you know public auction or public bid. All right. And we get our assessments and we get offers. All right. But you go out to the public uh in a public uh you know bidding, not a bidding, but in a sale.
All right. We should probably do or could do amazingly well. And if not, you you know uh it's wrong. All right. The other thing is and I didn't think of of it until you know what what happened here a Monday month Monday or so ago.
All right. uh with the uh with the court case. We don't know what's going to happen, all right, in this city, all right, but we know it's not going to be good, all right? And to tie up any of our property that now belongs to us, us
the taxpayer, I think would be a a delection of duty, all right, to prepare for whatever is coming. Good evening, John. This past um planning board meeting, I
presented a presentation as a professional. Um I'm a historic preservation specialist among other things. And um the uh it was a consistency review which was the perfect place to do it because that where you do these type of things
and as a um I read through my qualifications which are educational. One of the things I didn't mention is that in fact on behalf board and I did go to the Caribbean island of June to set up this story
processes and did receive a wonderful call from him. He said uh I want to thank both of you and Mr. Hen, but more importantly I want to thank you for what you do for America and that's what I'm going to do right now.
The closen property is I had a nice presentation here but I go right wait to the meat of the matter here. Uh the cost of property is the Hok
forum. The Hok forum is on the state and national register of historic places. As soon as it's purchased by a municipality, it comes under the control of the historic place council
and then it's reviewed. It seems the secretaries of interior standards guidelines for treatment of historic property. That's anything you want to do including encroachment and examples of encroachment including
structure taking property from a historic resource to order any alternation of listed property. Ah, this is so legal.
Encroachments are reviewed in a meeting with the historic site council. It's a gatorial unordined board of 11 citizens created to advise the council and they review the um
the request of the municipality because once it starts it is now there's a gentleman here that said it sounds wrong the new Jersey Constitution of 1947
is very specific particularly judge Zaz we all talk about all time I'm sure who said a bladed property is a property that is exactly that ugly exact run condition
for well it's trying to be developed under 4812 that is not in any way
um something that occurs. I think the whole quote from Chief Justice is asking who to make it very clear that it's not what was presented here in his um
a property whatsoever particularly in the Gunn versus Prow which I'm sure again you're very familiar with. So this property here in order to be developed has to go before the historic sites council. It's got to be an open public
meeting and that's the law of lean. Um council fell to compliance when they did this. Do we have problems in New Jersey with affordable housing?
15 to maybe 20% of the homes in New Jersey are valued at 1 million or more. So, it's economics driven and not anything else at all. Now, so what we're going to have to do here, folks, is I
have to follow the letter of the wall. And I gave a presentation, and I tried to be as easy about it as I could, but the second a municipality purchases
a property on the state national register of historic places, anything you want to do in terms of encouragement has to go before the historic sites can. And uh that has to be an open public meeting.
Obviously, I also brought up to the attention of the planning board that a gentleman with three and a half acres between 518
and Quarry Street came to then Mayor um I forgot She uh they came because they wanted to be considered for um
what we are in the the deep right now with the um I forgot they wanted to be cons they wanted to be able to go into aable situation to see if somebody would buy their property they could work out a deal for for
affordable housing on their property. They also came earlier on with um the trailers and we turned back the trailers are legally have to be considered for affordable housing.
what they wanted to do was to have a um a builder's solution looked at for their property so that the three and a half acres could be used for that purpose. Although his wife is favoring the tiny
house type of thing and that would be one and two family one and two bedroom type properties. We have had here a place that could be developed and it didn't flood during Ida and it's on the stream and you had somebody at that
point in time that was disrespected. He and his his daughter went up and was told to go see a developer when you were doing the police station. Um you can't be shooting your toes off and
and and doing this. So the if we move ahead with what my gentleman's friend over here is going to propose, I simply send a certified voting to the governor and we call it out and let the chips fall where they met. I'm very concerned
about living in what I call an alcoholic family where I'm afraid to tell the truth so I don't bring the us out in the open of some of the stuff that's going on around. But sooner or later, and hopefully later, we have people that are going to
be looking for something like Fisherman's Mark as a ice target, if I might say so. And you can't restrict people from speaking here called the Constitution.
And that ends up when you get to section 9, 241, 242. your attorney here will tell you that it gets pretty nasty. So, thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Paul.
>> Paul, you made a statement earlier, Paul Stevens 3940. You made a statement earlier about there have been two apprais Well, you said there' been appraisals on that. The only thing that I know of in public meeting were the
appraisals that were done for green acres and if they did not include an appraisal of the exclusion zone. If there is an appraisal of the exclusion zone, could you please send it to me? Thank you. >> Yes, sir.
>> Judy Gleason 86 to Union Street. Mostly I just want to thank the people who have knowledge and experience and information they were able to share with you all tonight in this public hearing which I do not have but I heard what they said and I'm asking as they have asked
everybody on the on the dis please take this seriously and don't feel like you have to do whatever it is you're being asked to do tonight. There's obviously more going on here. Maybe at the end of the day you find out that there's no need to do anything any
differently than you thought Mary Garden was thought would be out there. But you there's been really important information shared with the whole room. Not just with the council, but with the whole room. That means everybody here knows the stuff that is at issue. That's
a question. And members of council have in the past stood up for this sort of thing and said, "Okay, we're gonna hold on or we're going to take another we're going to do whatever we're going to do." So I know having watched this council since its election in various years, this is a group that is willing to look
and take careful pay take careful attention. So just please I didn't give you any good information and I heard good information and I'm asking you to please take the time to not feel like you can check off something by voting on it tonight when there's clearly more to
it now than is 100% cleared. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. 21 here. Um, so I I think Paul had a good point that if there are appraisals that I'm
assuming are paid to taxpayer money on this property on the different parts of it that that be made public. Um, is that possible? Bill, can you answer this question? So, you know, when you have had appraisals,
I'm not going to remember exactly. It's been a while since you and I have talked about them, but there were at least I think two or three different appraisals while the city council was considering different elements, possibilities uh on the site, right? So, we have now looks like four years. There have been a lot
of ideas that have been kind of thrown out at various times about uh you know, what do we do with the lock cabin? What do we do? We never had a holistic kind of uh you know plan or kind of look at the site or anything. So there were a number of there were I think three full
appraisals if I'm remembering correctly and I'm going to have to defer to you Bill on on Sean's question. >> That's correct. There's three there was three different phrases. Um there's one specific to the farmers market property.
We don't have a contract with Fisherman's Market on that property. yet. Um, you know, that that's dependent on how the redevelopment plan is handled. Um, there was preliminary negotiations that we had in close
session because there were contract negotiations. Um, park obtained their appraisal, the city obtained its own just to make sure and check those numbers. Um, the concern I would have is that if this ordinance
system adopted, the city does go the route of soliciting bids or at an auction. If that information is public, then it kind of compromises the bidding process because potential biders would know what the
price is appraisal and they could they could obviously any potential fitter could obviously obtain their appraisal. But uh my opinion is that this city's more private cityra
and by making the numbers public. So that would be my concern about public So the tax but the public can't actually see that that's
okay You wish to speak about the the redevelopment plan, >> the one on the hill. Is that the one we're doing? The the >> We're going to do that as soon as we get through the correct >> fairly close.
Uh is there anybody online wishing to speak to us? >> No. You know, John, I'm sorry. We're gonna >> Mayor Right to speak. They shouldn't be shut down and they shouldn't be told they can't they've spoken too much. I'm sorry.
If I might say so. >> Compliance. Does the local government certify which you folks pass? They request the authorization of the commission of Department of Environmental Protection prior to encroaching upon a resource listed on the New Jersey Register of
Historic Places. And you put your John Hancock on. You had agreed to it. And now you're turning your back. They all don't work. >> Motion to close the public commentary. >> Say I I
Is there >> Thank you. Is there further comment or questions uh from the council on ordinance number 16-2025? I would I would say that I would I would say that given the information
that we received tonight, which is actually maybe the first time I heard about it, um about additional approvals we need to sell uh
to potentially sell parts of the cost of property. Um then I would be hesitant to take action before we did a little bit more due diligence just to say that we
did due diligence. Um, I have questions uh whether uh and I could be wrong, believe me, but I have questions whether the Hulcom farm is actually singled out
in our historic because not many not many properties are singled out as uh it is >> but but be that be that as it may then I
would I would rather uh wait until we had an official word whether what we're doing with the properties and you may have we may have we have talked about this in at least one public meeting. Anything that we do on that property is going to have to go before the state
historic preservation office and the historic sites council. We I have we have talked about this in public meetings. There's not a single thing that we can do up there. The reason why the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant is taking so long is because we needed to do an
archaeological survey and that took a very long time. They found a thousand objects which are in city hall. If anybody's interested in seeing them, they may. And then they requested or required that we do a second survey uh of a separate area of the park. There's not a single thing that we can do up
there without talking to the GNR Canal Commission, without going to historic sites and shipo. Am I correct, Michael? >> Yes. >> Did I miss anything? >> No. Okay. So, this has been talked about in public meetings before. So, I don't want uh I I don't want there to be
confusion about it. Um anything that we do there is a multi-layered process and I have found that out better than anybody with green acres. Anything that we do up there is taking we've owned property for four years and everything requires a lot of bureaucratic
applications. The the the I mean, I could talk about this for half an hour. So I just want to make sure that everybody's clear that this is true. John is correct and nobody was disputing that at any point. But the historic sites council will need to be seen. Shipo will need to be contacted.
Applications will need to be uh sought and approved by the state before we can do uh uh the habitat houses before we can do any potentially work on the site uh that's related to green acres. All of it requires state approval >> and that will be an open public meeting.
Those meetings are public as this as the state makes them. I I don't know. Bill, can you comment on the the site the historic site council meeting I think is is public. >> I know Shipbo is open. I'm not I've never done anything with the historic sites council but I know Shipbo's open. Yeah.
>> Well, we would like these to be open because that is a very significant historic site and for us to carve it up in the way that you're talking about would not be appropriate for it. It is an entire state. We close comment. Okay.
>> I'm sorry. I'll check it later. >> Okay. >> But you know fully well what that site is. >> We all do. I have the de from 1705 in my office. I look at it every single day. I'm very keenly aware of the historic significance of that site.
So um are there any other questions from the council? Well, I I just want to um second uh Councilman Stegman's uh comments about, you know, getting some good information here
tonight. It does give me pause that we should maybe take further discussion on how to approach this. We we did um you know and maybe we missed some opportunities and that would be part of the discussion uh and the public would
be privy to that discussion and that would be a good thing. But really what are our options and what are the things we can accomplish? Um you know what's what's the risk of not moving forward with this? That's
number one. what else could we possibly do? And um you know, I' I'd like to maybe carry this forward and see if there's an opportunity to do a little bit of extra digging. >> I I uh strongly uh feel a different
point of view from the council president. I think that the expectation the the the last couple of years worth of work and conversation in the public uh about this uh have taken place and uh we have worked um in the public forum to discuss this many times. We have talked
about the debt. We have talked about the the the mission of Fisherman's Mark and what an important organization it is to the character and the the the very support of uh our our residents. Um, so, uh, I'm I would be opposed to moving this to
a different date. I we've already done so much work here and it feels as though we would be doing a last minute complete change of uh of the part. >> Well, um, given the discussion, I'll be
short and sweet. I mean it it's I I think given the situation we're probably wise to carry it because I don't know where because we don't want to go back and start all over again if since we
already know how some of the council members feel and in deference to uh maybe we there needs to be some further discussion particularly the the fail safe in a redevelopment plan of well
what if it doesn't sell the way they said what if we wanted to convert the building to affordable housing and we needed to is there anything else we need to put in the redevelopment plan to give it give some shortity to that maybe it
does go ahead go with fisherman's bar but but the food for thought here is is some some of these desires that we have a fail safe Because what if the sale I'm privy to the sale negotiation but it
hasn't happened yet. So we're adopting a plan. We don't really have a buyer going to have a plan with a with a plan that may not be the use. So my carrying it may be
you know the wisest move to be able to be having much discussion on set about the chaos. So >> just wait. >> Yeah. >> So I do agree with councilinsky about the wise thing about being is to carry
it at this time. But I do want to say I do support selling the fisherman's mark. Um, you know, obviously, you know, earlier discussions we had, I think that there was an agreement that this property would not be sold unless it was sold over the appraisal value. Um, so
obviously, you know, when that vote happened, I just want people to understand that yes, you know, we're going to honor that. Um, that was not honored when the property was bought. Um, you know, I wasn't on council when the property was bought. I didn't support it, but I am now. And so, my job is to do what's best for the city of
Landwood. I'll also remind people for the past couple years we've had people coming in here saying why is this property sold? So, you know, now we're holding back. Let me tell you there are a lot a lot of comments and a lot of people that made those comments are the same ones now saying but slow it down. Look, more information changes
everything. Um, but I do support the project, but I certainly don't want to start all over again. Um, and you know, I think the wise thing absolutely is to, you know, make sure the city attorney can look at this information and he's carrying it and um, you know, hopefully be able to proceed, uh, very shortly. I
I do have one question though, uh, you know, when we, you know, part of this resolution is also for our affordable housing with that project. Is that going to cause problems if we don't move forward with this? I don't know the answer to that. I would like uh council
to address that question, right? Because our our third round uh alliance is tied into uh the Habitat for Humanityou and if this is not approved, what that says is that that you that that we're not moving forward that we do not have the
mechanism to move forward with the Habitat for Humanity. It's going to put us in I think and I want Kelly to to to to give her expert legal opinion put us in legal jeopardy that we do not need. >> That's that's like ready information. That's why we have this sort of
sputtering of stuff. So tell me your >> we have represented fair share housing center that we've been working with habitat for humanity on this and they're going to see the development of the six dwelling units on the site. They've
represented that uh to the court several times particularly in the recent litigation. Um, I've been negotiating with the Fresh Alley Center again because we need to make a swap from the police site. Um, and we've we've
negotiated uh this parcel. Um, you're not what I'm hearing is not a voting it down. What I'm hearing is a tableabling um certainly two different items, but yes, it's been to the court. Yes, it's
been put a fair share. Um, so that is correct. Not moving is not moving and that's that's on an agenda. I'm sorry.
So maybe I guess the point here is that in order to uh you know to keep our good faith with the court since we don't have immunity that the recommendation that we had talked about
before is that we need to move forward with this as part of the package to try to move to get our immunity back. So, we're not selling anything. We're just >> we're just adopting the redevelopment
plan which includes the the six units that is part of our round three which is now doesn't have but we want to have we are working towards getting our immunity back because as we all talk about the
judge removed our immunity and it is a you know it's a very precarious place for the city which I we're going to be talking about in the next and and and explaining that. But this is one of the steps that we need to take towards
getting our immunity back. >> I don't really agree with that. Um I would agree with that representation. still. >> That's an important aspect of the plan that we weren't really talking about because we were talking about the
ability to put uh uh afford if they didn't buy the farm farm market went to housing, we we would have that space to put affordable housing. So, I guess the the bottom line is is that we need to adopt this with a different bit of a
wrinkle to protect us because we have to keep those six units in the plan. We have to keep those six units moving. So if there's an issue with the redevelopment plan, I point to you, Michael, then we can we can we can go back and amend it if we needed to want
to build affordable housing on the property. But we have to protect our immunity, but we also have to commit to being a to looking at it down the road if we want more affordable housing there or whatever. But tonight, if we can do
that, it it really is and and look, I'll testify to it differently to the government city that we protect ourselves from this immunity. We're getting a little ahead of ourselves, but I will say that you don't want to have immunity at no immunity and then have
anybody be able to come in and build whatever they want on any parcel here, whether or not it's redevelopment or or vacant land in the name of affordable housing. you lose control of your zoning that way. And if this is the the price
that we're paying for doing that in my, you know, rethinking or even carrying it, you know, let's move forward tonight. We'll we'll do something later on and I swear to God I'll never make anything original again.
heard the concerns. It doesn't we're not going to address those concerns, but you know, as council said, you know, the immunity is critical. Don't >> if you please, one person speaking at a time and we're up to at the moment.
We have no muted. Yeah. Well, I >> So, so councilwoman um Councilman, I really appreciate those dialogue and Kelly as well. Um that helped clarify her debate. Um and I think I hear people muttering about and I really don't mind
I said that but about immunity. Okay. Yeah, we don't have immunity, but this would make us have even less immunity. Okay, that's what I'm hearing, right? Like there's a lot of different things we need steps we need to do to move
forward. This would be one of them. Even though we didn't anticipate having this type of a discussion, I certainly didn't, but I'm glad we have. Um, you know, we could theoretically, what I'm hearing, we could theoretically comply
with the judge's order with regard to the high school site, but not doing this, we're still out of compliance. >> So, I don't think anybody I think I think people, we don't like it, but it's the way it is. When we bought the property
or right before we bought the property, Ben and I, and we weren't an office yet, Ben and I met with Julia and we talked about using part of the property for fair share housing. And at the time the
the constraints were so hard with um fair share that building a small property did not qualify for any points or any or any credit. So uh so we've
talked about this about about two things. you we've talked about the Clawson farm uh the the the the farm market many times at many meetings. We even put a notice out if there was
interest if anybody wanted to to purchase it and we got two and it was pretty well circulated. We got two responses and one was for a restaurant and I can't remember what the other
>> Oh, that was the two. Yeah, >> Fisherman's Mark. >> Um, I'm not saying how much Fisherman's Mark is had paid and I'm not saying what the appraisal was, but I think I can say it was they're paying more than the
appraisal and that'll all come out when when we have a contract. I'm not betraying any hopefully anything. Uh, I was in favor of Fisherman's Mark uh being being uh willing to pay to
purchase it. Um, I did not want an outside entity that was going to set up a strip mall there purchase it. I didn't want uh I didn't want something that didn't serve the community on land that
the city owned to a commercial entity. And one of the ways we decided to do it was consider Fisherman's Smart uh uh purchasing the property. That's why the redevelopment plan is very
specific to what happens on that property and also where the log home is as well. And I I have to remind people that before Ben and I got on council, that property was going to be the police
department. And it wasn't until I had a shouting match with the former mayor that I was not going to approve the purchase if it was going to be developed for municipal tourism. And that's why I voted to purchase it. And that's why it
we can now use it for the for the uh reason why Ben and I ran um to to make sure that that property is viable. If what goes on that property after we vote on the uh if the proposal goes forward
and we accept the redevelopment plan, we have sewn up the use of that property where the farm market is until some other council in some other future decides to do something else and change and change the the the the use of it. Um
so this is just another step in moving forward um with a use that I support on where the farm market is and I think everybody here you know knows the good work that that fisherman's mark does and
and as you know and we're and we're getting fair now we're getting fair share that takes us back into compliance with the third round of fair share agreement. ment. So, that's what it does. I will say this, before a shovel goes in the ground on any of these
projects, it's going to be reviewed by the necessary uh uh entities to approve it. So, I I you know, there there's a failsafe in here. So, that's why that's why I'm going to support this. In addition to
that, I know how fragile our relationship is with fair share. And if we want to shoot ourselves in in the foot just because it's an easy target, I have big feet and put this and put the city into a
worse position. It is not a reason not to approve the the the redevelopment plan as it is now. So, uh, I just want to give you people a little bit background on it, John. I I glad you brought it up again.
I when mayor restated all the loops we have to go through, it triggered my memory. We still have to go through those loops, but passing a redevelopment plan does not affect it because it's just a plan now.
>> So, uh, you make another solution. All right. Is there a second? Uh motion to adopt ordinance number 16, 2022 on second reading grant and final approval. >> Need a second. >> I'll second it. Um let's do a roll call
on this conversation. >> Councilwoman Kaminsky. >> Yes. For the reasons I just stated and never redevelop again. >> Council President Lambert. >> Yes. >> Councilman L. >> Yes.
>> Councilman Stegman. Yes, >> mayor. >> Yes. Thank you. Uh, ordinance number 17-2025. This is second reading of the ordinance granting municipal consent for the operation of the cable television system
franchise in the city of Ramberville County in New Jersey to Comcast South, Pennsylvania. Uh, so we introduced this ordinance uh last month. Uh, I just want again to thank uh the uh Stephanie um and David
Bird and John Weber and Sean Ellis for all their assistance in bringing this uh ordinance to fruition. There was a long uh period of time when there was a lot of conversation about the cable company uh discernment period uh 150 page reports and so forth and so on and this
effectively reduced their uh their um contract with the city. Um, so I will open this up to public hearing uh for ordinance number 17, 2025. Is there anybody who wants to speak to this ordinance? Child,
so I think it's just the ordinance that's in the agenda. It's doesn't include the um the narrative that Correct. We uh Okay. Yeah. that's available. I don't know
>> there's an attachment, >> but I didn't put the whole thing in the or in the um agenda. >> Okay. >> But there's an ordinance and then there's an attachment and you can find that online. >> Okay. I think that is important as a member of the body that um created that.
I think it is important to share that with the public. There's a lot of recommendations in there um that I don't think made it into the ordinance. Um we really didn't it doesn't seem like change the contract from what it was or ask Comcast for anything other than what
we already are getting. Um and uh so yeah I I I think that that should share how anyone else in the room motion to close the public comment period 117 2025 please. All in favor
closing the public comment period please say I >> I >> I Okay. Unless there are any questions and comments from the council, I would ask for a motion to clo to adopt ordinance 17-2025 and second reading granting final approval. >> So move second.
>> All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. Thank you. The motion carries. Um let's have a quick uh discussion about the chamber event, the Lambertville after hours event on Friday. Um I was not there. I know some of the council members were there. Uh I have talked to
a couple people from the chamber. So the uh they're their uh analysis of the evening was that it was a lot of fun and uh lots of residents out, the circus was fun, that the um the whole event went really well, that it cleared out right at 9:00 so people could go to the fireworks and I don't know if anybody on
the council wants to uh offer any further comment on it or there any recommendations for the next one seemed to me that everything seemed to go pretty well. >> Yeah, I uh Evan, did you have an interview? >> I did not. So, we had a new puppy that
did not have shots. >> Oh, congratulations. >> But I saw that. >> But, uh, the two council women and I were were there on and off with and I was there as well. And, you know, I I
had concerns from the start um with the chamber in the day and what street they wanted to close. and after a great conversation with the chamber and the mayor uh that he came up with a compromise that didn't close North Union
Street which uh was uh was a great compromise on the chambers especially for the for the first one and I think the first one were things for kids to do there was music playing there were neighbors there sitting on stoops or people walking in the stores that hadn't
walked in you know recently in the stores on that block. It really it really focuses uh the businesses on Church Street and I know what it's like to have a business on Church Street because I had one at number one church for four years on the Lost Block as it
were >> before. So, so and those of you who don't know know, you know, my role at the chamber, you know, I mean, I was on the chamber board. I worked on the chef festival.
So, I'm really very aware of of what streets get traveled on a regular basis and what streets don't. So, it was it was great to focus on Jerk Street. There are some really fascinating businesses there. and want to walk around, take a
look and see what's new and what's changed. Uh, but I think I think they did a great job and I I really uh didn't have the opportunity to reach out to them, but I publicly I will thank them for the hard work they put in and how they cooperated with concerns of the
city and uh I'm ready for the next one. >> Any other thoughts? Just not making a recommendation. It sounds like the next one seems like everything went well. >> It's great. It was great. >> I thought they did a good job working with like the chamber represents a lot of businesses here. A lot of business
chamber. I thought they did a good job uh making sure all the businesses were involved. All the residents who you know were great. So >> it was great. It was fun. It was there was a lot of creativity as everyone promised and uh very we had a good time.
It was it was wonderful. >> I heard there were a lot of nomad pizza boxes. The juggler was really good. He worked with the kids and he a whole presentation with J. Fantastic. >> It was a lot for the kids to do that wouldn't ordinarily and there was talking up the street hall and three
people got chalked and that they got you know summons for talking. There was no s but it was it was very I look forward to the next. I hope you all could Oh, >> August 1.
>> All right. Uh I'm just going to hit these two correspondence and one announcement and then we'll move on uh into the Academy Hill matter. Um so we did receive a letter from the New Jersey water supply uh announcing that the del the DNR canal uh will be uh dredged at
some point. I don't have any specific information uh beyond that. The letter uh was included in Landville Matters. Uh it's on the city website uh and as we have more uh information we will quickly pass it out to the public. Um, and secondly, uh, we will have our second
annual teddy bear picnic, uh, up at Holton Park on Saturday, August 2nd from 4 to 6 PM. This event sponsored by the clerk's office is doing a wonderful job, uh, planning lots and lots of fun things for the kids. So, uh, more information about that coming up, but thank you for
that. And there was a class last year, apparently. I was out of town, unfortunately. I missed it. Uh, but, uh, yes, glad to see you training. Thank you for for doing that. >> And now we're going to talk about the um uh the court order.
>> Um >> yeah. >> Yeah. >> And I'm gonna just sort of lay out kind of what our thinking is here. So I'm going to read a statement and then I'm gonna hand the mic. Can you pass one of those microphones over to Kelly?
So, I'm gonna read a statement uh uh regarding the the uh the court order and then I'm going to kick it right over to Kelly who's going to talk about the process, who's going to give some basic information about uh hopefully everything that you need to know. Um and
then she'll kick it back over to me for uh public comment period after which uh we the council members may have some reflections. Uh but we want to make sure that everybody who has something to say uh gets guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess get guess first cor crack correct the evening of
the topic um I just a reminder I I would just encourage people to just allow one to have one person speak at a time everybody wants to be able to say what they uh need to say and uh I would just encourage you to be mindful of u of listening to what's happening whoever
the speaker is um so on July 7th The court entered an order revoking the city's immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits and allowing interested parties to file such a lawsuit to address any or all of the city's affordable housing obligation.
This order also directed the city to amend the Lambertville High School redevelopment plan to allow for 200 to allow for a 200 unit inclusionary residential development to be constructed at the site. Upon adoption of this redevelopment plan amendment,
the city would be eligible to apply for a final judgment of compliance from the court. The city reviewed the July 7th order and will follow the court's direction. The ordinance to approve amendments to the Lambertville High School redevelopment plan consistent with the court's order will be
introduced at an upcoming council meeting likely as soon as the next meeting in August. So, Kelly, please. >> Sure. I'm not sure I'll answer assume I would know all the questions that you have, but to further expand
upon what the mayor stated, uh, when the city is strict of its immunity, it means that it's exposed to voters remedy lawsuits, which means that we lose control of zoning not only on uh the high school site, but also any other
site in our plan. the zoning the the the high school site was in our third round plan and as many folks know third round expired June one July 1, 2025. We're into the fourth round now. We're working
with the DCA on compliance. However, the directives that have been set out from the DCA indicate that um immunity is retained um from third round to fourth round. So stripping it in the third round impacts our fourth round immunity
as well, which again uh leaving us open and exposed to developers coming in and essentially uh saying that they have a site they'd like to zone and at a higher density than currently zoned. Um that's
the gist of a builder's remedy lawsuit. the decision to comply um is important in the sense that following the order of the judge uh that order takes effect immediately. So in some matters there
may be a stay if uh our party wants to appeal uh in this case the uh terms go right into full force of effect. So coming tonight um we get a decision. The next steps would be to inform the
parties in the litigation that we are in fact seeking to comply with the court order um with the dates and the outline that that you propose for adoption. The process will begin again um given that it's a you know the time from May of 24
into today. But uh compliance will put sorry compliance with the court order will put us back in a position to seek immunity and avoid other developers from coming in and um almost attacking our
plan. Sometimes we propose for the fourth round um who against resolve issues. So, just to clarify, so I mentioned in the statement that the council would uh seek to introduce amendments to the
ordinance uh at the August 21st council meeting. Uh it would then go to the planning board in early September and then return to the council uh on September 18th for a second reading of public hearing. So, there is important and Kelly and Bill will both uh echo this. There's a sense of urgency here um
to make sure that the court knows that we are complying and that we're complying swiftly. Um and that meeting that's basically the order. >> Um Bill, do you have anything to add? >> No. >> No. >> Kelly, is that uh
All right. So, um Well, can can I just have a show of hands? How many people wish to speak tonight? Just so I have a and I'm not going to hold you to that number. I just wanted to get a sense of is everybody gonna want to speak or if it was just a smaller number. So, um,
we have to keep up. So, yeah, let's keep that in mind. Uh, we're going to be pretty relaxed about the the topic tonight. Um, and to the extent that we can answer questions. Uh, I'll direct Kelly or Bill to answer any legal questions.
>> Just a comment. Taran, 57 Belvadier Avenue. I've been up there for over 30 plus years. In the past, I have worked with several different mayors from Lambertville and the city council. I have worked with Westwell mayors and their city councils.
The residents up there, when I say we, that included everybody just said Westwell, Lambertville residents. We cleaned up that hill. It was a forgotten hill. We the residents took over 2,000 tires off that hill. We the residents
got the people involved and got habitat up there to clear the titles up there for abandoned homes. We the people up there also got that park done that was done in Lambert and Westmore. Back then everybody worked together to all listen
to what we had to say, work things out. This time I don't understand how this happened up there. It took one person from what I'm I want to and I'm not pointing fingers, but it took one person to push this development through
and not give us a considered opinion about any of that stuff up there. It's like a slap in the face for the hund some hundome homes up there that people live up there. We cleaned it up. We took care of that neighbor. We took care of
everybody up there. And to have somebody come in and just ignore us is a slap in the face. I didn't appreciate it and I don't like it. And you do the hund some homes up there. So I'm glad you got what you wanted. Be careful for what you wish
for. Thank you. And you're not you're not of sight. >> Not a blighted sight. >> Oh 54 Hancock Street. I haven't come to the last few meetings because this is kind of an emotional
topic. I moved there seven years ago. My husband died. I wanted a nice quiet place and moved up there since I've been up there. I'm in a detached unit. No matter how many times I complained
about the unit next to me overcrowded this and that, the guy's a slum lord, he rented it to people who burned it down. So since then, they're building two houses behind me. I don't know if you
guys know what a scraper sounds like when it goes across the ground and removes every piece of life. totally scrapes out a lot. No life at all. The animal, you can hear them scream. Now,
you might be looking at me like, "Oh, she's such a tree hugger. What do we care about the nature in the area? We just want to sell it to a filter and make money and tax base and blah blah blah." It's horrendous. And anybody who
approves 200 units on that lot should be tied to a chair and made to listen to the scrapers for 10 years. The people here are going to have to listen to the beeping of the
trucks backing up. And by the way, I called zoning because the builders behind me are so hideous and illinformed and such bad neighbors. And I said, you know, by the way, are there any hours or
days that builders are not allowed to build in Lambertville? And she said, "Nope, you can do it wherever you want. There are no rules in Lville at all. I can show you the email. She has never
given me one second of any kind of anything when I hold back anything. They dug that house too deep. They dug it like 20 ft deep. They had to have a finished basement. Okay. They dug up the edge of my yard, which technically
belongs to the city, but the city hasn't touched it ever. They dug it up. They left it a complete mess. piles of rocks, wires, I mean, you name it, right? And I cleaned it up, 65 years old, out there picking up the rocks and that builder
would never do anything about it. And the city would never do anything about it. So the night that they go and they almost hit the gas line out there, field has no rules whatsoever about builders. They you could you could do anything. You're talking about, oh well, you know,
if we don't do this, then we open ourselves up to a building doing whatever they want. Anyway, right behind me, the other lots in Westwell, there has been a 20ft hole in the ground for weeks.
Children could fall in it, pets could fall in it. Does anybody care? No. So, my understanding is that you're going to take away the ability for people to walk into town
when you do this development that only benefits the builder. I don't want to hear affordable housing. It's a joke. for 10 lowincome families to be in the poverty trap of renting for their whole lives.
You're going to scrape an entire ecosystem out of there and and and and sacrifice everyone on that hill. We have no curbs. We have no sidewalks. And you're going to send 400 cars a day
up there. You don't care. I don't even believe in democracy anymore. You're not representing me. You're representing the builder. There's no arguing about it. Just answer me one question. I know this question has been answered before. Why
are they not considering that site, those those empty apartments by CBS for affordable housing, affordable housing, the poverty trap, the bone boon for builders? Is there an answer to that question?
Well, there I've been talking a little bit about this at recent public meetings. Uh there is a developer for that site. >> Uh and they have contacted the city. Uh the last uh the last thing I said publicly was that they were going to be uh building the same number of units
that exist there now, which is 44, and that they were uh working with the Department of Environmental Protection to uh go through the regulations on storm water management. So, it's in process uh and it's taken a long time and and We said before that site is uh
has a lot of constraints uh obviously and >> I don't know what's obvious about constraints. >> Well, it's it's 85% of this in flight zone. So, it's the site is going to have to be elevated. >> Okay. >> So, the cost of it is becomes
exponentially more than than other sites that are not in the flood zone. So, it triggers all kinds of regulations. So, it's just a slowm moving process. uh they've got to get their you know they've got to get all their financials they've got to go through mult you talking a little bit about kind of what
uh what processes you have to go through the states go through they'll eventually come to land though they need to start with the DNR canal commission they need to uh work with the D on a whole host of storm water uh plants so so that is moving along um so >> and and that does give you some
affordable housing units >> well that would give us nine out of 44 correct Why? There are HUD homes up on that hill. Why just put 40 HUD homes on that? I know it's privately owned, but nobody would care if you put 40 HUD
homes up there. It's like and and like last time, the last I heard it was, oh, well, we're going to give them 139 units. That's bad enough. Now back up to 200 units. It's ridiculous. >> And they're going to send all those cars up in front. Our houses are like this
far from the road. You don't care. You're sacrificing the entire hill and everybody up there is poor anyway. So you're you're doing your whole like I want to control poor people by putting them in this one little box. We don't
care about the rest of those poor people. They're going to lose all the equity in their houses. You don't care. Just the poverty trap. That makes more sense, right? There's just no excuse for it. No. And you're going to be remembered as the
Robert Moses of Lambertville. You people 30 years from now, remember them. They're the ones that ruined Lammerville. Are you going to make like an elevated highway down Union Street because the poor people need to get from one end of the town to the other quicker?
Separate neighborhoods. >> Thanks. Um, I'd just like to make a comment, Camille. Um, I have publicly stated on multiple occasions my uh my objection to that
project and um I want you to know that I did what I could to not have this happen. Okay. Um,
we presented a case because we got, you know, they we had to we had a motion from the developer. We presented a case. It was weak. Could have been stronger. So, I heard >> recommendations um really weren't
>> none of the environmental things were brought up. >> I'll just say you know what was in there and what wasn't. Okay. So I just want to assure you that I the one did not support this project once the
>> once the environmental issues became clear. >> Oh, let me ask one last question. I did hear a rumor that that they would have to run water to the whole hill if they were going to do this project. >> I can't speak to that. I can't speak to
that. I don't think that we'll know that 20,000. So we'll be the ones like they'll be driving by real fast looking peanuts at us, >> you know. I think we'll be like around council that supported the project. They should speak up. >> Okay. I agree.
>> Um who is council for Lambertville? Who is counsel? >> No, no, no. You mean lawyer counsel? >> Lawyer. >> You are going to court. >> Could you state your name and address for the record, please? >> Yeah. Abigail Lee, 54 Hancock Street. So
you are counsel for Lambertville, both of you. >> I'm the affordable housing attorney. >> You are the affordable housing attorney. So you who is representing the people of Lambertville and more specifically Kana Hill in their interest?
Is anybody here? Anybody at all as an attorney representing Lambertville and especially people Connor Hill in the courtroom right now or do we have to obtain counsel ourselves? So you're talking about in the affordable housing future, right?
in terms of representing our interests in making sure that our land is not raped and pillaged like Khoganian exactly plans to do and as you not you obviously but the rest of you seem to be in support of and by the way you should
be ashamed of yourselves for laughing at such a depressing matter because you have so many people here who are at risk of losing their livelihood and you are laughing everyone's going to lose their house you are poisoning people. Caleb Canadian is
going to go bankrupt and poison us. I've seen it. The house behind us. They That man has abandoned the house and nobody cares. They dug a hole in the ground. It flooded and flooded and flooded. Nobody cares. Not a single one of you care. And
you stand up there and you laugh. You are city employees and you are laugh. You are laughing. You are laughing. And I think it's despicable. And I think you shouldn't be taken out of office because we are you are you are receiving taxpayer money and you are not being transparent. If you receive a single
penny from the people of Lambertville, you need to be transparent. Otherwise, step down, 33 Wilson Street. And I just want to start out and say for over a year myself, members of the public, some members of the council had said this was
a bad site. this was the wrong built the development in the wrong place. It's too big. It's going to cause too many environmental problems. And then we found out about PIO and we found out that the land code was never lined. And then we find out there's an electronics factor that probably is POS and wells are tested 40 times above the standard.
And yet we go forward. People ask for other locations. We didn't do we never did real due diligence. And I will say that because I watch those committees. We never got experts to back up the
problems that were laid out by the public by council people. And we have experts on the council. You have a planner and a former deputy D commissioner. I've spent 40 years dealing with affordable housing issues and 50 years over 50 years on planning boards. I've never seen such a shameful
case in my life where we went out to lose. Mayor, and I'm going to point at people. I'm sorry. I have a first amendment right. >> You're out of order. I have a first amendment right to to to to say things. You cannot say I'm out of order, but I have a first amendment. And I'm going to
go on and say you supported this project from the beginning. You left them for two years. You directed the pl the planner and the lawyers and we've lost. So this is on you. But when we get flooding, storm water pollution, traffic, pedestrian safety, where
someone gets hurt, where we have one problem after another, and then we're going to have to spend millions of dollars to build a new storm water system, to put a light on 179 to widen streets up on the hill. We're going to be paying for it, not the developer. When it comes to cleaning up that site,
it's not going to get cleaned up. Hania has a record. Go to Union. Go where I near where I grew up. Hickory uh uh heights. They built on a toxic site and got caught with it. They got caught in New York. They got caught in Jersey City. They got caught in many other
places. I was involved. They violated the Clean Water Act 540 times for 540 projects. And this is who we're putting our future and trust on. every time something happens, whether it's going to be flooding, pollution,
buildings coming down the hill because they're going to have to build big retaining walls, and that happened up in Oakland when I warned the town about that. It's going to be on this body and the people that pushed it, who supported us all along, who made, who made sure we lost this case, and now we can't appeal
because if we appeal, we we can't get immunity. So, we have been put in a box and unfortunately we were put there by our professionals and by our mayor and this is the future of our town and it's online and for the people here who think
that this is going to change anything. It's not. The same crap that happened here will happen within we're not careful. So, we better organize and we better fight. We better stand up for our town and of our homes and for our neighborhoods. Thank you. Hi, Beth Brian to Hancock Street.
For over a year, I've been attending and speaking out at these meetings raising concerns about the redevelopment of Connell. Tonight, I want to express my deep disappointment in the outcome of Konian lawsuit and in the leadership that brought us to this point. How did
we get here? Unfortunately, our mayor and the city's legal team failed us at every credit step. Residents raised concerns. Opportunities for stronger legal arguments were ignored. The city's own planner called the site suitable, approvable, and developable. And no
counter evidence was ever submitted to the court. No environmental studies, no expert reports, no mention of POS contamination, nothing. Let me repeat that. Despite warnings from residents and city council members
about PAS, steep slopes, flooding, poor storm water management, a former electronics factory, and an unrediated landfall. None of it was included in the city's legal filings. That silence was not an oversight. It was a decision. The
mayor's intentional inaction, silence, and delay aren't just frustrating. They're negligent. They are a betrayal of the people he was elected to serve. One man should not determine the future of our town. This is not what
democracy looks like. And yet, here we are. The mayor has helped pave the way for a 200 unit development on contaminated land in the farthest edge of town on small, dangerous roads. He has chosen to check a box on an affordable housing obligation by placing
people directly in harm's way so that the rest of town and tourists never have to see it. I support affordable housing, but I will never support sacrificing public health, safety, and the environment to benefit a developer. I was going to ask you to appeal. I guess
that's not happening. But we must demand accountability from our leadership for what they did and for what they chose not to do. Thank you. >> Steven Paul Steven 39. When I first heard about the decision, my immediate response was we should immediately get
work to get a stay in the decision. Um, and we could base that on the need for the D to finish the evaluation of what's going on up there on the hill. All right. this needs to be done quickly because if in the end we don't even get
it repealed. Um my thinking was then we have to know what happens before they start doing work to construct apartments out there. All right, it's only going to make things worse. Um and
so the city why aren't we? Uh Sean got up here. I've got up here months ago and said, "Why aren't we getting West Anno involved in this too?" We could still get them involved getting a state their residents
are up there and the same risk as ours. I can't believe that they would want to kind of miss this state. Um so um yes uh and the
wonder completing of the state could then be used to go ahead and go for a full appeal of the decision. Um we we never questioned the assertion that 200 unit
137 units was um not economically viable fail. All right. So that's why we have to now go ahead and make it better. This just is like I I don't understand and I don't
understand now when I come here tonight you find out roll over and play dead. That's what it sounds like to me. So somebody please explain to me doing that. Why aren't we trying to fight this at some level? All right. Um
I really want to know. I I need to know. Thanks. I'm sorry. >> Maybe you could explain it. >> Clarify. >> Sure. In general, the litigation strategy is certainly something that the
council um understands and we discuss. So, decisions that were made related to litigation are generally um not commented. But I would say that the judge's order certainly speaks for
itself in the sense of he found our uh actions to not be consistent with the uh requirement for housing. Um there's there was evidence in the order it's
it's very thorough. So the standard high yes the motion to say um by law option there any negation appeal viol in general motion to make consideration yes uh standards for each of those are high
for shelter take time um and and the decision was to comply with the winner um and and seek to get immunity back as soon as possible. Judy le 86 Street.
>> Um I I just want to say a couple of things. Um, >> I'm an attorney and usually when judges tell you flat out what they looked for, what they needed, what they could have
decided on, you realize what you left out in your submission. So, when this judge said a couple times, no change circumstances information, no factual submissions, I'm not privy to everything
that goes on as between council members and the mayor, of course, but I'm going to bet a lot that there were efforts on the part of people in this dice to say include things include the things that tell you, judge, what you need to know
about what's going on on that hill. the environmental stuff, the PAS, all the rest of that stuff. I'm pretty comfortable saying I'm pretty sure council members were concerned that that information was not included. I don't know why it wasn't included. I
can't imagine why. But here's what I know the consequences are of that. The public has now learned after trying to trust being nice, trying to trust being apparently interested, trying to
trust somebody who really pays attention to them, that actually when it gets right down to it, the trust was misplaced. The trust that was put on the senior members of the organization
was was wrongly put there because the decisions that were made not to include, not to argue, not to fight for took that trust which was carefully honed over all this time and told people you can't trust who you thought you
could trust and we will now pay for the fact that the 200 units will be there and the trust that was placed wrongly, it turns out, will never come back. And as we face the next development idea,
nobody knows what's in it for anybody who doesn't hold up their end of the bargain. But we can all assume there's something that's in it. And we don't want it anymore. So, I think the time has come that people are now going to be saying, "No, no, no, no, no. I don't protect. I don't trust nice. I don't
trust nice words. I want to see what's really going on." and closed meetings all the time will not protect against people finding out what's going on. So the disappointment is beyond disappointment because it's in the face of trust me
it turns out misplaced no result that says I will honor your trust and that that's not going to change and that can't be won back after this happened. Sean
um just on the point of holding back the evidence and from what it appears to be throwing the police I think that that's something that is um if not illegal you don't get disard for
it and I would like to know if evidence was asked to be included that was then um not included. We're not going to talk about that. >> Was there anything left to be included?
>> Attorney conversation. We're not going to talk about >> please one person at a time. Sean has the floor. >> The city is the call. >> Finally, you're going to answer. Uh because you haven't been giving any answers this whole time. We've been
asked and you've been asked multiple times actually. Um many things that this storm water recharge. Do you have an answer on that yet? The groundwater recharge in a contaminated area. We asked you multiple times. You said you were going to look
it up. Respond. >> Yes. Last question. You said I don't know. I'm gonna have to look it up. >> I think I sent an email a couple months ago. Yes. Last time they brought this up, Sean. >> Yeah. It was not answer. You said you didn't know.
>> And then Cindy found an email that specifically answered your question from Mr. Opal. So this >> I never saw that email. I never received in that email. >> Not by memory. That was months ago. So
if you want us to find it, we'll find it and send it to you again. of this conversation. And if we go back into the meeting recordings, you'll hear that we've already talked about this at least once. I'm not going to figure out which meeting it was, but no one remembers what the answer is.
>> Sorry. >> Can you Can you recharge groundwater in a contaminated area? >> I'm not an >> You don't know exactly. He doesn't know either. >> Sorry. and he's going to pay $250 an hour to sit there and be oh maybe 300
my other question would have got to be for but I see that he's conveniently left the building um because he is one of the um three main reasons from what I can tell that we lost this case um and
he shouldn't be fired um number one it was that what Jeff mentioned about the police station sites on and moving across the hill. But there was his his testimony that it was that the site was suitable and developable. Um this
was after we knew about the contamination. Um how does he know if it's developable if does he know how to remediate that contamination? He didn't we didn't know the answers to the groundwater recharge issue. I mean I still don't know the
answer to that but um these are things that how can he speak with any authority if he does not know how it's going to be remediated and how much money it will cost and is does that mean that then
they come back and they say oh well it was it's too expensive because we have to remediate all of this contamination we need to build 600 units you know I I mean It's
it's just a forest. It really is. Um and my last comment is following up on what Karen Atwood said about the people on the hill taking taking the these challenges into their own hands, removing all the tires, you
know, helping to create the park, um and and helping each other, you know, sort out the titles and the deeds and everything so things could be built up there. Um, and people can live up there. And I'll just say one other thing that we are helping each other with because
the city is not I should say the mayor is not interested in helping. >> Please don't interpret what is in my brain. Don't say the mayor is not interested. >> Well, but you public record last two meetings ago order. So, please no.
>> I am not out of order. I am not out of order. You said two meetings ago that you were going to make an announcement about helping the residents who were struggling with POS, many of which are your own employees, um, who still are can't drink their water, by the way. And
you turn the night a little bit more by basically being the sole person refusing to help residents. If that is not humiliating to you, I don't know what could possibly be you. the fact that you
are going >> more general. >> Yes. Yes. It's it's generally unfathomable that a mayor, every other municipality involved their residents, that a mayor would refuse turning the
knife harder, pouring salt in the wound. You should be ashamed of yourself. Okay. Hi. So, I'm ask at a December 2024 meeting and on December 4th, you sent him um a response which I'll resent to
>> please. >> Okay. John Hack 99 Street. I uh I wanted to um thank that lady for the information about tires. Uh we live at the base of the little stone house at the intersection of rock
and quarry street and the kids used to roll the tires down the hill one time after they hit a car and so had to come up and so by them cleaning it up took away a pow on that very hill across
behind public works. Um, I can recall even as a kid seeing Peter in the world and it never fills that wall back there spontaneously combust when we moved at a 73 to 41 street uh
fire department when you come up fire. That's right. and it was spontaneously involved. And so there's some really terrible messes in that ground up there and that really needs to be taken care
of. But there are ways in which I'm still confused. I talked about three and a half acres here for five damn years. So the guy wants to be taken a look at put a knife to his throat, but his wife came to see Julia fail and was told to
go see Donnie Horns. She wanted to be able to to at least find out what a solution might do to their property and maybe they could get one. And I I said that's kind of fair, but and I still think they they're talkable. Is anybody going to go over
there? Well, it's three and a half acres. But guess what? When we begin to look at uh the what we used to call village apartments, which is right across from uh
farms that does come under the historic sites council 12 kind of on that one. And I do think if we take a step back and begin to consider the potential of some different
thinking that we perhaps could put the quarkies for double layer underneath it and go up a couple stories and be able to have the more expensive views, pay for the less expensive views that are down below and overcome the drainage
situation because the parking can be pumped out and down to village. stream. There are ways in which you can do things if you want to be a little bit creative and that might be it. Again, look at verticality in some areas. Not
overwhelmingly Trump powers had some my tooth. Um, but we have to, I think, get a little bit more creative. And of all places, they have affordable housing
in Monaco. and the expensive people go in this store in the last multi go in this store but it's affordable for those folks and they've been able to solve it with verticality and I'm not like I said I'm not talking about a tower situation it's
just looking at it differently and I know if we go up we figured it out Barber and I that you could put two stories parking underneath go up and then be able to make something that would make people feel
proud to come home and go there. It just is a chance to look at it. Also, the term boy um the chief justice, the DACVI was a heck of a great guy and
he uh he used the term blank when we begin to look at that. Um determination of the need for me to go. And um he went on to say the term has involved
the term retains the essential characteristics of stagnation that effects but there's no showing here. He observes that if we take a look at blight is that the properties do not develop as quickly as other property
then all the properties in the state would be quite when I bought 41 and I we had to pay we had to pay clean up the property at our outside at our expense to get insurance to close. So
here I'm not owning this property but I'm cleaning it up. And the only reason why we got that deal with New Jersey manufacturers is one of the officers though New Jersey that I talk about my father he got
cleaning up. Now it's the >> street and so it just takes time and I doubt very much if we take a look at the area up the comic hill that in time I see
some new houses going up there some pretty damn nice that in time it too will develop and that that term that was that got us into this at the first time might go under control things don't have
a way of going away or controls every bit. So I thank you very much. Uh this has been a tough time for all of us. Um particularly since the reason why I
have problems with my breath and breathing that I've been poisoned. And so now it's been referred to the FBI who we refer to as the Federal Bureau of Indigestion
and about as useless as um I can tell you right now when you begin to suffocate on your own blood it's an eye opener. And um we have another issue that right now as I speak at quarter at 2 in the morning, quarter
to 3, we have blasting going on in opposition to the state which is 8:30 to 4:30 Monday through Friday. They are cleaning off all the vegetation.
They've used very strong chemicals and I for a past life happen to know what arsenic smells like. It's deranium of all things and a smell is so strong that I reported it to the DP.
I reported a number of things to the D that there's been some very heavy use of herbicide up there to kill things and if it rains very very hard and we get flooded uh we're going to have a lot of problems
down below where we are now. You also know that up on Douglas Street Piles have got into the uppers and that perhaps because of the blasting in the off hours unburied 55gallon props they can't find
may be contributing and uh it's time for us to take control and uh this is always better to start than than before we stop. Um, have a good
evening folk. Thank you. >> Uh, we're going to just do one until everybody's had a chance to speak. I don't Dave, did you have a comment? >> We also have people online probably. People online. >> Okay. So, we're gonna we're gonna work
through I >> also want to make sure that the people online have an opportunity. So, let's go to one or two people online. How many people have their hands up? >> I want to disappoint you, but I got to leave. >> Okay.
We can't hear you. Unmute yourself again. >> Can you hear me now? >> Can you hear me now? Can you hear us? Yes. >> Can you hear me now? >> Yes. >> Can you hear us?
>> Yes. >> I think I know what's happening. Wait a minute. Can you hear me now? >> I can't heard you the whole time. >> You did? >> Oh, yeah. >> Oh, I didn't know. I can't I'm It's really hard to hear. I'm so sorry. I I
also have hearing aids and sometimes I it streams into the hearing aids. So, I just tried to take it out of Bluetooth. Sorry. I'm so sorry about that. >> Okay. Um what what I want to say is that >> oh Susan Morllo at 8 Hillside Court. Um
>> it is so heartbreaking absolutely heartbreaking as people are coming forward and talking about how devastating this development is going to be to their lives, to their health, to their safety, to their well-being. to
feel like the forsaken ones um is is just so awful. And I have to say that I came into this with an open mind and without any preconceived notions. And I I sat through the
meetings um and and spoke and asked so many questions over over time and just really felt consistently pushed off, consistently smoking mirrors, consistently like things were not clear, but things did not feel right. There was
something that was so off like there were efforts to obfuscate. That's what it felt like. And I understand why people are so enraged and why people are so devastated by this process. It's the process that has really um been very
questionable. I think the it it has you know the the ultimate uh thing that where we had the opportunity to go before the court and that it seems like that opportunity was squandered and that doesn't just seem that's not a rumor. I
mean we can read the judgment. We can see what the defense was and how poorly it was done. It was almost, it really looks as though it was done poorly on purpose in order to lose this case. And
I really feel so strongly that this has been mishandled and that the mayor has been consistently unempathetic, has consistently come across as uncaring
has consistently seemed to turn his back on trying to help the people. And I have seen the council members object. I have seen the council members uh try to express varying views and I have seen
the mayor be ultra controlling of the process to the point where the people are are frustrated beyond belief and some of the rage that you're seeing is a direct response to the way that you're handling this um and the way you've been handling
even the meetings themselves. But I understand why the folks up on the hill feel that uh they've had their backs turned on them. Uh that you've turned their backs on them. And um I really I don't really know what else to say
except that I this has made me feel like what's happening here is almost like a little microcosm of some of what's going on out there. And I never felt that way about Lambertville. And I I feel very very sad tonight about this. Um, and that that's all that I really want to
say. Just that I'm so sorry to the folks here who are dealing with this directly. I think we're all going to be dealing with it because I think the it's going to affect the entire town and I think it's going to be devastating. But I know for you guys it is just horrible and I'm
so so sorry. My heart goes out to you. >> Thank you. All right. >> Um, I apologize. I stepped out for a minute. So, let me know if anybody asked this already. What is the tax credit or tax incentive being offered to Kobadian?
>> Answer that question. Not right now. >> Not they don't build for nothing. Affordable housing is one of the biggest money makers right now. We have not been approached by Khanian with any quest for or numbers related to
attack. >> Nothing yet. Um, again, I have yet to hear an answer for what is the plan when they go bankrupt? We It's very obvious they're going to go bankrupt. So, what is the plan when they
abandon this project? >> I don't know. Um well >> we have to be able to go after them. You have to be more aggressive in terms of holding a bond. >> Answer the question. >> Those are good questions and I would ask speculate on what we can do to protect
ourselves um you know in the event of the outund. So um if uh if the council approves the ordinance and then the amended redevelopment plan the the step after
that would be the city have to enter into an agreement with Kalinian that controls the construction of this project. um it'll set forth all the requirements that they have to get governmental approvals, whatever governmental approvals they need. For
example, death planning board, but probably multiple others localized state. Um and then one of the other provisions in that agreement would govern what happened if they were in a situation where they became solvent or
they were closed on. um their local lenders would have to take over the property, >> but that's the mortgage lender. That's not the city. >> The city doesn't own the property. So, the city would not have a right to be closed on. >> But what about the damage being done to
the surrounding properties? And what about the road being closed to help Caesian with this disgusting project? What what is does the city have a minimum bond that needs to be held in order for Tangled Canyon to proceed to
protect the people on this hill in the most measly of ways? >> When they make their blackboard application, they'll be required to post performance bonds at that time. And that's based on their construction costs
among other things. And then for two years after they get approved, if they get approved, they'd be rewarding post in order to maintain that they're construct. So um there are
those measures in place that um you know would provide some security to the city on one hand and then you know ensure that if they had an issue with um you know bankruptcy or whatever other financial
issues they have that someone would essentially step in their shoes and be required to fulfill the obligations of the area. >> All right. So, uh, have any other builders made bids for this site other than COVID? >> We don't know because there's
directly so we don't weren't agreeing to any of the conversations that >> and council speaks to the owner of property. >> That relationship is a little bit >> sounds like that relationship should be improved. Maybe we can encourage him to
accept somebody who's more ethical and maybe not going to completely decimate the land. >> We we can't control but I will say that number of times over the last 20 years. So there's a reason it's not an arbitrary reason why the relationship
hasn't been >> and so can the people of this hill vote down something if we don't feel that bond is appropriate? >> The bond you said there's a bond For performance bond, you said also maintenance bond and the maintenance bond I remember in a previous meeting
had mentioned some very very low number and again two years is not a very long time for a maintenance bond because things will probably start to collapse in more than two years hopefully you know things aren't blown down by the first storm that comes through. So, two years after when we're all being
poisoned by our wells and the houses are starting to crack through, what does the city does the city just say, "Whoops, we didn't think this through." >> Silently requirements for what kind of performance bonds kind of pay bonds amounts
the status about um you know what those amounts will be. >> Fair enough. >> I just want to note that this poll affordable housing and a rental thing is exactly what everyone's going towards.
They want you to no longer be a homeowner. Khovvenian and the like are going to take they want to make home ownership a rarity. They're going to be pushing out the poor populations of people like on this hill and they want you to go out and rent. They're saying
just go find another place, go rent somewhere. That's their solution. They don't care about us. They don't care about us. You have to fight the Khogan. You have to fight the relatence, the RXR, the Goldman Sachs, the Blackstones, the Khog Khogians a drop in the bucket.
You have to fight them because they are going to keep scooping up this land until we stop them. Foreign and national companies like Khoken are just one of many that are going to keep developing our land until we actually stand up and say enough is enough. You have to stop allowing them to buy our land because
they shouldn't be allowed to. We can all see from this process, Kahoganian and the like should not be allowed to buy big tracks of land like this. And again, they're a tiny little piece of fluff in the nut in everything that's going on.
D5 Brunswick and this is a question directly to the attorney for the affordable housing. Could you give us 30 seconds on uh the uh the stay? All
right. Do you know can we what would be the basis of of requesting a stay at what kind of time and money is involved? again 30 seconds we don't know we don't know anything about so you're not
>> so I can speak in generality and I'm going to speak to this case number one because I have no litigation strategy number two I don't represent you so I would tell you they're different than what you might read online very basic what a stay means in general is the
judge issuing order and as I said clients or uh the effectiveness of that order begins immediately. So July 8th or the next day in general um a stay asks the judge who made the decision the
underlying initial decision to let the parties keep status quo no movement while another court evaluates that underlying decision >> and that's basically it.
>> All right. Good. and uh and we we would uh not nothing that we've done so far would preclude us from uh applying for a stay. >> There's a uh timeline the court rules outlined when a stay must be uh filed um
just like other motions and litigation. >> That was very helpful. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Um I already told you Joanne in case you didn't know. Uh the uh I I've been live lived in Lambert Westwell all of my 76
years, right? I have probably look like I'm 39, but right uh and I sat up at the front, okay, when I served on city council uh and and I spoke about the importance
of uh the working as a team. All right. Sitting out that the audience and I think others may feel the same way. It's pretty apparent, okay, that there's not a team of five. All right, that because that people have expressed concerns,
people have made suggestions. And when we look at this document that the that was sent to the judge and we got we get all that information. Okay. And when I saw his judgment, okay, I'll tell you I
I I I was sick to my stomach. All right. Because it should not have happened. All right. And the five of you have to set up and say, "Why did it happen?" And you know, and now get a stop. All right? and
do something about mayor and and I I'll take that back. The mayor quoted we we work as a team. All right. There something wrong with the team. All right. And something's got to give
because the community is going to be in big trouble. Thank you. my parent. I just want to respond to somebody that talked about Westma. I am a Westma resident. My fence to the house next to me is in Lambertville. That's
how close I am. And I am in that section that has the highest um contamination. I'm like 14 14% over 140 >> 140 140 over 11. West down. I have
talked to all of them. All the ones that are on the the connect, none of them support this, but unfortunately because it's in a different the municipality, they cannot do anything. They cannot tell Lambridge, don't they don't do it. Do it this way.
Try it this way. But understand, they do not agree with what you're doing. That is not a place to be put in that many homes. I just wanted to clarify that to somebody. >> April Wood, we've only been here for three years, so
I need to ask some questions for my own edification. Our council, not our council, our council. Yes, our lawyer for the city, um, Mr. Oal, are you a resident of Lambertville? >> No.
>> You're not the last name. >> Oh, Grant. >> You're not a resident. And then the gentleman is a part of the the planning over there. Michael, I'm not sure. Is he a resident of Landville?
So, I mean, this is just from somebody who's only been here for three years, but our 4,100 people are about half of them are lawyers, and it seems like some of them would be really good counsel for our city because they live here at
whatever decisions are made would be um very personal. And I think that that's some of the disconnect we're feeling. we're feeling uh shut out and that our personal lives are not being taken into consideration with the future of this
town that we love so much. So, thank you. >> Uh Bob Marth 171 North Union. Um a lot of people have commented tonight about, you know, all the problems up on the hill and why it shouldn't be done. Um is it over? Are we just spinning our wheels
here or are you really seriously considering alternative sites? I know you talked about the village apartments, you know, there's some kind of talk going on with them, but even if that went through, you're still going to have to build up on the hill, right? That won't that won't.
>> So, are there other alternatives like being considered or are you basically giving up and it's what we have to do? >> It's not a question of giving up and I'll let Kelly giving up on this. supposed to fight. >> The high school site was part of our
third round mechanism. So, Kelly, why don't you take over because I want to make sure that that we've got it just right. >> Yes. Uh specifically, the court order is to comply with developing 200 unit uh residential
town homes and apartments the high on the high school site. So, um I'm not sure that's what the council decided that they're going to comply with that way. Otherwise, right now we have exposure to other developers coming in seeking those
remedies for higher densities and other portals in the city. So, I'm not >> like choice according to the judge. We have to go up there. >> Yes. Correct. the the K median folks
sued the city to do that. >> So, we have to we have to pursue that. >> So, we're not looking at alternative sites. >> They're currently the contract purchaser for that site and they have a plan and and the judge instead of saying needs to
work with them to create this. >> So, our plan basically would be to try to prove to the judge why they can't do it up there. We never send him a date. >> And if he agrees like you can't you can't build up there because of all the groundwater pollution.
>> Then what do we do? >> We still have to provide the affordable housing, right? >> We still have to go forward with affordable housing. Even if the judge tells everybody, you know, all the people down here are right. I'm not going to build anything up there. So
when we do that, we still have a plan. I mean, I mean the the village apartments, but that won't be enough. What do you tell? >> I think those are separate. Um you're uh
it's conflating separate um I don't want to say projects. Let's just use the word projects. So my understanding is Thank you. My understanding is the high school site it's a it's a private sale. City has no
part in the sale of property. It's part of an agreement that the city was um had with the court which gave us something called immunity from this builder's remedy. Um the
the developer Khubnian was unhappy with our decision not to continue their um their project if you will for the 200 units and they sued us. The judge agreed with them.
So other sites are kind of they're just other sites. Like you can't swap one out for the other. All right. The 295 North Main Street Village Apartments that's got its
own trajectory, you know, road map, if you will. Um and as any other redevelopment or affordable housing project would have its own path. uh this this order from the judge really just
applies to this specific property and we are in a corner. Okay. >> It's like a catch 22. If we fight and win up on the hill, >> which would be great for people to live up there, but we're not out of it. We're well even if we fight
um as Kelly mentioned earlier we would we we have some we have lost our immunity from builder this builder's remedy which basically means any developer can come in on any piece of
property any piece of vacant land buy the property and build whatever they want and call it affordable housing. I think you said any piece of property, any >> vacant land, >> any vacant land. So, >> but they can't they can't go to
somebody's existing home and say, "We're going to take that." >> But if you wanted to build on a site that already had a building, you could say, "Oh, hey, I have a great idea." Or so, in a way, I think, you know, I guess what we're trying to say, and I'm
right, we're not happy about it, right? to enforced our hand. >> Yeah. >> Up there. >> There's no squabble. >> Right. Right. And if we dig in our heels and try to fight this this order, >> Yeah.
>> we expose ourselves to this whole builder's remedy. Um it's a risk. Okay. Because it's basically un it's like the wild west. they can they have a lot of latitude to do what
they want on property that they own wherever it is in the community with like no rules. So that is probably something that would be worse than where we are. I'm not saying that where we are
is good, but it can get worse. And if I could just chime in, if some if if we have no protection, then a developer could buy a row of houses, knock them down, and build and build their
high-rise. >> Well, you just said they couldn't they could go up the existing home, >> buy them from owners. Okay. Nobody's taking anything from anyone, but you know, I live in a house, right? A developer could come and say, "Hey, you got a cute little one and a half story
cape. I'm going to buy it from you then like a builder's remedy and put up a high-rise in my neighborhood." >> But you could tell >> I can't because I sell the property to them. >> But you agree to sell it. Yes. >> Yeah. I agree to sell it. And then they apply to the the court says, "Well, you got no re you got no immunity, so you
knock yourself out." >> So that's twist. >> Okay. Okay. >> But if you had to stay in the meantime and you were introducing new evidence that had not been included, >> but the immunity and we're on risk as long as we do not have immunity. So it's
like how long do you want to rooms full with about >> the most important thing too is there's no guarantee for a stay >> and it's a very high standard >> and the appeal is 14 to 16 months right
now uh before you have a decision if you don't get to stay. So >> there's a lot of risk >> but I didn't take I just have a follow-up question to that. So because we've lost our immunity tomorrow, the
village apartments developers could sue us and build whatever they want there. And then what happens if that if they say, "Well, we're going to fulfill your whole obligation and we're going to get it done, you know, before Khav, then
um is that that's the Wild West. They can do that." >> Yeah. And then Khav is out. >> Yeah. Yeah, but >> Kahob doesn't own 295 or Main Street. No, but the developer could but I think
>> would one cancel out the other and the judge >> that this is >> Yeah, that's stuck to the judges. >> Can't do that. >> 33 Wilson Street. I don't know why you
keep going around circle. The reason we can't appeal is because we lost the case because we didn't put the evidence in front of the judge. We didn't do the studies. We didn't bring any experts and we lost and we have no grounds to appeal. That's the reason we lost and that's the reason we can't appeal. So, we're caught between a rock and a hard
case because of that. The other point that I want to make is that you know you're you're making remedy bigger than it is. Yes, you could get sued, but you also have a guide. The reason that the appeal would be a
problem is because Hudania could go to court tomorrow and then have their judgment. The chances of somebody else coming in right away isn't going to necessarily happen. And even it does, Kahhob will be the first one in the door. But the main reason is because we lost the case because we we put in a I'm
not going to curse again my because we didn't put in the evidence that we needed to do to have a chance to win. And that's what it came out. We didn't have alternatives. We did have our experts and we lost and now we're going to be looking at 200 units on top of the hill with 20 foot high retaining walls.
It's going to be visible from here to probably uh um Bowman's Tower and we're going to be looking at storm water coming down because you can't control storm water on that slope. Clear cut 12 acres and we're going to lose the absorption of that water. And my you
know my friends who live over on um on on South Main and Ferry, they're going to see more flooding as will I. And that's the bottom line. And then we're going to go broke paying for the infrastructure improvements to try to fix the storm water problems, try to fix the traffic problems, to try to deal with all the other issues that this is
going to raise, plus all the school kids. That's the bottom line. And then for the woman who mentioned Hubania is not building affordable housing. It's Mitchell. It's Michaelels. And Michaels is a subsidiary of Apollo, which is a hedge fund. And so that's the big corporation. And they're a hedge fund.
They're the surviving partner of Drexel Burnham Lambe. Remember those trucks? And um in Trex Alberta Land Beare by the way was the biggest provider of junk bonds for Kuban. So it all comes circle and we're the ones that are being circled
>> Sandy Hannah 249 South Franklin if we did a stay because I just have some simple questions and we then provided the information that was left out of the original >> presation. Will that not at least give the judge
the ability to see that the land is contaminated? Or can we call the feds in and ask them to evaluate and shut that land down? Is there any possibility of that? Those are my questions. >> Yes, I will. I can answer.
>> The standard for that it's based on the record below. So, um not the time to introduce new evidence. So that's one issue. You can't create something for appeal um that that wasn't that didn't exist that was a part of the bill. The
second question is >> NJB has they're investigating the property. Um I don't know >> right. So I mean all submitted to the judge you >> sorry
um the New Jersey Department of Environment Protection is the one looking at right now. I I'm not aware whether the EPA um square in sight or has been involved. To our knowledge that's not the case right
now state level. >> Can we move it forward to federal level? >> It actually is on the super fund site on the federal EPA site. >> Yeah, I mean we
haven't had conversations but it's Are going to have to comply with all the whatever remediation takes place they're going to have to comply with, you know, state regulations, federal regulations if they're applicable. So, um, all
that's going to have to be considered projects go forward and they're going to be required to remediate any portion of it to understand. Does anybody else online? Is there anybody in the room who hasn't
spoken who would like to speak? In that case, I would ask for a motion to close a public comment period. >> Second. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Um, does anybody in the council want to offer any thoughts? Um, so Beth, you
might stick around for a minute. I think that the council members may uh wish to speak for a couple minutes. the borrow. >> So, we wanted to wait to hear uh everything that the public had to say and then offer whatever thoughts we have the agenda.
Council me start where I Well, before I get to the matter, I just there's a lot to say here and there's but the one thing that I want to start off with just a a little gratitude
because, you know, I I firmly believe that we as a town have got to stop asking our citizens to defend themselves and and and not get down in in the weeds with them. And uh Karen and Sean and
Beth have taught me that more Sandy more than ever because what they had done up on the hill in the PAS problem, I learned too late. you're the generals and and you really solved the problem
that I was totally embarrassed that we weren't in on war and and and you have a great community. someone, you know, you know, and um but we cannot like leave people out there on their own
all the time and then ask them to defend themselves to to the developer that comes in to the guy who's giving them a problem. >> I'll just have Evan do that lay over. But we we got to stop doing that and and
because what I hear everybody's you know you're asking us to leave right and and look I'm staying with you on D and we understand what's going on now but it's not because it's because you and created it. We need to partner West.
Thank God they sent a letter to the commissioner and and you know we talk with them Karen talk with them up there and it's just it's so important now more than ever to to be able to do that but I I just can't see us us doing that and we
can't continue to do that and I is not to do that and I and I learned from you but we cannot do that. We can't send people out. Oh, you go with so and so and come up with a solution. No, we're
supposed to end up, you know, put be putting our finger in the d for you guys, you know. Um, you know, I think you know where I've stood on this like and I stood a lot with you. We're at the planning board together. We have done a
lot of work on this, you know, and look, I walk over my analysis of the issues. I have not you know been happy not happy with the with a lot of the suggestions that you know we've had council people I
have had that reply I feel have fallen on deaf ears you know and and I feel you know that's not it's not an excuse on my part you know it isn't because look where we are um and and we're here and
we kind of got trapped here and and um and you know, I'm I you know, I have to hear from you. I I can't say if I'm happy about it, but we the the case needed to be better and it wasn't. I
don't know that we would have been there, but you know, I'll, you know, take ownership of that, but I want to say that I I've tried and I hope that I've been responsive and be like more responsive
because some of the best work and the best times had been happening. So, it's been really good. But what I hear people saying in this is that you really want to see a different kind of leadership, right? And I'm totally I am with that
because we need to follow up on this POS problem hands on, right? None of this, you know, you you really it's a it's a dayto-day thing. There's people with individual needs that you know, it's like whack-a-ole, but and without our
generals out there, believe me, we weren't doing the job. and you know I'm happy to be on the job and assist you at your direction. We have to be able to take a hold of this storm water system issue that we've had. We talk about it.
Okay, we didn't do a storm water utility which would have tax you more. So, but what we need to do what I have asked and again talk about like kind of the deaf part of it is we need to do an RFP. We need a bigger engineer to come in and
evaluate the system, determine where the problems are, cost out projects, and then so we can develop a cap how to deal with it because how can we we have people coming to this town that want to do things that haven't been done before in a storm water system that we included
about being like inadequate. Well, Jesus, like you do, like I said to my son, yeah, you're going to complain about your core and the air conditioning. Take it to Poison. Yes, we'll scan in it, but you know, like you got to take the action. We have to be
prevented. You know, we're responsible for our we have to be the stewards. You know, we do have to review master plan and change it. We are out of of of step and we need to get somebody else who's going to offer some new suggestions. We
can put out an RFP. That's how they tell you how and they give you some help on how to do it. We have to pass a resolution to go to DOT, which I have asked for so we can do a pedestrian safety plan on the same highway. Can't
do it without passing a resolution. Again, it just hasn't happened. But we need to lead. We need to be more transparent and we need to not story but we need to to lead. We need to
be good good stewards. Um we need to be much better stewards and um and I don't want to draw on this slate but um that's my two cents. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
just get late and I don't have too much different to offer than what Karen just said and I agree with those recommendations that you made. I think we need to take action on that so we can make sure the city's in a better spot. Uh but I want to just briefly speak about the the
why I unfortunately the city's position. Um there is simply too much rails burned. Uh not on the next day of the order. Um you know there's 295 main project. There's other available spots.
There's the Oral Street project. You know what if that developer says, "Oh, I want to provide affordable housing here and I'm going to build this huge hotel." We don't have immunity. We can't do anything to stop that. So I understand why you're frustrated. I'm frustrated.
We're all frustrated. Um, you know, this is it's a tough decision. It's a decision that I'm not happy with, but unfortunately, I think it's the decision that, you know, when you dealt with a hand and this is the hand in front of you, this is the best decision for the city. Uh, so that's why I want to go
ahead. >> I agree. I agree with both my council, fellow council members. I think there are a lot of um hard questions asked tonight. Um we didn't get many answers. We probably never will. You know, why wasn't the
contamination information included in a brief? Um why wasn't a list of alternative sites prepared in advance? Um, you know, those are those are good questions and I think the public deserves an answer to those things now
that the dust has fell. Um, I think I heard a lot of I want to say disturbing in the sense of not personally offensive, but just out of empathy, disturbing from an
empathetic point of view about how how disappointed the community is and rightfully so. how much we've let down the residents of Connet Hill by not including the things that were brought up, you know, not having them be part of
our our filing. But I think the most disturbing thing I heard tonight was the loss was about the loss of trust. And that is something that
really you can't buy it. You can't talk your way into it. You can't sweet talk, smile, and and you know, you have to earn it. And once it's lost, it's really, really
hard to regain. And I personally will take that feedback and think about that. Okay. Um
because I think whatever I do, we do. We have to think about being stewards of the public. We have to think about being forthright even if we're telling you things you don't like to hear, but we have to be forthright and transparent
about what we do. Um you know, staying quiet on a topic when the going gets tough doesn't help. it misleads the the listener into
thinking there's tacit agreement that needs to that can't happen. So as people know I am not one to be in silent agreement or silent on anything but um anyway um I I appreciate everyone
coming tonight and giving us your hard-hitting feedback. I'm I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed that it took council so long to revoke
Kah's temporary uh designation as temporary or designated development. What it took was many meetings with the public which gave us input and heard your
concerns and uh and brought them to light uh over the past few months. Um, I apologize for not
being more uh aggressive in ending our relationship with Kaha and it it was due to the input of those who aren't here right now but the input of
those who aren't here right now. Thusly it has put us in a terrible, terrible position as far as fair share
and our obligations to fair share and have some pretty darn good attorneys and they proved how good they were by >> winning So the so your question is is
do we gamble that the court will do anything and based on information that you've heard here tonight and information that we have heard as well uh between us is that the risk
is very high that we won't get a say and that we will not win an appeal. And during that time period starting now, we are in really we have our we we have our protection stripped from us
from any other developer folk who wants to come into town and that's very frightening. we uh the um took into consider I took into consideration uh with with the problems that this site
had and uh I'm heartened that the DP is now looking to see where the PAS came from and that the DP is going to be testing eventually uh
testing this the high school site again and there will have to be remediation done. Things will have to be done according to DE standards. Uh you know and that will perhaps delay the project. But as far as us going
and and or going down the path that is bad but not as bad and I feel for you. I feel for people Hanukkah. I I I can't I can't imagine what you're going through and I
you know my button in this chair uh when we cleaned up Common Hill with the help of Kent Hill and got and cleared titles on Common Hill to make it a more viable community and pay some attention to Kakill which hadn't been paid attention
to before with vehicles and tires. I I know I live with you guys. Um but but uh we'll control what we control uh about how how they're going to proceed on
build this thing. There are still a lot of negotiating that I believe will go on about certain things that weren't resolved. Uh, but I I I just can't feel taking the risk that puts the city in the worst
spot it is than it is now. And I I hear you and I take, you know, I share the responsibility for not being more vocal in public. Oh, I until towards I did become more vocal in public towards the end about my thoughts about this, but I
don't want to say anything out of out of scope where it gets into a legal matter, but I do feel I I feel so badly for letting you down.
And it it's a relatively new feeling I have after all the this is the worst and this is the worst I have ever experienced being on council. This is the worst decision got made as council
members. But the stakes are so high that that you all are in my thoughts and my prayers and will do the best I can with council and the mayor to make sure the impact is not as negative as it seems to
be. I'm not just implying anything, but you have you have a mayor and council that that hears you now very loud and clear and has heard you. And you know, going forward, we know the roles that we
have to take in your in your benefit. And I'm I'm I'm I'll I'll stand that going forward uh to make sure whatever happens on that hill can can
hopefully not impact as bad as it may or be. So, uh, you know, thank you for thank you for coming out to all of these links, all of these hearings, all the planning boards, the town hall meetings,
and we're in a position where we've got to go through a process again. And I can't say it breaks my heart enough. very disappointed that that it has gotten to this point in a city that of
course everyone sitting here loves uh and wants the best for. So that's kind of sums me up on that one. Mayor, >> can I make a quick comment? >> No. >> See like we have skin in the future.
Could you involve us in some of these decisions that's going to be made up there? Can we have a little committee that can meet together with you guys and say this needs to be addressed, that needs to be addressed? >> No more behind closed doors. Have us get
involved with this. >> These are legal questions and I'm not going to answer any more questions tonight because >> Well, I can tell you this. We all want as much transparency as possible and we hear what you're saying and we will make sure we are as transparent as the law allows us. >> Okay.
I don't want to make a promise now because I don't know what we can do. But I can tell you that we will be as transparent as we possibly can. >> Thank you for coming out tonight. I would echo Councilman Stegman's comments
about loving the city. do like the city. >> Yep. >> I do love the city. I I remember uh early in 2022 when uh we were in a closed sentiment meeting then Councilman
Sanders said, "This is hard. This is going to be hard." And it has been hard and it's going to continue to be hard and it's been painful for members of the community and members uh of the council. Uh, and I suspect even some of our
professionals have experienced some pain through this process. Um, I'm not going to address every uh last thought tonight about why people may or may not trust me. Um, or or uh why or why not why or
why why I may not speak. I don't always speak. And some of that is because uh not I'm not comfortable speaking all the time. I feel as though I do much better in a one-on-one conversation with people. And I've always encouraged people for those conversations. Uh, and
I have a I have a responsibility to the city to follow the laws and to do my best to make sure that the city is running well and the council is always informed. Uh, the idea that we don't work as a team is I I I would take issue
with that. Uh we may not always agree but uh throughout this process I would just remind uh public and the council until we uh went through this there wasn't a single no vote on anything that the council considered uh up to and including the introduction of the the
the redevelopment. So you know the idea that we're not working as a team I I I take issue with. We don't always agree. We have different perspectives. We have different styles. We have different outlooks. The idea that um Even in terms of litigation, it's not really typically
common for uh a mayor in the works under the Walner Act to engage the council in matters of litigation. And yet I did again and again and again. I'm not going to get into why uh why some why some things may or may not have been
considered. That's not uh appropriate for discussion here. But uh you know, in terms of trust, I don't I don't know what to say about that. I I've worked very hard and I've tried to be uh a person with integrity and uh throughout
this process uh I followed the law. I've listened to the council members. I've listened to the public. Um I've done what I can and that's all I have to say. So I thank everybody for coming tonight and I would ask for connection.
That's our west