I'm here. Great. >> Welcome to the planning board meeting for Long Hill Township for August 12th, 2025. Uh the time is 7:30. Uh I will turn it over to Madam
Secretary to read our announcements. >> On time, no see, everybody. >> Yes. Hi Fine. Okay. Number one, call to order and statement of compliance. Adequate notice of this meeting or hearing has been provided by posting a copy of the public meeting dates on the municipal bulletin board and website, by
sending a copy to the Echo Sentinel newspaper, and by filing a copy with the municipal clerk. Number two, standard board procedures. Any meeting or hearing conducted by the board is a quasi judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision.
and to quarum appropriate to a judicial meeting or hearing must be maintained at all times. Number three, meeting cutoff. Announcement is made that as a matter of procedure, it is the intention of the planning board not to continue any matter past 10:30 p.m. at any regular or special meeting or hearing of the board unless a motion is passed by the members
then present to extend the meeting or hearing to a later specified cutoff time. Number four, electronic devices. Everybody turns them off. Number five, pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Roll call. >> Miss Dill >> present. >> Mr. Hans is currently absent. Committee
Lavender >> here. >> Mr. Lavario >> here. Miss Ojins >> here. >> Mr. Opala is excused this evening. Vice Chairman Jones >> present. >> Chairman Richardson >> here. >> Chairman, we have a court. >> Excellent. Thank you. Okay. The uh item number seven on our
agenda, the meeting minutes, we're going to shelf till next time. Our secretary had some emergency fund, I'm sure, and was not able to get those out to us. So, we'll have full stack for our September
meeting. Thank you. Uh so next up on our agenda are a couple of resolutions. So the first one I call to your attention is the Gordono application number 25-05P. So I'll give you a minute to find that.
Make sure you have checked to see if you have any questions or changes to that application. >> And Mr. Chairman, one correction. uh page 10 uh on the now therefore be resolved paragraph. That date just just needs to get changed to uh the 12th of
August 2025. I drafted these a couple months ago. So uh >> Yep. >> So just update that. >> Just got to update that one. Same story with the other resolution when we get to it, but I think that was the only correction I noted. >> Wait, where on page 10? >> Uh it would be the now therefore be it
resolved >> second. Oh yeah. >> On uh on page one under the Bulbarian relief number three and number seven
seem to be the same. >> Oh yeah, they're two different The first one pertains to lot 16.01 number three and then number seven pertains to lot 16.02 22. >> There's no divide. >> Yeah, there's no garage on either of the
proposed lots. So, they both two variances. >> Oh, I see. >> Okay, I got it. Thank you. >> No worries. >> And on page 12, I missed the date under the I hereby certified the copy of the two resolution. >> Oh, good catch. >> What's that?
>> There were a couple typos on page six. The very top first sentence says the site none of which are proposed to be removed though the applicants do intend not to intend. >> Oh yeah.
>> And then in the on numeral 10 right below it about six lines up from the bottom it's starts with street on each proposed lot and then uh number seven it says thought. It should it should be
though the proposed dwelling. >> I think I found one other >> How did you read it so fast? >> I found the time to read it today. I think that was the only typos I found.
>> Okay, >> I'll take that. I'll take that. Any others? >> So, Mr. Chair, this is the um application that I presided over when you were um correct out. So, the just to
call out the noteligible would be uh chairman Richardson, Mr. Han, and Mr. >> Apolla. Otherwise, everyone else is eligible. >> Those that are present, >> Chris, I can change the typos on this
one. >> Appreciate that. >> Great. Well, is there a uh motion to accept this resolution with amendments as discussed? >> So moved. Second.
>> Lavender. >> Yes. >> Miss Sherman Jones. >> Yes. >> Miss Ojins. >> Yes. >> Miss Dill, >> yes. >> Mr. Larario, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Excellent. Okay. Uh, next up is uh an application.
Just trying to make sure I've got the date. Yes, this is the lore application number 25-8P. Take a second to just check that we have the same >> date to the date. >> That's right, Mr. Chairman. Page 10, uh, third paragraph. Now for there now to
therefore be resolved on this 12th day of August 2025 it should state and then on I think probably on the last page too. >> Oh no Dave you got this one right certify. There you go. >> That was the only correction.
>> No no pressure. Robert. >> Oh, I I found I found a couple typos on this one. Um, on page six, number eight, I first line it says uh the last sentence says the the closest,
it should say the closest fire hydrant to the property instead of closet. >> I'm sorry, what what page? >> Page six. >> Yeah. >> Number eight, right? >> I >> Oh, I I'm questioning. It should say that >> oh closet not the
>> not a closet fire hydrant. It's the closest fire hydrant. Right. >> And then then the next page 7 11 I it uh Mr. Schaw testified that we it should say he was concerned
and >> Mr. Lario, before you moved on, >> a space between item paragraph 9 and paragraph 10, I think should be added. Just >> Oh, yeah. Missed that one. >> We're really getting >> Yeah, we're really we're getting down the track here.
>> I found a capitalization. >> Just kidding. >> All right. So on uh page 81 17, it's the fifth line down a sentence that says the board finds that any adverse impact that may result from the proposal
on the I think it should say property. >> No, it's just remove >> or you can take you can take the >> take the on the out would be relative. Okay. >> Right. You could just take the on the out. Yep. You can do it either way. Right.
And then what else on nine numeral 23 fourth line down um it says applicant. So it should say applicants y >> proposed right. So that gets that one
right. And then I I had one other uh well there's one more typo I found on page 10 number three. the line three far right it fire is
misspelled. >> Oh, free. >> Okay. >> But then I I had one question. >> We had we had a discussion during that meeting about um review by the fire department of the
driveway situation. >> And the applicant said that he had had it reviewed by the fire inspector. >> Mhm. Uh, and I wasn't sure how we left that. Was we were going to say that that
was enough for the review of fire access to the properties or was he going to talk to the fire department or how was that finally left? I don't recall. I I I have in my notes
that we talked about it, but I don't have a I I have something that says there was nothing in writing from the fire department or emergency management. There was only a discussion with the fire inspector because we talked about
the driveway from >> a pass through. Right. >> Right. in order to get from the >> from east to west or west to east. West to east, right? Because it went up to the front of the house and then left hand turn when you were traveling >> right >> east,
>> right? >> And and we had had a discussion about was that you know well enough discussed y >> for this and I don't know if that was really something that had to be in this resolution or was going to be covered >> when the drawing.
>> Wasn't there some discussion of accessing the right of way? There was >> there was also discussion on the right >> because it goes straight through the sewer rightway >> but I agree I don't recall a resolution
to that particular issue or >> I >> and is it something that comes it has to be in this resolution or is it could it be covered >> while they proceed with permits for the property? I mean >> so in other words can it be caught down
the road in the process? That'd be a question, Deb. But would there be another review when they get construction permits >> for there being a pass through? >> Yeah. For access, the issue is accessibility
for fire, >> right? >> Wouldn't there be a review when they go for construction permits? >> No. >> No. >> No. If it's the only review there would be if it was decided by the board if it was on the site plan then it would be as
on the site plan than our engineer the township engineer then >> and Joe being one of the same uh would be responsible for making sure that that comes before it's on the site plan. I don't remember if it was on the site plan or not. >> Right. I I neglected to bring my my file
with me because I don't typically do when we're adopting resolutions, but I I don't recall there being a specific condition regarding general access for the fire, right, for fire trucks. >> I I recall that the applicant was somewhat opposed to that because it
property and they wanted it to remain private property as that's a that's not a town easement. That's a >> I thought the conversation was going in a direction of vacating that section of division a and we would have to consider
a division a east and a division a west Delaware. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you very much. I have clearly on the other side of town. >> That's what I thought I recall from the conversation. There wasn't an action for >> Yeah, that's in there. >> Is that this one that you're thinking? be able number five
>> that it's in the resk >> that is correct the township still retains >> I wasn't sure if it was like you know >> was it a right of way that they have or or is it an easement that >> it's an ement >> so the township doesn't have a right of way across the property
>> so in in point number five right >> it talks about that and it says something I think it's terminate >> terminate terminate I think number five >> terminus 10 >> number five. >> Yeah, the termini. So that's a proper word.
>> Yeah. So if the town this condition is if the township wants them to wants to connect it, the applicant would have to >> the applicant the future property owner would be required to uh allow the township to to connect it. So I think I think that kind of covers that should the town wanted. >> So that's separate from
>> exert its rights. >> Yeah. But as far as the fire access because in condition three did give I know it was discussed at least giving the fire department access through Knox boxes to get to if they put up >> if they put gates up, >> right? >> But again, I don't think it was an
actual stipulated to condition at the time that >> and I don't I don't think the engineer determined that there was going to be an access issue based on the driveway configuration even though there was kind of a zig and a zag >> to get to the second home. >> I just don't like that whole piece. It's
just clunky. It should be locked tight whether we're going to allow for the access or we're not going to allow for that consideration. Here you got firemen jumping out of trucks trying to open up a gate to get through.
I would almost Mr. chair is table this everybody go back watch the video again to make sure that it is right that that is where we landed on and table this to our next meeting if we can do that because it seems like there's some vagueness and the fact that
I'm marked not eligible >> and I know and part of the conversation I'm probably that's probably incorrect as well >> well no you abstained from the vote >> I abstained >> correct >> very good right you did participate >> which means you can't provote on the >> that should be marked as abstained that. >> Okay.
>> It says I'm not eligible, but there should be a reason. There should be a reason. >> Yeah, you're not eligible because you're abstaining. >> Okay, that's fine. Okay, >> if you want I can I can mark >> I don't remember I don't remember not being here. So that's why >> I would push it with abstain. So that way >> mark it as abstain. Is that why you're not eligible?
>> That's right. >> But what I would suggest is mark both abstain and not eligible >> and you're doubly covered. >> So again, I would go back double down. Yeah. So I would go back, Mr. chair, if if this is still a point of confusion, then we should go back and listen to the
tape again just to get clarity on it >> and that gives you time to get >> I would I would just note that I know Liz and Joe also reviewed we sent it to them. We sent it to the applicants attorney. >> If I missed it, I would think they would have caught it. I I can't speak on here. Obviously, >> I can't vote on it. So,
>> I just want to I think it's a good suggestion. If other people agree, uh I don't think there's any huge time pressure. I'd rather shel it for the first meeting in September uh to resolve this. And I just want to make sure we've accurately captured now what we're going
to look at because I think that's important. >> So there there are two things that I hear being discussed that involve the fire department. But the one in here I think is actually pretty clear from what the discussion was because they had no intention of putting gates up.
>> Correct. >> Originally, that's what I remember. But they said if they made a change to put the gates up, they knew they had to provide the Knox boxes for the fire access to get into the property. And that's that's exactly what this says. So
I I'm okay with that statement. the and I'm just asking a question about whether the discussion around getting around that corner to get to the second home by a fire truck had been discussed with the
right individual. Right? Because a fire inspector I'm not I'm not con sure that's within his wheelhouse his his jurisdiction >> but I don't know for sure. So that that's why >> I think the action item is before the
next meeting we should refer this over to >> uh Deb who we think would be the >> best person to kind of look at that. >> Well, it was sent to the fire people in the fire inspector, the fire official in the beginning.
>> Okay. And they were fine. >> I don't believe he had any comments yet. >> Okay. So I think that's what we're checking. We're just trying to make sure because we're having a vague recollection. I'd rather be sure >> I don't want to kick the can on this. I just want to make sure that everyone's comfortable with what they're going to vote on.
>> Procedurally speaking, you know, >> the board can't really >> open this up for further deliberations or any input because the application it's over. the boat. >> Well, and I will say that I don't think any of the emergency services were necessarily that excited about the design as the
board wasn't that excited about design, but again, it's private property, so it's >> we don't really have >> I don't think we're suggesting opening up deliberations around some. We're just we're trying to make sure we've accurately captured in the resolution what was discussed in.
>> I'm just saying if it were to go if we were to say, "Oh, we should the fire department should take another look on this before we go on the resolution." I would say that would probably be improper. But I guess the question is whether or not >> when the board m rendered its decision, did it intend to apply a condition that fire access would be provided through
the you know I >> so I'm not convinced that that's what we did during the discussion that we >> made it a condition. >> I don't >> I thought we were leaning away from that. Yeah. >> To not allow >> but no it's a good point. All we can do is go back and see what we accur what
the accuracy of what the outcome >> was from the hearing period. We can't reopen up the application. So >> that's fine. >> So we'll do that and we'll come back and in the meantime you can update the resolution and we can recirculate this. >> Yeah, I'll I'll review my notes as well
and then jump check the tape. >> Okay. >> If I was here for this or should I know Steve covered this one? I can >> Okay, so uh one out of two. Thank you again, Robert, for your diligence. You got MVP tonight for your review of the resolution.
>> I already gave him his prize, >> right? >> Uh, next item is a master plan consistency review. Uh this is associated with ordinance 57-25 and this is an ordinance amending
uh section 171.1D of the township land use ordinance regarding uh removing references to historic preservation commission and replacing with references to the historic preservation advisory committee. So, this was something
brought to our attention through the historic preservation advisory committee and that they wanted uh a consistent nomclature in our town ordinance. I think this is relatively straightforward. You'll see attached
uh to the consistency review that I guess we'll need to uh affirm here. uh you'll see the actual change to the ordinance. So >> any questions with regards to this? This is pretty straightforward.
>> If I can just Mr. Chairman, just because I think Miss Hoggins and Mr. Laro, I don't know if they've been here for master Have you guys been here for a master plan consistency review yet? >> No, we both worked on the master plan, but we've not been here for review. >> Okay. So when an ordinance, here's the
basic process. governing body introduces an ordinance, it comes to the board, this board for master plan consistency review. Then it goes back to the governing body for final adoption. Right. At this stage, you need to make a decision whether or not the ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan. That's the standard. >> It's a negative. >> It's a double negative.
>> Double negative. Yes. >> But yes, it's basically not affirming that it's consistent. It's just saying that it's not >> inconsistent. That >> that's how it is. I didn't make the law. I just tell you what it is. Right. So that's really the question before you.
So just so you understand what the task is so to speak. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> I I think just a point of clarity right um the difference between a committee and and a commission uh has different governing body rules >> and they are uh not perceived as a
commission. Um they are an advisory committee. So they are just consulted and they provide um >> input input and that's it. So that's the reason why they want to be properly reflected as a advisory committee and
not a advisory commission. So hence the the change. >> I'm sorry. To further what Chris said, when the planning board is revising ordinances and even if the planning board decides without the direction, we're being given direction from the governing body. The planning board can
come up with a new ordinance basic for the land use almost at any time to which once this board is comfortable with that ordinance, it goes to the governing body. They do the first reading, it comes back to us again for the master plan consistency review. Yep.
>> All right. So, we will be in effect voting then with regards to this resolution that stipulates that this particular ordinance now is not inconsistent with
the township's master plan. >> Is everybody clear on that? So, you might want to just read through this ordinance. >> Did we did we need a a resolution number? When does that >> I'll put I'll put that in. B Typically up to this point, um I had been
preparing just a standard letter, okay, >> going to the clerk and to the governing body, but Chris would prefer the resolution. >> So, we'll be using the resolution. >> We did something. I was wondering why we didn't have any templates for >> Steve said do it. I did it. So, yeah. >> So, we just fine. Well, I'll just fill
in the blanks after we do the vote tonight and go from there. >> Sorry, stop. >> No, no, it's fine. I'm fine. >> Just a quick question. the township is required to have an envir um a historic commission or we're not required to have
a commission or a committee or anything historic. >> I don't think it's a constitutional requirement that you >> No, it's not necessarily a requirement. What this is is as as Mr. Jones just referred to as clarifying the scope. uh they're wishing to to really take on
more of a scope of an advisory an advisory nature instead of a commission nature which has >> they were never they were never designated to be a commission. >> That's correct. >> Oh, this is actually just a correction and nom. this is legacy from from
previous administrations and it's just kind of stuck there and u they've actually come back and say we are not that >> and we are this and again it goes back to >> as a commission you need to have a whole governing body you need to have
>> just a point of clarification though because unless this is incorrect they're adding they're adding advisory because it was a historic preservation commission Not there was no advisory. >> It's not going to be HPAC, >> right?
>> It's been HPAC. >> So the bold that underlines is the change to strike through. >> That may not be correct then. >> No, I think the reason >> Where's my >> What's not correct? >> Well, if it had always had the advisory in it.
>> No, it did not. >> The reason. >> It should have. >> The reason why it should have, but >> we called it but we called it HPAC for years. >> Right. But HPC has been what's been in this ordinance, >> right? Which was wrong. >> So now and that's full and that's incorrect. So the correct is HPAC,
>> right? >> Hold on a second. >> I hate to add a monkey wrench to this. The reason it says what it says with commission is because that's pulled directly from the statute. So that this is speaking to who can be hold office on
the planning board, right? So the language that you see, the original language was directly copied and pasted from the statute. I'm trying to pull the citation right now. >> Um, >> that's a pretty big monkey wrench, >> right? >> Right. >> Yeah. >> That just means more stuff comes out.
>> That's something for the governing body to You might want to take that back to them, Scott, because I don't in the event the board or the the township does decide to create an advisory um commission. This would be outdated if you go through with this route. Not that you guys ever
would or I'm not saying you should or should it but um the reason why it exists like that is because the commission have holds certain statutory powers where it can kind of you know set conditions on applications and things like that. So that's why there's the restriction on
who can be on the zoning board >> um so that last sentence needs to be struck. So, can we rather just sort of cherrypick from this? We're all looking at D, right? >> Yes. >> Correct. >> All right. So, let's read this together
>> because we can edit it now. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, six other citizens of the municipality to be appointed by the mayor, the members of of class 4. Shall hold no other municipal office position or employment except in the
case of the nine member boards. One such member may be a member of the zoning board of adjustment or historic preservation blah blah. No member of the board of education may be a class 4 except that in the case of a nine member
board, one class 4 may be a member of the board of ed. If there be a municipal environmental commission, the member of the environmental commission who is also a member of the planning board is required by blah blah blah shall be a class 4 planning board member unless there be
among the class 4 or alternate members of the planning board both a member of the zoning board of adjustment or historic preservation blah blah and a member of the board of ed in which case the member common to the planning board municipal environmental commission shall be deemed a class two
member of the planning board for For the purpose of this section, membership on a municipal board or commission, either of which is the advisory committee, right? >> Whose function is advisory in nature
and the establishment of which is discretionary and not required by statute shall not be considered the holding of municipal office. >> That actually is all accurate. I know it's a lot of extra words, but what this
is saying because this is not a commission now. >> Right. >> Right. Is that there is more freedom for those members to be on these different boards. >> That's right. >> Right. >> So basically it's saying none of this applies to historic. >> So it's good.
>> Yes. No. >> Yeah. >> What's not good? You're what you're doing with this change is you're restricting the membership of the planning board with respect to people who are on the historic preservation advisory committee. This is borrowed straight from the ML. >> Okay. So, why don't we just take out
>> Yeah. What I would recommend is that it say um maybe a member of the zoning board of adjustment or historic preservation advisory commission should >> committee. >> No. Should there be an advisory commission? >> Does that make sense? >> No. >> Which which there is. No. >> No, there's not a commission. That's
right. Committee, right? >> Right. The committee is advisory in nature. That's why you don't need to necessarily restrict. >> Well, it says here though, may may be a member, >> right? So, there's a condition in there. So, does it matter? >> Maybe a member may be a member of the
board of education. >> No, looking at the uh >> Yeah, I seem to recall there was a >> maybe a member of the zoning board >> or historic pres. Was this the only version with just and
there was no because there was a discussion I wish I I didn't bring my full >> this is all kind of far of a field from what >> right >> this board needs to consider I don't think it's inconsistent with the master plan just with that discreet avenue of having to look at this but again I would
advise the the governing body the township attorney but you should keep it to just historic preservation commission should there be one because I just don't think you want to go ahead restrict the >> It's up to you. I mean, if you want to restrict, >> you know, members of the advisory committee from being on the planning board?
>> No, certainly can. >> Yeah. Let me let me let me Is the intent here to recommend or ensure that we have somebody here on HVAC? >> No. >> Then why don't you just take it out completely? >> Yeah. What? See, this is borrowed straight from it's NJSA4 55D-23. Members
of the class 4 shold another municipal office, etc., etc. >> Can we just remove D to strike the whole thing? Does it have to be in here? >> Well, what I'm saying is is just just wax out any mention of HPAC
>> since obviously there's no restrictions. We can always go back later if we decide to make a commission and then >> Well, that's for the Yeah, that's you and the gun agreement body decide for here. It's just whether or not it's inconsistent with the master plan. But >> all right. I think what's throwing us is we're changing the name and they're
trying to preserve they're trying to set you know that's coming right out of law with the commission membership. Right. >> And what we're saying is we want freedom for members of HPAC to certainly be potential members of these different boards.
>> Exactly. That's all we're saying. >> If you change it then you're restricting >> the whole point of having a commission versus a committee is that the committee is advisory in nature. Right. If it's a commission, it has it has powers. >> But I I I mean, maybe I'm reading this. I thought the references to commission
are the things that are limiting. >> They are. Exactly. Right. Right. Exactly. That's >> But we've changed the name so it doesn't apply. It's kind of suspenders. It this doesn't even apply now because it's not a commission. >> But but if you change it to committee now, it applies to the committee instead
of >> So then it sounds like don't even change it now. There's no reason to change. >> There's no reason to change it. That's >> essentially what I'm saying. Yeah. Okay. >> Other than other than to just say historic preservation advisory, is there a lawyer to help us out of this legal >> this is going to but this is going to
take HPAC and they're going to get wrapped around the axle on this. >> That's my point. >> That's why I'm saying is just just take out any reference to it here. You can always add it later. It's it's it's it's an ordinance. >> You could get rid of this ordinance entirely. The MLU still governs >> because the reason I'm confused is it's
not like this ordinance is what in is installing the committee. >> Right. Right. >> This is just a this is just regarding this is just membership. >> I think they misunderstood what they being the historic preservation committee misunderstood what this >> ordinance does. >> Ordinance does. Yeah. Exactly.
>> So that's why I'm a little bit like >> Yeah. >> Um I also think doing this is is fine and it really doesn't do anything except what you're saying which is it's now just >> Where's the ordinance that installs the actual committee though? Is there one?
>> I'm sure there is some. Like isn't that what we should >> I don't remember seeing one. I don't think I tie back to one here. >> I think they wanted to just make sure that all the references to advisory commission were changed to committee >> and then they went a little bit too far ahead over their skis and now they're trying to change.
>> Well, that's because the requirements >> whatever appoints an actual committee is not in the land use. >> This is just dealing with land use boards, >> right? >> Versus the governing body having the authority to appoint people to the actual committee, >> right? Hence is why it's under the the
land use section. Why it's even before us to begin with is because it's under the land use orders, >> right? >> Yeah. So then I obviously would just change this like it is. It's not inconsistent with the master plan. And >> well, >> not that I'm trying to put >> No. No, you're right. I mean, it's in my legal opinion.
>> It really has. It's it's neutral to the master plan. It's not >> right. It's it's just legally speaking. I think you're >> So >> I don't think this is a comp. >> Do we send a recommendation back saying leave as is, don't change? That's what I'm kind of hearing people saying.
>> That's two names. What what's got them all twisted up is the fact that everything else says HPAC >> and this says this. >> So which is it? Where they get it, >> right? >> So why can't we just What's wrong with just making it HPAC? I
don't understand. I understand this thing about commission and all that kind of stuff. Either take it out so we don't have to deal with it. >> Right. So this is copied direct as it was not as they're proposing was copied directly from the municipal land use law section 23. >> So from an MLUL and that was put right
into our code books. >> Correct. Right. >> But we're changing >> this term. >> So again >> by changing this term does this somehow upset the membership because this is only dealing with the class four member.
>> Yes. It it's a >> mean change to the the advisory >> parent ordinance. >> I'm sorry. >> Have you changed the the non land use ordinance? >> I have to I'll have to go back and look at that. You mean the one that
establishes the Hback? I I was just finding that. >> Yeah. By doing this, you're essentially us, the governing body, would essentially be restricting who could be a class 4 planning board member and it would be telling the HPAC folks they
cannot, >> right? Well, not that they can't entirely, but you know, under certain conditions like, you know, one such member may be a member of the zoning board adjustment or historic preservation committee, right? That means you're restricting it. Let's say two. >> Yeah. You're restricting you either with this or that. Right? You're adding an
unnecessary restriction that doesn't align with the statute. That's basically what it is, >> right? >> So, you could have a situation where you have two people on the HPAC and they want to be on the board, but if you change the ordinance, though, too bad. Only one of you can can join for an arbitrary reason that really >> or you can only join one of the two boards and that's it.
>> Right. Exactly. Exactly. Um, >> with a town of very few volunteers, >> that's the way it is now. >> But, no, it's not. It's limit to the H um HPC not H not HPAC >> right which doesn't exist >> and the commission doesn't exist
>> this HPC does not exist as right >> the statute presumes that >> you know it exists >> in in the ML the HPC >> yeah HPC is what's in the statute it says um yeah >> like I said it's copied exactly what you
see without committee is exactly how it reads in the statute verbatim >> yeah verbatim All right. So guys, what are we going to do here? I mean, uh, I think we can, it seems to me we can vote again on the resolution and it's not inconsistent.
>> Yeah, it's not inconsistent with the master. It's it's neutral as to the master plan, but you know, just, you know, >> like send a not inconsistent, but here's >> I can just shoot an email to the township attorney and let them know. >> Well, we can we can the board can recommend changes. Sure. They can we can
they can say you can say that it's not inconsistent and you but these are the changes we recommend. >> I think it's we're we should vote that assuming we all agree that it's not inconsistent, >> right? >> But y'all need to look into whether
>> this has changed everywhere. >> Yeah. My my suggestion would be >> it should read uh I'm just going to start back at zoning board of adjustment or historic preservation advisory commission should there be one >> or something along those lines and then on the second change um both a member of
the zoning board of adjustment or historic preservation advisory commission should there be one >> basically you know should >> you're softening it. >> You're softening it. >> Yeah. It's just like taking it out >> for all practical purposes. >> What's that? It's like taking it out as
without taking out >> as it without taking it out. >> Right. Right. It it sort of accomplishes what they want in the sense that okay, we're acknowledging that there isn't a historic advisory >> commission >> commission. Let me ask let me ask you a question though. Is shade tree mentioned in
there? >> Is what >> shade tree commission? >> No. >> No, >> it's not in the statute. >> But we just have uh like a convention that someone be on the shade tree commission, right? I think it's a requirement to be a part of some commission, right? My
>> class one, two, and three. Well, class two. Yes, >> class two. Yeah, >> class two can be any kind of municipal >> employee towns where like the fire chief is the is the class. >> Could even be a code enforcement officer. >> Yeah. >> You want to be class two? >> You could be class two. I guess theoretically
>> I could be class two if I wasn't board secretary. >> Um I'm Let me ask you guys this. was this was direct these changes were directed to our planner Liz to make correct >> I I don't know where
>> the board came from >> I I brought that from the worksheet because we were approached by Hback saying that this was wrong that they're not a commission that they're an advisory committee so I said fine I'll take a look at it and I did look at it and I said okay we can make these
changes and does that fit and then that's when we started the process and I know we I know we discussed this when we when we had discussions preparing this >> but I can't recall what where we landed.
I think we landed in just keep the MLUL language because that is >> the law >> and uh because we changed the name it doesn't really affect >> right >> the membership in fact >> exactly you have to follow the ML regardless. So,
>> right. So, I don't even know if your suggested change is necessary. It's okay. Should there be one? It's >> really throwing them a bone if they want something else. >> Well, and the reason I ask is because Liz is obviously not here tonight. >> I think she could answer that. >> So, do we want to ask the township committee to table this for another
meeting to hold off because they're planning to do the second reading tomorrow night. So, do we ask them to table it until we have Liz confirm what all of your questions are? >> I mean, I'm just >> I mean, how are people feeling? I mean, I >> I feel like we're over complicating this. >> I think so, too, because I think it
reads missing. >> I feel it. I'm missing the goal. The goal is the members of the now um historic preservation commission want to have more flexibility to be on other committees.
>> Yes. Yes. So the way that the statute is designed is so that a class four member which is pretty much everybody I think Teresa is the class two and Scott you're the class three >> everybody else the way this is the
statute works is that you can't hold you can't simultaneously be a class four member and then be like the mayor or the governing body member right that's reserved for the class you know the class one or the class three or class two right however they makecept ceptions
if you're on the board of adjustment or on the the historic preservation commission, right? But that means only one person can be from either of those boards on this board at the same time, right? So if you keep it as statute
normally is without any changes, members on the historic advisory committee, everybody on this, every class four here could be historic preservation advisory committee member. If you change it then only one person from that committee can be on this board. >> So if you keep it a commission only one person if you make it a committee it's
unlimited. >> Correct. >> Pursuant to the statute but if you change it this way you have the statute then the ordinance. Then you change the ordinance then you're restricting it unnecessarily and it doesn't align with what the the goal of the >> So do you want to hear the ordinance on the creation of the historic
preservation advisory committee? >> All right. And this is uh 235.1. Hereby establish a historic preservation advisory committee consisting of nine regular members. Um shall consist of at least one member of each of the
following classes. A class A, someone who knows building design, construction, architecture, may reside outside the township. Class B, a person knowledgeable with a demonstrated interest in local history may reside outside the township. C shall be township residents who are not a
designated A or B member. Mayor shall appoint all members. Um, uh, it's just about expiration and stuff. Uh, shall elect the chair, vice chair, and a secretary. Shall obtain legal counsel from the attorney. No member shall be permitted to act on any
matter which is direct or personal financial interest. Uh, may be removed by public hearing by the committee. Responsibilities. Prepare a survey of historic sites. Make recommendations to the planning board on historic preservation plan element in
the master plan blah blah blah. Advise the planning board on the inclusion of historic sites. Advise the planning board and board of adjustment on applications for development pursuant. Collaborate with the township historian etc. Advise the mayor and township
committee of the needs of repairs preservation etc. upon agreement with the township committee regarding the cost of the projects uh if appropriate carry out other such advisory educational information. Second, referral of board applications. The planning board and board of
adjustment shall refer to the HPAC every application for development submitted to either board for development on historic sites identifying any component element of the master plan. This referral shall be referral shall be made when the application for development is deemed complete or scheduled for a hearing.
Failure to refer the application as required shall not invalidate any hearing or proceeding. So best effort, right? Right. >> This the HPAC may provide its advice which shall be conveyed through its delegation of one member or staff to testify orally at the hearing explaining
referral of permit applications. All applications for issuance of permits pertaining to historic sites shall be referred to the HPAC for an advisory report concerning historic preservation any of these projects. Which aspects were determined by approval? Moses shall
submit its advisory report to the construction official. When time does not allow for the submission of a permit application to the full committee, the chair may act in place of the full committee. uh shall be guided by the filing design guidelines. Every effort shall be made
compatible use. Okay. So basically all they do is advise and it's a best effort. >> So >> and so why are they in in our ordinance designating members of the planning
board? >> Let's just say they shouldn't, >> right? >> Why? I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. >> That's the question. >> They shouldn't be. >> They shouldn't be. So, does that say let's just wax our Historical Preservation Advisory Commission Committee in those two places? Just make
those pieces disappear and call it a day on that >> because it's not a commission, >> right? >> We don't have a commission. >> So, so the challenge question is does that change the ordinance in any way, shape, or form out of the or does the MLUL
supersede our ordinance. >> I think you you all will supersede but at the same time like >> doesn't matter. >> So then the qu right. So then the question my next question is does Longhill Township have a historic
preservation committee at this time? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Committee or commission? >> I'm sorry. Hard historic preservation commission at this time. >> No. So then with it being with HPC
Historic Preservation Commission in the ordinance today, the fact that we don't have a Historic Preservation Commission, it's no, it's moot. >> Right. >> Correct. >> That's why Scott said >> there's really no reason to change. >> There's no reason to change it, but you'll make it clear for people and
avoid long discussions like this in the future. >> Okay. >> Exactly. >> Because someone's going to go searching for the commission. They're not going to find it. Correct. and they're going to waste our time looking for it. >> And I just tried to to do a search on the Long Hill Township website to see if that was there. >> Here are my notes in talking with uh
with Hback with Fred Hunt. So, we did talk about this last sentence and we said for the purpose, you know, we know the last sentence in this u section D. And so HPAC members are just plain citizens when it comes to appointments
to the planning board in this case, >> not limited to one. >> That's how they're supposed to be. >> Correct. >> And so there really is no reason in changing the wording of the ordinance. >> Correct. >> A simple deletion would suffice since the last sentence allows any number of
Hback members, as we just talked about, to be on the planning board as ordinary citizen class 4 members. >> Right. >> Yeah. Right. >> Right. >> So I don't see though that to be a problem. Why would we want to limit that? Right. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> We want to we want to keep our options open. >> The ordinance it should be kept as is >> to delete >> historic preservation advisory commission entirely >> or historic preservation commission should one exist >> or something. I'd say delete it because
in the future someone's going to make a decision about who can be on >> the planning board from HPAC, right? >> And they're not going to understand what we talked about today. >> Just take it out. >> Someone's going to say the commission, the the committee. It's the same thing. >> It's the intent,
>> but again, because we changed the name. Yes, I know. But the the reference in the law is still with the commission part. So, we didn't want but we've already >> we don't have a commission, so it doesn't matter. Well, we we have we're in a >> All right. Yeah, it it it doubles back
on itself. So So what's the So you brought up the bone. So how do we resolve this? >> I would say motion second that it's not inconsistent with the master plan. However, >> not advising the governing body that it doesn't necessarily make sense to do
that given the discussion we've just had >> and instead they should just delete historic preservation advisory commission entirely and don't replace it with anything. it delete any reference to the historic preservation advisory committee >> or commission >> commission. Yes. >> Yeah.
>> Yep. >> Okay. Is there >> Deb, you look quiz. >> I am so confused. >> This we're getting very deep in the in the weeds here. >> Yeah. I >> And this is just three words in one ordinance. Wait till we get to the meeting. >> Don't worry. The monkeyy's on my back for tomorrow night.
>> Yeah. So, yeah. Trying to explain that. >> But I got to send something to Megan or else she's going to flip out on me. No, just tell her not inconsistent. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Uh but we recommend remove any reference to >> historic preservation >> commission
>> or committee. >> After we make a motion, second and vote on it. >> Yes. >> Twice. >> Right. >> So, is there a motion? >> So moved. >> I'll second. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Committeeman Lavender. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lavario. >> Yes.
>> Miss Dill. >> Yes. >> Miss Ojens. Yes. >> Vice Chairman Jones. >> This is voting on the not inconsistent. >> Yes. >> Chairman Richardson. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. All right. So, I am going to send
>> Deon. You want me to try to get explain it a little bit more detail? >> I would love for you to do that for me first thing in the morning. >> I'll I'll do my best >> and then I can send it to Megan and we're good. >> Right. Yeah. I'm going to go home and watch this. >> Are we voting on the second part of I need if I write it out it'll make a lot
more sense than me just speaking voting twice. >> Are we voting twice? >> No. >> No. Don't have to. >> The motion was just for the consistent. Yeah. >> Right. Okay. >> We can make whatever recommendation >> with the recommendation that >> Sorry. >> Okay.
>> As I said open up a came with that one. I apologize but >> No, you don't think it was needed. >> No, you're you're not apologizing. >> I should. >> And by the way, we have two more consistency reviews at the next meeting. So either of them involved in historic. >> They do not.
>> We're going to get real good at Teresa can tell you which ones they are for next week. >> These are angels dancing on heads of pigs. >> The ones that are going in the tomorrow. >> Okay. So, moving right along. We have now arrived at uh an ORC update. So,
I'll turn it over to Mr. Jones. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I will I'm sad to say that the ORC has not met uh for quite some time here in the summer months due to conflicting schedules mostly on my on my side uh due to a
number of priorities that came up at work. So we have not met. However, we do have a bunch of stuff still in the pipeline that has kind of stalled simply because we were working on the master plan which was a priority as well as the uh state's master plan u that was also a
priority. Uh, and then there was the uh, and when I was saying the master plan, I'm I'm also referring to the um, fair share housing uh, agreement round I think number four was the one we were on, right? Yes. >> So, those were all taken priority uh, that kind of tabled everything that we
were doing. >> But some of the items that we have in the pipeline is we were looking at um, houses of worship, we were looking at um, groundf flooror apartments. We were looking at sheds. we were looking at a
host of other things um which I think is about to get rekindled and restarted again. So um we'll get that up for I guess a couple things are coming back to us as you said uh Teresa from uh the township tomorrow. So uh more to come on
that but some things that we started working on was also uh maximum setback in the uh BD zone which is that valley road corridor and taking a look at uh the properties and trying to figure out what the maximum setback for the
commercial properties along valley road would be as this is the gateway into and through uh the heart of our commercial zone. Uh so we started work on that and then uh had to table it for various reasons. And um what I would like to do
and to put in uh to charge this body is tomorrow I will send out a list of things that need an owner and to take and then take that on with the list of changes that need to to be reviewed and
start uh uh working through those with the template that I had provided previously. So for instance um Sterling uh Sterling Village uh David Hand has taken that on uh as he's shown an interest in that uh area and wants to
lead the several I think there's like eight items uh for him to review. But we still have Myersville, we still have Millington and we still have Gillette. All of these areas need to be uh reviewed. There's also the work uh that Teresa did with the renaming of the
various zones that is I think still sitting with um our planner. So again something else that got uh tabled and that also leads to um Mr. Chair your uh zoning maps that uh has a host of things
that will also be touched. So, uh, so my, um, my action today will be I will send around a list of things that need to that I need an owner and request whoever wants to take that on to just
come back to me that saying that you'll take that on. I'll put your name to it and then we'll work together as an orc. Uh, we'll talk about it here. And this is this is this is one of those things that just keeps on giving. There's no there's no end game here. it is working on the stuff at hand and keeping things
moving along. And I also um uh am proud to say that uh Mr. Mr. L has uh decided to accept my uh ask for him to join the ORC and he has uh
he's accepted through volunt of of course. Um so thank you Joe for stepping up and we'll get you invited to uh to our meetings. So that's where we are. Um the other thing I I will ask is um
when we bring these items, I will promise you you will have it a week in advance that we discuss in its entirety all the things that we want to amend in that ordinance because I think it's a it it can be somewhat frustrating where we
think we've got everything covered and then all of a sudden something comes out of left field. I realize that it's always that will be the case from time to time, but uh it is important that we try to uh get any of the changes that we want for those ordinances that we get
them through the pipeline and that we identify even if it's not directly something you were working on, but you saw a piece hanging off that just doesn't seem right, let's talk about it because I think one thing that we don't want to do is waste our time. Come to a meeting, we're focused, and then all of a sudden there's this thing that comes
out of left field that derails the whole thing. Yeah. Can I make a comment on that Tom? I was thinking we have not discussed this but so I was thinking something separately similar >> which was while the ORC is working very diligently
on lot on a lot of these ordinances. I would recommend that when we bring them forth that we have like one discussion and like every single time we bring it back we can't keep bringing it back with like additional discussions. So, like Tom
said, getting it a week in advance to u make an effort to get your comments gathered ahead of time. And if you're not going to be at a meeting, it's kind of I think the onus is on that planning board member to send their comments ahead of time and not that we all hold
off another two weeks. >> Yes, >> that's my opinion. I don't know if everybody agrees, but I think that if you're not going to make a meeting, it doesn't mean that now the whole ordinance waits two weeks or four weeks or however long to bring comments down. Um, I know if I know I have to miss
meetings for work sometimes and I would have no problem saying that that's on me and I have to submit my comments ahead of time if I want to be heard. >> Makes sense. >> Well said. >> Yep. I support that uh wholeheartedly. Uh, I know everyone's got their their day jobs. Um, and yeah, I mean, look,
the this one here we were just talking about, that was submitted back in March. Obviously, we had other priorities and that's always going to be the case. My day job has that as well. So, um, I think what becomes frustrating is us trying to go back
six to eight weeks and recall exactly what was it that we were trying to achieve or what derailed us or we're this close and then all of a sudden we get blindsided. So, uh, again, I respect everybody. I respect your opinion. I respect your point of view. Um, but what I'm asking for is that when we talk
about it, let's make it the topic to talk about. Let's iron through everything and then get it ready for sending up. Uh, >> I mean, just to add, I mean, a good team supports each other. We all have day jobs here. This isn't our full-time commitment. So I think the important
thing is that you've got your less than a quorum team, your ORC team >> uh and you know should be engaged to the best of their ability to help the process but everybody on this board has an important part and and from my pers
perspective this is the singular biggest priority now through the end of the year. Okay. There I mean other than applications when they come up and and other consistency reviews and things of that sort those other than that the ORC is the singular
most important thing that we need to kind of work through. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So >> what tools do we have at our disposal? Because bringing things here and talking about it on paper and then going and forgetting what we talked about is like really inefficient. And I'm thinking
like at work we're not doing that. We've got three or four people working on a word document in a collaboration space with track changes on. >> Do we have any tools at our disposal and what can we do legally as a body in
terms of just collaborating in one place and seeing the changes on the fly? We get through this so much quicker. Well, I think the ORC could certainly do that because that's not a quorum, but I'm not even so sure if the whole Well, I guess the whole committee,
>> right, Chris? >> Yeah, not meeting. >> It'd be a noticed meeting. Yeah. >> So, the ORC page. All right. So, >> the ORC the less than >> do it in Google Sheets. >> I was just going to say, yeah, you use Google >> and then just mark it up that way. And you know, people are going to get tired of this. So, you can fold people in and
out of work, right? where you can assign one person only to look at um >> spelling >> syntax right and just you know kind of have a pipeline a filter that you go through because it's just >> well and I think it the designation of a primary writer and then secondary
reviewers and all the roles are important too so that you're not just this cluster you know what >> right >> because that's what happens a lot of times at work you just get this thing that never gets finished >> so we we know there are workflow workflow tools out there and There's SharePoint sites that uh could be
utilized that allows the collaborate or other collaboration tools that allows people to simultaneously work within documents and making updates. And there's version uh you can call back versions uh when you have a when you have a data problem or data entry problem where you don't remember exactly what it was that you did. I don't know
if this town has it uh has access to that. >> So that that becomes a limitation. >> Can we use just use a free Google account do this as long as it's secure? So, um, if there's a if there's a free tool out there, I'm happy to I mean, that was the whole that was a whole
concept of just getting a template together so we could at least start to formulate a foundation for >> but I didn't go searching Google for free. Uh, if there's if there's free tools out there, I'm happy to jump on board with free tools and and use >> as long as there's not more than three members. >> But that's Yeah, there's Well, there's
two. So like I my Longhill email address is a Gmail account which means I have access to Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel, PowerPoint or whatever which you can share with any other Gmail account which is I think what Scott is saying. >> Yeah. >> But I think at that point it now becomes
if everybody has access to it. >> Well, you can't give everybody. >> You don't you just don't give it. You just keep it less form. >> Then I don't know if it's resolving what you're trying to get at which is in our discussions. Aren't you? Here's what it' be. I go home tonight. I've got a Google
account. I create a sheet, one of these ordinances, and I share it with two other people >> that are on work, >> right? >> And we're writing it and making comments and track changes on the fly. And if someone makes a change, it red lines through and they put a comment. It's like, "Oh, no. I think this is this is
an Hback. This is a commission." You know, something like you, me and Teresa on in that document >> in that because I'm the owner decides who they share with and they know legally they can't share it with a quorum. >> Correct. >> And then once that document's done,
>> then just do a clean version and email it out to everybody for review. >> So then >> in a not meeting >> say Joe goes home. >> That's an interesting >> So hold on. So Joe goes home, right? >> Rob
>> Bob, sorry. Why did I do that to you? I can't even get your first name. Now your last name. >> You were on a roll. So I'm leaving you alone. >> So there was a nickname on >> if there was a Joe. >> And if there was a Joe >> and Joe sh went home, worked on a document and had his account set up and
shared it with me and Teresa, it we would only that would be those three people looking at that. So you would never have a quorum, >> right? So because that then takes away with the problem of having to, you know, we're editing trying to work on documents and then we ought to make everything public, right? We're not trying to hide anything. So for those
conspiracy folks out there, there's no conspiracy in ordinance. >> You want to get the document here 98% of the way through. >> That's exactly right. That is the objective. >> You're doing the last smile here in the next ordinance you ceue up, send it to me and I'll put it in one and >> do I have to have a Gmail account? Does everybody
>> I think everybody here has a Gmail. I have a Gmail. is easy. >> Well, let's try. >> That'll get me off of some That'll get that'll get me off of some mailing list. >> Let's try it. I'll try to share it with you. Let me try to share it with you. >> We'll do a dry run and see if that works. Okay,
>> perfect. Great suggestion. I think that will greatly because listen, your template is fantastic and it's a great way to organize and think about it, but the shared document thing I think you're going to find to get through this a lot. >> Look, I'm I'm looking I'm all about
collaboration, teamwork, and getting stuff done. That's that's that's the objective here. >> Okay. >> And you get a bonus at the end of the year. >> So can I just clarify one point? So if it's if you are a member of the um ordinance subcommittee, so communication
between those members can be unlimited. >> Correct. However, if you are given an assignment or accept an assignment and you're not and you're working not part of that subcommittee and you're working on an ordinance, then that person would send it just to the members of the
ordinance. >> We would be part of that >> communication. >> Me and two me you and two members of the ORC would be me would be part having access. >> It's limited to three, >> right? Because what we don't want to do is create a >> I know you don't want to create a core.
That's correct. That's correct. >> I'm not a member of the um ordinance committee. >> Right. But you're taking the lead on. >> But I'm saying I'll volunteer and help with something then I can send it to two. Correct. >> Out of the how many? Three members. >> Or or somebody can. Yes. Three total. Or
somebody can invite you to support that >> ordinance. >> Or you can send it to one of that person. >> Send it to one of us. You know what? Let us go away. Tom, >> aren't you the chair? Try one. >> Yeah. So just send it to the chair. I would just anybody any member who's not on the committee just send it directly to you and you
>> or make me or make me a member of that document so I can see the document. Correct. >> So now don't send it to me because then you might as just work in Word and then send it to me. That's what we're trying to avoid. We're trying to create a SharePoint a virtual SharePoint of this document. >> It's an interesting question whether or not that would constitute a public
meeting. I >> Well, that's your homework to go away and figure that out. >> I was going to say, but why would it? Because let's if they're meeting in person or on Zoom to discuss it whether they're working on a document or not >> one thing >> that ultimately >> adding changes to a shared document is that meeting
>> yeah but there could be comments somebody could be adding comments you could be you could be communicating >> you're making it's all about making decisions and you're having a >> dial none of this in draft form is operable anyway until exactly
>> I mean let me look in it for you >> okay well we're going to we're going to do We're going to do a test run anyway because it's part of the committ or >> it's one of those interesting technological issues. >> But get creative. We got to get into the 21st century with our laws. So, >> how many people can be on the or
committee? >> We're 25 years into the new century. Sorry. >> Can you tell because we just had >> Bob? Okay. >> You can have four. >> I understood you can have four on a committee, but you can only have three working on something. No, >> you can. >> That's the the limitation. Sounds like
that's the limitation of the application. That's a technical. Is that the tech? Why don't you guys test it and let us know? >> We'll come back to you. We're going to go do our homework. >> Is there any other business to come before the board? >> Nothing from New York. >> Um,
>> John, I don't know if you want to over the next few weeks give some thought to like we will too, but how I know you're >> it's on your mind of the map >> and like kind of like the most efficient way. >> Yeah. And we need Joe's been diligently
working on that. A lot of it has been driven on some of the sewer permitting, but that was a good driver to get all this done. So now I think we're in a position where we can do that. The only other thing I wanted to add Oh, let's pull this guys. >> Oh, sorry.
>> Just real quick. Uh the only other thing I wanted to add is coming into the fall, I do uh want to um have some volunteers reach out. I think it's time to get back into some of the different boards and
commissions, for example, Shade Tree, >> to make sure we attend a meeting. I'd like to go to the environmental commission, which I signed up for. I think it's important. I think Tom, you were doing open space, >> uh, is to, you know, I think our
presence is important just to again circle back, see how the committee's doing, reminds some of the goals and objectives out of the master plan. So, uh, Bob and Pam, I'll look to you guys, too, to see how you guys could potentially get involved
with some of the different groups. I don't know if anyone on the board is really attending the board of education meetings. Dennis Sandow used to diligently do that. We really haven't had a liaison or someone who at least attends those meetings. I know it's a
pretty big commitment. >> Is it the long hill or the watch on the high school >> or both? Yeah, it's it's long hills associated with their schools. It gets complicated. >> Is it a regional school district? Yes. High school. >> Well, the high school K through eight and then you got the regional.
>> I think the most important one for us is really more the K through eight. Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, you could one of the members of the board could reach out to Tom Groskoff who's the vice chair. >> Yes. And that's the other thing. >> Who also sits on the board of ed, >> right? But it's important that we connect with these different groups and
we can talk about that more into the fall. Does it? >> Yes. >> I just became a member of the seniors of Long Hill, so I've seen an opportunity there to be able to present to them what's going on. >> Absolutely. A power broker in the
seniors group. >> They got a lot of power. >> They're pretty lively group. I was surprised. >> I'm sure they are. >> Excellent. Uh >> is he too young to be in that group? >> Yeah, it's that. >> Okay. Uh, is there a motion to adjurnn?
>> Yes. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Yes. >> So, one more thing moving. >> You should have the annual report by the next meeting. >> Y >> Okay. From the zoning >> zoning board. Yes. Because the zoning board next
is generators on that. >> What's that? >> Is generators on that? >> Generators are on every list. >> Okay. Yes. >> And sheds. >> Yes. >> And sheds. Yes. >> And sheds. >> On my list. The zoning. >> Can we start the year on sheds? I feel like we started. Motion to adjurnn. Motion to >> adjourn. Second.
>> All in favor.