Welcome to the Milurn Township uh planning board meeting in accordance with section five of the open public meetings act chapter 231 public law 1975. He advised that notice of this meeting was made by posting on the Walton board at town hall and serving the officially designated newspapers a
list of the meeting dates annually indicating that this meeting would take place at the Melbourne Board of Education Education Center building at 7:30 p.m. on December 17th, 2025. Roll call, please. >> Cory Biller >> here. >> Allison Campfield >> here. Michael Cohen
>> here. >> Jorge Master Pedro. >> Deborah Neas here. Frank Sakamandi >> here. Michael Zion >> here. >> Jonathan Baxter >> here. >> Sergey Sidto >> here. >> Vice Chair Serini VJ >> here.
>> Chair Gston Herbert >> here. On tonight's agenda, we have a little housekeeping to do at the beginning. And I think we would like to switch up the order of business. We'll do the application before the executive session
and then finish the night with the executive session. Um, and yeah, I guess we'll be turning off the cameras and we'll be bring them back on after we enter executive session. Uh, so to start out, uh, did everybody
receive the meeting minutes of October 15th for the regular meeting? Are there any questions, comments? Nope. Do I have a motion to approve the meeting minutes for October 15, 2025?
Six. All in favor? >> I all opposed. >> Extensions will be noted. >> Motion passes unanimously. Uh the next up is the regular meeting meeting
minutes from November 5th, 2025. Everybody receive those. And are there any questions or comments? So move >> motion to approve. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> All opposed.
>> Extensions will be moved. >> Motion passes unanimously. And lastly for the minutes of the evening uh for the November 5th executive session. There we receive those. And are there any questions, comments? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Do I have a second?
>> Second. >> All in favor? I >> all opposed. Motion passes unanimously. All right. Uh just on the resolutions uh section on the agenda, we approved this resolution or adopted this resolution last time. It's just a notification that
everything is in order. Um all right. Next to the application for the evening. Application 25006. It's an amendment to an approved site plan for Compass New By LLC located at 378 Noburn A lot 801 lot 601. Is there a
representation for this New Jersey? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Anthony Cerso with the law offices of Leil. >> Um, thank you. Uh on March 2, 2022, we
obtained preliminary and final site plan approval reading signage variances for the development of the mixed boosted building now at 378 Avenue. On behalf of the
applicant, Compass New Jersey LLC and with the consent of the property, we seek an amended site plan approval for the proposed compass name sign in lie of the building name sign.
The proposed compass sign will be positioned in the same location on the easterly overhang portion of the building above the entrance driveway at a height of 15 ft 10 in.
And the proposed compass sign will have a smaller graphic area of 17.81 square ft and 18 in metal.
The mounted height of the proposed sign extends 10 in over the second floor line. The planning board hereto fore granted a variance for that building name sign.
We now seek a variance from this board for the proposed compass name sign in lie of building signing. A proof of service and proof of publication was submitted to the planning board secretary on December
11th. I have one witness. Yeah. >> There any questions? Um >> if I may, Mr. Chairman, before I swear in the witness and the board of professionals with prepared permission, uh as always, I do want to reflect on
the record that I did have an opportunity to review the notice. I found the content of the notice to be sufficient. I found it to be timely served and public. Uh certified mail December 4 service and publication on December 7. both of the those dates
being at least 10 days prior to this evening. Uh and uh therefore it's my opinion that the board does have to hear the side of the application this evening. Uh so that addresses that issue. >> Thank you.
>> You're welcome council. And uh the uh when when ready I can swear in uh the witness and uh our board professional Mr. D and if you'll raise your right hand as well as our board of professionals. Uh do all of you swear to God or affirm
that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> Thank you all. Please proceed. Mr. Chair's permission. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh Mr. Keller, please give the board the benefit of
your credentials in the fields of civil engineering professional. >> Good evening. Yes. Uh my name is Rich Keller. I am a principal firm of KC located here in Melbourne. I am a licensed engineering planner in the state of New Jersey for the last 35
years. I have a bachelor of science in civil engineering with concentration in water resources and environmental engineering that is from university. I also hold a master's degree in architecture with a concentration urban planning and design management
Jersey Institute of Technology where I was also professor both graduates positions for 11 years. I was here before this board for approximately 110 boards throughout the state of New Jersey. I have offered planning services to the burrow of Caldwell and I provided
engineering services to the board of adjustment planning work in Baltimore years um just took another uh 15 ounces 15 hours of water resource training so my license >> so Mr. Ch is he qualified as experts in
both? >> As usual, he is qualified as an expert in civil engineering and professional planning for the board. Thank you. Thank you. >> And just for the record, we are not related in any way. >> Business-wise or other, >> correct?
>> Thank you. >> Yes. Um the uh the site as you have it before you can see the property is 37 gauge over avenue. It is lot 6.0 and block 8.801.
It is across the street from the parking lots that are behind or adjacent to the town hall as a relatively new building that sits between the uh schoolhouse plaza and Clemensa's Joy's Tap room on the on the south side of Milurn Avenue.
the as indicated we came before this board uh back in late 2021 2022 and received approval for site plan that included some signage I'll go through a second if you look at the right side of our drawing we see the the darker blue
section is the portion of the building that comes down to the one-story footprint the lighter blue is where the second and third floors extend over the uh two-way driveway that provides access to uh 10 park spaces of the properties. The um at the time we received uh
variance relief under C2 under the C2 criteria for two sign variances. The signage that was over each of the entrances uh was fully um conforming, but we did require we did request relief for um a a directory sign that would
face in this little nook here. I'm pointing to the uh to the um survey and site plan on our sheet. um amended preliminary and final site plan which is dated uh 1107 2025 and identical to the drawing that
you have in your packet. So I don't think we need to mark the evidence but on the uh where the I'm sorry you do not but if you uh did mention it can you please mention and you did hear the uh date and sheet number that you're
referring to. Yeah, again it's amended preliminary final site plan. It is dated 11:07205 and sheet one. >> Thank you. >> And so if you see that lighter uh section where the second floor extends, it's approximately six feet back from
the main line of the facade. We received a variance to put a directory sign on the uh east facing or left facing um facade that was about 23 square feet. And that was just so that pedestrians that were walking to the right or to the
west along Melbourne Avenue could see the directory, they would understand that to go to the second floor commercial space or the apartments, you would come down the sidewalk into the rear door where there's an elevator and uh stairs at the second and third floor.
Um the the uh second sign we received variance or we we needed a variance for that because uh faces can only sit on the front uh signs can only sit on the front facade that's a side facing facade for that variance corrected. We also needed a variance to place a sign over
the driveway because to mount a sign in that location, it had to go above the floor plate of the second floor above and our ordinance does not permit signage to go above the first floor or block any architectural features. So to
fit a sign over that um we needed variance relief. Normally uh lettering on signage in the D4 central business district can be as much as 24 in. Uh we agreed to keep that signed to 18inch lettering and a total of 35 square feet. I go to the other sheet that's in your
package. That was a studio 1200 plan uh 378 Nobel mix project exterior sign. It is sheet A5A and that is dated 110725. You'll see that um under the lower
section of the drawing, the north elevation, you'll see u the permitted signage on the first floor, you'll see retail one and retail two. And obviously the intent was never they would say retail one and two, but they would say the name of tenant. at the time, not
knowing whether that second floor would be leased to one tenant or to multiple tenants. It could have been as many as three um commercial or office spaces, um the architect sort of as a placeholder put building name um over the driveway
because it had sit over the driveway. It sat um mounting height sat 10 inches above that floorway. So, we need variance relief as part of that uh relief that was granted. Um we were codified at letter being no higher than
18 inches and the total signage area be no greater than 35 square feet. Um but unfortunately when the architect put that down rather than indicating future tenant we just indicated building a so since that was memorialized as part of
the application we came back and compass has now taken a lease agreement for the entire floor want to put compass there instead but since it's not the name of the building we are coming back for amended approval I would point out that technically if we stuck the word 'the'
and building at the end which would be acceptable to the owner it would be the composite building and we wouldn't need to be here. But compass didn't want a a larger sign. They wanted something smaller. The lettering and and signage with the little O and the slash in it really is their logo. So, they really
didn't want to muddy it up by making it bigger or by uh by adding additional resolution. So, if we had told that the compass building, we would need the um the signage as indicated was approved at 35 ft. We're proposing 7.281 square ft.
So it's considerably less than what was approved and uh it is basically mounted at the same height. So previous um it was approved originally under C2 bearings. I think it's pretty minor change. The board at that time felt that on balance all the variance relief um
that we argued for the entire property and C1 and C2 including the C2 relief for the bar for the signage um on net the balance as positive that way to negative and we've advanced the purposes of the language act. I think that's already been done. The board's already
granted that. But if we had to look at why the change from a compass building to compass I think is also still a C2 variance where it's a better alternative than a fully conforming one. I think it's better to see Compass rather than taking the full 35 square ft saying compass building. Uh it still provides
for um the opportunity to lease that entire space which is no small feat for office space in the downtown or in any downtown. Um and it provides uh compass even though it's on a recess panel. You look at the image, photographic image, you'll see that um it's really very
tastefully done on that recess part of the building that's six feet back in the main facade. It really doesn't provide way for people traveling to the east on Milurn Avenue, but it does give does give the building presence and allows confidence presence on Avenue. the um
we we feel it's a better alternative than a legally permitted one. We think it still enhanced the purpose of the land sack through general general welfare because I thinkers would be reluctant to take a site if they couldn't get the signage and also um my suspicion if they didn't
they would try to put you know cas in the windows which they mount them in the back it could certainly be fully conforming so I think it's better than the alternatives they might find and certainly better than top facility so we think it advances the advanced at least two se purposes of the land sack the
4055 T2 and we feel that uh the fact that it is less square footage than the approved sign is also improvement over the original application and still needs but I think uh the board can basically branched amended preliminary and final
site plan approval um for the sign change either as administratively or in defense of the variance and teaching criteria. I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Jar, if I may go out of order and I set a clarification on the last one the last
things witness said. First of all, that was both your engineering and your planning testimony in that sequence. Correct. >> Yeah. I'm much engineer, but I I do wear both hats. >> And uh and I saw where the demarcation is. I'm sure the rest of the board did as well. uh the the you mentioned two of
the purposes uh under D2 of zoning uh and I don't believe I heard what they were but were you referring to sub A uh and sub E if you will correct >> uh okay the AB public health general welfare >> general welfare being desirable visual
environment >> uh desirable visual environments >> and and I cheated I looked at the old resolution you were the planner and the engineer there as well correct >> yes I And those are the bases of your C2. Correct. In all transparency,
uh the the the um thank you. Uh that's all I have for now. Any questions for Mr. Keller? >> Um I do. Just clarification. Are they're just taking Compass is just taking up the first floor, not the second two? >> They're taking No, they're not taking
the first one. There's a retail tenant or a a golf a golf simulator. the second floor >> on the first floor. So they're taking the full second floor. The third floor are three apartments. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I have a question. It's fairly immaterial. It's
just the plan shows second floor at 15 ft. Trace it across. If that's where the bottom of the compass sign is, but then it's marked there as mounting height 15t 10 in. >> Yeah. The original the original application was indicated that that was the center line of the mounting height.
So the center of the sign is mounted at 15 foot 10. So part of the sign goes above, part of it goes below. But is the center line? >> I see. >> But then is the whole sign above the second floor? I guess is the question
because it shows that bottom of the sign is at 50 ft which is on the right hand side. Was the it's just the is the sign 18 inches above the second floor. application test. >> I think it's actually to the top of the
the top of the lettering. It's a little less than 18 in. >> Oh, I see. So, I thought you saying the mounting height of the sign is the center line of the fine that is 10 in above that procedural question.
For the sake of efficiency, is there a way that if we decide to approve this, we can do it so that they don't need to come back if the tenant changes or something? >> Great idea. >> We also change it so they don't have to
do all of this. >> Change the name on the sign, >> but we have to deal with our order. So, uh, the the, uh, and I'm sorry, Greg, do does the ordinance allow for that?
>> Well, I mean, the ordinance, you know, this is a second floor business. So, you know, typically signage is geared towards first floor occupancy and wall facing mount signs. Um, so in this case, really granted because it is in a second floor mount location. So um I think it
is one an ordinance question about how the ordinance should address it but two I do think it is remains in the proceedings here in that you know this is a second core office space that will have dedicated signage. So I think it's a good question that Mr. Bill is raising about the future turnover should there be a subsequent tenant that second
space. We also did think about that and and ideally what we would like is to have this board confer that we can have a single tenant um take that space. So we if we had three tenants, we wouldn't want three tenants not put a single tenant to take that space provided they
met the original requirements of no lettering higher than 18 in and no signage greater than 35 square feet. Um we'd hard to actually get 35 feet, but that would allow the owner the most flexibility. We hope Compass will stay there for many many years, but if if it
became another company, um we'd like the ability to as the building not come back here if it changes. But it would be for one tenant, not multiple tenants. um and in the same location and the same square footage that we were.
>> And so the only change would be that would not require coming back to the board if the board was so desirous of having that uh in its in its determination and can do it without changing the ordinance because that's we don't have that authority to change an
ordinance. Uh governing body does we do not. Um but uh it would be for one tenant and it would simply be talking about different names. Correct. >> That's correct. And and I apologize for because I'd have
to part of the ordinance to include uh take a look at whether or not we could potentially be usurping our authority. It's a technicality. But that's more than technicality. But uh if I can help you perhaps here I think in this case
you know this is a um this is a non-conforming signification which was granted relief under DNF application and here in this case the board is just modifying that prior approval of relief that was granted this site. This what I contemplated is modifying that approval
or instead of tying it to a name tying it to the measurements >> and it would be simply for this particular circumstance. >> Correct. Uh and in that sense it appears to me as if we wouldn't would not be
legislating from the bench so to speak. Uh and uh not usering the government governing body's authority to zone uh uh by ordinance by way of in fact exceptions. So I have so follow
>> zoning variances are exceptions from >> I have a nitpicky question too but what if you do rent it to somebody else if compass leaves with a very very large name you know abber and fish or what I mean what are the what are the limit you know otherwise well the resolution the
original resolution had a limitation area >> yeah we would have to size the letters down keep it at 35 within that within that width of the building and if the letters got smaller they would have to get And I apologize for beling it, but this
is S grant. This is familiarity with the ordinance provisions and the other ordinance provision are admittedly better than admittedly better than mine. If it were a long name and we're uh there is a requirement that we have a certain size of letter. It
can't be too small because it could be difficult to read in front of the road. That could be a traffic concern. Yeah, correct. >> That's why I was there as >> well I think we have a maximum we our ordinance is a maximum of 24 in in most sections before we stipulate to a
maximum of 18 in but if it if it >> is the concern >> right but I think if it if we got a a lengthy tenant we would obviously we have to deal with that because we still have to fit in the and again it's not it's really more of a a pride it's not
so much for wayfinding because again traffic coming um heading east on Milurn Avenue. This panel is recessed six feet and blocked by the second floor. >> You just read. >> So they would just have >> we want to be careful that it doesn't
potentially cause us a problem. >> Is it it's a backlit sign? >> It is actually not. There are there are uh there are lights currently that were put on the building in anticipation. They are they shine up against the building. They extend about 15 to 18 inch the building. They shine back up on
there's no We actually would have preferred a halo light, but they're not back lit. They are simple uh letters that are pinned down into the building. Um your planner has asked us to research whether they could be mounted onto a a chase so that we don't have as many
penetrations in the building where consider that. But that background would be no larger than the 17.83 It's >> the lighting for that stipulation that the lighting has to remain the same and
I know I don't know if there's lighting >> the lighting is already >> right. So if they they do change the sign out later we said okay but this is fine if it's within this area but then they do change it to a back site whatever um that it's still acceptable.
Well, I think this is this is a case and Steve, but I mean this building hasn't been approval and the lighting plan was part of that type of approval. So, these light fixtures were part of what were originally approved. >> Would require an amendment. >> Okay. So, they got to come back if they change the lighting.
>> That's correct. >> It's not included as a sign. >> Correct. >> And our ordinance does not already require a minimum letter size for visibility and safety reasons. Correct. But that doesn't stop us though in this
case based upon this variance rel and special request so to speak uh from if there are planner or engineer had a minimum lettering size the board sort of desired to make sure that the change in
name is not one that's going to result in letters diminished in size to the point where there may be a concern. We could certainly allow some flexibility and say a minimum of 12 in and a maximum of 18.
>> Mr. I'm I'm fine with that. Um I think you know 12 in is more than sufficient given the placement of the sign um the the low speeds along there. Um so if they're
agreeable to 12 in as a minimum that's fine by me. So I think we have the parameters again should the board grant for the week and um follow through with the observation and suggestion uh so as
to minimize if not alleviate the need for the applicant or successors to have to come back to the board. And I think we can do it that way without usurping the governing body's authority. We have that authority but
within the context of granting sort >> we need to add single tenant. >> Yeah that's single tenant too. That's the single tenant. Yeah. Yeah. I got I got it all just >> we think it's important to have a single tenant though. We don't we don't want to
be >> fighting for space up there. It's more elegant. >> I I was part of the uh board in the original application going through 2022. I must say the building has come out really well. You know, every time I drive past has been to the right and
it's acting nice. So the question I had was I know there's a golf indoor golf on tenant one I think. So tenant two is it still vacant or is there >> Yeah, the the golf simulator took both spaces. They only have one sign and one door that's they took both as a
permitted use. >> And if I can just to expound upon Mr. Hill's comments regarding uh my comment from the PL report regarding the raceway panel or the panel behind. Um the intent there just the suggestion is that by mounting the these are individually pin
mounted letters which have you know two three four uh you know penetrations per letter. Um so by having those go directly into the facade you know when those are changed out for new ping you're left with all these penetrations in the facade by having a panel behind um then the the letters can just change
on that panel face um which limits you know protects the longevity. That's just the the purpose of my com. Just wanted to clarify. >> And just so I'm clear though, is that would that amount to should the outcome stipulate to it or the board oppose it?
>> I I would leave it up to the board. Just I'm happy to answer any questions or clarification, but that's just the nature of my recommendation. >> Well, I would always start with if I may, Mr. I would always start with that the applicant is willing to stipulate in which case the board doesn't have to
take the stipulation but they have the option. >> Always want to give my board an option. >> Sure. >> You know what? There are buildings in the town that are historic limestone buildings and it's been a sin to see them have multiple penetrations. This one's not as precious. It's fairly
fairly new and I think those penetrations were easier to mend than the old limestone facades. were um kind of um on Milurn Avenue further down by the front. Um if the board felt strongly about I mean clearly it's in my best in my client's best interest the owner of
buildings to limit to limiting a gamut but um if we were to come back with another sign I I I think it's immaterial to us. I think it's I I prefer to have it left to the owner's discretion uh and the sign company's discretion. Um, but I think the it's in the owner's best
interest to limit the penetration. There's generally two penetrations per letter. What happens not not multiple on an 18 inch, but um and it's not lit. No other penetration. So, we're somewhat um
agnostic on on the question, but I prefer to leave it to to my client and their uh and their tenants discretion. We take them to heart. on my my building but will agree whatever I don't feel strongly about it. I mean,
I feel like if if the size of it changes and the backboard's not big enough, that's going to have to come off. I mean, always go on. Feels like it's easy enough to patch up. It's not some historic. Not yet.
>> We hope someday is a good comment, but more to it. Okay, >> Mr. Chairman, I just have one question. Um I I looked at the site tonight and I saw the lights that are on the building. It looks like those lights are in conflict where with where that sign's going to go. Is that true or
>> No, they're not. They are they're fing facing down, but they will be turned up which where they were supposed to be original. They don't provide any any light over the driveway, but they will sit right under those lights. >> Okay. So those lights will be up lights and not the down lights that they are. ly similar to the other lights which are
on the on the first floor side where the the two retail tenants were anticipated. Those lights face up to the they face on the side. These were intended to face on the sign. Just when they got installed with no signage there, somebody decided they'll be turning up which was the original anticipated orientation.
>> And that's consistent with the correct. >> Okay. >> I didn't see the prior approval and obviously it was not the inferior at that time. So, as long as that's what was approved, then I have I have no comments. >> Just a question too. Yes.
>> The only thing that we're looking for the amendment of the variance is the height, right? So, if it was 8 in shorter or 8 in lower, there would be a problem, right? They could do what they wanted to do as long as an assigned coordinates. >> Well, I think as the the applicant stipulated between 12 and 18 in so that
>> No, no, I'm talking about the the mounting height. >> The mounting >> the reason for the barracks, right? Well, that was so just to be clear, the the variance was granted under the prior application. Um the the purpose of the amendment appearing here this evening is that it was indicated on the prior site
plan approval that this sign location would contain the building names and now the applicant is switching to a tenant. >> Right. Okay. But if we if we my concern is that we're going to grant this for perpetually for whenever the the name changes. Just want to make sure that we're not giving any favoritism to them
that if it were another business, let's say uh Momentos or whatever who is in or underneath the 15 feet of the first story that they don't have to come to the planning board if they change their name that they just have to comply with the sign.
>> So the signage program here for this building is is set forth by these approvals. So the sign locations are you know indicated on you know the bottom plan here. Those are the approved sign locations. We could have us one in each of those locations. As far as future tenency or you know change of tenants as
long as the sign conforms to the size, location, height, all things that were part of the original approvals, the sign can change over time. >> And we physically can't place a sign over the driveway that conforms because we want the driveway to be tall enough to allow refuge vehicles to get in
there, emergency vehicles. So, um it's really set by the underside of the floor and and we couldn't we couldn't get a sign of comply. So any sign that goes there is always going to be placed into that second floor line or above above the the second floor level. Um the same
so there's no way we can do an end run get to get a different ten and hang the weather below or something. >> Yeah. Just I don't want to create a loophole for any other applications that are coming got to come in. Just >> so for example, just in furtherance to
your point, the indoor golf simulator has a sign in the approved retail one location that's indicated on the plan. That's about come before the board because that was the approved location for the sign. >> And if if they decide to change that, do they they don't have to come before the board even though it was in their application, right?
>> If they decided to change, >> let's say a new tenant comes in and they change that. >> Oh, as long as it's in the same location, size stipulated consistent with the site plan approval. Yes, it can be a new name, tenants, whatever. >> Okay, so it's just >> if they choose to move it up, down, make it bigger, wider, taller, have a
diagonal, those are where things start to change and that they would have to return back here. >> Okay, so let's say mens who I don't know when they were last before the board. If they're before the board, if their sign changes, what happens to them? >> So I I want to I know we're kind of
drifting a little bit. This is this case is unique in that we have rendered a site plan approval to this site and this building amends. I mean that's a pre-existing you know they've been quite some time. So that would just be a change of tenency new signage installation through a zoning permit process here because we have a a
resolution approval rendered for this site with a signage plan as part of that application. That's why things are a little bit different for this village. >> Excellent. That's the answer. Thank you. If I may and if I grant D you do list you do call out the bulk variance though the wall graphics not extending above
the second floor line or above the roof line of which the building was that granted in the I apologize for not knowing the prior approval or is that a new mer >> no was granted in the prior approval we were just being clear that
>> I'm just wondering why you pulled that one out only >> it's just kind of a technical >> we're just being a little overly thorough in Okay. All right. So, it's not >> was already granted. Thank >> Are there any questions from the public
for this witness? >> Do you rest? No further witnesses. >> No further witnesses. You can reserve your right to a to an eloquent uh 30 minutes of nature. But the uh so now we can go to the public if public comments.
Are there any public comments? No public comments. Under under 30 minutes, I think no summation. It's to the board. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh and then it's it's a uh if the
board is so desires to approve in the application uh it's an amended uh I guess technically it's an amended preliminary and final major site plan approval notwithstanding the relative modesty of what's being asked for uh and
uh with actually that's not a new barri uh so that is it uh um but uh the conditions will be those forth various reports uh Um I my I had one other issue I wanted to
raise and that is uh uh the previous approval all conditions will remain uh conditions going forward there will not change that standard. Uh has there been compliance at least thus far if not complete componence with all
conditions of the original approvement? To my knowledge, yes. >> Well, suffice to say that this approval will include all conditions that are not inconsistent with this approval will remain in full force. And in fact, they must be satisfied to the extent they
have already been. Um and uh and we would have the uh the uh additional uh relief uh kind of clarified such that they would now have to come back on the
change of a single tenency uh with the parameters of 12 in to 18 in minimum maximum letter size for the sign. I think that is it. So that's the relief before the board. Majority passes everything we do just
it's majority. Does anybody like to make a motion? >> Make a second. >> Roll call vote please. >> Cory Biller. >> Yes. >> Allison Campfield. >> Yes. >> Michael Cohen. >> Yes. >> Deon Neves. >> Yes. >> Frank Sakamandi. >> Yes.
>> Michael Zion. >> Yes. >> Jonathan Baxter. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Seri DJ. >> Yes. >> Gosh. >> Yes. Did you go to 10? >> No, that would be search. >> Oh, you went to nine. Okay. Thank >> Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. >> Wow. >> Thanks. So, thank you for moving executive session after the application. brought a book this time. >> I did. I did. I brought work to do.
>> So, I'm going to excuse myself since I can't be here. >> Happy holidays to all and I will see you in January. Thank you. Happy Yeah. I have
Okay. Ready to uh make the necessary motions to move into executive session. Certainly I'm not going to go through the entire resolution but summary fashion and it'll respect the whole person executive session uh for the
purposes of an acceptance of the public meeting act under 12B7 for pending litigation specifically my center for living Judaism versus county and county planning board uh doc
number 25 CB 17318. Uh and this session uh the minutes there from willity the same is no longer uh deemed necessary
by the board and the resolution shall go into effect. A motion second roll vote. Make a motion to go into executive session. Do I have a second? Second. We have a roll call vote, please. >> Cory Pillar, >> yes. >> Alison Campfield,
>> yes. >> Michael Cohen, >> yes. >> Deb, >> yes. >> Frank Sakamandi, >> yes. >> Michael Zion, >> yes. >> Jonathan Baxter, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Sen, >> yes. >> Chair Gustin Her, >> yes. Just a note, we'll be turning the
camera off and we'll not be turning it on for the remainder of this meeting, but we will come back into session and close the meeting for you. If you'd like to see it, you're welcome to come afterwards. that no formal action will be taken here.