Indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> I hereby announce that this meeting is being held in accordance with chapter 231 of the public open public meetings act proper notice of meeting dates has been given to the Morris news daily
record and posted under the board in the federal hall. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in making decision and decorum appropriate to judicial hearing must be
maintained at all times. I have a roll call, please. >> Mr. Baza >> here. >> Mrs. Cortez >> here. >> Mr. E >> here. >> Mr. Park >> here. >> Mr. McC >> here. >> Mr. Webster >> here. >> Mr. Schultz. Mr. Risos.
Mr. CNC >> here. >> Okay. Um, before we get going, I'd like to make an announcement. First, I'd like to thank my colleagues on the board for entrusting me with being the chairman. I appreciate it, and I will try to uphold
Mr. Schultz's legacy here. With that, I'd also like to echo the comments made by my colleagues on the board last meeting in thanking uh Chairman Schultz for his leadership over these many years and his dedication to the town and personally for his uh
mentoring of myself and and for him agreeing to stay on as vice chairman for the next year. Um I think it's very very commendable in the everything that Dave does for this town. So I just to make mention of that and echo what you guys
had said before. So, thank you for trusting me and thank you to Dave. The first meeting uh first uh item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the February 23rd reward. Does anybody have any comments or
corrections on the minutes has been distributed? >> I have one correction. >> Okay. page three at the bottom where it says greatly appreciated appreciated. >> Okay.
>> Does anybody else have a do I have a motion to approve the amended type of >> motion to approve? >> Second. and Mike.
>> Okay. Okay. Mr. Baza, >> yes. >> Mrs. Cortez, >> yes. >> Mr. Een, >> abstain. >> Mr. Carr, >> yes. >> Mr. McCay, >> abain. >> Mr. Webster, >> abain.
>> And Mr. >> Yes. >> Okay. At this point, open up to comments from the public to speak on matters other than what's on the agenda today. Is anybody in the public here?
Seeing none, we'll close that section. Do we have any correspondence and bills? >> Yes, we do. We have one purchase order number 20260451 to Anderson and Densler, 383 Richill
Avenue, PO Box 343 East New Jersey 07936 in the amount of for engineering services invoice number 3254 dated March 4th 2026 in the amount of $96.70. >> Is there anything else?
>> Does your reading constitute the motion? >> It does. >> Does anybody second? >> Got that down. All right. You want to vote? >> Yeah, we have a motion and a second. We need to vote on it. >> I know. Well, sometimes they voice. >> Well, they can we can do it by voice,
but we can say all in favor. >> All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. Any abstensions? >> All right. >> Okay. >> Okay. Under the agenda, we have a new business is the 2025 annual report. Dave
Schultz is writing that report. So, we should be getting that prior to the next meeting. Okay. Now, we're at our application for the day for tonight BA425.
Jamie and Jennifer Dors attorney for Jamie Jennifer here tonight and complete this report. >> Okay, this writing should look at your memoch.
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman, I submitted my report March 18, 2026. The board you should all have copies in that report. I determine that the application is complete and it remains for the board to affirm that. >> Okay.
Liz, do you want >> Yes, I had some um I I came to the same conclusion as Mr. Ryden. I had a couple of uh outstanding issues I had raised in my letter which I' got I've gotten clarification from, but I may just put
it on the record right now. >> Sure. >> Which is that I in looking at they need variances for um just for for building coverage and lot coverage. But I my understanding was with the building coverage. I thought
they had miscalculated and really the new expansion of the building is going where driveway was completely. So although the building coverage is ex is uh increasing the lot coverage is not
because it was already impervious but um it's where it you know it did used to be part of the building coverage and now it is because it's it's where the building is. >> So what is the building coverage variance that's being sought? So, um, >> how many square feet
>> I believe? Yeah, go ahead. >> Uh, they're looking for 2842 square ft whereas 2569, >> right? But that's what was in the report. So, what's changed with that? >> Nothing's changed. >> No, that was what was in their report. I
in my report have put a a different number because I have added >> Okay. So, Mr. Ryan's report with that number is correct. >> Correct. And that's correct. plans as well. >> And and and is the the lot coverage number 7,282 ft?
>> No, that's not the right number. It's 67 >> 47 >> 6747.9 proposed versus 5139.61. >> Okay. Give me the proposed number again, please. >> 6747.9. Thank you.
>> And they currently have 7,10, right? Three. reducing it, but it's still over. >> It's still over the 516. >> And in your letter, Liz, >> which where is that? Which number? >> It's on page five. And it's also in the
number uh it's number two on page six. >> And then the rest of my comments remain for now. >> Okay. So then you're in you agree with Bill. No, it doesn't. But I just
>> You agree with Bill >> It is I recommend completion application complete. Motion to deem the application. >> Second. >> Okay. >> Mr. Baza. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Cortez. >> Yes. >> Mr. Een. >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Webster. >> Yes. >> And Mr. >> Yes.
Okay. So, the has been deemed complete, you would normally move into the public hearing. So, we uh I apologize for not be able to report architect uh Elizabeth has raised two issues that
we can't address right now with our architect here plus the fact that you noted that the plan indicated entertainment room and there was some kind of miscommunication between the engineer
uh architect regarding that. So that needs to be changed. Uh and plus we need to confirm and we can't do this because I haven't been able to reach the architect for the last couple days. Uh as to number three and four. So we wouldn't be able to proceed without
being able to answer all those questions. So we decided be able to provide you with this information and not having it revised architectural plan to address the issues
that she raised and eliminate the federal office. >> No, the office is going But they wanted the garage is going to
be a bedroom that got >> Okay. >> So, you're asking the car, >> please. Yeah, we noticed. >> We'll take care of that. Karen, what's the next meeting? >> Excuse me. Say that again. >> The next meeting is April 27th.
>> Okay. So, we need a motion to carry this matter to April 27th, 2026, 7:30 p.m. with no further notice. >> Okay. So, Mr. Baza and >> Mark, Mr. Clark, and Mr.
>> Okay, Mr. Baza. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Cortez, >> yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Mr. McCabe. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Are we all clear when subs have to be made for that next meeting? >> Yeah. Hopefully, >> we'll see you next month. I have an update on the discussion two weeks ago regarding the checklist
that was most com just in a little bit closer. >> How's that? >> The uh it was recommended that the application should be notorized and our attorney agreed that that was a
recommended uh advice given to the applicant that timets should be included reflecting how many days the board has to review each application. Uh, a very important item which I think
was discussed at Nauseium was adding a glossery to explain various terms that the applicant may not be familiar with. Um, a a requirement that the applicant confirm that they had public sewer and water.
That's just to make sure that the town requires public sewer and water, that there weren't any deviations to that requirement. um the recommendation that the town have their professionals at the meetings. There was a comment made that maybe they
shouldn't be at the meetings and there was discussion about the the fact that the advisable to have to address any questions that come up that any waiver requests made by the applicant.
We would advise them to have their professionals present their arguments for the waiverss and why they would be recommended that we include something along those lines in the checklist. >> They do that now that that's currently the practice.
>> Okay. Yeah. I mean, you know, they request waivers from the checklist, >> right? And our professionals sometimes will comment on that whether they think it's a good idea or not. But then the says we need a waiver because this
>> that's that's been the practice. >> I guess they want that included in the application, >> but the board grants the >> correct. Yes. I mean >> Yes. Yes. No, it's up to us. >> And the reason I'm bringing that up part is because I remember we talked about that >> being crystal clear that you know they ask for waiverss, we get
recommendations, but the board is always That wasn't debated. They just they just proposed that they have professionals to explain why those waivers were necessary. >> So >> they have professionals or we have professionals. >> Not we the applicant would have
professionals. >> So seems like someone else has explained >> well not so much if if those waiverss are not requested by our professionals w
by the applicant have to defend why those wavers necessary. >> Right. Our professionals aren't going to request waver. It's going to be the applicant that requests the waivers. >> Well, in some cases they they do well recommend waver. >> But the applicant requests the waiver, >> right? >> And then our board professionals may
comment and they recommend granting of the waiver, but ultimately the board then decides to >> but they're suggesting that the applicants bring their professionals to justify why the w Right. But I thought the whole idea behind streamlining this
was that we would get theoretic, you know, the streamlined application in which there would be, you know, they would ask for waiverss. It would go to the professionals. Professionals would send that letter as their opinion and in the perfect world like everybody's
agreed to, right? Then you don't need the professionals at the completeness here. Now they're saying that the recommendation is that we have Bill and Liz or at least one I hear from them. >> Yes. But if they don't agree to the to
the waiver, that's different. Yeah, that's different. >> Well, this was a request that was made. One of the comments was made by >> she recommend all of this. She had like 14 items at that she
requested. Um so but at the end of the day the they'll be the the package if you will the new application that has to get right.
Um there was one clarification there were other suggestions that were being asked to be included in the uh checklist, but it was made clear that the fact that some of these items were not included in the checklist doesn't mean that we
couldn't ask for these >> after the after the application is considered complete, which was a major point. Yeah, the municipal maint. >> I agree. That's why again I didn't know if it was a blanket. You know, every application is
>> that was in reference to the utilities. >> Okay. >> So, it'll be it'll be tailored to the specific application. >> I'll be curious to see anyway. The timelines are as follows. The committee
or it was recommended the committee include those changes by April 3rd. document at that time which at at which time the planning board and the adjusters would make their comments by April 13th
presentation to the planning board by April 20th. >> Yeah to see hopefully it achieves its goal streamlining this process especially for some of our applicants that are putting very straightforward
That's it. Well, thank you for the update. Does anybody have any questions? Is there any other old business that we need to take care of? >> Not. >> You need a motion to adjurnn. So,
>> I have a motion to second. Now, I can do it. Right. Keep