Welcome. I want to hereby call to order this scheduled planning board meeting on March 16th, 2026. Please stand 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. I hereby announce that this meeting is being held in accordance with chapter 231 of the open public meeting act. Proper notice of meeting dates has been given to the Morris newsby and the Morris County data record and posted on
the open board in the burough hall. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in A decision and qu appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at
all times. Notice to members of the planning board and bureau staff use electronic devices during this meeting solely for the purpose of business >> Mr. M >> here >> Mr. >> here
>> Mrs. Ste >> present >> Mr. Si >> here >> Mr. Houston >> here. >> Mayor Carr >> present board attorney and Mr. Renber engineer.
>> Okay. First item on our agenda tonight is the approval of meeting minutes from February 9th, 2026. Uh each of the board members received a copy. Anybody have any corrections or comments? >> I have a a correction. Um Karen, it
looks like the page numbering uh to be I had a it was a difficult thing for me. I The page numbers are in the book, but the numbers are not accurate here. Okay. They got the pages. There was a mistake on them,
so I just crossed them out and they put in the book. >> Okay. So, I'm just going to put it on the record, but it looks like in the copies we have missing pages. Well, it went from number 458 and then skipped to 463. So, 459 through 462
>> were not in there and 464, >> right? >> Okay. >> Anything else? Uh just one correction on my end. Page 455. This question is from the board. Mr. Alter as to confirm there's a net loss of 12 trees. I think that was Mr. Wolf.
>> Okay. Sir, just tell me where it is in here. >> Uh right at the top of 455 just under questions from the board. The first question >> that confirmed that there is a net of 12 trees. >> That was Mr. Wolf. >> Thank you. Yeah. Anybody else?
>> Okay. With with the stated corrections, can I have a motion to approve these minutes? >> So motion. >> Second. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Mir. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bezel. >> Yes.
>> Mrs. Decker. >> Yes. >> Mr. Cat. >> Yes. I approve except for that portion of the minutes for the application PB2-25 SSNs for which I abstain from the meeting.
>> Okay. All right. I just got I know that it was Mrs. Okay. >> All right. >> And I I abain. >> And you abain. Okay. Good. >> Okay.
Okay. Second item is the approval of meeting minutes for March 3rd, 2026. Again, board members have copies. Anybody have any comments or corrections? >> I have correction on I'm not sure what page it is. 1780.
Excuse me, >> Mr. Boozak. Down the large paragraph, B U Z A K. And on the next page, in the last paragraph, it said this was approved by the program judge,
Fair Housing Center, Fair Share Housing Center. Anyone else? >> Karen, you have that? >> Yeah. Okay. Yes. >> Okay. So, with uh the correction, can I
have a motion to approve these minutes? >> So moved. >> Second. I'll second roll call. >> Okay. Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bezel. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Houston.
>> Yes. >> Mayor Carr. >> Yes. >> Mask. >> Yes. >> And Mr. >> Yes. >> Okay. Next item on the agenda are comments from the public. This is specifically for matters that are not on tonight's agenda.
Public comments. to one comment of no more than five minutes per person. Again, this request is only okay close that portion of the agenda. Committee reports. Uh minor site plan committee any updates
and I know for the master plan review committee there are no updates to my knowledge. I'll close that portion of the agenda. Correspondence and bills. Karen, did we get any correspondence for
tonight? >> Uh, no correspondence. >> Okay. And we do have a few bills. We do. >> Looks like we've got four bills to go through tonight. Uh first one, purchase order number 20260512
dated March 12th, 2026. Uh this is for legal services um from Marazi Falcon LLP. the amount of $1,417.50 general legal services.
>> Do we go one by one? >> Yeah. >> So, next uh we got purchase purchase order number 20260350 dated February 17, 2026. also from Marz Falcon LLP. Total amount
$945. General legal services. Next one. Purchase order number 20260349 dated February 17, 2026. Marz Falcon LLP. This is McDonald's litigation as the
description and the amount is $5,619.87. Last one here. Uh, purchase order number 20260452 March 6th, 2026. This is Anderson and Densler. Description is engineering services in the amount of
$96.70. Do we have any questions or a motion to approve these? Second. Second. Roll call. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bezo. >> Yes. >> Mrs.
>> Mr. Houston. And >> Mr. Mr. Mayor. Thank you so much. >> Okay, next on the agenda are our
applications for tonight. First one is PB-2-25 SS SNS block 41.02 lot 39.01. Uh the order of business tonight is to memorialize and adopt resolution.
Our professionals and each board member has received At this time I'll ask Mr. Brewer to resolution given dispensation to start on the last round. Uh planning board resolution number
26-09 resolution for preliminary and final site plan with variances planning board claims application number PB2-25 applicant SS SNS premises lot 41.02
lock 39.01 Whereas after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant, the board now makes the following factual findings and conclusions. One, the applicant submitted and the board considered the following documents which
were made part of the application. A application for development. B checklists E and F. C. November 17, 2025 letter from Michael Ptor Equire. D November 14, 2025 letter from B
Consulting Group E. Application for tree removal. F. Ownership disclosure statement. G. Resolution number 8-87 dated 82587. H. Application addendum. I.
Certification of taxes paid. J. Site plan 13 sheets dated 1114 2025 revised 1117 2025 prepared by consulting group. K. Aritectural plans 13 sheets dated
11425 prepared by studio 1200 LC two. The board considered the following submitts from its consultants. A reports of William Ryden PE of Anderson and Denver Associates board engineer dated November
25, 2025 and January 7, 2026. and B reports of Elizabeth AICP board planner dated December 16, 2025, January 13, 2026, and January 14, 2026.
And three, the following variances are sought as part of the application. A section 13-5.2B 15.2 to permit a sideyard setback of 16.6 ft whereas 23.66
is required. B section 13-5.2A 23.1 to permit building coverage of 10,166 square ft whereas maximum building coverage of 6,46 square ft were permitted. C section 13-
5.2A 23.2 to permit 27,58 square ft of lock coverage whereas a maximum lock coverage of 12,812 ft is permitted. D section 13-5.7A
and 13-5.2B 15.3 to permit 24 parking spaces whereas 41 are required. Four, the following design wavers are requested. A 13-4.14 D
1.18 shade street shade trees are not provided. B 13.4.14 CD DI parking spaces do not comply with 10 by 20 foot standard. C 13-4.14
CG 4 providing area lighting is less than required uh 1/2 foot candles D 13-4.14 C G5 light intensity at a residential
property line exceeds the maximum level of 0.3T canvas E enclosure of trash recycling dumpster will be a chain link fence whereas masonry enclosure is required five the board carefully considered the following testimony at
the public hearing a applicant presented testimony of Eric PP who testified as to his credentials and was accepted as an expert in the fields of civil engineering and planning. B Mr. Tower testified as to the existing conditions on the property and about
exhibit A1 and aerial depiction of the property dated 123 26. C. He testified that the proposed project will expand the existing building and add six new bedrooms. D. He testified that there is a better
interpretation pending before the NJ. However, regardless of the outcome, the proposed development is outside of the maximum 15 foot transition area. E. He testified the property is surrounded by burrow and
stateowned land. F. The property is in zone R2 and the application proposes a provision use G. The application is for a one-story expansion for six bedrooms and support spaces along with five additional parking.
Two existing spaces will be eliminated for a trash recycling enclosure. H We he testified that the proposed development will include improvements to the storm water treatment, additional dry wells, and landscaping and will include new LED
outdoor light fixtures. I The property is currently served by a pump station which services only this property and it will remain in place. The applicant will let the board engineer know if a replacement pump is required. The application includes a new generator
in a new location. K. The proposal includes a chambering fence with mesh covering around the dumpster whereas a masonry enclosure is required. L. New dry wells will receive water from the new roof area and the rest of the storm water treatment will remain the
same. M. We testified the generator will be shielded by landscaping which will also be added around portions of the perimeter of the property. The includes the installation of a dog run and six new shade trees and the lighting will be
on from dusk to dawn with no dimming which is no change from current lighting. O the applicant presented testimony of Nancy Dowy architect who testified as to her credentials and was accepted as an expert in the field of architecture. P Miss Doerty testified
about the proposed floor plans of the building after the proposed construction. The generator is removed. The basement is only for HVAC and laundry. There will be a crawl space under the edition. Q. The generator will
remain the same size, 150 kW, and will comply with the decibel limit at the property line. R testified that the dog run will not be visible from most angles along the street and there will be landscaping added to shield the air conditioning
condensers. S. testified that the ordinance provisions provision regarding sideyard setbacks is based on the highest part of the building. However, the sideyard variance sought in a relation to a portion of the building that is only one story high. So, the
mass of the building at the area of the variance is much lower. T she testified that the dogs will always be with their owners in the dog run and the storage in the garage will remain the same. You testified that six staff members will move to another location while two new
staff will assist the additional residents for a net decrease of four staff members. B. In response to questions from the board, she testified that there will be two accessible bedrooms whereas only one is required. W Mr. Coward testified about the variance
relief requested. X he testified there will be a net increase of three parking spaces. He testified that the application and grant of the variances with further purposes A, C, and I of the purposes of planning. Z he testified that there will
be little to no negative impact from the sideyard variance because it is calculated from the highest point of the house while the actual variance is from a section that is only one story high. Additionally, the property adjacent to the impacted sideyard is owned by the state and undeveloped. Aa he testified
that there is no separate building coverage standard for a shelter which is a permitted use and that proposed 11.7% is very low for this type of use. BD the impervious coverage variance is tied to the building coverage and the existing
already exceeds the committed coverage. It is only 31.1% of the lot which is low for this type of use and is fully addressed by the addition of the dry system. C. On the issue of parking, we testified this property was approved in the 1980s
for only 18 spaces. The current proposal will actually decrease the deviation from what it exists in the current development. There is a net loss of four employees who typically have cars and the addition of units whose residents often do not have
D. We testified that there are not currently any shade trees and that the current parking spaces are by 18, which is the same size as the proposed spaces. He further testified that the new LED lighting will result in a better
aesthetic and landscaping will alleviate any minor excess light at the property line. Mr. Len agreed with the testimony about parking stall count and parking space size. Six, with regard to applicants request for variance relief, the board finds the following facts and
conclusions today. The applicants request a variance from section 13-5.7A and 13-5.2B 15.3 to permit 24 parking spaces 41 are required results in improved zoning for
the track and will allow the applicant to adequately serve an underserved community. In addition, the board finds that the benefits of deviation from the parking requirements would substantially outweigh any detriment because the deviation will be decreased from the current conditions. Variance relief may be granted without financial detriment
to the public good and with no impairment to the bureau's zone plan and zoning ordinance. The applicants requested variance from section 13-5.2 15.2 to permit sideyard setback of 16.6
ft whereas 23.66 ft is required results in improved zoning for the tract and will allow the applicant to adequately serve an underserved community. In addition, the board finds that the benefits of deviation from the sideyard requirement would substantially outweigh any detriment various belief can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and with no impairment to the bureau's zone plan and zoning orders. C. The applicants requested variances from section 13-5.2A 23.1 and 23.2
to permit building coverage of 10,166 square ft whereas a maximum of 6,46 square ft is permitted and to permit lot coverage of 27,58 square ft where a maximum of 12,812
is permitted results in improved zoning to the track and will allow the applicant to adequately serve an underserved community. In addition, the board finds that the benefits of deviation from the lot and building coverage requirement with substantial outweigh any detriment variance relief can be granted without substantial
detriment to public good and with no impairment to the burrow's zone plan and zoning ordinance. D with respect to all design wavers set forth therein the board finds that strict compliance with the design standards is impractical and that the benefits of granting of
waiverss outweigh any detriments. Seven, with respect to all requested variances, that the variances will not cause a substantial detriment to the surrounding property owners as most of the property is bounded by burrow and state owned property and there is sufficient parking for the proposed use. Eight, the board
further finds that all of the requested variances will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan. The development as a whole is consistent with the zone plan for the area. The variances are not substantial deviations from the zone plan and result in a better zoning alternative for the property. Now therefore be it resolved
by the planning board of the burrow of Morris Plains and the county of Morris and state of New Jersey on this 16th day of March 2026 as follows. One, preliminary and final site plan approval with variances and waiver relief and tree removal approval um and soil
movement removal are hereby granted as depicted on the foret plans subject to the conditions here and after set forth two. Varian relief as set forth above for the aforementioned reasons as proposed in testimony hereby granted
pursuant to NJSA 40 55D 70C2 subject to the conditions here and after set forth three the board grants the application for tree removal for section 23A-2D of the revised ordinances of the bur planes and subject to final approval by
the board engineer as set forth in the conditions Four, the applicant shall comply with a the January 7, 2026 report of the board engineer to his satisfaction except as otherwise stated in testimony was same to be confirmed in writing by the board
engineer. B January 13, 2026 report of Elizabeth Laney B except as otherwise stated in testimony with seemed to be confirmed by the board planner. Five, applicant may proceed prior to the receipt of its letter of interpretation determination, but will comply with all
NJT permits. Six, applicant shall perform noise testing on the new generator to ensure compliance with noise standards 65 dBA for daytime and 50 dBA for nighttime in accordance with ordinance 4-209.
If any of the individual findings, conclusions, or conditions as stated in this resolution are subsequently declared invalid, then the remaining findings and conclusions shall be deemed sufficient to support the decision of the board and the remaining conditions. Eight, the board secretary shall provide
a copy of this resolution to the burough attorney and to the construction official within 20 days of the date thereof. Nine, this resolution shall take effect. I believe there was only one typo under four a
>> y >> you have that space. >> Okay. >> Okay. So with those two corrections uh can I have a motion to approve resolution 26-09. >> Motion to approve. >> Second.
>> Second. >> Roll call. >> Mir. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yes. >> Mrs. >> Yes. >> Mrs. >> Yes. >> Mr. Houston. >> Yes. >> Mayor. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Abain.
>> And Mr. >> Abstain. Okay. Next item is PB-126 Eminem at Morris Plains LLC. This is block 121, lot 1.02, 21B, 31A, 41D, 51C on Veterans Way. Uh,
the order of business tonight is to memorialize and adopt resolution 2610. Uh, each of the professionals and the board members received a copy for review. At this time, I'll ask Mr. Brewer to read the resolution. There are two changes from what you have. I put
the address as 200 Table Road. It's actually two-5 234 and five Veterans Way. That's in the the top of the title as well as the first rear as that's the actual address. I'll say the reason for it, not an excuse. the reason that there were
several different submissions some of which still had to improve and some of which I was one of that being said again I'll read the title and then go to the last we're ask planning board resolution number 26-10 resolution granting amended preliminary
and final site plan approval planning board burough of Morris Plains application number PD-01-26 applicant Eminem at Morris Plains LLC 2 Uh 2-5 Veterans Way block 121 block 1.02
apartment buildings 1 B 1 B 1 A 1 C whereas change the veterans but to the last whereas at the bottom whereas after carefully considering the evidence the board now makes the following funding one the applicant now seeks amended
preliminary and final site plan approval in order to modify building 1 A 1 B 1 C and 1 to modify the exterior building facads, amenity areas, and unit floor plans. Two, the applicant submitted and the board considered the following documents
which were made part of the application. A application for development, B, certification of taxes, C, checklist, E, site plan dated 11226. D ownership disclosure list, E building
floor plans and elevations dated January 9, 2026 prepared by Jal Kaisle Architects three. The board considered the following submitts from its consultants. A report of William Ryden Anderson and Denver Associates board
engineer dated January 22nd, 2026. And four, the board carefully considered the following testimony at the public hearings. applicant produced Carolina architect who was sworn and accepted as
an expert in the field of architecture and testified to the changes to be made to the previously approved plans. Six, Miss Okanowitz testified that the applicant proposes changes to the building facade and some modifications to the interior layout of the apartments
and the amenity space. She testified that the increase in square footage is due to the fact that they propose to use brick which is a thicker material and the measurement of square footage is done to the exterior of the walls. Eight, there are no
changes to the unit counts, distribution, unit mix, affordable or market rate units. Nine, Ms. Panoitz provided a representative sample a representative example of the red brick proposed to be used for examination by
the board. 10. Miss Patanowitz testified that an additional change was to the rail design at the balconies and roof level. The rail rails will now be black horizontal guard rails to match the windows. 11 testified about the minor changes to
layout of the interior of the apartments, including increased turning spaces to comply with the ADA, changing dens to laundry rooms, and slightly increasing the bathroom sizes. All changes were to the interior of the units. 12. She testified that the
changes to the amenity space largely included moving the work space from the main lobby to a more private area. 13. In response to questions, she testified that the addition of the brick facade on the upper floors does not result in the
building being any closer to Table Road because the previous approval had provided an offset in facade thickness so that when amended, the exterior facade for all floors will be even with no protrusion. 14. In response to questions from the board, she acknowledged a typographical error in
the table indicating unit count and agree the plans will be changed so the table matches the actual bedroom unit count 15. No variances were sought or required as part of the application. Now therefore be it resolved by the planning board of the bureau of Morris claims in
the county of Morris and state of New Jersey on this 16th day of March 2026 as follows. Amended preliminary and final site plan approval as set forth on the submitted plans is hereby granted to accommodate the following changes. A modify
buildings 1 A, 1 B, 1 C, and 1 D to change the exterior facade, amend interior unit layouts, amend layout of amenity space and related improvements as set forth from the submitted plans. Two, the approval and all elements hereof are expressly subject to the
following conditions. A, the shall be bound by and comply with all the representation made by the applicant and the applicant's witnesses and professionals before the board and the same are incorporated herein and our representations upon which this board has revived in granting the approval set
forth herein and shall be enforcable against the applicant and any developer of a particular section or parcel as if those representations were made conditions of disapproval. B. The applicant shall comply with the January 22nd, 2026 report of the board engineer
prior to signing the site and building permit. C. The applicant shall revise the plans to provide the correct number of bed units subject to the review and approval and writing of the board engineer prior to signing the site plan and building permit. Three, the applicant shall make
all revisions as discussed in the public hearing. All conditions contained in the approvals previously granted by resolution of the board that have not been expressly modified by this resolution shall remain in full force and effect and applicant shall be
required to comply with all such conditions. Five, the board secretary shall provide a copy of this resolution to the burough attorney and to the construction official within 20 days of the date. Six, this resolution shall take effect.
Okay. I move that we approve the resolution with the corrections. >> Okay. And the corrections are the address and line number 12. >> Okay. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Okay. Karen Ro. >> Okay. Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mer. >> Yes. >> Yes. Mr. Houston. >> Yes. >> Mrs.
>> And Mr. >> Okay. Moving on to old business. Uh this Tonight we will talk about the revised application process. Uh before we start I want to mention that Mr. Schultz Mr.
David Schultz is here from the accounting board. He has been part of the committee working on this revised checklist. Thanks. Um so as far as starting this off my
thought was to get right into the two emails that were sent today. One from Mr. from Mr. Musky, do you want to take us through your email or do you want me to run through each item because I'd like to go through each item?
>> Okay, so number one, the document should be checklist of requirements for submission. Okay, that's just correction there. We all agreed that there would be a glossery attached to each application. I think we all agreed
that and you said that was going to that was going to happen and we don't see that. Um definitely the signatures and the certifications must be dated and notorized. I have no idea why that would needed. Um photographs of the properties
within 200 feet should be required for variances and subdivisions. I don't know that we ever heard of any comments from Karen. We never heard any comments from Liz. Um, another thing that should be included or required to be included is
the copy of the proposed legal notice. Um, a certification that the application is the owner and has given consent to the applicant to file on the owner's behalf. Again, uh, the signatures should be notorized.
um the location, size and nature of all existing and proposed right of way easements and other lands if any to be dedicated to the burrow and I added four or others. Um there's something in a couple of them
that says we're whatever public sewer yes or no is referenced. We don't allow properties not to have uh city sewers. Okay. So that's got to be changed. It's just got to be a certification that the property is serviced by public water and
sewer. There should be a landscape plan. I think that's I think that uh that actually was included, but I'm not sure. Architectural elevations and floor plans should specify all elevations and
floor plans for all floors. And then the next one is the um type and size of electric, telephone cable, blah blah blah. It should include water. And I also suggest that the applicant list the professionals that will appear
on his behalf. >> Okay. So, so let's stop there. Um, and I would like to go back to number one and work out. So, you're saying should you're saying the document should read checklist of requirements for submission
of Right. And if I'm looking at the applications that we put together, do you mean of subdivision and site plan? >> All of them. It's it's a checklist of requirements. >> Right. So instead of saying application for it should be checklist of
requirements for submission, right? And then subdivision and site plan. >> Okay. I I guess >> okay words are there. It's checklist submission requirements sub there. So I don't know. I don't care if you want to
change the order of the word that's fine. >> Okay. Okay. So, there's no that's not going to cause any confusion that if anything maybe clarifies. >> I I don't know that it does, but like I said, if you want to change it. Okay. >> Okay. As far as the glossery to be
attached to each application, I mean, do we do we have a glossery today? Is there >> Yeah, there I think there is a glossery. >> So, I think this was brought up. This is one of mine at the very beginning just because you're going to have you know residents that do fill this out a lot,
>> you know, sometimes it's not professionals that fill that out, right? So sometimes it is just a homeowner resident, you know. So I think a glossery would be an excellent thing to have probably a necessity to have
something. >> Yeah, I I I definitely agree with that. I guess my question is is that part of the actual Is it is it part of the application >> whether you hand it out separately or whether you put it in here? >> It should be a part of the application. >> Yeah.
>> You know, if it's part of a package that you hand out to to somebody for something, then you put it in the package. If you just hand them this one sheet of paper, then you attach it to the one sheet of paper. >> Yeah. I see I almost see it as a separate document, but I mean again, I'm going to >> Yeah, it would be a separate document,
you know, going over some of the definition of the technical terms. But if you have it as a separate document on that application, you should say attachments so that they know that that attachment is there. Okay.
>> And there may be other attachments. >> Okay. Mr. Ryen, Mr. Schultz, any any comments to that? >> Well, from the inception, we we always agreed that we would have some sort of instruction packet with with terms defined, with procedures defined. So,
that's yet to be developed. And I think that that um I really think in part of the in our code that it's a lot of these gloss a lot of the terms are included a glossery of terms and and
things like that. So it wouldn't be hard to put that together. >> Okay. Any board have any comments? I think also if you're going to have Wall Street defining some terms in the document itself, it should be part of the document
>> just by connection. I mean the fact that you're defining what's in the document, therefore it has to be part of the document. >> Yeah, I agree. People don't know what they don't know, so they won't know to ask for it. >> Might as well just >> Yeah, it's part of the dosing really. >> And one other thing, and I forgot to put
it down here, and and you know, I have so many papers here. I think we all do. You should also um have with this explanation some type of um explanation about
timets. Okay. Now we we don't have to have you know it to be too detailed but just to give the people an idea that when you submit this the board has this many days to act on it and when
they have to get their papers in and uh that type of thing so everybody knows do the attorneys know probably they do but it may be different in each before each board. >> Okay. So, I mean to me it sounds like
there's um there's two things, right? It's it's it's the checklist itself and then it's the process associated with filling out the checklist and maybe obtaining all the information within and that's either by attachments, right, or
it's embedded within the application. So, that's I guess what we have to continue to look at and figure out. >> I agree with with Mr. here though it's it ought to be part of the whole thing. Put it together. Everybody's got the whole thing.
>> I think people just they they don't know what they don't know until they go through the process. >> Yeah. And if they don't find an attachment, they don't know because it didn't, you know, they it wasn't attached. >> Okay. Fair. Okay. Um any other comments on that one?
Okay. Signatures and certifications must be dated and notorized on on in today's process are they They are they are >> okay. Was there Mr. Ry or Mr. Schultz or Mr. Houston? Was there a reason why we
we took that out or attorney? >> Strange enough I think it's a very good idea to have notoriized and I think by and large most of the time it's irrelevant but every once in a while you have someone who is connected to the
property and doesn't own it or is doing And I think it's a good idea to have most of the time I think completely relevant. Sometimes very important just to make sure that all the right people are really signing it and your notary or an attorney usually will make sure.
Okay. Okay. Good. Thank you. Uh number four, photographs of properties within 200 ft should be required for variances and subdivisions. So today is that currently part of the
application process? that came later. >> I think it's it's further out. >> It's 500 I thought. >> Oh, it could be 500. >> Right. So, so routinely, so one of the conversations on reducing it to 200 ft was routinely board of adjustment was
granting um waiverss in the completeness process to go from 500 to so when you do it for every time, right? The question should it be? >> Yeah. Just like just the minister like they might anyway just state your name and
>> Oh yeah, >> that not under oath. You don't have to tell the truth, but >> Dave always tells 15 Academy Road, New Jersey currently vice chair board of adjustment and for a couple years was chair of
um so so uh the thought was 200 ft would be sufficient also considering that hopefully members of which I'm speaking only for board of adjustment hopefully members of the board are going out to see the site as part of their
Um, so 200 200 feet seem reasonable. >> Yeah, >> I think I agree. 200 feet. However, if you know we decide when we're doing completeness that 500 ft might be appropriate, we can do that.
>> We can Yeah. Yeah. >> So what we So we think on completeness is that at any point during test once the door is open to the hearing the board can always ask and during complet review and state for the purposes of completeness we will deem this complete
with this. However, you are forewarned that during testimony we expect to hear X. So that's where we were thinking it would get cover or Yeah. or have have more photographs or whatever depending on the application. Yeah.
>> You had something >> No, I just I think I think the point here is we don't have any requirement for for photographs in any of these yet. So it's not a matter of the 200 feet or not. We didn't we didn't include photographs in in in the requested documentation.
That's something that >> but we have been requiring them when we have had subdivisions uh before the planning board >> and that was required as part of any application. I can't say uh I can't
recall if it was part of a subdivision. >> Well, we did it when we did the subdivision on Mountain Way and the other over on Central Avenue. >> Well, yeah. And again, often the applicants will bring those in any event whether you ask for them or not as part of their testimony and their proofs for
variances and all those things. So, but we can we can ask >> before we were kind of talking about this. Was there I did not I saw that there is stuff in here for front yard setbacks a lot of times when I brought this up. I'm talking to
>> a lot of times you know you have two front yard setbacks right or two sideyards but I didn't see that defined in this document right so that's defined in the ordinance the two front yard side all that you know you can't I don't think you need to repeat
all the ordinance in these applications that's that's you know applicant has to do some due diligence to go through and the professionals that they use have to do that >> in effective because on quarter blocks that's
help everybody on quarter blocks. >> That's probably the glossery people understand why they're being already in the definition of terms in the in the ordinance. >> Oh yeah, sure. Probably that glossery can probably just several taken from the
ordinance, but it helps people out. Okay, Karen, I'm going to put you on the spot. >> Okay, my question is the application isn't changing. Am I correct? >> This is a checklist, not an application. >> No, the application, brand new application. >> It comes with an application and a
checklist. So, the application is not changing. >> Yes, it is changing 100%. >> Okay. It is. All right. My question about the glossery is that anyone that's going to any board has to go to the zoning officer. The zoning tells them what board to go to and explains what he
is going to the board for. So I don't know exactly why that's totally necessary. Okay. >> Well, I think the glossery also tells you about each one of these, you know, sideyard setback. >> Well, that he'll tell me because you see
it's sideyard set. >> He would tell them, but it's good to have it on the application. So the thought the thought on having um we didn't call it gloss we call it construction which include key terms and the intent we spoke about it was really
um you know due respect to humans right how can you make this clear about talking to people right like to get your best first start right you go you go online package in the secretary's office like you look at this thing the mo to the greatest degree possible self and you don't have to talk to talk to talk
to any to the greatest degree possible. Never ever get everybody all the time, >> but they do have to get the letter from zoning off to go to the board. >> Understood. And this wasn't changing the zoning the zoning review process. >> That's that's standard operation,
>> right? And if you go in and talk to the zoning officer and if it were me, I'd come out of there and say, "Wait, what did he say about that?" You know? So, I think this is very helpful. Because usually I will be honest. They
make an appointment, they come in and talk to the zoning officer, then he looks at the zoning, you know, everything and he discusses it in length with them. But I understand. Okay. And uh >> so hang on. Hang on. So what's the action on this one? >> Nothing,
>> right? >> Okay. I think it's a little busy, too. I wish there was a little more space involved in this, you know, but that's me. All right. One thing that I don't understand I don't really feel for me that you need
that 200 list for completeness. The 200 list is for public hearing and a lot of times if they not coming to the board say they like here we have a couple that are at the board of adjustment that it may be over the time and they're going
to have to get another list. So I feel the list of the 200 you know within the 200 would be in the checklist but said for the public hearing. >> Are you talking about the 200 foot notification the legal notification?
>> No. Yes, right. That that that's not the question to our change >> the 200 foot that they've been talking about just right here that picture it's not not the name of property owners in 200 >> um I'm talking well I think it's not in
there the 200 list it's in there >> no you're talking about two different things >> I'm talking about that list I'm talking about >> you're talking about the 200 foot notice list is that >> yes and I feel that should be in there it should be part of the checklist but
it should be for the public hearing. >> It is. >> Oh, no. But doesn't does it say public hearing? You don't have to have the list for the for the for the completeness. That's what I'm saying because my situation is
>> okay. Well, >> so I would as as a chair, I would prefer for completeness because what if it knocks on my board members off? I would rather I would rather know that at time of completeness because that board member wouldn't be voting on um any waiverss associated with the
application. >> They don't have to do the mailing. They just have to tell us the list. >> All right. >> I think it's the only way for the board chair to know if any member have or the members have to refuse themselves. >> Well, I think they know basically like
that Mr. Webster, he does plumbing work and he also uh you know, but that's different than 200. That was my >> that's just a conflict. That's not necessarily on the 200 foot list,
>> right? Okay. And that's all I think it's a very complete list. I think it's good. >> Okay. >> Just my comments. >> All right. Thank Thanks, Karen. Um, as far as comments from Liz, so I'll go back to Liz, but I just want to read an
email that I got from her back in September of last year. She said, "Hi, Mike. I have no real concerns about the draft checklist. They look good to me. If Bill Ryden is okay with them, I'm okay." That was her feedback. So, what I'll do is I'll go back to her again and
I'll tell her about this discussion and I'll ask her if she's got any questions. When this comes back to us for another review, then it should go to Liz and everybody else. I mean, this will definitely come back to us for review
before it goes for a um ordinance. >> Correct. And I want to talk about that because I I need if nobody else needs it, I need clarity on how it's going to do. >> Absolutely. But I don't I I agree with you. I don't disagree. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> All right. Fair. Fair enough. Um the next one is attach a copy of the proposed legal notice. >> Um do we do that today? >> Yes, >> we do. Yeah. >> Okay. So,
>> but that's important because they could miss something in their notice >> and and it's also for our attorney to review and make sure that know all the variances or or the waiverss or what are included in there. >> Well, typically it changes. That's I
think that was one of the reasons why I I I left it out here >> because the draft they made it throws they throw something together what they think they're going to need. When we get there, we say, "Oh, we need for this waiver for that." And then they have to review. So, >> but we have to have a starting point.
>> That's like said whatever the board likes. All right. Um, number eight, certification. >> Is that a yes or a no? >> Uh, I would say that's a yes. Okay. >> Um, certification that applicant is owner or has given consent to applicant
to file on owner's behalf. Has it like is that an issue? >> So, we we have on the application you we ask for the the applicant's name and address and information and the owner's name and address etc. And then both have to
So I don't know I'm not sure what percent mean by certification the signature is I guess is there I as Mr. I think that's exactly the the certification the applicant they could all say I'm the owner and you're good or
um is owner or has owner or has given consent file on behalf that would be the second one where the owner signs off. So I think they're both there since >> they're all here. >> Yes. And both sign. >> Yes. So they >> Well, they aren't on the new form. >> They were on the old form.
>> Yeah. >> I have the new form here. I guess everybody does. Application for subsite plan. Item one is the applicant's name and all their various information. Item two is the owner's name and all their information. And then the final page are
some there's some statements that they agreed to. I mean they close up the votes. >> Yeah. But but wait a minute then. Those are not those are not notorized either. >> Well, we're going to make them notorized. You said >> we're going to make them notorized. >> Well, that was one of the first items to
>> correct. >> So that's that's essentially the takes care of your certification. >> It doesn't that the applicant. Okay. The applicant I think it should be worded the way it
used to be. Okay. And and I like the fact that you know that that you have included in there that the sum's not expended in the review. I think that's great because it covers a whole variety of things. But I think if we go back to
the other way that it used to be um in the original form and I have so many papers here I can't tell you. But um the original form there were a couple places to be signed >> and it was owner applicant type of
thing. It had it had here the it had the uh that I'm the owner of the property and that kind of thing. Okay. Or that it could be the the um you're acting on behalf of the
>> I'll ask Mr. Mr. And we have they provide all that information in both sides. Is that does that satisfy their obligation? >> I'm not reading in front of you. I'll read it and make sure it satisfies them. I don't have >> And it's and it's the owner's consent to
make application, not necessarily the applicent >> consent. Yeah. >> And is this back to notary? What's required? Notary, witness, or act? >> Typically, they've been notorized. There's an attorney when when attorney
involved their office doesn't >> um but no, typically it's been you have to have notoriized >> and Karen is a notary, so that's not a problem for anybody. >> But also, I think like if it's an
attorney, they don't have to >> attorney. It's not it's >> the reason I think it's beneficial is that in in rental situations or other things it's too easy because people let that one go
sign that is going to just sign off on both and then it just goes through the person hasn't really done it. You got to know otherwise they have to prove who they are again and that's not that's in the very rare instances but it avoids that
might not know >> exactly. >> So Mr. Ryden can you send that information to review? You okay with that? >> Of course. >> But you can say no.
>> Anybody can have anything they want. Um, okay. Number nine, brief explanation of application hearing process. >> Okay. Um, number 10, location, size, and nature of all existing proposed rightway easements and other lands if any to be
dedicated to the burrow or others. >> It's just the others. Um, wherever public sewer, you talked about that. >> So, let me just follow up on that. So, we originally had sewer, yes or no. Water, yes or no. And
Mr. McCluskey asked if we would redefine that as public sewer and public water, yes. No, what I'm saying is they're certifying that it is it is connected to this public water and public sewer. >> Well, when they check that, I guess that's the certification. They sign off
and they notoriize the application. That's what they're doing. >> Well, we don't want to give them a choice. >> I'm not They're not asking for a choice. We're just asking to We want to know if it's served by public water or served by public sewer. >> I don't I'm not sure how you see the significance.
>> Yeah. moving forward. I'm just thinking that moving forward they would have to hook up. If they were they would have to hook up public school and I'm not sure what form of certification you use any different than any other statement they make on here. You don't stand for certification.
>> Okay. Just that the property is hooked up not a yes or no. The property is hooked up to >> All right. We can add a little few words in here. >> Public water and public sewer. >> Okay. So 11 will re number 12 is landscape plan.
So 13 I just have another just one other comment to piggy back on that is the size of the of the the plants the uh the scale rather. >> Okay. Yeah, that's that's covered on >> so
>> the front end of the application >> and that's the larger scale then. >> Yeah, we asked for three 24 by 36 plan. That's a standard engineer plan. 3 foot wide, two foot high. >> But you're talking about the scale. the scale like
>> one inch equals >> Well, we don't we're not specifying the scale. >> Yeah, we did. >> Excuse me. Can I just say that I've been asking like sometimes they'll ask if they can give smaller plants. Okay. I
asked for four large ones. Okay. So, each um >> we're talking about the scale, Karen. Just the scale of talking about how many copies. I'm just saying I prefer to And there's a copy in the office.
>> Okay. Do you have a preference? >> So what is normal? Like because we we ran into a problem with a couple of I don't remember the scale. Uh but we So I guess a 16th would be I I don't remember.
>> One in equals 30t or 50 feet. Yeah. >> Yeah. The the reason you asked for scale is you know somebody would come with tiny scale and you know you can't read anything. >> Obviously, we would reject that and have good grounds to if we can't read a plan,
we we can't rule on it. But we'll put a we'll put a scale right >> and it is in here somewhere and I'm not sure whether >> I don't think it is. It's not on the new >> scale shall equal 50T to the inch except for one acre or less the scale shall be
20 ft to the inch. >> Yeah. Yeah. Can we have to be a little flexible on that? You know, depending on the configuration of the plants, we'll we'll we'll put a couple ranges. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Okay.
Number 14, location type, size of electric, telephone, cable, television, and gas mains. Yeah. So the the U I I I see she wants us to point out where we do that's in that's in a different item.
>> Okay. Try to find it. A7 A7 on the subdivision subdivision water line. A7 slowly update here. So, what we're
really angry with, what should be in the application is requiring all documents to be at a standard scale appropriate standard scale that shows information legally appropriate for the size of the
parcel we're building because this so the content scale is back from the old days when everybody drew by hand and you had to set it at the very beginning, right? >> That's too that's just too broad. It doesn't tell anybody what they have to do. >> But it does. So, so, so if you're
working on the M&M project and you put an engineering skill, it's in a computer model and you can print it at one. >> Except Dave, that's exactly where we had the problem. They were allowed to do a smaller scale and um there were things
that were missed. >> Dave's in the business. He's the architect, right? Yeah. And nobody picked it up except for me. >> Okay. >> It was that was >> Yeah. So I I >> contention. >> It was intentional.
>> Yeah. So I think we should specify the scale and if they want to change it and we agree, we can always do that. >> Right. >> I I told you we're going to put it. >> Yeah. Good. >> Dave, what was your recommendation as a professional?
>> It doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. Okay. >> And and then the last one I had, this is just a suggestion. If you don't think it's appropriate, but I think it might be helpful if when they do it, they can list to their um all their professional.
We we ask for the uh engineer's name, survey, and the attorney. But uh you know, I I don't know that that an applicant wouldn't even know all them at the time. And so that would be cumbersome I think and and it doesn't I don't think it advances our position either to know
that at the point I was going to say what's the benefit of having >> I don't just information but I don't think it it really does anything >> maybe it could possibly change by the public hearing and all that kind of stuff. >> Yeah. Okay. We don't need that then.
>> Okay. Um let's quickly go down to Andrew Wolf's uh email. Uh, number one is just it's a statement. >> Can I just make one more comment? >> I really like the way you did these
charts on there. I think that really >> is is helpful for us. >> Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry. >> Um, so number two on Mr. Wolf's email
says it would be helpful to see the accompanying cover sheet. Will it include definitions and basic instructions? I do think we need them. I think we covered that. >> Correct. >> Glossery discuss. >> Correct. Correct.
>> Okay. Yeah, I think three we did cover as well. uh consider cross ref cross cross referencing the application to the municipal code where you
>> maybe just a reference that it's you know all that's online what is it code 360 or whatever that document is online people that on the website >> that would be in that what we call instruction or gloss sheet or all that
stuff the attachment website and all that number five. Yeah. Capture that. And then number six, um, this is commercial applications. This, a
lot of this, I think, would be in testimony. I think I should talk about this. So I don't think this is necessarily >> this is testimony on the record of the hearing
completeness and I know I beat this up completeness is not the adjudication of the of the of the matter of the application just to get it to get to and it should stay clean like that a bunch of binary things yes or no yes or no yes
or no we don't need you don't want to be prejudiced at all you know until we get Before we get agree agree here. >> Sorry. >> I just I have questions about this is um when I was doing my research on this, I
was looking up a bunch of towns and how they how they did their packings in particular in in um Andrew's comments on number six were the same comments I had submitted in the beginning about lighting and signage plans, elevation and floor plans. There was a couple of
them here. So, I want to understand why we're saying that should not be part of the >> application. It it is we're getting we're getting those we're getting >> I think >> but things like public open space and
hazardous material that all comes out of you know we don't we don't need to know that as a completeness again I I have to you know be focus real narrow >> maybe maybe I missed some of them because >> this is just for completeness of the
application you know I know but I had lighting and signage plans, elevation of floor plans. Maybe I missed it. Now my papers are all >> coingled. I'm not sure which is the latest >> pile I have in front of me. Um, and
those kinds of things. I just want to make sure that those are in there because now >> and you can get anything you can ask for anything you want once the hearing opens. >> Anything you want >> or you think is relevant.
Andy agree with that. Absolutely. only gets them today. >> So, I know we spoke about this earlier. I'm sorry. >> I do not. >> Um, so I know we spoke about this
earlier and having the professionals to complete the actually having them come into the board. Is that remaining the same? >> That's that's you're asking me. >> No, I'm asking the committee. I think >> that's That's procedure. That's the
board's prerogative. You can you can do that any way you like. There's nothing prescribed. And I'll look at Andy here. There's nothing prescribed in the land use. >> No, I think it would only be if they're if they're requesting a waiver, right? Then it's a good practice. You might want to put that request waiver. You need to either have the professionals
have to complete the scaring or not. >> I think you know just even the past two of them, right? I know that from what I recall there was talk about not you know you guys just reviewing the completeness and not having uh the applicant in here
I'm talking for the planning board anyway but there is a lot of dialogue that happens in these completeness hearings right and questions that do come up from board me so I think it's important to >> you're you're right that's when we hear the the waves we need we need to have
the applicant here to tell us why they want Let's just say I haven't had one yet since I've been sitting here where where the applicant 100% complete and if say that's the case I write member to the board say this is all complete ready to
be heard I don't think you need to say okay we agree to that hear it but you don't need you don't need anybody to to tell you anything because you already know >> I think it should be a it should be a practice thing where they're instrued that they
than they have to is technically the the checklist in the application is supposed to be that it's supposed to be set up so it's a set piece of information limited to finite terms they can submit it and they know they're complete if they ask for waiverss then it'll be a practice
but that that the presence this is like a logical thing the presence of a professional to talk about whether you're complete isn't really something on completeness it should be a practice if they want to waver they got they have to show up their professional explain why. >> So, is that standard or is that
something that we should add to this? >> I think I think it'd be a good thing to put on your instructor requesting a waiver. Um, >> and it could be one or 100 >> any waiverss got to have your professionals to explain >> appear with the board
>> the appropriate professional >> the appropriate professional professional. So we have a simple thing, right? Simple tiny front porch. They're eight square feet over on a residential and there's a wet there's a waiver request for wetland certification. Engineers should just there no I
recommend that this waiver be granted there's no wetlands within 500 miles when there's no need for Liz to come to that on a Dvarian when when you know it's the heaviest lift that that an applicant can make and there's waiverss on that application plan.
appropriate professional >> talking professional or the board's professional. You're talking about the board's profession. >> Yeah. >> Even if it is >> No, no, I think >> it should be really >> professionals are often here because
they do those completely here. But I think in the we've also run into one time, two times people, you know, have said, "All right, we'll do it. What can we do?" Okay, we'll make the changes, but we could just do completeness and the and the regular the same day, and I promise we'll get it
done. If you had your professionals here, that there's less of a risk of that happening. >> Yeah. And I mean, like there was a waiver they requested on the the uh property on Mountain Way uh steep slopes. I mean, come on. We >> Anybody that drove by that property
knows there's no steep slopes there. No question. You know, so ities in the instruction. I think that'd be a good place to go. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I mean that that part of the process I think has run pretty well, right? >> I I agree. Yeah.
>> So I think it was just a matter of the you know the 57 pages of application that we distilled down to to a more manual list of things. So >> that was just my concern that that may have changed or gone by the wayside or
what have you. But I think Yeah. No. And this this doesn't set up any policy of practice of the board. That's that's that's the board and chair. >> We're not getting into >> Okay. And I think if it So, how do you
handle if it's something silly? Okay. a steep slope on a in a desert or you know wetlands in a desert whatever I mean how do you >> I I I was simply say in my report you know that they Steve slope waver
requested I recommend it right but I'm not going to pro provide like a narrative on why >> so that's what I'm saying so you just gonna you always do that recommener >> well not always >> no or it's a board's decision whatever right you have that on there
>> but What what brings that person in here? So any waiver is it any waiver? >> I think so. >> I think so because you never know the board who's going to have a question. >> Correct. Correct. >> Mr. B, correct me if I'm wrong, but the planning board's the only one that can vote on the waivers. The professionals
can't determine waivers are good enough. Right. >> Professionals recommend board acts. >> Correct. Right. So if there's any waiver at any point, the board has to take action. If there's any waiver recommended or asked for, the board has to take action.
>> Absolutely. My cl what I was trying to clarify is is any waiver, no matter what, >> right? >> Even they it's a waiver in a desert for wetland. No matter what that is, they're they're coming here. That's just >> that's why I think that's a good
practice. >> So, we don't do that on board of adjustment on this on the small residential stuff. We like this the small residential the homeowner puts it in and maybe three or four months later shows up for the year.
>> Well, I would have to say Dave the chair of each board can make those that that's how you run your board. That's how >> because often I mean we do have those but does have questions. >> Yeah. So it's not on a checklist, right?
the fact that you don't the zoning board won't need it for them to be deemed complete but the planning board will said if you're looking for a waiver and coming to the planning board you can handle that as your own policy >> I mean would it be beneficial to make it
and if this is not not a highly encouraged suggestion hey you're requesting any waivers bring a professional if you feel like you can argue it yourself great but we have and then say no, we don't have >> Well, they're not a professional.
>> I mean, no, but to say my yard is not a steep slope and wet, you know, >> I'm just I'm just saying, you know, I mean, something like that, it seems a lot to bring, but put it on them, you know, it is on them. If they don't show
up with a professional, then the board's not going to grant the waiver. And I think all I'm saying is disclose that really clearly in our in our uh you know guide book instructions and then we're in the clear, you know. >> Okay. Any other comments from the board?
>> Yeah, I have one other comment. So the current packet on the website it says to contact the secretary for information. Is that what you guys were thinking going forward? Is there reason why we can't have the whole packet on the
website? >> I think you can, but you're still going to have questions. If there's a question, you shouldn't be somebody, right? So, >> but you know, if someone's Saturday afternoon, >> you have everything there and someone why do I do? >> Yeah, I'm just saying >> where's the link? I can't
>> true. So, I'm just saying, you know, if you're a homeowner or something and it's a Saturday or it's a Sunday and you're trying to look for information, might be helpful to have it out there. It's not saying it's going to change any of the questions that they're going to have. But I think it might be helpful. >> Yeah, I think if they put E code on
there, right, where they can reference that kind of stuff, I would certainly put a number to >> be on the say they're not there now. What's not >> these documents aren't it says for let's see
um >> currently it says to contact the secretary for the information so Karen you have to give everybody >> I can do the application but I believe within the land development ordinance the checklist are in there aren't they used to >> yes they are
>> so everything is online that >> not really clear about where >> the application itself is not online right the the checklists are I I was >> but see also you have to remember they definitely have to go maybe this is
going to change they have to go to the zoning officer to go to the board that's how it's set up now unless you're changing that >> well we're not changing any of those office policies >> you have to call yes and like there'll
be sometimes people will call and talk to Dono I scan in the application to it. Not that I, you know, they'll get it online that way. That's what I'm saying. >> I think with the instruction sheet and some of those instructions and direct
them to certain places, I think that that will alleviate some of the calls into her office. >> This is something we're posting online to include a link in the document. >> That's
our goal, right, Mr. Houston? Our goal is to get like fillable PDFs, right? >> Yep. Fillable PDFs online. We can just run through and >> once we get the final form set, everybody's agreed on we'll >> work on that. >> Right.
>> As I mean Karen, you remember years ago when people would change the document and eliminate parts of it. >> Do you I I know exactly who did it and it was it was horrible. It was a total
horrible thing. They took the application and they made it look exactly like the application and they changed it. They changed numbers >> to eliminate certain eliminated things. It was it was very very bad.
>> Yeah. I think we're beyond that now. >> Right. >> Okay. And it's on completeness. So So back to completing by the recently updated by support of adjustment have the process on complete.
So um it's if there's waivers requested any item the board shall at it next regular special meeting not 45 days submission decide whether or not requested the applicant should be notified doesn't require them to come but I'd say more
times than not if it's if it's typically maybe even without exception on the application for completeness for non-residential attorney is required to show up
attorney professionals as completely formed forms shouldn't um form shouldn't have overlap. >> Yeah, I personally don't know if our bylaws have that. I'm not even sure I
have the right. >> Okay, I can I >> Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Okay. Any any other comments? Okay, so um so Can we com I I want to commit to having
the committee review what we talked about tonight and have input back by April 3rd, which is about 3 weeks from today roughly. >> Yep. >> Okay. Um and then the planning board
once we get that information back, I'd like to get comments again back from the board by about April 13th. So it's about 10 days. And then at our planning board meeting in April, we can rehash or review what we've just talked about here
and making sure that it's been translated into the documents that we expect. >> Can we redline these documents going forward now since we're just refining some of it? It'd be a lot easier to track it now >> based on the feedback that we have. I
think we have a good working document and these changes if we could redline them, it would be so much >> we could what we're talking about tonight. We can highlight the red light. >> Yeah, >> that should >> Yeah, that would be really helpful. >> Okay, so April 3rd
committee gets the updates, planning board gets comments back by April 13th, and then the planning board will discuss again what might be the final next week all this
>> I'm serious conversation and then if I'm not mistaken once this gets to the point where Mr. Houston takes this back to council that's considered first read and then
that would come back to us anyway so >> yeah for review Right. >> No, no, it has, but I'm just >> consistency. >> Yeah, I'm trying to think. Doesn't really change the regulation. Doesn't change the regulate. It's not It doesn't regulate land.
>> Might not. Yeah. It doesn't regulate land. Still have to do two readings, but it's just an amendment to an existing. >> Yeah. And it doesn't regulate the land. It regulates application for doing something. So, >> I don't think it comes back. >> Okay. Good. And is that regardless of
whether the council has comments or not >> because during the first comments then that'll change everything, right? So >> obviously >> well the council could shove it down your throat. Not that they don't want to but they don't actually have to listen. They want to and it be a silly thing to do.
>> So I think that if they decided to change it, they would probably necessarily send it back because they're not. They are listening to you >> because keep in mind the council hasn't seen this officially at all. So, so after this is done, it goes to the council. The council has an opportunity to review and provide their own
comments. >> It may not even be introduced until they get their comments, but they may be okay with it. And it gets introduced. They may not even introduce because they have >> after it comes here and you guys this board okay it'll
pass it out to the other board's amended introduction. Yeah, makes sense. Okay. Okay. Um, Mr. Schot. >> Uh, okay. I'll close that portion of the
agenda now. Um, new business. Does anybody have day business tonight? Bye. >> No, no new business. Okay. Um, our last item on the agenda tonight is our executive session. Uh, we have one topic
uh tonight. And at this point, I'll have Mr. Bur read the resolution. >> No. >> Good night, sir. Resolution authorizes resolution authorizing close session purses resolved by the Morris Plains Planning
Board in the County of Morris and state of New Jersey on the 16th day of March 2026 as