I now call to order the meeting of the township of Morris planning board to for Monday March 3rd um the legal notice required in accordance with the open public meetings act has been satisfied and a statement certifying same will be
executed you U please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands you do the roll
call here here here here here here here here here Warner here pH here here
[Laughter] look behind uh and your microphone on everyone's on I have nothing to say anyway sure okay we actually welcome back we' missed another meeting or two so it's
nice to see everyone again uh number of things on on the uh agenda tonight um but there may be some confusion over the role and some of the items on the agenda so Warner you want to kind of explain the role of the public in this meeting
certainly Mr chairman we do have but sometimes our board has master plan consistency reviews part of the process when ordinances are adopted uh that relate to Land Development and uh quick primer if I may you know if you give me
the floor Mr chair while my apologies but but the governing body uh our Township committee uh introduces as it does in all municipalities introduces ordinances when they relate to Land Development the
planning board plays a role in and it's a very narrow role in reviewing the ordinance for master plan consistency uh and generally and certainly this evening I anticipate the board will hear from our planner Mr Phil
uh the best and uh the uh uh and we'll hear whether or not in his opinion it's consistent with the master plan or not and then the board uh will render a determination accordingly has virtually nothing uh if if nothing at all to do
with the substance and policy of the ordinance uh it simply is a a a strict determination whether it's consistent or not with the master plan per the ad device of our planner it is not a public hearing however there is a public
Hearing in the process as perhaps everyone knows and that is that after the ordinance is introduced which are these four ordinances relating to tree removal uh rezoning site plan waivers uh and and and uh certain cannabis Zone
being designated those four ordinances will have a hearing on each and every one of those on second reading by the governing body it's my understanding all four at least presently are slated for second read in public hearing on March
19th please correct me if I'm wrong um so that is the opportunity for the full public hearing for all members of the public to be heard on the ordinance uh specifically with respect to uh policy Etc you know the actual ordinance itself
this is very narrow uh and it's just a planning determination made by the planner and usually followed by the uh by the planning board uh and then it moves it on if you will to The Next Step so to the extent people are here for
those any or all of those ordinances uh you certainly can stay this is an open public meeting but I didn't want and I know the board didn't want anyone to misconstrue and think that there was a public hearing on any or all of those ordin
and that members of the public would be able to speak to their views on the ordinance that happens on March 19th with respect to all of them so as a courtesy wanted to make sure nobody stayed any longer than they might otherwise want to everyone's welcome to
stay all night long uh as far as I'm concerned I'm sure as far as the board's concerned may I ask for some clarification on that as a member of the public otherwise maybe I won't stay here tonight yes no no that's why we made the announcement now because don't really want people to have to stay around if they don't get a chance to speak thank
you not I've not been to a planning board meeting in some time so some clarification on this for myself and some other members here might be helpful uh Paul Stouts I live at 29 oaklan in mors Township um so you're telling us that you're going to look at the master plan tonight I'm I'm speaking
specifically to the Cannabis uh applic or uh matter so if I have concerns about how the master plan is going to look at cannabis and Township I would have an opportunity to question what you're discussing tonight or comment on that tonight or one or the
other it's it's not a public hearing and it the master plan as it presently exists and our planner can correct me if I'm wrong but is what our planner will opine by in other words if somebody believes the master plan should change
in the future that's not within the jurisdiction of the board this evening there's no master plan before for the board this is simply here is an ordinance uh it relates to Land Development Mr ultimately we'll get there Mr Phillips in your opinion is it
consistent or inconsistent with the master plan and why he will advise the uh board and then the board will uh most likely take his recommendation based on his opinion and and uh find that it either is or is not consistent with the
master plan and then regardless of what the the board finds in that regard it moves to the governing body having given this board that referral opportunity on that one narrow issue and then a full-fledged public hearing on all
aspects uh of the ordinance including perhaps if one wishes to say I think the plan the master plan should change in the future in order to say this or that relative to that ordinance I would think that that would be relevant at that time
for that public hearing so there's a little if any limitation on what you can raise during the public hearing but in the ordinance process pursuant to statute the municipal land use law specifically there is only one public hearing opportunity and that is an
appropriately so in front of the governing body who will either adopt an ordinance or not or amend it or what Happ so you're telling me then that a member of the public can't uh have any sort of influence for or against a this hearing tonight because because there is
no hearing tonight uh then then then uh generally yes that's correct be because the only issue is the master plan consistency as the master plan presently exists in the view of uh the professional planner for the board uh
and then I it's left to the board but all all things are fair game if you will that are relevant to the any ordinance at the time of the public hearing before the governing on second read before anything is adopted amended or not adopted you know
whatever so we can stick around and and listen tonight but no question or comment uh it generally that is the process unless anybody changes that process it's not required and it's ordinarily not a public hearing very good thanks for the clarification sure under the municipal andus law I very
good understood okay thank you sure so I just reiterate you know you will not have a chance to comment on the on the our discussion of the uh consistency of the master plan tonight but you're certainly welcome to stay in
hear what you know what is said and how it may fit in and I encourage everyone to actually stay and always like to see people at planning board and get familiar with the processes and how it works just for future future reference if nothing else so thank
you okay moving on first item on the agenda is uh two we have two resolutions um for the memorialized past actions of the board um first one is pb6 24 do you
want to summarize that Mr Warner certainly Mr chairman that was the Red Oaks School resolution in connection with the proposal to install facade signage on school building uh and uh the board uh will
recall that uh uh the board ultimately unanimously that that application uh and also there was a little bit of a miscommunication I guess by applicants team if I recall correctly
as to a certain additional sign whether it we staying or going uh and that was ultimately ironed out uh and clarified that indeed that the sign was a permanent sign was staying uh there were numerous conditions of approval uh including relative to the uh dimming of
the lighting after certain hours 10 the hour between 10 P p.m. and 6:00 amm and other conditions to mitigate any potential detriment uh to any neighbors uh and hopefully the resolution accurately memorializes the board's
unanimous uh decision to approve it Mr chairman make a motion that we accept this resolution as drafted second may I make a comment certainly thank you Mr chairman on uh page five under item
13 uh number two it does indicate that the freestanding sign uh shall be removed we in fact changed that did later you read later oh I read okay I did read all right I need to read
more so uh I uh second that weend board member Murphy uh that you know probably in hindsight rather than do it one way for the one day and then do the correction uh we could have right just gotten to the final conclusion ultimately so as to avoid any confusion
but thank you that's the I just wanted to make sure we didn't set something in place Lind I did the same thing I read and I said this isn't correct and then I kept read okay so it is correct as it was it was to perhaps too comprehensive took us what it was one day to the next
day when it changed okay uh any other comments questions okay can you call the RO yes yes Mr rabbit yes M Mercy yes Mr yes
Mr flowers yes yes yes okay oh sorry okay moving on to the second one for consider resolution PBO 724 the uh Madison Avenue
renewable AKA Restoration Hardware yes chairman happy to that one up as well uh the board will recall this was did you all get this by the way today yes yes was emailed thank you George thank you for S I didn't credit well
yeah what was amended preliminary fin s plan approval and some proposed deviations uh from the requirements of the Redevelopment plan for what we refer to colloquially I don't know that as the
ABY uh and uh uh at 355 Madison Avenue um the a lot of the dev aboard will recall related to certain amenities and features um which had been very specifically provided for in the
Redevelopment plan and ultimately through certain iterations were no longer completely accurate as reflected in the Redevelopment plan and that I apologize for adding some judgment but that that that probably resulted in a
lot of the deviations being necessary from a technical standpoint um and uh it was a unanimous approval 90 by the board uh to make those changes and as always we had our
fair share uh of uh conditions of approval uh there and hopefully as always we accurately memorialized the decision of the board as well as included all the conditions of approval to mitigate any potential detriment as a result of the
approval Mr chairman I'd like to make a motion that we ac approve the resolution is drafted second any comments I have a question ahead for Mr Warner which is can you um perhaps just summarize the changes from from the
original because I have to confess that I didn't have time this afternoon to review this thoroughly because I only received it in the middle of the afternoon to toward the latter part of the afternoon certainly yeah I don't uh the um
let's see well a couple of I I'll go through a few in no particular order or of magnitude but the valley parking uh no longer was required uh to exist given uh some reductions in the size of some of the
footprints and some other changes with respect to the restaurant and the wine bar as I recall um which uh alleviated the need for off-site parking of any type and the valet and I think well I
don't want um certainly that was a deviation that the board did not appear to have a significant problem um the uh several others were some setbacks and uh perp perpendicular parking
stalls um you know came into play uh uh as well as a lot of features were uh eliminated or changed the square footage of the restaurant and the wine bar uh uh changed uh the square
footage of the showrooms changed somewhat uh some of the know there were a lot of features canopies and trellises that were very specifically defined as to where they'd be located and different types of uh features wall mounted scon
sconces and uh fountains and sculptures and waterall features and the like climbing vines on trellises on exterior walls Mediterranean and similar species of fruit trees uh within the proposed restaurant as a means to create dappled
shade Etc where there was a very specific uh and a wonderful I think Redevelopment plan but as often is the case the ultimate project isn't an exact mirror of the original concept um so
that again caused resulted uh naturally in my opinion of uh there being a fair number of deviations at this point in time um s Heights of some pillars number of identification signs I think there were more directional signs
added uh that may have been viewed as uh uh adding to safety and location identification uh so hopefully that gives everybody a fair idea of what the deviations of the changes were I seem to remember that the new building is
actually a little bit less tall it's slightly shorter than than it was originally proposed to be correct that that that's another it I if I recall correctly I think it's fair to say that a number of the deviations might have been things that
were originally desired by maybe some members of the public and and neighbors and the like stuff some change is good change perhaps right yeah right I remember liking it better than the
original I just wanted to make sure that it was memorialized properly in here and seems to be thank you sure my pleasure any other questions comments okay we have a motion could you V call Vote Yes is order yes Mr flowers yes Mr
R yes m m yes Mr yes Mr yes Mr yes goodbye yes oh so we have one application for public hearing tonight to move on to before we move on to other matters on that's pb125 do you want to introduce
that Sonia yes Mr chairman this is pb12 M project owner LLC for an amended site plan this is 8404 lot 6 one com Road in the o5 zone applicant proposes the installation of
spring lights outdoor speakers and outdoor leers for the use of the patio all year round Mr Warner certainly Mr chairman thank you I did have an opportunity to review the notice for this hearing uh found the content to be sufficient found
it to be timely served a certified mail on February 11 published on February 16 both at least 10 days in fact more than 10 days prior to this evening uh so my opinion the board does have jurisdiction based on the notice to hear and decide the
application uh and I'll swear in all the witnesses when appropriate but I suspect Mr chairman you want to hear from applicants Council first yes let thank you please go ahead thank you good evening Linda hurle he with rer Danzig representing the applicant this evening
uh CHC Madison project owner LLC uh which is the owner and operator of The Madison Hotel located on on the property um as you will recall the applicant was um before this board received approval back in October to construct a patio at
the Northeast side of the building um during that hearing there were questions from the board and some discussion regarding flights music and use of the patio during the winter months uh none of which was proposed by
the applicant at that time um after the hearing and that approval the applicant went back and there were some internal discussions and and they've had a change of heart and would indeed like some greater flexibility in the use of the patio so they're back before you this
evening seeking an amendment to the prior approval um solely for the installation um as Sonia mentioned string lights speakers and year round use of the patio um the string lights are similar to what
you may have in your backyard um type of lighting the same with the speakers they're not professional speakers they're typical backyard Bluetooth type speakers um and as far as the year round use there would be um heaters not
permanent heaters as um may have been originally indicated but they'd be portable heaters again as you may have in your backyard that they would roll in and out as as needed um for use during the winter months um no other changes is proposed to the patio um and the
Landscaping that went along with it or goes along with it to the the original approval um and no change to any any zoning requirements or any of the bulk standards or anything else that was that was part of the original application um
Michael Murray the general manager of the hotel is here this evening to testify basically to tell you similar to what I just told you about what what they'd like to do and and why um and the landscape architect or our landscape architect Barry yaker is also here if
the board has any questions um I don't intend to call him up and ask him any questions there really isn't much changing Tom you do have his plans and he's added a couple of strings to show you where the string lights would be and a couple of uh locations of the three speakers and that's really the only
changes to his plan but if you do have questions he's here tonight to to answer those okay um thanks but you will you you do have I do have why don't you bring he can be sworn in or I'll them both in just in
case any questions are answered as well as our engineer planner for our board if all four of you will raise your right hand do Mr 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 back to you Mr chairman okay Mich if you would just remind the board your um yes so originally we came in and I'm sorry just a name and address business address fine for the record
name and address Michael Murray name and the address is W Convent Road The Madison Hotel and your and he testifying as a fact witness correct correct no need to qualify we're all fact Witnesses by definition okay please proceed so during the last hearing we
spoke briefly about why we didn't add the speaker so when I went back to the CEO he go why don't you add the speakers why don't you add the string lights so now I see you guys I think we as that question I remember making a very specific point about and that's why we're
here okay are there any questions I have I have one question um on exhibit a that came to us just for clarification it references in the last sentence permanent outdoor heers although I just heard that they're portable so they are
in fact going to be portable like you like we saw during Co they they just kind of move around right yep that's correct okay see the propane one you like outdoor dining kind of a typo permanent is a typo on okay yes Mr rabbit I've I've got a
couple of questions and it's welcome back because this was completely predictable uh on the string lights um any mitigation onto the for the lighting to um stop it from bleeding into this into the night sky and in that regard I
mean I'm familiar with string lights they're usually the LED The Old Edison kind of bulbs that you know but is there anything that keep it from um bleeding it to the night sky I mean I think given the um the distance the location of the
patio from the property lines and where it is behind the building that I don't think you problem another quick question on on the speakers and and speaker volume we talked about Bluetooth speakers some of them can get pretty loud I know again where the patio is
located that may or may not be an issue but I what are your plans for uh having parties you know you know turn into you know Raves and you know with loud um music playing that would be you know disruptive to the
neighbors so T time timing wise um for both the speakers and um and then with respect to lights the lights as well um they would be um an event and certainly the speakers would be off by um 10 pm and then we
would ask that the lights may stay on Till 11: if everything shuts down at 10: just to have the lights outside to clean up and and break down whatever may have been been going on so from from a timing perspective it wouldn't noise wouldn't go or the speakers wouldn't be on past
10 p.m On Any Given evening um we would comply with the noise ordinance as we have to for anything that we we do outside um and then I'll let Michael also discuss um when we were at the TCC meaning the TCC had asked about um
having a um a noise study done after the speakers were in when they were sort of up and up and running and there was an event um but I'll let Michael speak to what what they do currently out there and what we'd like to propose as far as being able to um measure the sound and
and prove that the speakers are at a level that that doesn't um exceed the the standards so for the most part what we host there is baby showers birthdays by mitz fuz so I don't know if we're gonna have too many Raves but um the
speakers are JBL they're 45 watt uh automobile car has 50 watt speakers we'll keep it at 65 DB I do have deel reader from our last reading in 2019 which we use around the property continuously every weekend so we're
we're adhering to the deal law so what I heard then is that since you have that ability to measure the sound that uh we can stipulate that they will uh measure sound during events to uh make sure that they're in compliance with the the decal
levels that are in our ordinance or yes couple things on on that note uh we did recommend all the board professionals a post occupancy acoustical study demonstrating compliance with applicable noise
standards are ordinances consistent with the D's ordinance reg and regulation 7 Callum 29 uh uh 50 DB in the evening maximum and 65 during the daytime evening is 10: p.m. to 7: a.m. if I recall correctly
that's at the property line right at the property line um and so they would have to be in compliance with that as would any one anyway um but this post occupancy acoustical study that the applicant is stipulating to we just just to be just to be clear what we'd like to
do in lie of having um I'll say an outside company come in with a deciel meter and do that um we'd like to use our own decibel meter with someone from the township there in know you know yeah as we do it excuse me our health
director is certified for sound reading so that's our noise control officer right yeah um so I uh if it's acceptable to our health director in his or her role his his role
her her role as noise control officer to have someone else do it in her presence uh I guess fine if not maybe it's we leave it subject to the discretion of the health director to make that
determination who does the measuring whether she wants to do it or correct yes that that's that's fine with us we were just in reading the TCC memo in Prior discussions we just wanted to clarify as opposed to having to engage an outside consultant to do it that we
have our noise control offic correct yeah and if I can add we have at least three members of the board who live very close to your facility I hear the weddings all the time happily it's a joyous occasion but I do hear it no no one within 200 ft though as I understand
at least 500 um the we do also have other conditions that will recommend including a lights out time frame for that but she said she said speakers off by 10 and
lights allowing T 11 to allow clean up and perfect that that's what was so thank just one quick question so on the heaters they're the toall the heaters that you normally see outside is there a limit to how many what's the number of
heaters that you plan to have or chief is there a standard of how many heaters all they have to do is here to the obviously the manufacturers specifications and they're all subject to a code fire code okay so you don't have five of them out there
they can that's going to become an issue much stuff on do you know yet how many heaters you don't know yet would uh would the applicant stipulate uh stealing everybody's thund to Chief I don't know if they'll let
me the uh uh our our chief who's uh uh did uh uh request that the applicant uh do what the applicant has to do by law anyway which is comply with all manufacturer specs in accordance of the uniform fire so I take it the stipulate
yes thank you yeah Mr I have a question about the string lights I think of string lights as being kind of omnidirectional uh are these lights going to just direct down toward the area where people are sitting or or are they going to spill over into other
areas beyond the foliage and and uh I think I saw on the plan that the the string lights will be mounted on poles that are 16 feet high that seems very high to me possibly higher than the
vegetation so is that the case if the answer is answer is going to come from a witness the witness will need to be identified yes thank you he's already under Ro yes
just state your name and address please for the Barry Yer 28k Del speaking of the microphone Barry yaker yaker S the address business business is
um uh 36 Berkshire Valley Road Kenville and why don't you before you answer the question give the board um the benefit of your ground education experience understood brand new application so it's you don't carry over from last time although they might
remember you okay I'm a licensed landscape architect microphone yeah thanks thanks they can hear you but not me uh I'm a licensed landscape architect in New Jersey been practicing for over 20
years um testified before I was here before on this application license remains good standing yes and you were accepted by this board recently then you will accept again respect to the question 16 foot was just um because of
a sag in the you know a little bit of a sag in in the um string lights uh does it B16 we could we could bring it down a little bit but your your plant material your arbit body are going to grow thin and Tall they're going to eventually
cover that I forget what we put them in at um I put them in pretty decent size um and as far as the lights as you know with string lights they're they provide light not tremendous so like you're not going to
read by it but it's just to illuminate the whole area it's in a zigzag so it's not too many lights uh we're trying to be conscious of what's going on in the out you know outside and they tend to spill lights uh light in all directions
right string lights send light in every direction you get yes generally they they just have a small bulb on them and yes they they spill up but it's it's mainly a down drag everything is within the planting area so it should not you
know spill out on the other side of the art variety every you're there to close everything in even if it did spill out on the other side it's not going to parking right it's in the parking area and it's not gonna it's not going to show very
much okay thank you any other questions he okay um then I what oh oh yes this is public hearing any questions of these Witnesses by the public thank you thank
you thanks I thought you forgot about me I I did for minute but thank you Mr Warner for reminding uh Megan bark a sheer place so I've lived uh lived here since 2007 which is long enough to uh get Mr Murray's crack when he came in that at
least this was easy and that he wasn't proposing a dome um but uh anyway so I came because I'm concerned about the noise and the lights uh we live about a block block and a half away from the back of the um Madison Hotel um I live
there with my husband and my four children um and we hear the noise from the events that are staged in the parking lot of the hotel from time to time that noise travels to all the backyards on Shephard um and even barbery as well um interrupt you for a
good reason I problems with the chair's permission um if you're not asking questions or only questions but wish to make comment as well do you want me toit chair's position permission I could swear you in that way you can make com
as testimonial sure sorry maybe I jumped the gun no no problem but you can also ask questions as well okay so you'll raise your right hand you swear to God our affirmative testimony you're about to give and that which you have already given is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you
very much please continue so anyway so the noise does travel to our yards and that's our concern with regard to the patio uh being the speakers being added to the patio and also the lighting um I can hear the
noise from the games at fdu so thinking that noise is going to travel especially in the evening from the patio in the backyard in the back of the hotel is not a stretch for us uh so I've listened here tonight I understand that you're willing to stipulate that the noise will shut down at 10: uh to me that's still
that's still late right this is a a change from what we're used to um and you are still somewhat newer owners in my opinion at the hotel um but this is a neighborhood uh that is a very old neighborhood it's a very um a very close
neighborhood and you happen to have bought a establishment that's in the middle of a a very nice residential neighborhood and so you need to be mindful of your neighbors uh and and this I consider is something that's going to have a real impact on us um I also it's unclear to me I mean they just
came back for a second bite at the Apple which I found disappointing um everybody on this board I'm a town volunteer myself um we spend a lot of time and they now have to hear this application all over again um and so I don't know what would stop you from coming back
again and saying well actually we would like to extend our liquor license to the back patio um you know there's potential for cigarette smoke marijuana smoke that's going to float right down the block into all of our backyards that's why you have an outdoor patio you don't have an outdoor patio to do what you
represented at the previous meeting which was to have you know know businesses and clients have a place to go outside in the back right you're doing it to make money so um I would just appreciate it if everyone you know would be honest with us um so but that those are my main concerns I asked the
board to take that into consideration uh the other thing is that as a member of edak uh we spent the last few years putting together the Madison Avenue Corridor study which some of the members of the planning board are certainly familiar with um I was part of that that
was presented to the township committee uh I believe referred to the planning board uh to be included as in as part of the master plan reexamination uh I went back and read that document again before I came here tonight and there was nothing in there that suggested to me it
was something that the residences or the businesses had in mind uh when we were thinking about what we wanted to see along the Madison Avenue Corridor uh it certainly was and what I see eventually down the road what this patio could become so thank you that's um I think
that that basically covers my concerns thanks thank you any other think we take questions or comments yeah questions yeah questions or comments since okay seeing none I guess we will close that portion but there any
response to to that close concerns and some of it is just like because it's not really scope creep but creep in the and the actual use and activity of what might be there understood and while I wasn't um I
wasn't here at the last Mr he was but I think even from the board members um responses tonight that it was certainly what we're asking for is certainly something that you were anticipating um they may have said they wanted to do with the at the last at the
last hearing that it wasn't um um outside of the scope of possibility for the for the patio and while they hadn't um originally proposed it and they were they stuck to what they thought you know what their original application was um we've said it just you know it was a it
was a change of heart afterward um the use of the patio do is isn't changing as far as um the activities that are going to be out there and the applicants represented what those activities are going to be and I think that that you know they're entitled to the benefit of
of you know the testimony under oath and the represent ation to you as to as to what it's going to be and whether there's um you know to choose the speakers for example whether there's there are speakers there um we still have to comply with the noise level whether it's just speakers or whether
it's a group of people you know gathered so um quick quick question what is the intended use of the speakers I mean is it like for just ambient music or you public address kind of you know DJ
yeah it's solely for ambient music okay that's all so there won't be a you know microphone public you know address system connected to them and the applicant would the applicant stipulate to that as a condition of approval if the board were
to approve this application and uh would be of a mindset to accept such a condition in other words ambient music no Amplified M uh no Amplified music I guess or band I don't know well it is
Amplified okay right 45 watts each speaker is 45 Watts 45 how many speakers like just speakers three no okay is there ambient music only no live music
correct is that a condition the appli sated to if that desire if we were to have live music it wouldn't be hooked up to the speakers okay so so no ambient music or live music acoustic
not Amplified is that something yeah yeah in other words they don't want to condition away what they would otherwise be permitted to do by way of live music but they're not going to hook this up put aand them up into Bob Dylan's not going
electric okay yes he yes too late uh I I think the applicant just stipulated to that okay chairman I'm sorry um the resin has a good she has a good
point because the the the Evergreens probably will not attenuate the the sound very much um is there any other sound attenuation you could put in there to to block the
sound um you know so that it does a better job than just letting it float out some sort of screen or what said sorry well some sort of sound training for example like you know at at Madison Avenue they they put a whole different
I'm not saying you should do this they put a whole row of of bushes who's designed to prevent the sound from from going through um so maybe there is some sort of sound wall or something that you can
put up that would not be ugly you want to have it look good for your for your customers but maybe there's more that you can do than just um you know turn down the sound because I I mean I hear the music from over there too it just hasn't bothered me um but I don't live
on Sherman I live on the other side by by north hul um shepher thank you so I don't know is there could there be any consideration to other ways to attenuate the sound I'm Barry yaker speaking now
correct for the record we'll just switch it um no plant material is going to eliminate sound completely it helps dead in sound um these speakers uh were selected they're round level speakers there are other plants
around these speakers in that courtyard um so the sound is going to be deadened is it going to be totally gone no um that that all depends on the levels that they're set at
um there's not we we kept the areas kind of tight so it's it's kind of limited to how much more plant material you can put in there um so I'm not sure you know what you're
saying is just point of clarification I'm familiar I think all of us are familiar with ground level speakers um what will be the um you could put some sound deadening let's say mulch as opposed to rock which will will tend to
reflect sound but mulch will tend to absorb it right what would what would be around the speakers they're in the beds in The Mulch beds the so it is they are within mulch they are within ground cover coming around them
um so I mean when we designed it we did take that into consideration if they were going to put speakers in we wanted to keep you know a low density um speakers aimed in ambient music um you know it's in the back of the building
so thank you Mr Mr chairman yeah yeah um I'm imagining and I just want to get a clarification I don't know if this could be a stipulation but um if I'm out there in this patio area I may be with other people talking so I'm not really looking for loud music around me I'm just
looking for that kind of sense that it's not you know that I'm in a social environment so that's what I'm imagining this not like the music isn't the purpose of this space okay just confirming that Mr chairman
I just like to point out that that they are agreeing to conform to the noise ordinances as well so that U that's going to make sure that at the property line you're not going to have a lot of loud music or noise other than you the
normal conversation and ambient music any comments questions uh yes if we're getting close to a point of deliberation I thought it might be appropriate just to remind the board exactly what we're voting on and what I
understand the standard for this modification or exision of conditions to be in applicants Council can weigh in if she concurs okay I think we are at that point so please proceed again the applicant effectively is asking for a
modification uh if not elimination uh in part if not whole of two conditions of approval of the prior approval from our prior resolution one no exterior lighting or audio speaker systems shall be installed within the proposed patio area that obviously would
be changing and the proposed patio area shall not be used during the winter that obviously would be changing as a result of this proposed application um the standard for modifying previously imposed conditions
uh various standards they may become unreasonable through changed circumstances or may be revealed as unnecessary and may be reconsidered by Boards in later Years also our courts have held that boards have the power to
modify or eliminate prior approval conditions upon a quote po proper showing of changed circumstances or other good cause warranting modification or Amendment or or where enforcement of
the restrictions would frustrate an appro an appropriate purpose uh and specific to the good those are disjunctive or so either of those standards uh with respect to what would constitute good cause uh are courts have held that the board's intent
in imposing the condition in the first place should be considered and whether the proposal to modify or eliminate the condition is consistent with or contrary to that intent that may relate to some of the input provided by the board along
the during the process of the hearing with respect to original intent and expectations perhaps uh when the uh approval was first granted and those conditions were imposed uh like most legal standards it doesn't it says what
it says but it's only says so much it's subject interpretation but I wanted the board assuming there's no objection to that standard from the tax book in the applicable case law including con P Fair Lawn and Allied realy versus uper Upper
Saddle River from applicants Council that would be the standard for the board to utilize in determining whether or not to eliminate and or modify the conditions accordingly I do have conditions of approval that if it is a
grant of approval the applicant did stipulate uh to the uh lights being turned off no later than 11:00 p.m. uh the speakers being turned off no later than 10 pm uh a post
occupancy acoustical study involving our noise control officer AKA Health director uh as well as the heaters being portable and the uh no the music being
ambient music or live music but not Amplified live music if I understood correctly and uh after that it's up to the board a majority for passage if it's a motion to Grant with all those
conditions Mr chairman I make a motion we approve the applicants changes as enumerated tonight and delineated in Mr Warner's list of stipulation a second she has a question I wanted to make a
statement which is I'm not inclined to agree to to this because I think that um this is a little too much of a creep a little too soon I know that the original approval was last year so that modification is in a new year but I'm
worried about um some of the things that may happen I think the the um the look of this change may be unattractive I think there will be people out at night uh in an area where there aren't
people now at night very often uh and there may be live music played which will be a big change for the neighborhood so uh for those reasons I I'm I'm not in favor of approving it I
want to to say that any other comments with the board guess none I guess we could proceed with the vote we had a public comment already so anything before from the attorney
from the applicant I don't have anything further okay thank you okay proceed with the r the the r call yes order yes none yes Mr rabbit completely predictable
yes m m yes Mr yes Mr quill no Mr yes Mr yes thank you okay moving on to other
matters first one on the list is the uh the possible removal of the Tre removal replacement deed deed restriction that was placed on pb21 Joseph Savage is uh for the minor site plan approval for
subdivision 34 Starlight Drive um understand this came from the engineers office came from Jim okay before he left uh the reason for the request for a change is it doesn't need to be a deed
restriction because each house on this property is going to have to come in for a grading permit the grading permit is is going to indicate what trees have to be taken down on each lot and that's going to be based on what they're proposing to build versus what
was uh shown on the on the subdivision as a potential building uh and with that we require a tree removal permit to be part of the grading permit on newly formed
lots see right now all subdivisions whether they occur this year last year two years ago when they get developed um even 10 years ago we just had one on Fox Hollow um we held them to
the tree removal permit requirements and they had to plant trees to replace the trees that they had removed to build the house um to have that as a deed restriction we're still going to go
through the same uh um work task whether it's in the de or it's just part of our normal protocol when we look at the plans and the grading perits for the uh um previously made lots part of the
subdivision so I think it's just asking the same thing twice I don't think it's needed in I think I wasn't present for the hearing but I did review the uh the video I think it's needed in the de because I believe the concern was because at the time they said that uh
you know they wouldn't be able to they couldn't specify what where the replacement trees would go or how would they deal with a replacement plan because of the grading issues and they may be different from whatever so I believe there was concern because the trees that are shown on the plan um they
have a replacement plan but that were D requirements to fill in with the tennis court and that only accounts for like 14 or something of the 145 that are supposedly of under ordinance that they're required to supply so you're
saying that even after the subdivision of those lots are sold because I guess my concern would be once the lots are sold and separated then they're now they're not considered Homestead lots and so that they still are they the
threee replace replacement requirements go with the land in that case there was a subdivision on Fox Hollow that occurred when I first came here back in 2007 they only built the house there last year the year before and we held
them to the tree removal requirements okay only because what was proposed in 2007 and what was proposed now was a box versus an architectural house yeah right and it took up more area plus they cleared to
allow for swimming pool in the next year or two so uh we held them to the requirements and we're currently holding a bond waiting for this spring to come around for them to finish planting the trees okay so if we if we remove this as
a deed restriction the property owners whoever they may be I see they're listed for sale now those two lots um they will be held to the requirements of the subdivision three replacement removal and re
okay any other questions confused they're coming and asking for time extension no actually yeah different yeah it I'm I'm with if I may Mr chairman I had the same
confusion Mr leso because this came in today uh and believe it is I was just reading it to make sure I believe it is a separate that just happens that they're getting close to the subdivision recordation deadline and asked for this and I was
actually going to see if I think it might be a little late for us to consider it 11 59 PM might so to speak uh tonight so that it is I think different but gives you the benefit of the resolution there you can see the conditions and it's condition five on
page 14 that they're effectively asking eliminated okay so guess never saw ask what does it matter to them what's the disadvantage to them of having it remain in the deed I don't
know um it takes there's an awful lot that's going to have to be put in this de with regard to eement and that type of thing uh between the township and them uh cross easements or common dway
easements um add another deed restriction in there that they have to follow the tree removal permit seems like a move point because they're going to be held to it anyway may may I just clarify is this a request from the applicant or from our
office our office our office yes Jim did not believe that it was required to have the tree removal requirements in the resolution because it's already covered in the grading permit requirements is there a harm in having
it in the resolution are the actions the same with eight things in it instead of seven things in it or nine things in it might not the whole doesn't seem to make any difference would would it make any difference to you folks in the engineering office if because it anyway
you'd be reviewing it anyways and all the other deed restrictions and things in there you also have to to pay attention to anyway so it just be part of the package yeah there's a bunch of easements in there that are going to have to have Deeds drawn on them and that so uh it doesn't
matter so I would say just leave it would just be us we're going to look at it anyway again maybe ask Mr Warner for advice as to how to proceed because it sounds like we really don't need to do anything and I'm not sure if that's no
will being asked to look at and then move this along to the extent I haven't shared it and for that matter I Mr Hansen may have concurred the the the uh our
engineer suggested it be eliminated and uh uh it may not make a bit big difference one way the other perhaps to anybody including the applicant it wasn't a request by the applicant but our engineer requested it
um if the answer is it doesn't matter one way or the other then the answer is you can decide either way and in my opinion it would be a defensible decision so is that all we're being asked for as part of this just a removal one well the extension I think is Sandra
is extension on for tonight you literally literally got it this afternoon running out of time when are they running out of time they ran out time they already ran out of it's not pro Tonk it's after the fact they can ask for an extension after the fact it
um they don't need notice to ask for that extension so if the board wishes to Avail themselves of the opportunity right now to decide one way or the other whether they get that extension we could
certainly follow up with a resolution memorializing the extension if you give them one it would be uh I haven't had a chance to even read it let alone do the math what are they asking for to August 19th another 190 on top of
the 190 and what would that bring us to so AUST 19th um well their 190 days expired February 25th of this year February 25th yes all right so 190 days from February 25th if
you wish to Grant it that request you can do so and then we could you could also let me know if uh you want me to put in that resolution that we're eliminating condition five or we're not Mr chairman can I try to make a motion yeah I I didn't get I not aware
of this extension that was asked for that's what it literally came to us this evening it was on it was on our desk when we walk oh okay okay I'm sorry okay the Bott uh sure I'd like to make a motion that we leave the tree requirement in
the we leave the deed restriction as is and we Grant 180 day 190 day extension my comment is that the delay was due to D the applicant wasn't able to meet the criteria because he had New Jersey DDP
permitting issues so I would agree that giving him an extension makes perfect sense it wasn't his fault that he couldn't comply is that a second that's a second and thank you board member Murphy because I didn't give the standard but you certainly remembered the standard
that it's in a bar or delayed as a result of this effectively a third party not some something under your own soulle control so okay we have a motion in a second any
discussion roll y roll call I'm sorry so I believe I so this motion involves two things and I think I can vote on one but not the other so oh that's right I'm gonna respectfully request that rather than split it up because it's kind of hard to do on one
resolution uh board member by qualif if IED himself by watching in the entirety the prior hearing and I don't believe was the case for board member quillin so if you don't mind participating was fine but maybe we could have eight board members vote that's yeah that's fine
with made Al yes yes Mr yes rabbit yes Miss M yes yes yes
yes three four five six oh okay okay moving on to the next other matter uh which is amending ordinance uh review for master plan consistency of ordinance uh
0125 the tree protection requirements uh ordinance that's for us a reminder to the board and everyone as to how this works so with respect to all four of the we don't want to hear from Mr pH by
won't hold us up thank you yes Mr Phillips please so I'm gonna preference some comments which will apply to all four of the ordinances that we're going to
address for master plan consistency just to provide uh a framework so the master plan um let me back up the municipal land use law in addressing the planning board referral Powers requires the board
to identify inconsistencies between a proposed regulation and the master plan so again the standard is not that the proposed regulation is consistent with the master plan but whether or not it is
inconsistent with the master plan and you're all nod in your head because you've been through this new language with me before but I wanted to basically provide that framework so that everyone on the board kind of understands what the requirement is and that'll provide I think some
understanding of what I'm going to recommend to the board on the issue of of Master Plan consistency so having said that the first ordinance uh which the chairman cited would amend the um existing tree
protection requirements which are which are set forth in uh chapter 5 7 which is Our Land Development uh ordinance and the key changes uh are that the ordinance would Now sort of partially as
opposed to wholly exempt Homestead lots and this is being done to comply with njde requirements and you'll see that if you look at the ordinance itself there is a qualification on the exception of
Homestead Lots again to be consistent with a d with regard to tree uh removal it also spec specifically provides for an escrow contribution to a tree replacement fund for those applicants
who don't totally provide the replacement on site and lastly what it adds is a provision for uh penalties for any illegal tree removal those are the three changes relative to the existing uh
ordinance let me let me provide some historical master plan perspective because I think on this one it's important so back in 2007 uh there was master plan this is before my time and that Master Plan made
a specific recommendation that home that the homestead exemption uh be removed okay that was in 2007 and when I was the planner in the township uh both the board and the government were considering a
comprehensive change to the tree removal and replacement ordinance and it went through a lot of discussion with this board and the governing body ultimately tabled it in 2013 so when we did the master plan re reexamination in 2017 knowing that it
was tabled at the time the board basically made a recommendation that it was now no longer no longer going to recommend that the homestead lot exemption uh be removed so it's it's sort of come
full circle so in my opinion the bottom line is I don't believe that this ordinance change is inconsistent with the master plan because it now basically seeks a partial exemption only to comply with the
njde uh and clearly in my mind it meets the spirit and intent of the ordinance so was there would all this went the I have I have a history here um the issue with uh the homestead Lots
centered around uh owner property rights and um and I think that's why it got it got kind of contentious about how can you deny the property owner the right to take action on their own property and also enforcement and enforcement is
still enforcement is actually still an issue I think because we're providing for no more than eight trees removed in a 5year period but the question is how how would you ever monitor that it's going to have to be based on complaints uh that would be the only way
we would probably even know the same would apply to removal of dead and disease trees you know someone may make a complaint we'll go check it out and say yeah that tree was going to fall down anyway so um it does give a nod to the concern that tabled this issue all
those years ago which was ownership property rights so from that perspective and Steve to me I think it's consistent with the spirit intent of the master plan not the development regulation well I yeah I would agree with that in that although
they removed that specific recommendation to remove the homestead exemption the uh established it it left in uh the P primary policy goal of encouraging homeowners to preserve trees and replace
trees that that's still in there that's still in the master right that's still there still in the master so it is not not inconsistent with that that change is is basically driven by having to comply with njd that's really the basis for that
change to the homestead lot with that qualifying language on exemption the eight trees no more than eight trees in the fiveyear period so I'm I'm recommending to you that this is not inconsistent with the master plan and if I may with respect to all four of these
ordinances as previously uh we always do we have a onepage we can do a onepage resolution uh it provides uh for a finding of not inconsistent but it
has the word not in Brackets uh we do not attempt to influence any decision uh we can either take the word not out for any of all of these or keep the word not in for any of all of these uh so it's an easy enough adjustment to make so that
you can not only make your determination but also go right to adopting a resolution this evening for each so that's what we have for the tree Ordinance one of course as well chairman I have a question
um it's not clear this it says cutting in simply C it says pruning so if you need to prune your tree limb that's dead so it doesn't fall down on your electrical wires is that included in this that's exempt exemp
Homestead that's the exemptions number four number four right so the distinction pruning versus cutting that's what that is this pruning or removal on or over a public RightWay or
public property by an appropriate Authority so if you're a private homeowner can you can you prune the tree because okay these are all the existing right I didn't think so
are right this is resolution ordinance not inconsistent with the master plan I would entertain a motion to I'll make that motion I'll second it each one SE yes I
second any more discussion this is a roll call vote to I believe so son yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes okay next on the list is the consideration of ordinance 0225 amending chapter 57 land ofel Cod for master plan consistency um and
that's which one is that that's the that prevents them okay that this is yes this is okay right again site plan exemptions right so this one involves changes to the existing s plan exception provision in this also in the Land
Development ordinance which is chapter 57 and essentially uh we've had a number of issues that have come before the TCC and the bottom line is that the existing Provisions are somewhat
confusing somewhat discretionary which they shouldn't be and in some cases we think they're actually onerous the way currently written so this amendment would provide clarifying language and it would specifically exempt things such as
roof mounted solar equipment which we've had this discussion here before this board we thought that would be a good idea uh any for example electrical vehicle charging equipment as part of an existing development would not have to come to this board uh conforming wall
signs is something that we don't think it's kind of honorous to ask someone to come to this board they would be specifically uh exempt and so as you might expect the master plan which is dealing with more macro issues is completely silent on site plan
exemptions so for that reason I'm basically recommending to you that this ordinance would not be inconsistent with the master plan again if if adopted make a motion the chairman yeah Mr chairman can I make a motion that we
accept this uh Amendment or this uh ordinance and it is not inconsistent with the master plan I'll second I have a question for Mr en engineering how is this something that you would support
just yeah I mean it's more I mean this kind of thing you guys deal with all the time with perent applications right Red Oak School sign desktop administrative approv right okay I can assure you Jim was all
over yeah I asked the question pretty much sure I knew what the answer wased on some of those but not yeah well we could call this the Jim slate [Laughter] resolution okay we have a motion in a
second yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes okay on next is uh consideration of the ordinance 0425 which uh seeks to change the zoning
to remove a little jog in there yeah so this um this ordinance would actually modify through a zone map change the boundaries for a particular lot lot
315 uh lot six this property is um presently occupied by a main residence and there's also a carriage house on the property um the applicant basically is looking to subdivide off the carriage
house um and the interesting thing is is that the properties on either side of the Carriage House are presently located in the ra1 zone the bulk of this property almost all of it is located in
r825 uh and if you look at the zoning map it kind of I think what what happened is is the zoning map followed property boundaries which is not inappropriate per se but this little jog is the only property along the frontage I think it's Conlin Conlin right where
the where the ra25 extends down to Conlin everything on either side for a little bit of a stretch as ra 11 so we thought the TCC thought this was a good thing it allows the subdivision to create two lots to keep the main house subdivide off the carriage house so the
best way to do this was part of it a uh of a zone change that would allow again two lots the carriage house would be in ra 11 and then the main resonance would be in r25 the issue here is technically
speaking this change is not consistent with the master plan because the master plan L use element map which goes all the way back to 1994 clearly follows the zoning map and shows the what we would propose to be
the R11 portion and ra25 even though it's a good thing it's not consistent with the master plan and I think the decision the TCC took the position that to attempt to do a sort of a master plan Amendment for this small property was probably not within the card so really
what it means if you agree with me that it's not consistent is that the governing body will when they consider it they'll have to do something called a reasons resolution which requires them to state reasons why they're doing this because it's inconsistent with the
master plan not withstanding that right uh also it requires a majority of the full authorized membership of the governing body um so again even though this is a good thing you have to call it the way it is it's not in my opinion consistent
with the master plan so we're going to if we approve it we're going to approve it not withstanding it not it is being inconsistent no we would be saying it's inconsistent to the that it is inconsist right okay which will force them to do
the reason got it yes and that's a resolution by resolution the at the governing body level so the alternative that you said would be to do a master plan Amendment for this little thing one little tiny
and is it possible for them to subdivide that lot without divided correct me from all but they subdivided they would be creating a non-conformity all kinds of Varian they would need Dev variances on the whole de okay right which should be yeah perhaps the prevailing thought is that this is
the most prudent way of addressing it without over that was yeah right so I always like to say perhaps I don't then both the remaining structures will be on will be on um lots that don't require
variances yeah it it the the the one subdivided The ra25 Zone portion would be conforming with the bulk requirements including minimum lot size of ra25 that's the way this was set up that makes sense in the R11 the
carriage house is also be conforming in the R11 yes right right I guess in a way this two-step process cleans it up right yeah yeah it's a weird lot because it spans from Eggbert Hill to Conlin and so there it's not like
there's a long driveway that gets to the back of it it actually has an entrance onto onto existing street so that house predates everything in that area yeah so they just built the subdivision on conin around around it around that other house
so so if if the board wishes to follow the recommendation of our planner it would be a motion to adopt the resolution finding the proposed ordinance to be inconsistent with the cont master plan
yes I'll move that for a second second joeo okay we call the roll on that yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
okay moving on to the uh consideration ordinance 0825 uh concerning the uh designation of the overlay zone for the Cannabis overlay Zone pH yeah so this orance is being
Advanced um in conjunction with a a companion if you will and more sort of comprehensive General uh ordinance uh Amendment uh being Advanced by the governing body which would ultimately uh regulate cannabis uh
businesses in the township and that General ordinance includes a lot of things that are not typically included in the zoning ordinance things with regard to financing licensing all that stuff uh this is just basically uh this ordinance would provide for a panabas
business overlay Zone within a portion of the Township's i21 District along the Ridgedale Avenue uh quarter and what the zoning would do it would establish standards for various classes of cannabis businesses within that uh
within that overlay uh District uh so with regard to master plan consistency so the last master plan we did in two was in 2017 and I I ask rhetorically do you think there's any mention in 2017 in the
master plan about cannabis predates the state legisl there's nothing there's absolutely nothing on cannabis so I mean in its pure form you can take the position that it's not inconsistent with the master plan because there's no mention of
candidates but there's two other factors here which I think are uh sort of if would should take into consideration if it were to agree that this dis ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan
and I think number one is that this zoning overlay would not propose any changes in the underlying i21 uh Zone District in terms of the use regulations the bulk regulations it
would simply allow for an additional development uh alternative within the distri subject to its own series of Standards which are set forth in the uh in the ordinance so you're not changing i21 you're sort of adding another use
with an i21 okay the other thing that I found interesting was that actually the 2007 master plan did affirmatively recommend that this portion this rdale Avenue portion of the i21 Zone basically
from Hanover Avenue to the Marist toown border be reviewed to take a take a look at this to determine whether or not any other uses and it says including retail interestingly would be appropriate I think the planning board if you recall
people on the board at the time were looking at the corter understanding that there would changes understanding that uses other than industrial might make sense knowing that there were some long-term uses that might not necessarily be in the the best interest
of is there a future land use pattern in this area did make that particular recommendation so with those uh caveats uh I'm sort of recommending to this board that this overlay ordinance would not be inconsistent with the with the master
plan yeah I would uh Concur and and add that yeah I looked I couldn't find any reference not not not unexpectedly couldn't find any reference to cannabis either but under goal four which I think is where the the kind of the the examination you said it does also leave
in there as a goal or added the 2017 is analyze the Township's major arterials and Commercial quarters to assess current conditions and evaluate whether existing zon zoning is adequate and determine what improvements are needed so this is certainly not inconsistent with that statement and Mr chairman as I
pointed out even more so here there's a specific recommendation with regard to the rale ad this proportion of the i21 district along rale ad specific spefic say to look at it whether other uses may or may not be appropriate including retail any comments I just have a
question the moristown excuse me the moristown border is right at the railroad track right yeah pretty much so from the railroad track up to Handover was yeah the the map is on the back there a map is on it's not very good but
it's you tend to kind of follow it I I noticed that it talked about distances from schools and distances from resal if residential is in your neighboring town does it have an
impact was it residential in Mars Township and schools I believe the way it is wording it does not discriminate between where the school
is and the same thing with residential correct so the apartments that are by the brick uh whatever going on with that brick situation like don't in the showroom or something that would push if someone were to do one of these five or
six uses they would have to push deeper into the zone to say out of that which side to make Mor the question oh I see what you're saying because there's a distinction
here that's why I want I want to get your answer correct you're talking about is that East on the east or west side of west west side of brigdale 5 okay then it would be it would be subject to this if it's on the on the west side of bridg and it's the office building on the
other side of um gets converted into residential before someone were to apply for one of these uses that would also affect them in the opposite direction are you talking about across the Mars
Township border into into Handover yeah yes okay I'm just trying to understand how that zone could get crushed I I I think the point of the standard is that the standard should apply no matter where the school or residential zoning
whether it's in Hover Mars it's somewhere else that's that's the standard you're trying to protect public health safety welfare I think they use the term sensitive receptors is a term utilized as a umbrella for houses of worship residential schools et al it's
Monday so I'm a little Punchy it the standard here is is that we're to your microphone is off not inconsistent with the master plan that's what were being asked correct not in correct and you're suggesting that it's not
inconsistent that is what I'm advising you but the board based on the silence as well as the two additional uh uh reasons that Paul gave that would move it from even silent to maybe towards even more consistency so it's our job to
basically agree or disagree with you more or less yes and that is actually essentially the scope of your jurisdiction I'm prepared to make motion I just have a question yeah what if there's a facility that's built a
count facility and someone proposes to build housing within that 300 feet or 200 feet do we have to deny that say it's low-income housing do we have to deny that because there's a cannabis facility there no because the yeah sequen sequence
matters have been set and again the standard is not for the res standard is for the Cannabis business okay thank you I you know maybe okay oh no I had a quick question that says it's not within 500 feet of a residential Zone I believe
is that all and that's for things west of of ridg Deale is that that's not just the single family is that include because there's of the rting where they live in apartment
complex and there are some that at least have the multif family overlay zones on there also right does that count that's on they're all I believe oh they're on the east side okay right I guess that section along a Handover is not that doesn't have those overlays on
okay we're not ending the use we're doing is is consist that's that's your charge that's your only char as I explained much earlier this even whether whether it
should be done or enough to these folks on the Juris you're not voting in just just the master plan you're the gatekeeper of the master plan you don't make policy it's okay with the chairman I'd like to make a motion that we pass
this resolution that this overlay is not in consistent I'll second ask any more discussion yes not a
yes yes not inconsistent yes yes yes yes yes good yes okay do we have anything from the legislative committee report point of
view nothing I can think of okay nothing okay we do have on the agenda there is an opportunity for public comments so they should be limited traditionally things that are not agenda items so if you have anything other any any members of the public want to come
in on other items please come forward state your name and uh and address uh Pam Russell 31 lur Lane on the 500 foot buffer zone um for next to residential Zone that is in the Cannabis ordinance
why is that limited to west of Ridgedale Avenue in the ordinance why doesn't that apply to the whole Township well it's a question that best asked on the 19th um well you were just
discussing that of the governing but I think the the I think the board's questions with respect to the ordinance were relative to trying to determine the consistency or inconsistency with the master plan and what the history was as
far as explanations of this sounds like a question for the planner right I mean is there a 500 foot buffer zone for residential for cannabis businesses next to a residential zone for the entire Township it only applies to within the
overlay Zone because that's the only place that that is could be according to the ordinance the only place that business could exist is in this overlay zone so it only app well you say in in the other provision of the um you say a
a cannabis business cannot be in a residential Zone correct but you say that for the entire Township let let me but so why is the 500 foot buffer zone limited to west of rale Avenue which doesn't cover most of
the township excellent questions for the governing body and the planner at of March 19 public hearing when the issue is not simply whether or not it's consistent with the master plan which is all this board is allowed on its referral okay
with referral already this public comment okay yeah bear with me thank you the uh the their referral obligation has already been completed but uh but these questions certainly would be pertinent
at on the 19th when the governing body a different body has a public hearing on the application and I suspect might have the same planner here in that in that uh at that time in that capacity that's I don't think there's a planner to the township committee there's just a
planner to the planning board right for the planning board this evening okay so I would like to voice my public opinion that having cannabis businesses next to a residential Zone with no buffer zone is not consistent
with the master plan and I think most people in town will agree with that when they realize what you have just all approved thank you hi Lori georan tepring Valley um so I again going to the master
plan I was at the last meeting and it was talking about the area that you're talking about actually just being a retailer but I'm sorry if I may just and I'm sorry I didn't get your name Lori
georan thank you sure Geor two Spring Valley Road thank you the the uh when you say you were at the last meeting last planning board meeting February public meeting when they were approved committee that's what I this is
not the township I know but there's a lot of people on the township committee and the Cannabis Advisory Board I'm just making a comment it's public comment so just if you had any questions or concerns or those policy issues I'm getting to yeah hang be addressed by the
appropriate board sure you might recognize faces this is not the governing body F I'm actually talking about ordinance number 8-25 which you just commented on so if you give me a chance to finish that would be great so under that section D
number 14 I just would like comment on that that's it Steve right and and I it's my job to represent this planning board not the governing body and to make it clear what the scope of their Authority is and what it isn't and uh if
you uh I suspect you will want to come back oh I will be back yes appropriate of course board the governing entity governing body and make your comments and questions Etc but with the chair's permission uh and the understanding that
that this is not their Authority completely agree it's just a public comment kind of what I stated that I was coming up for with with the chair's permission uh it's not improper legally even though uh the board is not addressing these issues correct yeah go
ahead it's under the ordinance that you were just talking about the master plan so I guess my concern is when it was initially discussed that it was going to be a retail now I see there's six different classifications cultivating as being one
of them I think someone brought up at the last meeting were you planning on growing weed and it was no we were not so I guess my concern is why is that a class that's in here that's being put forward
and that is a question that we can't ask yeah I'm just making public comment so hopefully everyone whoever is listening will come back and understand that there are six different classifications that are being put forward by the township
not just a retailer you're looking for delivery drivers you're looking for cultivating you're looking for um retailing there's six different classifications so we need everyone's support who has joined on zoom and
listening today to show up and speak up that's it thank you I wasn't planning on I don't have a voice so I really wasn't planning on talking at all but my name is Patty Esposito 11 Brandy Wine Terrace 11 what Brandy Wine
Terrace um the only comment I really wanted to make was I know that you were just discussing about if it's consistent with the master plan or not and I mean on a whole it's not consistent with the master plan because the master plan
prior to now didn't mention cannabis in it at all so you're saying you just voted that it's not that it is consistent with the master plan no or that it's not consistent it's not inconsistent it's not inconsistent with
the master plan because by exclusion of not having that word in the master plan you're saying it's not inconsistent which is a play on words to me because I feel like it is inconsistent with the master plan
because the master plan did not talk about cannabis understand it because cannabis wasn't an issue because it wasn't approved it wasn't so now I feel like you just voted it's not inconsistent when it is inconsistent so I'm really
surprised that you turned the words around like that and voted the way you did when it really is in insistent don't don't wave me away he just he was talking to me I was yeah I was I was going to addess done okay well so that's
what I feel like happened here it kind of feels like it was a play on words and you guys played around with it and said yeah it's not inconsistent but in real life it wouldn't be because cannabis wasn't in
our world then as an approved substance or approved anything so bothered me today the other thing I just wanted to comment on is um this is a planning board and then there's a governing board right governing body the town all right
a governing body so there's people on the planning board here that are also on the governing body correct how many two n so that doesn't seem right to me either oh that that's Municipal land use law it requires uh zoning boards have no
governing body members and they are completely quazite judicial like the court system a quazite this we're administrative um but planning boards by law the municipal land use law state statute requires that
planning boards have one member who is either the mayor where the mayor's designate often time the mayor uh uh so that may be one governing body member and then also requires a class three members not a class system in the old
sense but a class they call class one two three me excuse me 1 two 3 4 members uh uh that's a class one members the mayor mayor's designate class three is a governing body member so by law planning boards will have at least one if not
usually two members of the governing body they must have them on there as well as a municipal official who's not a governing body member class two and the rest of the members class four cannot be so they can vote on both they
two different hats in in that respect uh and planning boards here applications for development that are in their quasi judicial role and they also do other things like I always use the phrase Gatekeepers of the master plan uh uh
they they generally handle things like Master Plan consistencies reviews uh so not only is it permitted but by law state law but it is required state law so just so everybody's clear
no matter what anybody thinks we may disagree with the law this is how it is required to be it just doesn't seem like they can vote on both personally that one should be abstained but that's it's kind of like directing the results the
legislature not not even the governing body here of course when well when when they are here but the state legislature would be the one to change that I understand so the two governing body people on the planning board here that just heard that
you passed that it's not inconsistent to the master plan I feel like it is inconsistent to the master plan so I just wanted you to know that thank you any other comments from the public okay thank you I guess we'll
motion you didn't give me a chance to close the public comments you're quick okay now second second all in favor thank you all for coming yes thank you very much