the notice requirements of the open public meeting law for this meeting have been satisfied a copy of the notice having been sent to the Asbury Park Press and the coaster and filed in the office of the Township Clerk there is an emergency exit through the courtroom doors and two exits at the rear of the room there is no smoking vaping or other
use of devices similar to that here board polic is no new cases will be started after 10:30 p.m. in no new testimony taken after 11:00 p.m. all meetings will be video and audio taped and shown on the township of ocean Community cable channel channel 22 on
Verizon filos and channel 77 on cable vision all cell phones must be turned off or if you need to make a call please make your call outside the meeting room all right so we have a couple uh housekeeping items first first we have a new member joining us this evening we need to have sworn in he was sworn in
upstairs correct we already did that so our next item is we have a new board secretary that needs to be approved so I make a notion to appoint Nicole Nicole my name acri a arri as board secretary
second seconded by Mr Beal roll call please uh councilwoman Kaplan yes uh Vice chair dilia yes missman yes uh Mr deal yes uh Mr pudus
yes and Mr Goslin all right we received correspondence from Jeff Weinstein uh noting that he has resigned from his position of the planning board as he took a position with the township Council joining Miss Kaplan um so we need to have a vote for
a new chair to replace Mr Weinstein do I have a a motion I'll open it for nominations a motion for exia second any other nominations all right so can we have a
roll call please councilwoman Kaplan yes uh chairman dilia yes uh Mr M yes Mr deal AFF Mr pive yes and Mr gosin yes all right and since now
we have a vacant Vice chair position we need to vote for a new Vice chair and I would like to nominate Mr pudus I okay uh counc kapl yes uh chairman
dilia yes Mr yes Mr Beal yes Mr pus yes okay uh resolutions to be memorialized we have a reaffirmation of a minor subdivision for 608 Wildwood Road Block 61.0 one Lot 4 in the R4 Zone
um Mr elction you just want to give us a brief update on what this is and why we're reiring it sure so so essentially we receive correspondence from the applicant attorney uh indicating that there was a condition within the resolution that all all structures on the property had to be demolished the applicants been unable to demolish the
property because she has she lives on the property and she's looking for another place to live she was unable to relocate where she thought she was going to be re able to relocate so they're asking for additional six months which I think is completely reasonable under the statute okay any questions from the
board all right do we have a a motion so i' make a motion then Mr chairman to both approve the extension and adopt the resolution you can do the ma one okay someone want to make that motion I make that motion move by Mr pluta second by Miss Kaplan V call
please councilwoman Kaplan yes chairman dilia yes Mr yes Mr yes mrus yes and Mr gos yes all right so now we have a new case uh is it Leon or Leone le le Leon
properties LC 3501 Sunset Avenue block 183 lot 6 in the i1 zone They are seeking preliminary final major site plan and bulk variants to construct in addition to the existing commercial building along with interior renovations to existing building and reconfiguration
of the parking lot with additional spaces lighting landscaping and related site improvements and the attorney is Miss Jennifer kpco congratulations uh Mr chair and vice chair Jennifer kmco uh on behalf of the applicant and I think that the the summary said it very well but
just to orient you before while Jason setting up this is the fisherman Source uh building that's on the corner of Sunset andrielle we came in before this board I think back in 2019 for some signage and some other related uh variances and updated site plan and
since then thankfully the business has grown and as a result we are uh modestly increase proposing to modestly increase the retail section and uh significantly increase the size of the warehousing for their e-commerce business so we are just
here seeking site plan approval for that we did have an opportunity to review uh Jim's letters and Benz and I know that my engineer had an opportunity to speak with both of them so as I move in exhibits you're going to hear that uh some of them have already been revised in order to address those comments and
let me Mark in what I have exhibit a81 will be the boundary and topographic survey exhibit A2 will be the preliminary and final major site plan exhibit A3 will be the storm water management report exhibit A4 will be the architectural plans then I have the following board exhibits exhibit B1 will
be the plannner report and exhibit D2 will be the engineers report okay great and then want to Mark whatever that is as A5 yeah and Jason did what he is not allowed to do but we're going to let it go tonight he coated these instead of
keeping them separate um since we move them in separately so I'm going to Mark these keep them and then I'll hand them all out fine um A5 is an aerial exhibit prepared by Insight with today's date and A6 is a
site rendering uh prepared by Insight with today's date and they are in attached packets so a and just so the board's aware Jason as you know I'm gonna have him sworn in as
planner and typically we would cut his testimony do engineering first and then planning I I think based on the Simplicity of this application I'm going to just have run through all of it and then should you require the presentation by the architect the architect is also
here to present those four plans and elevations so with that I would ask P Jason's for you SAR testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and about the your got I do and you state your name for the record Jason fiter last name fi c h t r thank
you and you're a licensed engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey correct I am yes thank you very much and Mr chair uh forgive me I don't remember which board does it which way does this board like to have the reports read in first or you prefer to have us proceed uh proceed if you could just give to
start just a a quick overview and then specifically what you're asking for the board and then we have it all prepared so we're ready to go great so Jason I'd ask you uh referencing the exhibits and forgive him for not standing apparently it hurts his back more when he stands um
I'll get up if you need me he's very tall so but since there's no public he's going to just proceed sitting so um Jason I'll turn it over to you walk the board through what's existing what we're proposing and what variances we need so this is block 183 lot 6 otherwise known
as 3501 Sunset a as shown did we Mark M that one is a okay on A6 you'll notice we're on the northwest corner of Sunset ab and reel AB uh the lot size is 37,3 46 Square ft
we're in the i1 zone which requires 40,000 ft Lots so we're slightly undersized the site is currently being used for um Warehouse retail and online sales for Fisherman's Source that's the
existing business in there and as m stated they they um got site plan approval with variances uh it was February 25th of 2019 warehousing and accessory retail sales are permitted uses in the i1
zone so a summary the the afcan seek an approval to put an addition on their existing building and enhance the site and their operations so fisherman sore started in 2006 and they've been growing ever since which is great and we're here tonight seeking a approval to support
their continuing growth they're comprised of retail and e-commerce which of course includes warehousing and not surprisingly the vast majority of their business is e-commerce uh the plans submitted to you show an expansion of the retail space
and expansion of the warehouse space so the idea is to grow both uh focus on Warehouse obviously uh and your ordinance requires in this Zone that retail cannot be more than 25% of the gross floor area and this application complies with that as did the 2019
application the architectural plans note just to clarify because I know that Mark will probably ask for it the existing retail is 24.3% the proposed retail is 21.2% so we're actually reducing the percentage of retail to Warehouse right
focus on the warehouse that's right okay so um great so we're yep keep going all right so uh looking at the architectural plans it notes that the existing building is 6,214 square feet and the
proposed building is 11, 339 Square ft as far as utilities go not much to say there we're we're assuming that the utilities that serve the existing building will continue to serve the proposed building so we're not proposing any new utility connections at this time of course a construction anything can
happen but uh won't be anything of substance storm water management this is not major development for for storm water management we're proposing 41% loot coverage where the Zone permits up to 54% which means that we're contributing
much less runoff to the municipal system um than was contemplated for this Zone we also designed our grading plan to avoid sending additional runoff to our three adjoining neighbors and the Topography of the property is conveniently conducive to
directing runoff toward the municipal rideways which is the ideal scenario I discussed um the storm water design with Mr matlack today and and Ben please feel free to cut me off I say anything out of line here but uh we talked about the storm waterer system and uh as a
result I agreed that we would provide a roof drywell to accommodate the increase in impervious area on the proposed site and we could easily do that with the roof area that's correct okay parking in the existing condition there are 10 parking
spaces we're proposing a total of 23 22 are required mathematically by your ordinance we have uh what we're proposing is nine spaces at the back or north of the site so on A6 North is straight up uh so there's nine spaces at
the back and they have two-way access from Belle Avenue there's four spaces in the front or South part of the site or plan bottom on A6 also with two-way access from Bell Avenue and that's where the uh Ada space
is included with an accessible route to the retail entrance and then there are 10 angled spaces on the east side of the building with one-way access from real Avenue the nine spaces at the rear of the site are new and they use an
existing but improved driveway the 14 spaces in the front and on the east side of the building mimic the existing circulation patterns there were a couple comments in Mr Higgins letter about um parking and Landscaping particularly the width of
the parking spaces and uh the lack of a landscape Island so what we did on exhibit A6 is we made those changes I I took the liberty of putting that on our exhibit even though it wasn't submitted ahead of time because the changes are so minor and so positive so what it shows
is um by altering a little bit of what we did we still maintained the 10 spaces that were submitted on the plan that you have um but we managed to get a landscape Island on the North End of those 10 angled spaces and we also made
all of those spaces a uniform 9 ft wide so in Jim's letter pointed out that some of our spaces were less than 9 ft existing yeah yeah the existing spaces vary in width they're all over the place they're a little disorganized so what we did is we took the the full width of
what we had and lo and behold mathematically it worked out great we were still able to get 10 spaces and we were able to add uh the landscape Island so it improves not only the parking but the streetcape as well and the dimensions are the same too in terms of the drive island setback and all that
kind of stuff so that's why I took the liberty to put it right on it also reduces the magnitude of the variance for landscape Island there's only now one area where the ordinance technically requires a landscaped Island and it's not appropriate and that location that's on the front of the building next to the
adaa space so it's really not appro for to be there so I don't have any problem with all the okay and we still as you'll hear when we get into planning we still do need the variance for the 9 foot width but is you know that's something and
you'll hear Jason testify that is frequently granted in low turnover but again I I don't want to leave you thinking that we're fully compliant we still need the width variants but it's the 9 ft which is typically approved it's a dramatic Improvement it's not
fully compliant but I'll go into more detail all right moving on uh in terms of um circulation site circulation so we're proposing to maintain and improve the two existing driveways which are at the North and South ends of the pr
Frontage so the existing driveway on the north side of the real real Frontage is about 14 fet wide we're proposing to make it 30 feet wide and we're moving it slightly to the north to accommodate vehicles and loading operations which
I'll also talk about in a minute the existing driveway on the south side of real laav is about 16 feet wide and we're proposing to widen that one to 24 feet wide to accommodate two-way vehicular circulation we're requesting a design
waiver for the minimum driveway curb radius your ordinance requires 15 ft the existing Southern driveway is 2 feet and the northern driveway is 0 feet we're proposing 5T for the southern driveway and 10 ft for the northern driveway so
not quite compliant but both are an improvement and we're trying to keep them at the minimum necessary to accommodate the site and maximize the green space and uh along the streets gate the refu in the existing condition is it it's on the North End Of The B
Frontage it's about 30 ft from the RightWay it has high visibility it's not enclosed we're proposing a more traditional refu enclosure we're pushing it back about 111 feet from the B LA right away and we're putting it inside a board- onboard enclosure with latching
gates for loading we're proposing two loading zones uh and these were designed to accommodate the applicant's operations they were very intentionally placed for the flow of operations the shipping and and receiving loading zone is at the south side of the building and
the intention of that loading zone is to accommodate um UPS and FedEx vehicles for the e-commerce operations the other loading zone is at the north side of the building and that's that's intended for product deliveries the trucks here are going to vary in size so we designed it
for uh the most extreme case which would be tractor trailers although it won't always be tractor trailers um larger trucks what they'll do is they'll back into the rear loading zone from Bell Avenue as compared to the existing loading operations which all take place
entirely within Bell Avenue trucks actually Park in Bell and move move the product within B Avenue so the proposed loading zones will be a significant Improvement the applicant um interestingly the appin does not anticipate any additional trucks just
more product from each truck which is the benefit of uh more floor space as a matter of fact the appin thinks it's it's quite possible once they get rolling that they may see Less trucks since they're going to be able to store more product that each truck uh
brings for lighting there's seven building mounted lights on the existing building they're all proposed to remain we're proposing two more building mounted lights to accommodate the expansion we're also proposing three pole mounted lights one each at the two
driveways which is very important for safety and one along the southern drive a u which is right in front of the store along the sunset a frontage and that is placed there to accommodate vehicular circulation our lighting plan shows nice
even coverage of the vehicular and pedestrian areas uh there are a couple variances associated with the lighting plan but for good reason I'll go through those in a bit our landscape plan focuses on enhancing the streetscape Aesthetics and
framing out the property essentially creating a a buffered perimeter with the minor parking layout revision that that I mentioned the streetscape along bav is going to be greatly improved we're adding the two landscape islands where land scaping the
northern and southern limits of that bav Frontage and then the streetscape Improvement along Sunset is also significant today it's mostly Stone all the way from the site curb all the way out to the sunset AV curb we're actually proposing to pull back the existing curb
on the property further away from Sunset which then gives us the ability to create more green space we're also proposing to remove the stone and replace it with sod which your ordinance requires and a landscape bed in addition to the existing Street trees so great
improvement from landscape and streetscape perspective but we're going to show those Street trees as proposed according to Jim's lettera correct no problem okay in 2019 you granted a variance to place
uh what is now the existing sign 5 feet from each RightWay line so basically right at the intersection of bell and sunset it was subsequently constructed 6.8 F feet from B A which is good and 1.9 ft from Sunset AV which is slightly
off from where it was approved we're not proposing to make any changes to that so visually it'll be what people are accustomed seeing except for the fact that it won't be in stone it'll be a nice s Green Landscape but we're essentially asking for the additional variance now just to correct what had
occurred during construction correct okay and that that's it for engineering layout and Engineering C odd stuff and unless there's any questions does the board Mr chair want to ask questions before he goes into the planning testimony no why don't why don't we hear
from our professionals if they have any response to that then we'll open it up to questions and then we'll okay uh yes I do have one sorry I just got have one uh thing uh that wasn't touched upon um my report mentions uh sidewalk on the
along the Briel Frontage can you talk about that I missed that thank you Ben um so there is a requirement to provide sidewalk along the bav frontage um in the existing condition we have that parking along the B Frontage so it really wouldn't be um a safe spot for
sidewalk well it would be impossible because we wouldn't be able to back out of those spaces right we would go on to the sidewalk so Mr matlak and I discussed that earlier today and what we landed on was it would be nice to provide sidewalk from the northern limit of the brial LA Frontage to our proposed
driveway the site just to the north of us was recently approved with sidewalk along the frontage so that would continue the sidewalk as far as it can reasonably go on our site so we would be happy to do that I didn't measure it it's like 30 or 40 feet worth the sidewalk so I'm sorry can you just so
it's going to be in the Green Space yeah it's going to connect us to the property to the north there but not on this not on later on obviously not across the pavement but you're not going to put it to there that wasn't the intention I I don't think it's
really 100% necessary to bring it all the way to the corner um the the sidewalk at the North will connect the two properties and then uh people can walk along the the paved area of the parking lot uh to get to the store um
and if they need to they can use the depressed curb to get out of the parking lot what about coming north of Bri we just put all new sidewalks in there didn't we from the Township's perspective on on on sun side Crossing
on the other side of Sun as if you're heading down towards Costco South I said north side my apologies um if there's a sidewalk there it might make sense to extend the sidewalk on Southern cour it almost looks like there is one there that's what it that's what it looks like
on here I don't know if there is or isn't right here I don't I think it's the gravel tell you but yeah there is a sidewalk yeah so it exists already yeah there there's a sidewalk in the right of way so it would only be a small portion that we would
connect here Jason from here to here okay okay so we could connect the existing sidewalk to our Southern driveway as well all right all right so you're going to connect existing sidewalk to Southern driveway Southern driveway and then uh
Northern driveway to the property to the north sidewalk to property to the north okay thank you that's you mean from lot seven saying there yes and then I think we have a cut out on the
curve so couple so let me just point it out essentially we would put sidewalk here we wouldn't put sidewalk here and then we put it from here to here because the town sidewalk is already in the right thank
you yeah meanwhile we all looking at everything it's very clearly shown on the exhibit A6 that the sidewalk exists it's going like this and it's not not blowing it up it's it's right there Jim Bennett anything else I don't really have any other comments in the testimony so far and I
think they've addressed everything in in my report with the exception of the calculation for tree repl which yeah we we understand your calculation that's fine okay okay we'll work with you on that that's fine and you'll adere to the anything that's
inside the 2019 resolution of course that that doesn't conflict with this of course and just quickly for purposes of the record I'm going to walk you through this rather than have you go through it in full detail we need a variance or change of grade correct we do and that's based
on the fact that the property Topography is significant Steep and uh so we're we're proposing the change of grade but it's not going to have any impact on the surrounding neighbors correct okay the curb cut location uh we have Curb cuts
on the lower classification Street and again we're following the existing conditions here and it continues to limit the access from Sunset which is a better zoning alternative correct okay the minimum driveway width um it's an existing condition here and it's based
on the prox the building that's proposed okay yeah that's it's just a short run of oh okay proposed I'm sorry of the driveway yeah right in front of the building considering the volume there I have no concern what whatever for that okay the visitor parking only in the front yard it's in existing condition
it's continuing we're adding some more spaces and again it may be visitors parking there but we can't promise that it's only going to be visitors parking there I I don't even understand the reason for that ordinance section but I don't know that you can tell the difference between visitors or nonvisitors
it's a carryover from the prior ordinance from before I began to so a very very very long time ago um parking stall size we went over it we're making them more uniform and in your opinion the 9 foot wide is sufficient since there's no uh it's not
a supermarket with uh carts and the like even with that 9 ft works so yeah 9 foot's fine okay and we need a parking stall size for 60° angled parking and again we're adding some parking spaces but we're continuing the existing
condition we're actually making that one better some of them are very narrow we're making them all 9 ft wide those are the angled spaces my report say stall size or drive aisle width we we just did Drive AIS width and and now we're on stall size how many parking spaces are there currently 10 10 10 only
10 now okay um with regard to the lighting or light stanions or are the poles are actually closer to the right of way than are permitted but in your opinion from an engineering perspective is that a better alternative than putting them in the site or having more
poles yeah absolutely uh two of them are by driveways that's the most important thing to light and then the third pole um is just driven by the uh existing site constraints we're just working with what we have okay and then the lighting
levels again mainly the drivers right as this board knows that the lighting levels are very hard to meet exactly most of the site plan applications require some kind of relief but that's not over the property line that's just at our driveway it's over the property line at
the drive that's there's also a minor uh Min it goes over a minor bit along Sunset but by the time it gets to the sunset curve we're at 0.1 foot candle which is basically dark and what I didn't mean to say over the property line I meant to say other than in the right of way it's not affecting any of our neighbors that's correct okay
yep um minimum lighting levels uh you want to just talk about that uh yeah so you require a minimum of 6 foot candles um where we have uh the uh behind the angled spaces we have as low
as 0.1 foot candle uh we get the 6 foot candle we understand that we were just trying to balance how much light do we provide in that drive vial versus spilling into the right of way so we opted to have less light spilling into the right of way we did light the spaces themselves the drive aisle behind will
be a little darker but the drive the uh driveways on either side will be lit so I I really think it's going to be a safe condition I have no issue with it okay and the maximum average again it's it's negligible and it's hard to meet just based on the balance yeah yeah that that's essentially compliant but not
quite numerically we need a variance for loading in the front yard correct and again that's a function of working with the existing conditions and the fact that it's a corner lot there's also a CH okay the minimum landscape area in the front yards we're actually uh we comply
on the Sunset Avenue and reel Avenue we need relief and one question that I thought of as we were going through this does that 17.6 take into account the additional landscape Islands or will that number actually increase no that will go up uh you know what I think that is included in there either way it'll
still be less than the 30 right but ultimately should the board approve this we need to get that exact number to Mark will go up if that landscaped island is new the 17.6 is based on the plan that was submitted to the the okay no problem should the vard approve this we'll make sure to get you
that number okay um and again that's just a hardship of needing to balance the parking versus the existing building and its location where it's set back Y and the uh all the pavement for the existing parking for and that goes with the same with the minimum the 25 ft
required uh we have all that parking it would be impossible that yep and I think that covers all of the variances and uh where getting saw which we don't have now along Sunset it's all Stone we're going to take the stone out and we're going to sod it and again we also push
that curve back so it'll be more green and pavement than it is today will that be served by a sprinter system yes we have a I believe there's a note on the FL okay okay y so from a planning perspective is it your opinion that we're furthering the
purposes of the municipal anus law by this application it is okay and um is there any negative imp impact that you could conceive such that it would outweigh all the positives that you just went through not remotely no I think this is uh this is a great benefit this
application it's it's one of the nicer sites in the area it's going to be made even nicer by this we're going to add um more controlled well-designed lighting Landscaping take Stone out sod I think the uh final product is going to be great I don't think it's going to have any adverse impact on the public or the
neighbors all right board members questions I know I have a couple do you happen to have by any chance cuz I'm just looking I'm trying to remember and visualize it do you have an aerial without the overlay on it of
the existing conditions handy no but we have a survey anyone have the here here here here yeah as long as you give it back to me um I guess and and while we're doing that I have a separate question about the slanted parking spots has there been
any thought to slanting them the other way so that you're you're as you're coming south that you're just pulling in instead of having to back out into oncoming traffic do you see what I'm saying I'm just curious I know it's existing
conditioning you redid it to to match as you're back out you're not backing out into this Lane you're backing out this way correct because right now you to to back out to go you would be backing out into oncoming traffic to cross the center line to go back out the way
you're talking about so are you saying if I'm in the southernmost space I would back out into an access aisle to leave no no no no yeah I know you're oh okay all right I misunderstood that okay okay okay I
got you now okay other questions from the board members just to add to him are we putting anything there to prevent people from ping out into oncoming traffic yeah well the curve is there and that's been how it's been operating all along
okay I just know that sometimes you're in the parking lot and you don't see like it's in the right of way we can't put anything there okay so on that on that survey it doesn't look like there's existing sidewalk where we were talking about it
on the southern portion of the property I thought I saw it Let Me Maybe I'm I'm misreading it wrong saw here it's like a a it's conrete no it's yeah that's a side it's like a drainage
thing sure look like sidewalk on the earth I I don't want to I don't want to look it might be concrete gutter it's concrete I don't want to enter I don't want to enter there is a sidewalk directly across the street across the street there's sidewalk but that's not sidewalk okay so I apologize it looked
like it it does look and for just for the record Mr palus is just looking on a Google Earth photo we're not moving just recognizing that so again but there s yeah I didn't know I don't want to take away from Green spacer but there's I don't believe there's any sidewalk
there yeah I know I that's what he was just showing well doesn't the Apple can can you ask your client you think she would know whether the sidewalk in front of a building or not we know there not we looking there's definitely no sidewalk no sidewalk I so are we eliminated so is it going to be
impossible then if there is so I think what what the solution should be is that sidewalk should still be installed there because it can and and a a handicap ramp at the corner so that you can get from uh the
opposite side of Sunset Avenue to this this right that was my original thought yeah but but whatever is there the piping or whatever is that going to be impacted by that it's it's a a concrete uh gutter so it's really it's really just no different than just a curb and
and the pavement it's just so the sidewalk can go with no problem concr yeah the sidewalk can go there without disturbing that okay okay are we okay with putting the the sidewalk in for connectivity then okay um coordinance requires it so I would say yes we're okay with it just making sure you're not
asking for Vance uh and my other question is well we are asking for the relief as it relates to Sunset Avenue right yes but on Belle we con seeed that so the green space in the Northwestern Corner are are you proposing siding that
as well for the ordinance or you're just leaving it naturalized as it is yep leaving it as it is okay cool we are adding some plants though plants are good yeah we're leaving yeah uh other questions from the members of the board uh there is no public so does
anyone else have any comments crico I'll leave it to you as to whether or not you'd like the architect to walk through the architecturals I think they're pretty simple and speak for themselves not that they're not beautiful and I don't need to from a legal perspective I don't need to hear from the architect I ask my board members you want to see the
architect okay all I have Mr filia okay well then uh can I have a a motion to close the hearing motion to have a second second okay all right someone want to make a resolution positive or negative for this make a
positive resolution to well Mr Lex walk us through our our list what are we our list I I'll figure it out I I never hitting me up for the list is difficult that's but I got it all I I make a motion for a positive resolution in accordance to what we
discussed and agreed upon tonight as the board that's it all right moved by Mr paluta seconded by Mr Beal can we have a roll call please okay councilwoman Kaplan yes uh chairman jilia yes Mr M yes Mr Beal yes
Mr yes Vice chair pus Vice chair sorry I will fix that and Mr go thank you very much all right congratulations thank you all right we have one more item of business this evening we have a resolution of the
township Council authorizing the planning board to undertake a plinary investigation to determine if certain property located on 35 identified as block 34 lot 11 on the tax map constitutes an area of Redevelopment with powers of eminent domain pursuant to the local Redevelopment and Housing
law njsa 40a col and 12 A-1 uh this was discussed at our last meeting if you will all remember except for Mr gosson you weren't here um and we are now uh appointing uh topology LLC of
Nork New Jersey to complete investigate complete the investigative report on Route 35 block 34 lot 11 I think we need a roll call for that right Mark yeah you need a motion a second motion second roll call so I want to I'll make a motion I have a second Mark am I allow
to vote on this second second by Mr all right roll call please okay Council yes chairman yes Mr M yes Mr yes Vice chair pus yes and Mr daes all right
great thank you everyone uh motion to close the meeting motion to close the meeting second second all right all in favor I thank you everyone