All right. Calling this meeting of the Township of Ocean Planning Board to order. Roll call, please. >> Councilwoman. >> Mr. >> Here. >> Mr. Bowitz >> here. >> Mr. >> Here, >> Mr.
Mal >> here. >> Mr. >> Here, >> Mr. Vice Chairman >> here. here. Salute to the flag. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> 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's an emergency exit through the courtroom doors and two exits at the rear of the room. There is no smoking that includes ecigarettes and vapes. Board policy, no new cases will be started after 10 p.m. and no new testimony taken after 10:30 p.m. In
addition, the applicant will be limited to 45 minutes of testimony. All meetings will be video and audio taped and shown on the Township of Oceanceans Community Cable channel, channel 77 on Verizon FiOS, and channel 1300 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. We have correspondence. An application for letter of interpretation presence absence has been submitted to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Land Resource Protection for 1211 and
1213 West Park Avenue, block 1.22, lots 33 and 34 in the Township of Ocean, Mammoth County, New Jersey. We have a resolution memorialization BC Belle LLC 35. >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, if you can just carry that to the next meeting.
>> We will be carrying that resolution memorialization to the next meeting. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh, we have a presentation for CME Associates will present a redevelopment investigation report for the property designated as block 1.22,
22 lots 33 and 34 on the township's tax map and commonly known as 1213 West Park Avenue as to whether all or a portion of the area here and after described meets the criteria for an area need of redevelopment pursuant to NJSA4A12A-5
and should be designated as such. And for the record, who do we have presenting for us tonight? >> Um, obviously I'm not Chris Dochney. I'm Ron Reinardson. R E I N E R T SN. Uh, it's the first time I've been here before the planning board, but usually I'm playing Jim Higgins at the zoning
board as a substitute planner, a conflict planner. Pleasure to be here tonight to uh present. I will not take 45 minutes to present. I will promise you that. Um, so basically what we're here for is a non- conddemnation area
need of redevelopment study that Mr. Dne signed. I have it in my hand. You have it in front of you. I'm just going to go very briefly over it and then we can discuss what what what uh you know if you have any detailed uh questions. Um not to bury the lead. The study area is
block 12 1.22 lots 33 and 34. Lot 33 contains the rolling meadow 55 plus residential community. It has official address according to mod 4 is 1213 West Park Avenue. Uh just noticed in the mod 4 record the year built of that uh uh
facility is 1960. Uh lot 34 is a single frame building formerly operated as a single residential care. That address is 1211 West Park Avenue. The mod 4 records indicate that that year built was 1966. Uh while there is a co for a commercial
kitchen utilized, but basically it's not actively used at this point. Um they're under common ownership, the Garden Hill Senior Living LLC according to tax records. Um I and also I just uh the um mod 4
classification of this is class 4A which is class 4A means commercial property. Um so basically just to go over this um there are conclusions on page 11, 13 and 14 very briefly. All parcels uh may be
considered to meet criteria A, D, and H. Um the criteria um I would say the uh criteria A and D are very similar in a sense. They talk about you know unhealthy living conditions, sanitary
conditions and such. But one is really micro dealing with people who actually work in a facility or live in a live in in a structure there. Um the U criteria D is macro talking about the general welfare. Um so basically there's some
records show there were numerous fire calls which uh the report indicates raise concerns regarding safety for workers, residents in the community as a whole. Um lot 34 may be considered criteria B. And I'm going to read these criteria for the record in full but I
just want to give a brief u outline here. There's been significant vacancies over the last two years and I just have to stress again it is assessed commercial and then there's criteria H as it is in a planning area PA1 that is called the smart growth criteria you'll
hear in a second um this um area is in a planning area PA1 which are smart growth areas designated under the current state plan and um one thing that wasn't in the report I may just add it at the end I since we didn't address it there's something called section three I I won't
go into it too much. I'll come back to it if uh if needed. All I would say is that these these are held in common ownership and have one way or the other have historically been operated as part of adult and senior complex. So they may
need one if one doesn't meet all the any of the criteria maybe the other one needs to be included. It's not in the report. I'm just saying it as a consideration. Um, one thing when I read these criteria, it only needs to meet one. So sometimes section
three is added, um, you know, just in case one one doesn't meet all the criteria, but it it's needed to effectuate redevelopment of the area as a whole. >> I mean, basically what that means is that the redevelopment district won't work >> unless you have both properties that are
>> Exa Exactly. Exactly, Mark. That that's per perfectly put. It doesn't it it it won't work. Uh sometimes it's called a hole in a donut. Um I actually had uh dealt with this last week in another redevelopment plan and we talked about
historically how it one of one of the parcels didn't make it because it was not an urban enterprise zone but it was part of an auto body shop and historically it had operated as such. So I'm just saying you may want to consider that. Um so to go into the report pages
8 to nine goes over the statutory criteria. Um so it just says under under the uh redevelopment law delineated area may be declared an area need a redevelopment if if the governing body concludes that
within the delineate area any one of the conditions are found. Um why this was conducted it's on page one. Um, it was pursuant to resolution 25161 adopted by council authorizing the planning board to undertake a
preliminary investigation and con conduct a non-condemnation area redevelopment determination. You'll hear that word a couple times, non-condemnation. So, redevelopment process, it's on page two, role of uh council and planning
board. Council authorizes the planning board by resolution, in this case resolution 25161, to undertake an investigation of the study area to determine whether it meets any of the criteria set forth. Best practices is really affirm with a
planning and related experience such as CME prepares the study, presents it to the board uh before forwarding to council with your determinations. duly notice public hearing to discuss the findings and to hear people who are interested in or would be affected by the contemplated action. The notice just
to point out it goes to the property owner. This is not a typical 200 foot list where you know you have to do 200 ft away. It's just the property owner. I do see the room is empty tonight. um to reconfirm. This is a non-combination redevelopment area. And
background on that redevelopment law was changed in 2012 which basically codified court decisions which requires uh which requires that it be declared an area either as a condemnation redevelopment area or non-condemnation redevelopment
area. That's for transparency and clarity. The court case it was D. Rose v. Harrison in case anyone's interested to look it up. Um where one of our property owners basically came in about about a year later and said, "Hey, we didn't realize that you wanted to condemn our property." And the Rose
Court found in favor of that uh plaintiff. Um the results in the recommendation of the city are then referred back to council in the form of planning board resolution for formal action. Upon the receipt from the planning board, council
may act may not shall may act to adopt a resolution designating the study area in any part thereof as an area of need of redevelopment. Um, basically I'm not going I'm going to say that the study area delineation and
description on page 3 to 7. There's a little background on this and Mr. Lex I found out about this in Perth Amboy. There's a court court case in Perth Amboy where the the planner actually laid out all of this criteria that has been held to today where you
ask for uh property records, municipal records, go over the existing conditions, um historic uh use of the property. Uh just as a background, you know, sometimes I say what why why something's in there. That really is, you know, was described quite well in
that court case and it really is is the outline of any kind of area needs study. Um so basically just to say that uh conditions were observed and photographed during a site visit on uh September 11, 2025. There are photos in
here. Um that uh I just want to say that the all these items the study area descriptions on page three. Land use and zoning is on page four to six. The master plan perspective is on page six. But you know, interestingly enough, a
finding of of of for redevelopment doesn't have anything to do with the master plan. If a redevelopment plan's done does, that's when it comes in, but it is in the report. I just want to acknowledge it. It's background information. And the state planning area classification, this area is in a
metropolit. It's in a PA1. So, basically, page eight has the statutory criteria criteria A through H. I am not going to read all of them just the ones that I they found that has been found and section three is also listed.
Let me just read this into the record. On pages 10 to 14 uh is the property descriptions and statutory criteria. Um generality of buildings are subst this is criteria A. the generality of
buildings are substandard, unsafe, unsanitary, dilapidated or obsolescent or possess any of such characteristics or are so lacking light, air and open space as to be conducive to the unh wholesome living or working conditions.
First section of that sentence says what these conditions are. It's the what and the why. Why, you know, it says as to be conducive to unh wholesome living or working conditions. Um, I'm going to read AR indeed. Criteria D and you'll hear it very similar. Areas with
buildings or improvements which by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, delletterious land use or
obsolete layout or any combination of these or other factors are detrimental to the safety, health, morals and welfare of the community. So one deals with again the micro uh that's criteria A macros and criteria D. Let me read
criteria B. Uh the discontinuence of the use and this was modified by the way in the last few years. Uh criteria B the discontinuence of the use of a building or buildings previously used for commercial retail shopping malls or
plaza, office parks, manufacturing or industrial purposes. the abandonment of such buildings or building or three significant vacancies of such building or buildings for at least two consecutive years or the same being allowed to fall into such a great
state of disrepair as to be untenable. So there's ors there. It's not an and it's or. So it's significant vacancies or buildings for at least two consecutive years. And then the last part is or the same being allowed to fall in a great uh uh state of
disrepair. um the one parcel has been vacant for two years. So it it does fall under that category. So um criteria H is the designation of delineated areas consistent with smart growth planning
principles adopted pursuant to law or regulation. And finally, section three, a redevelopment area may include lands, buildings, or improvements which themselves are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, but the inclusion of which is found
necessary with or without change in their condition for the effective redevelopment of the study area of which they are a part. And actually that uh page 15 has the study conclusions. Um, I'm here for questions. Uh, as I
said, I wasn't going to talk for 45 minutes. >> I mean, these are two small parcels and I'm happy to take questions on it. Let's get to it. >> And absolutely. I >> I think we're curious as what what do we believe the instate or the goal is of the owners? What are they trying to
accomplish here? >> So, so honestly, I can tell you that's not that's not an appropriate question in a consideration. >> I didn't know how else was to word it. No, there's no way there's no way to word it. I I can just tell you that that's not an appropriate question. When you're asked >> when you are asked to investigate
whether a uh a property meets the legal definition for a uh red for a redevelopment area, ultimate consideration of what may or may not happen at the site is completely irrelevant to the question and the board should not even consider it. So, I don't even allow those questions to be asked.
Yes. Can I You might shut me down on this way too, but do we have any examples of something similar that's occurred and what transpired there? >> We we we just did a Orchard Plaza uh redevelopment study a few weeks ago. A few months ago.
>> Yeah, that one. >> Yeah. And and just Okay. I was I was going to just follow up and just say that what I was trying to stress is that council it's also described in here that once they act if they if you forward a
recommendation to designate and they may that word may they don't have to you know they could say no we don't agree we disagree we agree in part but the other thing that is may is they may at some point adopt a redevelopment plan but that's >> which would then come to the planning board
>> that would come back to the planning board for consist consistency with the master plan >> and at that point you would see what what they came up with but I don't like it discussed here because the board should not be making its consideration as to whether it meets the definitions based upon what may or may not happen at
the site whether you like redevelopment don't like redevelopment it's completely irrelevant to what's before the board today >> got so we just stick to the guidelines and correct >> if something happens we'll see it at that >> correct >> next phase >> 100% >> my question as I'm just blank here.
>> I'm looking at a lot of stuff as you read it the criteria. >> I still even on your page 15, >> let's take a look at it. >> Right. I'm trying to place it as specifically by I understand criteria
red but now I'm using this as that's the I use it as a law you know this is the law and the person did this by specifically by doing X Y and Z to fill that in what what does 15 show me
that fills in those gaps to really make it >> I think that is that's a um you know that's a summary of what what we had. I think maybe we maybe it would help to go to each parcel and then we
can discuss it. I'll be happy. I mean >> I don't want to take everybody's side. I'm just trying >> No, we're going to do that anyways. So >> yeah, one way or the other it may help to do it now. Well, I'm just as I looked at it and read it, if you can share my point where I'm viewing from, it looks like any other
beat up property that could use a little bit of softening, some paint. What is it? I'm I'm not seeing that I'm understand sprinkler system. Obviously, that's a big expense. >> Yeah. >> Well, let's just go to page 11. You're
you you are correct because and in fact it was you know court case that have said that what what's that wording they use a bland recitation of the statutory criteria. So again this is like you say what it is and then why why it's the
opinion of of the author of the report. So if we go to page 11 they have criteria A and H. So let's let's see the wording that they highlighted. They they highlighted the word unsafe um you know for the findings. So
township records indicate numerous fire and emergency services incidents at the property and uh the conditions uh raise significant concerns regarding the safety habit habitability and code compliance and uh contends that the
support of finding the site may meet the statutory criteria under criteria a um you know because it's unsafe it's it's it's condu unconducive to unh wholesome living or working conditions. So if it if I'm working there and it's
it's there are unsafe conditions with these >> Sure. >> What is unsafe? I need this like and I'm not trying to be difficult. What is a specific buy? Like I'm sure you know >> you're you're not being difficult. I mean that's that's a legitimate question. >> It's a legitimate question. I'm being difficult.
>> You were arrested for something for you arrested for aggravate assault. I would have to say specifically by striking Mr. So and so with an item to the head causing such injury. I need a specific buy here. It's it's citing the criteria.
It's not show me what it is. It's regurgitating that it's not safe. Then I went to all the calls. Calls for service. Again, these are calls for service. It's none of them are show me what happened at those calls. >> Mental suicide. All there could be
common calls for service. Yes, it's a a facility that people are older. Unfortunately, people do pass away at these kind of facilities. So, EMS calls are not uncommon. Mammoth County is still one of those counties that even if someone's under hospice care, police still have to respond. Mammoth counties
try to fight that, but that are still required for police to show up and take a report. We're one of the few counties that require that. So, it may not be anything other than save your house. If you someone passed away at your house, police have to arrive. >> It's an absolutely valid the animal
cost. Someone saw an animal. >> If every time my wife saw an animal run through our backyard, which God knows is every night, my house would have almost as many calls for service as they do here. There's uh there's motor vehicle calls. So, if there's an accident front that has no correlation to that
property, that's just again another So, I'm trying to figure out what I'm just lost in this to be honest with you. So, I'm trying to figure out what how these criteria are fitting into this, you know, non-condemnation or condemnation. >> Yeah. and and you know >> it's non- condemnation that's very important
>> you you understand where I'm going I got lost here I'm saying it's citing things but it's not giving you the specific buy except for >> so if you go to the appendix C they're photographs that show you >> right >> what they're relying upon to get these
conclusions >> am I correct in understanding there are no pictures of the interior of the facilities >> that would be correct they did not take interior pictures. >> So, >> I didn't hear that. >> They did not take interior pictures.
They took exterior pictures. I do not know why. >> Were they Did they do an interior? >> You You can ask a property owner to, you know, go in interior. It was not done here. >> Wasn't done here. >> I It was not done here. This these are all that the photos are all exterior.
There's nothing interior. >> I think that's, you know, when I read the packet when it came last week, that was my concern. not concerned, but I'll try to follow the verbiage. >> Yeah. >> For a lot, you know, >> and and you >> 33, but the pictures are primarily for 34
>> and it's just it's all neglect. Neglect. I mean, >> just it's self-imposed. It seemed like, you know, when I saw on safe, I thought, you know, folks are living there, >> but it didn't and they didn't show any there was no report with the code
compliance. What was I didn't unless I missed that in this but I didn't see >> no and why I you're right and this is why I stress as I'm presenting this here >> you only need to find one criteria >> but it there's nothing substantial
>> well of those of A and D you may disagree and say we don't think it's A and D >> hold on I'm sorry two great nowhere in here does it say that they're using criteria D and you've referenced it a number of times it's AB and H >> no it's criteria D is on Page 11. Page 11. >> Page 11 on the top.
>> ADH different. >> I have a different lot. >> That's for the other. >> They're two different lots. >> You know, wait a second. >> So, criteria criteria D. >> Oh, you're like >> criteria. I need that. I have no
>> Wait, I was looking at the wrong report. >> Yeah, he's looking at the wrong report. >> Okay, but also criteria D, I think, is only cited in uh on >> it was added. It it was added to the report. >> Oh, no. It's on both. It's on both. B's only on one of them.
>> The the original report did not have criteria D. Got it. Okay. >> And I can just say for myself and I reviewed this report and I said, well, if you're citing criteria A, it's commonly not because you want to just throw the kitchen sink at it. A and D is
so interrelated. If you meet one, you usually meet the other. I don't understand why that was not included. Now, you all may disagree with those findings and say it doesn't mean it. I'd say there's one thing that's just objective, you know, that that is beyond
debate. It isn't a it isn't a PA1 area for smart growth. Now, there's been debate in in legal circles about criteria H about smart growth. Um, this has to do with it was added after was
the original authors of the redevelopment law stad and uh Dave Roberts did not include it. This was added during governor McGrevy's time. If you remember they renamed the office of state planning to office of smart growth. However, it's part of the
statute and it is within those areas. So in commonly PA1 areas are to encourage smart growth. Um, and I say for a practical standpoint, for areas that are not that are condemnation, it would
really be a tough tough um just to rely on that. But non-condemnation, it's I mean, it's part of the statute. It's it meets it. So, um, you only have to say you only have to um it only has to meet one. So, that
particular one, it does meet it. And I think it's a fair debate among all yoursel among yourselves about A and D. >> So let me just I mean do we amend the report that >> or could we where you're asking that
>> you're asking for redevelopment based on >> they're not asking for anything. We're recommending they're suggesting to us we are agreeing or disagreeing. >> It's your report. >> But can we can we agree on one and not others? >> Yeah it's your report. >> Absolutely. It's your report. you you can send a recommendation
to say you find it it just meets criteria H and maybe section three for the I would say actually you know what the vacant parcel actually meets criteria B it has been vacant for two years it has a >> it's not vacant they're using the kitchen
>> well it's well let let's read it again and then we we can we can see if >> the question first but that is that something that >> it's your report we >> yeah we can we can >> you can send back whatever you want you You decide that you're not convinced that it meets any of the criteria and and send back a resolution saying it
doesn't and you re and you reject everything. >> It's your report. You're not what he this is your report. I I can't emphasize that enough >> and and that's why we write >> agree to it. >> It's you know it's common practice to have someone else rather than someone on the
board write a redevelopment plan. So you contract it out usually to a planning firm. But again, it's your report, which is I'm pleased that it says that you may consider it criteria A. You may because you we're not telling you you you should you may consider it and and if you agree
or disagree. So, let me just read this this criteria B again. So, let's hear the nuance. The discontinuence of the use of building or buildings previously used for commercial, retail, shopping, malls or plazas, office parks, manufacturing or industrial purposes.
Okay. That's part that that's a discontinuency use of of those. The abandonment of that's the new section they added. The abandonment of such building of buildings significant vacancies of such buildings
or buildings with for at least two con or or significant vacancies of such building or buildings for at least two consecutive years or the same being allowed to fall into such great disrepair it be untenable. So I think that the sentence let's this is the one you got to focus in on let's be
realistic here but >> the abandonment of such building or building significant vacancy is okay significant vacancies of such is it significant vacancies to just use it as is as a kitchen >> what square footage of the building what is the square footage of the building what's the square footage of the kitchen >> the kitchen is not much I don't have
that answer I'm not going to put that on the record because I don't have the square footage >> so how are we supposed to determine if it's significant >> that's a good point >> what what is significant What's significant? I mean, they're using they're using the kitchen. It's it's in use even if parts of it are not. Would
they >> be able to uh continue operations without the kitchen? >> Yeah, it's it's the building at the time only has its kitchen facilities in use. They don't have the square footage. >> And I would imagine again not having
interior pictures, but one would assume that it's a commercial kitchen that meets commercial regulations. those tend not to be they're bigger than my kitchen generally if they're preparing food for assisted living residents. So I I find I I can't make that
determination without knowing more specifics of the building and its current use >> and and that's and that's a fair point. I think here this may be you know it may be under consideration because I'm just not here to say pass this. I'm here to say, you know, advise you and and tell
you >> and I can also tell you about the board doesn't have to adopt this tonight >> and you read my mind. >> And if you want to carry this to the next meeting and maybe Mr. Dne comes to the next meeting since he's the one who actually did the study and and and you also ask him if he can get interior
shots, Ron, ask him if he can get interior shots of the building. Absolutely. >> Uh come up with come up with a little more specifics because the board basically is finding the the report not to be specific enough if I'm hearing >> Yeah. And because you may >> No, I was just gonna say I like Mark's idea, but you had something else.
>> Oh, we have more questions that I think we need to ask so you can take them back to him so he can >> we need to make the record and go back and and and go and and I think we may be landing on commonly agreed ground here that >> we need some more info.
>> We need some more re research >> because there's two open-ended questions and uh I hear I hear where you're coming from. So I I would like to to go in since we're going to ask questions. I I think that we all need more information. Is anyone feeling differently? I need
more. Okay. So my my first pass at this when I read this, my biggest single concern is that there is a residential facility. There are people who are currently living there. And if I'm reading this report, the word and you pointed out earlier that is in bold is
unsafe. So my first question is if it is unsafe, how how are we continuing to have people living there? That's that's question one. And the correlary to that question is have is the author of this report
upon discovering that the building is unsafe with residents made a complaint and filed an alert to the New Jersey Department of Health that does the lensure for this. And also, while we're on the topic, I want to see the New Jersey Department of Health inspection
reports for the facility to either agree or disagree with it. I think they're going to be the most telling part, especially when we come back to the criteria A and D. If the Department of Health has found this to be substandard, we have a problem. If they haven't found it to be substandard, well, then why are
we finding it substandard here? I I think this is critical. These facilities are not just operating in a vacuum. They're under state regulation. state should be inspecting them. I would like to know what the state's saying. >> Same with the fire department. Everything seems to be
>> more specific more specificity about the fire reports. Is that what you're >> Yeah, because under the um the issuance that were given there, everything seems to say abated. So, if something's abated, I would assume it's been rectified some some which way sort. So,
>> if it's so unsafe, I would have some concern. Okay. So, so far this is what I got. We state the res the concern is it's saying it's a it's a active residential facility and it's unsafe. So, how are still people still there
>> and how many people are still there >> and how many how are people and number >> can you say how many are there versus how many it's licensed for? Like maybe they have 10 but they're licensed for 20. We'd like to know that too. there
and license 4. >> I don't write fast so probably should have been a pharmacist with my handwriting. Has any complaints been filed? >> No, no, no. The inspection the state
inspection report findings. >> Okay. New Jersey Department of Health records and inspections. Okay. So, I'm just going to I'll cross out the complaint. >> So, one thing I just wanted to add is that this has not didn't have a business license for four straight years. They were
unable to provide people insurance. Their state license expired. Department of Health had been trying to get in there and had a very difficult time. Has a very difficult time getting in there. We had to tell them that they had to shut down to
get them to their state license, their business license, their food license, doing proper inspection. They just removed all these things like two weeks ago. >> All of it in the report. It needs to be in the report. >> This I mean some is needed.
>> No. Um some of it is I I think that we're it's at it's at a 30. >> No, no, no. That's okay. I think maybe we're at maybe this report's more at a 20,000 foot level and we got to get that we got to get that plane down to the
ground and get get to get to nitty-gritty. Does that sound uh >> Yeah. Yeah, logical. >> I think if we're citing those areas, if we're going to focus on a >> and it's unsafe >> and try to try to try to get access inside >> why it's unsafe. >> Yeah.
>> You know, or if we're going to focus on again from what your site, you know, it was just really it's a really difficult read saying and then there's >> you're you're being very polite. >> Yeah. There there's no nexus there to show the correlation. You know, there was a uh court case uh in in West
Orange, I think Mananga a couple years ago talked about criteria D and it said, you know, you got to say why it's affecting the general welfare. And what I'm hearing is, hey, it may be there. There is some stuff, but we don't have enough yet >> there.
>> But I think what jumped out to everyone because we read them independently was the unsafe >> knowing that facility and >> the concerns like >> Yeah. And the photos, did you capture that, too? Indoor photos. >> Indoor photos. >> This board doesn't
>> like though they're not going to get access to the interior based on what Nicole had said. >> I listen, I I just want to to state for the record, this board very infrequently, if ever, deals with imminent matters of life and death. But reading this report, hearing about unsafe conditions with seniors living
and and this report being very unequivocal about it being unsafe, it's alarming to me. And I want to make sure that we are exercising oversight not only in this redevelopment process, but that the town is alerted and the proper authorities are alerted.
It's I think >> it's very concerning. I think we had a um I don't know how to say it properly but I think between the word redevelopment and non- conddemnation I think we lost sight of something here between the
safety and the redevelopment things got conflated >> is my opinion because now the way it sounds is like there's people's lives in jeopardy and I don't think this has a lot to do so much with redevelopment as it has to do with safety
right now my opinion as I'm reading and putting it together, but that's just one man's opinion. >> I I absolutely agree with you. I think it's just something uncovered as we've discussed redevelopment. >> I think we lost sight of something removing uh fancy words like redevelopment, if you will.
>> Um but let's go back to redevelopment then. So criteria H questions. I understand that it is in a smart growth area, but smart growth principles involve transit, access to transit, walkability. Where is the nearest
transit station to the facility and how accessible is it to pedestrians, bicycles, and non-automobiles? So, we need to get we need to get a little more detail, which is again that was the last line of this here. It's and it really
comes with the redevelopment handbook also talking about it that you you know it it really needs to supplement other items. So we need to we need to get that more detailed on on you know how exactly it promotes.
>> Yes. Mr. Lexon I have a question for you and I I think I know that we can't but the relation to the correspondence we received earlier this evening that was read into the record. Can we bring that up? Can that be questioned?
>> Just as reread. Can you remind me what the correspondence was? >> The correspondence was for an LOI for this these properties. >> Yeah, I didn't see the correspondence. So, I don't have >> It's just >> It's just an LOI. >> It's just an LOI for these
>> a letter. It's just And it's just for your >> I will read it again for just so we're all on the same page. And after >> Yeah. You're just getting the courtesy notification. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Right. for this application that happens to be on the same agenda >> for this. >> Yeah, I think it's it's irrelevant to
this conversation, however. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Do we have more questions we want to make sure get answered? We're just piling on at this point, so if you have them, ask them. >> You're making records over there to Nicole. We compare notes. We go. We'll
compare notes. No, and and that's to be fair because if we're given directions saying it's your report and you say we need more >> and you have to be satisfied with the report. >> You can't you don't rubber stamp just because the planner walks in and say okay you're not forced to do that. It is your report.
>> And I I say that all the time when I do these reports. This is your report not mine. >> All right. So then can I have a motion to carry this uh hearing to our next meeting? >> Make a motion next at the next meeting. You're not gonna have time. >> December.
>> It's gonna have to be this. It's gonna have to be a December meeting. >> Yeah. >> Which is what, >> Nicole? >> Is December 29th? >> Well, I'll tell you what. I >> I've already got that week booked off. So,
>> it's going to be tough. Yeah. Uh, >> not we have to do I mean I don't know how they're going to do with the type of questions they're that they're giving tonight. We're not going to wrap that up within a half an hour >> and unless Chris just walks in here and has the most amazing presentation of all time. >> That's it.
>> January too long or >> do we want to do Colleen not to make your life worse? Do we want to try and do a special meeting earlier in December? >> I can't get people now. >> Yeah, de special meetings are very hard to schedule. >> Yeah. Um >> especially in December, let's be realistic. >> Yeah, November and December are the
worst months to try to post try to do that >> things with the holidays. You know, you got Christmas, you got Hanukkah, you got >> and you lose a week because of illegal holiday. >> So people don't want to do December 29th. >> That'd be tough getting a quorum to be honest with you. >> Part I'm not getting clothes on.
>> Reord. >> Oh, that's right. That's right. I'm sorry. Yeah. January 26th >> potentially because we might be re-reorging. >> Yeah, you may. >> That is also an option. >> That's true. >> December.
>> That's what I would do. >> Yeah. I think that's a good idea. So, >> Mr. Be back to you. >> I make a motion to carry this to the December 29th meeting. >> I second. >> All right. All in favor? >> I
>> I. Any opposed? abstained. All right. Anything else on our agenda tonight? I think that was it. >> All right. >> All right. Do I have a motion to adjourn the meeting? Moved by Miss Valente. Do I have a second? Second. Seconded by Vice
Chair Pollutes. All in favor? I. I. Thank you. >> Good night.