Very good. Good evening. The Routton Township Planning Board is now in session. Call to order. The notice requirements of the open public meetings act have been satisfied by the placing of a notice of this meeting on the bulletin board at the municipal building, filing the notice with the township clerk, and transmitting the
notice to the Courier News and the Trenton Times. I have a roll call, please. >> Chairman, Mr. Edward Gettings >> here. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drew >> here. >> Miss Robin Fatu has us to be excused. Mr. Bob King >> here. >> Miss Michelle Cavakiri has also asked to
be excused. Mr. Dennis Concan >> here. >> Mr. James Miller >> here. >> Mr. Glenn Solowski >> here. >> And Mr. Joseph Lane >> here. >> Board professionals board attorney Mr. Joe Toriello >> here. >> Township planner Mr. Jeffrey Varella >> here.
>> And all other board professionals have asked be excused. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you. I'm going to ask everybody to please rise for the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence for the men and women in the armed services. >> 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. >> Thank you. Okay, next up, any comments and reports? I don't have anything this evening other
than what's further down on the agenda. Anybody on the board have something they'd like to raise this evening? >> No. >> Oh, I'll just um >> Sure. >> We did get a proposal from um Reesha's firm for the stormwater management plan
this afternoon. So, we'll forward that to the board for justformational, but you know, I'm assuming he he responded to all the questions that we had when we commented it as a subcommittee. So, >> a bit more detailed. Anyhow,
>> yes. Yes. Any >> we'll send that over to to the board or you want to meet as a subcommittee? Um, I'd say let's do it virtually just to take a look at it and if anybody has any concerns then we could meet but and then you know I would think we could come
back to the next meeting to make the formal recommendation but you can get the other cogs of the wheel going. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you for bringing that up. That's good. We've been waiting a while for that. >> Yeah. >> Engineers comments. We don't have the engineer here with us this evening.
Planners comments. Jeffrey, you're going to be talking here in a minute. >> Yeah. No. No additional comments. >> Okay. Thank you. Attorneys comments. >> I I was just talking to Jeff uh about the update on the litigation with you know Carazinski's litigation. I think I
could do it in public because I'm only reporting on the status that is public information anyway. So okay. >> Um settlement negotiations are done. It's not case doesn't look like it's going to resolve. um you know went to mediation
the the plaintiff was not willing to accept less edus right and the the authority was not willing to give the 100% that the plaintiff wanted so the negotiations
broke down um our attorney the board's attorney pressed for a expedited um case management order. So all discovery has to be complete by March 15th and then dispositive motions need to be filed by
April 15th. So the intent is for summary judge of motions to be filed which for those who don't know means that it's just a legal argument that as a matter of law the pl you know the plaintiff cannot prevail and that the case should be dismissed. That's what's going to be
filed. So, if there's anything beyond that in terms of an update, I'll keep you posted. >> Very interesting. Thank you. >> Can I ask what how many EDUs were on the table? >> I I don't know the specifics. I don't
know if Jeff knows or not. I didn't I haven't been >> 42, right? How many during >> Oh, negotiation proposed settlement. >> Oh, I >> Yeah, it it was it was you know, less than >> less than 42. >> Yes. And I think by a lot
>> and by a lot. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> More than one. >> Okay. Just interested. >> All right. Well, thank you. Okay. Under car correspondence discussions and recommendations this evening. Jeff, I'm going to throw this over to you because you had provided us with a nice summary
of the ordinance ordinances. And just a little background. I think everybody remembers we had ordinances that were identified by the board of adjustment when they gave us their report here several weeks ago and and
now we have your list too and we certainly want to move forward with this. >> Okay. >> But go ahead. >> Um yeah, so this was uh previously discussed uh in the fall. I just itemized it um went through with some some more detail of what we discussed and what was identified. Uh some of
these have been um singled out in numerous applications and with these changes they would uh streamline some of the um process and minimize some of the arguments that are
are being done post approval and uh during during the hearings. Uh so if you want I can go through each one or if there were any any questions or uh discussion points on on a specific item I can direct >> Yeah. Why don't you do a quick walk
through >> on each one some time tonight? Yeah. >> Uh so the first one accessory apartments this was um done as part of the uh re-examination of the entire um ordinance and this was this zone was I think left out. was the only single
family uh zone that was not included, but I don't think that was the intent. So, when there were specific um applications coming in, this technically by ordinance, it's it's not permitted for somebody to have an accessory apartment in that zone. uh
corner lots. As of right now, this has been an issue where uh if a residential property is on a corner lot, they can't have an AC unit or or they couldn't have an AC unit and a generator. That got changed. Uh there was a condition to have it landscaped.
So, in the past, they would have to go in front of the board and almost always there was a condition to cut to buffer it or to move it in a place that was aesthetically pleasing. So, that was that was a fix about five years ago. What we're finding is that
there are other structures, sheds, um, and then pools that are in similar situations where the resident doesn't have anywhere else to put it. So, then they go in front of the board of adjustment. Not saying that it should be
permitted, but this is just something that's uh, the board of adjustment has seen a lot of applications where a shed is in the front yard. it's within the setback. Um, and there really isn't a condition that's placed for that structure.
>> Yeah, it's tough. I mean, I think from my board of adjustment hat, we see a lot of these, you know, and I think if we can figure out a creative way to manage the placement of some of these accessory structures,
um, and allow them, it would take a lot of the, you know, we see a lot of poles in the in the sideyard, you know, because if you're on a corner lot and you know, the lot's not real deep, you know. So, that's one of the
>> two front yards and two side yards. It's not >> too much of an option. >> Yeah. >> Uh fast food restaurants, I think this was just this was just as part of the same revision. They're technically not permitted. That's
>> in the whole township. >> In the whole township. >> Oh, we have >> Oh, well it changed. >> It it changed. So, as part of the the re-examination, the definition of retail specifically did not include fast food
restaurants. So, when Seven Brew uh it's a coffee drive-thru application went from the board of adjustment, we were looking through it and technically it's not it wasn't listed as a permitted use and it wasn't included in the retail definition. So, Interesting.
>> Needs to be modified. Go back the way it was. >> It was an oversight. We don't want We don't want to say we screwed up, but you know. >> No. >> I think Sonic, right? Sonic is here. That'll be screwed up. Considered fast food. >> Yeah. So, previously it was okay, but in 2024 as part of the the new revision. It
just >> Oh, now I understand. >> Yeah, it was an oversight. >> Yeah, it it wasn't >> they want to not allow fast. >> Yeah, it wasn't intentional. they were already kind of limited of where they were permitted mainly because of the drive-throughs >> uh in the queueing. >> The intent was to permit it and include
it with the retail to make it more exclusive, but it was >> that >> um this is just an example of another one where a private garage is linked into a gasoline station. So, if somebody wanted to repair a garage, it would be
under uh that condition. where it should actually be separate. Um, it was meant to kind of combine the two conditions, but before there was it was um it was separate. So, it's just it's just uh reclarifying the
conditional use. >> So, we had that on Bartles's Corner Road, right? We've got gas and then auto service >> and just up 31 across from Stop. >> Yeah, that's another used to be Bills. >> Yep. That's right. >> Yeah. I know they came before us a while ago. >> Yeah.
>> The young guy trying to >> redo the tanks. >> So, uh signage which >> has been uh >> yeah, >> please >> top of discussion uh both with the planning board and board of adjustment.
Um so this was pertaining to the single tenant structures where it's 5% and with the 100 square foot cap on it. So, it's really it's limiting the scale in which you could place a sign and the number of signs. It's only limited to one per tenant.
>> Jeeoff, have you thought about, you know, communities that we what we might look toward to see what they do with their sign ordinances? You know, I just, you know, I >> Yeah, I could see where where Hillsbor I could see what Hillsboro >> Yeah. I mean, I think it'd be helpful
because I know I know we're too strict, but we also don't want to have like we saw a board of adjustment where new warehouses coming in and wanted signs on places you can't even see from the road.
So, you know, and it was exceeding all over the place. So, yeah. >> Yeah. Um, I could look at at Hillsboro or Bridgewater, uh, see how they regulate >> signage. Uh, but these are
those two are are pertaining to wall signs. I mean, the the ground signs are limited to one. I think that's that's pretty uh fair. There hasn't been any um real issues with the with a a ground sign variance. Um, it's still limited to
one per property unless you're on a quarter lot. Uh, and then directional accessory signage. That's where a lot of when a lot of permits come in, they end up getting denied because they go over the three square feet. It's usually around 6 to nine square feet where they
want to have an accessory signage for internal purposes, but the the ordinance calls for three square feet, which can be a little restrictive. >> Where where does three square feet come from? That's I don't know the origin of
it, but the way it reads is that it's for entry e exit and entry signs, but it's applied for any other accessory signs that aren't pylon ground signs. So, if somebody had like some of the dealerships, they have
>> internal signs that are >> this way, you know, direct. >> Yeah. So, it's kind it doesn't it doesn't apply for either standard. So, it's kind of it's it's more or less another ground sign because it it shows
that this one's a a directional sign. >> Yeah. I was just wondering if that's if there's a general municipal standard out there because uh those three spare feet, you can't see it from a truck. You can't see it. I mean, they're they're they get obstructed and that's why people still
ignore every sign there at the BBC. They just they still drive through. They're and they're parked across the thing. People ignore signs that it's not big and in their face or it's not on their their directional GPS,
>> they ignore them. >> Yeah. >> So, is it is that is there something we can do to make it better? I think if there's flexibility because the ordinance reads that it's three square feet to then it limits the
planning board for 16 square feet. So it's 3 to 16 is the gauge for directional signs, but I wouldn't be able to approve a three square uh six square foot directional sign. It would have to go in front of
the board. >> So it's coming up with a standard that's readable, usable. >> Yes. but doesn't like make gigantic signs all over the place. >> Yeah. >> Uh lot circles. Uh AR2 and AR5 do not
have lot circles defined in the ordinance. I think this was when the when the zones were created, they just they never updated that that section, but they they apply it as the the diameter is equal to the width of the of the frontage. So, it would be
appropriate for it to be actually it's it's been applied for 250. The width the frontage is actually greater than 250, but 250 have been applied for the past two subdivisions. uh site plan exceptions. This is was a
topic I believe last year it got brought up um where if commercial businesses want to improve their properties and they the the enlargement of a structure the site plan exception only pertains to the use of the of the commercial
business. So if a use of a business changes then they are permitted to do so without going in front of the planning board. If everything works out as soon as they put on an addition to the to the building then they have to go in front of the planning board
even if it all the zoning checks out. So, that's something where that there's a site plan waiver option and there's been discussions of even if there's other structures on the site or any modifications, they go in front of the they have to go in front of the planning board even though the zoning checks out
and they're not there's no variances or or waiverss uh being sought. So, this is something that I don't want to go against what the MLU says or or anything that the the township ordinance says, but I don't know if there's any options that are are
out there that kind of >> Yeah. >> allows businesses to go through with a permit if everything checks out or at least a TRC meeting or anything of that sort. So, they don't have to go in front of the planning board. >> Yeah. So, if it's if it's 100% compliant. >> Yeah. If it's 100%
>> But they're just expanding. Do we need to look at it? >> Exactly. >> That's the question. >> Yeah. like grocery store turns into a tumble gym and it's no structure or they're just doing
>> so if some if internal if if there's actually one that's coming in uh a warehouse where internally they're changing the circulation and creating a a bay door that wasn't there and
changing some of the the sidewalk and and removing and uh removing some parking spaces, but all the zoning checks out. Technically, that's a modification to the to the site and should go in front of the planning board for for your review and approval. Even
though the zoning checks out and there's no it's it's not a high concern, but it's still a change in in the plan. >> Interesting. And that'll be >> I I have to I have to look into that.
>> Um just off the top of my head, which is always dangerous. Um you know, just because it's fully compliant, that doesn't mean you don't become a become you come before planning board. It's because that just means it's a
shall issue as opposed to a may issue. But that doesn't mean you don't come. And I would still think that the board would want to talk about like traffic circulation or you like there's there's a whole host of issues >> that impact public safety that I think
would warrant a discussion again fully recognizing if everything is fully compliant. I would say from the deis to this board my legal advice is you can't deny it. It's a shall issue right? But that >> that's different than whether or not it should even come before the board in the
first instance. So, I have to I have to think about that. >> Yeah. >> I don't I don't >> Good point. >> I don't really know. >> Well, that kind of reminds me of when we have those um like when the high school comes before us. >> Yeah. Well, those are courtesy reviews. >> Courtesy reviews. We can make suggestions, right? We can say, "Well, how's this going to affect traffic
circulation or whatever, but there's nothing we can do." >> But there's a whole section in the MLU that talks about that. And if you remember, we were playing legal volleyball back and forth where he was right and I kept on pointing to, you know, he he was arguing practicality
>> and I'm and I'm like, well, you know, common sense has no place in the law. The statute says this is how it has to go. So, yeah, you just have to do it, you know. Does it make sense? No. Right. You're congressman. It's like, you know, it is what it is. But, uh, yeah, that's
it's interesting >> because we have the option for a site plan waiver. They could just come in for the site plan waiver, but then they still have to >> instead of the 10 days that I have to review a permit, it's then okay. Well, you have to you have to go and >> get the plans and and
>> without giving a definitive answer. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It's in your court. >> Okay. That's a tricky one. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, it is. >> I hate to make people come before the board in more than they have to, but I think it is a good idea. >> That's an expense. >> Yeah. It gives us an opportunity to
address outstanding things on >> Well, that's true, too. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that's a good point. >> Well, look, if this is the preference, I mean, let's just say that that's what they have to do. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. It sounds like that's everybody's wish is to >> if I think about everybody's you know >> we have seen businesses legacy businesses that have been here a really long time that have expanded and expanded and done a lot of stuff but not
come for any approvals. Um this this process is the way that we find out. Mhm. >> You know, it doesn't mean we don't approve them. I'm thinking of certain
pizzeria, you know, but um it at least >> parking lot next door. >> Yeah. Yeah. At least it gives us some ability to kind of bring things into more conformity because they they weren't changing use.
If they were changing use then, you know, but they anyway. So I I think you're I think you're right, Joe. Sometimes there's times when we need we need to look at stuff. >> Yeah. I don't I don't disagree. I mean, some of these
>> Yeah. There's not I think the latest is from the '9s that this application is the uh a leisure court >> uh one of the warehouse uh facility there. They're that's that's the they
actually submitted for a site plan waiver. Uh, >> so yeah, the latest record is from like the 90s. >> Oh yeah, probably lots of >> good good opportunity dust. Take a look. >> So that's addressed at the TRC level in
terms of you guys will be looking at at each application you can make your determination of whether >> you know >> well by then they would already have they would already have an application. Yeah, it would have >> we don't see them unless it's an application. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> But okay, interesting. >> Yeah, >> speaking of TRC. >> Yeah, TRC. >> So, >> nice segue. >> So, in the definition, it only applies for sub subdivisions. So, it says that
they only review applications that go for a subdivision. That's where >> Yeah. >> subdivision inight. >> Recently brought up by Mr. Grubenberg. >> Yeah. So, >> that's an easy fix and I told him >> three words. >> I told we're going to take care of that.
So your interpretation is incorrect and we're going to clarify that. >> The other thing is when exactly >> the meeting is called because sometimes we have it before they submit, sometimes we have it after. Um the the ordinance calls for once it's complete, it goes to
the TRC meeting. So we could just keep it like that and just >> I think that makes sense because they dribble along with stuff. Um, I mean it sometimes it takes a long time for applicants to be complete so you can get a full picture. >> Yeah.
>> So I don't know. I'd rather not see the fifth revision of the fourth submission, you know. I'd this is the final submission that's hopefully going to come in until it gets to the board. >> Yeah, exactly.
>> So conservation easement ordinance. This was brought up um >> here and other other committees. It's the way the uh ordinance reads is that it's wetland areas and it doesn't it mentions wetland transition areas in a
in a further section. So the way the township has always um identified it is wetlands and wetland buffers. But the way it reads, a lot of engineers, they're only delineating the wetlands and leaving out the buffer area. So then
it comes into an argument of you got to do the wetland buffer and then it's it's just inconsistencies. >> So to add transition areas to it just further defines what what the requirement is.
>> Thank you, Mr. Gr. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you again. >> Well, Woodmont, too. They argued with us. They wouldn't give us the buffers. >> Woodmont properties on open space parcel. >> Yes. Yeah.
>> They wouldn't catch. >> Yeah. >> And as well as the easements, uh the township uh creates signage with contact numbers and and natural preservation um information. Those aren't required
either uh by ordinance. It's it's only through uh procedures. So just having that kind of clear will make it >> will make it easier. >> Yeah. I think it when we think about some of the conflicts coming into township committee about where people are hunting of things they think is their land versus other people's land.
And I mean if these at least the easement areas are clearly identified, it'll maybe the light bulb will go off a little bit. in a lot of these they don't have a lot of older ones they don't have signs or cap pins and so a lot of there's
>> confusion >> confusion and sometimes destruction so >> somewhat related to this I have a question for you I happen to go by the old Applebees today making my way to Home Depot and the gates on that pond
are wide open there's a some ice on that pond pond. I think it's only partially ice cuz they have a fountain that blows there. Probably a hundred Canadian geese on there. But the condition of that area with that that fence and I
point to another one on Westcot Drive just down from the hospital. I mean, the fence is falling down. Do we take a look at those regularly? Are they responsible for maintaining those? >> Yeah. So, technically, I mean, every applicant, they supply a stormwater maintenance manual, right?
>> And it calls out what the applicants have to do. It's really a it's something that a lot of towns really yes the it's it's on the engineering department to >> do inspections
>> inspect that over the years a lot of these basins haven't been >> maintained but yeah by site plan approval >> the the applicant is responsible every one to two years to uh to maintain all the uh structures and the and the of the
sediment and fencing and to make it >> okay >> work efficiently, but it just hasn't been >> Yeah, the one near Applebee's jumped. The old Applebee's jumped out because I think some kid got in there and thinks that I mean it's been cold, but that pond was not all iced over.
Some kid goes out on that because the gates were wide open. I'm not asking you to do anything, Jeff. I just wanted to understand how that gets checked. It's usually done by engineering. >> Township engineer would be I mean the in-house engineer would be
>> their department would be the good one. >> Yeah, the inhouse engineer. >> But it has it really hasn't it's >> over the years it just hasn't been done. I mean it's it's something that there's a lot to do. >> 20 years ago it wasn't really >> So now that this is known will this be communicated to our house engineer or is
this something? I can talk to Mr. Tully if that's how the story I didn't know what the I just now that we know knowing it not doing anything is I think >> that's where the liability comes in. Right. >> I think so. >> That would be good if you could. Sure. >> Yeah. >> Should go out there and take a look at
it. And the one the one on Westcot you can't see if there's water in that pond because it's above the road. The fence is rotted and falling down. you know, between the last the office buildings, >> I think they have to complete inspections and people have to turn
reports in under the new ordinance. So, >> compliance storm water utility ordinance. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Private property owners are supposed to be dealing with this, but >> yeah, >> we know how. Yeah. But >> here's where it's it's also a it's a
site plan approval. They're two two concurrent Y. Okay, thank you Jeff. >> Thank you Bob that right >> uh structure definition. So the the way the structure definition is it's pretty
consistent with um I believe the MLU where it considers above and below um anything that's built above or below uh the ground. And so it encompasses pavement, curbing, um buildings, uh
other structures. And so when it's applied to zoning standards, it gets uh convoluted as to what's really a structure and what can what certain other um sections apply for it. For instance, a floor area ratio. There are some
exceptions to where a structure can cannot be built. So when it's applying to floor area, it's pertaining to anything that would have floor area within the structure. But the way the ordinance is there's there's argument
for if if there's an area where you can't build the structure, then that is that is decreased from the overall net area. So there's arguments where if you
can build pavement then they do not pertain to that calculation. >> Couple places then it needs to be updated. It definitely needs to be applied. >> Yeah, it needs to be updated and um
sections need to be it needs to be it needs to be separated. Exactly. >> So is F is is that the main one where it kind of is a glaring highlight? What about with um we're always arguing if the road dedications and stuff like that
because that comes out a gross area, right? >> Yes. Um >> yeah, >> that can also apply. The other is that some applicants come in and say that a structure has to meet the principal setback. So they'll come in and say pavement doesn't meet the principal setback,
>> which then there would be everybody would actually need a variance. Yeah. I mean, that's only happened a couple times, but it's still >> the way that our definition applies structures, it would >> it's more restrictive. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Okay. >> Uh, stormwater minor development checklist. Uh we haven't gotten specific comments from Reesha's office, but I know that they've after reviewing it, they've uh they've had some suggestions based on how how the um the process
should be should be run and some some other uh testing that needs to be done for that for that permit. Uh so stakeout requirement for accessory structures this has been an internal
proc process where um if a pool or pool structures are within 30 ft we require an asbuilt post construction. Um there's been there's been many applications to the board of adjustment where they get approval and then they build it wherever
they want. >> Yeah, >> that's interesting. >> Oh yes, >> we saw a lot. >> And then they just say oopsie, right? Pretty much. And then they get the built and then >> they That's wild.
>> Yeah, there were a bunch of them last year. >> As a steak, I think it makes a lot of sense. It really does. So that's board of adjustment has started adding it as a condition of approval stake out for like new new sheds and accessory building. >> It's really smart
>> because people are putting them, you know, not in the right places. >> Well, help them not make a mistake. Give them >> like put that. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> The only the only thing is where when does it get
deprived? So what >> if the structure is 30 feet usually it's front. Now that we have this this storm water management requirement there's a lot more asbuilt conditions to ensure that they don't come back or they don't
build over the thousand square feet of the 24 2500 square ft requirement. Uh but for stakeouts it's usually after a board approval or if it's within 30 feet for a pool. But if there's a garage that's 15 that they propose at 15 15 ft
from the property, there's very rare. I can't really require an asbuilt because it's just sometimes I do if it's 15, but it's not it's not a requirement. >> So,
um, and then landscape revisions for commercial sites. Uh, this has been coming up for a couple applications. uh there's consistencies with uh the requirements for parking and just uh or landscaping and just making it uh clear
for applicants. >> Yeah. >> And giving some more flexibility like we don't have to always rely on the what is it 4 foot wide by 20 foot long two parking stall you know. >> Yeah. Yeah. so that we can maybe get some creativity.
>> The latest revision actually did help out with the >> tree replacement requirement, but this would just allow more enforcement. That's that's all the ones that I noted from from October. Um
>> I'll just comment on the conservation easement language. Um Amy Green brought this up at the environmental commission meeting. Um I guess when the township was purchasing a a a new partial with that was going to have a conservation easement on it. Um
she said some of the language in our easement could be updated. um you know, even just reading over this, it's kind of a little clunky um about some areas and things that it applies to, and I'm not sure it complies
with the new storm water um rules. So, you know, there there may be some ability to enhance this so people understand what they can and can't do a little bit better. So, she had some ideas. So, I know Robin commented that she'd like the
environmental commission to try and give some recommendations for maybe some language modifications for the conservation easement. So, >> yeah, the only if if this is if this is an existing easement, it may be Yeah, >> be for future.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. For future. Yeah. Yeah. >> That's all I have. It's great. Thanks, Jeff. Nice job. >> Now, all you need is about a thousand extra hours in the day. And >> yeah, >> get to it.
>> Okay, we've got to move on to some minutes to be approved this evening. Uh the first minutes is from our September 10th, 2025 meeting. Everybody has these from Taylor. Any comments or changes, corrections?
I do not have any. >> Good. There being none, can I have a motion to approve the minutes from our September 10th, 2025 meeting, please? >> So, >> second chair, >> Mr. Edward Gettings. >> Yes.
>> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drew. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dennis Conan. >> Yes. >> Mr. James Miller. >> Yes. >> Mr. Glenn Sloski. >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. Next up are the minutes from our December 10th, 2025
meeting. Um, same story. If anybody has any questions or changes to this or comments, I do not. I have a motion to approve the minutes from December 10th, 2025. >> So move. >> I keep it up. I'm so sorry.
>> Second. >> That was Dennis. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I know. Okay. Chairman, Mr. Edward Addings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drew. >> Yes. >> Did you say that? Mr. Dennis Connan. >> Yes. >> Mr. James Miller. >> Yes. >> And again, Mr. Glenn Soalowski.
>> Yes. >> Great. Next up, we have uh resolution 18-2025. This is Raren Hill Farm LLC and Kevin and Mary Cool. Uh we saw these folks a few weeks ago
and we have the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Toriello. Does anybody have any changes or questions regarding the resolution? I do not. >> Very thorough. >> Okay, there being none, can I have a
motion to approve? >> A second. >> Chairman, Mr. Ever Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair, Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dennis McCannan. >> Yes. >> Mr. James Miller. >> Yes. Mr. Glenn Sukovski. >> Okay, next up is Thank you everyone.
Next up is citizens privilege. Just for the record, note that there is nobody in the room other than the planning board and our professionals this evening. Um the public hearing. This is to be adjourned. Do we have a letter from them? >> No. This what I'd like to place on the record. I had a conversation with
Taylor. She has reached out uh to applicants council on multiple occasions uh to try and coordinate a date and to secure a written extension uh for time of the decision. We have not uh received
anything in writing. So while the first available to hear the case would be in April, I have recommended that we list it uh at our February hearing to make sure that we're still within the time. If we receive a written consent to
extend it, we can then indicate on the February hearing and by the way uh we can indicate February hearing that it's going to be carried to April. If we don't get permission to extend it, then we can dismiss it without prejudice at the February hearing within the time
period. So, we should put it on February for control purposes, but in order to satisfy the notice requirement, the public hearing for Summit Custom Spray, which was advertised to be heard tonight, will be carried to
>> February 11th, >> February 11th, without need for further advertisement. >> And I will reach out to Steve with a correspondence letting him know this. Okay. Thank you. That's great.
Okay. Next, I'd like to uh have a motion that we go into closed session. This is regarding the diamond nation parking which has been a >> actually this is this is a motion to go
into executive uh session um to discuss uh hiring or personnel >> attorney client program >> regarding the time >> attorney just give me oh wait excuse me I got to I need somebody else to make a motion
>> and let me do roll call Please. Uh, chairman, Mr. Edward Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair, Miss Donna Drews, >> yes. >> Mr. Bob King, >> yes. >> Mr. Dennis Conan, yes. >> Mr. James Miller, >> yes. >> Mr. Glenn Solowski, >> yes. >> Mr. Joseph Lane, >> yes. >> Okay, just give me a few minutes and I
will close everything down. What time is it? 7. All right, go back in. We're good. Okay. Anything else to >> go back in session? >> Oh, did you want to make a motion to for
the resolution to go back? >> Well, I'd like to make uh I'll make a motion that we go back into session after our close session. >> So, have a second. >> Thanks, >> and Taylor, if you've got that number for me. Off the top of my head right now, I
cannot >> I believe it is seven >> seven 007. >> You think we need three zeros? Are we going to be that busy this year? >> Yeah. Really? >> I don't want to be wrong. That's scary.
>> But does anybody want to make a motion for that resolution? >> Yeah. So, let me sum it up. like someone to make I'll make a motion that we approve resolution number 26-7. This is authorizing a professional
service agreement with Mr. S. Maurice Rashed PE. The planning board is recommending to the township committee to execute the agreement that will be provided by Mr. Rashed of Collier's Engineering and Design.
Second >> chairman. Miss Arab Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Son Drew. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bob King. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Dennis Conan. >> Yes. >> Mr. James Miller. >> Yes. >> Mr. Glenn Soroski. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Joseph Lane. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> Upcoming hearings. We have uh extra space and everybody should have tonight, right, Taylor? The revised. No, that is for a different application. So, oh, extra space. They have until February 4th to submit revised plans. If they do not, then they will have to
>> submitted the rev. >> That was the new >> the plans I gave. >> We saw Okay. >> Yeah. The plans I gave you guys tonight is for 14 US Highway 202. They were supposed to be on late last year, but there was a comment from the TRC
meeting, so they finally just revised their plans. So that will be for our first March meeting. >> Okay. So thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Anything else for the good of the order? No. And we're ajourned. Thank you
everybody. It's good discussion tonight. Thanks Jeff for walking us through all