Thank you, Taylor. Good evening. The Rarent 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 Hunton County Democrat, the Courier News, the Star Ledger, and the Trenton Times. May I have a roll call, please? >> Chairman, Miss Gettings, >> here. Vice Chairwoman Miss Donna Drews here. >> Miss Robin Fatu, she has asked to be excused. Mr. Bob King
>> here. >> Miss Michelle Calakuri, she has asked to be excused. Mr. Dennis Concan >> here. >> Mr. James Miller >> here. >> And Mr. Joseph Wayne, he has also asked to be excused. Board professionals board attorney Mr. Joe Toriello >> here.
>> Township planner Mr. Jeffrey Borella >> here. >> And all other board professionals have asked to be excused tonight. All right. Thank you, Taylor. I'm going to ask everybody to please rise for the pledge of allegiance, followed by a moment of silence for the men and women in our armed services.
Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for it stands one indivisible and justice for all. Okay, thank you everyone.
Okay, next up, comments and reports. I do not have anything to report on this evening from the board have some comments they want to make. Do the other board members this evening? >> No engineers comments. We do not have the engineer here tonight, but planner Jeff, >> no comments.
>> Okay, attorney's comments. We do not have any correspondence, discussions, and recommendations. Moving down the agenda, we do have our minutes from the March 11th, 2026th meeting that Taylor had uh distributed to all board members for review before
the uh the meeting. Does anyone have any comments or questions or changes relative to it? Okay, I'm going to be a pain in the neck. Item seven, paragraph two. He requested that the notices missing a T.
Now, was that evaluated comment or what? >> No, wait. >> Can you say that again? Where >> paragraph? Uh, item seven, the second paragraph. >> What page? >> Second. Oh, third page. Three. Correspondence and discussion. Second
paragraph, fourth line down. He requested that the notices instead of he notices. >> Okay. >> Told you it was a >> You just had eight where you didn't. >> I did. I did not have a I do that.
>> I've had meetings on proof reading in my ch. >> Okay. All right. With no changes, can I have a motion, please, to approve the minutes of March 11th, 2026? >> Motion. Second.
>> Uh, chairman, Miss Eric Gettings. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bob King. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dennis Concan. Yes. >> And Mr. James Miller. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Resolutions. There are no resolutions on our agenda this evening. Citizens privilege. For anybody who's in the room
with us this evening, uh if you would like to address the board on anything other than what's further down in the agenda, now would be the time to do so. Please come up to the microphone. There being none, we can proceed. The next item is the public hearing.
Flemington Industrial Park LLC. This is a request for a time extension. Matt, just press that so it's >> good evening members of the board. Matt Flynn from the law firm of SavoShock Orsini Warner, Gillespia, Bronik, and Fiser on behalf of the applicant,
Flemington Industrial Park LLC. The property in question is designated as block 27, lot 34 in your tax records, more commonly known as 45 46 River Road. By resolution dated May 8th, 2024, the
applicant received preliminary and final major site plan approval to permit the expansion uh and construction of an additional building on the property that we referred to in the resolution as building 500. Uh, as the board is aware,
um, final site plan under NJSA405D-52, uh, expires after 2 years post resolution, subject to the applicant applying for up to three one-year extensions of time. uh by letter from my office, we did indeed request an
extension of time through May 8th uh 2027 uh to continue uh perfecting the approval. Um with me I do have Ian Hill, our project engineer, who testified in the underlying hearing, but essentially I can report that plans have been
submitted for resolution compliance. Um, we had a number of items we had to address with the NJD that held up uh the construction of the facility. And just by way of background, we are aware that there are there is another pending application with respect to this
property. What we're asking to do here tonight is to secure our one-year extension for the 2024 approval and essentially request that those issues that pertain to the tenants application and some of the other issues that may be
going on with the site that we work with the township uh after we have secured the extension to make sure that the approval is still valid to work with the town on addressing uh those issues. Um, so really what we're here today is to just demonstrate that we've acted in
good faith to perfect the approval and we'd ask for the one-year extension of time and I do have Mr. Hill here to answer any questions about the permitting process or the resolution compliance package that we've provided to the town. The long question that I have for council is with respect to the
tenants application um is that going to be withdrawn refiled or is there is there is like >> so we know what we're doing with >> so the intention at this moment um is that our client is the owner of the
property. Uh we have requested um that the tenant withdraw their application uh and we have since withheld uh owner's consent over that application which I understand is still pending before this board. The idea being that the owner of
the property wants to pursue this extension and the approval for the expansion irrespective of any application made by its tenant. And I guess for the record, council for the applicant happens to be in the room
here tonight. So, um, >> do you want to hear from Yeah, >> turn your mic on. >> Oh, sorry. >> You're going to be on green. >> Yeah. All right. I'll stay on green. Um, I think so. Don't you think we should I think we I I would like to at least address this procedural issue so we know
what we're doing with >> proced procedurally. Steve Gruinberg on behalf of Summit Customs Spray. >> Um, I received a phone call uh today from Mr. Flynn asking uh advising me that they were coming here this evening
and making the extension request and indicating that they had sent an email to my client today asking for us to withdraw our application pending before the board. Uh, we've been trying to work with the uh the landlord after we
received uh Mr. Bakarella's May 8th, 2026 correspondence to come before the board with a joint application uh to address the concerns of the board when we filed our application and I got Mr. Flynn's correspondence. I reached
out or phone call I reached out to my client and we don't have an intention at this point of withdrawing our application. Uh we wish to proceed forward on that application and work with the township and the landlord to proceed forward. I have not seen that
they've formally um withdrawn their consent to our application >> which my next question is how do you proceed without that? Right. >> Yeah. But that is something that I didn't hear from until just now. So, um I don't think that con withdrawal of
consent has formally been conveyed to my client and that might raise a whole bunch of other issues since my client has had the consent of the owner of the property to proceed forward on this application for the two years that we've been trying to get it through. Um and
that might have some other issues that the landlord and the tenant might want to discuss about before they throw down the gauntlet withdrawing consent. So, to answer your question, we're not withdrawing our application. We would extend a time period for the board to
act on our application through the end of July. Um, and you know, you can act on the landlord's request for an extension as the board sees fit. But at this point, we're not withdrawing our application. >> Okay. And I guess we'll just make the
record now that the that there's been an extension to the end of July, which I guess kicks the can and you guys will have your conversations. We'll have a subsequent conversation and I guess at some point I'll have to give guidance to the board as to how we're handling that.
But yeah, the intention obviously, look, I mean, we're willing to engage in a dialogue with the tenant, but you know, given that we're we need this extension and that we know that there were a number of concerns expressed by the board when the tenant came before the board late last year in 2025, we felt it
fit to say, let's let the owner perfect its 2024 approval and then we'll work things out with the tenant. And again, the intention was also to schedule a meeting with the the township. We actually, to Taylor's credit, were placed on the agenda very quickly after we put in for the extension and we
actually didn't have a chance to have the meeting with Jeff and his staff, which we had intended to have. But we're here tonight. We'd ask for the one year under section 52 of the municipal land use law. And I would assume that you probably will be seeing us again down the road.
I I guess I'm wondering um given that there was some really big issues for both properties like I mean did is the do they have fire service yet Dennis? Do they have water?
>> There are fire service is still provided by the pump at the river. No there's been no progress made on that. >> Yeah. So there were there were huge issues that affect both properties. and and what's the most robust way to
get compliance? >> Yeah, I mean the way we kind of discussed this back in November and even in the in a subsequent meeting was that there would be one plan addressing all the amendments, all the violations, everything and have it um reflected as
one. Even even the project from resolution number 18 2007 which none of it was was built there's some conditions that are still outstanding. So that was what was was addressed uh and thought made sense to everybody but well if I
may the the 2014 approval uh incorporated the the conditions from the 2007 resolution. So if the applicant is in, >> you said 2014, >> I'm sorry, the 2024 approval incorporated the conditions of the 2007
approval. So should the applicant desire to again pursue the project that we're here for the extension tonight, that is the building 500 expansion, we will have to comply with the conditions that were raised back in 2007. Now, with respect to the um fire suppression, again, that
was another issue that we were preparing to meet with the township about and go over some potential alternatives on how we were going to do that um to not not just satisfy the town, but to satisfy the condition of the board's approval. So, again, we understand there are outstanding issues, but what what we
don't want to do is lose the 2024 approval, which we did diligently pursue approval from all the outside agencies such as D. So, we'd ask for the one-year extension and we'll address these ancillary concerns with the tenant and
the township uh moving forward. >> I guess Dennis, I'm looking at you because I mean that was the fire was >> fire pump situation. It's a huge deal. >> We're getting closer and closer to that dam being removed which is going to
leave this site without any fire protection. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, the applicant has submitted uh maybe Ian microphone. >> Should we swear you in this testimony? Yeah. >> Yeah. You could just do
>> Is it just going to be Ian, Matt? That's okay. Uh you you raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm and right Jeeoff, I should probably swear you in. Uh do you swear affirm that the testimony you're giving this hearing is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. I do. And for the record, Mr. Hill
has been accepted by this board >> related to this application. >> Related to this. So, >> um, so the applicant has submitted an application to the township for a site plan waiver to install the improvements related to the fire pump and those
associated, you know, uh, and to locate the pump itself within building 500. Um, so obviously with that plan in mind, it wouldn't be
possible to hook up the pump until building 500 is constructed. Um, which wasn't my plan personally, but um, but the applicant has submitted the application and it hasn't I I haven't even seen a completeness
review on it. It's incomplete because there's been amendments to the plan and no matter what an an amended site plan needs to be submitted. So that's that's what's holding this up. >> I will add for the record a completeness report has been issued. >> Oh really? I haven't seen a copy but thank you.
>> So and and that's it's a different proposal than what the board >> pass which conflicted with what the Flemington industrial site plan showed. So it was there was inconsistent um layouts and that was what the confusion
was. >> But but again that doesn't I understand that there are outstanding applications that this property is subject to but that does not conflict with the applicant's burden of proof to apply for an extension of time under section 52.
So the the board cannot the board can't deny an extension request merely because there are other applications concerning the same property. The this application was filed. It was approved by the board and the standard to get the
one normal one-year extension at time of final site plan is what if there are outside agencies did the applicant diligently pursue them? And Mr. Hill here can confirm the process that we went through with NJD and again the plans for resolution compliance were
submitted back in March. So I can't my opinion would be and I would profer to the board that in no way has the applicant not been diligent as to the 2024 approval. I'm having a hard time tying all these
loose ends together because of what Mr. Kanana has said. That's extraordinarily important. That was a a large part of testimony certainly for the applicant and for you folks. How do we move that forward? And
and there was the board's concern on your on the applicant's application. How are you coordinating this with the owner? We did talk about that. >> We are the owner. >> Well, I know that, but where's the coordination? That that was our point.
You weren't at that meeting. It was the the tenants meeting. Nonetheless, based upon their testimony, we said, "Well, doesn't there need to be more coordination done with the owner, especially because they're impacted by the the fire?" >> Yeah, exactly.
>> The fire requirements. So now, >> well, that's sort of that's sort of why one of the things that we offered at the start of this was that we were going to pull consent for the tenants application to sort of knock one issue out and so
that the owner could proceed themselves and not have to co-mingle plans with the tenant or anything like that. The idea is that the owner the owner wants to install the improvements that were contemplated by the building 500 approval and the should the tenant want
to come forward after the owner has secured that and started construction and worked with your fire official, excuse me, uh then the tenant could perhaps file subsequently. But the idea is we're try we're here tonight to also represent that we're trying to work out
those issues that are I'll say the wires are crossed. Yeah. Maybe this is inappropriate, but to some degree you're pulling the rug out from underneath the tenant by your notice to them today that you
want them to pull their application. >> They they it's not entirely accurate. I don't want to say Mr. Groomberg was misrepresenting that. We did have a conversation today, but certainly the the tenant has been aware for probably two to three months now that that this
was one tack that the owner was willing to to take in order to secure the approvals and they the tenant and the owner have not been able to work out a deal to put forth the tenants's application. >> Yeah. because we're just in such a it's
it's like which set of plans is the accurate one. You know, I think we actually now have what based on what you just said tonight in probably three different locations where the fire pump was proposed and what's right and you know versus what we actually approved
it. You know, you're putting the board in a >> what we're asking for is we're asking to secure the one-year extension so that we can coordinate with the township and submit an acceptable set of plans that address all of the concerns that were
raised. So this is going to you're going to come back with a revised site plan to include all the proposed construction on the property. the Summit Custom Spray as well or just your building 500? >> As of right now, the it's the intention of the owner is just the owner and if we can work out a deal with the tenant,
we'll work out a deal with the tenant. >> And plus, you're playing beat the clock on fire requirements because as you just said, Dennis, the >> Yeah, >> the dam's coming down. >> Yeah, there's no concrete date for the dam coming down, but it's coming down.
Yeah, it's been >> well and there was already problems with draw on the pipe. Correct. >> Yes. Yeah. And there's been a history of issues with either the pump house flooding which has taken the suppression system out of service or the draft pipe freezing. There's a lot of there's a lot of issues
with this configuration. Um Jeff, have this applicant put in um previous applications that have expired or no actions taken on As far as a land use application or uh
I mean yes there's been I mean from 2007 that's that's the the biggest one but there's been um two months ahead >> I mean the the project for the pump house has been denied and that that's been a long time coming but yeah other
than that it's what we nothing other than I could think of. still open. >> Just a note for the record to Mr. Flynn and Mr. Hill, two completeness reports
were issued for the site plan waiver for this fire pump >> station. >> Correct. >> So, guess we'll look at >> You're looking to me. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um so so
a few things and uh the chairman asked me a question um and he his his concern was and you uh was whether you could do shorter than a year and my thinking and
listening to all of this what's our ordinance say is it 180 days you have to submit a site plan or something what's >> 190 days >> 190 days goes off by 190 days. So, it it my initial thinking
and I'm just going to put it out there and if what I'm saying is incorrect, I'm sure I I'll be corrected by either somebody on the DAS or Mr. Flynn. But, but um here's two things. I'm going to give you
a for lack of a better word, not a jury. I'm going to give you a charge as to your deliberations in terms of the balancing test that you deliberate in terms of whether or not to grant the one-year extension. Um, but it would be a one-year extension, but you I believe
you can put a condition on it that they would have to comply with the ordinance that they would have to submit their amended site plan within 190 days as a condition of this one-year extension.
And if 190 days they don't submit it, that's it. It's done. Um, so that you can you can you can accommodate with a leash for lack of a better word. Okay.
um the your your deliberations would be guided as to um uh and I'm just going to try and and cut to the chase so I can in determining whether or not to grant a request for an extension of the
preliminary and or final protection periods. The board must engage in a balancing test in which it must consider factors that weigh in favor of the extension and factors that weigh against the extension and then balance those factors to determine whether or not to
grant the extension. And I'm citing Jordan Developers versus Brigotine Planning Board 256 NJ Super 676 at 679680 while up while upholding the Brigotine Planning Board's denial of the extension request. In that case, on the basis of
intervening zoning change, the Jordan court held that the inter intervening zoning change did not require denial of the extension but was a factor in the board uh you know weight against an extension and balance of positive and
negative factors. So um you have to weigh the public interest in the implementation of any ordinance uh changes and I don't know if there are any or not. We haven't gotten to that. the applicant's interest in extended protection and the circumstances in
which the need for the extension arose. Like Mr. Flynn said, he was waiting for outside agency approval. That would be a factor that you would consider. The required balancing test is not an all or nothing proposition. certain factors may weigh against granting an ex uh an
extension except that if conditions are imposed on the extension, the balance may then be tipped in the direction of granting the extension. So that's where I'm coming from. You can add the leash. As I said, you can add a condition which
would which would militate or or would favor in your balancing of granting the extension. conditions may have to be imposed in the event the board finds that they're necessary in order to strike the appropriate balance. So that
would be your deliberations based upon whatever uh testimony you get from Mr. Hill or any any additional information you get uh uh from council in terms of you know um what was going on with the outside agencies. I don't know uh you
know if the zone zone if it's changed if uh if setback you know if um latences have changed if storm water management has changed if I I don't I don't that's for you to to give the board and those would be the criterion that you guys
would discuss in your deliberations as to whether to grant or deny it but imposing conditions that would satiate your concern could tip in favor of granting the the the request. So that's
my legal counsel and the rest is fact and expert based on how you guys want to proceed. >> So Jeff, just to clarify the the the submission that came in for the the fire pumps, was that the one for building 500
or was that the one that was in the parking lot next to the owner's? The most recent was was directly to FI building 500. >> But how many years is it going to take for building 500 to be built? Like
>> yeah, that that's my concern because this has been raised >> previously some other applications here and here we are. We're still talking about the installation of this fire pump. >> So could we
put a condition in that another new condition that says, you know, with this 190day thing that that plan also adequately address
a a a timely, you know, maybe we say, you know, we we can't you can't have those buildings with chemicals, no fire. >> Yeah. Yes. >> No water. I mean the the other issue is that if a new plan is submitted and
going through a process, there's now an ordinance that was drafted which says that you're not going to be deemed complete until you take care of all the violations on site. So that creates another problem and a delay. Um there
were issues I re raised in 2023 that have yet to be satisfied. And so right now I believe there's building materials on site for building 500 just laying there. So I I
don't know enforcement wise this is this is a mess. And Joe, your your explanation on as an option is clear, but I still have in the back of my head custom spraying and you're looking to
have them withdraw that application. Well, we have no idea. Well, I think we got a pretty good idea that they're not going to withdraw that. That all still has to be worked out because I'll go back to Miss Drew's comment. There's got to be at least three versions of plants out there that we've raised before.
don't have the right to proceed if they don't have owner's consent. They can they can say we're not withdrawing, but they can't they can't move forward unless we allow them to move forward as the property owner. >> So, with existing plans that were submitted with the owner's approval, that's right. >> Originally, originally, yes.
>> But then these issues came up, >> they need to >> Yeah. We're still acting under that original plan yet. >> Trying to say yes. Like, I'll take this offline. I mean, we haven't had it the the hearing. They're still in postponement, correct? Some custom. >> Some custom. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> So, legally, can you withdraw approval after you've given it when someone submitted it? >> Yes. >> If it's an actively underway application, >> they have to have standing to pursue the application. I >> I would I would say this that that's
going to be a matter between Mr. Gruinberg and Mr. Flint. >> Mr. Gruinberg, I'm going to just save the trouble because he's He's gonna throw things out like justifiable reliance and all this other this other stuff and that's between the two of them. >> Yeah.
>> But I will tell you I am scratching my head in terms of if on the record we don't have owner's consent. >> Yeah. my my my and this is without getting legal letters of people are you know
given their positions but but my my initial reaction is that you can't unring that bell if we don't have consent but that may not preclude Mr. Gruinberg having an actionable claim against the owner. But but I would say
it probably would be in their interest to have a conversation offline. And I think that's kind of what Mr. Groomberg was suggesting, which is why he said, "I'm giving you to July." Because I think, and I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he's going to want to have a conversation, Mr. Flynn, where
they can iron all of this out and come back with a plan. How about if I stand up and tell you what I'm thinking? >> Was I wrong? No, you're you're you're pretty close. Um, I think it's within the board's discretion to defer
your action on the extension request. Um, >> I'm sorry, say that again. >> Can defer >> continue >> the request for an extension. >> Um, my my thoughts on this and I've expressed it to Mr. Flynn is that I
understand from um Mr. Varela that they have to come back before the board on an amended plan anyhow because they want to put the the pump information uh the pump stuff within building 500. So if you have to come before the board anyhow on
the building 500 plan it's going to have to be amended anyhow. Let's do it all at once and get before the board. So you have an extension request. the the municipal land you saw does not require that that be uh granted before the time
period is expired. You can apply for it either before or after. But if you defer consideration of it, it gives the landlord and a tenant an opportunity now that the board has advised the landlord that you have to come back before amended approval anyhow. Um and I don't
know if that was specifically understood. I I I think that's an action that potentially gets something before the board. I I was hoping to go that way, but my understanding is this this application
expired May 8th, 2026. So, how do we defer if there's an expiration? Going back to your statement, Mr. G, >> you want to take it? Yeah. >> Yeah. because the so the MLUL I don't have the statute right in front of me but it it allows you to apply for an
extension either before or after the time period has already expired. >> So the fact that the time period has already expired does not mean that the uh developer doesn't have the right to ask for an extension after that time period. And by deferring it you're not
acting on it, right? But you're giving the parties an opportunity >> to get together, which is what we've been trying to do, >> to come before the board on an amended plan. >> But that's extending the protection period. It's not ex extending anything that the board has
has stated. >> Correct. Well, that's what they're requesting is an extension of the time period of protection, but you're not acting on it. >> Yeah. >> Technically, it has expired, but >> it's delaying the decision. So I think what what what Steve is saying is
>> if you waited and you weren't happy and you denied it then the protection period it's not give it it's delaying the decision of whether you're you're granting the protection period but it's >> so it's also grant giving an incentive
to come before the board on the amended plan sooner than later to address the fire issues and hopefully our issues too. But that's what we're going to have to >> work offline on. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I would just say that that one of the things the the major factor that the
statute talks about is diligence. And so that's why we're here. We wanted to get in front of the board to get the extension. We did not want to be faced with a situation where we let the approval expire. I never submitted a letter to Taylor and then we're here a year from now and we're saying, "Oh,
well now we're looking for the extension." and the board says to us, "Well, you didn't act diligently. I'm denying the extension." Normally, you come up against that 2-year uh protection period. You want to get it in front of the board as soon as possible so that you can say, "I diligently
pursued the extension." >> Yeah. How long have the uh violations on that property been given? >> Long time. 2024, but there's been violations before that from other site plans, but actively since 2024,
and there were there were others noted and um it's it's it's just ongoing. >> So, we're being diligent in asking for an extension, but we're not being diligent in addressing the >> I I would disagree with that characterization. The the the
resolution of approval talked about the removal of outdoor storage that had existed on site. There were a couple trailers that Jeff had noted in his review memo. Those were removed. The issue that he's speaking about now is actually steel that was imported by my
client uh for the building 500 expansion. It it's not as if it's been sitting there for years and years. It was actually part of this approval. The to the extent that there's outdoor storage on site now, it's supposed to be in conjunction with the building 500 expansion. And one of the items I talked
to Jeff about actually when we spoke on the phone when we first filed the extension was the idea that in the time since we received the approval, Raritin adopted an ordinance that said if you want to do outdoor storage pending construction, you had to go to the board
and add it as a detail to your site plan. So that was an item that I had talked with Jeff about about applying for a waiver or something like that because we want to have the construction materials on site for the construction. But that that was regarding the shipping container, not the outdoors storage >> ship. The township enacted a shipping
container ordinance. I don't know of an ordinance that there's outside I mean outside storage is permitted in the zone if it's screened but >> um like the palace were approved that because it was in a controlled area. I mean but >> the area that I that I've noticed it's it's it's out in the open. It's not
controlled. It's in it's it's um yeah, it's in violation. So, we're we're happy to cure that. Again, it's material that's supposed to be for the construction. >> Are there significant fines outstanding?
>> Not outstanding, but it's there some. But >> okay, >> on the firearm, there's significant there is. Can councelor could we if we decided to pause on this for a few months to give
the applicants the ability to show good faith and get plan an amended site plan together and put in and addressing the fines,
you know. Um yeah, I'm just I'm just really concerned about the fire stuff. >> Yeah, that's certainly my big concern with it obviously um would be the fire stuff. I don't want to see another application where this is just
>> kicked down kicking the can down the road again and again and again. >> Well, I'm going to try to frame out at least my thoughts and everybody feel free to attack edit whatever. Uh >> can you do it closer the microphone
after >> Thank you. >> She's been waiting a year to say that and this is subject to confirmation from a legal perspective, but I'm going to play off what Mr. Groomberg had to say
earlier and I'm going to suggest that the board approve a deferral of the approval of this extension for a period of 3 months and the conditions being that at the by
the end of that three-month period firm a very firm action plan for dealing with the fire suppression issues be documented that the any any fines that are out there be resolved.
That the site plan be amended so that we're actually looking at would be nice to look at one plant instead of three plants. And then that also gives both the tenant and the owner the
opportunity to negotiate and come to some conclusion. Did I miss anything? Anybody add anything? I think you got I think you got the think I got it. I think you got >> it. >> Yeah. So, would Joe would the wording be that the board just chooses to defer this? >> Yeah. Well, my my question is I want to
ask Dennis and or Jeff. I mean, everybody's talking about the the concern for the fire suppression and I don't know what is entailed that they have to develop in order to replace the dam when it goes. I mean, are we talking about a build a building has to be
completely erected and there has to be like like I don't know. Is there is there some sort of like band-aid for lack of a better word that can be put there? No, it's just it's just finishing the project. >> It's just finishing. >> All right. So, >> well, Dennis, is it finishing the
building 500 project where the pump house? >> Yeah. So, it's not necessarily finishing the entirety of building 500 because you can put in building 500. You could build another pump house. You could do you could put in one of the other existing buildings. There's a few ways to go
about doing it. Well, what we need is to be hooked to New Jersey American Waters water line and then have a fire pump that's capable of supplying the sprinkler system and the hydrants that are outside. >> Sorry to interrupt, John.
>> Yeah. No. So I you know um look if you're asking I'm moving from like strictly legal to well it is kind of legal in the sense that I I view I view zoning and I I view
the MLU and zoning ordinances is the goal was to gain compliance not not to be punitive. So to the extent that that things are seriously moving in the right direction and we think that deferring this and reagendizing this 90 days from
now and giving um Mr. Gruinberg and Mr. Flynn an opportunity to to work offline and Mr. Flynn addressed with his client, all of the outstanding issues. And I'd like to make sure that at least when he leaves here today, he knows exactly what
he needs to do to satiate the board. So when they come back, he can say, "You asked for this. I gave you this. I've shown my good faith, and I'm ready to proceed." As long as he understands the marching orders, for lack of a
better word. I mean I I heard amended site plan which would be comprehensive that would deal with with all of the issues on the site. Um plan for fire suppression with hard dates and outstanding fines regarding the fire
safety violations paid and I didn't hear anything else but is that is that is that everything? >> I think that's everything I have. >> Yeah, that's everything. >> Yeah. Mr. Toriello, do you for extensions, do you do resolutions? >> I do when they're I do when they're
granted. Yes. But I don't know that we're doing that now. So like So I don't know. That's what And goes back to Mr. Gruinsburg point about well if it's late if you're going to grant it, you know, grant it. So like in my mind and I'm I'm
looking at you and I'm looking at Steve. I'm thinking we're just going to come back in 90 days and we'll deal with it then. Go ahead. Am I >> sorry? The only issue with 90 days is, you know, we need
>> we need 45 days. >> Thank you. >> Uh we need 45 days for the completeness review and then schedule the meeting after that. I mean, I pretty much have to submit the plans tomorrow in order to meet the 90 days kind of potentially. >> Good point. Valid point.
>> We We're only wait >> they'd be submitting a new site plan within 90 days. You're you're only deferring the action on the extension request for 90 days. You're not and you
you can entertain that within 90 days. Um, and during that time frame, the landlord and hopefully the tenant can work together to prepare up a plan to be submitted or at least advise the board how they're, you know, maybe we can't work it out and then they withdraw their
consent, but it it allows the landlord to deal with the three issues that you've discussed and hopefully work with the tenant to come up with a finalized plan. But you don't have to have a complete application for site plan
group. You're only deferring the action on the extension request for 90 days. >> So to cl clarify I I agree you can't get a full for the whole you know our goal and I think that's what we want to know what is the plan within when you come
back before us in 90 days. What is the plan to get a comprehensive site plan for this whole project site including summit spray and building 500? So what what's the plan and how is that going to be effectuated?
Um so we need to know that when you come back so that we'll be able to >> make a decision on the extension. Um and you've heard the issues that we have concerns about. So, it's also a a detailed update in meeting with our professionals, our our our fire marshall
and our planner and our and our engineer. What are the the big outstanding issues that really >> Yeah, we could schedule another preapp meeting and go over all this. That's helpful. >> And then that way in 90 days, you'll you'll be able to come before us and
say, "We've done this. We've made good faith in these areas. But, you know, granted it it did take it takes forever to get through D, but you know, the fire issue is we keep ping it from, you know, we've seen all these different plans
from different people and we don't have anything that looks like it's ready to get built. >> Has New Jersey American Water been contacted about providing service yet? >> Uh, I believe they have. Um that was through um Jos Thomas who has been
submitting the applications for for the fire pump system. >> But yes, he has been in contact with the American war. >> I mean that kind of evidence I know you know that we we need to see a fire suppression
systems going to get as one of the key issues. Oh. So, so is it a motion to postpone or to defer? >> Yeah. So, I guess what we'll do is we're going to we're going to we're going to relist it for 90 days. I don't know. Uh
and we'll we'll we'll just let's pick a date right now. Uh and get get it on the agenda because we fill up quick, right? Taylor's going to say we already have this that and the other thing like you know listed and then you'll you'll work
on those things and we'll come back and we'll we'll do it over we'll do it again. >> Okay. I don't know about you guys but that was very difficult to follow. >> Um in my opinion if I could ask Mr.
Grunberg if he could grant a time extension for summit custom to the end of August for my sake >> as a secretary. Thank you. >> So >> So tell I'm going to throw a date out there. September 16th.
>> I mean as of right now after the 24th the board is actually um free. There's nothing scheduled. >> Go figure. So we could do September though if >> September would be the 9th though. >> No.
>> Yes, it would. It would be September 9th and the 23rd. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't I didn't scroll. >> You ghost. >> Okay. >> September 9th. >> September 9th. Yep. I'm not >> I'm not here and I would like to be part of it.
>> Okay. Can we go for the 23rd? >> 23rd. 9:23. >> Yeah. 9:23. >> Okay. I normally have a board forth Wednesdays. Um, is it possible to have the 9th or the first meeting in October?
>> October 14th. >> Okay. You can have whatever you like. >> It's up to the board. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> 10:14 >> is more than enough time to have a beautiful plan. >> Okay. Well, then Mr. Going forward. >> Hey, Donald
and beautiful. >> I didn't say big. >> October 14th would be great. Thank you very much. >> All right. And I'm just saying for the record, Mr. Groomberg indicated that he will grant a time extension for Summit Custom to October 31st as well.
Okay. >> Um, and I will just state for the record, additional escrow funds will be required, but we can handle that offline. You have my email. >> Yes, sir. And I did just forward you guys the review. >> Thank you.
>> I was speaking about the most recent application. I know there were complet. >> Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. >> That's what I'm talking about. Oh, >> but there were different there were commissions before I got involved with that. I came in later building up.
>> Sorry. >> Thank you for the board's time. >> Thank you. >> Okay, next up we have 100 Central Regional High School. This is a capital review for improvements. Ryan McCarthy just subsc
I don't >> just better they were together. >> It wasn't I wasn't firing him also. >> It seems like he's usually >> Are we going to take a break then?
>> No, I think we're okay. violations that won't be pushed back. What about all this? >> So much for getting up by 8:00. >> I was pretty excited. I thought we'd be able to watch the next game.
tomato comes up. >> I got one from the board of adjustment. >> Okay. >> Say board of adjustment. Okay. >> Not me. >> Good evening. Thanks for coming here tonight. >> Good evening. Thank you for having us.
My name is Tammy Stetkco. I'm one of the principles with SSP Architects. I have my project manager Anthony Kender with me and uh a representative from Hunton Central Regional High School. We're here today to just review the scope of the
work that is uh upcoming. And so, uh we are looking at doing some partial roof replacements in two of the buildings on campus. We have HVAC replacements that are
actually scattered throughout all three of the buildings, all three of the school buildings. We have two interior classroom alteration projects that are for their industrial arts programs and some various site improvements all
along the campus which include paving of the back drive that go to the back fields. There is uh some upgraded sight lighting in the parking lot by the tennis courts and then an extension of the sidewalks down Junction Road.
Scope schedule-wise on that, the roof replacements are intended to all be completed over the summer of 2026. The HVAC replacements, while we intend to have them completed over the summer,
we are closely monitoring some delivery times on mechanical units uh that there's a couple of pieces that are are causing trouble, but uh we'll work with the district if anything has to extend there to not interrupt the school day.
the two alteration projects for the interiors. One is an existing classroom, very minor alterations that will be completed over the summer and finished before the students get back to school. The larger of the alteration projects is
uh converting a an unused the old weight room to a wood shop. So that is intended to extend until the end of the calendar year. the site work is to be completed over
the summer. Um, we can't do that type of site work with the amount of students, staff, and public that use that building. So, that's the broad overview of what we're looking at. And I know Anthony is a lot more familiar with the
scope if there's anything that you'd like for us to go into detail on. Does any of this work overlap with what you came before the I don't know that it was you that came before the board about a year ago because I remember roof replacement.
>> Yeah. No, you may see it. Are we talking a little bit of overlap here? >> There is tiny bit of overlap. Um Okay. The one one of the buildings that we asked to do a recoding for last year, we are now finishing that.
>> Okay. That's that that's that's pretty much the pull out that I see. >> Okay. >> The microphone caught that one. >> In your overview map is the Could you point out the the expanded sidewalk area? That's
>> the expanded sidewalk is here. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> That's it. It doesn't extend further down Junction Road. But I know it's us at the end of which is was right about >> so it's the end of the parking lot that's >> okay
>> there there's an issue with the sidewalks and >> I'm sure you >> that we've tried to tackle that you've probably heard about kids walking from the one and two is that house referred to one and two >> that there there are limited sidewalks
so there's a safety issue there. Yeah, and that's what we're trying to address. Cactus >> and this is the first step in the sidewalk replacement. Um I believe also in their long range plan, uh they were looking at addressing sidewalks
closer to I think the uh parallel to 31, but they were waiting for the road work to happen and finish prior to doing the sidewalks. >> Is this sidewalk replacement or new construction? >> New sidewalk. New sidewalk. Okay.
>> So, does this sidewalk extension extend up to where because we've got sidewalks that are going to be put in, if I remember correctly, >> where Garden Homes is presently constructing >> what is it? Eight buildings. Am I
remembering right? Eight buildings. >> Go all the way up to the edge of the property. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, there'd be some continuence for kids even if they had to cross the street. It's not a busy street, but >> yeah. And there's I think there's a sidewalk on Costco's lot. >> Yeah, there's going to be a whole bunch
more. >> There's going to be uh there there's a walkway across there right now and it kind of ends in the in the parking lot and the intent is >> okay >> a walkway then to land on a walk. We and the township committee certainly has
been very focused on trying to find a solution so that there are sidewalks so that these kids have a safe place to walk and for the other the construction that's now going on to Miss Drew's point there's a quite a bit of sidewalk work
that's included in that for just this reason and >> Jeff just a a side question even though I know this is a courtesy review would issues related to >> capital review. Thank you. Thank you for
getting it correct on the agenda. >> Um is issues related to the nightlight test? I mean we could we ask that you know you know when you start putting lights in outside some of the glare issues. Are these being put in at the
tennis court or in just in that parking area near it >> there? It's not at the tennis court. It's just in the parking lot and it's lighting the parking lot to the minimum >> uh light levels. Okay. That are >> great. They're interior, right? They're not They're interior lighting. They're
not ones that are on the >> They're They're not on the road. They're actually kind of >> Okay. All right. Great. Okay. Thank you. It's only the addition of one light. Relamping of >> There are already lights there and we're reamping the existing ones and we're
adding to kind of >> really three new light. Okay. >> areas and those those new lights that are going in are even further back into the park. >> Oh, really? Okay. Great. >> Okay. >> That's the problem when you've got people sitting here who've had kids go
to school >> and have spent time driving into those parking lots >> or went to that school. >> Went to that school. >> I did not, but James certainly did. So, >> and and actually um they were I was told that generally the tennis gets done before anyway. Yeah.
>> And um uh one of the buildings and grounds guy before that said he only turned once. >> So >> Okay. >> Okay. And just from what I read from the application, I think they used to call it something different. The music
building and the uh >> IMC IMC and music building. Yes. >> Yes. So that that roof is all being replaced. >> Most of that was done last year. There was a small section as Anthony referred was recoded last year. That's the section that is getting
replaced in conjunction with the mechanical unit replacement. >> Gotcha. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Anybody else have any other questions? >> Nope. >> All right.
>> I don't think we're supposed to take a vote on this. Now you're wait you're gonna I'm going to do a motion >> to to say that it's not in inconsistent with the master plan. >> Thank you Joe. >> Okay. >> We'll send the letter.
>> Can I have a motion please that the 10 central regional high school capital review for the improvements discussed this evening are not inconsistent with the master plan. >> So moved. >> Second. Chairman, Mr. Aretting, >> yes.
>> Vice Chair, Miss Donna Drew, >> yes. >> Mr. Bob King, >> yes. >> Mr. Dennis Corn Canon. And Mr. James Miller, >> yes. >> I will be sending out that correspondence on Friday. Our office is closed tomorrow for training. Um, and Mr. Kester, whenever you're ready, you
can start submitting the other permits for all the other jobs. >> All right. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Good luck. >> Yeah. Good luck with it. >> Hope your air conditioning comes in. That's good. It's your steak.
>> Okay. The next thing item up is an adjournment request for 18 US Highway 202 LLC. >> You too. >> We have a letter. >> Yeah. And I didn't bring the letter with me. >> Do you? >> Oh, >> you want me to read it? >> Taylor had provided a letter.
>> You want to read the letter into the records? >> I'm so used to doing a board of adjustment. >> Go for it. >> Of course. Okay. This is the letter dated June 8th, 2026 to you. Tale of lawn board >> from Cara Kazinski. >> Correct. >> Esquire. Dear Miss Vaughn, as you're
aware, this office represents the applicant 18US202 LLC in connection with its application before the Township of Raridan Planning Board concerning the above caption property. The matter is currently scheduled for a public hearing on June 10th, 2026. Please accept this
letter as a formal request to adjourn the June 10th, 2026 public hearing to the board's meeting of July 22nd, 2026 without the need for further notice or publication. In light of the comments received from the board's professionals, the applicant has determined that it's
best to adjourn the upcoming hearing in order to fully address the same. Thank you, and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Very truly yours, Miss Cara A. Kasinski. Thank you, Taylor. Well, this is pretty straightforward.
Anybody have any issues with this extension? >> I do. >> I do. Um, she will need a time extension. The current time to act is until I believe it's June 28th. Um, she
wants the 22nd. My other concern is whether she clearly states if revised plans will be conducted. If so, she can't have a 22nd. That does not meet the board's 21day rule.
>> She will not um she won't give an extension right now. >> No, I'm so >> It's I'm not going to lie. I did not take a look and tell her >> um because it goes to June 22nd.
>> June 28th. >> June 28th. Okay. So, you should put it on the 24th as a control. And if she doesn't give you an extension, then you should deny the you should you should uh you guys should vote to deny it on the 24th. That's my advice. But put it on as
a control. She gives you the extension. You just So, we're going to we're going to carry it. We're going to carry it to the 24th without further need to advertise. And then if she gives you the extension, you'll agendaize it then and
we'll carry it on the 24th without further need to advertise. >> Okay. >> But I need to control. >> That's a great suggestion. Thank you. >> Now, she had until June 27th, 2026. >> Yeah. Uh >> she still needs it.
>> Yeah. She still need it. Yeah. So >> it's the 27th. That's 24th. Yeah. Okay. >> As long as it's after the 24th. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, we need a motion on that. Can I pose
on you? You're so eloquent with that. Uh yeah, we're we're it's a motion to carry uh 18 US highway 202 LLC application for minor site plan and bulk variance for renovations to propose furniture store
uh to the next regularly scheduled meeting which is June 24th without the further NEA advertise. That's the motion. Thank you. Somebody want to make it so move. Chairman, Mr. Ever Getdings. Yes. Vice Chair, Miss Donna Drews. Yes. Mr. Bob
King. Yes. Mr. Dennis Quincan. And Mr. James Miller. >> Yes. >> Okay. Next up, we have uh these are not resolutions. This is on the hearing. Diamond Nation LLC and Diamond Nation Ballpark. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening.
>> Yeah. So, I understand from our conversation that the board is not going to hear us this evening uh on the basis that we didn't uh replenish the escrow accounts for both matters in the amount of $10,000 each. Um I just want to
confirm that um one of the checks was delivered uh by mail today. It was sent last or June 4th, whatever that date was, June 4th or 5th. and the other one I hand delivered today. Um I wasn't made
aware that you wouldn't hold this meeting um if those escrow payments weren't uh in your hand by today. Um I for the sport a lot. It would have been nice to have a phone call saying, "Hey,
Steve, if you don't have those checks in hand, we're not going to hear you tonight." because I brought I brought I know you sent a letter saying that the resolutions wouldn't be uh adopted without it but it was we were told we were going to have to proceed forward.
My understanding is that both escrow accounts are positive. So there was a request for $10,000 each on well there's outstanding bills so we can't pay those bills until escrow is submitted. So, but they're in a rear. They're technically in rears, but
all right. Our understanding was that they were positive. But anyway, um we understand you're not going to hear us tonight. >> Um it would again I I would like a phone call if rather than bringing out experts
um at a meeting and having my client out here if that was going to be the case. Um what date are you going to give us? I would like July 8th if we could have that. >> July 8th. >> I'm a way that we I'm hoping that
>> Yeah, we can't change players. >> What's that? >> We can't have that. Somebody sit in for you. Like changing players. I'm I'm down in Lii that that we fourth to the 11. >> I just want five days. >> I just want five days with
>> Don't begrudge anybody. Go ahead. >> I don't grudge anybody a vacation. >> Um, >> can you do the 22nd? >> I I have another commitment that night, but I will be in trouble with them and we'll do um the 22nd. >> Okay. >> June 22nd.
>> July 22nd. >> Can we do >> You asked for July 8th. We can't. >> So 14. Can we do June? What's the second? >> June is 24th. And we have an application scheduled that night already.
>> Yeah. 14 Highway 202. >> That's not me, right? >> No. >> Um, so we're talking July 22nd. >> Yeah, I think so. What I would like to do though, Steve, while you're here
tonight, um I I would like to is um we did a straw poll. We had a discussion and while we were at the end at 10:30 at night, one of the uh things that we were discussing was how to deal with uh the
off-site parking and leases that only lasted for a year. And I told you I needed to get my head around it. And I think I do have my head around it now. Um, and I think that I I don't think and my my recommendation to the board is
going to be I I don't think that this board or myself can tell you you need a 5year lease, you need a 10-year lease. If it's a one-year lease, it's a one-year lease. But I think what what the condition can be if it's part of this park parking and management plan that if for whatever reason uh the
applicant loses a lease and they have to get a new lease, they have to come back for an amended site plan and show that they lost 200 spaces with landlord X and now they replaced it with whatever with landlord Y and it's and it's fine. So, I
think in terms of how you're going to engage those spaces, it's for you to decide. Um, but but that's going to be my recommendation to to the board that that that be a condition um of the
approval and that if there's any changes to that plan. And that also leads me to it was it's my it's my hope to be able to when I prepare um when I prepare the resolution
that the parking management plan is part of the the resolution adoption. So, I'd like to attach it as an exhibit and that's part of the approval, but I don't really have a comprehensive exhibit to
um to make part of that resolution. So, and um I would like to see, but I guess I'm only the attorney. I'm not I'm not on the board. Some some flesh on the bones, if you will. So that when I'm incorporating that document into the
resolution that the that the resolution lists the four off-site parking spaces. It lists it provides copies of those leases uh as part of it so that the comprehensive van
uh parking plan says what what it is so that the board knows what it's approving >> and and I think that's going to have to be discussion on uh the next hearing date is because um at the risk of
getting Niagara Falls or you know where we're where um those sites are not part of this site plan application. They're not um subject to our site plan review. They're not a
block and lot that that we have incorporated as part of our site plan. We were asked to provide the board with um an example of how we would be able to handle those special events. There may be circumstances where like you just
indicated one spot becomes unavailable but another spot becomes available on on a yearly basis and they they are like a yearly you know th those people aren't committed to five years they're committed on a yearly basis and what we
can indicate is that we can have a certain number uh of spaces subject to as a condition But and maybe this is where we get into a conversation at the time of our public hearing and >> and that's fine and you can you can take
that you know position but I I thought it would be helpful to have the conversation tonight in full transparency if you maintain that position. My legal recommendation is going to be to deny the application because uh I wholly disagree with you that because an off-site parking is not
the lot and block that absolutely is part of this application because one of the things that the board has discussed is they need a satiation uh with respect to parking for these uh these high volume events. So without seeing that
plan, without seeing the leases, they don't know what they're approving and they don't know that the concern has been satisfied. Now, if the board disagreed with me, they can always not follow my recommendation. But again, I don't I'm not blind. I'm telling you if you come here and you say you're not
getting leases, I'm going to say that's bad faith that it >> that is I'm just tell you can do what you want in your in terms of your legal argument. But but I don't want to blindside you on the July 22nd meeting.
I'm being fully transparent and telling you that I think it's a critical component to this and I I think that you your position that the board doesn't have jurisdiction over that because it's a different lot and block. I just I just
I just disagree with you on that. So, but but you know that that's my opinion and that that's you know >> at at some point when we have a full complement of the board hopefully at the next meeting um I did submit correspondence to the board on this issue with a copy of of the ordinance. I
assume that was circulated. >> Yes. >> Um but um if you deny the application what is the end result? The end result will be that the status quo remains these minor
uh improvements to Diamond Nation that have nothing to do with parking won't happen and you'll still have the same situation where we can go to the township committee and go for a special per uh uh event permit. >> I disagree with that again.
>> Well, so assume that you deny the application, that's what would happen. Um, but I guess we're gonna have to fight it out another day. Um, we don't have everybody here. >> Um, well, for what it's worth, from I'm not speaking for the other board
members. They certainly can speak. >> To me, that parking management plan that Nick wrote was a good start. And I said this at one of the meetings. I thought it was a good start and it was a good framework. It needed
to have meat added to the bones so that we could be confident that it was a more comprehensive plan. Whether it's site plan or not, I guess we'll argue that out. I defer to Joe. It is. But the very least though,
Steve, I think >> the plan needs to have more meat on the bones so that we understand exactly how this thing is going to work. >> And then we can we can deal with the site plan. >> Okay. That's just my opinion.
>> The other Yes, I totally agree. There's just some tweaking I not tweaking, some detail that could be added to it. Um although the one thing that's hanging is the whole issue of the variance for the off-site parking.
>> Oh, that was Yeah, he mentioned that at the end >> outside of 1400 ft. Uh that that there's another bar. So you might want to have your planner at the next >> I understand you're saying that but again that is not those lot and blocks
are not part of this site plan application. We have two identified lot and blocks. So I can't get a variance for somebody else's lot or lots that are that are beyond
>> I'm sorry I didn't hear you. I'm sorry. that the variance is for your use of the lots beyond the >> want me to write read the section. >> Yeah. Yeah. So the section is under 296-1 153E location of parking facilities
one separate lot parking facilities shall be located on the same lot as the principal structure except if space for the required off- streetet parking is not available on the same lot. Off- streetet parking may be provided within,400 ft of the entrance of the
user structure, provided that a legal agreement ensuring that the parking will be available shall be approved by the planning board attorney. We are not proposing off streetet parking for the daily use of Diamond Nation. On two weekends a year, there
will be a special event where there will be offsite parking, but it's not attributed to the day-to-day application and use of Diamond Nation. And we would agree to I I'm going to get into this when we have a full compliment. >> I I see where you're going with it. I
would strongly counsel you to pivot and go in a different direction because the testimony is clear on the record that there's at least eight to 10 of them. That's that's uh that's not a a a a an insignificant uh amount of times and
it's clearly part of the operation of Diamond Nation that's also on the record and testified. >> Yeah. And I I got to be honest with you, I I feel that you are um weighing factually as opposed to
legally. >> It's No, you said this is not part of the site plan. What I'm telling you is based upon the testimony. It's not the facts are legal. The facts in this case as presented establish legally that this is part of
your operation which legally means this is part of your site plan. >> Yeah. What I'm telling you >> and I disagree and we would agree that we wouldn't I know you disagree. >> Let me just finish. We would agree as a condition of approval that we wouldn't
hold those special events without going through the special permit process with the township council. That is never going to happen. And I mean never going to happen. That is illegal. I have told you that ad nauseium. So if you take
that position, you run the risk of denial. I'm telling you that based upon my recommendation that's again disagree with me, >> right? And you have no legal ability to file a special permit. >> You know, >> you know what? Actually, Steve, it's
fine. You can keep taking that position. I'm just I'm clearly not going to convince you and you're clearly not going to convince me. So, you can proceed under your own, but you could make it's up to the You and I can disagree as lawyers. We have different
opinions as to the law. I think I'm right. You think you're right. The board weighs that and then ultimately makes it the determination about what they feel comfortable with in terms of what they've been advised. >> That's correct.
>> See you on July 22nd. >> Yes. >> See you then. >> No, you don't. I will be asking for a time extension right now to the end of August. >> We're going to do it at the end of July. >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. I'm not keeping up on you then.
That's all I'm saying. >> Okay. >> So, we'll see you July 22nd. >> See you. Thank you. Have a good night. >> Have a good night. >> And with that, we are journ this evening. >> All right. >> I want to show you the notes I wrote down so I hope I'll get
>> mute your mics. Mute your mics. >> Are we Are we actually done? Thank you.