Okay. All right. Calling to order Ritan Township Planning Board meeting January 14th, 2026. The regular meeting and reorganization meeting. 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 same with the township clerk and transmitting same to the county democrat and the courier news. I will do roll call.
We have Mr. Everett >> here. >> Miss Donna Drews >> here. >> Miss Robin Fatu >> here. >> Mr. Bob King >> here. >> Miss Michelle Cafakiri >> here. >> Mr. Dennis Concanan >> here. >> Mr. James Miller, he has asked to be excused. Mr. Glenn Solowski
>> here. >> Mr. Joseph Lane >> here. >> Okay. We have Do you want me to say board professionals even though you're not appointed yet? >> Sure. >> Okay. Okay. We have attorney Mr. Joe
Toriello >> here. >> Planner Mr. Jeffrey Vakarella >> here. >> And for engineering we have Mr. Ryan McCarthy via Zoom >> here >> and all other board professionals as to be excused. Okay. At this time, we ask
all to join in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag and remain standing for a moment of silence to remember our men and women serving in the armed forces and in particular those serving in troubled areas around the world. 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. >> Great. All right, let's get 2026 started. Okay.
Election of officers for a chairperson. Would anybody like to make a nomination for a chairperson? >> I'd like to nominate Ed Getting as chair. >> Okay. We have Miss Donna Drews and Mr. Glenn Soowski nominating Mr. Edward Gettings for chairman.
Um, okay. And we will do roll call. We have Mr. Edward Gettings. >> Yes. >> Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Miss Robin Fatu. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bob King. >> Yes. >> Miss Michelle Cafakiri. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dennis Clung Cannan. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Glenn Stoolski. >> Yeah. >> Very good. Thank you. >> All right. >> I would like to nominate Donna Drews as vice chair. >> Okay. We have that. We have uh roll call chairman. Miss Ever Gettings. >> Yes. >> Miss Donna Drews.
>> Yes. >> Miss Robin Fatu. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bob King. >> Yes. >> Miss Michelle Cavakiri. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dennis Quincan. Yes. >> And Mr. Glenn Soowski. >> Yes. >> I will hand off the meeting to the chairman now. >> Very good. Thank you, Taylor. Good job.
Okay. Next up that we have this evening is the uh the our several appointments. We're going to do those all together. Uh I would like would like to make a motion to approve the following planning board appointments for 2026. This would be Taylor Vaughn as sec board
secretary and Jeff Fakarella as assistant secretary. Joseph Toriello as board attorney, Jeff Aarella and Jessica Caldwell as board planners, Rakesh Dargy and his firm Environmental Resolutions Inc. as the board engineer, Jay Troutman
as board traffic consultant, John Morgan Thomas's board landscape architect and Glewellyn as board hydraologist. So that's the motion. Can I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Chairman, Miss Albert Gettings, >> yes.
>> Vice Chair, Miss Donna Drew, >> yes. >> Mr. Robin Fatu, >> yes. >> Mr. Bob King, >> yes. >> Mr. Dennis Clanan, >> yes. >> Miss Michelle Capieri, >> yes. >> Mr. Glenn Soowski, >> yes. >> Okay, great. Next, uh, we have to deal with are the planning board committees.
First is on-site, which I would like to make a motion that it is all members. Have a second. >> Second. >> I'm going give that to Dennis. >> Dennis.
>> Hi. Chairman, Mr. Edward Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair. Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Miss Robin Fatu. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bob King. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dennis Concan. >> Yes. >> Miss Michelle Capiri. >> Yes. >> Mr. Glennowski. >> Yes. >> Okay. Very good. Next is the technical
review committee. Uh I would like to be on that committee again this year. I'd be willing to serve. Um, >> excellent. >> Folks want >> James Miller couldn't be with us this evening, but he uh he would like to
remain as a member of the TRC as well. >> I don't know that we need a motion for these, but >> Joseph. >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Make a motion on that. So, I'll make a motion that the technical review committee will consist of Ed Gettings, Donna Drews, and James Miller.
>> Second. >> Chairman, Mr. Gettings, >> yes. >> Vice Chair, Miss Drews, >> yes. >> Miss Fatu, >> yes. >> Mr. King, >> yes. >> Mr. Conan, >> yes. >> Oh, sorry, Michelle. Miss Kakiri, >> yes. >> Mr. Glowski,
>> yes. Okay, I'll I'll make sure I communicate this to James here in the next day or so. Uh, next up we have liaison for the RTMUA. Let's start with the RTMUA. Glenn, I believe that was you >> last year. Would you be willing to do so? >> Yes.
>> Again? Excellent. Okay. The Flemington Raritan Board of Education. Michelle, was that you? >> It was me two years ago. I don't know if I was at last year. >> You were. >> Yeah, you were. >> Yes.
Okay. >> And the historic committee, I don't know who's covering it. Scott McDade covered it and I believe still will for the township committee and I was the representative for the planning board and I'd like to continue doing that. Okay.
>> So, uh, >> okay. >> So, let's stick with those three. So, I'd like to make a motion that the RTMUA liaison uh be Glenn for this year for the Flemington Rariton Board of Education, Michelle, and the historians committee
uh myself. >> Second, >> chairman, Mr. Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Drews, >> yes. >> Miss Fatu, >> yes. >> Mr. King, >> yes. >> Mr. Ganon. >> Yes.
>> Miss Calvakiri. >> Mr. Clean. >> Yes. >> Okay. And last on this list is the COA coordination committee. And for last year, Robin, you you ran with that. Thank you for that. And myself and
Michelle were on that. >> I'd like to continue with that this year. >> Yep. Works for me. That'd be great. >> Michelle as well. >> Do we still refer to it as COA though? >> I'm just reading off the agenda. >> I know. Is that still the appropriate term for the appointment? >> Well, since there isn't co I know >> like would we rename it?
>> Uh you you want it doesn't matter because we all know what you're talking about. But if you want to change it just affordable housing, I mean that's that's fine, too. >> It's under the program. But >> yes, >> but there really is none. >> No, if it was >> it's fine. >> Okay. I'd like to make a motion then
that the affordable housing coordination committee uh be Robin uh myself and Michelle. Second >> chairman. Mr. Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Muse. >> Yes. >> Miss Fatu.
>> Yes. >> Mr. King. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kungan. >> Yes. >> Miss Capakiri. >> Yes. >> Mr. Solowski. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Next up is comments and reports. All I'd like to say is thank you everybody for being part of this
committee, this board. Uh many of you have been on this board for many years and we welcome Bob King joining us this year. Thank you Bob. You're you're able to speak. You've been here for for all of last year you were here and you were biting your tongue you couldn't speak.
>> It's all good. But we're happy to have you here. So thank you. Uh volunteering is is very very important and uh the township and so many things rely on it but certainly the township relies on it. So thank you all for your service. Words, comments. Anybody have anything
to add? >> I'll just add with the reorganization meeting that we had with the township committee um our mayor in 2026 will be um Bradford Perry and I will be serving as deputy mayor again. Um if you need to know who all the liaison, etc. We can certainly do that. There have been some
minor shifts. Um uh Bob and myself will be serving on the open space committee. I will be the um environmental commission liaison. Um, so if you need to know further, we can certainly communicate all that. Um, because there were some minor changes, but Scott McDade will continue to serve on the
historians with you. So, >> very good. Thank you, Ron. >> Okay. Engineers comments. Ryan, you have anything for us and sitting in for Resh? >> Uh, I just wanted to say thank you for the appointment and we look forward to working with you guys through 2026.
>> Very good. Thank you, Ryan. Comments, Jeffrey? No, no comments at this time. and attorney's comments just to say thank you for your continued confidence and reappoint. Greatly appreciate it. We are happy to have you here, Joe. So, thank you for everything you did last
year and your your first year with us. Looking forward to another good year. Okay, so we have some minutes to clean up. One is May 28th, 2025 that Taylor circulated to us and the other is September 24th, 2025.
>> I'll just kill that change on the So, I'll I'll bring it forward in the the minutes that were circulated. I believe we need to have a modification under call to order where it says chairman Ed Gettings called the meeting. Uh, Ed was not. >> Huh? >> That was you.
>> It was me. So, it was vice chairwoman Donna Drews called the meeting to order. I like to to make that motion that the minutes be approved with that modification.
>> I'll second. Okay. Chair. Oh, I'm sorry. Vice Chair Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Miss Robert Fatu. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dennis Concanan. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Glenn Solowski. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Great. Thank you. Uh, next up is the September 24th, 2025 minutes. We have received those in advance. Does anybody have any comments or questions on these minutes? There being none, I'd like to make a
motion to approve the September 24th, 2025 minutes. >> Second. >> That was you, Donald. >> Yes. >> Chairman, Miss Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair, Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Miss Robin Fatu. >> Yes. >> Miss Michelle Cavakiri.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Glenn Stoloski. >> Yes. Okay. So Joe, we didn't cover this. Last year we did these the resolutions in one pass. >> You can do that. But >> except for that last,
>> right? So if you wanted to say on a consent agenda, does anybody need resolution uh A through G pulled? Otherwise, you can call for a motion and adopt them all. >> That's how we did it last. Thank you. So, looking at the several resolutions A
through G on our agenda this evening, does anyone see a reason that we need to pull any of those? And I'll just briefly walk through them. Appointments, annual notice of meetings, and we were provided all this information by Taylor. Adoption of rules, regulations and bylaws.
Appointment of certified shorthand reporter. Delegation of completeness determination. Adopting official newspapers and policy of adequate notice. >> The only one I had a question on is the
adequate notice and the official newspapers. um the um with the change in the >> our verbiage is correct because it is you still you still have to twice monthly publish okay
>> in the paper where they could find it on >> the website in the state website which I don't even think is up yet I don't um so okay >> it's a little bit of a mess but I think I'm thinking the thought process was
that this in this transition period you would still publish in a paper. So when they would go there, they would be reminded that that's not the place to look that they have to go someplace else in the future. >> My question, does this does this allow for when that does change, we going to
have to do a new resolution? >> No, it said it actually the resolution covers the time period. >> That's good. Leave it to there. Leave it to there. That's what I thought. Okay. All right. Great. Next up is citizens privilege.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. I jumped ahead. >> Which one? >> A motion to adopt all of them. >> Yes. Motion to Right. Thank you. Nobody had an issue. None of them were pulled. So, I'd like a motion to uh approve resolutions A through G as noted on this
evening's. Actually, we should say resolutions 1-26 through 6-26. >> So, I'll say that resolutions 2026 and then 1 2026 through 6 2026. Thank you.
>> Motion second. >> Bob, that was you. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Chairman, Mr. Edward Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair, Miss Donald Drews. >> Yes. >> M. Robert Fatu. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bob King. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dennis Conan. >> Yes. >> Miss Michelle Kavakiri.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Glenn Sakowski. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. So now I'll move to citizens privilege for anybody who's here with us this evening. >> Oh, no. >> No, we're holding that. >> Oh, okay. >> For a few minutes here. So if anybody is
here with us this evening who would excuse me who would like to address the planning board on any matters other than those that are coming up later this evening, now would be your time to do so. Please come up the microphone. Okay, there being none, we can move forward. So, we'll move on to the public
hearings. The first is extra space storage. This is uh we had received a letter that Taylor had circulated to everybody and this is to uh adjourn. It's an adjournment request and the letter formally requests on behalf of the applicant for an
adjournment of the January 14th, 2026 hearing because remember that was supposed to be tonight and then uh accept this letter as a formal extension of time for the board to act upon this application till April 30th, 2026.
Anything else to add there, Jim? Okay. >> It's pretty straightforward. >> Yeah. Continue. >> No, we need to give them We need to announce a date for them to be on. >> Um, but you guys were looking to schedule a TRC meeting with them
beforehand. >> Yeah. So, within the next few weeks, we'll likely have a TRC meeting and then from then, >> but it was advertised for tonight, the hearing. >> It was. Yes. >> So, then put another hearing even even if you haven't consulted with them yet. And then if that's that doesn't work, we
can we can do it another time. So yeah, save them the the need to revertise. >> They were asking for uh February 25th, and I just reminded them of the 21day submission rule for you guys, and they're stating that they feel confident
that they will make it. So we would like to announce that they'll be on February 25th, and they did grant the time extension to April 30th of 2026. Okay. >> Without the need for further notes. >> Motion to approve
>> the request on extra space storage. >> Second. >> Chairman. Mr. Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair. Miss Drews. >> Yes. >> Miss Fatu. >> Yes. >> Mr. King. >> Yes. >> Mr. Conan. >> Yes. >> Miss Kakiri. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sakowski.
>> Yes. Okay, next up is the Djankowski minor subdivision. Uh, Mr. Groomberg had sent us a letter dated December 30th, 2025, and the letter respectfully requests a six-month extension of time to June
30th, 2026. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Steven Gruinberg on behalf of the applicant. Um, this is a minor subdivision application that had been granted by the board. Uh we did make two submissions to the board professionals, the last one
being December 29th. Um but we're still waiting for the LOI back from the DP. And until we have that, um we may or may not be able to actually record these deeds. And I think the board professionals may want to see that or at least have a further conversation with
Mr. Brook Narrain as to where we stand on that. Um, so that may even require more than six months depending upon the DUP, but we're requesting an extension of the time period uh to perfect the subdivision and to um get the revision
to the plans approved to June 30th. I also noted on the resolution that there was a typo on page 15 that um said that the applicant shall obtain zoning and construction permits uh two years from
the date of the approval, but they it says June 25th, 2026. That should be June 25th, 2027. So, I just wanted to note that. >> Thank you. Okay, Mr. Rupner is here if you have any questions, but that's pretty straightforward. >> Okay.
Okay. Can I have a motion to approve >> the request on the Janowski minor subdivision? >> Second. >> Chairman, Mr. Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Drews. >> Yes. >> Miss Fatu, >> yes. >> Mr. King, >> yes.
>> Mr. Conan, >> yes. >> Miss Kavakiri, >> yes. >> And Mr. Sokowski, >> yes. before we move on. Um, we, you know, Ryan is going to excuse himself for the night just because he's not necessarily with the other hearings.
>> Okay. Thank you, Ryan. >> Thanks, everybody. >> Have a good night. >> See you soon. >> Bye, Ryan. >> Okay. >> Next up on the agenda is uh Diamond Nation Ballpark.
And Mr. Mr. Gunberg, you had requested by phone to address the board this evening. Yeah. Uh the first thing I think we need to talk about is the resolution and um that's for the Diamond Nation Properties LLC application um
which is uh for block 16.03 lot one. And um the board may recall that you granted this preliminary approval subject to conditions on September 24th, 2025. Uh it was scheduled for adoption of the
resolution on December 10th, 2025. Um and a form of resolution had actually been prepared and ready to be adopted at night. Um Mr. Tori and I right before the meeting uh uh I was advised that the board was not inclined to adopt the
resolution that night due to concerns about a recent event that happened in November. Um that uh raised questions about parking offsite. Um, and I asked that the board not discuss that issue since I wasn't available to discuss it
on December 10th and that you table it and table the adoption of the resolution to tonight in order for us to be able to discuss it. Um, and I can tell you that um, if you will recall the resolution
had Mr. Troutman's analysis dealing with uh the parking analysis and his report indicated that we should provide a total of 525 spaces
with uh the umpire parking as well. And the resolution appropriately indicated that what we agreed to which was 538 total parking spaces with the overflow parking. Um so Mr. Troutman had actually
done an analysis with respect to the parking on site what was required for the Diamond Nation activities um based upon his review um and the information that we provided at the time of the meeting for the Diamond Nation
baseball activities. What occurred in November was a special event dealing with the lacrosse and it only happens a couple of times a year and um we do recognize that there was parking on the farm field and on the roadway and that
that raised a concern of the board. Um what we've done since we learned of that concern is that uh Gary Dean, our traffic expert, reached out to Jay Troutman to discuss with him an overflow parking plan where we'll deal with that
situation in the future uh for those special events that only happen a couple of times a year. Really doesn't have anything to do with our preliminary approval that was dealt with um in terms of your application. Remember, it's only
preliminary. We have a final have to come before the board for a final uh site plan application which will show where we're going to do the overflow parking and relocate it. Um and we're not in a position to talk about that yet. But what we are in a position to
talk about is that the township has a specific ordinance which is chapter 386 article one special events. And it allows uh property owners to that conduct special events um to appear
before the township committee for a permit application explaining how that special event is going to take place, how the parking and and circulation is going to take place. And there's a parking permit. There's a permit application that has to be filed. And
it's really within the jurisdiction of the township committee to deal with that special events. And it allows, taking a look at the ordinance, um, it allows no more than three permits required by the article in any calendar year. And in no
event, no one event shall exceed 14 consecutive days. That's going to cover these few special events that we have for the lacrosse. So from the board's perspective, I understand your concern with respect to that activity in the
lacrosse and we'll deal with that in the future moving forward by way of a special event permit application with the township committee. What and that's what Mr. Varela's June or January 14th
report in the photographs in November what that parking is showing. That's special events. We're not going to do this anymore. Just so that you know, we're going to have off-site parking and shuttle services and that'll be reviewed by Mr. Troutman and that'll be reviewed by the township committee. So, what I'm
asking for right now is for you to adopt the resolution. We agreed with the form of the resolution as prepared by um Mr. Toriello. This special event issue is really an issue for the township committee and a permit. we won't do it
this way moving forward. And our regular baseball activities were testified to during the public hearing and reviewed by Mr. Troutman and we came up with the number that he suggested. >> Yeah. And as you mentioned that that did
change because of what we all saw. >> It changed because of that special event which is not a normal baseball activity. It's not the um um everyday activity that occurs on site. It only happens a
couple of times a year and in November. And those special events um are not at the same time that the baseball is happening. So, it's it's really the lacrosse activity comes in there. There's no baseball going on there. The
retail isn't open. It's just for them to use the fields. But we do recognize that there was concern about the parking in the field, parking in the roadway, and moving forward, there will be a special permit application, and it'll be reviewed by the township committee as is
envisioned by your your ordinance. >> So, what if it's more than three three events? That would be an enforcement issue then because if it's if we're doing events in the future that are in excess of what's permitted in the
ordinance or without a permit, then you would presumably call us up and say, "What the heck are you doing?" But you could also enforce it from a zoning perspective. what all we um are allowed to do is what you granted our
preliminary approval for and your prior approvals for. So if there's an issue in the future moving forward then if we don't do the special permit application, Mr. Barella will be calling my office I'm sure. Jeff, could you please provide
some context around these pictures and kind of give the board a little bit of a feel for what you saw and observed with the parking during this event? >> Yeah. So, site visit was uh conducted on Saturday,
November 15th. Um I was aware of a previous event that took place the Saturday before or the weekend before. Um, so this was something that um was
expected. Um, so going through photos, one is is going eastbound on Bard's Corner. Um, looking at looking south towards um a vacant parcel right next to the the
domination facility. >> So this is the the land owned by DOT. >> Yeah. NJ DOT. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. And there's a I think I'm Yeah. photo photo shows the uh eastbound side going
the other way. Um and there's an entrance for additional parking. Um there's a gate and and signs with with um man personnel. >> So, have you issued any permits or any approvals for that parking on that lot? >> No. No.
Do they have permission from NJOT to use that property for parking? >> I I don't know the answer. >> All right, next photo. So photo number two is looking
north on um River Road right uh near the intersection looking towards the Diamond Nation facility and um noticing cars that are outside of the drive aisles in the in the in the marked u off up off um site
uh the designated parking all along the uh potentially right of way uh and grass area in and around trees. Um, so that's that's that would be in violation of their site plan approval. Um, photo three is looking on the
opposite side for the offsite uh over for the overflow uh parking, the approved overflow parking and appears that cars were um outside the designated area. >> So was this closer to like the county detention basin land?
>> Uh this is it's yes, it's it's it's actually not. It's probably midway through from the intersection to the um to the county detention basin. >> And and to your knowledge, well, I guess
you can't testify if the county provided any approvals for parking in their detention >> that I don't know. >> Okay. And then photo five is going uh northbound on River Road on both sides before the access for the overflow
parking uh both sides of the road. Uh I think the umpire parking or the umpire um residential facility is is to the left. Um, so that has its own parking area, but this is um this is obviously on
undesated uh lawn area. So, >> and were there cars in the detention basin? Did you notice? >> I didn't I would say in it, but they just they were close. I wouldn't say because it's I believe it's gated.
>> Okay. >> So, just another just general question. During that time, was the overflow parking the the formally approved overflow parking full? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. >> So, all these cars were in addition to
the approximately 90 or so cars or whatever that are approved to park in that area. >> Yes. >> I guess the point that I'd like to make is that we're not doing this in this fashion any further. understand that
there was concern raised by Mr. Bakarella and and board members about the parking in these areas and along the roadway. And we're not going to do we we're not saying that they're not going to be a special event, but we're going
to have to comply and um file for the special event permit showing a parking plan and a circulation plan. that will have to be approved by the township committee that we'll have to abide by and it's rather detailed
ordinance about what needs to be provided and that's really their jurisdiction. We're we we are not uh I think it's important to realize that this happened over five days over two or three weekends.
So this is not an everyday occurrence, every week occurrence on the property. It's a special event. What we presented testimony on is exactly what the usage is on an everyday basis and Mr. Troutman
analyzed that and came up with an overflow parking and a total parking demand which we adhere to as part of our resolution. >> Was Mr. Troutlin given the information about these lacrosse events and the number of teams and the number of cars that were there? I thought we testified
to it, but that's not an everyday occurrence. It's under Let me just finish, please. It's not an everyday occurrence. It's a special event that we're not going to do in the future without filing for a township committee approval.
>> And it and it doesn't >> Go ahead. >> Can I ask our attorney is is the role of a planning board when approving an application to assure public health and safety? Is that one of our core tenants that we have? >> It is. It is. >> And if there's a concern about public
health and safety with the approval of an application, is it our responsibility to make sure we get it right? >> The answer to that is yes. Which is why at the last meeting and I had a conversation with Mr. Groomberg on the phone and I told Mr. Groomberg, the same
thing that I said on the record here that just because there was a a a verbal approval, there was additional and new information that came in after the fact and it is my legal advice and I said it
to Mr. Grubberg, although he disagreed with me and I've said to the board, it is my legal opinion that to the extent that all information was not made available and not considered, you have the absolute right to reopen the hearing
and to address any and all concerns that you have. And this is just a hypothetical and I'm not >> I'm trying to to stick to the legal advice without I'm not suggesting what you should do. But an example is Mr. Gruinberg has just stated, "We're going
to do these three things to address your concern." Well, to the extent that that satiates this board's concern, my legal opinion would be you would need to reopen the hearing. You would need to have that testified to and that would
have to be added to the resolution because you can't have side deals and side statements. As long as I'm the attorney to to a land use board, I will always recommend that anything any condition that an applicant agrees to,
to the extent that that's acceptable to the board, it has to be in a resolution that I draft. It can't be outside of a resolution. I'm uncomfortable with that. >> So again, to the extent that everything Mr. Groomberg says makes sense to you. Without more, you would need to reopen
the hearing, have that testified to, and then I would have to do a revised or amended resolution that would reflect all of the things that Mr. Groomberg has represented. >> I I would just indicate that >> Steve, I need you to come close.
>> Sorry. I would just indicate that what your approval was was for the everyday activities of Diamond Nation as reviewed by your expert based upon the testimony that was provided. We are not seeking approval
through this board of these special events. We recognize that you had a concern about what happened over those five days in the past. That's the jurisdiction of the township committee and we will file for zoning permits. We're not going to do that in the
future. So, you already have all the information based upon what um you are approved based upon the >> qualifies as a special event. I guess I'd like clarity on the definition that you're using. >> Sure. The spe um any private or public
event to be located and held within the township of Riden with attendance open to the general public. No, I'm familiar with our ordinance. Excuse me. I mean, how how would the applicant define when it would be a special event that then would trigger coming to the town? >> Those lacros those lacrosse events.
>> So, specifically just the lacrosse, not a baseball softball tournament. >> Correct. >> There were multiple times throughout the year that there were complaints about the parking in the road, parking off the sides. It wasn't just the lacrosse tournaments. I think you need something where you have a bigger definition of
getting more than three permits a year. Yeah. And and I want to say, Steve, to be fair, you and I had many conversations about this going into it about that the parking situation had been a
a major issue within Raritin Township and that I I specifically recall a conversation with you where I said, "We want to we want to get it right." and you said, "Yeah, we believe that there's going to be an offsite situation that
may develop that's going to address all of this." But I I I take exception with the characterization that the hearing was specifically defined to regular event uh defined to regular events and excluding special events. In fact, there
were discussions about going back to I think it was 2006 when the original application to build uh the the facility. There was testimony that was reflected in the original application. There was specific
concerns about parking and the applicant made a representation as I recall in the original I don't have it in front of me. I'm going from memory, so if I'm misspeaking, I apologize, but the original resolution compared this application to the Cal Ripken
application in Baltimore and that Baltimore's uh um facility was bigger than this and they didn't have 300 parking spaces and 300 parking spaces would be sufficient and that was the testimony and that's in the original application and that turned out not to
be correct. Then there was an application as you know before the board of adjustment which created that off-site parking because that was and then there was a representation that that would be enough that turned out not to be correct. I'm only saying this because there's a well doumented history
in this township before this board that there have been multiple times parking issues had been raised as a concern. there's been multiple attempts to address it and in each and every undertaking it has been wolffully
inefficient and has failed. So with that history in mind, the last time we came in this application, there was significant discussion about making sure and it was members of this board and I don't remember who and exactly how it
was said. This is my characterization, but there were members of this board who made a representation. We want to get it right. And that's the backdrop of all of this, >> right? So I I don't think there was any intent of anybody to carve out regular versus special. I think the record is to
the contrary of it. >> And to me that seems to convene the role of a planning board and your ordinances. Um you don't design a shopping mall not to deal with the holiday season. You know, parking standards and and stuff
are done to deal with, you know, within reason the extremes. And you know, I'm just terrified someone's going to get killed. Yeah. >> Crossing the road all over the place, even from where the existing overflow
parking is. And who's who's responsible? Who approved those? You know, we did as a blue board. And I'm really nervous about that. >> Mr. Mr. about safety. Mr. Troutman on September 17th, 2025 issued a report
after the board asked him to issue a report and analyze it. and he reviewed the matter and he said um based on a an analysis of existing Diamond Nation parking demand and the contributing
factors noted from IT research, it is recommended that a parking supply standard of 75 spaces per field be established to accommodate maximum parking demand at Diamond Nation inclusive of umpire parking demand. This
results in a parking requirement of 525 spaces for the seven baseball fields and should accommodate and should accommodate a maximum demand situation >> for baseball. >> Correct. And that's what we are >> this facility is used.
>> That's what we are doing 360 days out of the year. Then why have >> five days out of the year we are saying we won't do that without getting before the township committee for a permit reflecting where we're not going to be
parking in these areas anymore that there's going to be offsite offsite shuttling of people on site. There's going to be a security plan and a police plan. But that's part of your special event uh analysis and that's part of the
township committee's jurisdiction. And this this board does isn't going to doesn't have the jurisdiction to say, "Okay, we need you to have a site plan showing for five days out of the year an extra 300 uh
spaces." >> Maybe you should stop telling us what our jurisdiction is and listen. when you were here for the extension of >> what are they called the officials parking area the umpires and such >> when we approved that this was a big
concern and everything you guys testified to said that they were this was going to address it >> and then yet couple weeks later you're still running baseball it's not some special event and there's people parking on the roadways parking in the side in the grass roads not where they're
designated to be >> right And it's been a problem. And it's been a problem for multiple years now. And it's been we'll fix it, we'll fix it, we'll fix it. Nothing's gotten fixed. I don't care what his report says, even if he's our professional. We
disagree. It's not enough. I think what I'm hearing is the applicant is stating the special event idea is relative exclusively to the lacrosse tournaments that are held at that site. and your
statement is that it would be five days a year across the max of three special events. What I'm hearing from my peers on the planning board is that the concern is beyond the lacrosse special events that it extends the parking
concerns they're expressing extends beyond those lacrosse tournaments to events that are softball related. And I think until we have better clarity about that, it becomes a little bit contentious and there's a little bit of
lack of trust um that I think we need to bridge. >> Yeah, I can't separate the two to be honest with you. I understand what you're saying about Troutland's report for baseball only. It's the same fields, it's the same roads, it's the same
safety issue. And with the volume of parking that we saw to Michelle's point, not just for lacrosse, but for baseball games. But let's focus on the lacrosse. I mean, that was a an an incredible overage uh in terms of parking
requirements. >> And and again, that that is a special event that we're not going to do without having to present the testimony and a plan, which we've already had discussions with Mr. plan on how to deal with those issues on those five days.
It's not part of our site plan application. You're not approving that. >> I don't think you're hearing them though, honestly. Respectfully speaking. We all live in this community. I think they're speaking from personal experience and observation. I respect the special
event. We approve special. I get how that works and I get how that could work. Their concern is that it's beyond the special events and you continue to testify that it's only related to lacrosse and I'm hearing them say it's not only the lacrosse tournament. So
again, until we can get somewhere, it's going to continue to go back and forth like this. >> And and Steve, I I want to add while while you say that this board has no jurisdiction with respect to the issuance of a special permit, that that's the jurisdiction of the township
committee per the ordinance. I don't have it in front of me. I'll take your word for it. That aside, as I indicated before, if this board believes that that is a condition necessary for them to approve the resolution, then I would
submit that this board and the board's professionals gets to review the plans to first determine whether that condition would satisfy and address it. So, it's one thing for the township committee to approve the special event
request, but the township committee has no jurisdiction to determine whether your proposed solution addresses the concern. That is in the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of this board. So if this board for example, they would
have to look at all of the details of how this is going to work for them to say okay that's a condition that if we impose we believe that that will address our concerns and we can we can approve the resolution
after that then it becomes procedural and I would agree with you then it goes to the township committee but not before this board is satisfied that your proposal will address that concern. So, I I disagree a little bit on on the jurisdiction. I think you're only half
correct. >> Yeah, I I I disagree with you, too. We can we can talk about that in the future. >> Um, where where do you want us to go from here? I mean, we we have a a resolution that was scheduled to be adopted. Um, are you we're not seeking
approval for the special events. um are what do you want? >> I I would say this from a procedural standpoint, I see three forks in the road. The t the the the planning board
can vote um tonight whether to approve or disapprove without any further in information. Um if you if or they can vote to reopen the matter and schedule
it for a future hearing to address the newly discovered information uh regarding the special events and have a conversation about how we work through that collaboratively >> the solutions with specificity. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. at a future
hearing to work through that and excuse me and then modify uh the resolution and then vote on on those newly added conditions. Um but if you were to if you were to if you were
to say we're not willing to do that. We want we want the vote solely on what the prior hearing was. then this board. My advice would be now that you have the the new information that has come after that that you're in possession of now
you can honor the applicant's request that they're not willing to do an opening and a new hearing and then there's a role then there's a motion in a second as to whether to approve or deny the resolution. Right? >> That's how I see it from a procedural standpoint.
>> I I think it's either it's really up to you. I I would ask that you adopt the resolution as drafted realizing that it's preliminary uh only and that we have to come back before the board for final approval. Um
if you're not willing to do that, I guess your response is going to be that you will entertain a motion to reopen the hearing. Um and then we'll have to >> Well, it's not me. >> Yeah, >> it's not me. >> The board. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. When you say Yeah.
Yeah. I'm looking at you, but I >> I think you've heard enough that we're really not in favor of moving forward with approval of that resolution >> and Mr. Cus would like to make comments. >> Certainly, >> I need to be sworn in.
>> Well, it's not really a public. >> It's just need you in front of the microphone. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Come into the microphone. Just identify yourself and spell your first and last name, please, and who you are. I'm Jack Gus, the owner of Domination.
Um, what I'm hearing is two things here. So, I'm hearing that uh we misrepresented um the way we promised that we would manage the operation and
um for that I apologize because I share your concern. We have the same concern about the parking there. I have two of our management management team right here with us and we need to do a better job in our representation of what we
what we said we were going to do. What Jay Troutman said that plan works. We didn't adhere to it. That's one thing. The second thing is I think it's a simple resol uh a simple solution with
this lacrosse situation. We've worked on this extensively. We have 450 cars that are um allowed to park in the Dayar school, the Polytech school, and in my office building. So, we have a solution,
a simple solution to the lacrosse situation. So, as I said, I think it's I think it's twopronged, and I think what I heard as I as I said, um we need to do a better job of enforcing it, but the plan works.
the plan that Jay Troutman uh and Gary Dean put together it that plan works and what we need to do is a better job there and we need to uh you know uh accommodate the off-site parking that we intend to do and we have that set up to
uh move 450 cars out of there. So, it's not that complicated. I understand a safety concern. I'm very concerned about it myself. I live in a township. I don't need to be sued by anybody. So, uh, I share your concern and I apologize for
that, but I don't think it's that complicated if you just look it through the, uh, look at the way that it should be looked at. It was approved properly. Was not, it was not approved improperly. Just wasn't adhered to. So, that's all I
have to say. >> Are you saying going forward that you will adhere to the proper parking >> for all events? >> We have to. Well, yeah, you have to, but it hasn't been. So, >> and that's why I have that's why I brought my management team here because I want them to hear your concerns
because I've said to them, "You guys don't understand what I'm faced with. We have to take care of this parking problem. You can't have cars parked up and down on River Road and have cars parked all over the place." So, I I share your concern and my team is
hearing it. They're here. >> But, yeah, I appreciate that. But I I'll just point out that that resolution number >> 20126 from the board of adjustment detailed explicitly all the things that
you were supposed to be doing regarding monitoring the parking uh providing for uh uh fencing signage looking at people making sure that there's safety issues. all the things that that we see have not
been done and that's that's where the anxiety keeps going up you know so that's where I I would prefer that we reopen the public hearing >> we get some clarity around what the rules and because you know the stuff
that was detailed in all these earlier resolutions was not followed um which is a whole another issue when you have conditions of a resolution that aren't being followed but um and jurisdictional issues. Um and I just
think we need to um have things very clear on the on the record and in the resolution about what's required. >> I agree. I think we should reopen it and restate all those things that haven't been followed in the past >> and address and look at the parking the
parking numbers. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And I mean >> because you know to be fair we asked the wrong question of our consultant. >> We asked them to look at a baseball facility. >> That's what it is. >> And your Well, but your fields are also
striped for lacrosse games. >> We didn't build We didn't build those fields for lacrosse. >> How How many years have you been hosting lacrosse tournaments? >> We've been hosting them because people the problem is that lacrosse fields are not available. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. and they convert baseball fields
to it. Would Ron Township like to provide lacrosse fields? >> No, >> it wouldn't be a problem. >> So, you know, >> the recreation committee needs to uh spend some money on fields. >> What can I tell you? >> Well, you know, this is obviously a
business component for yours. So, I don't know that you want the township to be doing this. >> Mr. Cut, how many how many lacrosse tournaments did you host in 2025? Three, I think. >> Yeah, three. >> And how many days were those tournaments?
>> Five. >> Five days. >> And how many teams participated in each at when they were hosted at your facility? >> I'm not sure. We don't do the registrations. We're not the there's a there's a national organization >> that you could provide to the consultant. Yeah, we can get it
>> because those are the kind of things that I think would help us make some, you know, I think it's asking the right questions. We want to know what parking's needed >> for the use of the facility, not just for baseball. >> Yes. >> And from a procedural standpoint, the
reason it's important to have the right questions asked is so that there's no newly discovered information that comes out after the fact that causes these procedural glitches. We'd like to just get all the information of all of the
uses so that the information that is provided to this board is full and complete when they make their determination >> with some specificity. I mean you're going to use dayar your office building. I forget what the third one was. Was it
>> Polytech? Polytech Polytech. Okay. you know, >> can you use those for regular if your baseball events even though you're normally just fine, there have been baseball events that gone over. Can you use those same facilities for parking?
>> Sure. >> And if you over three max and I guess the township committee will have to re-evaluate our number of three max a year, >> but I think you know let's get our data. Well, that's the thing. >> Can they do a special thing where they can do more than three or I don't know
what the rules are for that. >> There's unknowns here. >> For that reason, I'd like to make a motion to reopen the hearings to consider new evidence and to determine whether to reconsider the prior vote or to impose additional conditions. Gives
you the opportunity to get get us more information. We take a step back. We end up in the right place at the end of the day. So that's my motion and if anybody wants to second that. Second. >> I was gonna ask a clarifying question. Sure. You mentioned preliminary versus
final. Can you help describe what what does that mean? >> We could it it preliminary is is done typically uh so that you can get in in case if there's zoning changes. Um that's the the main reason why you do
preliminary without doing preliminary and final. But >> so making a decision in the preliminary, how does that carry through to a final? >> It's exactly the same. >> It's the same. >> Yeah. >> That the decision has to be made again or that it carries through. >> You make it once and that's it. >> You have to adhere to it in the final.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's why it's important >> carries out of the barn. >> Okay. So I have a motion on the table that Michelle, you seconded. >> Yes. Yes. So Ed made the motion and Michelle second it. So roll call.
Chairman Mr. Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Miss Robin Fatu. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bob King. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dennis Conan. >> Yes. >> Miss Michelle Cavakiri. >> Yes. >> Mr. Glenn Salowski. Okay.
>> Okay. >> When uh now we have to talk about scheduling, right? Right. >> Yes. So, >> how much time, Steve, do you think that your person and uh Mr. Trapman can work
to address these the provider? >> Joe, excuse me for one minute. So, are they going to be revising plans or anything like that? >> Yeah, we'll need Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, it's got to follow 21 day. >> Yeah. >> As well. So, >> and I don't know if there's a time of decision,
>> right? Time of decision. in the fall. >> I don't have that file March. >> Can you What was the time of decision on this, Steve? Where where were we on the old one? I don't even know where >> on the old one. Give me one minute. >> Yeah. So, it's still Yeah.
>> Right. Right. Right. Never mind. Yeah. It doesn't apply today. >> Right. All right, give me one minute. >> Okay, that's >> Do we want to restate what we expect as reasonable as possible so that they are
bringing the right >> exactly >> that Stephen? >> Yes, TRC. >> I can offer you our March meetings are March 11th and March 25th. Now, the 21-day rule, if you do the 11th,
you must have plans in by February 18th. If you do the 25th, you must have them in by March 4th. >> Let's do March 11th. >> Okay. So, let's just reiterate again. You're going to be on for March 11th, and plans must be submitted to our
office by February 18th. >> Can we do a TRC in that time? >> Did we tell them? >> They're They're going to want one for sure. Yep. They're going to want a TRC. So >> either the before or after you submit.
>> Can we talk about the next thing that other >> other applications? >> They're kind of Yeah. Yeah. >> They're related. >> Related. They are related. >> Okay. >> They're sister headaches. >> And >> sorry, Stephen. So he's going to have to notice as well.
>> Yes. >> Reotice. Okay. Just making sure. Understand. on the other application which is for the diamond actual diamondation site. >> Uh before you go any further, can you put that microphone in front of you again? Thank you.
>> I need to smack them. >> Um >> Mr. Varela invited us here to talk about the waiver request for the trucking um parking and um analysis. I assume that's really the only issues that are left
with respect to the plan. What we're doing on the Diamond Nation site are minor improvements. Um, if we're going to have to address the issue with um, the other applications, um, what I would suggest is that you grant the waiverss
for completeness purposes only and schedule this hearing on the same date so that we can provide you with the information at that time because we're really in the same position on both. I'd like to get that application moving too.
>> Remind me what the implications are of waving So we don't have any. >> Is it just the parking thing that is the thing for completeness? >> Yeah, I mean that's I believe there's a list of all the other waiverss. I had no objection,
>> right? It was just five and 22 or whatever. Yeah, it was just related related to parking was the only >> which is being but the site which is being addressed by potentially this >> yeah I mean that's >> so the site plan didn't come in with any
parking information listed in it. So we I I guess I get concerned as we get plans that get modified and you're creating a historical record about what's been approved with each subsequent application.
Having information regarding what the parking that was approved has and is was promised on the existing resolution for the the parking lot. You know, we we need to have something to just ignore the parking. Okay.
>> Makes it sound like there's nothing. >> I think what Mr. Grubberg is saying is given the vote that just occurred where the where it was reopened and he has to submit parking information,
then you're going to get it before the hearing. So it's in essence you're waving the checklist item, but you're actually satisfying it to the extent that it's going to be provided to you by the February date before the hearing. The question is if that's enough time
for the TRC and the >> and the professionals to to review it >> and it's two separate plans >> and it's two separate plans. So that's >> engineers. So it's going to have to be >> that's up to that's a that's a that's a you answer. You know, we we filed this
application in July and got our first completeness review in October or or 45 days after, resubmitted in October and got our second completeness in December and I filed a response in December and
then in January we are talking about this issue now. So, I'm hearing what you're saying. However, I'd like to get the hearing process started on these minor site changes to the diamondation site,
which are not significant changes. And I have um Mr. Ouch here who can run them through you, but they're minor changes to like a photo booth and a playground area that don't increase traffic, don't
increase patronage. It's just amenities on site. So the retail center is going to expand, right? >> A little bit, yes, but it's not going to increase parking or the number of people who come on site. >> But how does the applicant know that?
>> We'll present that testimony at the time of the hearing. I I guess one thing >> but if if I'm sorry if you deem us incomplete and say you want to see that then that application gets postponed again and again until we provide the
information that you're going to get as part of this application that's going to be heard in March which is why I asked for the March date. I want to I want to get the stuff moving. What's your I mean I wish we had our engineer here too but what's your I >> mean do we have enough if we get it
concurrently >> yeah the real issue is the time I have I have no >> can we do it concurrently for that March date >> that's going to be if you don't have the information at the time of the hearing then you say hey you don't have the
>> we're not going to be able to weigh in on this issue. >> I mean I do I do think it's it is >> the pressure is on them to have the Exactly. But but it the problem is going to take care of both. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So why separate them? Why not >> deal with it together?
>> Can I also suggest something um that might help the board? Um, I think it'd be really good to have a site visit and go see the property together as a board because, you know,
just to kind of get a feel for what's going on in the operation. Um, I think it would be easier for the applicant to then describe things and you know, I mean, I I kind of know how to read a plan, but when I open those things up, it took me a good hour to get it all figured out what you were doing to put
it bluntly. >> Would you all be willing to host us all for >> It would be a noticed site. >> Yes, it would definitely be noticed. >> Site visit. >> It would be a notice for a meeting with no action being taken.
Yeah, I think >> there. >> Well, why didn't we do this? >> I I think it'd be good to see the facility, understand where >> understand where the >> prop those modifications. It'll give us a feel for what what it is.
>> Wow. >> Well, >> yeah. >> And and that that would be done before this March date that we're shooting. before that. >> Yeah. >> So, concurrent for the two applications.
Yes. Go ahead, Taylor. >> Hold on. Before you go any further, can you check what they're Oh, wait. I'm sorry. Excuse me. You guys aren't even complete. There is no time. >> Yeah. But I would just really like to think about our professionals being able
to fully review the materials if you do get them on time for our professionals to seriously get a full in-depth report >> in a timely manner to you guys and to
you guys. >> That's just my side note. >> What was the date again, Taylor? They have to have everything in by February 18th >> and then the professionals would have to have >> that's three weeks. >> Steve, could we do the second March meeting just to give a little and do them both concurrently in the second
March to give a little bit more time? >> That's fine. >> Thank you. >> Does that help Taylor? >> I think that helps everybody. >> Okay. Thank you, Steve. Do we like the concurrent approach then given that there are so much interdependencies
that then in one conversation in one evening we are able to >> well yeah we'll do deal with one and then move on to the next >> and then do we really I mean >> can we just wave it tonight then >> well yeah there would still be there would be a motion to wave to wave that
condition >> submission. >> Yeah. Yes. And then and then it would be agendaized for the it would be deemed complete and agendaized for >> and it would be provided prior to the public course. >> Yeah. >> It would be a motion to uh grant the waiverss for purposes only.
>> Dee the application complete subject to us providing the information by uh >> right >> that February date. That's that's the motion. >> It'd be complete tonight. >> Yes. Correct. >> I make a motion for what he said. >> Second.
Can we do that? >> Michelle, was that you? Michelle, >> that was you. >> Chairman, Miss Eric Gettings, >> yes. >> Vice Chair, Miss Andrews, >> yes. >> Miss Robin Fatu, >> yes. >> Mr. Bob King, >> yes. >> Mr. Dennis McCann,
>> Miss Michelle Cabakiri, >> yes. >> And Mr. Glenn Stoolski. Now, before anybody goes anywhere, if we're >> if we're actually considering a site visit, >> would it be reasonable to discuss it now? >> I think it's going to take some
coordination. I mean, >> I think is great. I think you're you're really going to see that the second application for us. >> If you talk anymore, come over to the microphone. >> So, most of us have day jobs. I need to pay the bills Saturday morning. weekend.
>> Yeah. >> Saturday morning. >> Yeah. >> I'll buy you breakfast there. Okay. >> Would that be a possibility of a Saturday morning? >> For whoever can go, right? >> I have to go. >> Whoever can go. You picked a make people
feel obligated. I mean, because we we can't go in the evening because it's dark at >> But those who don't attend will be talked about at the meeting. >> They have >> They have a lot of lights. I've seen it. You can't miss them. So, I guess the board will have to we'll
get tailored to schedule with us. >> The the other thing you can do is if you do it in groups of three or four. >> I think it'd be better for us to all be there. >> But you're right, you could do that and then not notice it, you know. So, that's that's up to however you guys want to do. >> Alternate it. Then we don't have to
notice for a particular time. The other thing is is if there's weather delays. I mean, if if this is going to be >> So, we could do we could pick a date and a rain day. >> Yeah. I don't want Zach having to create a schedule of tours. >> That's that's the problem. >> Yeah. You can't
>> can't I I like that. But that's the problem. >> The other problem is having the public come to the site >> too. If I do a >> There's plenty of parking though for the board to >> There's plenty of parking.
>> Damn. >> I I just think it's it's a it's a better opportunity if the board members are all there. >> Pick a date and we'll hope for no rain. >> Okay. >> Or bring or bring thees before before we adjourn, I want to say
something to Mr. Cus. When he spoke, he said that he thought he heard that there was a suggestion of a misrepresentation. the the recounting of the history was simply that the information that was provided was not correct. There was no suggestion that there was any intent to
to mislead the board. And I want the record to to be clear on that. It was simply talking procedurally that there was information provided and it turned out not to be correct. Not that there was any suggestion that there was any testimony that was, you know,
misleading. >> You just have a successful business. So I just just want I want that to be clear on the record. >> Appreciate that. If I could suggest though on this on this site visit >> oh microphone she's the microphone police
>> on this site visit if maybe you just uh schedule so many people every 15 or 30 minutes so you're not all there at the same time. You do it on the same day. You'll all see the same thing. Somebody comes at 9:00. Another group comes at
9:30. many of us. >> Yeah. I again I think it's good if we're all there at once and hear all the same thing >> at the same time. >> But we'll see what we can do. Steve, you'll be there. >> Will your managers come and join us too so they can maybe hear the questions?
And you're welcome to >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Anyone want to have batting practice? >> Still can't hit a curveball. >> Okay. All right. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Steve. >> Thank you. >> You're free, Steve. Okay. >> Anything else? >> There is no correspondence that I'm aware of. No. >> Uh, any other discussion items for this evening? >> Anybody? No. >> Okay. Schedule the meetings. We have
January >> discussions. Um, Robin, you had brought this up at the Environmental Commission. >> Yeah. >> Um, Chuck, maybe at the next meeting, could you kind of go over the list of all the things that we talked about updating >> the You mean the ordinance?
>> Yeah, the ordinance. And then um the we had talked about adding some changes to the conservation ement stuff. Um, bas Oh, yeah. the requirements to require the the buffer and the >> Yeah, you could add that to the list. >> Yeah. I don't want the planning board to
lose sight of your thoughtful suggestions so that the township committee can take appropriate action. >> Okay. So, I'll just outline it and then provide it for the next meeting. That's fine. >> And then I one I'm sorry, one other thing. Yes.
>> Um maybe at the next meeting we could get an update on the in close session on the litigation. >> Yes, we're moving this. Okay. >> And uh the only reason I'm >> it's it'll be two minutes. >> Okay. But yeah. Yeah. Cuz a board of
adjustment >> got it already. >> They did. They did. >> You guys need it. >> Okay. Yeah. We had decided earlier today to move it to the next. >> Okay. >> Okay. And schedule of meetings. We have January 28th is coming up next followed
by February 11th. Anything of note, guys? We don't >> We're still waiting, right? Summit custom Steve has already advised that the applicant will not be able to be heard. No updates have been given and they do not want to proceed because of last time. You guys are advising that
you're likely not in favor of it. Um but he has not provided correspondence tonight. So we would likely still have to just unless Joe advises otherwise just to have it to announce that they're being carried or rescheduled. >> Okay.
All right. Thank you. With that, we're >> thanks everybody. >> Thank you. >> That was a good first meeting. That was easy. >> Thanks, guys.