Good evening one. I'm going to call the meeting to order. Would everyone please stand for a short prayer and a salute to our flag. Almighty God grant us the wisdom to make those decisions that are in the best interest of all of our residents. May
the heavenly father of us all bless those who have given the ultimate sacrifice and service to our nation. And may he watch over and protect our service men and women now guarding the gates of freedom. Salute to our flag. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Jessica, notice of publication. The special meeting has been advertised in accordance with open public meetings act
chapter 231 public law 1975. >> Roll call. >> Council persons Bala >> here. >> Kesi >> here. >> Novak >> here. >> Roberts >> here. Sarski >> here. >> Zabowski. >> Okay. Uh councelor if you would.
>> Thank you mayor. Uh just uh before we uh move on to the uh resolution. Oh, sorry. Uh before we move on to the resolution, I just wanted to address the council. Um after the uh last council meeting, we I was directed to prepare a resolution
authorizing a non-binding referendum uh whether uh to put out to the public uh whether block uh the property identified as block 252 lot 2 should be moved from the housing element and fair share plan that was adopted by the zoning um uh excuse me the planning board and
endorsed by the council which has been submitted to the uh affordable housing program in connection with the township's affordable housing uh compliance. for the fourth round. Uh while drafting that and discussing with our uh the borrow planners, which is representatives here, Dan Lean, um we I
started getting some some concerns about this uh resolution and the the referendum. And I want just wanted to bring those concerns to the council's attention before they moved on the resolution. Uh one of those concerns is the fact that just as I said, we are uh in the middle of a litigation. It's not
tech. It is a It's supposed to be an alternative dispute program that was established by the uh fair share act. That was part of how the fourth round is being uh compliance is being proceeded with. But it is a it's a litigation. It's a uh complaint that was had to be filed with the courts and through the
program and it's an order that we're seeking from the court for compliance with our um uh mandatory obligation as well as how we're going to um actually provide for the affordable housing through the various mechanisms which was adopted in the housing element affair
share plan and my concern and the reason why I wanted to raise this is that by putting out this referendum and this is just my legal opinion but I feel that this would could potentially undermined our case with the program with any objectors that would uh file against our
plan which their deadline to file objections is the end of August August 31st and I don't want to get into litigation strategy here in open session because it like I said this is a litigation but there by putting um putting this out there it is secondguessing our own plan that was
already adopted by our planning board and that can put us in a precarious situation in the courts and opens up a legal argument against us potentially uh when we go forward with the program. Uh as I mentioned at the last meeting, this plan can be amended at any time. Uh and
it is a planning board document, but it would be my recommendation that any amendment to this plan not be done until after we get our order from the court where we're now protected. We have an order that says that we're in full compliance with our fourth round obligations and that our housing and
fair share plan is approved and that um we have protections against builders remedy uh lawsuits. Once we have that in place, then if we want to the burrow wants to look at taking a property out or coming up with other mechanisms, we still would have to go back to the court
to do so any amendment to get approval for that. But we have our order in hand. We are protected. it's not going to be left open where if we don't get our order because of something uh that might happen along the way that then we're open to those builders remedy lawsuits because we never actually got that
protection put put in place. That is my one my my my main concern with this referendum. Um when I started thinking about it and putting it together, the other concern I have is whether or not we even the burrow has the authority to go forward with this. Under the referendum law, the burrow is only or
any municipality is only going allowed to go out for non-binding referendum on something that's within its jurisdiction. The housing element and fair share plan is a planning board document, not a municipal, not a governing um body document. That means it's the planning board, which is a
separate legal entity from the the governing body and the burrow itself. It's their document. So, I have concerns that if this does get adopted and gets sent to the county clerk, whether or not the county clerk would even accept it because of the fact that it's the county clerk's determination as whether or not
it is a uh compliant referendum. And uh as I you know, just wanted I just want to make sure that the council's aware that I do have concerns that it could be uh even if adopted, it could be rejected by the court because it is a separate legal body um and it's not technically
under the jurisdiction of this governing body. Uh and I I just wanted to point out we also have our our planners here uh who uh you know also I spoke to this about and while I did you know I just want to make sure everyone's here is aware I I prepared the resolution. It's it's before the governing body today and
I believe the resolution I prepared uh addresses what was approved by or what I was directed to at the last council meeting. But I wanted to raise my concerns and if we can mayor maybe allow the planner to speak >> before the plan is would you go over what builder's remedy is and what the
what the difference is by the serville planning board doing this fourth round or having it revert to builder's remedy. A buildous remedies lawsuit is a lawsuit filed by a developer property owner who
uh wants to build affordable housing but is in its claim. It's usually in an area that doesn't allow it or doesn't have the density that they want to build. So what they do is they file an action in the court against the municipality saying that the municipality didn't comply with its affordable housing
obligation. Right now we're we're starting the fourth round. So it would be our fourth round obligation. and then they will seek uh for approval or an order from the court allowing them to build what they're proposing. And I can tell you every single uh builder's
remedy uh case that I'm aware of always resulted in a much much larger density and uh overall uh development than the burrow or any municipality really wanted to do so in the first place. So it ends
up if you know we we only really need to build you know 20 affordable housing units which would equal to 100 market rate units if it was you know 20% set aside. if it went through a builder's remedy, that could end up being closer to 200 or even higher because the court
actually is punishing the municipality because when they find it uh an award against municipality in the builders remedy lawsuit, it's finding that the burough or any municipality failed to be meet its uh constitutional requirement for affordable housing. So that is what you'd be facing if we don't get this
order of protection from the court by going through the process. Okay, with that I'll call the planners up please to give their reports. >> Hey, good evening. Um, if you'd identify yourselves, please. >> Peter Vandenoy, uh, licensed uh, Peter
Vandenoy, licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey, uh, burough planner and, um, also planning board planner. And um I just have like I I'd just like to say just real quickly. I didn't have like a uh detailed presentation necessarily. Definitely, you know, I'm here mostly for for Q&A,
but I do have some some remarks just to say that we um we're kind of we we agree with what Joe has said and we would like strongly recommend that the bureau um obtain that court compliance status before doing anything. Um and you could go in either direction. I mean really
whatever the burrow chooses to do, but that would be I think most protective of the burrow. And then in the interim there are like some considerations. I think Dan um has some details as well, but just to kind of kind of uh give you some some highlights. Um you know, so if if the burough did choose to remove that
site, we'd have to find alternative sites and that could be done in several different ways, but it could also be challenging because there's limited amount of land left at a burrow. So that's something that we probably want to take a little time and and and think about and take a look at. But there are some repercussions there in terms of um
you like there's 100% affordable housing sites. I know they're not always the best option in terms of you know if you spread the housing out throughout different developments you can actually have typically a u a better result overall in terms of planning and the regulations actually support that. So
there's 100% affordable housing developments, special needs and other other options. But um you know if that site were removed we'd have to find alternative sites. And so I don't know that there's one single other site that we could put those units on. Um, so that's something we'd we'd have to take a look at. So I just wanted to put that
out there. There's, you know, some kind of, you know, that's that's at least something we'd have to deal with down the road. >> Thank you, >> Dan Leaven. I'm also a licensed planner at Acuity. Um, pretty much I would echo exactly what Peter has said and what Joe
has said. um in regards to the plan the site um other considerations um specific to the site that's in question here um it's a matter of what gets taken away has to be replaced
and Serville as part of its plan has taken a vacant land adjustment which already sort of paints a bit more of a spotlight on the burrow in terms of analysis vacant Land adjustments identify that there is not enough vacant
land within the municipality in order to meet its obligation and so the number of affordable housing units gets revised down. This is already after Seerville has agreed to a reduction from the state's determination figure um as part
of the I believe it was a consent order um signed by the judge and in partnership with fair share housing that had brought the number down previously. So we had a reduction that was uh passed by the resolution and then a further reduction through the vacant land
adjustment. Uh so there's already a bit more um potential scrutiny on the plan as it is from you know people may who may be interested in objecting and any revisions to the vacant land adjustment upwards. So any challenges to that that
go up saying that the RDP that Serville uh is proposing to meet gets larger. Um the site in question right now has a cap on the number of units that can be taken for credit because it's an age restricted site. However, as that RDP
number goes up, the number of units that can be accepted also goes up. So no additional land would necessarily need to be added. No new sites would need to be added to the plan in order to meet this RDP. No additional sites would need to be uh have increased zoning density
in order to meet the obligation. Uh this is all in theory of course, but hypothetically, you know, this site could gain a couple of additional units as that number goes up um without having to place an additional strain on the burrow. Uh,
additionally, um, any changes to the plan, um, your give and take becomes one of either land or money. So if this site is ultimately removed, then in order to
meet the realistic development potential obligation, other sites will have to be zoned or overlaid to allow for increased housing density to create the amount of housing that this site is proposed to
take. If not that, then the alternative is um spending money to create um units that are either through a 100% affordable project, which usually comes with a donation of land as well as cash
in order to make the numbers pencil out at HMFA, or a combination of supportive and special needs housing, which also requires significant subsidies um to the operators and potentially a market to afford affordable program um which are
difficult to implement but not impossible and again the cost for those is significant. Now all of this money is available through the trust fund. Um but that has implications as well where if the bureau decides to go away from the
zoning um avenue uh the strategy that it's taking uh it will have to pass a resolution of intent to bond whereby especially for the 100% affordable project whereby if at a certain time
that those units are not provided they don't get their tax credit allocation from HMFA the bureau would have to bond in order to pay for the creation of those units. So, it's a it's a significant, you know, um risk to the
bureau financially to swap this site out potentially for 100% affordable project um or some other combination thereof. And that's all I have. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay.
So, with that, if you would read the resolution. No. Oh, I'm sorry. The public portion. >> Oh, portion on the resolution. >> Yes. >> Okay. At this time, I'm going to open to the public questions or comments on this
resolution. Jim, there is a fivem minute limit. Everyone, >> thank you, Mayor. Jim Robinson, Burrell Square in Parl. You know, when Alberto Rios asked about a referendum, the mayor called it political. I just want to give a little bit of
history here. Prime was created in 1993 when John McCormack was the mayor to limit development. Was that political? I don't think so. In 2003, Republican McCormack and Democratic
Mayor Kilpatrick in a bipartisan effort called for acquiring and preserving the 40 acres. Was that political? He'd been out of office 30 years and she wasn't running again. I don't think that was political. in October 2023 when Donna Roberts made
the motion to get the to get the appraisal to get the ball rolling to acquire this property. I don't know was that political and by the way Mayor McCormack asked me to thank you Mary Novak and you Dan Bala
for doing the right thing on this and I hope that after tonight we can thank the rest of you. But I'll tell you what's political. When the mayor creates a secret dark money committee and appoints the chair of that committee
as the chief of staff at a $92,000 taxpayer paid position, that's political. When a law firm donates $10,000 to that fund, Patriots for Progress, and three months later is appointed the burough
attorney, that's political. When an excellent servillebased engineer who's been our attorney for 40 years and employs hundreds of serville residents is replaced by an Ocean County firm with ties to the GOP chairman who but for a
presidential pardon would be in jail for corruption. That's political. The last meeting the mayor told the members of the council how to vote on this motion. That's political. When the attorney for the developer
building condos at Costaver tears down where they torn down thousands of trees, sues not to have to contribute to the tree bank to replace those trees, then donates money to the mayor's political
account. That's political. When we can't resolve a bus depot suit because the mayor won't talk to the board of education because the superintendent wouldn't do a favor before the election. That's political. When the council votes against pilots
and a new mayor comes in and they change their vote at his request to give away millions of dollars to a mega warehouse developer. That's political. When the chair of the Shade Tree Commission objects to hundreds of thousands of dollars diverted from the
tree bank to buy a tractor and that has nothing to do with trees and then the mayor tries to abolish the Shade Tree Commission. That's political. And by the way, the chair of the shade tree commission and some members that
were very active in the campaign to save the firehouse and then the mayor aided by the attorney in a routine review tries to abolish the shade tree commission. Was that political or was
that just petty sophomoric spite? I don't know. Saving open space is not political. Protecting our environment is not political.
Alberto Rios and Hervey Bloomer who who asked for this referendum aren't political. They have never been involved in politics. They came forward to serve because they were disgusted with what
has been going on in this town. They saw the trees coming down and the mega warehouses and the condos and apartments going up. That's why they got involved. They never had breakfast or even met the disgraced political figure that the mayor likes to site, Donna.
And they never met Bob Kay either. mayor. They are just concerned citizens who've had enough. I support affordable housing, but there are better ways to achieve our affordable housing goal. These 250
apartments get us only 22 credits. I don't think even 38. I think we only get 22 credits. We can do better. Pass this question. Preserve and acquire this open space. >> Are there other questions?
Ken, thank you. Mayor Kent Alcheski serville to the gentleman who talked about a builder's remedy. Uh we're very familiar with that in serville because we've been through that before and I think the reason we were
through that is for the the 20 years that the mayor previously had been in office. I don't think there was any affordable housing built in violation of the affordable housing laws. I believe I
believe the laws on affordable housing went into effect like 1975 um in the Mount Laurel decision. So somewhere about that. So long before uh 2000 when the mayor came in um
affordable housing laws were in effect and they were uh to my knowledge they were ignored here. Did we have any affordable housing at Town Lake? I don't think so. Did we have affordable housing at Gillette Towers? I don't
think so. Did we have affordable housing at the apartments uh at Town Lake which which were built later uh as the result of a court uh a court case? Uh the planning board in that case
turned down they turned down uh the apartments uh not which were going to be built by Kaplan as not age restricted. They turned it down. It went to court and the court overturned the planning
board. But specifically in that decision to overturn the planning board, the judge specifically mentioned that it had to have affordable housing and they approved
they approved those apartments in defiance of the judge's order and the affordable housing laws. So, we know a lot about laws in Sarville and we know how they're violated. I'm don't get me wrong, I'm not here to advocate for
affordable housing. Uh, that's not my purpose standing at this microphone here tonight, but I think we have to comply with laws and unfortunately, as I said, Sherville knows a lot about a builder's remedy. Uh there have been
some ugly things happened here and and there's been no excuse for them because a a lot of this building going on and everybody in town can see it all over town. That's the result. That's the result of the builder's remedies
decision when they sued when they sued towns including Sarville and it went to the judge and and the judge overthrew our zoning laws and the developers cried well we want to build affordable housing after all those years where they haven't
built any and it's not developer fault. Let me let me be very clear on that because the developer goes by the document that's approved by the planning board. You know that mayor, you're on the planning board and you you exclusively appoint the entire planning
board. So the developer goes by that document. So this is not we're not talking about the developer's fault. We're talking about the burrow's fault. And unfortunately, that's where we're at. Uh to to take to
take now this prime designation of this property in question that goes back to I probably the early 90s, late 80s, uh early 90s where that was designated as prime. And it's it's really important
more important than it was at that time because we didn't have the building that we see uh here at that time. So I think I think we Mr. Robertson said a lot of it uh that uh I could include but I I I
don't want to be repetit repetitious but uh uh some of the issue here is as he said uh the shade tree commission uh tried to abolish that here the historical society
uh with the firehouse uh it seems these were all these were all issues that that were were trying to trying to spite people and and and we have something pending for a residency requirement for people to serve on on boards. We're
going to put a residency requirement on volunteers who who get zero dollars to serve on boards, but we go and hire a mayoral aid from Philadelphia and the mayor at the last meeting when he closes everything out and starts talking and doesn't allow you to respond. try to
equate that to me that I had a commute to Pennsylvania. And you're right, mayor, I did. I worked 29 years and I I rose to lead a multinational company in New Brunswick to run their distribution center. I worked 29 years and I moved it
to Pennsylvania. I don't think you can equate that to hiring somebody from Pennsylvania. Thank you very much. >> Anyone else? >> Being no one else, I'll entertain a motion. to close the public portion.
>> I'll make a motion to close the public. Is there >> a second? >> Second. >> Roll call to close the public portion. >> Council persons Roberts. >> Bala. >> Yes. >> Liy, >> yes. >> Novak, >> yes. >> Sarski, >> yes. >> Zabrowski,
>> yes. >> Are there any comments from the governing body? >> Yes. >> Um, I guess I would be asking the planner. >> You need to speak in the microphone. I've always been told it is on. I just when I talk that way, I look that way. Um, mayor, I'd like to ask some
questions of the planners. Is that all right with you? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Ask the attorney or the planner. >> When when you were doing your calculations, >> if you would take to the mic, please. >> I I am talking right into the mic. >> Oh, I'm sorry.
I I was just wondering. Um, did you did we get any credits for the American Recovery Housing for Substance Abuse on Ernston Road? Did you look into that? >> Those don't qualify for credits. >> Okay. How about using uh we used to do this years ago. CD CBGD grants. We
rehabbed houses and then they were able to be qualified for >> CDBG funds for rehabilitation get you rehabilitation credits, but this is new construction credits. Those those don't translate. >> It's got to be totally new. >> Yes. Well, it doesn't have to be new new, but it has there's enough criteria
to say that um the CDBG4 rehab specifically, the way that that program is administered do not qualify as new construction credits. That's sort of the broader term. I think the the specific term is prospective need credits under the legislation.
>> Okay. What about um converting some we there are some houses in town quite a few many uh that uh are illegal to families and it's usually because there's a a relative or something that's uh can't afford to live on their own.
Did we look at going after them and making them because we again we've done this before. We've looked into that and they we got credits for these things. So, if there are uh two family units that are not operating under the
accessory apartment program, they I believe should be compelled to comply with the ordinance. Um but they would not qualify as affordable housing units because they have not been um deed restricted for the amount of time the 30
uh 30 or 10 years depending on the amount of time for the the program. Um they wouldn't have been affirmatively marketed. the people living in those units would not have been income qualified. So they would not be considered um uh creditw worthy units. There are uh 10 units for accessory
apartments that are in the plan right now. And as your administrative agent and planner, you know, one of the things that we would do upon, you know, approval of the plan is to work to get those accessory apartments um that accessory apartment program moving. Um
but current duplexes that are not licensed or not registered or what have you would not qualify today. Um and it also wouldn't be enough to make up the difference that we're talking about. >> Um this this was something I have no
idea whether this can be done but winding woods. Um, is there any way that we can subsidize a number of their apartments to be turned into affordable housing? Right now, they're considered market rate, but quite a few of the people are
on section 8. You know, they're already built. >> The short answer is yes, through a market to affordable program. That would require a lot of research. Um, and it would require a lot of money. Uh potentially the going rate for a market
to affordable unit is on the order of $100,000 or more um for a conversion to the landlord and it depends on the difference between what the market rate is and what the maximum U-Hack affordable rate is. It doesn't matter necessarily if somebody has a voucher
because the federal government makes up the difference to the market. >> No, that I understand. I'm just saying work with them to make maybe you know one section of their apartments may you know >> and make it that way. I mean did you check into that? I mean rather than
taking something and reszoning it to make it housing when it's not zoned that way. >> Mayor Mayor. Well, well, before the planners, just on that note, I just want to raise one point that um the current regs that are the U-Hack regs that are being proposed previously a municipality
could do that and we weren't obligated to actually make any minimum amount of payment for that. Uh under the temporary regs, we're required to make a minimum payment of 17,500 for each unit. But under the new regs, exactly as as Dan was saying, it's actually based upon a
percentage change, but they've increased it exponentially. They're actually the new regulations that are being proposed, and I I know the league is fighting against it. A lot of the municipal attorneys are fighting against it, but it actually makes it exponentially harder to do exactly what you were bringing up is is to convert these uh
market rates to affordable, which is makes no sense to me because that wouldn't you think that would be the smarter way to handle it? But the the new regs that are expected to be adopted uh actually make it harder and more much more expensive. So I just to I just wanted to echo that that last response because it is something that I've been
monitoring myself uh with regard to where the requirements are moving forward for many municipalities. >> I'm sorry I didn't mean to jump jump on you there. >> Thanks Joe. >> Some of some of the questions were were already answered for me that I have here. Let me ask you I'm hearing this
putting this referendum on there, you know, could throw this whole thing into a tail spin and then in the same thing you're saying doesn't even need our approval. Uh this is up to the planning board. So, by us going out and asking the residents what they think as opposed
to this is a non-binding referendum, I don't see how it can put us in any legal problems here at all because the planning board can tell us to go pound salt and so it nobody can sue us for asking the residents of this town what
they think. And in the me you're telling me that this can be changed after the time. I mean, you have a piece of property in there right now that actually belongs part of it belongs to the New Jersey Department of Transportation or the Turnpack Authority. I'm not sure. We can't even have that in here. We can't take that
and bu build affordable housing on it. And yet, it's in this plan. So, if there's legal problems, it seems to me that this plan already has legal problems. >> Anything else, Mary? Uh, I did have some amendments that I
would like to add to this, but I would like to if this gets passed, I would like to talk about the amendments. Okay. >> Right. Are there any other comments from the governing body? Comments or questions? >> Okay. That being said, um,
I I make it a habit not to uh play a defensive position. So Ken O'Heesky and Jim Robinson and Kennedy O'Brien have a long history going back into the '9s. That being said, at one time we worked together. One time I worked to elect Ken
Oeski and Kenoshi worked to elect me as did Jim Robinson and then we had a falling out. For those who don't pick it up, it's a very personal issue uh which I choose not to defend. What I do say is anyone who feel I've been doing this I
think I'm in my 22nd year as mayor and I do it for $105 a week and I have for 22 years which is fine because that was what it paid when I took the job in 2000. So anyone who feels that I'm doing
something against the law uh I have always said to them you should go right to the prosecutor and I have said that to Mr. Robinson and Mr. Oeski many times and as of yet the prosecutor has not
contacted me for uh any for me doing anything illegal. That being said, ne neither myself, Mr. Robinson or Mr. O'esy are certified in any land use where, you know, we're the three of us
are high school graduates. Uh Mr. Oeski, I think, is 85. I just turned 72 and Mr. Robinson I think hits 70 uh will hit 70 in a month. Um and and what what the way I explain it
is that I'm here I represent the past and the present and I'm trying to keep things in order for those that follow me. So, as far as there being no affordable housing, COA, when Governor Christie
came in, he put COA on hold and housing was just a very unpopular thing in Saraveville. Uh, and the people didn't want want us to do it, so I didn't do it. Uh, it's really that simple. Knowing that at some point COA would come back
as as uh governors change and and uh the the laws change. That being said, uh the other thing that everybody really should consider if we if we go down the road of eminent domain, which is taking the taking of private property, that is a
very slippery slope. We have uh spoken to Mr. MCO who is the property owner and he and we asked him would you would you want to sell it to the burrow so that we could preserve it for open space. He said, "I purchased this property in the
early 90s." And uh as he had purchased and he and other people had purchased these large parcels of land in Seville, and they landbanked them. Uh in 2000, uh the the property where the Riverton
project is going, I think, paid $300,000 a year in property taxes. And that was I think is that like 500 acres, John, when it was a parcels A, B, and C. >> Uh, and that's and that's that's what it
did. Uh, Governor McGrevy at the time asked me to meet with NASCAR because NASCAR was looking to put in the track. I met with NASCAR because the governor asked me uh and and they told me their business model and I said that's not
going to work for the people of Saraveville no matter how many of them are NASCAR uh fans. It just was not a good business model for the people of Saraveville. All that being said, Seville is a very desirable location.
one of our past um burough attorneys who went on to become an assemblyman and assembly speaker was the one who got the parkway uh exit and entrance located here in Seville. Prior to that, it was a
secuitous route. So things happen. Um if if a matter of fact uh it was Joe Carter's Alan Carter's father, Joe, who wrote a book called Municipal Municipal Land Madness. I think that's the name of
it. >> Alan Carter. >> All right. Well, there we go. So the son wrote it, not the father. That being said, he talks about several post World War II with the returning GIS. Post World War II. you have I think it was
like 11% of the population returning from war. So let's take uh Laurel Park which is 900 homes and it was a treed hillside and they they leveled off some of the hillside and they you know took
out a number of trees and they built 900 homes most of them Cape Cods if not all of them Cape Cods for the returning GIS and so it went. My stepmother who grew who grew up here in Sville uh here on
Main Street told me when they built the homes behind Burough Hall on the on Major's Pond, she said the people who lived in this section of town were outraged, outraged that these out oftowners would come into Sville uh and
they were very much opposed to it. Every development that I have seen go up in Seville, people have been against. The thing is you can't uh unless you purchase it. Now let's get back to this piece of property. So in my
understanding is is Mr. MCO bought this piece of property around 1990 for about a million dollars. At that time, the burrow was running a surplus of a million to a million and a half for whatever re I remember talking
to somebody involved with politics at that time and they were going to use the surplus for uh uh recreation purposes, not open space. So whether it was the property for Town Lake, whether it was
this property at Kennedy Park, uh remember Kennedy Park was essentially a clay pit. Uh and on the other side of the track was the Crossman Sand Company where they took the sand and they built the foundation for a good part of the uh
uh parkway. So that you have a history. Matter of fact, uh my my stepmother is a Bailey and the Bailey family sold hundreds and hundreds of acres to Dupont and Hercules at the turn of the 20th century so that
they could build the facilities there. This is just a progression. We didn't purchase it. Now, it came in under under my predecessor. Uh the the appraisal, this is a a 40 acre site. It came in at at under
$700,000 for the 40 acres. and and which is ridiculous price because if you go down to the Riverton project which is very close it's easily selling for a million
dollars an acre. If you go if you go to Journey Mill Road which has no residential zoning it's strictly commercial uh it's a half a million dollars. So to to how anybody could value a 40 acre site in a park uh for
for under $700,000 is beyond my comprehension. All that being said, so we have a choice when when somebody wants to develop a piece of property. We can have input into the process and
into the finished product or we can fight it, we can lose and then we lose control over what happens. So I would rather have control than no control. And this has been, you know, we are a
100 days or so off from the election. Mr. Robinson is the strategist for one of the political parties in town. He's been eagerly looking for an issue. That being said, this may be the issue he'd found. Uh I wish him
I wish him something. But uh anyway, uh that being said, we are doing what we think is right uh and what we think is in the best interest of Saro. the the 40 acres in Kennedy Park, if you had a
legitimate uh appraisal, would would probably easily be $20 million. That being said, um about a half a million an acre, which which is about right on residential property, um which means we would we
would significantly raise taxes. That being said, we're this year we had a tax increase on the municipal. Doesn't include the school, doesn't include the county portion of our taxes, just what it costs to run the burrow. Pick up the garbage, fix the potholes, provide
police, fire, first aid. The average house was raised $30. So, we have 300 employees. What we do up here on the council is we run a service company. We're here to provide services. So,
nobody up here is taking envelopes because I would be the first person to go to the prosecutor. Uh and and in turn, if I was taking envelopes, I would expect them to go to the prosecutor. So all that all that being said, nobody
is here to do this for anything other than what is considered to to be in the best interest of the burrow with what we have at hand. So that being said, are there any more comments or questions from the governing
body? There being none, I'll entertain a motion on this resolution. >> I move that the resolution be approved on roll call vote. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Roll call. >> Council persons Novak.
>> Uh yes. And I I just want to I want to make a statement. Uh Kennedy just said, you know, about residential property, keeping in mind this is not residential property. That's why the assessment is lower. By doing this, we are now
reszoning this property residential. And I've heard for many many years, I've been on the open space committee since it was first formed in the 90s. Uh we a lot of these uh developers, you know, they say that they don't want to sell to us, but the last time we went through
this, we actually purchased from somebody from Kaplan who said he didn't want to sell us property. Guess what? We did make a deal with them and we purchased four plus acres next to Kennedy Park. So there are there is ways to talk to these developers to get them
to do it. And in that particular case, and I really don't want to make this political, but Kennedy actually vetoed that sale of that property, and we had to overturn his veto. So this property, it's not residential, and this is this
is this is informative and getting the people's opinion. It was a non-binding referendum and there's no legal ramifications for this at all. The planning board doesn't even need our approval, much less the residents
approval. So saying that this is somehow the boogeyman is going to come and it's going to be worse than it is right now, I don't think it can be worse than it is right now. Thank you, >> Bala. >> Yes, >> Kesi. Oh, based on the recommendation by our
burough attorney and the verbal presentation from our planners Peter and Dan, you know, my vote is no >> Roberts. >> Um, first I concede that any question
>> your speaker on >> it is I concede any referendum that we put out would have 100% support because nobody wants this. The problem I have is it will actually do nothing and raise expectations, especially since we have
heard that this proposal may do more harm than good. Um, I concede voters will agree the proposal does nothing to solve the problems. We've already heard that old politics don't work and it may provide
more energy for that developer to do more. Um, so on that basis, no. >> Tarski, >> I'm also going to be a no. I read everything last week. I voted no last week or two weeks ago. I'm voting no this time again.
>> Zabowski, >> uh, no with comment. Um, in the end, this referendum is not about open space. This referendum is about the affordable housing plan and an element or a component to the plan that was put
forward to the planning board unless it's going to be amended which I hear that might happen which will open it to open space through eminent domain which quite frankly we shouldn't be discussing today without attorney without the planning or planners and and what have
you. That just seems to me to be folly. Um, I think what the real answer to this is, and I'm going to make a recommend, well, I'm going to actually make a motion for resolution afterwards, is listen, we're all angry. This affordable h, and I've
said this at the last meeting, too. This affordable housing program no longer works. We all want to have affordable housing for the seniors so they can stay in our town, for the young people so they can grow their families,
and certainly for special needs people including veterans so that they can have a home as well. And we put forth a plan based on the requirements that are necessary today. We're now 50 years into this program. As
Ken said, we're overdeveloped. The pro the process that creates this now creates so many market rate homes to the percentage of affordable housing units that it makes
it almost ridiculous. We're all, not just Sarah, every town, every city is going through this. If you read the paper, you look on Facebook, you look wherever, everybody is angry. And I agree with them. I'm angry too. I don't want to see more housing. I don't want
us in particular having to do way too many houses to meet those demands. I think the real answer I think what the angry answer is from our residents is that they don't like the plan, the program, not the plan, the program. And
my resolution would be is and not for referendum because we're spending money ridiculously because I think we understand what our people want already. And that is to say, we're done with this. To all our legislatores, legislators, Democrats, Republicans
alike, that we just have had enough. You need to put a program together that doesn't allow sprawl. To me, that's logical. That's the problem. Not a piece of property. That's only part of what
the issue is, but it's not the cause. The cause is the program, which at one point again I think was a great idea. But after you listened to Dan and to Peter and to Joe, tell me if it wasn't
so complicated that at some point you lost your train of thought because I certainly did and I've tried to follow and I think I understand this pretty well. And boy oh boy, it's not easy. Is that right, gentlemen? There has to be a better way. I'm going
to ask for a resolution afterwards and I would hope that it would rather other towns, other cities would join us in this because I think that's really the issue. So, I apologize for talking too long, but I'm angry just as well as everybody else. >> And your vote, John,
>> you said no. >> I'm sorry. It's no. >> All right. Um, that being said, is there any other business before we go into close session? >> Well, I I had amendments, but since we didn't pass this one, there's no sense bringing up my amendments. I just would
like to say it just seems to me that we really don't want the opinions of the dopey a-holes that come to meetings. >> Mayor U, if >> Go ahead, John. >> If this has failed and we can move on, I would like to present that resolution. Uh I don't have the wording tonight but
I would ask Mr. Shil to put that together hopefully based upon what I said and I would hope throughout the comm the council that everybody would in fact agree with that because quite frankly I think that is the sentiment of the residents of town. >> So I make that motion.
>> All right. That being said >> second. >> All in favor you need a roll call. Roll call then. >> Council person Zabowski. >> Yes. >> Vala. >> Yes. >> Kesi. Yes. >> Novak. >> What exactly are we voting on?
>> What are we voting on? >> Go ahead, John. >> Well, I think that's funny since uh you're convoluted, Brian. You didn't really know, but the resolution is to express our anger and displeasure with the affordable housing program as it
currently exists. create uh and again that we do support the fact that would be affordable housing within the township, but as the plan is created right now with so many market rate houses to be built to get to the percentage of affordable rate housings
that we disagree with this program and we're looking for our legislators to take the lead to take the lead and recreate this program to go back to what it was supposed to do. >> Basically what I said at the last meeting. You don't think so? But
>> yeah, I did I I actually said at the last meeting and not that it matters that I myself, you know, feel that I've been negligent because I've sat up here a long time instead of just going along. I mean, the last time we really fought it and we were able to purchase some of
the land that was supposed to be developed and we were able to lower the numbers. So, there is a a reason for that. But I should have at that point said that we start to have to petition the legislators in New Jersey and the
judges that are making a lot of these rules to to uh to change these things instead of putting it all on the towns all the time. My fault. >> Your vote. >> Yes.
>> Roberts, >> I completely agree with Councilman Zimski. We have been um in basically a Ponzi scheme of housing through the state and at the municipal level. There is very little that we can do about
this. It really has to be addressed at the state level. I just had a conversation asking a question of our attorney earlier before this and one of the things I wanted to consider is if zoning is changed at all for a piece of property which is currently zoned at
what's prime and it has a very low tax rate that someone's been holding on to for years. They've been paying about the same amount that someone's home is paying right now for 40 acres. And we are going to have the burden of the infrastructure for anything on that
property. And there is nothing we can do about it at this level. It's really at the state level and we need to compel the state to change this. This is really hurting all of us. My answer is yes. >> Dinarski, >> I'm voting yes. Also, I'd like to challenge the legisl legislators and see
if we can get this to move forward. >> I I'd just like to say one more thing. Although I really am in favor of this, that's going to do nothing to help us right now if we had just moved forward on purchasing this property that we wouldn't be in this position right now.
We shouldn't we should never be forced to to change zoning, you know, and and this will help us maybe in the future. It'll help all towns in the state of New Jersey. Not going to do a damn thing to help us. By the time this would do anything, we're not going to be able to move in
this town. Okay. At this time, I'll take a motion to go into executive session. Read >> the reso first. >> Whereas section 8 of the open public meetings act, chapter 231, public law 1975, permits the exclusion of the public from a meeting in certain circumstances. And whereas this public
body is of the opinion that such circumstances presently exist. Now therefore, it be resolved by the mayor and burough council, the bure of seville, county of Middle Sex, state of New Jersey as follows. The public portion of this meeting is hereby adjourned in order that the governing body may meet in closed private session for approximately 5 to 10 minutes to
discuss the following matters. Attorney client privilege and RD litigation. Following the conclusion of said closed session, the governing body shall reconvene the open portion of this public meeting to consider any other matters which may be pro properly brought before it at this time. The nature and content of the discussion
which occurs in close session shall be made public at such time as the need need for non-disclosure no longer exists. This resolution shall take effect immediately. >> Is there a motion? >> Make a motion to go. >> Motion made and seconded. Roll call. >> Council persons Roberts. Yes. >> Vala. Yes.
>> Kesi. Yes. >> Novak. >> Sarski. Yes. >> Zabrouski. Take a motion to go back into open. >> Motion to go into open. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> Council persons Roberts. >> Yes. >> Bala. >> Yes. >> His. >> Yes. >> Noach.
>> Sinarski. >> Yes. >> Zowski. >> Yes. >> Okay. At this time, I'm going to open the public portion for questions or comments on any and all issues. Jim. >> Yes. >> Robin. Questions. Mayor, did you say >> questions or comments? >> Oh.
That's good change in policy. First of all, I just want to point out there are 15 people on a hot August night. 15 people here and there would have been more here. A lot contacted me. I contacted the clerk to ask about the elevator. It's an important issue. That's why you had this number of folk
and these aren't the regulars that come out. Um, and this would have been the perfect issue to allow people to comment through Zoom. But we have this policy that came in when you came in, mayor, council
president, you're the president of the council. These are council meetings. You could make a motion to change that. Somebody contacted me through Facebook. I don't know the person, but a lot of people contact me who I don't know. And he said, "Can you look into the reason that the elevator has not been repaired?
Isn't there a law that public buildings have to be handicapped accessible? I can't believe a part has been on order all this time." I just asked that question on behalf of that person. Maybe you'll answer when my time is up. Mary, you did a good job in rewriting history.
You were never a nuts andbolts guy. And we know the devil is in the details. During the Christy administration, COA might have went away. The affordable housing laws didn't go away. The laws didn't go away. The laws were still in effect. And the reason we were sued is
because we didn't abide by the laws for 20 years. So, it was still the law. They didn't have the they didn't have the council, but the law was still in effect and we ignored it and that's why we are now building thousands of apartments in
town because we were sued then. Now, with all due respect to the burrow attorney, and I'm not going to mention the $10,000 contribution that his firm made before he was appointed, but
and I don't know if this is an issue or not, but I raise it. His comment certainly and it was cited by some people who voted no on this on putting this referendum on the ballot. His opinion was cited by at least two
council people, three council people. The reason they voted no no the fact that the burrow attorney's law firm up until recently up until recently represented Peter Macco.
Is that a conflict? Would that have altered the opinion? Joe, you look like you don't know what I'm talking about. >> You don't you don't Well, your law firm represented Peter Makco. I don't know if they represented him in the suit. That was a suit, mayor, where the judge said
your public hearings were a sham and he turned over an ordinance and that's why 1.7 million square feet of warehousing is being built on Main Street. and your firm, the Burough Attorney's Law Firm, represented Peter MCO, not three years
ago when he got that approval for the land immediately adjacent to these 40 acres. Now, is that a conflict? I don't know. I just ask it. I just ask it. So, maybe we ought to take a look at that,
you know. And mayor, I've heard you say many times that the value of that property isn't what I say it is or isn't what the appraiser said it is. That's a certified appraisal that we got by a very respected appraiser. You never read
it. You never read that appraisal. And in fact, I'm not going to mention a name, but a council person as recently as two weeks ago asked me for that appraisal. And I said to that council person, I sent this to everyone in April and you never read it. Well,
you know what the burrow says that were that land is worth? The burrow the burrow 1 point I think it's I have to do the math 3295 and I think we're 30 34.85 is our ratio. I think something
like that close to 35, right? And if I So the burrow says that property is worth about 1 1.16 about 1.2 million. Let's say the burrow says that 40 acres is worth about 1.2
million. Anybody who read the appraisal would know how much of it can't be built. I do want to ask about the uh the DuPont suit, what we know about that. What area in town are impacted? what we're going to do about it, what are we going to
tell the people? Mayor, I want to thank you. I have to agree with you. The very legislators that Donna, you're criticizing, the mayor praised um at the senior event, he said they are wonderful legislators. They're friends of his. They're friend of Seville. That might not be political. That might be because
of his state job. I don't know. But in any case, I thought it was nice of you to say when some people are taking unfair shots. Thank you. And can we get an answer to the question about whether or not that's a legal conflict for the attorney to represent Peter MCO and the
bureau and give the opinion that we can't have a referendum? >> Jim, sit down, please. >> Well, will you sayim? >> We can ask questions. That was a question. >> Your time is up, Jim. Please sit down. >> Questions imply answers. >> Please sit down, Jim. >> Will will there be an answer to that
question? >> Not maybe next meeting. Come back next meeting. You you generally don't miss them. >> Do you think it's a conflict? Mayor, >> sit down, Jim. >> Do you think it's a conflict for the attorney to also be Peter's attorney?
>> He he he's dying for me to have a police officer escort him to >> not going to sit me down because he knows that I I'm not doing anything inappropriate. >> Yeah. Well, you just rude crew illbred. Ken And I'll ask you, uh, I want you to
know, mayor, I take great offense at, uh, the comments you made about me earlier. Uh, you increased my age by several years. And, uh, I don't think that's right. I don't do that to you. As a matter of fact, I don't do anything to you personally, mayor. I want to say right now, despite the speech you made,
uh, which is total nonsense, and most of the things you say are just full of lies, mayor. Everybody knows that. I have nothing against you as a person. You never, let me say it twice. Kennedy O'Brien never did anything to me
personally, and I don't think I ever did anything to you personally, mayor, either. What I stand here and talk about are issues in the burrow and your actions and the things that you've done and I've done them over and over. You
know why? Because people forget and we need to remind them oft times. Yeah. Uh Mr. Robin just talked about one eliminating Zoom. How how that affects a lot of people who can't make meetings who are who are lesser people for
medical physical reasons. Uh, I didn't tell you to do that, mayor. Uh, I had no influence on you. Uh, calling people a-holes that attend meetings. Uh, I'm really proud that you did that, mayor. That's really You
should be proud of yourself for doing that. Uh, yeah. That's the kind of thing that makes me stand here and criticize you cuz if you did it when I sat there for this six years and you were mayor, I would have got up and left the deis because I wouldn't tolerate that from
anybody. So yeah, I'm glad you're shaking your head. I hope you agree with it, mayor. Uh calling people and attend meetings don't be people with no lives. Do you know anything about democracy, mayor? This is democracy. This is how it works. You've tried to restrict it.
You've tried to take it away. You reduced the meetings at the speaking time from five minutes to three until you found out people complained how ridiculous that was. But you're anti-democratic mayor. You're anti-democracy.
Uh the firehouse preservation that I talked about before, the people the people in the historical society, they're they're people that've been in the community a long time. uh they're pillars of the community and you you
tried to fight them be apparently somebody aggravated you or or didn't kiss your ring and so you've done everything you could until until the voters jammed it right to you and you got beat by a 2 to one margin that's how
the people feel about the things you've done and you're still trying to spite not only the voters but the historical society because you won't declare that a historical site So they have tried they have tried to get this done so they
could save the burrow money and they could get they could get money. You have violated that. You have ignored it. You won't do it because you're spiting them. You're not spiting them. You know who you're spiting? You're
spiting every taxpayer in town payer. That's who you're spiting. trying to get rid of the Shade Tree Commission because probably somebody said something there you didn't like until you found out that there were so many people objected to that uh your people here had to withdraw
it. Uh and now you got this thing about restricting restricting volunteers restricting them to burrow residents. That's really that's really big. You know the people of South Aboy and Morgan and Mechanicsville how intertwined they
are with the residents of Sarville and you won't let you don't want to let people come in here and do things on boards and commissions for zero dollars. That's the kind of thing you've done and now now you're trying now this body is
trying to make excuses for the affordable housing that you know that's just nonsense what you said. The law is the law, mayor. You violated the law. I'm just pointing out the things you've done. You violated the law. You and your
planning board. And you had people like Donna and trying to say, "Oh, blaming this on uh other people and the legislature who you, as Mr. Rob said, you praise all the time." You've praised. I can tell you one that I praise is uh Juan Carlos, who uh works
for Ivon Lopez. I've gone to him numerous times to to get things for not for me personally. I don't need anything but for friends and and information and they've always been right on top of everything. So, uh I just wanted to stand here and tell you what a phony you
are. How you make up lies and I've got plenty to say, mayor. I'll be back. Believe me, I'll tell you. I'll tell you a little again. That's why you'll be back. >> I'm going to tell you a little about prosecutor the next time. Please remember this is as close to the dis as
the people of Sarable will allow you to get. >> So, thank you for your comments. >> They're not allowing you too much. >> Thank you. Thank you for your comments. They're not allowing you too much. >> Anyone else? >> Yes, ma'am.
>> Hi, nice to meet you. My name is Natalyia Kajvski. I live um on I'm an old guy losing my hearing, dear. >> You got it. So, I live on Burell Square and I just wanted to raise like some potential improvements to Sarable that might benefit like the people who live
here. Um, I live on Jackson A and there's a small park there and I like to go to parks to take care of my mental health and like my wellness. So, I believe that it would be a good idea to establish like a walkway path in that park. It's very rocky and difficult to
walk on and I think that would help like not only the residents that live around there, but also like for personal reasons to uh enjoy that park better. I also noticed that Kennedy Park um it's a good park, but there's not enough trees
along the walkway. I feel like it would benefit from um more trees so individuals who walk there could immerse themselves more into this concept of forest bathing which is very good for a person's health and I noticed that there's a lot of like geese poop on the
walkway and like um that kind of things that makes it difficult to walk and that might be a good improvement as well to reduce um either have someone go around and clean it up more frequently And that that that's all I have to say.
>> Couple things. Uh Glenn, if you would if you'd have um Richie look at Jackson Avenue Park u for for a walkway. You're talking on the perimeter. >> Yeah, it's a Yeah, it's a small park. >> Okay. >> Um and then the things for all the time
that I've sat up here, we have repeatedly planted trees in Kennedy Park. The problem there is one, it's clay >> and that that's an old clay pit. >> Okay. >> And and two, we we've planted trees there numerous times. Basically, they
die because the the roots get saturated with too much water. The water there's no aquifer there. We we'll take a look at it again. Um but that's it's not that we haven't tried over the years, right? But um
that's been the result of of our trying. Uh so if you would if you would h have a look at that. Um there are times that's that's really an absolutely fall and spring. It's a lovely lovely park. Kennedy Park. Uh as far as the geese
goes, it's a it's a repetitive problem. So years ago, let's say back in the 90s, we used to have people come and and um it was a company and basically they they would shoot the geese and and they would bring the the the geese up to soup
kitchens in Newark and and feed the uh hungry. >> Um we then would would go and we would adding the eggs. You basically find the geese nests and then you would take the egg and you would coat it in a vegetable
oil. The ghee the egg would never mature. It would never hatch. So you'd skip the generation. Um we we have an active and ongoing uh goose problem. Uh so for the last number of years is
essentially the input is they don't want to kill the geese. Uh, and so we we've hired uh special dogs that chase the flocks of geese. And what we found is the geese will just basically fly far enough that the dog gets tired.
>> So they'll go from Kennedy Park to the middle school, Kennedy Park to the high school playing fields, Kennedy Park to the Shopright Plaza. >> Um, we just keep trying. It's not that we ignore it. We just keep trying, right?
Um, I I deputized one of the third grade classes at Arless School to find solutions 20 years ago when Mrs. Cmerford was the teacher and and Mrs. Brady were the teachers. I did the same
thing and the kids came up with wonderful solutions. >> Um, the poop is a problem because they eat and they defecate. That's >> what they do. They're like, "Anyway, we because of what the work the third
graders did, we bought a goose poop scooper, which is a machine that goes and it scoops up, but you have to do it when it's dried out for several days. You can't do wet poop, otherwise it clogs up the machine. It's an it's an
ongoing process uh that we're constantly constantly working on. Um, and since the the consensus is they don't they don't want to slaughter the geese, um, it's a process. It's a longer process, but it's
a it's ongoing and and we don't stop. >> Okay. >> All right. >> And, uh, for the decision about the Jackson Park walkway, >> yes. Um should will that be like the answer that will the answer be given like next council meeting or
>> we're we'll have to take a look at doing that and seeing what's available down there. We've got about four major park renovation projects going on now for this year that have been funded through a series of grants. We'll have our parks department take a look at it and try to come up with some ideas there. I don't know if it's big enough for a walkway. I
don't know what we could bring to bear there, but we'll certainly take a look at it. >> Okay. And >> just you you can give us a you can give Glenn a call. >> Okay. >> Uh and uh but your timing is a little off because the budget for the year is set. >> Oh, I see. >> But
let's take a look at it. Some Sometimes you can do a lot with a little. >> Thank you. I appreciate >> But you start. >> Yes. >> All right. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? Yes, ma'am. Hello. Um, I apologize. This is my first
time doing this, so I'm familiar with the process. >> Your name and the street you live on. >> Uh, Taylor Donnelly, uh, Mohawk Lane. Um, so I did have a question. Uh, going back to the open space um, issue. My question is what if any infrastructure
improvements are planned for town, especially for this large influx of people that are obviously going to be coming with not only these potential apartments potentially being built, but in addition to the ones that are already in the process or very, you know, soonly
opening. I asked mainly because you know just about five days ago we had that crazy uh rainstorm and it was obviously it was probably a more specific situation with the amount of rain. >> More water than the sewer system could deal with
>> we had 2 and 12 in in 30 minutes. >> Yeah. So that is my other question as well though especially with potentially removing even more trees you know from behind Kennedy Park in that whole area. Obviously trees prevent runoff. Uh, so with removing all of those as well, are
there any planned improvements to uh I guess namely the sewer system in town? Sorry. Um, are there any planned improvements, namely to the sewer system in town? Because I worry that with specifically removing all of these trees, which will then cause more and
more runoff, what then are we going to do as residents of the town? You know, if my basement is flooding, you know, that's my own problem. But if it is caused due to other factors throughout town, I'm not really sure how
that's fair to the other residents, especially that are living very close to where these planned projects are going to be taking place. >> This three things. You have fresh water >> and then and then you have uh waste
storm waste water which is the water from rain on the streets. >> All right. So that's a separate sewer system and then you have the regular waste water that comes out of your bathroom and your kitchen and that kind of stuff. >> So we own our own sewer system. We own
our own water system. It's an ongoing process. Usually in that business they plan out 20 years, 25 years. It's a very long range planning. Occasionally, you'll run into weather conditions which it's such
a peak demand. When when Hurricane Sandy came through, we had an 18 ft wall of water come down Weber Avenue and it's impossible to plan for that. Uh that being said, the other day we we had was
it two and a half inches in 30 minutes which exceeded the capacity of the storm of the storm system. Um that being said that once the downpour abaded the system kicked in and and and uh the waste the
storm water was taken away. Did your neighborhood flood? Um, just across from my neighborhood, I know Johnson's Lane was severely flooded as well as I mean lower elevation places obviously were more flooded, but um I know over by the Parkway it was very flooded. Johnson's
Lane was like completely wiped out. So, and that's >> where where on Johnson's Lane cuz I I live in Woodside >> literally just the whole >> by the cemetery. >> Yeah, like a little bit before this between the cemetery and uh the pizza place by the intersection
>> where where it connects into Washington Road. Yeah. >> Turns around. Okay. >> Um we'll have that we'll have the the fellas look at it. There are a couple things right right where Washington Road crosses Journey Mill >> always floods. >> Yeah. It just exceeds the capacity of
the of the storm sewer system. Uh when you get an operation like that. >> So are there plans potentially in the future to upgrade the system? Because every it's seemingly every time it rains now >> construction projects we address the
underground infrastructure at that time. Okay. >> There's a couple in the hopper for this year off the top of my head. I don't remember. I mean there are trouble spots in town. Uh we're having a problem in Melrose in one of the older sections of Melrose that's been perennial. Engineers
are working on that and it's going to have to be addressed moving forward. But as they open up roads and do a complete reconstruction, they redo the underground infrastructure and bring them up to more contemporary standards. Got to understand a lot of this stuff's been underground for 80 100 years. So yeah, we don't open the roads that often
to go that deep, but we it's a work in progress and it's cyclic, >> right? Okay. I just wanted to bring that up as a potential concern. Also, I'm sorry. Sorry, I know that I'm very low on time, but as a a separate issue, um she reminded me, um I was wondering if there would potentially be any I know
that you just said with the budget maybe for next year then instead, but um any improvements to the dog park that's over by the S turns and the uh horse farm only because it's not it leaves something to be desired, I'll say. >> Was it does it need to be cleaned up or
refurbished or both? It's just a little bit of both. Like especially when you look at neighboring towns like the Edison Matuchen dog park is like, you know, there's not much there, but it's much nicer where the ones that we have over by the S turns are extremely muddy.
You have the water pump that just gets mud everywhere. >> What would you What would you like to see? >> I don't know if maybe turf is an option. Turf is an option over there. Potentially >> dog park. >> Yeah, there's plenty of other dog parks in neighboring towns that have that. So, really? Yeah. Yeah, the Edison Matuchen
dog park, Alex's ballpark in Homeell. There's many options where they've done that and it's a big open space as well. So, I just figured maybe we could look into it. >> Would you leave your contact information with Nicole because I'm going to appoint you to finding what you'd like and
>> All right. >> Happily accept it. No problem. >> I would always find that people with a passion find the best solutions. >> Thank you. >> Mayor, Mayor, could I Mayor Could I say one thing to Excuse me. Can you come back for one second? As far as the infrastructure goes for houses and
everything else, the existing infrastructure is there. Say it's a 30-inch pipe. If they're putting 700 homes in in a certain area, and the engineers decide that that pipee's not large enough to accommodate them, that goes with portable water, storm sewer,
and sanitary sewer. Uh they would have to upgrade that before they would be approved to to even build it. So, they're not going to put something on something that it's not going to be able to accept the order. The the infrastructure would have to be repaired first. If that answers your question.
>> It does. I not to This isn't directly Sorry, this isn't directed specifically at you by any means. It's just obviously New Jersey, we're the most densely populated state in the country. We're seeing these issues. It's not only a several issue. We're seeing it all over the state like especially up north,
northwest, Morris County, that area. where as much as I would like to think that that is the truth, um I think that we're seeing a lot of other issues pop up in infrastructure throughout the state. You know, the potholes, there's flooding all
over. You know, I know it's not specifically a cervil issue, but it's just a concern that I felt should be raised because even though it's not a problem right now, if these go up and, you know, everything seems to be approved and everything is fine until that, you know, the next hurricane Sandy
rolls through, which is, you know, I'm not even 30 yet. And in my lifetime, we've experienced like the amount of one in a thousand year storms that I've heard about, especially within the last 6, seven, eight years. It's not stopping anytime soon. So, we as a community need
to be better prepared, not only for ourselves, but to protect our neighbors and community from unnecessary property damage because, you know, I don't know about everybody here, but I certainly don't want to have to pay for property damage if I don't have to. So, that's just that was just why I wanted to bring
it up because, you know, like I know that you said that it won't be approved. Um, and I understand that, but sometimes I feel like things that objectively probably shouldn't happen still end up happening. And, you know, I'm not saying that it's one person or another's fault, but these things are obviously happening
in other towns and there are repercussions already playing out. So, I would like to avoid any repercussions like that in, you know, my hometown if it can be avoided. >> So, >> don't stop coming. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Are there any
other questions or or comments? There being no other questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion to close the public portion. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Roll call. >> Council persons Bala. >> Yes. >> Khesi, >> yes.
>> Novak, >> yes. >> Roberts, >> yes. >> Sarski, >> yes. >> Zowski, >> yes. >> Entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Make a motion to adjurnn. >> Is there a second? Second. >> Roll call. All in favor? >> I. >> All in favor?
>> I >> oppose. Thank you everyone.