The Summer Bough Board of Adjustment meeting for August 20th, 2025 will come to order. The meeting of the Summer Zoning Board for August 20th, 2025 will now come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the Open Public Meeting
Act has been provided. A copy of the notice specifying the date, time, and location was published to the Courier News, posted on the bulletin board outside Burough Hall, posted to the municipal website, and given to the clerk administrator. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or
comments must be limited to the issues the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and that the quorum appropriate for judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call. Chairman Adair is excused. Ed Alllet here. Robera Carpinets
here. Morgan McLaclin here. Rich O'Neal here. Brian Vadimsky here. John Flores, Eric Alvarez, and Steuart Daniels are also excused. Pledge of Allegiance United States of America to the Republic
for all. All right. Minutes from August 6. I'll move them. Second. All in favor. Ed Alllet. Yes. Roberto Carpinets. Yes. Morgan Mccclaclin. Yes. Rich O'Neal. Yes.
Uh, resolution 2025-00007Z. I've got one question on it. It's on item 13 about the the fee for planting trees and we had a long discussion on it as I recall. He offered to pay for them. I think at the
end of it we said no. I thought I read the transcript. I mean I thought that we did keep the we kept the waiver and and and imposed the charge. So I I mean you know the board if if the board believes otherwise
that's fine. But certainly I think that's I think that was the sense of the board from reading reading the express terms of the transcript. I wasn't here for that one. I thought the fee was there's a lot of discussion but I
thought I I thought we had discussion. I thought we waited. He offered to pay it. I think he just wants to build his deck. But I think ultimately he had two trees in his front yard anyway and why charging for trees? I I seem to remember the conversation. Maybe the conclusion I
don't remember, but I just remember us talking again. I mean, it's up to the board. I mean, I I certainly read the uh you know, the transcript kind of indicates that the board and and I the chairman art uh was you know, he specifically set
out the amounts due and things like this. So, I could claim civility at my age. Well, so could I so could I now I too thought we had waved the seat. If that's the board, if that's the sense
of the board, then I can easily remove any remove any references to uh the way, you know, the the the the waiver or the charge. Mr. uh Mr. Cole, are you are you uh amendable
to that? Yeah, I I don't see a We'll just remove any reference to the waiver or the charge. The fee was the trees were waved and there was no fee in the trees. I think that's where we left it. I thought that's where we left it, too.
So, you grant the waiver and not impose the fees. Correct. All right. Yeah, it wasn't it because he couldn't build it. He couldn't plan them anyway because of where it was. Yeah, the wires. So, it was the wires. contribution, but I thought with further
discussion, I thought the board waved that. Yeah, I thought so. I I thought so, too. Yeah, because he had enough anyway, didn't he? And he just wants to build. It was short to fish the trees, but this was I thought, you know. Yes, I agree, Cliff. There was a lot of discussion on this. I just don't think we ended up with the fees.
So, do we need a motion? We need a motion. Yeah. Motion with the correction. We change we correct this to wave the fees. Second. Very good. Second. Roberto Carpinets. Yes. Morgan McLaclin.
Yes. Rich O'Neal. Yes. Brian Vimka. Yes. Ryan, I'll transmit to you a revised resolution promptly. We have an answer about uh the next application.
You mean uh you mean in terms of you Okay. You mean uh Princeton Canal? Yep. Well, I I had spoken with uh Mr. Arodnik before the meeting. Uh I do have some
concerns about this because this is a an application for D relief at least one aspect of D relief which requires five affirmative votes. Um of the opinion that this is a you know we we have by
the num by the literal numbers a very short board. So I mean my suggestion would be my recommendation I suggested to the applicant that it might not be appropriate for the board to hear this tonight and to hear it at a subsequent
meeting whatever that's going to be when we have the uh we meet every two weeks now when uh when the the full board can be aware. This is not all that unusual given this is the third week of August and this is generally the month when so
many people are away. Needless to say after Labor Day things are going to pick up quite a bit and we still have um you know we still have things going on. So it you know Mr. Aradic I know you're here. I don't want to step on you, but I
mean I I it would certainly be my my suggestion, my recommendation that you carry this that you carry this to uh are we available at the next uh Mr. Bakey? Our next uh meeting there actually it's
the same applicant scheduled for a different property. So we could push back your next hearing and then you'd have two hearings in September. Correct. Yeah. So, this would move to Wednesday, September 3rd, and then the other application would move to the 17th
of September. That is up to the discretion of the board. I mean, we're obviously we're on two month two meetings a month right now. So, any delay is not not a big delay at all.
Yes, Ryan. It's the 17th, isn't it? Correct. Yeah. Thank you. We We have some more uh work to do up here. So, let's table it for a few minutes. We'll let you
69. That's the same applicant for same applicant. Oh, there we go. Yeah. So, it's it's the same owner. uh it's the same applicant and it's the same professional team. So to me makes a lot of sense to to
carry this uh should the board take jurisdiction uh after reviewing the notice and then uh carry this to the September 4th uh meeting date. Um and then you guys can determine what which order you want uh the these applications to be
presented in. It's they're both um residential to apartment. Okay. Um or office to apartment. My apologies. Well, I mean, I know you want to wait for your client. So, why don't as again
as was suggested, why don't we table this for a couple of minutes and we'll address other matters and then we'll return to you. Can I ask a technical or legal question? the ordinance that just got amended the other night by the council. Does that affect either of these applications?
No. Okay. Nope. No, these other Okay. Right. I No, that's correct. So, the uh last item on our agenda is
item seven. It's 106 Veterans Moral Drive. Give us the low down there, Mike. Yeah, it's my understanding of the applicant. This is the Sorry, this is the two family that the very tiny lot on that that the
application was continued because the board had challenges with sight lines and backing out. Uh the applicant has submitted an email to Ryan asking for the estro back which means they want to withdraw the application. However,
this is a question to cliff. I think the application board has to dismiss it to make sure we're solid ground, right? Because continuing something that's never going to go anywhere just the docket.
So, um the question is to Cliff, do we It would seem to me that we can dismiss it without prejudice. Yes. Yeah. That stops just just as we've done with just as we've done with a couple of applications recently. That stops the clock. It does right. It just means it starts it's a
doover down the road. No, they could not get a default approval if we dismissed it. Really the withdrawal the courts the courts I think really a withdrawal is a de facto dismissal, but I'm happy to
have the board move to dismiss this without prejudice. um and have us uh vote on it. I can prepare a memorializing resolution if you wish. I know they've talked about returning
the escros and things like this, but at the end of the day, the burden is the burden is kind of on is on them. I mean, you know, if we have escros, we and we have to draw against them, uh we should be allowed to do that.
That doesn't affect our action here tonight? No. Okay. Well, if we're all sitting here quietly, I'll move to dismiss it. Second. Ed Alllet. Yes. Roberto Carpinets? Yes. Morgan McLaclin? Yes. Rich O'Neal? Yes. Brian Biminsky?
Yes. Yeah. Motion to re recess for five minutes. Second. Second. All favor. Yeah, I just want to double check their notice. Looks like they're putting the codes on.
Call the meeting back to order. Nope. How's that? Okay, I think we can accept the notice. Mr. Gregnet, what's what's going on?
I've spoken with the applicant and since we're the same applicant for the next hearing, we're going to respectfully request that this matter be adjourned without further notice to the September hearing, first hearing in September. I reviewed your notice. Um and uh it is
sufficient we can the board can essentially accept jurisdiction and then move it to the next meeting. The next meeting at which it can be scheduled. And what meeting is that? September 3rd. September 3rd will be September 3rd. December 3rd. Wait a minute.
We need a motion on that. Uh yes. I would I would I would appreciate it. Make a motion. I'll make a motion that we adjourn this matter tonight till September 3rd without notice. Without notice. Second. Ed Alllet. Yes.
Roberto Carpinets. Yes. Morgan McGlaughlin. Yes. Rich O'Neal. Yes. Brian Badimky. Yes. Let me make an announcement. Ladies and gentlemen, if you're here in connection with the uh Princeton Cana LLC application,
uh application 2025008Z, uh this application notice has been accepted. This application has been adjourned to Wednesday, September 3rd at 7:00 at this location. There will be no
further notice, but you're advised that uh this will be held again on September 3rd at 7 p.m. in this location. Thank you very much. With that, we have chairman comments. Art and Telman, the only comment I have,
I'm going to be a grandpa in January. Congratulations. That's more important than anything. Need a motion to adjurnn? I'll move it. Second. All in favor?