You're smart, you know. >> Okay, now you're being so >> Good evening and welcome to tonight's meeting of the Sparta Township Planning Board. Thank you to those joining us here and online. For the record, this meeting is being held on June 3rd, 2026
at 700 p.m. in the Sparta Township Municipal Building located at 65 Main Street, Sparta, New Jersey. and the live stream can be viewed on YouTube at www.youtube.compartwp. Please note that adequate public notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the open public meetings act. No
new business is to be conducted after 9:30 p.m. and the meeting will end at 10:00. Let us begin with a 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. >> Risha, would you please call the role? >> Bear Bogler >> here. >> Vice Chairwoman Janette Burke >> here. >> Ron Day
>> here. >> Christine Dunar >> here. >> Joan Ferman >> here. >> Chairwoman Celeste Luciano >> present. Christine Quinn >> here. >> Ernie Ragstead >> here. >> Deputy Mayor Mike Sylvester >> here. >> Michael Wallace >> here. >> Brian Zimmerman >> here.
>> Okay. Thank you. So this evening we're going to change the order of tonight's agenda. Um I do have a matter that needs to be taken care of first with regard to minor site plan subcommittee. There was an application that had been brought to minor site plan subcommittee in February of this year. That was our
first application and that was for the um economic development zone. The way our ordinance is currently written, most things that are sorry, not most things, all things that are relative to the economic development zone, even if they are based on a minor site plan um
potential, whether it be a new tenant or a new sign, the way that the ordinance is written currently, they are supposed to go to the full board. We now have a new application for a um a second tenant in that same spot. So what we are intending to do here, members of the
board, is provide permission based on the fact that the original application for that same site was heard without this additional information at that time. We're hoping to get permission from the full board to allow this applicant to move through the minor site
plan process given the understanding that their their first application for their first tenant went the same way. So, um I would like very much for a motion and a second to allow application number
uh excuse me, this is 26-9 for minor site plan subcommittee High Point Solutions Incorporated for the uh property location of two Aaron Way Sparta, New Jersey block 16003 lot numbers one and two for the economic
development zone to be allowed to be heard. at the minor site plan level. May I have a motion in a second? >> Could you make just explain this because I'm not really understanding. >> I'll let Ken >> Yeah. What happened here is you have and in the audience we do have the property
owner and the broker at two Aaron way. uh there is um a project that does not require a variance or a waiver and uh therefore normally would qualify to go
to minor site plan uh review. Uh unfortunately uh your ordinance talks about the ED zone that the ED zone has to come before the full um uh board. So what the applicant is saying here's the full board
uh can it go to minor site plan for the review or they're here now if you want to hear their uh their discussion or have them on next week's or in two weeks on the agenda with their architect but they they're they have no variance or
waiver requirement. >> Okay. I'm just going to speak from little past history here because we've dealt with this issue uh last year and you know you were involved in it and we had originally read that if it is in the ED zone you know it was treated a
certain way and we were corrected on that and the minor site plan at that time started hearing those applications and I think you concurred with it. So I don't think it I mean we can do the vote I don't think it needs it. I think it just clarifies for the for the record.
Yeah. I am in support that applicants that are permitted uses in the zone even if it's the ED zone that do not require any variances or waiver they can go to the minor site. That is my opinion. And the nice thing about everybody here in the deis it it has come before the full
board as the ordinance discusses and you I'm recommending to you vote to have it referred to minor site plan. Therefore, you've complied with the administrative requirement, >> right? I think the only thing was if it had anything to do with hazardous materials, you know, that was a no no.
Or if the minor site plan subcommittee, and I think this is something we need to talk about later, if they're uncomfortable with anything with the process that they don't have professionals, they have the right to refer it to the full board. But if they're comfortable with it, then >> Joan, that's well said. Uh what I'd
recommend uh the applicant is here and the broker maybe if the property owner could stand up for a moment. >> Sir, do you swear to tell the truth hold the truth? >> If you wouldn't mind approaching the microphone. >> I'm sorry. >> You solemnly swear to tell the truth or the whole truth and what the truth help.
>> Yes. >> Uh state your name and business address for the record. >> Patrick Turzy Turi. Business address is 105 West Dewey Avenue, building B, Sweet 220, Wharton, New Jersey, 07885.
>> And are you the owner or principal uh related to two Aaron Way? >> Yes. >> And just if you could tell the board what you're seeking and and why you're here. >> So, uh we constructed a new building on Aaron Way. It's a 44,000t building. We were here in February uh as uh gentleman
said to have approval for our first tenant which occupies or is going to occupy about half of the building. And today we're here for uh tenants to occupy almost the entire second half of the building. >> And there's no new variances or no new
waivers on the property that you're aware of. >> There's no no new variances or waivers. And this use is actually even less intense than the use that was previously presented in February because there's no offices being built. Um it's just a storage tenant.
>> And you heard Miss Ferman, uh there's not going to be any hazardous waste or uh regulated chemicals in the building. >> Uh not to my knowledge. And our lease does prohibit uh hazardous waste or hazardous materials within the building. The tenant has a representative here
that can address those questions uh further. Maybe we can just get the tenant up real quick. Sure. >> Absolutely. Do >> you want me to swear to tell the truth, hold the truth, and nothing but the truth? Subd. >> I do. >> Uh name and business address for the record. >> I'm Sandra Curran. I'm the chief
operating officer of High Point Solutions at Fivegale Court, Sparta, New Jersey 07871. >> And what is High Point Solutions? What do you do? >> Uh we sell uh IT equipment on Fivegale Court. We've been there about 30 years.
and we need additional storage for our inventory. So, we wanted to stay in Sparta right down the street. >> Uh, and you recognize that if uh uh the signage that's required uh is different from what was approved, you may have to come back for uh board for signage
application. >> We shouldn't need any signage. It's just storage. >> You don't need signage. >> We do not. >> All right. I have no further questions of uh look board the the purpose of the these applications are uh you know when
there are no variances or no waiverss that u they can just be approved by the board. In my opinion, based upon the sworn testimony, uh, and it there were prior approvals in place, I believe you could on the record, uh, approve this
tenency, uh, rather than refer it to the minor site plan uh, subcommittee or you can refer it to the minor site plan committee. So, whatever this board determines, if you want to approve it tonight, the tenency or refer it to minor site plan. I would only ask that
um they take a look at the hazardous chemicals list and sign something that you won't have any of that in storage. >> Is that acceptable that tenant and landlords acceptable? >> Okay.
If someone move, go ahead. >> One thing if I could, you know, I'm going back to the ordinance where that was put in >> and and one of the concerns, one of the reasons we had to come back to the full board was just to make sure from a traffic perspective that the intensity because nope, they didn't know who the
tenant was at the time. So, we said, you know, we'd like to be able to take a look at um at the the traffic intensity, how many trips are coming in and coming out. Um and and so there was something that was already approved as part of the main as part of the the the initial
application. So um be good to get something that says this, you know, we expect so many trips coming in and coming out a day. Um >> yeah, you heard uh Mr. Day. Go ahead. >> Yes, I I heard the question. So again,
this is extra storage. So I wouldn't expect more than maybe two to three trucks a week uh coming in and out. So it it's light usage. It's our extra uh we kind of call it cold storage, things that aren't used that much, but we need
to store and we we're out of space in our current facility. >> That that'll be part of the application and people will be, you know, some somewhere, you know, two to three trips. What did you say? Yeah, it would be delivery of equipment or picking equipment up a a few times a
week. It's not going to be heavy >> because again they're taking part. >> Correct. >> I'm satisfied that we have sworn testimony now. I'm satisfied that if this board wanted to approve it with those conditions, we could do that. >> Thank you.
>> Well, I'll make a motion if no one has any other comments to approve it with the conditions >> that were mentioned here. So, as long as there's something in writing that says Oh, sorry. Um, as long as there's something in writing that's that um addresses what Joan brought up as far as
hazardous chemicals and as long as something is in there that what Mr. Day brought up, which is, you know, how many trips you're going to have. Um, I'm comfortable making the motion to approve it with those um considerations. >> Thank you. I'll second it.
>> Do we have a roll call, please? Bear Bogler. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Janette Burke. Ronda Day. Yes. >> Christine Dumbar. Yes. >> Joan Ferman. Yes. >> Chairwoman Celeste Luciano. >> Yes. >> Christine Quinn. Yes. >> Ernie Ragstat. Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Mike Sylvester. Yes.
>> Mike Wallace. Brian Zimmerman. >> Yes. >> All right. One question before you leave. On the trips. Don't want to get you tripped on Bonnie. uh a week, once a day, twice a day. >> I mean, I can't imagine it's more than a
couple times a day mo most that we would would ever have. And you're talking about FedEx trucks that that kind of truck coming in. >> What would you feel comfortable on the trips for the resolution? >> I'll leave that to to the minus plan only because, you know, I don't know the size of the building. I don't know how
many employees are going to be there. So any recommendation on the language for the number of trips during the week? >> Um maybe just as part of their application for um they just have something written saying the number of employees hours of operations and just
saying it's going to be standard deliveries Amazon, FedEx that they're not getting, you know, wholesale deliveries to there. I think that would be >> um because I mean FedEx, right? you can hope that they come a couple times a week, but you you know, how many times do you get an email like your package is
delayed? So, I think maybe just saying kind of the standard delivery from FedEx, UPS, Amazon, and nothing beyond those like wholesale large box trucks kind of coming in. And uh >> your delivery comes five. >> Sometimes Amazon comes five times a day, sometimes it does not come.
>> That could be my house. Uh just real quick, >> the number of employees you have, >> there are going to be three or four employees at the facility and it's uh 8 to four. 8 to 8 to 4, 8 to 5. >> Uh Saturday, Sunday.
>> No. >> Okay. >> And just to clarify, when we're talking about a trip or a truck, are we talking about an 18-wheeler? Are we talking about a box truck? Are we talking about a van? >> I was just going to say that the building has you know 11 loading docks.
So I was just want to be clear the board they will be getting if they don't the other tenants in the building are getting track trail building that's what it was designed >> right >> okay >> thank you >> less intensive >> so I'll just I'll leave it at standard
deliveries and this tenant not anticipating wholesale uh deliveries >> correct >> that good >> that is correct >> good >> thank you >> I'm I'm fine you good think >> we're Good night. >> Okay,
>> that may have been the fastest roll call I've ever experienced. >> Thank you very much. >> Well, and thank you for staying in Sparta and keeping your business in Sparta. We appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> in keeping with taking our agenda out of order, we are going to move to the
public hearings section. Um, so we have on our agenda Sparter Apartments Real Estate Fund LLC. It was the successor in interest to Flus Holdings, which was application number 24 uh- 708 uh for the extension of their
prior approval. That has been carried to our June 17, 2026 meeting. That brings us to >> And if I could just real quick on that, the attorney called me. Uh this is if you recall there's new construction uh
of apartments. It has a long history. Uh they have u their approvals and finance in place. Uh I did say to the attorney if he could show up uh he said there's no amendments per se to the plan itself, but I think some of the board members
had questions on where the application is and the status and when they anticipate building. though um he is prepared at the next meeting to just talk about the history and where the application is. Um thank you. >> Can I ask a clarifying question? >> Sure.
>> I wasn't on the board when this was approved. Um I was on the board when it was Captiva and then it was something else and then plus and now it's Sparta apartment real estate. So my question is has anything in the design or anything that was approved by this board been
changed or are they moving forward with exactly what was already approved? >> My understanding is exactly what was approved and >> but not what was approved is captiva. >> No no the most current owner. So they they bought it as is and are going to
adhere to the plans that were approved. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So we Yeah. And I make it clear that we are not reopening the approval. Correct. No, this is an extra come to the board. They're giving us just an update and wanting her blessing to acknowledge that the transfer is taking place. Correct.
>> Right. Because under the uh municipal lands act New Jersey, you have so long to get a building permit. So, they need a slight extension and in order to get that extension, they're telling you why. Uh but my understanding is there is no uh change. It's still a permitted use
and uh that's why they're coming next month, next meeting. Thank you. Nothing further on that. >> So, moving to master plan consistency review for the ordinance amending chapter excuse me, >> we're going to do minutes. >> I'm sorry. >> We doing minutes. >> We're going to do that at the end. We're
we're rearranging the order. Uh entitled Comprehensive Land Management Code of the Township of Sparta Code to amend section 18-4 entitled C1H, Community Commercial Historic Zone. Before um before I
uh open the floor to to Lindsay for um for her comprehensive review, we need to address a few issues with regard to process and procedure and how how certain things have unfolded um within the confines of of the last few months
between the introduction of of this um of this ordinance to to date. Um, originally, just to clear up some some miscommunication, originally this board was intending to hear this consistency review at our May 20th meeting. Um, that
did not happen because there was an issue at the council level relative to their notice for their hearing and we were asked to remove it from our agenda. There being nothing remaining on our agenda for that day, we canled that meeting. Um there was a question at the
council level to determine whether or not they were going to move forward with either consistency review or a re-examination report of the entirety of the TCC zone um in order to contemplate whether or not that would capture the issues they were having with the fair
share um zone with the fair share property that's also within the confines of Lake Mohawk as well as the C1H ordinance. they decided to move forward with the uh with the consistency review because it was
more cost-effective and it was a faster process. So, just to clarify um that that information. Um I'm also going to open it up to the board because I know the board had a few questions in terms of process and procedure, how things
should normally flow. Um, and this way Ken can help facilitate that process and give everybody a better understanding of of what should have happened. Um, and kind of dispel some of the confusion. So, um, I'm going to start. Burgit, if you wouldn't mind if you have any
questions. You can reserve the right for it to come back around. >> I I would as they Yeah. >> Okay. So, Ron, do you have any questions? >> I I do. Um, I guess first of all, typically is we typically have someone here to explain the ordinance and and
what it doesn't. So, I guess we're not going to have anyone here tonight to do that. >> Lindsay is here for her consistency review. That is that that is the the entirety of of the scenario. >> Okay. But to your point, typically the
author um I know when I write an ordinance, right, I present it to the governing body, I bring it to the planning board, and then it's my I'm tasked with showing how it is consistent with the master plan. So, it's most likely how that's been handled previously. But I've read the um
ordinance. I've read uh Miss Sarmad's notes as well, and I'm prepared to discuss it um going over the ordinance as well as master plan and re-examination reports. So I I think one thing that would be helpful if if it could Lindsay is sure >> just again explain to people when we
look at it for consistency what is it we're looking for. >> Absolutely. Yeah. So I kind of will go directly to the MLUL for this and just directly cite that since that is you know the governing document for the board. Um, and just directly from NJSA
4055D26, the planning board serves as an advisory role in the municipal legislative process by reviewing proposed zoning ordinances and amendments for consistency with the master plan. Upon referral from the governing body, the board is charged with determining whether a proposed ordinance advances
the goals and objectives established in the master plan and reports its findings accordingly. So, you're tasked with reviewing the ordinance that was presented to us as well as reviewing the master plan and the subsequent re-examination reports and determining
if the ordinance this evening is wholly consistent. Um, is it consistent? However, maybe there are some pieces in it that are not and and we have suggestions to the governing body which they are open to take or not take. Um, and then finally, if you find it just
wholly inconsistent as well. Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. Not a problem. >> Any other questions? >> No. >> Okay. So, we're gonna move on to Ernie. Do you have any questions? >> No. >> No. Janette. >> Chris, do you have any questions? >> Me? >> Yes, you.
>> That's a silly question. >> Now you're being silly. >> I know. >> Um, so yes, I do. Um, and and these are these are process questions and and about like how we got here, but also
around different things that affect this. Just for clarification. Um, >> if you can't answer it, kick it to Ken if there if it's illegal. >> Got it. Um, so first and foremost, um,
when we're looking at the the actual ordinances and the process of changing the zones and things of that nature, there are there is this zone exists right now on Route 94.
>> Yes. And there are actually, it's not one piece of property, it's nine parcels of property that have been in this zone from the beginning. Um, so the first question I have is, have the property
owners of those nine parcels been notified? >> Based on noticing requirements, I would assume so. >> I need clarification on that. >> Not from you. I know, but Raisha or I don't know. I don't know who can confirm this, but
>> that would be Carrie. Um >> Ken Ken. >> Yeah, I would say it's sent to us. It's presumed that the law was complied with. So, it is our duty to review it. I am assuming that the law was complied with.
But if it wasn't, then it's defective. >> Can we please not assume? Can we please someone? >> But it's not it's not it's not our it's really not our task. >> Oh, okay. >> She said Carrie. >> Oh, Carrie. I thought I'm sorry. I thought you said Ken. I'm sorry.
>> I realized that you heard Ken. I heard trying to say Carrie. >> Sorry. Okay. So, that that's the the first part of this. The second part of it is basically a duplication because the other are all of the parcels that
are in the proposed expansion. All of the properties that were identified in the ordinance itself. And each one of those properties is currently in a different zone and will be moved into if they if approved a new zone. So my
question again is have these property owners received notice from a process perspective? because and I'm asking this because at least from my perception we've kind of
the process has sort of been a little bit fluid on this one and I just want to make sure that through the fluidity we are sticking to what the law demands which in my understanding is that every property owner that's affected needs to be noticed that their zone is going to
be changed. My understanding is there was a problem in the past and that has been cured. Uh again, if it was done improperly, it's statutoily defective, but your task is to refer to you and to review it. And I will put in the
documentation that we uh assume and recognize that if it was not done properly that it would be procedurally defective. But again, we're tasked to review. >> No, no, no. The these are not even my questions on the review. These are my process questions. >> I got you.
>> And then to further that, um, the additional lots that you speak of in the ordinance, they're not repealing those lots from the area. Um, there's no repeal or replace of those lots. So, we're assuming that they are also included in this ordinance amendment.
>> So, the all of those properties are currently in TCC, >> the other C1H zone. >> Oh, the one on 94. >> Yes. >> Okay. So when I'm talking about the second question was the properties that are affected on block 5024. So that's in the Lake Mohawk district.
So that's what I'm asking. I'm asking have the people on 94 been notified? And then second question, are we sure that the people in Lake Mohawk have been notified? Because all of those property owners, their property, if this goes through their property, the zone will also change. So I'm just from a again
this has been a little bit um a little fluid >> confusing. >> So I just want to make sure that statutoily you know these steps have not been missed along the way. >> Yeah. >> I think assuming that they got to this it's now at this present at this board
after fixing the mistake that occurred in the first time with noticing I would assume that the second noticing is has been done correctly. >> Okay. And at the at the time when this was introduced, once it's introduced, what is the percentage of changes that
need that that drives it to have to be reintroduced? So in other words, changes when you introduce an ordinance, if you make changes to it and they are what's considered to be >> material changes. If they're sensitive
changes, then the ordinance cannot just be checked off and changed a little bit and and introduced. It has to be reintroduced and start from the beginning. So are we of the opinion that that holds here or are we happy that
what we have is ready? I mean again from a process perspective >> from a process I have no indication that there has been substantial or material change but if there you are correct if there were then you'd have to start over >> what would constitute a material change
in this instance >> that's a good question uh percentage is it >> um well in this case I mean at least when we were going through the affordable housing stuff I know the material changes and that was airing on a side of abundance of caution um just because those are are uh a lot of those
are going through the legal process. Um we went anything beyond a typographical error or a grammatical error would be considered a substantial change that would initiate a reintroduction. Um,
>> so can I uh so in the May 20 version in the section three block 5024 listed lots 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 and 9. And
then in the June 3 version under section three block 5024 it only lists slots one through nine. 10 has been removed. Is that a material change? >> I'm okay with it because it's less
intensive. It's not more intensive. So to me, uh, you know, again, think of your own experience with your own property. If you're adding somebody that is a material change, if you're taking someone out, I'm not as moved by that. >> Yes. And also given that they redid
notice for the lots included, I I would assume that that would be a change that would be permitted to continue on the process. So, the fact that the lot that was removed being lot 10 is five West Shore Trail and Five West Shore Trail
had been included in Sparta's um fair share housing plan and is also part of the $528 million fraud scheme that Sparta residents Joseph Pasalqua
and Raymond Pllo Jr. pleaded guilty to. That's not a material difference because if it was on February 24th, if Sparta Council knew that Five West Shore Trail was going into the
affordable housing plan, then why would it have been in it included in the first place? >> Well, my understanding is lot 10 uh since it's part of the town's fair housing plan, that's why it was pulled
out. the issues of the title owner and those uh issues are such that to be candy with they're not land use issues they are you know as far as this zone and this lot as part of your fair
housing plan how many unit dwelling go there I I mean that's Lindsay you have anything you can add to that >> no and the reason why it also might have been um this is just knowing the process of affordable housing I I am not your affordable housing planner so I can't
speak on behalf of what has gone through their mediation process but it's likely that fair share or through that process maybe they were asked to remove it or to be uh zoned a certain way um to reach kind of plan conformance as part of kind
of their settlement process. So, it's possible that um they suggested a type of zoning, a type of bulk or something like that that why that might have since it is an affordable um it is designated for affordable purposes, it might have a little hyper sensitivity to the zoning
um and the choice to remove it might have been associated with that. >> Just a question following that. So, so my understanding is whether it's affordable housing or not. um if it's in the zone, it still has to meet the requirements of the zone. So, by not
including it in the amendment, doesn't it relieve it of that that responsibility? >> Yeah, I did get the opportunity and uh u I compliment Mayor Quinn on providing me the the ordinance. The ordinance is not
an overlay. It's a specific ordinance for that particular parcel. So you have under your fair housing direct zoning and as Lindsay said it may have been part of the settlement agreement because they have to put restrictive deeds on
the property. So I I I am guessing but I from a land use perspective it was referred to you by way of the ordinance. 10 is taken out. I don't think there's anything illegal that 10 was taken out, especially in light of the ordinance
that has it part of your fair housing plan. And I respect the other issues that are related to the title owner, but it is not before you and I don't think there's anything improper for you to look at the ordinance because lot 10 was
not in it. >> Truthfully, I don't think I really got an answer to my question there. So, if it's in the zone, doesn't it have to meet the standards of that zone, whether it be architectural or block standards. >> It's not in there. It's going to be in
its own separate zone for affordable housing purposes as part of your settlement agreement to maintain the township's immunity for the fourth round. >> And and Ron, if in that ordinance it said and they shall comply with the design standards of the historic
district, I don't know if it does or doesn't. I haven't looked at that. though that ordinance was pulled and it was it was introduced and then it was pulled. But to Ron's point and to the point of this, if you take one chunk of property and it's in a different zone,
like a spot zone, >> um which just going to leave that out there. Um and and if that is not consistent then you could have a complete imbalance in what's going on in a very small space because where we're looking at the
density and and that led into sort of my next question to you but I don't want to move on because it's very important. Um, I think that I don't know if we tell you or or how this happens, but when that thing when that is reintroduced, if that is going to be what that is, then there should be
something tying it to the design standards of what the rest of it is going to look like, so you don't end up with something that sticks out like a sore thumb in the middle of White Deer Plaza and whatever else is developed there. So, it should not be allowed to be its own thing. And Ron, that's a
great catch. So just to you can absolutely put design standards when that comes forward. However, I would look at the zoning of that site differently. Um it's mentioned in your housing element and fair share plan
which is a part of your master plan. So for consistency purposes, if that lot is in your housing element and fair share plan and identified as one of your mechanisms for your fourth round compliance, which leads to your immunity from builder's remedy suits, I would be hyper sensitive to that
particular block and lot just because deviations from your settlement agreement could potentially um put you at risk from lo to losing your immunity. However, when that is introduced, I would say you
could put design requirements due to and if you've read my memo, right, that's something I probably weighed pretty heavily on. Um, I think and that's something as we've drafted this master plan is something that has we've heard from the public, we've heard from the boards that design standards are very
important. So I think when that ordinance is introduced, either having it refer back to the historic preservation or having its own design standards is something that absolutely we as a board when it comes to the planning board for master plan consistency is something we can consider
and recommend to the governing body. >> But to begate's point, why couldn't it be in the zone and then there just be an overlay for affordable housing over it? >> Because as part of your settlement Yeah. probably part of your settlement that they didn't. So historically, just this
is just affordable housing. Historically in rounds one, two, three, overlays were generally frowned upon. So in this fourth round when overlays were kind of being pushed a little more, a lot of the planners who have been, you know, ingrained in affordable housing were
quite surprised. Um, but traditionally affordable housing has been zoning amendments, not necessarily overlays. Okay. Um, and I'm sure that that is a part of your settlement. It was part of that process. I can't speak directly to it, but I would assume that that's why it's becoming its own zone. And it's
it's probably a general zone where all of the affordable um projects that are used as mechanisms will be for your fourth round. >> So, to make sure I understand right, and I appreciate the explanation. >> Yeah, absolutely. Sorry, it's longwinded.
>> That's okay. Um, it sounds like anything that was that's going to be included in the affordable housing settlements, any of those those buildings do not need to meet the standards of the zones that they're in. They're going to have their own standard. >> They will pro they will at least this one. I don't know. I haven't seen the
rest because your settlement is still an ongoing process. >> But the ordinance will be drafted for these specific lots to have their own bulk requirements most likely or they will refer to another um zone like how we have in some zones like the C1H which
refers to the C1. Um so in a similar fashion the um the new zones I haven't seen what has been written. Um, I believe it, like I said, it's still ongoing, but they will either have their own because it will be a zone in itself. Um, and they will have their bulk requirements specifically for that zone.
>> If I, if I may, just so I could stay, I'm trying to follow the conversation. >> Could we be exact on the property we're talking about so we're not mixing up certain parcels down there? The one that was removed, the one that's started the conversation. What What's the lot block
of that parcel? >> 10. >> Yeah, it's block 5024, lot 10. If you look on the map as well that I I provided for you guys, it's I know it's hard to see the red lines on this, but um it's the one that doesn't have red lines around it, but it's um it's Westshore Trail it fronts on is the
narrowest um side. And then where you see 5025 for that block right to the left of it. >> It's the auto body shop. >> The former Yeah, the former auto body shop. >> So I only >> I only have two more questions. >> It's a narrow It's a narrow long
property. Before we leave this question though, along what you're saying, if this property is totally pulled out, um, and it's not going to be in the list that goes in this in with the rest of Lake Mohawk, are they still subject to the Lake Mohawk bylaws and part of that
community or is that all pulled out? >> All right. In in my professional opinion, title is title. if you're if the property is located I think goes to what Ron Dave was trying to get out that the title issues remain the municipality under your power can have the power of
zoning and they can say uh zoning wise here but your lake Mohawk title regulations in my opinion remain on the property runs with the property that's the term >> because it's deed correct now as far as what Lindsay was alluding to if the fair
housing settlement says uh X is more than number of dwellings. I think it's fair again going to Ron's discussion and everyone here I think is saying that the design standard should remain though for that historic preservation and I think
that's a fair comment to be made to the mayor and council and to be put as part of your review uh tonight whatever you determine. I think that's fair. Um, Lindsay, another question. When you
were doing your Sorry, I never am told I can't be heard, so I'm sorry about that. um when you were doing your review because this area was pulled out um you know because this this property was pulled out. Um
I know that there was discussion about the number of units that were going to be on this property which is you know a a pretty um you you mentioned intensity several times in your review of this. So my question is because that property was pulled out, did you take the additional
intensity of that the buildout of that property into effect when you created your report or did you did you not look at that and and not look at that and include it in density or intensity when you were doing your review? Um, so to be
completely transparent, knowing that it's an affordable designation is going to go there. Um, I did not include that in the thought process for this memo because of the unique situation of affordable housing and and truly the sensitivity of
anything putting the township at risk of not being able to achieve that immunity. Um, I thought that was kind of the most important piece. Um, so with that in kind of the forefront of my mind, I chose to just
ignore that property and you know to and just look at the additional properties um that are included in the C1 that will are proposed to be included in the C1H zone. So, and the reason why I asked that was not to put you on the spot or anything of the sort, but was just to
say that when it comes to intensity, we also need to be aware that this is, you know, this is going to be a reality. So, it needs to be at least understood that this is going to add intensity um
and density to this space as well. So, I just that's why I wanted to just clarify that. >> Absolutely understood. Um and just one more question >> Chris I just want to add to that one yes one of the >> to your point. So as we continue the
process for the master plan and and the land use element and when we do do the review of this section all of that is going to be taken into consideration. So everything that's being done here is going to get re-evaluated in the master
plan process. So I just want to put that out there. Okay. Um, and just again another general question, we're dealing with sort of a hybrid here, I think, because of the designation of the
reservation. So, it's a private community. It's a private reservation. It's got this retail component to it. Um, it has its own HOA. It has it own its own bylaws. It has its own things. And and then on top of that, we we're kind of uh now looking, which is what
we're going to be doing next, at this consistency review, um to understand it. And my question is the understanding of um the township any any kind of ordinance that is put
forth by any of our land use boards and approved by the council, the town is in charge of that. The town has the teeth. The town enforces it. the town does all of that. Um, and the and what I want to confirm is that in no way, shape, or
form the, you know, and and how do we balance the fact that some of the uses that we're going to be talking about fly in the face of some of the bylaws that exist and and that that determination and if that was taken into
consideration. I know we'll talk about it when we get into the actual document itself, but I just wanted to ask, you know, how that's handled because I know we have a little bit of a a sticky situation here and it's a little different because of the because of the determination and the the type of
reservation that it is. >> Yeah. So my task this evening is based on the municipal land use law and the municipal land use law is the guiding document for you know planning laws in the state of New Jersey and
unfortunately in this case it only speaks on behalf of looking at consistency with the master plan the master plan re-examination reports so anything associated outside of those documents would not be reviewed for consistency.
>> Okay. So, Ken, is it is it fair to say that because title um goes to the the properties that are owned by the reservation that bylaws would be linked to title as opposed to zone? >> I I I believe that the title issues run
with the property and remain there. So, if there is a conflict between the title and the ordinance that is not before us and I'm not giving an opinion on it, but again, uh you are here for consistency. If you have concern that they are inconsistent, I think you should bring
that as part of your review. >> All right. So, we are going to Chris, if that was your last question. >> No, I promise that was my last one for that. >> We're going to move on to Mike. >> I'm good. >> Okay. >> I'll wait. Thank you. >> Okay. >> I'm okay.
>> Joan, come on. Don't disappoint. >> We're just doing process now. Yes. This is just process. Yes. Joan, you might want to just pull down your microphone. There you go. >> Okay. So, as far as process go, Celeste, you had said um in your opening remarks
that the town had asked for a re-examination report. I had mentioned that yes, the town was trying to determine whether or not they were going to move in the direction of a re-examination report or continue with the process of the super notice and the
consistency review. Um, I just have a real issue there because um, asking for a re-examination report to support something um, is well beyond their purview. The master plan and the reassessments, especially
when we're in the middle of a master plan right now, is totally unwarranted. So, we can talk about that later. I'm just bringing it up. And under b under other business, I think there are a lot of things we really have to talk about as far as overreach. Um
legal question for Ken because of the way that this was mucked up. The 35 days ends today. We tried to get it in writing that they when they they said that the notice was incorrect and they were going to do a new notice.
I know I had asked you and you had asked them um can you retract it and give us a new one? Instead, at the very last minute, we got something last Friday that said April 29th, you have 35 days. That is up today and we're not done with
all of this. Um the mayor wrote back and he said, "Well, you know, we're a community. We can we'll definitely take a look at it, but legally we don't have to do anything. So, if we're sitting here doing all this, what is our recourse, Ken? And how are we going to
ensure that they listen to what we say, our recommendations, they follow the statute that says they can vote to disregard our findings, but they have to put it on the record, and they have to take a vote because they fell short last
time in doing that. And I don't want that to happen again. I want to know where we stand legally as a planning board. >> Thanks Joan. I I think if we look to the Negleia report, the revised report of June 2nd on page one talks about the New
Jersey statute 40 colon 55D-26 that uh Lindsay had written before and it clearly says the planning board serves as an advisory role. So basically we are advisory uh and the time period here the 35 days is really meant to give
our advice it's not meant to hold up the ordinance. So if you did not act the uh mayor and council could say that they had done their statutory duty. Uh in my opinion, we are here tonight. Uh we have a a light agenda by way of uh this is
the most important thing. I think we complied with the review tonight within the 35 days and we give them our comments. It'll be on the record. So I think you're in very good shape. If you decide not to take action tonight on this, I think you are subjecting
yourselves to the uh uh mayor and u council saying that that you had your opportunity. So I hope that does that help in what you're looking for? >> No, if we do, I'm assuming we're going to have to do something tonight. So, we do it, but I don't want them tomorrow
or, you know, when this comes back to say we're dis they're kind of disregarding some of the things we say because they don't have to follow it by statute because it was beyond 35 days, but they were the ones who caused the 30 the us not to be able to do that.
>> Well, they they'll have actual notice. This is a public meeting. Uh we have a council representative here and I am satisfied that your decision tonight satisfies the 35 days Uh so I'm not worried about that. >> Okay. So if we have something um and the
statute says that uh when considering the adoption or development regulation revision of an amendment there too, they shall review the report of the planning board may disapprove or change any recommendation by a vote of the majority uh if it's full authorized membership
and shall record in its minutes the reasons for not following such recommendation. And that's what we expect them to do. That's the statute. And you're also reading um Lindsay has that in her report. Yes. Verb from Yes.
>> Okay. And if not, we're prepared to challenge that. >> Well, that's beyond my pay grade, but I I am just the attorney. If this board decides to take action, that is uh remember that you are the planning board. We have no power of subpoena. We
have no budget. We have no ability to we have our municipal land use power. So that's that is our road. That's our rail. That's where we are. >> Well, let's hope it goes okay. So that was uh
number one. Um All right. I'll save the rest for when we come back to >> Okay. Well, to um to piggyback off of what um what Joan was was discussing, um my my sole comment is predicated on this
memo dated April 29th, 2026 and the 35day window. Um we we are acting in good faith. We are assuming that the council will also act in good faith. We understand that there are legal ramifications that fall within the
confines of the 35day window. However, we do have um confirmation from the mayor that regardless of any legal determination, they will act in good faith. So, I am going to assume that the members of the council who are capable
of um voting on this will will adhere to that and we'll um we'll take what what's happening here tonight into consideration and uh and we'll move forward at their hearing on the 9th with uh with our report and and our advice in
hand. That having been said, I am going to pass the microphone to our board planner, Lindsay Knight. If you >> can I ask one more question? Apologize. >> So, I just I just want to make it sure that I'm clear what we're doing here tonight. So, this is a consistency
review. It's it's not a review. Do we do we like it? Do we not like it? It's a review is is it consistent with the existing master plan? And we can make recommendations further than that. But >> that's the decision we'll make tonight. Is that is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Everything that we just discussed was relative to process and procedure.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Are we getting into the meat and potatoes of the ordinance now or after? Right now, Lindsay is going to do her is going to give us her her information and explain what's going on with the ordinance and so on. And then we can ask
additional questions relative to the consistency review. And just real quick again in Lindsay's first page, uh the paragraph on ML UL responsibilities, the board is charged with determining whether a proposed ordinance advances
the goals and objectives established in the master plan and reporting its findings accordingly. Okay, thank you. >> Okay, thank you, Lindsay. >> Yeah, thank you guys. Um, so I'll just jump right into it and starting with the 2020 master plan re-examination report.
Um, which actually was prepared by Katherine Sarmad, your township planner. Um, so the this plan really refers heavily back to your 2018 master plan. It was two year of re-examination report. It was kind of two years. So a lot of it was just
referring back to it and not much had changed in those two years. Um, so many of the goals and objectives remained relevant. Specifically, the planning board raised concerns with res residential densities in the environs and around the lake communities specifically relating to water quality.
Um, so this is important to note because although bed and breakfastes um are not technically a residential use, it is a gray area because it does have very many similarities to residences. Um, however, typically the person residing on the
property, it is one unit that is used for the agent or the person who owns the property. Um, and it's typically looked at as an accessory use, but because they are acting as um a commercial use, you know, there's commercial transactions,
they require business licenses and tax registrations and health inspections, it kind of is this hybrid type use. Um, so depending on how the planning board would classify this use would kind of determine if this conditional use would be permitted as consistent um, with the
problems identified in the 2020 master plan. Um if this was categorize the board as commercial, the environmental concerns should still be handled with extreme sensitivity though due to the C1H's zone um proximity to Lake Mohawk and kind of
also looking forward to the comprehensive master plan we are currently working on. I've been privy to many of the conversations to a lot of the public input and um the environment is a huge concern for residents. So I think um when something like this is
going to be proposed or when it does eventually come to if it does look we do determine this is a consistent use and it does come to a planning board. Um I think looking at the environmental conditions is is extremely important. Um the next piece is from the prior
recommendations that remain valid and should continue to be implemented. Um, residential densities and smart growth techniques such as transfer of development rights or credits should be examined to meet the challenges of managing growth while retaining open space and protecting environmentally sensitive land and uh, water resources.
Smart growth is developing in areas that already have utilities and infrastructure in place. So, it's trying to avoid sprawl. Um, in this case, making the C1H zone um, an identified area as kind of a traditional downtown
um, certainly makes sense for that area. You have White Deer Plaza already. You have those other types of complimentary um, historic in nature um, architecture as well as uses. And I think that by removing some of the uses that were
previously in there, hotels, motel, um certainly is consistent with creating smart growth as well as creating that traditional downtown. Um there were some uses that were in the TCC zone that probably would not normally be found in like a historic style downtown. When you
look through um the various municipalities in New Jersey that have those quintessential downtowns, um you're not going to see a motel. So I think removing that would be consistent. The next piece is the 1984 comprehensive master plan goals and objectives. Um
goal number six is to encourage the village neighborhood land use pattern. So the proposed ordinance does not wholly consist with this goal and objective. Um however I do believe pieces of the proposed amendment encourage the village neighborhood land use pattern of the C1H zone. The removal
of hotels and motel as permitted uses is consistent with this goal and objectives as hotels mostly require a large building footprint that is incompatible with historic streetscapes. They include car dependent patterns that undermine walkability and historic character. Once
again, it's kind of taking away from that quintessential charm of a historic downtown. Similarly, chain hotels often require that kind of prototype design that clash with local architecture. However, the addition of a bed and breakfast in as permitted conditionally is consistent with this goal and
objective. But we would require but we would should consider requiring more um design requirements being consistent with the architectural standards illustrated throughout Sparta, Lake Mohawk, and White Deer Plaza. Um, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who has visited the areas there's definitely
a very specific type of architecture and I think developing something beyond the historic preservation standards and creating real true design guidelines and requirements would be beneficial not just to the bed and breakfast use but to the C1H as a whole. So any new
development inclusive of anything in and around it would have those design guidelines. Um whether it's materials, um articulations, window styles, um things like that, I think signage I think would be really important and really beneficial.
The amendments to the master plan from October 2nd in 2002. Um, another piece of that is number 16, encourage development and redevelopment for planned growth in the identified town center consistent with historic character of the White Dair Plaza and Main Street. Um, the proposed amendment
includes the addition of several lots to be placed in the C1H zone from the TCC zone. Many of these lots are located within White Dair Plaza and the ordinance does not include those design guidelines for historic character and further requirements pertaining to historical character would make the ordinance more compliant with the goals
and objectives of the master plan amendment. I added some notes in here as well about the C1H zone because looking through the ordinance, I thought it was important for us to understand the purpose of the C1H zone. And the comprehensive land management code
describes the purpose of the C1H zone as designed to provide for community commercial use with preservation of historic value of the commercial zone. And then it lists goals of the C1H zone. Um, once again touching upon the architecture history. So, as you can see, this is something that's very
important. It's reiterated throughout your master plans and your re-examination reports. Um, at this time the C1H zone only refers to historic preservation, which is important because it's restoring the AR restoring historical character of buildings.
However, it doesn't touch upon construction of new buildings and I think that that is important to consider when new structures are being built that they are cohesive with the existing architecture. Um I also wanted to note that um the
bulk requirements I know this was a condition that came up of the C1 zone um will be present for the C1H zone and all of these um properties that will now newly be put in there from the TCC zone. So their bulk requirements will follow
the C1 zone. Um so in conclusion the um based upon the amendments of the township comprehensive ma uh management code um it's proposing to modify the permitted uses zoning boundaries and development controls within the C1H
master plan and subsequent re-examination reports. They don't specifically contemplate bed and breakfast ins as a use, but I know in the past when we've done these master plan consistency reports, typically they don't contemplate one specific use. Um,
and so that's pretty common. However, the master plan and re-examination report do focus on the importance of design guidelines, appropriate uses within the downtown area, and appropriate uses to create transitions between residential areas and the downtown. Condition D of the proposed
ordinance states, "The intensity of use and the appearance of the structure shall be consistent with the neighborhood in which it is located. The residential character of the structure shall be maintained and signage shall be limited to the requirements of the zone in which the use is located. The C1H zone and the
surrounding TCC zones are predominantly commercial in nature. So the ordinance has been written in a way that would be difficult to enforce. So I mean that in a way that if an application was to come in this board, there's not specific requirements. So it's very vague and and
at times could be somewhat subjective. So having maybe some more specific standards that are enforcable would help with creating that look that we anticipate to have um as new development occurs in and around the White Dur Plaza area. Um
so the board should also consider adding landscaping requirements, specific lighting and signage requirements for this use as well. Um, I want to note that bed and breakfast accommodations provide an opportunity for tourists and residents guests to experience this township's ambiance. Um, anyone who
comes here, I know that when I come here, I always think like what a beautiful place you guys all live in. Um, I was speaking to Celeste yesterday and I was saying how lucky you guys all are to wake up and be located so close to a nice body of water. I'm from Bergen
County. That's rare. Um but um an additional cons condition for consideration would also be to consider things like a traffic study to ensure that the proposed use would not increase traffic in an area area heavily traversed by pedestrians. I know that
that um area along Westshore Trail does become a bottleneck during certain times of the day. So um maybe considering any applications that were to come forward as a requirement or as a condition provide a traffic study or traffic counts for the uses that are being
proposed. Um as um many of you have known uh circulation and traffic is a hot topic in Sparta. Um having the circulation element which was recently um presented here we had a room full of people. So, we know traffic is an issue
and it's something that should be considered. The master plan expresses leave reflects within its goals to continue to encourage the village neighborhood land use pattern. Um, I encourage the board to consider these details when deciding as to consistency of the proposed ordinance amendment and
the current master plan and subsequent re-examination reports. Um, it is in my professional opinion that the proposed amendments to this or ordinance, while not wholly consistent, I don't think that it is consistent. I think they're inconsistent. I think there are pieces
of it that are consistent with your master plan. Um, but like I said there, I believe that adding some things such as a traffic study signage requirements and design requirements would make this proposed um, amendment more in line with your master plan and your forthcoming
master plan, comprehensive master plan. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So before we bring it back up to the DES, there are a few members of the public here which I'm sure they would like to speak. So, um, the there's a situation here where this is a
consistency review. This is not the hearing. Even though you may want to have commentary relative to things that might be better suited to the hearing, I do want to give you an opportunity to speak, but we won't be able to answer you relative to those things. If you
have a question regarding consistency, Lindsay or Ken can certainly answer that. But if you'd like to make a comment, please feel free. But understand that we won't be capable of responding and we just want to allow you the opportunity to speak. >> Celeste, before we do that, can we ask
questions of Lindsay based on her report? >> I I'd like to get the public's opinion out there first and then I I'll bring it back to the DAS. >> Okay. Anyone in the public? Uh I'm not going to uh swear anyone in because you're just giving a statement. Okay.
Okay, if you want to give your name and that you live in Sparta, there's no requirement to give your street address, just your name and if you live in town. Thank you. >> Thank you everyone and thank you for the uh hard work that you do for our town and our citizens. My name is Bill
Snyder. I'm at 14 Oak Parkway in Sparta. Um just have a short statement that uh that I'd like to uh read. Um, for transparency, I'm a member of the Lake Mohawk bylaws committee, but I am speaking as a private citizen. Uh, two
years ago, I also led a group of 11 Oak Parkway homeowners and work closely with the Lake Mohawk Country Club trustees, as well as the Sparta Town Council to develop our current LMCC and Sparta short-term rental policies. Um, I'm in
favor of changing the current White Deer Plaza zoning for uh to the CH1 historic zoning. However, I do have concerns regarding the provision for a bed and breakfast in White Deer Plaza as proposed in the amendment. Uh, and I just hope that you would take these
concerns under under consideration in your decision-making process. Um, I look at it more as kind of color commentary of what I experienced and some of the conflicts that I saw when placing short-term renters within a private community and the conflicts that I saw
that create. Um, my first uh concern is two years ago the Sparta Town Council and LMCC trustees voted to limit short-term rentals. In the case of Sparta, no less than 28 days and for LMCC, no less than 90 days. Uh Lake
Mohawk is a private lake community. Allowing a provision for a bed and breakfast business to be established here uh seems to me to be in opposition to our existing Spartan LMC short-term rental policies.
My second uh concern is why White Deer Plaza? We talked about how busy that's getting and it certainly is even hard to drive through sometimes in the weekend. Um, given the large geographic area of Sparta, why is this provision for a bed and breakfast being uh in being proposed
for tiny congested White Deer Plaza? In my opinion, there's no significant benefit a bed and breakfast in would bring to White Dear Plaza or the LMCC private community. The restaurants and businesses are prospering and White Deer Plaza already jam-packed, especially on
the weekends. In my opinion, the major benefactor would be the developer of a bed and breakfast who will use our community. Um, as you were saying, how people love our community and illusions to its private amenities to draw short-term renters. Um, this is uh how
past LMC short-term rental properties were being promoted and advertised before they were eliminated by our short-term rental uh policies. Um they were uh certainly saying you could kayak on the lake, you could use the um beach as one um property even, you know,
offered the use of an Olympic pool. So um we know that that was happening and I have concerns that that would happen again. Um I believe there are abundant opportunities in Sparta to create a successful bed and breakfast business outside of our private communities. And my third and maybe most important
concern is our safety concerns. I believe that permitting a hoteling business in a private community will create a climate uh for confrontation between transient guests seeking access to the lake and its private amenities and club members. Uh confrontations between renters and club members
occurred with past short-term rentals. Uh I had the misfortune to live next to an Airbnb business on Oak Parkway and personally experience confrontations. Um, I would there certainly is a potential for this with uh with introducing short-term renters into the
private community. Um, I'm also really concerned about liability and I'm I'm certainly not a lawyer. Uh, but my concern is that let's say for example returning late from night one night after a wedding. Let's say a group of bed and breakfast guests decide it'd be
fun to grab a few beers and hang out on beach one off the boardwalk. that this violates current LMCC policies. Um, but who polices this situation? Is it LMCC? Is it the Sparta Police? Is it the bed and breakfast? I mean, I I don't know
the answer to those. Um, the uh, you know, or will club members confront uh, guests, you know, with the potential for conflict? And I had heard stories of that happening several times around Lake Mohawk on beaches and different different uh areas and and not only in
Lake Mohawk but around Sparta but particularly uh the ones I know in Lake Mohawk. Um to take it one step further and again it's a liability question. You know if one of the guests decide to go swimming you know late at night and unfortunately drowns who's liable for
that? Is it LMC? Is it Sparta? Is it bed and breakfast business? Again, I don't know the answer to these, but I think these are very important safety issues to consider in your decision-making process, and uh I thank you very much for your consideration of these points. >> Thank you.
>> Good evening. Um I'm Sabina Watson. I do not reside in Sparta, New Jersey. However, I am acting interim uh general manager for Lake Mohawk Country Club. Um, and I wanted to offer a point of clarity. Um, and that is specific to the
um, architecture that you're referencing here continually um, in White Deer Plaza and it's actually a um, a style that is listed on the national registry of architecture as Lake Mohawk Tutor. So,
um, it is official and that is what we are striving to maintain. It is the only location where Lake Mohawk Country Club has the ability to do so because um of the restrictions uh to any kind of structural change within a historic
district. Uh the rest of the community is not under any kind of restrictions as such and therefore it is um pretty vital that we maintain that. Thank you. >> Thank you. Sorry, I need a half an hour to get to
the mic. >> Beth Broadick Sparta. Um, you guys already know what I think about traffic and congestion. I am not going to go there, but I think that we need to look at the environmental impact of this because the
lake drains right there. If you're down by Senators, that that's the Walk River that goes to Ogdensburg, Franklin, and a whole bunch of other places. We pay a stupid amount of money for water quality. Sabina has bent over backwards for years to make it go from Poop to
where you can see the bottom of the lake. That kind of stuff needs to be taken into consideration in addition to the safety, the traffic that we pay to maintain all of the roads except for eight. It's a safety issue when you're
looking at trying to pull out of the gas station. It's a problem. You're adding looking at apartments putting in god knows what where Carl's auto body used to be. I was late so I don't know. Now you're looking at the possibility of bed and breakfasts and stuff like that in an
already congested area. I don't know if you're up here on the weekends, but from right before Memorial Day until Labor Day, if you go through there on a Saturday, you've got the Ski Hawks, you've got everybody else going through there. We don't We're already working on safety measures. Don't make it worse
because when No, I know you didn't. I'm just saying. No, no, no. I know it's not you. That No, no, no. That's not That's not But the other question I have is with the ordinance. I'm not sure who actually writes the ordinances, but Lake Mohawk and Sparta share an attorney. So,
I want to make sure that we don't have again, I don't know how all that works, but I just kind of want to put that out there. And the other thing to tie into is that Lake Mohawk is private. We have to make sure that and I don't know if this is a you thing or the board thing but
consider that we are private and we need to make sure that we clarify the responsibility so if something happens with a guest visitor whatever that they're not doing anything to jeopardize us and our safety and the
privacy of Lake Mohawk. Please, I'm really done with being on a walker and in a boot. Can we please make sure that all of that is addressed and taken into consideration? >> Those are all things that we we we want on record so that the council can can I
mean, we have a council representative. He can take all that back because not that you won't be there because I'm sure you will. Walker in >> just like usual. I was later I'd be in my regular spot. But uh but yeah, then we wanted to make sure that the public had the opportunity to speak whether it
be here or at the hearing. >> And this would be I forgive me I don't know bylaws would would you guys or whoever makes the decision make sure that it's consistent with like Mohawk bylaws. >> That's a council issue. We don't >> and not in conflict with charters and stuff like that.
>> It's on record. We now have said it. It's on record and our council leazison has >> unfortunately I'll say unfortunately the planning board we're only tasked with the master plan consistency so we unfortunately can't look at anything beyond that. >> Okay. >> Right. But we do have a council leaison
who can bring it back and I'm sure you're going to repeat yourself when you are at the hearing on Tuesday. >> Yeah, we got a guy. >> Oh yeah, I will. Don't worry. And and I would encourage anyone that's speaking to mark your calendars also for when the hearing is so that you can bring your comments directly to the
council so that they can hear it directly. Obviously there's a recording of this meeting. Um I'm sure that deputy mayor Sylvester will bring back those comments, but um I think that you should all be encouraged to mark your calendars for next week as well and come in person
and and speak. Just be mindful that you'll be limited there to five minutes. So >> Mike, is it on the calendar for Tuesday? >> I thought that's when it Oh, is it not on the agenda? Oh, look, we have to check the agenda. >> Going to be out on Friday, but it's
probably it's tenative. >> So, people should check on Friday the agenda on spartanj.org or to confirm when it's going to be heard and then make arrangements to to come to that. Sorry. >> No, no problem. Steven Giles, I am a
Sparta resident. I'm also on the board of trustees for Lake Mohawk Country Club and a member of the reservation. So, just want to make a couple of comments for your consideration. Um there's been a lot of talk around architectural standards, about signage, etc., etc. Um,
having looked at the ordinance in the way that I have, I believe there's a lot of safeguards already in there. Um, if we want to add more, I'm always very supportive of that because if you look at what we're trying to do, we're trying to put in some added um, protections for
our historic district, which we all love and enjoy. Uh, the second thing I would bring to your attention, and uh, this would been a lot of talk about bed and breakfast, and it seems to have caused a lot of concern. If you choose to do nothing tonight, uh that is currently a TCC zone where bed and breakfast is
actually a permitted use. There are no conditions associated with it. So, anyone at present can set up a bed and breakfast with no conditions attached. The new ordinance has removed what we believe to be uh an inappropriate use, which would be the hotels and motel, but
replaced it with something that actually has conditions attached to it, which we believe is a much safer protection. So from that perspective, we're very supportive of that change to the ordinance because at the moment we have none of those protections in place and many of the concerns I've heard raised
are absolutely correct. However, that that use exists today. >> Thank you. >> So Steve, just a confirmation real quick. >> Yeah. Yeah, sure. Um, at the member meeting, I it came up that
originally the the club, I believe, took the position that they were not excited really about any of the lodging being in the ordinance. Correct. >> Yes. If you'll permit me to give some history, that's absolutely true. Yeah. So, um, when we were initially talking
at the C1H and how we felt it would best benefit, we were looking to remove all lodging. We certainly didn't feel that hotels and motel was appropriate. Um and at that time bed and breakfast isn't in C1H anyhow. So it was removed the first time we the ordinance was brought
forward for introduction. It was actually tabled. Um so I heard your process questions as well. The the ordinance has actually been tabled I think three times um before finally being introduced. So it has been round multiple times. Um the concern at
council when it first came was that there was a total removal of lodging which they felt was inappropriate because lodging is something that the area needs. The other thing that initially held the council um concern was they felt that it was too
restrictive on offices and um commercial uses moving forward. So, anything that was existing and non-conforming would be there, but there wasn't an appropriate section that would allow for that. So, the changes that were really primarily made um whether you would deem the
material or not was to put those two things in as conditional uses. So, the conditional uses that you see in the ordinance are very specific to bed and breakfast and very specific to new retail and office spaces. Um the challenge we then had is the existing
ordinance that relates to bed and breakfast as a reference what does bed and breakfast mean was just a single I think single paragraph which actually referred to an organization that no longer exists. So part of what the ordinance is also seeking to achieve is to clarify
exactly what a bed and breakfast is and to add those additional conditions into the C1H. So that's how it circled back I guess and eventually was introduced uh I guess three or four weeks ago. >> Thank you. >> Thank you
>> oh question. >> I'm sorry. >> I'll wait till you're done. Go ahead. >> Oh okay. >> Thank you. Jenny Derek's um in the 84 master plan in one of the objectives under number six is to preserve the
unique visual character of Lake Mohawk, the private community in order to enhance its attractive appearance and ensure its future viability as an asset to the township and not a liability. And I'm sure in 1984 there was a reason for
them to add that last bit of and not a liability. But when looking at the new proposed language and I'm just wondering how does this relate to um a consistent
uh review with the master plan where we're where they the they're proposing to add language. Oh, I just lost it. Shoot. Oh, here it is. Um, under institutional use, uh, under section four, institutional uses and nonprofit
clubs. This is number five under section four, and it adds private, recreational, and residential homeowners association. So I don't know how does the planning board
need to know a little bit more about what the intention of the country club is there in order to say whether or not it's consistent with the master plan. Um, the adding those two opportunities as principal permitted
uses seems like it could also add more to the use or whatever is going on in the club other than what's happening now or or is this codifying what's currently happening? >> I'm trying to
>> It sounds more like Yeah, I think it's just club which has a number of members in it which is a sports club. You have the uh the Elks on the boardwalk which is a >> right that that the Elks and so forth service organizations was already there but the language that's being added is
um >> I think it's because it's putting uses in the C1H zone and trying not to make the club non-conforming so it can so that every if they were to change anything it wouldn't require variance relief.
>> I think that's the intent. I I mean I didn't write the ordinance, but I would assume that the the the purpose is to those existing membership based uses to be able to continue being conforming with the zone.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um and then the only other question I had is the removal of churches because in the other area of town where there's a C1H, there is a church, my understanding. >> So why would you remove it making it a non-conforming can
>> it's interesting if you look to the uh burrow of Rutherford uh they have the old Rivllly Theater that has uh gone to the William Center of Performing Arts and now it has become rented out to a church uh organization
and it has very mixed reviews not because of the religion but because of the impact of the traffic and the activity and your community you know best through Memorial Day through Labor Day If you introduce a church into that downtown, I don't think it has anything
to do with religion. I just don't think the traffic could handle it. That's my understanding. >> Okay, it makes sense. I'm That's why I was asking. >> And I think churches also are just from a legal standpoint, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, they're protected in a different way in terms of if they were to locate in certain areas where
churches are not expressedly permitted. I think they have a different kind of circumstance of proving their benefits to the community because they're considered inherently beneficial. >> So, how could they not? To Jenny's point, why would they be removed? Why would they're being looked at not as
beneficial to the community? >> I think they're I think they're being removed because if you think about like Ken was just saying, >> they are >> they have certain intensities, >> six days of the week, >> not normally utilized. So to have a church in the middle of your downtown
where you're trying to promote walkability and have a use that most of the time is not being used I think is is the concern. So they want to have kind of pedestrian scale type uses that encourage people walking in and out of
the shops, walking down the street, looking in the windows, whereas the church so uses that encourage the density and intensity versus just >> I think uses that just encourage people ex being in your downtown and you and
visiting your businesses. >> Uhhuh. Thank you. I think there's plenty of uh churches around that um they have a lot of different groups come in and use their rooms which which would serve that purpose.
>> I think churches also traditionally require a lot more parking. So in a downtown you don't necessarily want a large surface parking lot to accommodate the church. I mean if you want to make a recommendation church remain in that's part of your advisory abilities if you
want that >> actually put in that the the having the theaters removed was was um I mean you think of like paper mill playhouse in Milbour um sometimes theaters are or um Morristown or kind of what was that Joan
>> there's no parking or something like a theater >> anyone else from the public who'd like to speak make a statement Okay, seeing none, we're going to bring it back up to the dis for questions. Um,
>> oh, that's right. I apologize. Ernie had another question of Steve. >> We're listening to to the publican speak and it just really kind of um jog my memory and everything else. You know, I um gentleman talked about the uh um bed
and breakfast. I I had the same issue on my street that you had on yours. on >> Can you pull your microphone down? Thank you. >> One road down from you. So, and and and we had that that issue there was somebody who not only, you know, uh was lakefront, let them use their boats,
everything else under the sun. And and I and I I see the one problem I see with this, and I think it's the it's the the complication of it being um we're talking about the town ordinance, but we're also looking at the at the country
club's bylaws and everything else. And I think my question would be for for Sabine is it, you know, because it's in it's in Lake Mohawk, the propertyy's in Lake Mohawk and deeded to Lake Mohawk, does that mean that anyone staying there would be basically
be considered house guest and would have privileges to use lake property. Um we no I do not believe that's the case. Um we do have a separation or an identification of um people who are utilizing uh properties as renters or as
guests and um they are restricted from the amenities. Okay, that's so that that may help some of the issue with, you know, where we're talking about the um difficult interactions, you know, if that's hopefully the person operating it
would make that very clear. >> That's that's always the issue. >> So, I'm sorry if I could get clarification on that. Um, so Lake Mohawk, I know they do have limitations on short-term rentals, right? Didn't we say 90 days minimum? So those people
would not be able to use the amenities. >> No. >> But um but there are long-term rentals one year plus that can get >> with additional purchase of tenant. Yeah. Okay. Tenant privileges. They're limited. >> Right. Thank you.
>> No problem. >> Just a quick question. When the events are held at the club, I would imagine some of them run later in the night. Let's say 8 to 11 or something like that. Is that fair to say that there are events, birthday parties or whatever. It'll be a Saturday or Sunday.
>> That's correct. Um, some of them do run to around 11 o'clock, a little bit after that. Very rarely do I see anything. Um, that's >> they're beautiful facilities. If someone say that I want to even have a wedding or something like that, and the wedding party wanted to have a place to stay
over. Is the lake um is the club against a bed and breakfast that a small that could accommodate? I'm just trying to understand the role of who comes to you
in your weddings or birthday parties. Are they seeking lodging at all or how do you handle that those issues? If I had a couple of drinks at night and I was looking for someplace close that I don't have to drive a distance, where do people go now?
So, um, well, if you're in the industry, you know that the trend is to actually have on-site um on-site overnight lodging. Um, and it can be anywhere from a couple of uh units to
2030. Um, but that's not what Lake Mohawk is really looking to provide um by any means. Um, not at least from my perspective and understanding of the board of trustees. Um, as far as the membership, uh, there it we have not
been polling them, but it's definitely similar to here where we do have, um, a fair amount of residents that come out when there are these topics coming up at our monthly meetings. And, um, it tends to be pluses and minuses. And, um, right
now, I wouldn't even hazard to guess if it was it was put forward to membership. Um what we definitely recommend for particularly weddings is um the area hotels and everyone seems to understand
that shuttling is is the way to go and that is there's a couple of companies that that adequately supply that service. >> I can actually speak to that on a personal level. I had my wedding at Lake Mohawk Country Club in 2010 >> and I had shuttle service for my guests
because my wedding was 150 person wedding. So whether there was a bed and breakfast across the street or not, it would not have accommodated the uh the volume of people because my party um was largely from out of town and they took over 35 rooms in that hotel. So um that
that seems to be an adequate method and has worked I I think pretty >> it's worked pretty well across the board. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Yeah. I think the important thing to note also is that >> microphone >> where this is is not like a microphone.
um to the points that were made before. I think the important thing to note as well, um and again, when we're talking about density and all that stuff, this is not a a tourist spot. This is not a hot spot. This is not a Newport or a you know what I mean? Um like any kind of
tourist town. It's not set up like that. >> Um the roads are small, you know what I mean? Um, and I think to to the other question, Jenny, you brought something up I just wanted to touch on because when you brought up that section, it's in one of my questions. There's also where it says recreation and purposes,
it says for HOAs with no less than 300 residents in there. So, my question is why is that there? So, you can't you could go in there if you're an HOA, but only if you have 300 people. Could you
put something in there? Like I don't understand how that works. >> I guess we can get into that when we get into the actual ordinance. >> We're going to >> but Jenny brought it up and I think it's a good point. And I think if you go five words down from where she was asking
that question, there's that weird little thing on the end of that and I I didn't really understand what that was all about. >> Yeah. I I mean I nobody here wrote the ordinance so I don't really know the intention behind it. >> Okay. So, um, bringing it back to the deis, I know Joan you had you had
>> I want to do like some more just general questions. Um, to Sabina and Steve, if bed and breakfast were not included in here, what would you see going in instead?
>> As I previously said, it we were not seeking to have bed and breakfast or hotels and motel in there. That is more a question for your council. Um, >> can you speak into that? >> Yeah, sorry. Just raise it up. Just There you go. >> Yeah, that's more a question for your council because they felt that it was
inappropriate to remove lodging in its entirety from the zone. Um, that's how it motel and hotels were removed and but bed and breakfast was added as a conditional use. >> But I think yeah, what would you like? What
recommendations can this board make for you? >> Our choice would be our choice would be not not to have motel, hotels or bed and breakfast. However, we also recognize that there is a requirement for lodging in the area and if it's under
conditional use and there are appropriate conditions in place, then um bed and breakfast is is a viable alternative. There's one of I'm thinking of a couple things too because the C1H also includes as we said before down on
Route 94. >> Um perhaps it can go there. >> Well, there are other zones, just so you know. >> And there are there are other zones in town >> that allow bed and breakfast and hotels
and motel. >> The current zone >> being one of them. >> It's not just in that C1H zone. So there are other zones in town where they are permitted. >> Yeah. >> Well, my question would be, are we limiting potential development out on Route 94?
>> Are we devaluing these properties because we're focusing right on White Tier Plaza and we're not being all >> we're not talking about it and and this whole ordinance is written around it. Um and there's no reference to the other one whatsoever. >> Um
>> so for me that's inconsistent. put to answer your question the ordinance that is being proposed beyond bed and breakfast right there's other things proposed within this and one of them is for the C1H zone so those properties out there they would be removing the uses of
hotels motel public buildings and uses um opera houses theatrical and motion picture theaters and churches >> but those are large plots of land that could potentially be a boutique hotel or something >> that's why I'm asking if we somehow I
know, but you're still you're still >> wouldn't it be easially hurting them out there? >> So to that point, process question. >> Yeah. >> Why is this all being lumped together? So I and I just as in my my head I'm
asking you guys, you're the professionals. To me, it would make more sense to not devaluate or touch the properties on Route 94 that may have that have enough space for these uses. a church, a bed and breakfast, a hotel, a
motel, whatever it might be. Wouldn't it make more sense to leave them alone in what they're in and then create a um zone for Lake Mohawk Historic,
>> work with Lake Mohawk to figure out what goes in there and and like put that part kind of off and leave the C1H people alone because honestly there is a a very large amount of change here that that
the a lot of these uses that are being removed could very well be utilized at that property with no problem at all. A hotel, a motel, a church, even if they put in like a little theater up there. And by removing all of this, to his point, you're really gives the
appearance and and even in the actual way this is written, the very first paragraph says Lake Mohawk. Mhm. >> So, what does that have to do with the C1H people up on Route 94? >> It It has No, it has no
>> We're gonna let Jenny ask her. >> Sorry, Jenny. >> Just use the mic, please. >> Sorry to interrupt. Is this because I was looking at this as an um a modification. So, what you're reviewing right now is a modification of what exists. So if there are things that are
already on the books, these are being inserted or overlaid or or usurped some of the thing the language of the C1H that's already on the books. So it wouldn't affect the parcels on 94. >> They will affect it.
>> Well, they other than pre-existing they'd now be pre-existing nonconforming uses. So if they had expansions now they >> No, that part I understand. But what I mean is that the language of this ordinance that you're reviewing and I'm just trying to understand if I'm looking
at this right. The ordinance is not a complete ordinance. This is the the parts of the ordinance that are being changed that are changing the existing C1H. >> It's changing from TCC. >> No, no, no, no. But there this is changing. No, I I that
>> one age zone period and any properties in it would be held to what's in this, >> right? But there are some things that are not addressed in the draft that you have that are because it goes section
and and it doesn't start necessarily section this, section that. There are things that are not included in the draft that you're looking at that are going to remain from the existing C1H. Is that >> am I? So this is an amendment of the existing
>> lot that's being removed. >> Right. But this is an amendment. That's what I wanted to make sure. This isn't just >> changes the land use of those parcels. So right now there's not a hotel there. If they wanted to build it, they now cannot. >> Right. I just wanted to make sure I was understanding. I'm sorry to interrupt.
You're correct. Clarify. >> Okay. So this ordinance has pieces that are be being added to the C1H zone. It also includes pieces of the existing C1H zone that will be
removed. However, anything that's not touched upon in this amendment will remain. Additionally, this talks about the zoning map and what it is saying in the zoning map are the
block and lots that were in the TCC and it identifies those and that is the map that I provided you with identifying the lots that were formerly in the TCC zone that will now be in the C1H zone and will now fall under the requirements of
the C1H zone inclusive of the proposed amendments. So for example, the C1H zone when it talks about bulk requirements, it refers back to the C1 zone. So the bulk requirements for these lots will be what
is in the C1 zone. It refers to the historic preservation guidelines. These lots will now be subject to the historic preservation guidelines. So, anything that's currently existing
and is not saying in this ordinance that is being removed from the C1H will continue to exist in the C1H zone as zoning requirements, >> but under the revised zoning, right? The revised zoning is
adding the conditional use of the bed and breakfast. >> Mhm. >> Adding these lots and then adding the I believe definition of a bed and breakfast in
>> while also removing while also hotels. >> I'm not I'm not there yet. Yeah. So then that's the next piece. I'm still going over what's being added. Um yeah so it has the conditions it has the principal permitted uses and
that's where it removes the churches public buildings theaters those are all being removed and these will be the list for permitted uses >> property for a lot of that >> and the other thing you know again at
that Monroe section that >> on the other end of town as someone pointed out there there's an old church there that is vacant right now. >> Yeah. >> But if somebody decided they wanted to bring that church back alive, it would not be a permitted use >> not been operating as a church for
years. >> It would be an existing nonconforming because it runs with the land. >> But to your point, Ernie, if they added on to it, >> right, >> it would then require expansion of a non-conforming >> or if it burned down. If something horrible happened and you have something
out there that's already being used and it burns down, there's an accident or something like that, they would not just be able to rebuild. >> Question, did the historic um registration and um also apply to those properties as well >> out there or just
>> Yeah, the C1 uh the C1H zone, the historic preservation is referenced in it. >> It's referenced, but >> yeah, they're two different things. Yeah. Yeah. >> There's Well, there's a couple things too with historic preservation as well. >> Historic preservation is,
>> for lack of a better word, quite subjective. Um, and so that's why when I speak about having requirements, making the requirements actual part of your zoning ordinance, so you have to do
it as opposed to suggestions. If they're applying, if they apply to those parcels out there, they support the comments that are coming down from this end of the dis, you've just kind of devalued or restricted.
>> Those properties have been in this C1H zone, >> but they've been allowed to have all these different uses, and they have not been held accountable to the architecture, for exact example, Sabine was talking about, which is very specific. The historic preservation is not being added. It's existing in your
ordinance today. >> It's going to put historic You're talking is the the standard historic preservation. >> What I'm talking about doing design standards. I'm saying under the conditions of the bed and breakfast. >> So if we were doing Yes. Okay. So
>> see where I'm going? Because if you're going to restrict if those are if those properties are dangerous now you're requiring them to look like White Deer Plaza. Yeah. you know as well as what I know how difficult that is to go anything through historic preservation. >> Absolutely. Yes. And historic
preservation many times unfortunately don't necessarily have the teeth. Right. So by putting design guidelines on this bed and breakfast use if something was to be built and constructed it would then have to be >> because it's a conditional use. Right.
That and that's and that's the thing. We don't want a conditional use to fall back under a unilateral um you know situation. >> I think I I think I got there. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> As part as part of this consistency
review, can we say can we recommend that we just remove the Route 94 lots from this particular >> understand? Wait a second. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. What >> I would So to your point, that was what
I was kind of saying before, but I think they never left that zone. Where's my thing? They never left that zone. They've been in that zone the whole time. Tried and true. They didn't jump out. They didn't jump back. >> I think it's better,
my opinion, to leave them alone. Let them stay where they are under exactly what they Sorry, that's okay. Um, exactly what they are now. and talk about is it better to carve out a
specific zone lake Mohawk historic where all the nuances that that Sabine is talking about and that Steve is talking about and if bed and breakfast and all these things shouldn't be there they'd have more they could work with you know and and build that to be but I I think
when I look at this the more we talk about it and and Brian's comments and your comments and everybody's comments this just seems incredibly shortsighted when it comes to the parcels, the nine parcels because I have the map >> that chose not to jump out of the zone.
Why should they be penalized and their land not, you know what I mean? So, from a, you know, if we're talking about consistent and fair and all of that, and I know there's a whole term for consistent and all of that kind of stuff, but for me, I agree with you,
Janette, 100%. I think that they should be left alone and and figure out the rest of it separate and apart from that those nine parcels out there and and Brian with you too and Burgett and Jo. >> We haven't even gotten to my whole thing
about the bed and breakfast section of the ordinance and I have a lot. >> We haven't even gotten to that yet. >> We haven't even gotten there. >> Yeah. So, >> well, this is a shame because, you know, we thought that uh Lake Mohawk and uh whoever was writing this and everybody was speaking together, working together,
and it doesn't seem to be and we've left out this other zone. Um, and what is part of the problem is we're talking about all of this for master plan. We're like now deep in the middle of it and we're trying to determine
what's going to go in each zone. That's a function of the planning board and the master plan and we're kind of being deprived of that opportunity to do that. I don't understand the rush here at all. I think we need to really think this through. I think it is inconsistent and
let's everybody get in a room, not us, but you get in a room and talk it out and figure out what you really need um and based on our recommendations because we are talking about all of these things. The other thing that um was missing I think from the report Lindsay and that I wanted to ask you about was
um banks are also left out of it. So that wasn't mentioned. So that was taken out and also the second floor apartments um over uh retail. So
now we've focused so much on bed and breakfast but there's a lot more to this that we haven't even discussed. Well, Joan, isn't the um the if you go down white deer plaza, right? It's all apartments over residential there, >> right? But there's something in here that says only if you're existing. So,
we're going to still have like a blighted building if it's not going to be B&B and you know what's it going to be? >> But it was it could almost be an extension of White Deer Plaza if you had retail on the bottom and apartments on the top. >> Yes. Right. Otherwise, it's spot zoning because you're signaling that's the only
building left you could do spot zoning and that is illegal. >> So, we're setting up for lawsuits. >> I'm not sure what the current Downing's furniture property is operating as, but that was furniture store down below. And the Downing family, which I grew up
with, they were living upstairs. So, you just >> It's everywhere. Yeah. So, you can't single single out one building. >> We have to protect everybody. That's our job. >> It's right. Sorry, I must just point out that it hasn't been removed. It's it's in there as a conditional use.
>> Wait, what? >> Yeah, it's still >> apartments over retail. Is there new apartments over retail is in there as a conditional use? >> Conditional use. >> Okay. Conditional. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that was confusing because I saw it in two, >> which is what it is in the existing C1H, I believe.
>> I saw it in two separate sections. So, that's why I was going to ask about it because it said one thing in one section and something different in another. Um >> it be clear here that we talking about what's the rush is the rush basically that right now Marriott could put in a
uh a uh application to build a hotel and the president's owning allows it and the so the rush is to head that off. Is that what the rush is to >> I don't know what the rush is. >> You know, >> well, I mean, we haven't given it the interim GM.
>> Let me This was brought up originally to really >> go back to getting back to the get getting this back to the C1H um historic uh guidelines for its design standards. Yeah. Giving Lake Mohawk what they felt they wanted control of simply like just
on that level. I think we all agree that's a good thing. There's no debating that. We want Lake Mohawk to maintain and preserve the design standards >> under the previous ordinance that they once had. >> And why not go back to that ordinance until we have time?
>> Confirmed right now all these other things that you're that you're discussing that the some of these things are the B&Bs, all these things are permitted use now. >> As we speak, right? No, >> they are in the TCC conditional. As a
condition, >> not as a conditional. You can outright in the zone they're in right now. >> Go put an application in for bed and breakfast in the TCC zone. I could >> if I I could leave here and go tomorrow morning 8 a.m. show up and and do it. So, with no conditions, right?
>> In the TCC. >> Yes. >> Right. But they but they're >> which these lots are currently in the TCC. So, if I wanted to tomorrow wake up and say, I'm gonna put an application in TCC zone, which these lots are in, right? I could go tomorrow and do that.
Well, I think the intention is putting it in the C1H because it has that historic nature, right? So, that there are some and then what I've gathered here from Mr. Giles is that they understand that by removing hotels, motel, there still may need to be some
kind of use that permits lodging. Um I don't obviously I don't know that's the decision that was made and it seems like there's been discussions and they seem to have agreed that they're comfortable with it as a conditional use because it gives it more requirements as opposed to
how it is today. I could show up and say I'm putting a a bed and breakfast here and not live on the property and just say it's a bed and breakfast. So, if we recommended to the council that they leave C1H alone,
94, Route 94, those parcels of property, leave it alone, and establish a new zone, LMC historic, take the wording that is in the ordinance, take out bed and breakfast,
hotels, and motel in two meetings. Lake Moha could be protected and not have to worry about hotels, motel or bed and breakfast. That gives the ma the master plan committee time to even identify
what a bed and breakfast is properly. And it also gives Lake Mohawk time. They would have their own a zone that they would truly have more control over and they could put in and customize it more
to them. that could be done in if if the recommendation comes from here to the council that could be implemented almost immediately and you would be protected. So you would get what you want. The master plan subcommittee could take a
step back and you're already working on these these um definitions and identifications. This way, if the club decides they want a bed and breakfast type thing, you guys could come back and and and make an application to add it to your zone to amend your zone, but you
wouldn't have to start off with it because it sounds like that's something that you guys were not excited about in the first place. So, and that could be done pretty quickly, right? >> I can't be >> Well, right. I mean,
>> Ken, you want to you want to >> I can speak on behalf of of the governing body, but I can only un I'm going to just give you the the blanket statement. I'm here just for consistency. >> Yeah, we're all looking at you because that's the way we're facing. We're not putting people on.
>> Thank you, Mike. >> I feel like you should come and sit up here with us so you could look. >> I think we really need Ken. Ken, hearing all these conversations, what's the fix all these things? >> I just want to hear what what Sabina has to say. >> Okay. So just for clarity again and we
had gone round and round and even before um the C1H was considered that is exactly the scenario that was proposed to the township. However, we were discouraged from doing that because of the process and the complication and the time frame that was involved with adding
another zoning district into Sparta Township. Um at this point in time that was so long ago. This has been going on for in essence two, three, am I right? >> A minimum of three years. >> Minimum of three years. >> Three years.
>> Yes. This is a three-year road that we've been on. So, we have been, and I don't mean to, you know, sound excited, but it's almost as if I can just about see, you know, a sliver of light at that end
of the tunnel and then it's like dark. But um when you read um your current C1H community commercial historic zone after the purpose the first bullet point or
the first number is accomplish the protection enhancement and perpetuation of the Lake Mohawk Plaza area. That is how your current C1H community commercial historic district zone reads
now which I'm sorry the plaza is no part of that. So we were recommended to go and get into there and that is where we were originally and the reason for going into the TCC was actually also in
consideration and cooperation with Sparta Township for obviously um getting um funding from the state. Exactly. It wasn't as if we were just like okay yeah we want to do a hopscotch from one to
the other. it was in cooperation fully with Sparta Township um and taking advantage of that so that we could be enveloped and become more inconsistent with the overall plan for Sparta Township and their um streetscape
project. Um so at this point it's almost as if uh going backward and trying to create our own zoning district is a step back. I definitely appreciate the fact
that taking those uses out completely um definitely has an impact on the other properties in that other parcel that's now currently also C1H. I'm not 100% sure how they ended up in that quite
frankly um if it blatantly was originated for the use of or for the parcels in White Deer Plaza. So that's >> a twist on what you're saying, Chris, is is instead because there's not a whole lot going on out there right now anyway,
and I don't think anything's imminent, maybe make the suggestion to the council that they make a new zone out of that one out there. >> Leave them in leave them in this. They'll they'll be in that one. There's going to be a change. They'll be in that and then it can always they can add a new zone and put those things back in
out there. >> But the problem I'm just totally agree. I mean it's six of one and a half dozen of there but the problem >> we're solving their problem and but we're all we also eventually solve the other problem. >> Correct. But the problem is while that's all happening
>> I mean right now nothing's going on out there at all. But we don't want to put them in a bad spot either. And and if we bring if we do this with with which totally agreed we could flip-flop it. We could say okay Route 94 you're in this zone. we're now going to call it this
zone and we're going to give you all this stuff back. You know what I mean? Um >> the other thing is it sounds like if even if this went forward that maybe uh hotels, motel and bed and breakfast should be removed from it to to be fair.
Okay, we we are in the middle of a master plan. So all of this is going to be re-evaluated in the land use element anyway within the next two months. So we we do want to make sure that Lake Mohawk
has the protections that it that it should have. We do want to make sure that Route 94 has, you know, the versatility that it may want. Here's the issue. We don't have anybody from Route 94 out here right now having conversation with us saying that they absolutely have an eminent need for
hotels, motel, and bed and breakfast. We do however have members of a private community saying we really need to to have protections put in place. Right? And a lot of this as as interesting as it is and as good of a conversation it
is as it is is not within our purview. Right? We're talking about how to craft an ordinance. We're talking about the suggestions that we're going to make, you know, within the confines of our recommendations. We are a bit outside of our, you know, of our lane in terms of
of, you know, consistency review for the ordinance that's been presented to us as it is, meaning the amendments that have been presented to the C1H ordinance as we have them. So, the question then becomes, right, how do
we proceed? Yes, we have a list of things, but we are going to leave it to Ken to give us a little bit on process. >> All right. I've been taking some notes. If I could, though, I've been taking some notes. I mean, we're almost at 9:00 and we got other things. Your task before you agenda is the ordinance
26-07. Is it consistent or non-consistent with the master plan? I think the consensus is that it's inconsistent as presented. And I would say that I could report to the U. Mayor and Council, that was the review inconsistent because of number
one concerns over the historic preservation design standards. Uh traffic impact study uh signage and landscaping. That is under one category. Number two, concerns over Route 94, the C1H
uh current uses becoming possibly inconsistent and affecting economic growth. Uh number three, rather than ordinance 26-07, uh possibly creating new zones, a new lake Mohawk historic district or a new
Route 94 uh district. That those are my primary notes. And my last note was uh that these issues should also be addressed at the uh master plan review which we were before. That's what I have. >> What about bed and breakfast, hotel, and motel? Yeah, that's part of the
inconsist concerns over landscaping, signage, traffic, historic preservation, design. >> That isn't saying hotels. >> We can say whatever you want. We can say whatever you want. >> I'm just saying that is that that's a density issue, too. >> So, when I when I reviewed the
ordinance, um, if part of our review here tonight is does this have adequate protections? Um, in my opinion, the bed and breakfast portion does not have sufficient
protections. There's not a definition of a bed and breakfast that is in the traditional sense of a bed and breakfast. I mean, when I read section 2A, um, I found it to be extremely poorly
written and it was very confusing and it almost sounds like it's not a bed and breakfast. A bed and breakfast, let's all think back to the 1980s sitcom New Hart. That's a bed and breakfast. Bob
and Joanna ran a bed and breakfast. They owned the property. They lived there. He worked there. They had a housekeeper. They had a certain number of rooms for sale. I mean, for for for rent.
>> Um, nowhere in this ordinance is that made clear. Uh, I'm so sorry. Can I interrupt you for one second because we have a few members who need a bio break. Can >> So, I apologize.
>> Yes. So, we're going to do five minutes. >> Thanks. That's great. >> And just while we're thinking, I'm putting on my notes, I'm going to add another paragraph. Uh, as to the bed and breakfast issues, the uh board finds the uh present proposal is too vague uh
sufficient safeguards and possibly inconsistent with the uh Lake Mohawk rules and regulations. So, we'll leave at that thought. >> Right. >> While you're thinking, put in the design standards, too, because that's a big piece of it. >> Yes. Would
you like another before we begin round two? >> Are you sure? >> You know what I mean? And they >> Oh, look at you. Okay. Together. We're Christmas. >> Red and green. your sinuses. >> They're my my minis, my littles
called spicy. >> Not sure. >> They're spicy waters. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, we are back. And so Ken, from what I understand, you've you've crafted
>> I I think they're they're uh in fairness, uh some of the members just wanted to conclude their thoughts for possible inclusion. My preliminary notes now are uh the proposed ordinance is inconsistent with part's existing master
plan. That proposed ordinance is 26-07. Based upon the testimony, uh, one of the main issues is the current Route 94 C1 uh,H uses, uh, that do permit, uh, bed and breakfast as churches and the like should remain. Uh, another issue as to
the bed and breakfast proposed conditional uses. They're too vague, insufficient design standards, lack of uh, historic district protections, need for landscaping signage, and traffic impact as to the same. Also another thought was a possible new Lake Mohawk
historic district. And one of the last notes I had was defer to the master plan for the that review process for the land use element and lus zoning mapping concerns at hand. Uh but I think the board should uh if there's any other concerns they'd like addressed.
>> Begate was already >> begott was in the middle of >> Okay. Um, so as I was saying the when I think of a bed and breakfast, I think of New Hart. I think of someone who owns
property in Sparta and is a resident of Sparta and is a taxpayer in Sparta and operates a bed and breakfast with a certain number of rooms
for guests. And the way that this ordinance reads, it's not that. It's extremely vague. There's also nothing about the permit for a bed and breakfast, how long the permit would be
effective for, or um there's nothing about the permit automatically being voided if the property upon which the bed and breakfast was sold or transferred. So that sounds more like a
hotel or a motel where oh I own this now. this is my right and if the property sells, they're selling the business, which is not really what
what the what what what a protection would be. It it could get out of hand. Um there is nothing about notification being given to the people who live within a certain uh distance of a
proposed BNB. So, the people who live right next door are not, according to the ordinance, they are not required to get um notice that someone has applied for a conditional use permit for a bed
and breakfast. Um there's nothing about as simple as the dining room, which you know is part of a bed and breakfast that you get breakfast as part of your lodging rate. There's nothing about requiring a dining room that can
actually accommodate the number of guests that uh that there are rooms for. There's nothing about fire safety codes or inspection of uh the prop uh the property by the fire marshal. Um there's
nothing about how many consecutive nights a guest can stay in a single visit which could you know be abused in its current iteration and turn into
uh a more like short-term rental situation. Um there's nothing about the number of kitchens on the premises uh and whether or not you know the kitchen can really only be used
by the owners of the property um or for the preparation of the breakfasts for the guests. There's nothing prohibiting food from being served in the guest rooms, which would be more of a hotel or a a motel
service. There's nothing about where guest rooms and guest bathrooms can be permitted. Like right now, they there's nothing about preventing them from being in the basement or in a garage, a renovated garage. Um, there's nothing
about minimum square footage of a guest room. There's nothing about the owner and proprietor of the bed and breakfast maintaining guest registration records or for how long. Uh, there's nothing about the bed tax. So, you know, the
town council would theoretically be involved in setting the price for the permit for a bed and breakfast, but also, you know, what is what is the bed tax? Uh there's nothing limiting how close a bed and breakfast can be to
recreational facilities, to schools, to churches. Um there's nothing about commercial general liability insurance or minimum limits. Speaking to, you know, what's already been talked about here tonight, you know, the liability
that would come with with having a a bed and breakfast. Uh there's nothing in the ordinance about proof requiring proof that the owner actually has legal title to the property and has the the the right by
title to even apply for uh a permit. There's nothing about having a valid food handling certificate uh and sanitation for the from the health department to be able to provide guests with meals that have been pro uh
prepared in a sanitary way. Um and there's also nothing requiring the proprietor to work with the Sparta Police Department in the event that there are problems with uh with with the guests. So, um I also
uh had um I before they were banned by ordinance, I too lived right next door to a Airbnb. Um Lake Mohawk, as far as I'm aware, has
always had a 90-day minimum rental requirement, and that fell by the wayside. It was not enforced and it was extremely problematic and I would not wish that on anyone to go
through the kinds of things that can sometimes come with having lodging uh transient lodging. So, I just I just wanted to say that that I think that the ordinance is is too vague. And if part
of our purpose is to make sure that Lake Mohawk has the protections necessary, then I think that uh that these things ought to be taken into consideration. Thank you. >> Okay, I'm going to I just want to
address um the consistency. I I think a lot of good thoughts up here tonight and and I agree with everything that's being said. Just to add a little bit more to the consistent versus non-consistent, you know, I I my concern is, you know, when I look at the master plan
amendments and the master plan itself, and I'll start with the uses. When you look at the the 1997 master plan amendment, there are uh specific uses that are called out um in that amendment and they're in the C1 zone. basically
taken verbatim from there. Um, so what this what this ordinance does, it's starting to change those. So, and then and there may be the right answer some of them. Um, but they may not be. I'm not going to say. But what I will say is the minute you start changing, you know, if it was like just one, I'd say, "Yeah,
I got it." But we talked about, you know, we're taking taking out theaters, hotels, motel, um, you know, a whole bunch of things that makes it inconsistent with the master plan with that amendment. So um that that's point one. So from a use perspective, it's inconsistent with the master plan for
this particular zone. And then I want to talk to the land use element. The 1997 land use element took the C1 zone and moved it into the TCC zone. So if you want to be consistent with the master plan, you've got to leave it in the TCC.
You almost need to do a master plan amendment first and then do the ordinance. So the ordinance is is is consistent and there's ways around that if that's not what the council wants to do, but did if if if you're not going to do that amendment, this is driving
inconsistency. Um I think we talked about the design standards. Uh I think we all agree, you know, the master plan says you want to protect those design stands. You want to drive I think um Lindsay and Katherine's report both recognize there's not enough there. So it's inconsistent with with
that goal. Um, I want to talk about the bed and breakfast. So, when you look at the ordinance, it adds certain conditions for the bed and breakfast. It makes makes it better, but it doesn't make it better everywhere. Um, bed and breakfast, it's in lower main street
commercial zone, main street business zone, and they are four residential professional zones, but they're permitted uses there. So, all these extra conditions that go with what's going on in TC don't flow down to those zones. It's just a bed and breakfast, you know, doesn't talk about the minimum
rooms, doesn't talk about the occasions. Now, I don't know if that was an oversight or if that's was the intention. It would be it would have been nice to have somebody here to answer those questions, but you know, for those reasons, I I think there's a major inconsistency with what this ordinance does and what the master plan
has in it. >> Any thoughts, questions? went down to Chris. >> Oh, all right. All right. Um, so back to me. Um, so I want to just speak to um I
think I think that Beer brought up a lot of great points as did Ron, as did Brian as well, Janette. I mean, I think everyone's bringing up really great points. There's a couple that that I have questions on. Um, and again, I don't know who this is going to go to or where it's going or whatever. Um, when
it comes to the zoning standards, when you are in the commercial one historic zone and you're talking specifically now about the bed and breakfast, right? So, now we're on that. Um, it says single family detached dwelling. So, what exactly? You're taking the the
definition of a single family detached dwelling and you're plunking that in underneath the requirement for what a bed and breakfast would be. So my question is what standards apply there? The residential standards, the commercial standards, what's the
setback? What's is there what is the parking? Um are there minimums when these things happen? Is it just like, okay, I built a house there, now I need to have parking, or is it more formal because of the zone? So, that's one that's one qu. Should we just go one at
a time and then answer? Probably. >> I have a few. Sorry. And I know you did not I want to say loud and proud on this. I know you did not build this ordinance, so thank you for being patient and trying to answer our questions. >> Yeah, not a problem. Um so some of the
pieces of the conditions some of the conditions do address things like parking. So there are parking requirements specifically for the bed and breakfast um for >> but they're they're strange because some of it says on street and then others say
rear parking six spaces rear but there's three spots something like >> No, it's off streetet minimum number of off streetet. So, it's the minimum two off- streetet parking spaces for the owner of the dwelling and or his agent um
plus one additional space for each room approved for use for guests off. >> You can have 16, right? But you can have 16 adult guests according to what this says. >> Yes. >> So, that would be I mean you could have
16 cars. Not that you would, but you could if that's what the occupancy load is on the drawings that are presented at a planning board application. Yes. >> Right. Okay. So, are there specific set the setbacks and all that kind of stuff? Is that specific
to the detached residential structure or is that what where does that go to? >> So, this all of this has um refers back to the C1 zone for bulk requirements. So, it would refer back to what the requirements are within the bulk
standards for that zone. >> Okay. Um, safety and supervision. Burggate, you were touching on this. I think some other people touched on this as well, safety and supervision. So, you have this says, if I understand it correctly,
um, up to 16, eight bedrooms up to 16. But then you can also there's a there's an inconsistency in the ordinance in that it says you can have two adults and up to two children with them in a room. But then if you look at the way it's
written in the ordinance, it's inconsistent with what it says. So it says maximum, but you could actually have 32 people in that because if if you had eight rooms, so it says maximum of 60. It's just the way it's written is inconsistent. It doesn't match up. It
needs to be And I know you didn't do it, but I'm I'm not I'm not I'm looking at you, but I'm talking to them. I >> was looking at me when >> if that makes sense. I don't even know if that makes sense. I don't even know who I'm talking to at this point, but it's an inconsistency that should be addressed. I think yes because if it's
not not addressed right the strict interpretation is you can have 16 individual individuals inclusive of children so say somebody was to come with two adults and their four kids right and they're staying in the the >> kids yeah four people in a room
>> or yeah so but then they would have to restrict the rooms to have any additional people beyond the 16 which goes back to in my memo there are pieces of the conditions that are difficult to enforce. So when looking at
ordinances you also have to think about like Carrie and Rayisha when an application comes to hand or when somebody calls how can you enforce certain things as well or how can you as a board an application come here and how can you interpret things like I mean I
think the some of the things are very vague so it's difficult to um difficult to enforce or difficult to say this is a variance or this is not because it just says follow the uh appearance of the structure. The
intensity of use and the appearance of the structure shall be consistent with the neighborhood in which it is located. So >> that's subjective. Right. >> Right. >> But that's that's where it needs to be I think to your point made consistent with the things that you're talking about.
>> I want to go back to safety and supervision because I think you know a lot of people have have spoken about different things with Airbnb. you have a close proximity, eight rooms, eight different rooms that can be rented out Monday to Thursday, Tuesday to Friday,
Wednesday to Sunday, or it so you could have eight total groups of strangers in one space sharing bathroom, sharing common areas, sharing whatever. Um, but yet there's no requirement that I read anyway in here that says somebody's got to be there. So there's nothing in there
that says someone needs because the Bob Hart New Hart example they were always there because they lived there but no one's living here. It says the person needs to be 5 miles away. That could be 10 minutes. That could be 20 minutes in traffic. And the thing is if you have
eight different guests, you know what I mean? Eight different groups of guests. You know, they might not all get along. If something happen, what if someone gets hurt? These people don't know what's going on or what to do. they don't know. Um, so I think when it comes to safety and supervision,
something needs to be said because otherwise this is like a collection of bed and breakfast rooms. It's like renting rooms. It it's it's and and the other thing is >> you're not stopping a room from no one's there to say, "Hey, we're left four. Let's get eight in here and throw a party because there's no supervision."
>> Well, that's and the next question is um you know, so so who's responsible? who's going to be there. Um there was um another ordinance that was provided uh to me from someone for review and the interesting thing is they have an entire
like five sections of security. One of which is cameras must be installed outside. So you must be able to see outside. Is this thing going to be able to have I mean these are in the the um design standards I guess but is this thing going to have balconies? like are people going to be sitting on the
balcony yakking it up on because you have residents all over down there. You know what I mean? I mean these are things that should be identified I would think somewhere. Um and um the operational model if the rooms are rented individually how they rented
online. Do you go to like Airbnb? Do you go to a website? Do you say, "Hey, I'm coming on Tuesday to Thursday." If no one's there, you're not talking to anybody. So do you get a code to a door and you just show up and go to your room? I don't know. But to your point, when it comes to operations and security
and things of that nature, I think maybe the master plan subcommittee or whoever's looking at these things should maybe look at some of these other ordinances and just for inspiration and make sure that these things are locked down because you have to make sure that you're providing the safest environment
not just for the guests but for also for everyone else who lives in the in the community. Um the other thing is the expansion risks. So, there's a lot of properties that you identified on your map that are in this new zone.
What are there exposures or risks that others of these uh bed and breakfast could pop up in other one other of these properties? So, could you get a rash of these things down there? Because there's
no control. It doesn't say there's a maximum of one or there's a maximum of two. And if you look at Can I borrow your map real quick? If you look at the map, there's a lot of stuff here. >> So, how do you know it's only going to
be limited to one? What's the protection? >> But there in a similar just to play de devil's advocate, there's no restriction on if every lot was to be a restaurant, right? what the restriction is the ability for to park the site,
>> right? The you rely on the zoning for the use to be >> successful there in a sense or to to be able to be located there because you have your bulk requirements, your parking requirements and those coincide with the use, right? So, if you have I mean, how many times do we have uses
come here that don't have enough parking and we say, "Well, that's not going to work because you can't park the site. you're not going to have enough parking for people to use your site, to access your site, for people to work at your site. So, so those types of things, zoning is
all kind of interplayed in that sense. Um, so what I've seen in my experience, and I'm sorry for cutting you off, is um sometimes there are distance requirements. Um, I've written redevelopment plans where we have, you know, things like hair salons. Nail
salons only can be x amount of feet from each other because you don't want to have your downtown where every other store is a nail salon. I mean, or a hair salon. >> A little something something about. Um but uh yeah, so there's, you know, there's things like that. But but to
your point, right, is at this time, the way this is written, if they're able to park it, they could put realistically and meet all those conditions. They could put a bed and breakfast at every but just like they could do it with a retail store or a restaurant or >> That's what I'm saying. There's plenty
of protection and next thing you know, you have a whole little tourist hub down there because everybody that has apartments says I can make more money as an Airbnb. Okay. Just don't want to don't want to bel labor it. Just want to confirm >> there's no there's no cap on it.
>> For our purposes, can we recommend that they just take this out of here? They should be looking at this as, you know, if they're going to do an ordinance on bed and breakfast, it should be for the entire Sparta, >> not just for White Deer Plaza.
>> And they can work that out, but keep it out of here because we're not doing it for everything else in here. But the change in the definition for it where where it is everywhere else, >> right? >> You know, the the definition of what a bed and breakfast was is different once
this ordinance goes in place. >> But then the protections that you have in LMC LMC will not be in those other zones because they're not conditional uses. >> So that Yeah.
>> Not necessarily because it's limited to the condition. >> Yeah. But you are devaluing the properties >> up on 94. >> This is the issue. We had come up all the time with different different zones using different terms for the same
thing, >> right? >> And we and that's one of the things we talk about in the master plan of getting away from that and having consistent terms and consistent, you know, I mean some place is called a gym, some place called fitness center. as a definition
changes. >> It's just it just >> Ernie, don't talk about Pilates Studios. >> We've been here long enough. >> Ernie, can you talk into the mic? >> It makes Can you talk into the mic, please? >> Yeah. >> It just that makes deliberations here
longer. It it costs money to the to to the people that are coming here before us because it it means more time for for all their professionals and everything else. And you know this is one of the you know complaints we hear is that you know things are slow and but part of it
is because of the way everything's written it makes it really confusing you know not only for the applicants but also for us you know and and to put consistency in. I mean that's you know it's exact you know exactly what we you
know we're talking about here and what Ron's talking about is yeah >> we got to have consistency >> to that point I think we see this now with the sign ordinance right so anyone that's been on the planning board or tried to put in an application or anything knows that if you try to look
at what the sign ordinance is for a particular location you will spend hours searching because it's buried they're buried all over there's like two or three different spaces where these design elements are for the signs and um I have >> I don't mean to be interruptive but we
we can we can talk about the point for the next hours. >> The reason I bring that up is as an example of what Ron is saying or what what Ernie is saying about this and what Joan said. This shouldn't be buried in an ordinance for a zone. This should be
a standalone thing that applies to all the places where this thing is. Otherwise, no one's ever going to find it. Okay. here. Mike, you your turn. >> Well, first off, Ken, thank you. Lindsay, thank you. I I know the Lake Mohawk representatives left and I
appreciate the public's comments. I think open dialogue, it brought a lot of clarity, at least for me. It's it's complicated, right? Um, our task here tonight, we got to get back on task. I think we, everybody's comments were very well appreciated. Everybody had a chance
to talk. I think we just need to get back on on task here and what our task is to, you know, either agree or disagree if this is consistent with the master plan or not. So, I'm just an effort of time. Celeste, I'm finished.
>> Your turn. >> Yeah. Thank you. Is it time that we perhaps have a vote um on whether or not we feel it's consistent or not or not? And then Ken will add his suggest suggestions. That's I Oh, I'm not Yeah, I wouldn't forget you, Joan. Um,
absolutely. And I just want to say thank you so much for coming, uh, Lake Mohawk, because we were just saying as we came in, we want to know what you guys what your situation is and what you want, and I'm still not clear what you would want
in those properties uh, down there. Yeah. So, think about it and get back to us, >> Mike. From what I picked up tonight, it doesn't seem like Lake Mohawk wants a bed and breakfast hotel or any rendering
of that type of business in their zone. Uh, I think a closer look needs to be taken at this TCC zone, Town Center commercial, where they're located, and maybe make an amendment uh to that zone
for the Lake Mohawk uh historical area, and can these um types of businesses could be admitted? That's it. >> Okay. I just wanted to pick up on something Jenny brought up before and then Ernie just echoed about, you know,
some of the terminology and the confusion and stuff and that's going back to section four where it has institutional uses in nonprofit clubs, lodges, fraternal organizations. That's what it currently says and I think if we just left the period there because um
that takes care of Lake Mohawk. It is a nonprofit club. It's a 501c4 nonprofit club and it's a homeowners association. when you start adding the rest of this and private recreational and residential homeowner associations with three you the 300 members I don't
know but a recreational association that actually is a 501c7 incorporation which is for private social and recreational clubs like country clubs, hobby clubs, like it would be a yacht club or any of that for pleasure and
recreation and they're not really zoned or they're not incorporated as that. So, it's two separate uses. And I would like to make the recommendation that that part of the sentence regarding recreation association be removed. You
can leave it as homeowner association because we do have a definition in our ordinances for homeowner association, but there is no definition for recreation association and it's just going to muck it up again. And uh we don't know what is the intentions are or
the uses. So, um I would like to add that to the can your list. Um I also have a little bit of concern where it goes to on section five with the required conditions because we haven't done any of the design stuff. They're
throwing it into everything that is the C1 zone, but the C1 zone for uh design standards is different than the Lake Mohawk and historical type of standards. And I think that's a big mistake. I think, you know, they could use they're
better off using the existing C1H um standards at this point until they're updated. And there are some problems with that, like with internally lit um signs and boxes um where they say it's discouraged, but in the TCC zone, it's
prohibited. But the C1, I think, is um something that I would recommend that they reook. You got it. >> I'm just going to top it off really quick by saying thank you to absolutely
everyone here. Thank you to people in the audience. Thank you to everybody who's spoken, who's provided insight, input um into this situation. I know it's it's difficult um at best and I appreciate everybody's opinions and I appreciate you know the the effort that
uh that's been put out there. >> I also want to throw out there that um we don't know as a planning board who in particular authored this ordinance. >> Nobody here. Um well not because there's no representative but because it has not
been indicated as to to who authored authored this ordinance in particular um because the the individual who would be the attorney is the attorney for the municipality as well as as Lake Mohawk Country Club. So um there's been no
indication to us um as to who who the actual author of this ordinance is. So, unfortunately, I wouldn't even know where to direct those questions, right? Um, >> can you bring clarification to that? >> Uh, to be candid with you, I'm not sure
who drafted it, where it was referred to us. I don't know who drafted it. I just know it was referred to us. So, >> I know the original request was from town council and Lake Mohawk to sit down and discuss the uh the ordinance. And at
that point I don't know if it was you know the council representatives the liaison or not but >> I just don't know I'm sorry >> where it came from was I think it may have been presented from Lake Mohawk to >> it was pres so after the introduction
right so after the introduction how it gets to us is that the clerk's office sends it to the zoning office and the zoning office distributes it to to our individuals. So we don't I mean historically we haven't
had this issue because the township has had the same planner for the municipality and the planning board. So historically when there's been a situation like this they've gone to the same person but that hasn't been the case here. So, you know, asking Lindsay
to do the consistency review and not knowing if there was even a planner involved in the in the authoring of of this document because um from what I understand, um Katherine Sarmat has only
contracted with the town for fair share, but I I don't know what the the logistics are on that. But one way or another, I I just kind of want to get it out there that we we didn't have not only no representation but no indication of of of who actually authored it. So
all of our questions in terms of of you know the body of the document um we had no outlet for those. So um so again I want to thank our professionals for for stepping up and stepping in um and trying to clarify as as much as
humanly possible um you know with with their suppositions and what what would be typical in in these types of situations. Um and I think on that note we are ready for a motion. Uh yes, gang. I think it's pretty clear from your
discussion that the proposal ordinance 26-07 uh is inconsistent with the uh existing Sparta master plan that is based upon the uh uh statements of the board at tonight's June 3rd, 2026 regular meeting
as well as the comments from the public. And we have a written u planners report from neglia Lindseay Knight as the same uh summarizing some of the main points but not limited to again the record is pretty clear that the discussion number
one uh concern was as to the current route 94 C1H uses. uh such uses as a result of the ordinance could be um impacted substantially more particular if those existing bed and breakfastes,
church and the like uh should remain or be subject to this ordinance. Number two, as to the specific language and and the primary purpose of the ordinance on the bed and breakfast on its face is too vague, insufficient design standards,
lack of historic district protections, uh lack of landscaping, signage, and traffic impact uh standards, and as uh pointed out also uh by Joan, the uh if it was to pass the particular language in section 4 B5 dealing with recreation
homeowners and the like is inconsistent and also inconsistencies dealing with the other zones. You have TCC C1H and the like is set forth on the record. Another point uh was brought up a possible new Lake Mohawk uh historic
district may be more favorable than the ordinance. Also, there was a discussion of a possible new separate and distinct bed and breakfast ordinance that could be townwide and have some very detailed and specific uh standards and the like. And the last thing I have uh point was
um difference uh of these uh ordinance topics to the master plan uh committee which is reviewing under reviewing that process now to address the land use element and land use zoning mapping issues. as we discussed. Those are my
primary points that I could memorialize to be given to the uh clerk for the mayor and council review. >> Nice job. >> Yeah, >> I would make the motion to support that. >> We have a second. >> I'll second. >> I'll second.
>> I'll second. >> You're good. >> We have We have three seconds. >> Pick one. All right. You got John. You picked Who's the second? Uh, so I believe was it Chanette? Was it Beerot? I don't remember. >> Beerot. Beer will be the second.
>> Wait for voting though. Maybe it should be Chris. >> I'm sorry. For >> beer, are you an alternate? >> Begot is an alternate actually. Then Janette would be the second. >> Okay. >> Hi. >> No. No. Christine Dunbar second did it.
>> So did Janette. She said it the same time that Beer get said it. So that's why there was a >> we all won. Go for it. >> Okay. So, the motion the motion as uh as
spoken by Ken. We have a mo we have a motion from Joan and a second from Janette. And we need a roll call, please. >> Question first. Is this considered administration where they can vote as opposed to an application?
>> That's a good question. I think everyone should just vote. It's an advisory. I the record have everybody vote. Everybody is here just vote. >> So I just have one question on the vote just so >> a yes vote says yes we agree it's inconsistent. >> Correct. >> Yes. A yes vote is you agree it's
inconsistent as set forth uh by my parameters. >> We're voting for your motion. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Roll call, please. Mr. Inquinn >> me. >> Yes.
>> Well, yes. Is >> yes. >> Yes. Means it is consistent. >> I'm sorry. >> Mike Wallace. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Mike Sylvester. >> Yes. >> Ronda Day. >> Yes. >> Christine Dunar. >> Yes. >> Joan Farman.
>> Yes. >> Ernie Ragstat. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Janette Bert. >> Yes. >> Chairwoman Celeste Luciano. >> Yes. Yes. >> Brian Zimmerman, >> yes. >> Burgler, >> yes. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Okay, that was unanimous.
>> All right, thank you everybody. So, we're going to move very quickly into resolutions because we're going to put this on Ken's shoulders. I told you we would argue later. >> Yes, I apologize. I just need two more weeks. It was a very good and busy uh month. So, it'll be on your next agenda. Thank you.
>> Okay. Um we are going to run through approval of minutes. So, um, actually, Ken, I'm also going to put this on your shoulders. It was my understanding that the April 27, 2026 minutes were going to be held in perpetuity because that was a special meeting that turned into notice
for an executive session. So, there was going to be no approval of minutes until such time as those matters were concluded. >> That is correct. uh under the uh close session uh you do we do keep minutes and we do uh keep that but until the
litigation and that being the fair housing is resolved those minutes are kept privileged. Yes. >> Okay. So that brings us to the May 6, 2026 minutes. Any questions or comments from the board regarding these minutes?
I I have corrections on page four and it's halfway down under environmental commission. So the environmental commission second line would be applying to Sussex County for a $25,000 grant
to be for a $25,000 grant, not a a 20. >> Okay. So there needs to be a zero add. the comma is in the right place, but there needs to be a zero added at the end. That's typo. >> Yeah. For trail work. And um uh Miss Dumbar informed the board that
the environmental commission has been closely following the data center discussions in surrounding towns and the impacts to protect the aquifer. And lastly, Miss Dumbar stated that we're going to have to change that sentence because she did
not state that I was um we're applying for a program for bats. >> Oh my. >> So, we're we applied for a grant allowing us to educate residents regarding bats would be more
appropriate. >> Thank you. All right, it is late. We are getting punched >> against you about the back program. We're fine. >> Any other baddy >> any other uh any other changes or or uh
amendments? Page two, >> fourth paragraph where it starts, Mr. Dyster outline the requested variances for the board and members in detail. It talks about the different silos and it says the first one silo 2 height variance of 45.11
ft where 45 feet is required. Um and then it says required further down as well. It's not required. That is the maximum. So 45 ft is you know the maximum height
not the required height. >> Good point. And same thing I guess with setbacks the issue point one. >> Okay. Any >> I just have Yeah. I just have one thing. At the end of minor site plan I had requested an executive session just to
discuss a certain minor site plan applicant. Um if that could be memorialized please. I know that we're not going to get to it tonight, but that's fine. >> The other thing we're not going to get to tonight, I was waiting to other
business, but on page I think there are two page fours or threes, but um we were talks about minor site plan subcommittee. We had asked um for Mr. Porro to invite the town manager to our next planning board meeting. Um I don't know if that happened, but he's not
here. So, our motion to adopt the minutes was contingent upon that. So, the minutes at this point are not adopted. And I'd like to ask that you extend the invitation for the next meeting with adequate time notice, please. >> I can do that.
>> Thank you. >> And also the your request for the executive session. >> Yeah. Right. >> Administrative. But why why would one thing uh disqualify the balance of the meeting minutes? >> It should just be taken out, right? And then everything else could be
>> approve the minutes but for that. >> Well, I think I think we can approve the minutes that it was discussed and that now tonight's meeting will say that uh that topic is continued and will be carried to the next meeting.
>> Okay. So, I'm okay with it. inserted there and the minor site plan subcommittee did not put that in there. >> So, it's not something the the minor site plan committee did not put that language in there. >> It was inserted in there. So, we want an
explanation of why it was inserted in there. We had something different. >> Right. So, but Joan, the I mean the minutes can be approved, but you're saying Miss Ferman stated that there was an application that was submitted to minor site plan subcommittee 2020 and was denied twice before the scope
committee. She stated the application ultimately approved by the township manager and town attorney requested Mr. Bon invite them for a better understanding that I think that's fine the way it's stated. >> Yeah, that's fine. But when I actually made the motion, it was with the condition that the town manager come.
That was part of the motion that we both >> um >> Oh, you're saying when you approve the minutes? Yeah. >> To the back. I I think it's so clarified and I think so. You have Miss Ferman motion to adopt the 25 motion subject the minutes with the condition that you request
>> uh planning board meeting to discuss union rail return. >> Right. So if he wasn't requested, I want to follow up on that and have that done. >> I think I'm carry that forward. >> All right. I'm okay with that clarification on the record. Right. Especially since that motion carried.
>> Yes, >> that was Yeah. >> Okay. So, >> approve the minutes with those clarifications. >> Okay. So, a motion and a second to approve minutes with clarifications as indicated. >> I'll make a motion.
>> I'll second. Oh, roll call. >> Christine. Oh, wait. I'm sorry. Yes. Begler. >> Yes. >> Janette Burke. Yes. >> Christine Dunar.
>> Yes. >> Ronda Day. >> Yes. >> Joan Ferman. >> Yes. >> Chairwoman L uh Chairwoman Celeste Luciano. >> Yes. >> And Christine Quinn. >> Yes.
>> Ernie Ragstead. >> Yes. >> And Brian Zimmerman. >> Yes. >> Okay. And we're going to be as brief as we possibly can for updates. Nothing on town council. >> Okay. >> Environmental commission.
>> Um I'm good. >> Okay. Um subcommittees we we went through minor site plan subcommittee here. That would have been the only update and master plan subcommittee. Our next meeting is on this coming Monday on June 8th. Um there was a smaller meeting
um of some of the members to go over the um the objectives uh as as they relate to goals that have been discussed uh by the larger group and we are going to discuss those at our next meeting. Um looking forward to moving this this uh
forward. And so that is it on updates. Um, other board business. I think Joan, you touched on what you wanted to touch on with with regard to >> Yeah, it's getting late. it. Yeah, but I think maybe we can save it next time, but the I think we need to establish um
procedures, protocols of how this board operates and um well, we'll discuss how we give notice that others follow those rules >> and then we are going to let Ken expand
on executive session. Yeah, we're going to carry that I think to our next meeting. Correct. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh and we are going to open it to the public for the last
section. Jenny, you have no questions. Beth, >> thank you. >> Oh my. Alrighty then. Seeing none, uh, that brings us to Ernie. You're on adjournment.
>> On. All right. Motion to adjurnn. >> All right. >> All in favor? >> I. >> And we ended before 10. >> There you go. >> Yeah, I know. Remember the days? So,