[clears throat] Welcome everybody to this regular planning board meeting December 4th, 2025. Madam Secretary, can you please call the role? >> Mrs. Parker, >> here. >> Mr. Katzf >> here.
>> Mr. Mr. Heinman >> here. >> Mr. Lily, >> Mr. >> Here, >> Councilman Makavoy >> here. >> Township manager O Sullivan >> here. >> Mayor Tambbero.
>> Vice Chair Presky. Uh, Chair Pearson here. >> Board attorney Missa >> here. Zoning official Miss Meech >> here. Okay, thank you. Can everybody if if you can please rise for the pledge of
allegiance 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. >> Yeah.
Um All right. Um, Madam Secretary, can you please read the statement of uh, compliance with the Open Meetings Act? Open public meeting act. The notice requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act have been satisfied
with respect to this meeting of the Township of Verona's Planning Board, which is being held in person in the ballroom of the Verona Community Center located at 880 Bloomfield Avenue, Verona. The time and date of this meeting were included in the annual meeting notice posted in the community
center and sent to the official newspaper of the township, the Verona Cedar Grove Times, at least 48 hours preceding the start time of this meeting. The agenda and instructions on how to comment will be provided at the appropriate time. All meetings are recorded. Those wishing to speak during
any public comment period should only provide their name and municipality. Street addresses are not required. Please be advised that should a member of the public choose to state their street address, it will not be redacted from this recording. >> Thank you. Um, at this time, I would
open the meeting for public participation. And seeing that there are no members of the public at this meeting, I will now close public participation. Um, and moving right along. Uh, has everybody received a copy of the October
23rd regular meeting minutes? Does anybody have any changes or updates? >> Just note that I will be uh abstaining from the vote since I was absent. >> Okay.
Can I seeing none, I can I get a motion to approve the regular meeting minutes from October 23rd, 2025? >> Motion to approve. >> Mr. Heman makes motion. Can I get a second? >> I'll second that. >> You can't second it. >> You want there?
>> You can call yourself. You can't. >> Deputy Mayor Mackoy. >> Can't do it. >> You can't vote. >> Um, Deputy Mayor Mackoy seconds. Um, this can just be a regular vote. All those who favor, >> I I >> All those who don't favor,
>> I abstain as well. >> Okay. So we have three abstensions here. >> Okay. Everybody else that was present voted I. Thank you. Um moving on to
resolutions. Um so the first resolution is the memorialization of the ordinance adopting a redevelopment plan for 383 Bloomfield Avenue. and the
it's a resolution of the planning board finding that uh with some tweaks consistent with the Verona master plan. Are there any questions or discussion on the
resolution as drafted by Mr. Misara? >> No. >> One question on the statement here. >> It says not inconsistent. That is correct. >> By that is by that is specifically words if I recall. >> That is correct. >> Yes. Okay. Yep. >> Wonderful.
>> Um did you just move it? >> No, I just I don't have a >> Okay. Can I get if there seeing that there are no questions, can I get a motion to move uh this memorialization resolution
2025-13? >> I'll move it. >> Mr. Heman moves. >> Second. Second. Second. And >> we have a roll call vote on this. Yeah. Thank you.
>> Um, >> wait. Jeremy, can you >> were you absent from that meeting? >> No, that was two years ago. If I recall, that was the September meeting. >> Okay. I can't I can't motion this
resolution. >> So you were here for this. >> It doesn't matter. This is this is a separate this is a separate action. >> Okay. >> Because it's it's this was sent down from the governing body. >> Okay. This is that we Okay. But we found
it consistent at the last meeting. This is Yes. >> He's talking about the next one. Yeah. So, anybody who wasn't here for that hearing should abstain for the hearing of 383 and our consist and our finding of no inconsistency.
So, um we need a roll call vote on on this. >> Okay. Um >> did you get a second? >> Yeah, we need a second because I second it. Yeah, >> you can. >> I don't think he was here last week. >> I was here during the September meeting when this was discussed. I was >> This was October.
thought. >> Okay, >> this was October, >> but we discussed the resolution and we passed it in September >> and we sent it back to the governing body in September >> and then they sent it back to us. >> He was here when when Sam made the
presentation. >> Correct. That was September. >> September. >> Okay. Same. >> All right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Mrs. Parker. >> I. >> Mr. Ket. >> Yes. Mr. Heman,
>> yes. >> Council boy, Councilman Makavoy, [snorts] >> yes. >> Tonapan, Jo Sullivan, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Fresky, oh, I hear Chair Pearson, yes.
>> Okay, the uh motion passes. >> Am I not voting on it? >> Did Were you here for that >> September? I think I was here. >> Could you Could you go back and make sure that Mr. Kamood is called? >> Sorry, Tim. It's okay, >> Mr. Kimuti.
>> I [laughter] Okay, so that was unanimous. Thank you. Um, the next resolution actually is a resolution, but it should have fallen under the consistency determination as
well. Um, at the last meeting, we sent forth a recommendation to the town council to make a change in our zoning code. um to amend part of the zoning code. They have passed it on first reading and
sent it to us for a consistency review. And because we had made the reser the uh recommendation in the first place, um it seemed pretty reasonable that Mr. Misau had drafted a resolution in advance of the meeting because we
wouldn't have sent an inconsistent recommendation to the um >> well first you first you should >> determine that not pass the resolution but first make the determination that it is >> right
>> right so we're not talking specifically about the resolution right now >> so has everybody read the updated section of sorry has everybody read the updated section that as discussed
um from zoning code 150-133b extensions enlargements or changes >> I' read it >> um and that was the recommendation that we had sent to the council does would somebody does does anybody have
any issue with it does anybody feel that that is not consistent with the master plan. Okay. Seeing no objections, I'll make a motion to find this update to the ordinance
consistent or not inconsistent with the Verona master plan. Um therefore, I'm making a motion to pass resolution 20254. No, >> we're gonna do it separately. >> Okay, we have two votes. So, I'm making
a motion that we I find no incon we find no inconsistencies with the vera master plan with that update. Can I get a second? >> I'll second. >> Is this roll call? Roll call. >> Yes.
>> Roll call. >> Uh, Mr. Heinman. >> Yes. Um, this is a new action. This everybody can vote on this. >> Okay. This is a new action. It's not the
Okay, go ahead. Mrs. Parker. >> Hi, >> Mr. Catip. >> Yes. >> Mr. Heman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kamudi. >> Yes. >> Uh, Mr. Makavoy. >> Yes. >> Um, township manager O' Sullivan.
>> Yes. and chair Pearson. Yes. All right. Um, so we can >> It just so happens we have a resolution rather than waiting till next month, >> right? >> Cuz remember you asked me to do that. >> I did because we wouldn't have sent an
inconsistent recommendation or an recommendation that was inconsistent with the master plan to the council to ask them to adopt. Um, so at this point we have resolution
2025-14. Um, which I don't have in front of me, but I do. [snorts] One second. >> Thank you. um that states that there are no
inconsistencies with the master plan and sends um that to the Lauren Town Council. Can I get a motion to pass that resolution 202514? >> So moved. >> Deputy Mayor Makavoy makes the motion. Can I get a second?
>> I'll second. >> Okay. Mr. Committee seconds. Can I get a another roll call vote, please? Everybody, >> Mrs. Parker can vote. >> I Mr. Katv, >> yes.
>> Mr. Heinman, >> yes. >> Mr. Kimmood, >> I Yes. >> Um, Councilman Makavoy, >> yes. >> Township manager Sullivan, >> yes. >> Vice Chairperson, >> yes. Uh, the motion passes. Um, while we're
talking consistency determination, I'm going to bump items two and three up to the current moment and we'll do the Rossy last if that's okay with everybody since we're doing um consistency review.
So, um I'm going to call upon our zoning code official. No. >> Okay. [laughter] Well, I mean these are zoning code updates that we are are we we were not asked to make the
recommendation. The recommendation was already made. It was did this go to the council already? >> No. So what is our determination to be made on this? >> I think the discussion would be similar to the process is the same as what we
just went through. >> So we're sending a recommendation. This is not a consistency determination, >> just a discussion. >> Okay, great. >> So, be be that as it it may, I I would like um
Miss Meech to just uh address the reasoning behind these updates. uh 150-7.5 permanent and portable swimming pools. Um it appears that you you're adding a
letter C that says no pool mechanical equipment shall be located within a required minimum yard requirement. It's a little basically what it is is our [clears throat] ordinance says that the pool equipment has to be within 5 ft
of the wall of the pool. The electric code, the national electric code says that yeah, we just the national electric code says that it has to be six feet from so we were in contradiction with the electric code which is why we we
updated it. But that's B of 1575. This is C of 713 mechanical equipment. This is the first one on the sheet up at the top. 150-7.13 mechanical equipment.
Um, no pool mechanical equipment shall be located within a required minimum yard requirement. It's sort of a strangely I >> it it's so it's basically that >> within the side of it >> setback. >> It can't be within the setback. Can you
just say can can we just say within the within any minimum yard setback the the word required yard because it's it so in in our code required
setback is used. So it would be >> more consistent >> more consistent with the rest of the code to use the same language and we use required >> not inconsistent. Yeah, >> it would be not inconsistent >> a separate accessory structure setback.
>> Yeah. Yes. >> In each in each zone. So, but we're saying required because then it takes care of every setback we have. >> Okay. >> Even though yes, pool would be an accessory structure. My only issue is
the practicality. Like if there is a, you know, 40 foot rear yard setback from the principal structure and you have a lot of these subdivisions where you really only have a 40 foot yard, where are you going to put the pool? You
can't. But >> then you have to have a balance. >> Yeah. And that's what I I'd rather avoid. But, you know, if you have accessory structures already in your yard, you have a shed that's 10 feet away. I would think that the accessory structure said that. >> But we're talking about mechanical
equipment right now. >> Yeah. >> Just pool equipment. >> No, this is mechanical equipment. This differentiates from filtration equipment, etc. >> Okay. So, this is separate. So, the general mechanical equipment doesn't
apply to the specific pool equipment. in 50 157.5. >> Which one are we discussing? 7.13 or seven decimal 5. >> I'm confused. >> Three. [clears throat] Correct. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. So, I'm with Jason. Does Does this mechanical equipment cover pool equipment? Cuz everyone's going to file for a variance if they have to put their their pool pumps within 5 ft of the pool. >> Everyone's going to fall for a variance. No, we don't want them within 5 ft of the pool, but
>> but they can't. So, trust me, we we do have a lot of variants that come in for pool equipment and four pools. Um, so the way we have it now is we're telling them they have to be within five feet of the pool and then
when it gets to the electrical sub um sub code official, right, he's got to fail it because the national electric code said it can't be within 5t. >> So we have to make sure that the pool equipment is not within 5t. I guess I
guess I'm confused by the language because Decimal 13 states, >> can you talk into your mic a little? Thank you. >> No, no mechanical woman shall be located within a required minimum yard requirement shall not extend more than 5
ft beyond the structure from which they serve. But decimal 75 has a carveout. It the language is confusing. So C says pool equipment to differentiate it from straight mechanical equipment because you can
have mechanical equipment would be um an air conditioning unit a generator. Those can be those have to be actually within 5 ft >> that I understand. I don't know then I would suggest putting a card out in the other one because it it's confusing. >> I I think when you say no mechanical
equipment other than dual mechanical equipment. >> Yeah. >> Just so that there's a distinction. So there's not anybody to say, well, it's involved which prevails. >> Thank you. That's the point I'm trying to make. Yeah. >> But I do also recommend that changing
the language within a required minimum yard setback from requirement. >> Changing the last word question is this. Didn't did we just say that it was not
not inconsistent and do the resolution? Can we change the verbiage on it now? >> Well, that's >> we didn't do that yet. >> I thought we did this resolution. >> We did. We did it last we we did this the last meeting. Discussed it. Did we? Yeah. >> I don't think we discussed a
>> discussions and the extensions. So, we didn't do this. We discuss do this one. >> Yeah. >> Oh, you know what? We discussed it at the zoning board. >> Not to change the ordinance itself, but >> right just as a discuss at the zoning board.
>> I think that's what we're probably thinking. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, this is simply a discussion and we could make recommendations for updates and changes and tweaks. Greg, I want to ask you is changing the word
requirements in the first section to set back. >> Where are we at? >> I'm still >> you're at the top. >> Well, let's stay with what we were just doing. >> That's what we are doing. >> Mechanical mechanical equipment. Do we agree though other than pool pool mechanical
equipment? Is that I think that's a cleaner way. Okay. >> Yeah. or I suggest right the sentence as is no mechanical equipment shall be located within a required minimum yard and shall not extend more than 5 ft from the structure which they serve
>> except pools which is accounted for in C >> so that the so that the >> that's a good A is stated as is and then it's appended above >> okay it should be for which it serves
and then except for pool equipment >> and then reference 7 >> since I wasn't here at the last meeting but could you explain one more time the five ft >> that's in the next section can we just wait
>> I thought 7.13 shall not not extend 5T >> because the next section deals with pool equipment >> I'm not talking about pools >> yet >> I'm talking about other mechanical equipment and the source for the five ft So the other mechanical equipment,
generators, air conditioners, they have to be within 5 ft of what they're servicing. So if it's a house, >> the air conditioning unit has to be located within 5 ft of the house. So
you're the source of that is what? >> People don't want their generators on the corner of the lot and putting other people. >> They don't want that. the generator in the back of your yards that you're living. >> The reason I'm asking is because
having just done this, the specs >> called for it to be more. So to me that seems like there's an inconsistency and I'm trying to understand >> the specification of the air conditioning unit >> like the generator and are you asking
about an air conditioning unit in particular? >> No, she's talking about generators. generator or air conditioner >> because natural gas generators are obviously creating carbon monoxide. So they're required to be a certain distance. Yes. Right. So >> that I mean that's why I'm asking.
>> Our code says our code says within that it has to be within 5 ft of where it's serving and honestly most air conditioning unit and then in the zoning approval it will say that it has to be installed per specification manufacturer specifications.
>> But then that that creates a controversy. the they conflict. That's why I'm asking the question. >> We've never we've never had them conflict. Anytime they go into the plumbing and they go into electrical, usually those units are 18 in off of a house.
>> But she's talking about generators. >> Most of the gener the same thing. They're 18 2t off the house. >> Where where the problem exists is if you have a larger size generator. They require a greater distance away from a house or some some of them are 10 foot from an a window. a window that can an
operable window >> right on a diagonal. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So that's that's it. So sometimes the placement is construction code be if the window is here and that's covered in construction. >> So should we add in here something to
the effect of >> un uh unless uh manufacturers specifications require a greater distance. Is there something that you can say unless safety and construction code? No, you can't.
>> Well, because now now our ordinance is changing. >> It's wavering. >> It changing depending on manufacturer. So that that's >> not manufacturer. It has to be it can't be on I agree. It can't be just based on manufacturer, but it could be based on
construction code >> UCCC or >> Well, then you need a variance. >> Yeah. I mean, Kathy, yeah. How frequently do we get these uh instances where stats require it to be >> further than five? >> I I have not had one.
>> Yeah, that's on the next. >> Yeah, I haven't had one. I think the other thought there is also if if you have a mechanism to shift it away from a window, the preference would be to have somebody keep it away from your sideyard and less impactful on neighbors,
>> shift it and can and fit it on the site the way it's intended to within construction code in the zoning rather than giving them an additional exemption where they can addition to a sideard. >> So we I mean generators can't be in the sideyard unless they come in, you know,
for variance on that. Um we we have had one or two where they've come into me and and the generator the air is like 20 feet away from the house, you know. So then I they've got to pull it in or they've got to go for a variance to have it that far and then all the piping and
and the electrical and everything that goes through it. But I have never had one um that got to plumbing and electrical and then had to bounce back because it was it was too far too close. and they're looking at the specs because the specs all have to come in with them.
And then to Jack's point, when it gets to uh the construction end of it and there are as far as generators especially and AC units that the window is here, it has to be a certain number of feet away on a diagonal from the
window. You can't put it directly under the window. So, I don't even see that when I'm reviewing it because I'm really reviewing it from a survey. I'm not seeing if there's a window. So when it gets to the construction part, they would see if they get there in the placement, there's a window there, it
can't go there. Then they might have to shift it back and usually it's along the same line and we make that adjustment. But I have never had anything where it came back in because it was too close to the house. Normally they're about 18 in to 2 ft and building has the building um subos have always said that it's they
have to have just enough room around it to be able to service it if need be. She doesn't agree. >> Can we go back to a >> uh which one? A >> can pool equipment be within the minimum
yard requirement? >> No. >> No. >> Well, then we need to change the language because what we had suggested except for pool equipment, >> right? Then it it alleviate it relieves it from >> Right. >> Yeah. >> So I think what we need to do is say no
mechanical equipment shall be no mechanical equipment or pool equipment shall be located within a required minimum yard. >> Period. >> Correct. >> B >> not B. And then [laughter] you know
>> that mean eliminate C. >> Is that eliminating red? >> No. See was red because it was it was coming in. >> Then we need to do the next sentence that says mechanical equipment shall not extend
pool mechanical equipment other than pool equipment shall not extend more than 5 ft from the structure for which they serve. We're going back to other than pool equipment. Otherwise, as we had suggested, otherwise it would be that
pool equipment could go in the minimum yard. >> Yeah. >> Right. You know, I I don't have a problem saying A, what your first sentence was, B
mechanical equipment, C, no pool equipment, and then D, no generator in sideyard. >> Well, how do we know the distinction between equipment and mechanical? >> Yeah, that's >> that's already in. >> There is no allowed in the setback, >> right? I'm sorry.
>> No generator's already allowed. It's I'm saying >> no no no mechanical equipment whatsoever >> is a right. So that no mechanical equipment whatsoever shall be within minimum required. >> Right. Right. >> And then and then um almost like B no
mechanical movement should extend more than 5t from the structure of which it served except pool equip. >> Correct. >> Okay. C is >> no generator. That's right. That's right. >> You want to write it down? Wait. [laughter]
proposes language that is new is read >> but we're changing it now >> I think that makes the most sense >> no going back to myself in college and telling me that I'm writing ordinances
when I'm 50 [laughter] >> now there >> oh my god >> there also there is a bit of um if you go to let me go to the next one. You'll see that the the latter >> are we good on this on this? Can we settle
>> 7.1? >> Can you go to the next one >> as I'm reading it right? >> It's all B. All fil equipment and pump shall be located not less than 5 ft from a property line.
But we're saying that they can't be in the setback. So >> that's why I don't like the idea. Yeah, that's a mess. Yeah, >> cuz you could have an 8ft set back, right? >> Wait, wouldn't the entire yard set back? I think the pool equipment should be
treated differently than regular mechanical equipment. Um, and it should be closer to how we treat accessory structures. I know a lot of pools where the equipment is in it's
located in a shed like >> wait are you suggesting to allow pool equipment on the border of your neighbor's property >> as long as it's within the accessory structure setback like 10 ft >> required setback
>> it should yeah required setback for principal structure or accessory structure >> accessory >> okay which is the minimum required setback for >> for accessories 5 foot Because no mechanical shall be required. >> There's no minimum. There's no require. >> Are you
>> garages are five foot? >> Yes, they are. >> They were. >> They're eight. >> They're eight and and gears. >> What are you >> Who's saying something over there? Not in their mic. >> I'm an R 60. My lot is 8 ft for the garage. >> I can't hear you. >> What?
>> I'm in an R60 and I believe my lot is 8 ft for the garage. >> R50 is 5 foot. [clears throat] So, but so then it's for so then different zones have different setbacks, right? So, you've got some where it's 10 ft. >> So, that's why it doesn't give the
specific yard um feet. It says within the required setback going >> I just want to make sure that because it's general, it's just a minimum yard requirement. It's referring to accessory structures. >> Yes. >> Because mechanical equipment is considered an accessory structure. So, it goes by the back for your zone. Okay.
That's why it's general and does say required setback, right? >> Well, but this B says not less than five feet, >> which which undermines which under which is in >> it's like a safety.
>> So then it really should just say >> reiterate said above. It was already stated in one stated can I can I make a suggestion? >> Yes, you may. >> I think everybody agrees on what we're trying to do. Jason's Jason's um
suggestion that it be that it it be um that it varies with whatever it's within the required setback not a f with the zone >> but it's it's not within it's >> it's not in the required setback. Am I
wrong? >> It can't be in the it will not be in the required setback. >> It'll just be beyond it right in out in the yard. It'll it'll be it'll be in compliance with the zoning requirements in that zone,
>> right? I mean, that's >> Yes. >> Yeah. My only question was which setback were we referring to? >> Correct. >> It would be accessory because it would be considered an accessory >> an accessory structure, right? But that is also going to vary because it's in different zones. My suggestion would be
to let me try to rewrite this >> in in consistent with what everybody is saying here this evening >> and then >> review it next month >> and then well to send it back to the board to the to the council with the suggestions that we agree with the
intent. We just believe that it it could be um presented more clearly. >> Will you just ensure Well, you're in the zoning board meeting with her. So you know what hurdles you've had to leap over. >> Absolutely. Recently, >> right? >> So, okay.
>> Yeah. The problem has been the practical problem, right? >> Is it's got to be within 5T, but your zoning code, but your the uh building code says it's got to be 8t or more than 5T. So, I think I mean, we all know the intent. >> Yep. >> Right. Yeah. Right. Okay. I think that
would >> rather than doing it on the fly and then we keep going back, >> it'll give me the opportunity to kind of look at it >> just give it to Kathleen and and get it to um our manager so that he can get it on their agenda. >> Absolutely.
>> But to Jason's point, make sure we add >> the setback requirements of accessory dwellings. accessory structures. >> Accessory structures for for your zone >> within your zone within a each respective zone or something, >> right?
>> Okay. >> Good. >> All right. Um, really quickly, if our manager O Sullivan, if you could just give a brief update on the master plan subcommittee and where we're at.
>> Sure. We um we met this past week. We've been uh working through four separate interveners on our affordable housing and fair share element plan. Uh there were um there've been ongoing
discussions uh with uh council on both sides and in coordination with the uh special court uh special adjudicator and um we have a upcoming settlement conference with the court on
December 11th. Uh we believe that um the just briefly going through those four um those four interveners. Uh the the first one was uh the 176 Bloomfield Avenue property. Uh that was the uh the subject
of a settlement agreement both at the planning board level and the town council level. >> Mr. Manager, um these are still ongoing litigations. >> They are ongoing. I believe this is uh >> I I was looking for a more general
>> more so we have we have four ongoing discussions. Uh we believe that after the December 11th meeting we will be after the December 11th settlement conference uh we will be in position to make a recommendation both to the council and then uh to take the
subsequent actions at planning board for uh effectuating that settlement with the courts. >> Okay. So just to be clear, we would have to amend our housing element and fair share plan to conform with whatever settlements uh are agreed
to um in December. So what >> will we be >> end of January, February? >> We have we have a requirement to to make our amendments and adopt the required zoning that effectuates the the housing
plan in by March March 20th or 15th something like that is the deadline. So we'll see that in the next couple of months. Um, I have, you know, there is a chance if things get busy and hectic
that we will have to potentially schedule a special meeting to adopt an amended plan. I'm just throwing that out there if anybody does that sound reasonable.
>> Yeah, just for my edification. So, am I understanding this correct? The new legislation, are they still called interveners? Are they just challenging the numbers that we came up with in the planners? >> I I'm sorry. I I can >> I can't understand you either. Please. >> They're they're objectors. That's what
they're called in statute. It's >> Yeah, they're they're interveners, which are the same as objectors in prior rounds. So, they've objected to certain elements of the plan that was adopted.
Three of them are sight specific. One was fair share housing that filed. Just a number of general um >> units that we were general issues across it was a lot of standard language that they submitted across a number of municipalities. Um but I think um we've
we are we've positioned ourselves to go into the settlement conference on December 11th where we um we believe we'll be coming out with a settlement on all four interveners. And um the next update is December 15th
for a master plan subcommittee. And uh I just hope everybody can figure it out. Um okay.
Uh the last item on our agenda is kind of good news. It's it's actually very good news. Um this is you guys all received information on
new green acres properties that are being brought in as our registered open space into our registered open space inventory. Some of these are are funded, some of them are unfunded, but they're all green acres.
Um, have you all received the list, the maps, and the spreadsheet and had a chance to look through? You can see that the entirety of two rather large sites that were acquired in 2019
are being brought in as well as some sites that we've had in Verona for a very long time that were never actually put in like the Verona pool for instance. >> When was it? Was there an email sent in regards? >> Yes, it's attached
>> as a link in the email that has all of the information >> and then it's on it's in the documents page. I did the same thing. [laughter] Um, >> if anyone want
>> I don't have internet now. Oh, you know what? It's It's there though. >> I know it's there. >> Okay. >> I did not save it. >> He didn't pay for it. So, um, briefly, I'll just give you, uh, the existing Rossi properties that we had
were the Pekman Trails behind FN Brown, Everett Field, Everett Park, Hilltop, Freedom and Liberty Fields, uh, a property northwest of Hillwood Terrace, um, and Centenn uh, the new properties,
um, Centennial Field. uh a property behind another property behind Hillwood Terrace that's about 12 1/2 acres. Um ver the Vera Pool which is almost 8 acres 7 no 7 and 3/4 acres. Uh
25 Commerce Court which is now considered PC PCman Park that's 11.61 acres of um passive recreational space. uh 111 Mount Prospect Avenue, which is
14.35 acres, that leads directly into Eagle Rock Reservation and is filled with accessible trails that all feed into uh that. Um 42 Grove Avenue is Grove
Park. And finally, it's kind of a narrow strip of land that actually um has a lot of it's in a flood zone. Uh 174 Sunset Avenue, which is called Sunset Park, but it it is
in portions of it are actually in the flood zone. Uh it's right along the Pacman as it bends around and comes out of um behind Brookdale Avenue School and bends around there.
Um kind of where Park Street, that piece of Anyway, um so those are the properties. Uh, I think it's great news, but I do have three corrections for the report that we can't certify without these corrections being made. And we
have to ensure that the land use um what's up, did you? Oh, okay. Um, that the land use division of the D gets the proper information from us. So, um, on
page seven, the spreadsheet where it compares properties, um, old block and lot to new, the hilltop reservation property that says 10 White Rock Road next to it, and
the one directly underneath, 4.436 acres Hilltop, the old and the new blot locks are reversed. >> So, those have to be switched. She said she'd correct them. >> Well, >> if she corrected them, they're not
and and I don't know which ones the DP if if they've received them. There are a lot of old lot and block numbers on the Rossi currently loaded into the D's site. >> D site has some dated information for sure. Um I'll follow up directly with
the land conservancy group to make sure this is updated. >> Okay. Also on map number 10, which represents 42 Grove Avenue or Grove Park, it's labeled 1065
as the block number and it should be 16005. They just transpose those two numbers on that one map only. So, it should be 1605 lot 24
and it's listed as 1065. A lot of Essex County's properties are also really messed up. Like they have like block and lot numbers from 1960. Yes. Like I couldn't even find those maps.
So, does anybody else have u questions or comments about this? Well, uh did you write you wrote a resolution, right, Greg? You did, right?
>> Yes. >> Yes. This No, you didn't. Did you? >> No, I I did. Um, >> where is it? >> I I I didn't see it. I just saw these other two. >> I I have a question.
>> I sent it to you, Jess, for your comment. Remember, >> what? >> When? >> Two weeks ago, >> honestly. >> Uh, >> we can we can take action on the resolution at a future meeting. I think
the um >> we could pass a motion right now >> to certify it with the corrections. >> Right. >> Correct. >> That's fine. Yeah. The the resolution itself is just so we can eventually certify their list and sign off on it and and send this the certified list
back to to DP Greenacre so they can update their list and their documents that they have on file. >> All right. I actually sent you a list, Greg. You had sent me. could you please send me all the all the properties that are
going to be incorporating the list? And then I sent you the list. >> Okay. >> But then I never >> sent you the resolution. >> No, >> I did the resolution. [laughter] >> Okay. Um it doesn't matter. We we'll just memorialize next month. I kind of
wanted to just clean up everything before the end of year, but we'll just memorialize it next month. >> Yeah. I apologize. I guess I didn't send it to you either, but I know I had done it because I started it sent you to say give me the give me the properties. >> Yeah.
>> Right. So, I must have just not sent it. >> It's still in your outbox or something. [laughter] >> All right. I I have a question on it though. you would ask does this in any way talking about what your you know upcoming uh uh deliberations and trial
does any of this addition changed the calculus of any um >> no this was all pretty much within the the plan's understanding to begin with >> okay yeah >> great [clears throat] just now we're certifying it properly
>> very good thank you >> um so with the three corrections that were mentioned a few moments ago. I would like to make a motion to correct, you know, with the corrected plan to
certify um a new list of Verona's green acres for our register registered open space inventory. Can I get a second? >> Second it.
>> Tim Kamoodi seconds. Can we get a roll call vote? >> Mrs. Parker, >> I. >> Mr. Katzf, >> yes. >> Mr. Heman, >> hi.
>> Uh, Mr. Kimoody, >> hi. >> Councilman Makavoy, >> yes. >> Township manager O Sullivan, >> yes. >> And Chair Pearson, yes. Thank you so much. Does anybody have any new business?
>> I want to just go back to something. >> Sure. >> Mr. O'Sullivan, is it critical that the council vote on that ordinance um at the next meeting, the one with the pool equipment? Because in looking at it, I just there's some other things that I think with
existing language that maybe needs to be clarified as well. So maybe I should rewrite it and then present it to the board. >> I don't think it's critical. We're we're approaching a point where we probably have to start waiting for the new calendar year technically to introduce a new ordinance anyway. So it's there's no
time sensitivity right now. >> Okay. So my suggestion if you're looking at the existing language in the ordinance is probably to just rewrite that section and then present it to the board >> next >> next month and then and then the council can reintroduce reintroduce a new
ordinance or whatever. But that's okay. Yeah. I think it's I rather than patch it up, I think it'd be better if we rewrite it. >> So, next month, reorg with all of the, you know, we already passed our resolution for meeting dates.
um reorg and swearing in of various individuals and a memorialization of what we just passed for the Green Acres and a review of of this. And then I
think there might be discussion of a a potential new uh section of our zoning code or like something to review uh property-wise for zoning. And I think that they're pushing ahead
um at 383. So Mr. Heman, I believe you're on the site plan review. >> Mhm. I think that we may be asked to schedule a meeting with 383. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> So, any other new business? Anyone? >> Can I get a motion? >> Motion. >> Yeah. >> Jesus, he's jumping all over again. I know. Yeah,
>> I'll second it. I'll be the, you know, I'll get the assist. >> All right. Thank you. >> Quiet is just like