When love is stronger. Bo the water. >> Okay. Grace, please read the statement. Welcome to the public meeting of December 17th, 2025 of the Township of Washington Planning Board. Adequate notice of the meeting was given in accordance with the open public meetings
act by the board secretary to at least two newspapers on January 3rd, 2025. And this meeting has been posted on the Township Bulletin board electronic message board, WCTV, and on the Township website. >> Thank you. Grace salute to the flag.
I pledg to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all >> grace roll call
>> Mr. Carol >> here >> Mr. Murphy >> here >> Mr. Fledo >> here >> Mr. Tul >> here >> Mr. Toro >> here >> Mr. O Jansky is absent. Councilman Alman >> here. >> Mayor Kalamari >> here. >> Chairman Sabino
>> here. >> Let the record reflect also in attendance are attorney Lula Matina, engineer Paul Aelina, and board secretary Grace Cage. >> Thank you, Grace. Please read the public portion. >> To participate in the general public portion of the meeting, please click the
link below to join the webinar. You'll be asked to state your name for the record, and we ask that only one person speak at a time. This public comment portion is only for non-aggenda items. Time is set aside later in the meeting to address questions or comments about current agenda items. If you are
participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star six to unmute. At the end of the general public portion, no further general questions or comments will be accepted. >> Thank you. Do I have a motion to open the public court? >> So move. >> Second. All in favor?
>> I. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment to the planning board on topics other than what's on the agenda for this evening? >> No one in the audience. Anyone on video?
>> Sorry. No, there was no hands raised. >> Okay. No topics to discuss. Uh motion to close the public portion. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> Okay, first uh order of new business is
the application of Charles Msina for a minor subdivision of 44 past road block 3501 lots 18 and 19. Is the applicant here? >> Yes, representative. >> Excuse me, chairman. >> Yes. >> Uh I have to recuse myself from this
application. Uh my townhouse community is right across the street and although my unit is not within the 200 I am a board member of the association so uh I'll be recusing myself for those reasons. >> Okay. Uh Mr. Mayor, can you step down for the >> Yes, sir. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Be nice to see you from that side for a >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Great. Counselor, >> uh >> my name is Gary Zeric. I'm the law firm with Samaro and Zeric out of Garfield. Tonight's application is for a a property owned by Charles Msina. The
property is located at 44 Pascatak Road. Um as indicated, it is block 3501 and currently it goes by two lots, 18 and 19, which are considered one lot. Um the square footage of the lot is um 1.272
acres or 50,310 square ft. The lot is located in an AA zone. Um, basically there's an existing one family house on the property. The applicant's intention is to uh obtain a
subdivision to create two lots. Uh, one consisting of um the lot with the with the structure on it and one uh being a conforming lot uh with no structure. Tonight we have testimony from Harry Tuval of the engineering plans that have
been submitted. If there's no questions on the application, I would like to move to the testimony of Harry Tubal. >> Thank you. >> You just want me to move this >> like um under here
>> kind of like here. So before you start your testimony, can you please give the board your credential? That's true. Let's go in first. Can you raise your right hand? Good afternoon. >> You'll tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I hope you got it.
>> I do. >> Credentials. >> Okay. My name is Harry QL. Tu VDL and I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. been uh licensed been licensed for over 40 years
as an engineer and over about 35 years as a as a planner. I have appeared before it's been a while but I have appeared before this board in the past. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I've testified in Bergen Hudson and Pay
counties over the course of my career. >> Great. Thank you. Board members, any questions? None. Your credentials are accepted. Thank you. I'd offer Mr. Duval as an expert in civil engineering. Great.
>> Mr. Tuval, um, tonight we are going to be presenting an application for the subdivision of 44 Pascat Road. Uh, we're going to be using plans that have been drafted by GB Engineering. Um, are you familiar with those plans? >> Yes, I am. >> For the purpose of identification, what
was the date of the original plan and if there was any um, revisions of that plan? Yes, the original day of the plan is is April April 7th. This I've just mounted the most recent plan W which you
all should have a copy of. This is just mounted for presentation this evening. The original date is April 7th 25 and there have been two revisions. The most recent revision of which is October 17th and tonight's testimony is going to be
based upon the the second revision plan of October 17, 2025. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Would you take the time to show the board or explain to the board the entire lot and the structure that currently is located on the lot? >> Okay. So, um
as as was uh indicated by council, this is a 1.27 acre uh lot and the proposal is to divide it into two approximately 25,000 uh square foot lots. the the
northernmost lot has an existing house and a couple of accessory uh buildings which are which are to remain the uh the southernmost lot on and the frontage of course is along Pasc Road u
the lot the lot proposes even though it's currently indicated on the tax maps as as two as two lots this is sort of to reestablish the fact that it's a subdivided lot because as the Aelina
report indicated um it seems that the whether these are two lots is not totally hasn't been totally clear. So the purpose of this subdivision is to establish that this is going to be a a valid that this is a valid subdivision.
So, um the the uh the con the the newly created lot will be fully fully conforming at with a 100 foot frontage and uh and all of the proposed u setbacks will will be will be complied
with for the proposed future residents to be built to be built on this lot. the uh existing lot. The subdivision u creates uh one a lot frontage variance which is essentially
uh it's supposed to be 100 ft but it's actually turns out because of the slightly irregular shape of the lot. It turns out to be 99.74. So it's uh it's 26 feet uh short. So
that's that's a dimmin variance. And the other variance that's created by the subdivision is a sideyard variance for the new subdivision line which is u 7 7 um 89 89 ft where 15 ft is required. But
I would point out that this this house is not is not centered on that lot and the other side of the u of the lot is is is over 30 ft is exactly uh 35 ft. So the combined the com the combined
sideyards are about 43 feet where the required sideyards of on both sides is 15 each. So that's 30. So the sideyards actually our requirement is actually exceeded for
the combined for the combined sideyards. So um this comes down to basically being a C2 as they call it a C C2 flexible or soft variance where the board basically
weighs the uh the uh balance of the existing of the variances or the non-conformity with u the extent of any negative impact and I would I would certainly submit that the the minimum lock frontage and even um the the
sideyard do do not rise to any substantial negative impact and and having a a basically a largely conforming lot being put into use is a good planning
alternative for this for this site and and that's basically the the whole story here. So to just to sum it up quickly, the newly created lot would be conforming on all on every uh uh application. Correct.
>> That's correct. >> And then the the lot that we would be with the existing structure would only require the two variances, one of them, the minimus 99.74 versus the 100 foot frontage and the other one being uh 7
um seven in change on the side guard when 15 is required. But the combined sideyards do uh exceed what is required. >> That's correct. And I hope I said that. >> I have no further questions of Mr. Tuval
with respect to the application. Um >> just one question. Can you just confirm the uh overall size? Uh I believe it was initially stated as 1.15 and that's what's in the document and I
believe Mr. is it Tuval mentioned 1.27 27. >> Okay. Because there is there is a county a county um in issue. Not really issue. There's a county matter with regard to
the uh measurement of the um that we're ded that they require a dedication of a small sliver of land along the frontage on county road. And that's the difference for between the at one point. We are proposing and this
will be submitted to the county uh a four 4 foot wide uh dedication for road widening purposes which may or may not ever happen >> to if that was your qu if your question was what will be the square footage and
acreage of each lot I think I can answer that. No, I guess the entire track uh 6 on the application. Uh again, I'm just trying to reconcile
the testimony to what was written. So 50,310 square ft or 1.155 and then the testimony was 1.2 and change. So well the the 1.27 is is
is as is indicated in the letter from Aelina is measured to the center line of Pasc road. >> So that's not really the property that's owned. >> So Mr. Chairman if I may.
>> So this is an older property and back in the day uh property descriptions ran to the to the center of of the road. So the this Pascac road is is a county road. So there are centerline maps that define
with meets and bounds the exact locations of those center lines. So this is a matter that I discussed with Eric Timsac at the county. So uh he provided me with some information that I had forwarded to to Tom Sterns. So that that
is the reason for for the difference in in areas. Um so the plan as presented depicts an easement um a 4ft wide easement uh which that easement area is included in in the lot area that is that
is not taken from the applicant but there is perhaps a dedication of lands that would lie between the the existing edge of pavement and the rightway line. So that area may actually be formally
conveyed to to the county by way of uh outright dedication. So this is a matter for for the county more so than than this board. Um so if the board were to approve the application, it would be subject to any uh you know condition
established by the county. But I do believe that this map accurately depicts most you know most likely what will be the scenario where where they require that 4ft wide easement such that it the road the right of way is established at
33 ft from the center line. Um and then the right of way uh would be 25 ft from the center line. >> So the 1.1 and the 1.2 are essentially both correct. Yes. How you look at correct as >> what lens you're looking at it?
>> Yes. >> As it exists today and and as it will exist in the future should the both the county as well as this board approve the application for minor subdivision. >> Thank you. >> Thank you councelor. Any further testimony? >> I have nothing further.
>> Great. Thank you Mr. Aelina. We'd like to go through your report and uh let's discuss any items which have not been discussed by the uh communicated by the council. >> Yes. Um so I'll go through the report
briefly. Uh first page two uh first one first page describes the submitts. Uh second page is the structure uh the property as it exists today. several outuildings on the uh lot 1801 which are
all shown to remain. Uh the plans were revised to indicate that the original submitt did not say whether they were staying or going. Plans now indicate all the structures are to remain. Uh recommend that the plans be revised to provide a uh zoning expand the zoning
table to indicate uh the requirements for accessory structures, accessory buildings. So that will be added to to the plan uh in the future. Um they're all free and clear of any required uh setbacks. So that's not an issue. It's
just uh kind of a housekeeping issue. Uh I agree with the description of the proposal as presented by Mr. Touvel. Um subdivision is classified as a as a minor subdivision. Uh zoning aspects are on page four of nine. Um once again, I
agree with Mr. as far as the two variances that that are required with the frontage and the setback what will be a sideyard setback for the existing dwelling to remain. Um so one thing you you'll note is that the
uh setbacks uh are are not setback lines are not properly labeled on the the plan. That's also another revision that needs to be uh made to the plan. Um as indicated uh on page four of nine there
there is some question as to whether two lots exist here or not. They are shown that way on the tax map but uh in the historical data that I uh saw I didn't see anything indicating that they were two lots just somehow they appeared. Um so I agree with the proposal to uh
formally create uh the two lots. Um and that will happen if the board approves the application. uh page five of nine regarding the uh subdivision review comments. Uh there was there are existing uh building sewers uh for the
for the both lots. It was anticipated that the vacant lot would be developed at some point in time. So there actually is a a stub to the to the main and Pasc road. So when and if that lot is developed, there'll be no need to to dig up Pasak Road. They can make the connection to the to the existing
cleanout. the sewer for the existing home may extend onto the uh other property. So the the recommendation, the requirement is that they uh video inspect that sewer to determine where it is and then if it needs to be relocated
that it will be relocated to be wholly situated on proposed lot 1801. So that is comment A. Comment B, uh there was an there is an existing gravel driveway. uh the county when they see the application would have required that a turnaround be
provided which this plan already provides that. So that was one revision that was made. There is an existing uh above ground storage tank on the south side of the existing dwelling. Uh the assumption is that it's a heating oil tank. Uh question is is that to remain?
>> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Um uh regarding the trees there there are trees on the site but there is no development proposed. So I I do not take exception with them not depicting them on the plan but the applicant is advised
that you know when and if these properties are developed that that would be necessary for any future uh addition of the plan. Um Mr. Mr. Tuval, I assume you're uh requesting a dimminimous exception for the construction of sidewalks along this
side of Pascak Road. >> Yeah. >> So, the board would need to make a a decision on that. There there are no sidewalks on on this side of Pasak Road. There's kind of a discontinued network of sidewalks on on the other side of
Pasak Road, but there are no sidewalks uh north or south of of the subject property. Um so there are a number of approvals that would be required should the board uh grant the approval plan should be
reviewed by the police department, fire department, ambulance or tax assessor as to the acceptability of the lot numbering and then my office once the plans are are revised and some other minor comments are set forth in appendix A which uh many of which we've already
discussed which are you know cleaning up the the plans a little I would assume the applicant is agreeable to to making those revisions. >> Yes, the applicant is. >> Thank you. That would conclude my uh report, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Delina. Uh my only
question is should this application be approved tonight, the applicant would still have to come before this board for site approval. Correct. If if they were to build houses that uh required more than 400 cubic yards of of soil, there
would be a major soil permit for that. But single family dwellings uh are not required unless somehow the the board uh tied any future development into this uh application and required that they come
back uh for a but the plans as presented do not depict any proposed development at this time. So I don't know if that's appropriate or or not to tie up to a future uh application.
>> Thank you. Then council just one point before I ask my fellow board members if they have any comments is this town is very stringent when it comes to trees taking down good trees. So I want to ensure that your client understands that
there are no trees be taken down as part of this application >> they would understand if there's going to be any development uh plan would be submitted to the building department. They would go through. I'm sure they're going to require location of the trees and if anything comes down, I assume they would flag them and say, you know,
you're allowed two trees. You you're trying to go down seven trees. You got to get board permission. And then they would have to come back here to get permission. >> Right now, we're just doing a subdivision. There's no development at all planned. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh fellow board members, any questions
concerning this application? >> A couple questions. Mr. chairman, you said that there was a a turnaround for the existing gravel driveway. >> There not currently a turnaround. There's a proposed gravel turnaround shown on on lot 1801.
>> Okay. Proposed >> proposed. Yes. >> Okay. And for the applicant, just out of curiosity, are you looking to develop lot 1901 in the future? >> The applicant is looking to develop it. Yes. >> Okay. This this application was in front of the zoning board which much more
intense density as a result of the outlash. Uh everybody wanted to see two single family homes. >> This is a start to get two single family homes. >> Okay. >> U the one lot will be all conforming
>> and then the other lot will be non-conforming by a dimminimous 99.74 as opposed to 100 ft. >> Okay. So I do believe there is I do believe in the near future there's going to be a proposal for development on the existing lot.
>> I mean I'm sorry the conforming lawforming and then once that is developed and I believe so then there may be an application to demolish the existing structure plus the barn and develop a similar house on that lot but that would need to come in front of the
board because we need a front yard variance. Mhm. >> So in both cases you feel that there will be single family homes on these two lots in the >> that's the only thing that's permitted. >> Okay. >> Unless they come in from and get a variance. But as of right now it's two
single family. It will be two single family lots. One with an existing structure and one uh if the development happens uh a new construction. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Mr.
>> Mr. Chairman. Yes. Thank you. Um Paul, on the side setback of the 7.89, is that do we are we looking at that as technically something pre-existing even though it wasn't a subdivided lot? >> Exactly. It's a very gray area in that
that lot line separating lot 18 and 19 may or may not exist. So um you could look at it as as a pre-existing non-conforming condition or you know I think more conservatively that is a
created uh variance condition. >> Okay. And then the other question >> of that lot >> for you Paul is the difference between what's in your report of the 99.9 and the 99.97. your report is 99.9 for the French.
>> Yeah, I'm gonna say that's a typo on on my part. >> Okay. Thank you. Um based on what was just said, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if we can put it in. So, this is more of a question. If that existing lot does get redeveloped,
can we put in the resolution or approval that we're closer to the 15 ft than the than the 8 ft that that we're depicting on this side lot or is that not something we can do at this point? Mr. Lamatina,
>> I'm not following for the for the new lot. >> The new the existing lot >> the existing lot right now is showing 7.89, 89. >> Right. >> So now based on what was just said that there could be a future development of that lot that would then give the
opportunity to can be completely conforming at that point at 15 on each side. >> Is that something that can be put in? >> I don't see why not. That's what the um the condition of approval would be that
in the event of demolition. Well, then you can't hold. They could still ask for variance then. I mean, you could you could say that >> Oh, it would still be a variance at that point because it's >> Yeah, they come back and ask, you know, if they didn't want to uh have a 15 foot
sideyard, they'd come in for variance. So, I don't think we could tell them now. >> You know, they can't do that. >> They may they may make it conform. We don't know. >> Gotcha. Gotcha. >> Way in the future. >> Okay. Any further questions?
>> Are are we by granting this or approving this, are we um giving them, for lack of a better term, a pass on that. So, I understand the existing
house is non-conforming the sideyard, and I mean, I accept that. uh as part of this application. Uh should they wish to redevelop without
uh demolition, full demolition, would could that sideyard, that non-conforming sideyard remain? you know, if if they uh wanted to expand the existing footprint
or uh you know, redevelop the house without a complete demolition, would that side yard uh be allowed to continue as a pre-existing condition? >> Yes. If they don't demolish,
>> okay, >> if they're just using the same footprint, sure, they can they can expand on it. Only if they knock it down, I think they got to come back for a variance if it's going to violate the side. >> Okay, >> good. >> So, hold on. Which which sideard is it
going to violate? The 15t or the new 7.89 ft. >> If >> they demolish if they do a full demolition, >> then they're going to probably move it over. I would think it would make sense. I don't want to speak for the applicant, but if you're demolishing, why not just move it over 8 ft and make it
conforming? They don't have to, but that would make some sense. >> They don't have to. >> If if the if the existing structure gets demolished, there'd be no reason why he wouldn't comply with the 15 yard setback. He'd have to come before this board anyway because it doesn't have a
100 front. So, when he submits the application to demolish and come back before the board because he's building on a lot that's 99.74, he would need the board's permission. And at that point, he will designate where the setbacks are, the front, the
sides, and the rear. So, it's behoove him not to make it 15. So, that's that would not be the the problem. The only problem would be would the board grant him to put a single family house on a lot that's 99.74 as opposed to 100.
That would be the application. He wouldn't be able to get a building permit. >> And the variance is tied to the property or to the structure. >> It's right now it's tied to the structure. I would say again he knocks it down and then all bets are off. >> Okay. >> And and you look at it as council said
will probably be conforming. If not he wants a variance we would address them. They have to come back. They demolish our ordinance. >> Oh 50%. >> Yeah. >> So they're before the court anyway. No matter if they demolish. >> Okay. >> And at that point you can certainly say
no variance on the side. >> But here you really can't. I mean we're subdividing. >> Right. Deny it. >> Yeah. here. I I I understand. >> Okay. Uh do you want a motion to open the public portion?
>> Motion. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this planning board on this application? No one. >> Anyone on video?
Okay. Do I have a motion to close the public portion? Motion >> second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay, counselor. Any further comments before? >> Um, no. I I don't have a closing. I'll
submit on with the the testimony of Mr. Dubal is that's all. >> Okay. Thank you. So then, do I have a motion to approve this application? >> I'm sorry. Subject to the condition required by the county.
>> I'll make a motion, Mr. I'll second. >> And is that that's with the no sidewalks, correct? >> Correct. >> Great. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Murphy, >> yes. >> Mr. Pledo, >> yes.
>> Mr. Tu, >> yes. >> Mr. Toro, >> yes. >> Councilman Alman, >> yes. >> Chairman Spino, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Application is approved. >> Everybody have a nice holiday. >> You, too. Thank you. Okay.
>> On to our next round table. Yeah. It's not as much down. Ela, just let me know when you're ready for it. >> Sure, I'm ready. >> Okay. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of
the board. For the record, my name from the law of Wells, Jorski, Leman, and Pamis here tonight on behalf of Washington. Some side chatter there. >> Excuse me, >> gentlemen. Please. >> Sorry about that. >> Thank you. 89 Place, we're here for soil
approval tonight. Um, I have one witness who's sitting to my left. Um, and his name is Tyler Vanderbolt. He's a licensed engineer. I'd like to get him up and get started if you have any questions. >> Sure. >> Raise your right hand. Repeat for me.
Tell the truth. Tell us the truth. I hope you got it. >> Yes, I do. >> Can you please give us a brief description of the credentials? >> Sure. Tyler Vanderbach, Civilized Engineering, 6 Joan Drive, Montville, New Jersey. Uh, licensed professional engineering, state of New Jersey.
License is current. Any good standing? Um, believe I've been before the planning board here. I was before the board of adjustment uh last year for two different applications. Uh but besides that testify throughout New Jersey regular basis >> bachelor's degree in civil engineering
from NJ. >> Thank you. >> Did the board accept uh >> yes >> please continue. >> Thank you. >> Tyler, if you would uh you have a a plan over to your left. Please describe that plan. >> Sure. This is the same uh plan that you
should have on the deis there. uh originally July 31st of this year, last revised October 28th, consisting of three sheets. >> And what what are they? >> Okay, so what we've prepared here is a lot grading plan for the development of
a single family home. Uh the initial sheet has all the layout, zoning, grading. Uh the second sheet is for our soil movement calculations, construction details, and uh drainage calculations. And the final sheet of the set is a soil erosion sediment control plan.
>> So we're we're on your first page you have a zoning legend. We're completely conforming on z. >> That's correct. We're in the class A a district. Uh we're not seeking any variances or deviation from uh the requirements of the zone. >> Okay. So we're strictly here for soil
movement. And can you tell us what we propose with respect to that? >> Sure. So the site today uh this is a recently approved subdivision with within the last handful of years. We have a number of vacant lots here around the newly constructed road. Uh we are
located on the east side of the Gorga Place extension uh almost near the end of the street there near the culdesac. uh the existing property grades upwards as we move east from the street uh to a high point probably about a fifth of the
way the lot before it it drops back down uh towards the rear. So the application of soil movement largely has to do with uh excavation for the new basement for the home. And then also we're excavating this knob that I spoke of as we come up before we go back down so that we just
have a a straight down slope towards the street from the front of the house. And then with the grade change, we'll have a walk out basement as we step onto the rear. The results um of those calculations is a total soil export off the site of 1740
cubic yards. Uh this is taking into account the fill behind the house for the patio and swimming pool, the excavation in the front of the house. Uh as well as the excavation for the basement and foundation and the storm water system >> and um there going to be retaining walls
as well. Could you uh describe those in more detail, please? >> That's correct. So, we will have retaining walls both to the north and south sides, mainly within the front yard. And again, that's to accomplish the excavation of that knob that's sitting closer to the street than the house. Uh, and then in addition, we'll
have a tiered retaining wall around the the rear to support uh the patio area. >> Uh, so all all in all, our total cut is 2,922 cubic yards. Is that correct? >> That is correct. A total fill is 1,182
cubic yards. Is that correct? >> Yes, that's correct. >> So that leaves us a net export of 1,740 cubic yards. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um and you have uh reviewed the report of uh
Mr. Aelina dated as of December 16th. >> Yes, I have. >> Correct. >> And uh let's just go through it. But there's nothing in here that you cannot address. Is that fair to say you agree with all his comments? >> I I think there were two open items. Everything else I think was satisfactory. Um the one item in regard
there was questions regard to the size of the drainage system. Uh I did investigate that question and uh Mr. Aelina is correct. We haven't taken into account the full amount of collected uh runoff area. So we do anticipate to be increasing either the size of those pits
or the number of pits uh which shouldn't be an issue in the backyard here. The other open question I believe is uh the possibility of a guide rail or a guard rail along this retaining wall on the southerntherly side. I continue to hold that the property to the south is actually higher. This is a
retaining wall that as you back out of the driveway will rise from the driveway, not not drop from the driveway. So there's no ability to fall off. You would back simply into the wall. So I I don't believe that's necessary there, but Paul can clarify if he needs to. >> All right. Uh just export. Where will
that go? So we did provide a map in the submission of how the soil would get out to Route 17 to some to be determined location. The reality is that other of these lots are being developed. In fact
uh 5.03 which is just to the northwest um we have an application waiting to be deemed complete uh at the moment and that calls for fill more fill than is export on this site. So the reality is and the developer is the same for both. This soil is just going to go to that
lot is the reality. >> So not not a lot of truck traffic involved offsite. >> It will just be right in this new development. That's correct. >> Thank you. Any further questions? >> Thank you councelor. >> Any questions from planning board
members? So I my only question you mentioned that uh there's a developer uh this developer is actually working on another property. Um
is how do these all integrate? I guess do do we need to take a holistic view of that entire area or are we limited to just looking at this application? Uh, you know, we're putting in retaining
walls. We're creating different levels on the property. Is that creating problems for the adjoining lots that may or may not be addressed because they're not being represented here or they're
not part of the same develop uh developer or development. >> Yeah. >> So I don't know if that is within our purview uh or do we have to look at the boundaries of this property and opine on that?
I believe it's opining on this lot alone. Uh but that said, if you could just uh tell us about um whether this is going to create any impact on the adjacent lots in terms of uh soil movement. Sure. Uh right. So this
development as mentioned stands on its own as far as our proposal. We're not proposing any movement onto any of the adjoining properties. Um, in fact, I'm also working on an application for the 101 directly to the north for a different developer. Uh, and it's going
to be very similar in nature where we have retaining walls along the sides of the front because we need to cut that knob down. We'll have retaining walls in the rear in order to support a walkout basement. Um, so really mirror in essence what we have going on as part of this proposal. And we have no we have no
ability to predict other than the second lot that that we have with soil application about to be filed. We don't know the timing on anything else how long it's going to take to build other homes. So we could be out swinging in the breeze for quite some time. Uh the code says you go one
lot at a time. That's what we're doing. Uh, you know, if we didn't put the soil on the adjacent on on the neighboring lot and subdivision, we'd have to take it off. We'd have to bring more soil in. It would just it would What we're doing
now, we think is is an efficiency. >> Councilman, is the concern runoff? Is that what I'm sort of hearing? That >> Sorry, Councilman. Is the concern runoff? >> It's runoff. It's uh aesthetics. It's, you know, there's
uh I think runoff and aesthetics are two of the things that, you know, I'm concerned about. >> Aesthetics we can't address. Um, but Paul, uh, is there concern about runoff based upon what they're planning to do? >> No, I I I find the proposed storm water
management design with the correction that Mr. Vendor just mentioned to to be acceptable. Um, regarding Mr. Man's comment uh regarding the the global nature of of the development. So what
I'll say to that is the uh the applicant here Washington States Holdings owns all of these properties with the exception of two. One that he sold at number 83 which is the lot to the north that Mr. Vanderval spoke of
1.01 and then I believe uh lot 1.04 4 is owned by another uh person uh the daughter of the original subdivider of the property. So >> there is uh a continuity to it. So this
developer has uh control of all the other lots um six. So I I don't believe there'll be any uh negative impact with developing one at a time. Uh and then uh as far as
the comment offered relative to the to the guide rail, I I'll agree today, yes, there is uh no need to have a guide rail, but not knowing exactly what's going to happen with 95, just perhaps if there was, you know, some need for a
guide rail in the future that it would be established. But I I agree with Mr. Vanderbolt, right? as it stands today, it's not necessary, but not knowing exactly what's happening with the grade on on 95, um that that's something that, you know, should be considered by by the
applicant, I'm sure he will uh agree to that condition if if it were to be established as a condition. >> So, and Mr. Adelina, I have one comment and then maybe we can go through your report to address any comments that uh counselor has not communicated to this
board. I was a member of the planning board when this original application came up the subdivision. Correct me if I'm wrong. Wer weren't there a number of requirements that was stipulated in the original subdivision with respect to water
runoff? Yes. So those improvements are installed to date. So that's in place. Then this design uh
elaborates on on that design. So that design contemplated in in a preliminary nature what was going to happen on the individual lots which proposed dry well systems um an unspecified size of dry wells on on each lot. So now that we
know what size uh house we're building on these properties, what area is draining to to the systems, you can size those. So the applicant has uh revised his calculations to be in accordance with the original design. So the design
storm used is the 100red-year design storm, which is the same design storm that was used for the overall subdivision improvement. So if you if you drive through this uh site, you'll see basically roadside swailes that are infiltration systems. Um so the majority
of the water will uh infiltrate into into the soil and then in the event that uh the the soils become saturated and we have or we have a crazy type of rain there is an overflow pipe system that was installed to address that potential.
Then there's a a secondary storage system uh on the uh proposed lots 106 and 107 which basically front on Weermis Road. Um in the rear yards of those two properties, there's a uh twin 30-in uh
HDPE pipe system with stone surround. So there's a substantial amount of storage uh to control the runoff from the site. Um so I I believe storm water is is properly addressed both in the original
subdivision design as well as in this particular site lot lot grading plan for uh 89. >> Great. Thank you. So then I think at this point can we go through your report? >> Okay. So this plan has been revised in
accordance with the comments contained in my completeness memo dated October 2nd. Uh so I find it to be substantially complete as presented um addressing the comments contained therein. Um
jumping to page three uh location description of the site. I think everybody knows where this is now. Uh plans show the the one thing uh the applicant is made aware of is uh the tree rules are permitted. Uh they are
proposing to to mitigate uh I'll I'll let Mr. the Vandervok describe that in a minute. Um, in addition to to this approval, uh, should the board grant its approval, there is then a second uh, uh, application or or permit that must
be acquired from the from the zoning officer tree removal permit. So, that's the second step of of the process. Um, uh, item number three, Roman numeral 3, page three, is a description of the applicant's proposal. Um, it's it's a
three two and a half story walkout basement structure. Uh, 8,358 ft if you include the basement, threecar garage, uh, six bedrooms, six and a half baths, which the the neighborhood warrants that kind of uh, construction.
Um, plan also includes uh, some outside improvements, inground swimming pool, retaining walls as described by Mr. Vanderval um uh and a stormwater management system as as described on page four of 11 of my report. So the applicant is before the
board in that he proposes to move more than 400 yards. Uh in this case 2922 is the cut. Um I agree with the uh calculations provided by Mr. Vanderok. So as a major soil permit uh the
applicant is required to post uh certain additional uh deposits and fees. So so that aspect has been taken care of at number four. Number five uh there's a fee uh of 87,000 which is refunded to to the developer once everything is
complete. Uh there is another fee of 73050 uh which is based on 2,922 cubic yards at 25 cents a cubic yard as stated under uh touchup section uh 5657B of the code. uh regarding code section
5657C there is an additional engineering uh uh inspection fee 7% in this case uh 690 uh is required uh we haven't commented on the zoning the plans purport to con
conform to the zoning so a subsequent application needs to be made to the uh zoning officer for his uh approval of the uh plan I don't anticipate any variances being required but that was not part of of of this review. Uh under
lack grading uh plan review comments uh as noted by Mr. Vandervok there are significant number of retaining walls on the on the site uh calculations have been provided to my office. They're they're quite comprehensive. I have not finished my review. I do note that the
uh applicant in the matter is the preparer of the calculations. uh he's a structural engineer by trade. So, you know, have a high high degree of confidence in the accuracy of them, but I would like to discuss a couple things with him. Uh should the board grant the
uh approval. Uh on page 701, stormwater management. Uh generally agree with the concept, just think that it needs to be expanded uh a little bit, which can be done in in one of two ways. either adding more stone or
or an additional tank to the system which uh that's calculation that Mr. Vanderval will provide. Uh now I'll hand off to Mr. Vanderval on the tree preservation and landscaping. If you could uh review with the board uh the tree removal and the proposal to replant
the site. >> Yeah, absolutely. Uh probably should have mentioned before in my direct testimony, but uh the ordinance has a tree replacement specifications as far as depending on the caliper size tree that's being removed, there's a certain replacement value. We had
provided that table on the first sheet here. Uh in the end, we are removing uh 17 trees in total. Uh and then based on that replacement schedule, we have a requirement to have 34 replacement trees. Uh so we provided on the sheet
one uh a total of nine Oklahoma red buds. This would be spaced along the frontage within the shade tree easement. Uh and then also we have an additional one coming up the driveway. Uh two more off to the side over here. So those are more substantial uh shade trees along
the street. I think it will definitely bring a great look uh to the street, especially if we mirror this on the other lots, which isn't the intent, at least on the three lots that I'm working on currently. And then the rest is infill of um slender silhouette sweet gums. These are
while they're going to have the necessary planting specification to meet the ordinance, they can be grown a lot closer together than some other trees. So this allows us uh to stack a large number along the property lines uh to create a border between the neighboring
lots and thereby providing the 34 necessary. So, I I would I would agree with that testimony offered by uh M Mr. Vanderborg. The only thing I would note is um the original subdivision approval
uh depicted trees within that uh same shade tree easement. Um those were specified as sugar maples, I believe, or red maples. Um so, >> we can change it to match if >> Yeah. Um, it's really a a choice for the
applicant. Uh, to me, they're they're probably equivalent types of trees as long as they're on the approved list of of trees. But just that overall, the there is a specified number of trees that are to be planted as shade trees within the subdivision that this applicant and the future applications
will uh be required to to adhere to that standard. Um, moving on to uh item D, height of the building. So they are below the permitted uh maximum height. Um but that involves the degrading of the property. It's based on the average
ground elevation around the home once it once it's constructed. So just recommend uh to make sure that the the house is is built to the proper elevation that a uh roof ridge uh certification be made during the ser during the construction
so that you can nip it in the bud if if there's you know the possibility of being greater than uh the permitted height. Um building sewer connection just need to confirm that the slope shown on the plan is in conformance with the the plumbing sub code. Uh the plans
or the memorandum prepared by Mr. Vandervok states that no standby emergency generator is is proposed? >> Not at this time. >> Okay. But if it were to be proposed, there is a section of the code that the applicant needs to uh adhere to to those standards.
Uh there is a request uh for a waiver to show the topo topographic mapping of all surrounding lands within 100 ft of the perimeter property. Uh, personally I don't see the need for that. We we have that information already as as part of
the the overall subdivision. Um, so I would recommend that the board grant that uh waiver. Um, then beyond that uh there are development fees uh for affordable housing that need to be uh posted at at a later date. That
calculation is made by the tax assessor. Um there are applications you you would need the police department's uh approval for the route of travel which if it's across the street as Mr. Vanderborg indicated then obviously that's not such a big deal. Construction official for
building permit uh tax assessor will do that feed and then uh my office for revised plan and then uh as I mentioned but did not include on that listing the tree permit uh from the from the zoning officer. Uh with that that concludes my
report. Mr. >> Thank you, Mr. Adelita. Council, do you accept all of uh Mr. Ael's recommendations in this report? >> Yes. Uh subject to the one issue on the uh guide rail which is open for discussion. >> Great.
>> Correct. Nothing else. >> Let me just ask Paul about the trees. for the nine Oklahoma red bud. Is that uh you're saying that is okay to plant that or should they be planting the one that the subdivision required? >> Well, to me they're they're equivalent.
Um it it's really just whether you're going to have a mix and match or going to have a uniform planting. Um, but as I said, since the applicant has control of the majority of of the lots along Garmin Place, um, and I don't know if he's
discussed that in in his dealings or sale of the two other lots or or not. Um, but that that's a detail I believe that we can we can work out. >> Does the applicant have a preference that >> I don't think we do. >> I we don't have a preference. So, it's
it's something we'll just sort out and make sure we're consistent. Okay. Any uh questions, comments from my fellow board members? Um the is the electric above ground? >> No, underground underground utilities in the neighborhood.
>> Okay, perfect. And then just um you mentioned that the property, this property itself is going to be a net exporter. >> Correct. >> Uh and although It was discussed they're
presenting routes to move it uh offsite. Uh in reality, it's probably just going to be moved over to the adjoining property to here lot 503. As Mr. Vandervok indicated, my office is currently reviewing the revised
submittal for for lot 503 which is number 76 Gorger Place. So this is the property 89. So moving it up to here. So does it um I know only from the
development going on next to me uh there's testing of the import of Phil. Does this need to be tested or >> I would say probably not based on the fact that uh the original excavation
that was done uh to cut in the road to install all the utilities. there was a uh significant export 6 or 7,000 yards from memory which this applicant did in
fact test that um in order for him to uh legally dispose of it for other people to accept it. Um it was I have the results it was fine. So, but that was based on those soils at these locations, you know, where the road is and where
the utilities are. You know, is it anticipated to be any different in in the balance of the site? I I don't think so. But I'll I'll you know, if the board feels that it is necessary, I mean, it's
it's the applicant's it's in the applicant's best interest to to know that he's working with clean material. Perhaps it makes sense for the applicant to offer some uh testimony if if he would like to comment on what what we're
talking about. He he is here. >> And then just continuing with that question uh question about the fill. Um, does it present the problem importing it to the other site and it potentially
being there uh, you know, for back lack of a better term that it, you know, is it going to be a pile of dirt there without uh, you know, is there silt? Is there controls to control
it on site uh until they kick off uh the development uh of that particular lot? So the answer to that would be yes uh as stated in my report. So the overall subdivision approval contemplated the
development of the individual lots. So, so they have a a current soil erosion and sediment control plan certification from the from the Bergen County Soil Conservation District. So if they were to stockpile uh any materials on 503 there would be uh the proper erosion
controls in place uh hay bales heavy duty silt fence um you know it was my experience during construction that we we didn't have a a problem that uh the erosion controls were well maintained um
site was uh stabilized uh via hydro seating um got pretty good results Um, so I I don't see that as a as an issue. And in fact, uh, lot 503, uh, I received the plans a week ago or so, two
weeks maybe. So they do anticipate moving right into that, uh, you know, lot. Okay. So, >> okay. Thank you. >> But Mr. Aelina to make it clear we've never required other applicants to do soil testing
of extraction of dirt if there I know in cases where there's been like an existing home in this case there was wood right so the the the the the
risk of having contamination as soil do your view is it high Like I say, I would say given the results of the earlier investigation which indicated that everything was clear. I I I don't see it as a uh
>> highress >> likelihood. No, I do not. >> If there was a reason, if there was some potential dumping in the past, that would be another story. But there's no reason we know of >> especially at Paul's testimony that you want to test this.
>> Okay. So we do we have to stipulate in the resolution that we're not requiring testing? >> No. No. Just the opposite. If we required it, I put it in the resolution. But but we it's not it's never required
unless it's in a resolution. >> But don't we require it if we import soil to a site? >> This application is export. >> Yes. So theoretically you would be talking about when that second
application comes in for for lot 503. Uh >> but if if it truly is coming from 102 lot 89 then uh as I said based on the earlier test results I I would not anticipate uh
any contamination. >> But I mean to be clear I'm not talking about the export. uh you can export as much as you want I assume within the approval of the soil moving but there is another lot in town that is going to be
a net importer of that fill and I believe that >> we have to I I believe the town requires testing of the import of fill. So the question is are we going to wave that
>> council >> let me >> the applicant would he be willing to test the soil >> this is valaris applicant's principal just raise your right hand >> to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth so I'll be gone >> say my name is Sharif Alar I'm the u operating uh manager partner for the for this for the subdivision. So during the initial phase phase one of
the construction where we put the road, we put all the utilities and all the electric and and water. Uh we did export five 6,000 cubic yard of soil outside and we did a very significant testing for the soil and we
give it to Mr. ly and review and was very very clean and also like you mentioned chairman the we all know the history of this property was a single family home was a very small single family home and the rest of the 10 acre was just a wooded area never developed
was never used anything the soil is is is sandy soil that's very good quality structural and and environmental and we don't have not found any issues with all the testing we did and uh we don't antic expect anything and if it's a
requirement by the board we'll do it. It just it's not a significant cost but it's not a I agree with Mr. Selina it's really not we don't expect anything we did forot how many test but we did a huge amount of testing as required when we exported
the soil and the soil is exactly the same >> okay >> it's required by the board >> okay thank you fellow board members thoughts on the uh on the topic you think it's required that they do
soil testing >> I I don't believe Mr. Chairman, based on Mr. Aelina's testimony. >> I agree, too. >> I'm moving it across the street. I think literally, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah, I think you're agree. >> Mr. Murphy, you agreed. No soil tested required.
>> Okay, >> council. I think u we're good on that requirement. >> Good. Thank you. That concludes my presentation. >> Great. Thank you. Any further comments before I open up to public portion?
>> No. Do I have a motion to open the public comments? >> So move. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Anyone in the audience would like to address this planning board on this application? >> Anyone in the audience? Anyone on video?
>> Yes, we have someone on video. >> Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, can you hear me? >> Yep. Yep. Please state your name. >> My name is Nicholas Farfell. It's nice to meet you all. I'm sorry I couldn't be present tonight. Uh my whole family has the flu, so I figured I'd spare you all
of the uh sickness for the holidays. >> Appreciate that. >> Can you please spell your last name? It's uh F A R F A L L A. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Good evening everyone. Um I'm the
homeowner of uh block 11 uh lot 9. So I'm the uh the property directly behind the 503. I'm uh a little farther northwest of um the lot that
we're speaking about tonight. Um, I'm coming to speak with you all about my uh issues I might have with potential land erosion that could potentially happen. Um about 25 years ago, there was a
development of 503 and the prior owner of my home left me all of the uh erosion problems that were caused by it because um the grading from the house that is proposed right now down to me and to
Vanburg. Um all of our soil is very high in clay which uh Mr. Straelina might be able to tell you is uh not very good for water. Um there was about 3 years from the summer of 2000 to the I believe it
was resolved sometime in 2003 where a consistent storm water erosion was occurring between my property uh 720 and 734. Uh to this day I still see some issues you know on the land caused by it. Um
and in fact I have uh piece of paper here from Mr. Eelino your your office um it says that there was severe erosion storm water runoff um that the hay bale silk barriers off these things the uh well none of
these things were able to help. It took uh years trying to get it to fix. Um, even with the development that's been occurring so far, even without it being any major land developments, uh,
December 5th in the afternoon, a 80 foot tree snapped. It uh, unrooted itself because of the development that's been going up there and it landed in the 503 lot. >> I've got to stop there. Sure. Because of a development, you know, there's no
proofs to that. I mean, if you're going to make a statement, make a statement. Don't make accusations, please. >> I'm not trying to make accusations. This is my first council meeting. I'm just speaking. So, we'll call it training wheels because I'll be speaking with you again probably for the 503 when that occurs. Um, my problem is that you've
already shown that with minor development, a 200-year-old tree that was perfectly healthy has unrooted itself. Um, I'm already having water run off without any development yet. My backyard anytime it rains is
>> uh complete puddle. the 30in PVE to road that separates my property with 734 does not take in the water very well as uh stated by Mr. Aelino. um with these prior issues already on record 25 years
ago. Um with the issues that are already starting to occur with the December 5th, 2024 tree, um I think that the council should heavily consider that this could cause a great deal of erosion. Um even with the
retaining walls, it it's going to potentially cause problems for 734, 720. Um, >> I really don't know what we could do. Um, Mr. Vandervort, your 17 tree uh,
removal. You're down one already. But, um, I want to thank you guys all for your time and I just wanted to bring this information because this is a corner. I know you guys deal with a lot of um permits, proposals
on a daily basis, but this little corner of our town, I'm I'm here every day. Um I'd uh I really respect uh Mr. Alman's questions. Thank you very much and uh I'd like just what I spoke about today
to be in the council's mind. >> Well, thank you m very much for your comment. What I would like to do is counselor, Mr. Vanderval, would you like to address um some of his comments? >> Yeah, happy to do so. I think just a quick clarifying question if you don't
mind. >> Sure. >> You mentioned you're on 101 11:01 lot 9, which is behind lot five. >> Uh so between these papers, between the old zones, um the lot numbers have
changed a lot. Um I'm 11:01 9. But so you're behind a house that's already exists and is not part of this subdivision. Oh, >> so then I misunderstood the 503. So I'm sorry about that. But that is the that is the lot, the adjacent lot to the one
we're speaking about tonight that had this erosion. >> Um it's in the same grade. It's in the same culvert where that water is supposed to um come down. here. I mean, we're we're two lot the subject application is actually two lots
of lot five that he's speaking about which he's behind. So, um he is within the 200 ft. You can see we can clip that back corner, but he's not downhill of this property. Uh as to the comment about the tree, we don't know if it was healthy. We don't even know what lot it
was on when it fell. So, I placing blame on the development that's going on, I think is a little bit farfetched unless there's some expert testimony about that. As far as stabilization, um certainly the retaining walls, we talked about the extensive structural calculations that were done in that
regard um to stabilize the slope there. >> Well, more importantly, we need to meet all these soil erosion uh drainage measures that the state has required that are being monitored here locally. Correct. >> That's correct. We're not speaking any
waiverss or deviations from this. >> Well, thank you very much, gentlemen. I'm not a professional in this in this regard. I'm just a neighbor, a concerned neighbor. >> Oh, well, thank you for voicing your uh your comments this evening. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Anyone else would like to address, please? Please take your name. went down. >> Good evening, Brian. Good evening, Peter. Good evening, George. Mark Mason,
uh 723 BM. My uh lot actually looks across at Mr. Farfall across the avenue. So, I am further down the ridge. >> I pay attention to what's going on, where his lot is concerned for obvious
reasons, besides the fact that we're friends. um that uh he should move into a home that incurred as much uh damage to the swimming pool area, the top of his lot. Uh that would be the
westernmost corner, that which is closest to the board of development area. My heart goes out to him. So I I should think that um Mr. Alman's comment about taking a more holistic view is a point well taken particularly in light
of the fact that a developer might be developing or working on not just one, not just two, not just three lots, but six at a time. Thank you for your concern on behalf of my friend Nicholas obviously, but uh on behalf of another
concerned neighbor simply because we uh like to retain the character of this little community that we call home. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Council, would you like to address any comments?
>> Yes. Just again, we've crossed our tees, dotted our eyes. Uh we went through uh great rigors to produce the plans that are here before you tonight. Mhm. >> They cover all the bases in terms of the requirements under the code under state
law under uh your engineers review and they all pass muster. These are the standards we must use. That's the law. We're following the law. We would ask your for your approval here tonight. Thank you. >> Thank you, counselor. Do I have a motion to close the public
comments? >> So moved. >> Second. All in favor? I >> I >> Okay, moving on. Do I have a motion to approve this application? >> I'll make a motion to approve. Chairman,
>> do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Okay, roll call. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Murphy, >> yes. >> Mr. Pledo, >> yes. >> Mr. Tul, >> yes.
>> Mr. Toro. >> Yes. >> Councilman Alman. >> Uh so I'm going to vote yes, but I just uh like it noted that uh I am voting yes based on the requirement that we look at
this as a standalone application and that our opinion on the holistic view of the development uh can't be an influence. I'm voting yes.
>> Mayor Kari, >> yes. >> Chairman, >> yes. Application is approved. >> Thank you very much. I hope you all have a great holiday. Uh, happy new year. >> Same year. >> Okay. On to the next order of business.
There is no old business. Going on to the minutes. Any comments on the November 19th, 2025 minutes comments? >> None. Okay. Do I have a motion to approve
November 19, 2025 minutes? Motion. Second. Roll call. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Murphy, >> yes. >> Mr. Pledo, >> yes. >> Mr. Tul, >> yes. >> Mr. Fuo,
>> yes. >> Councilman Alman, >> yes. >> Chairman, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Next, you please close the door. Thank you. >> Uh,
November 19th, 2025, full session. Any comment on the minutes? None. Do I have a motion to approve? >> Motion. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Carol. >> Yes. >> Mr. Murphy.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Pledo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tulle. >> Yes. >> Mr. Toro. >> Yes. >> Council Nolman. >> Yes. >> Chairman Spino. >> Yes. >> Okay. Next agenda item before we go into
close session. Any board member have any comments, thoughts, opinions that they would like to express to the planning board? >> Yes, chairman. Uh I have one. Um it's with sadness that I announced that uh member Brian Murphy's term is up this
year and he has asked to not be reappointed to the board. Uh so Brian, I know we'll all miss you. Uh but wish you the best. Uh but your term is still good through the end of the year. So if you come to your senses and change your mind, I will happily reappoint you. Uh
but with that being said, if any planning board member knows of anyone who would like to be on the board, uh please put them in touch with me or if you want to be a conduit between me and them, uh I will be looking for someone to replace Brian Murphy, which will not
be an easy task. But uh Ryan, we appreciate all the uh wisdom, experience you brought to the position and uh your letter to me was very heartwarming and I appreciate it. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There should be some chairs parallel to talk to uh
now use can't >> lions >> understand I actually bought his wine recently and we did a >> signing great great great >> you know Brian what 16 years >> 16 yeah
>> both you and I came on board >> 16 Brian and I came on the board the same same meeting I get a passion. >> Was it 16 years ago? >> I don't get any ideas, Lenny. >> Well, I think at this time probably get away from my wife.
>> Hang out with the guys watching. >> This is me. We're not in close. >> Let's see what the minutes say next meeting. But u Ryan, yeah, we're going to definitely miss you and going to miss
your uh all your input over the years, but it's all I have your cell number. So yes, >> thank you for your service. >> Yes, thank you. No, I appreciate it. It was it was a uh it was quite an honor this last 16 years. And to your point,
Lenny, it's it's been a a huge learning experience and a an excellent experience and feel like we've done a lot of good >> for the town. So, um I feel like I'm leaving on on good terms and leaving everything in good hands with your
leadership. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Great. Uh we're going to go into close session and we do not anticipate that uh there won't be an an open session will not be sir. >> Do we have a motion to enter into close
session? >> I'll second. All >> in favor I raise lunch.