oh no is okay we are on the air bring the uh meeting of the township of long hill planning board to order uh this is the March 12th meeting we're opening the meeting at 7 36 could I please have the announcements absolutely number one call to order and statement of compliance adequate notice of this meeting hearing has been provided by posting a copy of the public meeting or hearing dates on the municipal bulletin board and website by sending a copy to the echo Sentinel newspaper and by filing a copy with a municipal clerk number two standard board procedures any meeting or hearing conducted by the board is a quasi judicial proceeding any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board May legally consider and in a decision and to Quorum appropriate to a Judicial meeting or hearing must be maintained at all times number three meeting cut off announcement is made that as a matter of procedure it is the intention of the planning board not to continue any matter past 10:30 p.m. at any regular or special meeting or hearing of the board unless a motion is passed by the members then present to extend the meeting or hearing to a later specified cut off time number four electronic devices all in attendance are asked to mute cell phones or any electronic devices as to not interrupt the proceeding number five College of Allegiance flag the United States ofer stand okay roll call Deputy Mayor Lavender is currently absent committee man ray present Miss Dill's excuse this evening Mr H's excuse this evening Mr melanowski here Mr opala here Mr Sandow here Vice chairman Jones is excuse this evening chairman Richardson here chairman we have a quum thank you okay the first item on the agenda this evening is some of the meeting minutes uh I turn your attention to the January 23rd 2024 are there any comments Corrections suggested edits Etc Mr when are we talking about janary January this was the reorganization meeting on January 23rd uh Section 8 the election of a chairman uh refers to uh chairman Richardson as Vice chairman so Vice just needs to come out in that paragraph twice great thank you so much Mr sand yes please I am disturbed by paragraph 10 which says the board took the following actions by unanimous votes of the members present it was not unanimous I voted negative on one of these which I did note in item number two so I it is noted but the word unanimous is what jumps out at you in the top paragraph I will remove the word unanimous thank you for bringing it to my attention Okay any additional items I'll give you a second hearing no further changes do I have a motion to accept so moved as amended as amended as amended second second thank you all in favor I I okay I'll turn your attention to the February 27th meeting minutes give you a second to read through I'm giving a little extra time sorry for the delay in getting these the materials out to everyone at a late date we need to get these out a little bit sooner anybody have any noted changes amendments Etc okay please get a motion to adopt Noe so move to motion second second all in favor I and please note the one abstention I'm sorry you have one abstention oh tonight yes y okay uh the next item on the agenda uh under resolutions will be the colon um application number 23-10 P uh if we could please have any questions or comments on that resolution assuming you've had a chance to read through that if you Haven and de you have the list of who's eligible to vote on the adoption of this resolution I do thank you it open I think I'm the only one who who can't I wasn't only BR is only one here that's not eligible okay and it was unanimous so everyone else is is qualified to vote correct Deb on page seven the second paragraph the 27th day of March I think it should be February oh I knew there was one I missed oh wait on this day the 27th shouldn't it match the paragraph above oh yeah it's the that should be the hearing date on that page right right Chris wait what which paragraph are youring it's it should be now therefore be it resolved on the 27th that would be today's February no that would be the proceeding paragraph whereas the board took action on this application at its meeting on February 27 2024 so it should be today's date yeah the paragraph now there should now therefore be it resolved on this what's say the the 11th of March the 12th yeah whatever today's date is yes sorry okay got it on page seven paragraph 26 requires period at the end7 2 um where page what section on page seven Mr sand are you looking at the cologne 26 we're we're not doing the ptera one are you looking at portera because we're doing cologne first I'm sorry I'm looking at ptera isn't that what's on the agenda no well we we switched it up we we're keeping everybody guessing tonight so we're doing colog oh well this one I haven't seen yet because I didn't was not on any distribution for it so you'll have to give me a minute to catch up for that must me time's up go it's like Jeopardy wasn't there a condition um brought up by our engineer that said monuments would be set at the new mot lines I could have sworn I included something like that yeah I don't see it in here but I I do recall that remember that term Monument um representations oh um condition two two number two ran numeral to the applicant shall comply with the comments set forth in board engineer vo's memorandum I think that would Encompass that why don't we add though including but not limited to and have that specific condition since it's a concern of the boards right so we can get that if the board so desires that was agreed to would that be more appropriate in in a section four or where are you talking about making that Amendment uh in uh condition two two sub two referencing uh compliance with everything in the engineers memo gotcha uh if it was in his memo then including but not limited to uh and I'm sorry that was Monuments set along the new property line mhm okay and we'll we'll use the exact language from the uh Engineers memo I am very confused on page three with whereas number one the paragraph starts Mr zelli what makes it confusing is that that paragraph starts out by talking a about a shed which spans the lot line between Lots 21 and 22 and then all of a sudden I find myself in the 1994 approval of the subdivision of old lot six all within the same paragraph and I'm wondering if there isn't a more conscise and clear way of indicating that those are two separate issues I mean after all we take a separate paragraph to announce that Mr Hollows was duly sworn why can't we make these major points of our approval separate paragraphs I can't find it is there anything substantively wrong I get what you're saying Mr Sandow about separating them but is there anything inacurate we're taking nine pages to write up this resolution there is no intent here to be brief and concise so as long as we're oh Mr sand I'm sorry to interject um if I if I could explain you know my thought process in drafting that paragraph it was to kind of keep all of Mr zel's representations organized into a single paragraph that being said I don't necessarily see a reason why we couldn't revise it to put that as a separate paragraph but just so you understand where I was coming from in the idea that it is extremely confusing and 30 years from now when somebody dredges out this resolution for the next action on these Lots they may be confused also as to why this reference to the 19 94 approval is the second part of a paragraph that has nothing to do with the 1994 approval I think if I may I think it helps with the whereas Clauses on page two setting forth the fact that there's adjacent lots and a prior approval dealing with lot 602 and how that's being modified in this approval because it has a restriction on further subdivisions which is what comes into play along with the lot line adjustment um so I think that helps but again that said we can break up uh yes the subject paragraph into multiple paragraphs if we whatever the boards desire so long as it remains accurate does anybody feel strongly to not break that up I think that's fine for clarification sake it's probably best to break it up I mean the condition number one is clear yep so it would be a sub statements in their uh Roman num rules three and four that would constitute the wrong paragraph I think that's the direction you guys want to go in Split those two right Mr sand we're splitting items two or three and four in that paragraph out I think that I stand by my comment it's confusing to me now and it will be even more confusing to Future Generations so if the board wishes to break that out into two paragraphs uh uh we can we can do so at points three and four and we could just simply say Mr zi represented that and we have one and two and then we could say Mr zelli represented further represented that and uh sub three and four will become number sub one and two into paragraph two those were keeping score and then uh we can have pick up with paragraph three and Chris can get uh the board can still vote obviously the the the uh language or what I just said will be reflected in something that'll come to the board tomorrow morning perfect I see that we're talking about the same issue at number 17 on page six perhaps there's a way of merging these across the four pages so that everything that has to do with the 1994 approval is in one place I'm sorry if that seems to be too orderly for us to cope with is that that's number 17 you're referring to on page six yes number 17 talks about the conditions of no further subdivision yeah not only that the wording on page three now that I read it says that that it was Mr Z's understanding about the intent of the prohibition in the 1994 approval that almost sounds like testimony to me it was a representation which you made during the hearing right say again it would be technically if it was the attorney it would have been a representation not not testimony Mr sand yeah but but certainly the board didn't take his understanding to be a fact right the board made its own separate an independent determination irrespective of what Mr zelli thought uh so uh well Mr zeli was kind enough to pass out copies of the 1994 resolution which were new business to the board at the time and he took it upon himself to interpret the 1994 findings now I'm not in a position to argue with his interpretation it just sounded like he was adding something to the resolution that wasn't there and again you're going to have to excuse me because this is the first time I'm reading this because I didn't get a copy of it prior to the meeting I think what I would do is say in that second paragraph that were making now instead of Mr zly represented which makes it sound a little too formal if you will uh he stated uh that the following and his understanding he stated it and it's worth whatever it's worth if anything but the board made its own independent determination it's it's his opinion on his interpretation is the uh applicants Council allowed to offer opinions in the record can certainly State what he understands or or or how he interprets something he's in fact advocating I guess for a certain interpretation and asking that it be changed uh but uh again like anything the board will make its own determination uh regardless of what the attorney how how the attorney interpreted on his client's behalf uh the prior resolution while while everyone's still digesting if I could just hop in real quick I I did a word search on my on my phone through the document and there's the first comment that was brought was related to monumentation um there's two references to it page four paragraph number six and page two the third whereas Clause towards the end there's uh references to the monumentation being you know one of the potential improvements that's not to say it shouldn't also be included as a condition but I'm just pointing out that it is referenced in other portions of the document where were they again uh page six paragraph 4 and page two the third wear as clause the um for the I'm sorry page four paragraph 6 it says uh under sub statement two there are no improvements proposed to either subject lot except for meets and Bounds monuments for purposes of effectuating the proposed subdivision okay and then on page two the thirdware as Clause um I'll just pop into the middle of that paragraph and within application the applicants do not propose any improvements regrading or other physical alteration to either subject lot save for the installation of monumentation for purposes of effectuating the proposed subdivision and that that statement itself I know uh was suggested by Mr Sandow at the meeting um he wanted it to be very clear that they weren't proposing any improvements with the with the application again sa for the the monument signs if they can really be classified as improvements okay are we in a position that we actually I had one quick question on section three here on page three is that the correct spelling is it is it really BN in and do or just one n i I looked on the tax records it is bit two ends okay yes yeah okay I I had the same thought Mr Richardson great nice nice to get the applicants names right hearing no further comments is there a motion to adopt this resolution as amended can we see the amendments in writing can we put this off to the next meeting it seems to me that there's uh there's enough floating around up in the air that we deserve to see a final V version of it before we vote on it I mean it's not as if this is standing in the way of any substantial action by the applicant uh I suppose not but I think the uh modifications were pretty straightforward I mean were there is there any confusion as to what we're modifying I don't like to vote for things that I can't read in writing especially considering the fact that I'm just seeing this now and I'm not sure I have look seen everything that needs to be commented on is there anybody else that's opposed to pushing this to the next meeting okay hearing that there's no one opposed to that let's get the modified resolution out before our next meeting thank you very much you're welcome in time for us to read it before we show up at the meeting exactly thank you okay uh moving right along to the resolution for Mr Michael portera application number 23-11 P uh I ask our board uh attorney to provide just a brief Preamble as to uh this particular resolution you don't mind certainly no thank you Mr chairman and and just for the record and Confirmation Deb I have the board members who are qualified to vote on this application this resolution as chairman who are here this evening as chairman Richardson committee man ray board member malinoski board member opaka and uh that's it that is it yeah those four board members correct uh so uh the board will recall that this matter Was Heard uh at a prior two prior meetings ago uh and and uh the application was granted with conditions of approval there's since been some discussion with regard to conditions particularly two conditions uh one was a condition with respect to dates and days and hours of operation another was a condition with respect to signage uh and uh Chris has watched the videotape as I understand it at least twice in full slowed down going through everything with time stamps and the like um what I'd like to do is address those two conditions first starting with the second uh because uh I think that might be less controversial of an issue uh and the issue was uh a limitation if any having been either stipulated to by the applicant or imposed by the board on the signage and and as far as the signage is concerned uh couple of things one the board will recall that the home office uh ordinance actually has a provision that limits any signage uh including the S size of the signage uh and it does so by reference to the permitted sign ordinance uh so so uh second uh in Chris's and my review of the record and my recollection of the record having been here that evening uh and my notes contemporaneously taken there was not a stipulation uh other than uh there was no intention by the applicant at the time to have a sign um but there was no imposition stipulation by the applicant or imposition by the board in its decision as to the size of the signage which would lead me to conclude that the board's decision was that any signage would have to comply with the ordinance uh what I am recommending uh be done with the resolution that was distributed is that we add a condition that uh we did not yet add um it is not to limit the size of the signage beyond that which it is Limited in the ordinance but to specifically reflect uh the fact that this any signage must comply with the ordinance and to spell out the ordinance provision and to spell out specifically in the condition of approval those limitations on the size of the signage as it appears in the ordinance so when anybody's looking at this tomorrow or a year or 10 years or a 100 years from now uh they see in the condition of approval it this limitation specifically spelled out they don't have to go to the ordinance or wonder what the ordinance was at the time so the proposed provision or condition excuse me would be an additional condition I would locate it at number seven on page8 and renumber the others and I would say that the applicant shall comply with all conditions of section 124.0 regarding home offices open pen with the exception uh to the extent relief is afforded from the off street parking requirement in section 124 point. ND which is the one the board determined he did not fully comply with and therefore granted him relief there from and then it would pick up including and these are the conditions that uh uh excuse me these are the provisions that he must comply with including but not limited to the requirement set forth in section 24.9 c prohibiting any signage except a single and this is the exact language from the ordinance except a single ground sign or wall sign indicating a permitted home office which shall not exceed 4 feet in height or 4 Square fet in area that way as I stated anybody looking at it knows exactly ly what the limitations are from the ordinance without having to look in the ordinance uh as to the signage uh that is something that the applicant must comply with notwithstanding the fact that the the board could have uh uh address signage further in in its decision so my only question there is what if the ordinance changes in the future and the signage is suddenly 5 ft or five or 10 or whatever is the forever uh constrained to uh the for feet under that language because I'd rather I mean I don't have a problem with linking it to the ordinance but I do have an issue I think with um using that as a limitation you know it could be the ordinance as as you know ianded in the future whatever but but but the inverse could be true as well so it could get smaller so yeah as as I'm as I was saying that that I was thinking of the that that that suddenly became a paron to me but uh I mean even so you know I guess I I'm sorry I was gonna say is it typical that when the signage would go up let's say it's delayed two years that you would do a retrospective or would be if you don't take the action at the time you have to abide by the rules at the time that you're actually doing the action seems more reasonable so it actually is it's essentially a grandfathering right but to the point I think that it actually makes more sense to what Brendon was saying that you do it to whatever the ordinance is at the time rather than memorializing it now s just for consistency purposes yeah that that that makes more sense and I think it's failer right right as well yeah I mean it could go positive it could go negative but at the time that's kind of what the rule if there's a reason down the line that the rule changed and all of a sudden you allow something that was okay in the past but isn't presently that could open up a present that you don't want either I mean what's typical now we're asking your opinion in regards to really what we're talking about is kind of grandfathering of a of a particular provision if an ordinance changes down the road how is that supported by this resol solution or not really if there's a if there's a material change in an ordinance uh after the time of approval uh the if the applicant if it's a change to the benefit of the applicant uh then then they can be in essence grandfathered and if it's to the detriment of the applicant they would have to come back for further relief so the um but the board does have the Authority uh to have conditions including conditions uh uh that relate to uh uh deviations from the ordinance uh and uh so you do have the authority to impose a condition with specific restrictions even if they may change in the future you know the ordinance may change in the future okay so it it's um what was the board's decision at the time this is the hearing is closed um you are the board members here this evening who who voted in favor of the application what did you mean when you did it that's the point of memorializing by resolution the decision I I mean I think the way I thought of it at least was it was it was it was to comply with the ordinance and right now it was 4x4 but but but that was but that was it and and and so um I mean I actually like your your idea of whatever it is at the time that it goes It goes up that's we can we can put including but not limited to the requirements set forth in section 124.0 c uh regarding signage uh regarding any signage comma as uh as amended period and leave the specifics out and then it requires someone to look at the ordinance which is what someone should do anyway right I like that okay if that's the pleasure of the or could you just reference the ordinance as of the date of this resolution well the date will be in there so the date already right but then it would be if the ordinance changes it's still the what's in effect now no I'm being told this effect at the time what the signage is is installed is what the board wish because we weren't talking about that we had a definitive opinion as to sign as to the size correct we we didn't say that we felt that 4 feet was better we said that in the last meeting when uh deputy mayor was talking about the 8 by 24 sign that was a we were saying that per the ordinance we that was well was acceptable the way that the the conversation went was we kept referring to the ordinance not the fact that we thought 4 feet was the right answer so it should in my opin it should be as of the time that the applicant goes to erect the sign it should be per whatever the ordinance is at that point in time yeah you you said uh Steve you said as as amended I think what you should say is as may be amended in the future yeah uh and and I concur with my f fine counsel to the left yes I think that's an excellent idea to not suggest that it's going to be amended because it obviously has been amended in the past right and no doubt one day will be amended in the future everything seems to be I'll can give you the date that it will be amended in the future that yes to give you the date when it will be amended in the future I can even tell you what it's going to say okay good all right so I want to make a request for some lottery numbers later we'll talk separately also on page eight it should be the date should be updated to March 12th uh it still says January 23rd so it should be the same as the other resolution since we updated that to today's date as well well now there yeah yeah that that's yeah we moving it but yeah that now therefore that date should be uh March 12th right March 12th well uh presumably March 12th we haven't got yet right now as we're drafting the last one's going to be April something by the way that's why we leave it blank usually I don't know why this one wasn't left blank so Steve I think you handled the first issue okay I think we're we're good with the signning so then thank you for help moving me along is there just one other thing sure so uh page two paragraph 4 says no interior exterior improvements are proposed I think it's based on the signage issue we just would say currently proposed yeah and I'm sorry where exactly is that on p uh halfway in the middle of paragraph four the one two 3 four five the sixth line in the middle it says no interior or exterior improvements are proposed are proposed at this time right or currently proposed currently proposed fine that's fine just to tie it all back to this conversation that's fine yep I distinctly remember at the last meeting that that sentence was at issue and I think originally it said no improvements are proposed at this time but the applicant May install a sign at some point in the future or something in that effect and that's what yeah right so so kind of putting it right right TW it all currently proposed okay right currently proposed is currently proposed so that's there we go um as far as the other issue uh the the my understanding of what the board intended when the board ultimately granted this approval with conditions clearly the applicant had mentioned uh a present intention of limiting the practice to three evenings and a weekend morning particularly Saturday morning uh and in fact those original dates were Wednesday Thursday Friday 5: to 8 p.m. and Saturday 900 a.m. to 1: p.m. making it clear it was a for lack of better term part-time uh uh adventure and that I remember distinctly specific testimony regarding if it became more than that I would go to I would get a place to do it so to speak paraphrasing uh the the uh and uh while there was some back and forth with the board members as to whether to impose specific dates and times were uh and when there was at the decision rendering time the record reflected that the applicant requested flexibility and one of the board members requested maybe we limit it to a certain number of patients a day or uh a clients a day uh and at some point there was a maximum of five on any of the days uh uh which was agreed to by the board it was my understanding it at least that the board operated with the understanding and expectation that the practice would take place at home uh on no more than three evenings and Saturday mornings and by mornings I mean till 1 pm. uh is what was represented so while right now we have a provision that says the applicant shall be limited to seeing no more than five patients onsite per day and uh no site operation shall be permitted on Sunday uh to make it more accurate my uh proposed revision to that condition is as follows the applicant shall be limited to seeing patients on three evenings with a last appointment no later than 8:00 p.m. and Saturday mornings with a last appointment no later than 10 1 pm with no more than five patients on site each day and no site operations permitted on Sundays that captures the what I understood to be the intent of the applicant and the intent of the board and by flexibility I understood that to mean don't pin me in on which particular nights it may be a Monday night it may be a Tuesday night it may be a Wednesday Wednesday night a Thursday night but it's not going to be 5 days a week uh or six days a week uh fulltime or even five patients a day six days a week 30 patients uh I didn't understand the board to make that determination or or to determine that it was with that leeway so that's um how I propose to revise that condition number five five to make it more accurately reflect the board's intention when it rendered its decision as always the board members who voted in the majority tell us if we got it right or wrong and if wrong let's get it right any comments from those who voted for this application could you read five again is this the correct copy I have I don't know if this is the updated copy no it's not updated so uh that's that's I'm adding some of the language right now so I'll go through it again the applicant shall be limited to seeing patients on three um I should say week nights if you could just refr just make sure we're clear what section and Page oh I'm sorry this is condition number five so it's on page eight in the condition section uh number five uh the applicant shall be limited to seeing patients on three week nights with a last appointment no later than 8:00 p.m. uh ending no later than 8:00 p.m. and Saturday mornings with last with a last appointment ending no later than 10 p.m. excuse me 1 p.m. uh with no more than five patients on site each day and no on-site operation shall be permitted on Sundays this would conceivably uh uh lead to the potential of as many as 20 patients spread out over three week nights and Saturday mornings uh uh yet there would be nothing on Sundays uh and it wouldn't be beyond that uh which I think would be not only consistent with the testimony of the applicant but again as I understood the intention of the board when it granted this home office use with conditions so two questions one is uh is there should there be something that says how that is um who oversees to make sure that there are no more than those number of it like a reference to somewhere else in the code that we have for the town that's or is that just assumed that's compliance and the board didn't uh I don't if I recall correctly uh I did not impose any specific reporting uh with respect to number of visits no uh and that's not and I'm not saying that there should be additional I'm saying what is what it would be right now right so what is in the code to say that uh what What mechanisms does the town have to make sure that the what is inside the resolution is adhered to right that that's that's uh in general uh uh uh when people see physical changes structures Etc not located where it's supposed to be what have you uh you know that happens often in a sort of a passive way when inspectors come to look at one thing they see something else often in my experience um or there's neighbors you know who sure uh bring it to the attention of the administration or the staff um here it's something internal it's much more difficult um it would probably be neighbors okay uh uh indicating uh we're seeing cars that appear to be patients coming outside of the designated time frames or you know 10 a day or six days a week or what have you uh and then that would prompt I can see that happening in Long Hill well I it compliance is one of the most difficult things in any municipality especially when you're talking something internal if it were you know I've dealt dealt with restaurant things where there's all kinds of sophisticated reporting and looking at the slips and this that and the other uh and computerized data and what have you um uh here I don't know what more the board could have come up with Beyond uh uh neighbors reporting and just interg I I just think that we'll see the impact very quickly on this particular neighborhood if there's non-compliance with these things things and that's fair it's just I was wondering said Dennis's point if someone picks this up in 10 years M right and those neighbors have moved out that that it's previously spoken and there's other neighbors coming in and they're looking at it there you lose that history of it so is there a way to codify that that was my my and I understand that if there's not a an active way that it's more of a passive portion where it's assume that it will be done um the other question is on the previous page page oh and I'm sorry but I have to say the board had the opportunity I raised it and the board chose not to require a deed restriction which would have these conditions in the record so that would have provided any purchasers with formal notice uh uh uh uh prior to purchasing absolutely no that you that we don't have either that would be um and then just one other thing on page seven uh paragraph 25 about halfway through it says Additionally the board finds that the proposal will provide uh sufficient space in appropriate location for a commercial use should it be home office use rather than commercial use commercial use is an overstatement in my opinion right because there's no mention of it earlier and that would tie out to the paragraph on page um two in section four the very start of it where you reference home office yeah in fact I would suggest uh that the board were acceptable or amendable uh an appropriate location for a permitted home office y uh use but yes thank you and a period at the end of paragraph 26 back another question about the hours the way you had it worded you said three week nights no later than 8:00 and what time does a week night start um just and I'm sorry my my apologies Mr chairman because as part of the predicate I should have explained the process um but the process is the clear the clearing the hearing was closed a couple months ago actually I think almost but uh uh uh um but this is just for the board to make a determination or or frankly to get a resolution that accurately memorializes this decision it rendered back in I guess it was late January 24th I guess um so my concern is if a week night starts at 6:00 and you're saying you can go to 6:00 to 8 that's basically two appointments we're contradicting ourselves we can say 5:00 p.m. uh we you know you can we could determine the bracket determine the bracket right that's why I think it shouldn't be week night it should have week day week it's called weekday well weekday I mean he's not going to be there at 10:00 in the morning no later that well but if you're also saying no later than 10 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 8 8m that's if a week night starts at 600 no than 8m on a week day that kind of implies the entire the entirety of the 24hour span no no I think I think I think if I understood correctly the initial was Wednesday Thursday Friday 5: to 8 and Saturday 9 to 1 uh and then there was a request to not to be for the board to be flexible on that which I understood to mean you know not necessarily uh pick the nights you know you know let allow there to be that kind of flexibility so um so the hours that as we understood in testimony were between the hours of 5: in the afternoon and 8:00 p.m. and and 9 to1 I mean that's what was proferred and it was proferred as a in essence a part-time yes uh you know after regular business hours and on the Saturday mornings and if I if it grew uh I'd go get my own place and I'm paraphrasing I don't mean to be to suggest that was exactly how it was said it was but but I'm paraphrasing you just just in the spirit of of being um somewhat uh uh understanding right of you know we went to originally Monday Wednesday Friday then it became CH your nights as long as it's three right I mean I think my recollection it maybe it may be flawed right is that there would there was also some um flexibility in the time so you know maybe if we gave a 4:00 to wait I could give some flexibility there again I I we want to get what the board meant when the board did it right I you tell me what the board meant yeah I mean that was kind of in my mind I agree with Brendon because what we're really trying to Define as the weak day and the week day wasn't to include the entire day right right that was the intent testimony so I'm fine with uh 4 P.M or being a little bit looser on that so it's a 4our window s okay so we have it now the applicant shall be limited to seeing patients on three uh weekday evenings with a uh between the sorry just to explain we're not trying to be obstinate but we've closed testimony if we allow you to testify we'll have to reopen testimony and I don't know if you really want to do that so we we need to wrestle with this I appreciate app and and the decision was already rendered if if you don't like the ultimate decision you could appeal they they they it was a grant of the approval of the home office use the the but we can't the board can't take any further questions or comment interrupting my inter from anybody your interpretation it's the board's decision it's not your interpretation it's the board's decision that we have to memorialize in the resolution so let me put it a little clearer the chairman is telling you know okay the and there's a legal reason for that too but most people generally don't care about the legal reason but they understand what yes and no means the the um the applicant shall be limited to seeing patients on three week nights with a starting time of no earlier than 400 p.m. and a finishing time or last appointment uh uh ending at no later than 8:00 p.m. and Saturday mornings with a starting time uh of no earlier than 900 a.m. and an ending time of no later than 100 p.m. with no more than five patients on site uh on each day and no on-site operations shall be permitted on Sundays is that an accurate reflection of what the board intended when it granted the approval with conditions any any objections to that characterization okay okay so we have that change we have the additional a condition I read once or twice about the signage that we modified to keep it uh uh just straight to the ordinance as may be amended in the future uh and uh we'll get whatever date it's adopted on we'll put that date in that uh paragraph on page eight we got a period at the end of paragraph 26 so uh just one other sure thing that we talked about currently proposed on page two I'm sorry go ahead one other thing that we talked about was licensing that they had that the acupunctur is had to be licensed MH um should that also be one of the stipulations that as I recall it was discussed but we I we tried to get you to give us conditions at the time and you gave us some and you didn't give us others call the applicant produced his license my recollection from looking at the tape more times than I care to count was that um Mr ptera represented that his credentials would be available online for inspection and for that reason at least my understanding was that's why the board didn't bring that up as a possible condition okay because it was already there that's right that's right y yep okay good any other comments on this draft I mean clearly we need to redraft this before we vote I mean do we it's up to the board members I mean I think we've made more significant adjustments than the the previous application and there is some wording I mean as long as we're conceptually okay with oh yeah I mean I these amends yeah I am what's up Dennis yeah there was a discussion about 15 minutes ago about no interior or exterior improvements I'm scanning and I can't find that can someone point me to it the paragraph inside Dennis uh page two he's got four section four right in the middle the sixth line it's halfway through that uh sixth line okay that's in the finding section yeah but that's not in part the decision does not speak to that issue the it's not it's not a condition of approval uh because it was the application as proposed uh the board did not say he can't make any improvements in his home that's a good so that's why it's not a condition of approval yeah I'm I'm I am content that it is not mentioned later oh okay as part of the findings uh this is a because clearly there will be unrelated improvements right m I mean if he needs a new hot water heater he's got to get permits for that and it's got nothing to do with this so so we don't want to restrict him in any way right corre well if if the board's comfortable and in moving forward with the Amendments as noted and I mean I am I mean I could I could vote on this but anybody else voice any opposition to voting on the changes set of been made to this resolution with the understanding that they'll be made voting tonight no yeah that's that's fine okay Tony are you good okay okay great and then we do need a formally a motion a second the roll call vote of the four board members for adoption okay is there a motion motion as so moved second Mr mowy second yes committee Ray committee Ray yes m m Mr malanowski yes sorry I put a mint in my mouth before we caught you by surprise Mr ala yes and chairman Richardson yes motion carries we uh hopefully as soon as tomorrow uh this will be uh good so I can sign exactly back over to Deborah and perhaps also the other one as well but then that one can be slated for uh next next meeting adoption they will be they will be revised expeditiously let say the okay great uh so uh the next item just any old new business I just really had uh more of an announcement to the committee members at our next meeting uh I would like the committee team leaders to uh just come back with a scope set of priorities and some milestones for their teams and scope for some of the Committees is more important I'm thinking of site plan approval we talked uh uh about that uh or the site plan review uh type committee as far as putting some guidance in regards to how that will be carried out now that we're revamping that um and so if you could get back uh Again by the next uh meeting with again scope priorities and Milestones that would be most helpful as we uh get into the the new year um um is there any other old or new business anybody wants to bring in before us if not is there a motion to adjourn so moved second all in favor I I for