okay okay in accordance with Section Five of the open public meetings act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 be advis that a notice of this meeting is made by posting on the bulletin board town hall and mailing to the officially designated newspapers a list of the meeting dates annually indicating that this meeting would take place at the Town Hall at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday March 6th 2024 Cory here Michael Cohen Here Deborah Nas yes Frank sagami here suan here shy VJ here Michael Zion here Vice chair guest on Halbert here chair Beth Soul here thank you our first item tonight is approval of the minutes from January 3rd 2024 nice quick meeting and did anybody have any comments or edits on the the meeting or I were there any changes that we need to know of no okay um I move to approve do the second second thanks all in favor you oppose any abstains we're all here I'm sorry you can obain um meeting minutes of January 3rd 2024 approved we have one memorialization um which we received uh via um Ed buac it's on application 23 six that was offer Holdings LLC for flight plan approval um I so nobody here would have provideed I don't unless anybody provided comments following the sort of the second round we received uh earlier this after the second round I think you just had one question was answer the only uh correction that was made the first time but for some time for some reason when they did the second go around uh page two line 40 they left Jason Tu Bell's name and should be changed to Benjamin Benjamin one yeah that was Miss the the second time okay thank you reflecting the name change um can you comment give us the list of those who voted yes who can vote on this just because like our membership has changed uh who voted who voted Corey Allison Michael Deborah sujas sheni David Gaston B okay great of those do anybody uh move to approve the memorialization so moved second second you were Theon was the motion thank you Cory biller yes Michael Cohen yes debor Nevis yes s thean yes swe VJ yes Gaston hord yes be yes thank you and we have one order of business uh tonight for discussion and it's on ordinance 2662 d24 um proposing to repeal ordinance 26423 um Graham is here to present and discuss uh and provide comments on the the memo that was distributed to us I think before you jump in um Mr Warner wanted to make some comments thank you chair just wanted to uh feedb right yeah the I'll Stand Back the just provide a little legal context not withstanding the fact that the board maybe even the members of the public are familiar but this is a master plan consistency review under Section 64 and 26a of the municipal land use law all zoning ordinances are to be referred by the governing body after first read to the planning board uh for master plan consistency review prior to a second read and potential adoption of the the ordinance by the governing body uh and we have 35 days to make that report on the referral from the governing body the uh it's not a public hearing uh the planning board is not obliged to hold but would amount to a public hearing uh uh and does not require uh that there be a public comment or question uh however uh that does not deprive the public of an opportunity to speak to concerns raised by the proposed ordinance since when the matter is returned to the governing body for second read and a public hearing that of course is the opportunity for members of the public uh to weigh in ask questions and make public comment at that time uh relative to the ordinance any ordinance including this ordinance uh the um the scope and authority of the board is simply to focus on whether or not uh the ordinance is and it's the wonderful d double negative not inconsistent with the master plan and that does have meaning uh because uh it is not the standard is not if the ordinance is consistent with the master plan um but not inconsistent which has been defined by the Supreme Court to mean substantially consistent uh and so inconsistencies are permitted uh provided that the ordinance does not substantially or materially undermine or distort the basic provisions and objectives of the master plan that is the legal standard pursuant of the Supreme Court and the manalpan realy case uh 140 NJ 366 1995 Supreme Court decision um the uh and our consistency determinations as a planning board are given great weight by the courts as is pretty much everything we do as a land use board G given a presumption of validity and great weight by the courts so I just wanted to give that legal context um this particular ordinance just one other item if I may uh delay a little further Graham and Madam chair thank you um it's my practice uh to uh have a resolution uh the local Redevelopment law and housing law for redevelopment plan ordinances and the municipal land use law for all other zoning ordinances which both of which require the referral by to to the planning board by the governing body before adoption or potential adoption um is silent as to by what means or mechanisms the board reports back to the governing body just simply says report back to the governing body um it could be a letter could be a report from the planner um it's my practice uh to do in essence a template resolution customized but please do not read it to the fact that I always put not inconsistent uh that's not indicative or influencing any any any determination it's just a template I utilize uh and that's why that was distributed to the board members uh the word not can be taken out and it could become inconsistent just as easily or whatever the board ultimately determines uh can be modified to the resolution it's really just to give the board an opportunity if it so desires to not only make a determination that night but to actually go the step of adopting the resolution memorializing that determination and then and then that resolution would constitute a formal report back to the governing body so with all that legally is out of the way now we get to hear the important stuff from our professional planner with the chair's permission sure uh so good evening everybody uh gr PTO uh serving here as board planner this evening um so I had I did prepare um for the benefit of the board for this evening's consideration uh consistency review memo uh dated uh Friday March 1st 2024 um the report is fairly lengthy in content um so I just wanted to confirm Madam chair if you'd like me to read through the report or how you'd like me to handle um or summarize some of the general okay and then we can address any questions so um so we did provide a lot of um initial context you know uh discussion of our our prior work uh on this project um and then consideration of the introduced uh repealing ordinance um and its relationship to the master plan um I have a extensive section that details summary of the site constraints and issues that have been identified since um you know effectuation of the site um and you know chiefly among those is uh environmental concerns then also relocation of DPW facilities and operations in order to maintain efficient and consistent level of service to the township residents um during the process um in specifically relating to the master plan this is uh subsection two on page uh three of my report um starts to get into greater detail about the relationship specifically to the master plan um as cited uh you know in the master plan envisions that uh use of the DPW site and surrounding M plan as part of a large Redevelopment or reuse scheme um and as presented in the um Redevelopment plan that was just to do a portion of the site just 1.8 1.78 Acres of the 5.55 Acres of the site in total um so here in in this eort in this vein um you know the um opportunity to look comprehensively at the site again is what the master plan envisions to look at that site comprehensively in a larger vein um similarly the milber Downtown Vision plan um does discuss the site and opportunities to develop the site in its entirety um and then specifically uh with respect to objectives of the master plan um identified uh that would be um you know not inconsistent regarding some of the site contamination we highlighted a couple of different objectives objective 6.04 for to protect water resources and enforcing sustainable design practices um the scy contamination that we've identified and that the environmental remediation uh analysis has yielded does identify some um site contamination and protection of Water Resources within the township is an objective of the master plan um objective 6.07 to support and adopt policies to protect and improve quality of surface and groundwater the local and Regional water supply bioavailability of land air quality and the Township's open and natural resources um those are the the high L objectives that we felt um could be Advanced uh by effectuation of this ordinance uh before you for consideration um and then we did have some additional discussion that um does reference the Township's resolution um regarding this project um you know and chief among those concerns that um you know we've highlighted this is in um subsection three on page four of the report we have three kind of key bullet points um kind of takeaways uh from the the resolution that I think think are important for consideration here as it relates to the property the DPW site is contaminated requires extensive remediation prior construction of which the cost of timeline for safe residential use of the site is presently unknown to the township um the township must first consolidate DPW operations displaced by the development but the site for relocation of existing BPW facilities remains unknown as well as Associated cost extent and scope of required permitting improvements and cost to the township and screening of the development site requires um elimination of the Township Fire and Police direct egress to Main Street um presently there is a direct means of egress but effectuation of the development would uh eliminate that eress as they would become two separate entity sites um so those were the the high level um items that were cited by the township committee and their um review of the project uh and reconsideration um so just a couple of quick high level bullet points obviously there's a lot of content here happy to further address um any questions that the board has regarding our our summary review findings thanks um did anybody have any specific questions or items that jumped out that wanted any clarification from Graham or needed any further discussion just questions please so the question would be are we are we saying that you know the development is not consistent with the master plan or are we just saying you know we're agreeing to repeat the repeal of the previous ordinance maybe we can both I guess a legal of plan where legal ends and planning begins is sometimes a gray area but but but but the standard is that first of all uh uh this is a repeal of the Redevelopment plan ordinance that is being considered this is it's not the policy of it that's being considered by this planning board it is simply whether it is not inconsistent substantially consistent with the master plan uh for the the project or the ordinance the or the ordinance repealing the project right is what is being considered so that that is the ordinance before this board for master plan consistency right now so so uh if I understand correctly from the memo and and it would be appropriate for me to ask if I may Madam chair as a professional planner licensed in the state of New Jersey and as the planner for this planning board and I believe this municipality as a whole uh do you have an opinion with respect to whether or not this repeal ordinance is or or is not inconsistent with the master sure so as set forth in section five of The Advisory consistency review memo um we do I do note that based on the review that's outlined in the preceding Pages um that I do opine and recommend that the proposed ordinance is not inconsistent with the Township's master plan um you know the board can consider this report and making its determination by the ordinances is not inconsistent with Township master plan so and that ordinance again being the ordinance repal repal the the r the fact that the ordinance creating the Redevelopment plan plan in the first place was found to be not inconsistent does not require uh the repeal of the ordinance to be found to be inconsistent they are not mutually you know incl or you know they they are mutually exclusive uh so and I think your opinion with respect to the Redevelopment plan initially uh that ordinance was that the uh uh that the that ordinance was not inconsistent with the master plan just like your opinion is with respect to the repeal being not inconsistent with the master plan for the reason stated is I correct that's correct I hope I didn't confuse it more than it already was so but it's the repeal that's been considered solely for consistency purposes um so on page two in the bottom paragraph you talk about the Township's commissioning of a feasibility study to relocate the DPW um and I see that you quoted that the report is for informational purposes is not intended to provide an opinion as to whether the project will be approved by the required agencies but my question was what was their assessment about the um ability the actual ability to relocate the DPW because that's not addressed in what you sh so I think so there's there's kind of two components to that one is that um there there is some initial scope that is presented within the 2019 report on feasibility um it does indicate that you know the the DPW facil they could be effectuated on portions of that site however since then the state of New Jersey DP has adopted new Inland flood regulations which may further encumber or change or modify what was reported in 2019 so that creates another layer of the unknown um that we're not fully aware that is still valid from 2019 that makes sense so this is more an issue of the new regulations that have been passed rather than what's in this 2019 I think it's kind of a combination of both you know it's there are some issues that were in 2019 but things to the degree to which those have been modified or changed or you know the validity of those has has been changed that's that's kind of also what's unknown at this point and hasn't been fully evaluated fully evaluated by townships or by the state or by the but I think by the township specifically as they would be pursuing a development of that site so okay there has not been an engineering analysis or you know site considerations or you know looking at the the new flood regulations or the delineation of the flood Hazard area on the site and you know what facilities could be located within which portions of the site for example can you clarify have both flood Hazard Maps as well as flood Hazard building regulations so I don't I I I don't want to say if the maps have changed or not because that I'm not aware of but the regulations have Chang yes and with the um the um discussion about using the entire site for re Redevelopment um has there been any inclusion of police access to Old Short Hills Road because you know on the one hand it didn't seem to be an issue when it this was originally done and then suddenly this is being put into you know your assessment in summary so I'm I'm just and there's discussion about developing the whole site so what would what was considered to be you know impacting the police access to old H road if the entire site were to be developed if so I think I just want to clarify your question so you're asking um if the entire site were to be developed would the access issue still be a concern I think is your question yes because it it wasn't discussed as a concern when we originally reviewed the the other ordinance so I'm just wondering about how it's become an issue now and you know how with developing the entire site so I think I think it's important one is a full site framework did not yet contemplate layout or configuration of features or placement of structures or those types of things on the site so I don't think that that was anticipated as a concern during the master plan process which and the Downtown Vision plan process which were much more conceptual in nature and didn't really opine on the specifics um I can tell you that as part of the um site process and you know starting to effectuate the parameters of the N9 Main Street project um the physical separation of the of the DPW facility from the N from the potential N Main Street project um was going to limit that a that eress point and create a physical barrier between those two um you know I think there was some hope that there could be a little bit more of a free flow connectivity but um that was not something that be able to effectuate and is the police access in the master plan identified as a an item in the master plan um I can't speak to that specifically because I don't believe I'm not sure I don't believe so so I just wanted to that was a consideration of the T comme just by reference it being not inconsistent Master sounds like the police access is not necessarily something that we should be considering because it's not in the master that would be correct actually correct yes other questions comments yeah so I think one thing that also needs to be considered is that you back when this was declared an area in need of Redevelopment um I think that was in what 2008 uh and then the ordinance uh that we're repealing now was contingent on that being an area in need of Redevelopment but in March 13 of 2023 in the alanga versus Township of West Orange case it made it more clear what required for an area of need of Redevelopment and what that stipulated is that a municipality must determine that um the current site that's being designated is detrimental to the safety Health morals or welfare of the community by that standard this never should have gotten declared an area in need of Redevelopment to begin with and the first ordinance that we're appealing now probably shouldn't have passed obviously this is newer case law than what was available then but given that you know I I think this clearly should not be inherited the Redevelopment do you have any opinions on that well I think I'll just regarding that case that that's specific so Redevelopment has two components one is to study and identify and declare an area to be in need of Redevelopment um that case law is specific to that portion this is subsequent to that is the adoption and effectuation of a Redevelopment plan so this is so I don't want to say it's not entirely related but there kind of a different phase of the process that that case laws is uh related to that's Mr War if you have any well it I'm familiar with the manga case it's actually twoa cases has been very busy in West uh the and successful uh with respect to Redevelopment app cases but uh and objecting to them uh one was the library one was the answer screen I think that almost Library recent one but um but while I would concur with our board member and Council memb analysis of that case and how it enlightened later what the criteria meant uh and may well have led to a different determination at that time of of whether or not this was an area in need of Redevelopment so I think it's very relevant in that sense I do have to say that it might seem like an artificial uh a vacuum that we're putting ourselves in now but we we we in essence have to look at um this particular ordinance at this time and less with what may or may not have happened or should have should should have happened with respect to the area in need of Redevelopment designation and the ultimate ordinance being adopted or not and more does the repeal of that ordinance uh uh is it at least substantially consistent with our master plan we kind of have to assume we had the ordinance that we had and this is a repeal of it and what goals and objectives from the master plan are fostered by the repeal I don't that helps but uh it's somewhat of an artificial but necessary legal uh scope that we put ourselves in sure so then if the if the master plan and the Depon Vision plan had suggested that the entirety of the site be redeveloped you know in one cohesive block then I would say repealing this is actually more consistent with that element of master plan I think that's what that's yeah that that yeah irrespective of the area in need of Redevelopment correctness after the fact or not of that determination I believe well more importantly Graham a planner uh uh believes that that's relevant to to the objectives yes it's it's a little unique because we're repealing an ordinance um so we're looking at the you tell me G but I think it my is literally by repealing looking okay what are the uh goals and objectives of the master plan that are fostered not by what we usually do by enacting an ordinance but by eliminating it so we have the the double negative not inconsistent then we have sort of we're looking at it what other benefits of eliminating an an ordinance as opposed to adopting one so this is your not your garden variety of Master Plan consistency review but it's not it's not unique it's Unique and it's happening elsewhere I think the strongest argument would be the contamination of the site that they you found the contamination of the site does the master plan contemplate you know not building on hazardous voice I think uh reflected uh yeah s contamination bioavailability and preservation three that I wrote down maybe us yeah it's objective 6.04 which is to protect water resources and enforce sustainable design practices and objective 6.07 support and adopt policies to Pro protect and improve the quality of surface and groundwater local and Regional water supply the bioavailability of land air quality and the Township's open spaces and naturing not this hazardous site potentially affect our water supply is that kind of this right that is what yeah the preceding paragraph we discussed the psych contamination then reference these objectives that would be Rel to and just if I may chair just to be clear um you're you're citing from our master plan reexamination which was also an update an update uh uh in 2018 so it was not just a reexamination but also the adoption of a master plan in and of itself which has bearing in the case law of Reliance not only on a re-examination report but an actual master plan so I want to make that clear which has had subsequent elements added to it which were still evaluating this against the most current oh exactly incl including that's a housing element PA share exactly thank you gr the housing element and fair share plan uh that was added to the master plan as an element of the master plan uh as far as I can tell I didn't see any reference to the N Main Street project being required to be done via Redevelopment correct so if this is to revoke the uh Redevelopment portion of it would that would that also be consistent with that um I mean I guess I guess the question is um you know it's as far as consistency which is what the board's purview is here this evening you know I think that the repeal of the ordinance um you know is specific to this plan but I think that um the board could could consider this not inconsistent you know as long as it's recommended that they continue to pursue and accommodate you know the goals that are identified so in the housing and what I'm saying is that housing element fair share plan didn't specifically that Redevelopment was required and therefore revoking the Redevelopment shouldn't be inconsistent right if Redevelopment plan was not required by the housing theoretically there are other means to which this could be effectuated that's correct yeah um I mean it's it's certainly you know we're receiving you know in 2024 less than one year after we've adopted an ordinance you know the pullback or the repeal of the ordinance I went back rewatched the meeting you know thanks to YouTube um looked at the the voting reread your Memo from before um I I think what you're writing is compelling I think yes I think it the hinge is this sort of new Environmental information that maybe we didn't have at the time that now we understand could compromise the site um relocation of the DPW which you mention now was also is something that's mentioned in the master plan and is something that you know is consistent so is that substantially inconsistent that's I guess for us to determine um and also locating higher density development as appropriate in our downtown as opposed to adjacent to a mall or somewhere else in the outskirts that was something that was intentionally included in the the master plan re exam um so I'm definitely struggling personally with you know my interpretation of what is not not inconsistent mean and what is substantially consistent and if I could add to the relocation of the DPW which is oind and and discussed in the master plan um the one area that the master plan is silent is the how that is to be effectuated the relocation of the DPW um and you know one comment that I had in this process is that it's kind of a peacemeal approach you know it's looking to relocate half or you know a third of the DPW operations which is that is that what the master plan intended is really kind of the question that I was grappling with and I think that's something that the board should consider in this process um you know is decoupling you know onethird of the DPW from the rest of the facility is that what the master plan intended or was it looking to relocate the DPW in its entirety from the site to AV valid for redevelopment so um if it's the latter then that is certainly then this ordinance is certainly more consistent in that it avails uh a full relocation as one unit from site comments or questions for okay do we want to take is does somebody want to make a motion on ordinance 26224 so if so moved you would move I think to declare it either not inconsistent incent might prer I'll make that motion I I move that we declare uh this ordinance to be not inconsistent with the master plan okay and do we have to make the discussion decision on the memorialization now we do that following well assuming there's a second uh for that motion it would be consistent with the template without change if you well so so we can go the extra step of uh uh actually including in the motion uh the adoption of the resolution as drafted uh I would only add that I think it would be uh appropriate if that is ultimately seconded and and the determination of the board to add uh Graham's memo as an attachment to the resolution we do attach a standard uh uh the ordinance um but I think it helps in the explanation to have it as one document um so that would be my I don't mean to change uh the councilman's uh uh uh motion but if I did I'll amend the say we should we should pass the resolution as written with the addition of Mr ped's document yes ask a question you said something GM to what Frank was asking about are making recommendations back to the governing body correct and that could be around them continuing to look for another available site is that what I think and Mr Warner please chime in you know I think that the board has the discretion to uh you know attach or fix additional recommendations regarding the pending ordinance to the governing body to communicate those things so I think that is something that certainly the board should the rec consensus on those things could you know provide that commentary up along with the the findings this evening yeah and and that is consistent with the law and the standard under the mlul section and and the local Redevelopment Housing law sections which are essentially Mir images I think one gives us 45 days instead of 35 that's the so I just want to we have a motion on the floor but then we have a question about possibly a recommendation well that's up to the movement whether the movement wishes to amend or not it's but we we don't have a second yet so we're not voting yet right okay well we yeah we're waitting I well she's seconding the original motion i' say he made a motion that she was asking a question to clarify if we could include some information in our response but before we had that discussion now you've seconded the motion so we can't have that discussion which which is okay if that that was your intention okay one of the things I want to clarify is our role today purely to essentially determine if it's inconsistent or or further advice on because Deborah's questions seem like further advis on what we can do with um towards the master plan as opposed to the ordinance today which were determining it's consistent or inconsistent the master plan you you can make further recommendations relative to the consistency issue in essence and I I'll uh but it obviously that would have to be the motion second did and and a majority of the planning voting to do that and I just want to make sure I'm on the record saying it is still possible even though you are a member of the planning board to attend the public meeting at the TC and make that recommendation you know just like any number of the public go but in terms of um characterizing as the board I think we should have done that before the motion was made apologies um okay so you made a motion and so Jaa has seconded it on uh not inconsistent with Master right and adopting the resolution with the memo grams memo March one attached there to I'm sorry no thank you Cory biller yes Michael Cohen yes Deborah Nevis yes Frank seami yes sujaan yes Sweeny BJ yes Michael Zion yes Gaston Halbert yes b s uh I'm I'm I'm very torn on this but I will vote Yes Graham's memo was compelling so I'm glad that will be attached as part of the decision thank you okay ordinance 2662 24 will be sent and returned to the TC on um there's one other item I just wanted to mention just so folks on the planning board know um the township committee will be um working towards uh revisiting our zoning uh at large um and has asked if we could have uh representation from the planning board as part of the the zoning plan and I know thank you Michael for kind of reaching out um and and soliciting input um I believe we have two members from our board who will be serving on that committee it's David Krogan guest David Cogan guest so thank you both for volunteering I know David is absent um but I guess over the coming months we will hopefully hear periodic updates and and can share those as appropriate okay thank you um I one question okay just a process question I thought back in January we talked about open and maybe maybe I don't remember how it turned out but I thought we talked about providing a zoom option for these meetings we had thanks for bringing that up and you know I don't you know I don't think anything is moved on that so I don't know where I if you have any were you able to research that or I did not no we did raise it um we we did speak about it and talked about sort some complications due to the nature of making public testimony I don't know if you can speak a little bit more to that as well happy to do so the uh um the planning board has certain business including master plan consistency reviews uh that might lend itself to uh Zoom or hype what would effectively be hybrid meetings but uh our quasi judicial component our hearings on Land Development applications like the site plan application we had recently in Woodland and others um is very difficult not only in my opinion uh but for legal reasons uh and it's recognized in in case law it's recognized in the uh regulations and the uh that are part of the eerc protocols for uh uh remote meetings for all public bodies uh because uh and in fact those particular protocols and and administrative New Jersey administrative regulations separate land use boards and their hearings on applications for development from all other public body meetings uh and add additional requirements for them to even be remote in the first place uh let alone they don't really speak to hybrid uh the the problem it's not it's a good problem to have in my opinion because it's a con it's in our state and federal Constitution due process Right of Confrontation Etc um it's difficult for credibility determinations to be made uh and and all the evidence to be seen uh and understood and heard the same way if some of the people are in person and some of the people are remote uh uh it takes a tremendous amount of technological ability uh to be able to see and hear everything everybody the same uh particularly uh when you're also subject not only to the technological limitations that that even a great Township such as ours has um and it's not unlimited uh and perfect always um but everybody who participates remotely has their own uh issues with respect to their own technological abilities their equipment Etc so uh uh in the hierarchy in my opinion um uh uh in-person meetings afford everybody the best opportunity to have equal access uh to the information the testimony The credibility determinations the board estimate all the documents the plans Etc um remote works to a degree uh and has and we all found that out more so uh during the pandemic um hybrid is the most difficult problematic and candidly and it's my job to uh first and foremost protect the board uh and uh and that makes makes the proceedings more vulnerable or to steal from not inconsistent uh less invulner invulnerable sometimes we I don't know often I don't know where I'm going they the the uh so for those reasons I recommend against uh hybrid meetings uh uh particular with respect for the hearing aspects I guess the question is if we were to limit the the zoom participation to the public comment portion of the meetings but that did that reduce some of your concern well no because if talking about the public comment portion of the hearing of the hear yeah what you're doing is you're giving people an opportunity to comment but you're not giving them necessarily the same opportunity to see hear all the evidence Etc so it dilutes the comments now I'm not saying if we did a hybrid uh everything we you know we did would automatically be reversed by a court of law no matter what the determination was because of the process what I'm saying is it um makes it more difficult uh for due process and and and rights of Confrontation to be equally shared by all participating uh and in so doing so makes us a little more vulnerable at least a little more vulnerable so that's why I recommend against um it's unfortunate because we want to make it as uh as available to everybody that you as we can you realiz night we didn't have a controversial agenda tonight but if we did you know then on a you know a stormy night like this that would allow the public to participate more easily instead of you know coming out in the rain but people could watch exactly and same with board members and I will say uh that even pre pandemic uh there was an ml provision which still exists that allows for and I'll show you how far back it electronic equipment uh is a terminology to be utilized by board members if you know in certain circumstances they can't make a meeting which again you know if a board member is remote in an in-person meeting it's my recommend ation may not uh uh decide the case but but board members can be remote uh for a a non uh quasi judicial hearing on an application for development you know other business that planning board does so those are my and we have alteres so if a board member can't make it there sub there's an obvious substitution I was really more concerned about having you know when we have more heated uh applications having more open to the public public yeah and and that that's the uh the dichotomy there and and again it's just a it's a it's advice um we we have the the ability uh legally to do all imp person do all remote or do hybrid and I've given you my hierarchy of recommendations and why um but but it's ultimately up to the board to decide so was said another way I think just to summarize that look it's it's not necessarily that there would be legal liability but especially on contentious applications you're just giving some avenues for somebody to argue that their due process was not um followed or or they were not given full due process or something such as a you know why introduce that element exactly there there generally is always a disgruntled party it's usually the applicant if it's a denial and objectors if it's a grant but there's a you know so uh yeah and certainly I want to make the board uh uh uh as protected impervious as possible well even regardless of the ultimate outcome whether they're successful or not know why deal with te up there a lot it's it's about the procedure the result and the course will tell you it's not it's not about the result that's on the merits you know whether the decision of the board was arbitrary or unreasonable or not is essentially standard but the process is what you want regardless of whether it's a grant or not you want the process to be as perfect as you can make it and minimize the vulnerability so yeah are there any cases that have occurred where you know it they've ruled against the planning board because the hearing was conducted in a hybrid fashion I am not do do you have oh I'm I'm not a aware of one yet where where that was uh at least the sole reason why there was a reversal of a decision or remand of the proceedings um but uh asked in a different way is are you aware of case law where where somebody brought a an action a due process action based on a a hybrid because quite frankly I'm not even concerned about the ultimate outcome the Merit to your point I'd be more conc concerned about the expense time and effort to defend a case just because somebody brought it because we opened up that Avent those types of claims have been made yes those types of claims have been made and often it's it's it's in addition to merits claims and other claims so thank you sure okay thank you um our next meeting is scheduled Wednesday March do we have any completed applications now there's nothing there's no applications currently filed right okay um we will make our determination then within the next few days if we meeting by Friday okay we will notify uh the board as well as the public uh if there's in in the event of cancellation for now hold Wednesday March 20th I move to J we have a second second all in favor 19