[Music] Miss in accordance with Section Five of the open public meeting meetings act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 be advised that a notice of this meeting was 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 pm on Wednesday June 5th 2024 Cory biller here Michael Collen Here Deborah neis here Frank s Mundy here to J Sean VJ here David cosbro here guess on hbert here that's here great our first order of business is the approval of the minutes from April 3rd 2024 I did you receive any comments I did not um I had one question Frank you recall it said that you um called to adjourn and I seconded but I feel like I usually make a motion to adjourn do you have any specific recollection I I think I probably yeah so I think if we could swap I mean it's truly minor but I I noticed that I said all doesn't usually say like can we adjourn okay um so with that change uh I will move to approve the minutes do we have a second second okay all in favor I oppose and assume any who are not in attendance would abstain okay meeting minutes with that one minor change from April 3rd 2024 are approved we have um multiple items of business tonight the first one is bylaws and if I could allow uh you to introduce yourself Council and I'm sorry for not doing that as we opened the meeting no problem um my name is John DeLuca I'm Steve Warner's associate uh Steve and I sat down we walked through these bylaws we looked over some of the comments uh that board members made um you know nothing nothing major or significant so if we want to go through um you know I think maybe the most expeditious way is just go Page by page and I can ask the board if they have any comments on each item and then uh as they arise we we could address those comments that is fine I'm not sure that all the members of the board have it in front of us okay so I would say um maybe we should begin kind of the comment by comment like you going through the comments that you've received sure and then if members have any uh additional comments I you know I think some people may have uh digital versions of it sure um and I will just ask for the record everybody you feel free to pull up the the PDF of the bylaws but please refrain from kind of Googling or or Internet searching while in the context of our meeting or emailing Etc thanks um so yes the bylaws which uh just to back up for context for everybody um we you know recognized at one of our first meetings of the Year Steve you know had mentioned as new Council um you know that we didn't have kind of current active bylaws it's something that each board is um recommended to have by the municipal land news law uh it's not it's not a requirement no it's it's a recommendation right it's it's a strong recommendation I think bylaws the real purpose they serve is when a board doesn't know what the proper procedure is or or what to do or a member of the public or an applicant then they can refer to the bylaws uh which are set forth as rules and regulations um but if there's a minor deviation here or there from a bylaws it's not a capital offense but it is it is a a good road map as to how the board functions great thanks and Stephen had sent us some some samples from other municipalities um you know we gave some feedback saying okay why don't you go ahead and and draft us some for Milburn following pretty much the same template of of recommended um sections and now with that intro it would be great if you want to go through the comments received and then if folks have any others maybe we can do it after sure it's okay I appreciate that I'll go through Gaston's comments first uh his are on the top of my pile so um Gaston had number of comments his first comment was uh related to rule one colon uh 1-3 this is location the office location location of hearings um so you mentioned maybe broadcasting live um and uh just updating that the that applications could be kept at the board office and online you know I I I think that's a great idea it it would probably require a little bit of uh administrative work to set up a live broadcast it is we are so you are broadcasting live so it's just a matter it's just a matter of indicating that okay so we'll we'll amend that accordingly that's that is per that makes perfect sense so it could be something along the lines of uh unless words always determined meetings took place below and then I would say um after one of these sentence just and broadcast live online and then uh at the B office and on the internet on on the BS on the so just if we're gonna say and there might be a you know unless other technical difficulties or something because I I wouldn't want it to be absolute that's right maybe we will endeavor to our best degree right and we went available that's true because we been some boards who have been unable to get the technology to work for whatever reason we wouldn't want that all right so subject to technological availability okay so those are your comments as to the broadcast um then in rule one col 2-1 um you you noted uh he or she and uh proposed a perhaps more inclusive language and uh you know if if that's your if that's your intention just you know thinking through it logically and into the future I think the most the most inclusive language uh you could really include and I'll just read um the portion of the sentence that's relevant this is referring to a candidate receiving the majority of the vote of the regular membership planning board shall be deemed elected to the office for which the vote was taken and Shall Serve for one year until and then rather than he or she you say the candidate is reelected or a successor shall take office yeah and like that I guess that's only one instance of it so wherever we have that are we able to reformulate it to where it does yeah is more inclusive yeah I I can do a search through and and and make sure that we're we're rather rather than pigeon pulling ourselves into one or the other or anything else perfect will make it uh generally General and inclusive and then I think he had one more comment about um where was it highlighted oh this is about eligibility for voting so um so whether so if somebody um let's say an applicant has subsequent hearings and a board member missed one hearing but then comes to the next hearing where a vote ultimately occurs uh as you all probably know that that member has to certify that they reviewed a transcript or watched a video and are are up to date on on the hearing so as a practical matter during the meeting I think it's okay for you to say yes I I swear you could even do it under oath But ultimately there must be a written record of that certification so if if for the for the sake of uh streamlining that process during a meeting you can say yes I I swear I review the transcript I watch the video I'm up to date on the hearings but then at you know shortly thereafter maybe but by the time a resolution is adopted you have to have a certification writing for the sake of the record especially if it's a controversial application where somebody is trying to uh you know attack the legitimacy of the board's approval or denial you want that certification and writing okay that's that's colum 2-4 so right now it states CER certifi certifies in writing um and that language should stay and uh just as a practical matter you know you can do it orally in the moment but then it has to be followed up with a written record so I think those were all Gaston's comments uh if we go over to Dave's comments so special committees uh this is Rule one 2-5 um Dave I believe you mentioned you know maybe uh make he a little bit more democratic rather than the chair appointing the members the board collectively appoints the members that's why I was thinking yeah yeah there's no there's no law or or regulation that prevents that customarily it is the chair um so that really the only comment from Council in that regard but if the board were inclined to um you know make it so that the board votes on the committee um it's the board's prerogative to do so uh my own you know my own two Sense on this is you know the generally committees are by interest or you know obligation necessity and to just streamline that the chair appoints and has a discussion with the board members as to who makes sense makes most sense to sit on a committee um but you know if the bo board is inclined to operate otherwise and have everybody vote on every committee then that that's that's perfectly legal so I guess that that would invite comment from the board what what is your take on that issue safer to do it to have the board vote as a whole because and don't take this the wrong way but if there was some issue where the chair had a minority view that could really SL uh up on that sure yeah what one way do sort of to help EAS Administration so the board doesn't have to take a vote every time is to say By Appointment of the chair unless otherwise yeah so the chair's appointment we yeah okay that way you know you have a simplified process for all the regular kind of normal appointments right most committees are do we have a few volunteers get a few volunte twist to actually volunteer that way sure you have to I think that makes sense so you could add a VTO provision um in the event that a majority of the board uh deems you know the chair's appointment an appropriate void they unless otherwise disapproved by a majority of well I I don't think we should limit it so that the nomination has to come from the chair I think if anyone on the board wants to nominate then they should be able to do so to nominate someone for for a committee usually we volunteer was is typically people want to serve you just raise their hands or or you know send a message it depends if some some we do in person some we announced it but not everybody has been present so we say you know we'll circulate it we'll let everybody know should they want to but um yeah it's fine so so giving including some sort of VTO provision should the should I guess you mentioned something different that doesn't have that's a nomination as opposed to the the one if you don't like who the chair recommends yeah I definitely think there should be a VTO provis okay so we could do a veto provision and is there any other mechanism uh you know you mentioned that most what's most common is board members volunteer for these positions so um you know if there's a lack of volunte I suppose then it would have to be by nomination so beyond the veto provision does anybody on the board find it necessary to add another provision for nominations or anything like that or do you feel there be no provision maybe we should specifically have language there that says committee members are you know able to volunteer their interest okay that way because right now as if you read it it literally says you know appointed by the chair and so even though in practice they ask for volunteers we should enshrine that into the document okay so I think in the preceding sentence before the chair shall appoint I could say uh members of the board May volunteer and then the chair shall appoint and then at the end a veto provision uh you know subject to the uh approval of a majority board members that works this may be getting too complicated or um conspiratorial but what if there's like a block who volunteers who have a particular View and they all volunteer to be on that committee but other board members like how do we handle you know what I mean if there's a sure I mean as committee something gets sent back to the board for the board to vote so I guess if there is a a majority Block in anyway almost regardless that's exactly my thought was report comes back rather than the formation of the committee so yeah it would have to be a board it's a what it's ultimately a board decision just you know we've had numbers of subcommittees on the you know elements of the master plan and decisions on attorneys and whatnot um and professionals it's it's ultimately the board you the committee might make a recommendation but the board can choose to you know agree with it or vote differently I guess yeah and I would those blocks they they do naturally occur I I you there's nothing conspiratorial about that as you mentioned um and if that block happens to be a majority that's that's the majority that's that's how the the board functions so um I wouldn't be terribly too terribly concerned about that I mean I'm sure there are instances where boards get contentious but there's turnover and people have to find a way to to work together ultimately so I'll I'll work on um rewriting that particular provision uh and get that out to to your view also I should have said this at the outset even though the agenda indicates that this is for discussion and adoption there's no requirement that this is adopted tonight um and given you know some of these revisions I would assume the board would want another opportunity to look at yeah so so we'll we can discuss this tonight and we'll get a draft out to you uh probably sometime early next week so that you can review it again in advance next meeting uh you know with a Target on adopting hopefully uh okay so the next um the next uh comment was rule 1 colum 3-6 order of business uh Dave I believe you added public comment yeah I was thinking we'd add a public comment period yeah I think I so no we we've you know Council has no no comment on that I think that that makes sense um uh okay appointment of alternate to serve on case so this kind of happens organically this is Rule Rule one col 4-2 so this rule describes instances where a board member is disqualified or conflicted out of a particular application or matter and then an alternate has to serve in their place um that happens just orally on the record uh there's no need to enshrine it in writing I don't even think it's necessary to explicitly state that somebody was conflicted out on an alternate sa in during the res uh in the resolution that'll be reflected in um the the voting role at the end of the resolution so just simply stating it uh at the beginning of the hearing uh is perfectly fine you know mentioning you know such such board member is conflicted out or disqualified and the alternate member so and so will uh will you know be serving in their place okay I mean my thought on that one really was that when I look at how we function right if someone's out you know that meaning just doesn't show up because they're you know sick or whatever it is or someone gets disqualified it's really ien kind of when you do the when you do the vote you kind of I mean there's never I I don't care you know one way or the other but there's not like it's not that formal where Beth says for David will beting Michael's missing so you know they're there for you know but I it makes no difference to me it's just was just a matter of we function one way and this is kind of changing it okay right whereas we typically don't make the announcement of it or or document it or appoint you know we don't typically say and for the purpose better practice to do it then that's fine too right and like because we don't if we have less than a full board we don't announce yeah kind of don't micromanage the process so is your suggestion like we might just not need this member here so I'm I mean I in reading the provision I don't think any change to this language is really necessary based on everything we've discussed here I think he just kind of do it as you've been doing it and what you described and and how you've been doing it is is perfectly consistent yes yeah consist we I've had that conversation with a few what's the difference between consistent and not inconsistent which I'm sure we'll get to when we discuss the ordinances um okay so moving on to rule 1 4-5 this is rights and privileges um so so no actually an alternate member is legally not permitted to serve as a chair or vice chair it has to be member good enough thanks okay so this was a com so your next comment was on rule 2 colum 1-5 continuances you said let's have a discussion about how the board can uh how we can protect the board uh on continuances where an applicant will not consent Andor it's a large application we need more time so as a as a practical matter first of all I think this is very rare and then secondly um if if there's an applicant who I don't know not hostile but maybe is acting you know as an adversary to the board which is terribly uncommon um and it's a you know you're running out of time to make a decision if the board ultimately der determines we have not heard enough to Grant this application we want to hear more we want to have another another hearing and the applicant will not consent then the board is perfectly within its rights to dis deny the application without prejudice meaning you issue a denial telling the applicant if you want to come back and allow us more time you can come back but at this time we're denying the application um and uh the only instance where this it would be very very specific circumstance where I would caution a board um from doing that as if you know this is an application that has been going on for you know 10 12 maybe more hearings and um thank you it's motion censor yeah deal with that all the time um it's it's a very rare circumstance where um the board would be in a position where they want more hearings and the applicant um it is Justified and not consenting so and and when that instance comes up your your board attorney would be able to advise you on that and say you know we should have a vote tonight or or uh it's not why sight here here's why it's really a caseby case basis but in terms of uh protecting the board on continuances the the mechanism to do that is a dismissal without prejudice or denial without prejudice I should say so denying application and that's because you know the applicant's not consenting to another 30 days or another 45 days whatever it might be uh based on the board scheduling um okay Mr applicant then we will have to deny your application without prejudice is there language that could be added in on the hypothetical you were giving about you know you're it's the 12th hearing right and um let's say the applicant is not Cooperative is there a language we can add that gives us more protection on that so it's a you know I I you know you we could add explicit language saying that um at the board's discretion the board may make a motion to deny without prejudice put that in there explicitly um have that right anyway okay have that right um and again it because it's such a particular case by casee basis you know you want to think of every possible hypothetical but you'll get bogged down thinking what if this happens what if you really try to so that's why that's why on a case-by casee basis you really you know you need to consult your board attorney and say you know what what can we do here and I I've been you know I was I I was speaking uh with the chair before the meeting about um my experience being an applicant's attorney and I've been involved in applications where it has gone on for many many hearings and there's an objector involved and there's outcry from the public and then my client says Okay I I don't I I don't consent to to a further extension the application gets denied and unfortunately in those situations it ends up in litigation but it was going to end up there anyway because he had an objector he had public outcry so those are the times where you really have to consult with the board attorney and figure out you know what what is what is the appropriate legal thing to do here um not only to protect the board but to protect the public and did you speak to this did you speak about this with Mr Warner or absolutely I spoke about all these comments with say maybe after you know this discussion follow his specific this is this is his right deny with prejudice okay yeah okay so thanks thank you so and and um so what you wouldn't do is allow a default appeal was really his his point in talking to me you don't just allow a default appeal to occur you deny without prejudice and then they have the opportunity to come back if they if they want to go down that road okay uh so your next comment is on rule two colon 1-7 uh testimony from board employed and other expert witness um okay so you so you said let's discuss adding language that members can discount in whole or in part uh evidence not found credible so if you if you read further down that language is actually in there say the board shall not be bound to accept testimony of any expert where there's a conflicting where there's conflicting testimony of experts the board shall decide which to except these rules do not are not construed as requiring expert testimony in all instances to sustain to sustain a board finding so that first sentence I read uh is not bound to accept the testimony of any expert is kind of I think what you're getting at where um where you can discount in whole or in part uh testimony or evidence not found credible unless there's something else beyond that you that's that's kind of it what what I'm trying to capture there is is a scenario where the applicant has a a planner testify as an example um and the board members obviously the majority right but the board members find the testimony of the planner not to be credible period um even know we don't have our planner get up and say the opposite or something else I want I wanted to be clear that the board could just say you know what I I just don't believe this guy at all and they haven't sustained anything we're going to deny the application but protect the board if we did that yeah the board shall not be bound to accept the testimony of any expert so so maybe in a whole or in part some something like that but that's what I'm trying to protect again so in whole or in part and then I guess regardless of any um counter testimony counter expert we don't know if we need that last part but okay that's up to you guys thank you no problem uh and then you also said let's add language that um ban cell phones Electronics during testimony so what exactly did you mean by that um you know an example that happened here a while ago was a witness was testifying and someone was texting that person answers to the questions okay why the testimony was live yeah and I want to try I wanted to try to put that in the in the rules so that you know we have something to to say you know what you're not allowed to do that way to fight I mean I think it goes without saying but you can ask the person are you receiving text yes is it about the subject matter yes okay fine I I I don't de you to be credible and thank you right well that would that should go for the board members as well right like board is receiving texts yeah and I I think I've heard that on both sides that that board members shouldn't be receiving stuff either right it definitely goes goes both ways it's not Not Who Wants to Be Millionaire there's no call phone friend Noel call yeah there you go um sometimes we have people right just like tonight just how I said feel free to access it but please don't you know use other electronic means yeah I guess that would be and and um Dave Dave's comment it did say you know limited to communication because that's another thing when I first was reading a comment you know my one alarm Bell goes off you can't generally ban Electronics because it's a public hearing people have a right to record if they want to um but uh for communication but for communication purposes for witness for a witness yeah there's no problem about adding that in and then same comment regarding requiring a writing versus oral on the record I think you kind of answered that but that that that was more like the practice has always been it's it's it's oral versus writing you know but okay right along okay so now we move to um rule 2 col 3-3 inability to make a Verbatim record uh so Dave suggested let's discuss this what occurs when a parties don't agree or there there's a dispute as to the agreed statement of fact also who determines if time is a factor or if there is a dispute about time being a factor uh is it cleaner just to adjourn so this is a rule about uh if there's a if there's a problem making a permanent record so a problem obtaining transcript or a video and then there's a an appeal uh to Superior Court um the parties will come together and agree on a statement of facts uh to to be supplied to the reviewing body so it would be a judge or or the um regarding an application this is all application this is regards to or further review yeah so I think we're covered with the the video broadcast the stenographer um I find it hard to believe that you'd be able to that you would not be able to make a verb rating record and in the event that you cannot make a Verbatim record what ultimately will happen will be dictated by that reviewing body that reviewing body who in this case I'm imagining a judge will say Okay I want the facts from the applicant or the objector and I want the facts from the board and then I will be will decide what what facts are uh you know what what's credible and what's not credible based on whatever record is available um so that will that that would ultimately be kind of taken out of the board's hands or bylaws but again uh as mentioned there's there's the court reporter the tape the video um all of the above should should not create a circumstance where uh you can't create a Verbatim record and then you mentioned in your comment uh is it cleaner just to adjourn you know if if you know let's say there's a power outage or thing I I would think that there would be a German anyway so all right so I I I think that that's adequately addressed in in the language there and then um disqualification generally this is Rule 3 col 1-1 um so this is the test for when members need to be disqualified and this language is right from a New Jersey Supreme Court case so um I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to change that language since that comes right from uh the Supreme Court standard and then um really the the general rule is if you're in doubt step out if if you're not sure if you have a a conflict or should be disqualified then you should um so and all and Al you know it's a neighbor it's somebody I know it's you know I have a business relation step out I had one comment above that maybe I missed it on I sent to you but um on the so everyone know it's two3 two and 3-9 um and it's it's the final paragraph second sentence you you have a you have the um responsibility and Authority for enforcement etc etc remains with the township of Milburn comma engineering department comma post resolution approval committee I don't know that we have that but maybe I'm wrong is it we don't not that anyone's ever heard of us e maybe um page 13 at least on on my print out top of the page yeah if you go if you go uh to part three it's the last sentence before above part three that's an easy way to do it yep it's the end of that sentence just says Township of Milburn and then comma engineering department comma post resolution approval so is your comment essentially that there is no post I don't think there is but defer to you committee it's basically um if there's any conditions of approval that are in the resolution you know prior to the insurance of the CEO or the AF shall submit ABC be ISS typically at by either by case basis yeah I mean but there's no specific post resolution approval committee I'm fine with the condition I just want to get the right name yeah names no that's good cat there's there's no committee but so we can eliminate post resolution approval committee and we could say um rather rather than the committee we could say um rather than say the board because the board means the body acting together you could say board members and their profession or their professionals yeah I think it's like and any other professionals who may you know be who conditional approval may be required or something right like maybe not the board because are we we don't well not professionals guess thank you yeah that's good thanks J but that was that all your phone that's all I have just one thing which I just noticed okay um it is in section one col 3 point 3-1 it says if the regular meeting falls on a legal holiday such meeting shall be held on the Thursday of the following week that just doesn't Happ not do that if it falls on a holiday we don't have a meeting well we we' approve the calendar yeah we approve it at the beginning of the year so we don't okay so that should be changed yeah I think that can just just take that out yeah because we usually approve the calendar and then if we need we schedule special meetings you know needed that was 13 one 3-1 thir line I just we generally don't schedule meetings for on a legal holiday yeah like we normally would meet on the 19th we're Clos on the 19th so we're havee so you just adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting right at the beginning of the year okay all right yeah so I guess how do how do you avoid the holidays do you put on we might not have Thanksgiving week we might not have it yeah some some months have two some months have one so we'll just say that you know no meeting will be scheduled on a legal holiday [Music] sure all right um any other comments from recording I have a couple so in 114 the organization meeting I don't think that's the policy we followed this year um where it says that the uh the attorney shall be conducted in the presence of the board attorney Who was appointed for inserve through the preceding calendar year we chose not to do that for in the interest of being polite right that's correct so I think although generally I think the contract does run through like right but we we held a meeting without him that is correct so that gets sticky when you're replacing the attorney yeah should yeah well we'll come up with some other language like unless otherwise determined I professionals okay did yeah then in I three the second one in 1.16 where we say the board attorney has to be somebody other than the township attorney so was also was unclear for a Time the board attorney was also the Town's Fair Share housing attorney representing the township so under this provision would that not have been allowed no the township attorney is a distinct uh post and that fair housing attorney would be is separate so that is okay to have okay okay well would it be better if we make sure that they're not the same person yeah what's some towns have it as the same some towns don't yeah some I'd rather have that as separate meaning prohibited so to speak I agree well it's hard to do that because you have two different groups of people approv who the attorney is so who got there first I mean right you know the town the township would approve the TC would approve the special Council for fair share right Township would approve TC would approve their own Council and then we approve our own Council if you're hiring at the first meeting of the year yeah if yeah yeah and it would it really be on the attorney to understand that okay I can't have multiple posts here in this town you know and they would have to prioritize what which one of those entities would they prefer to to serve if our bylaw say it can't happen right cor which okay I don't know if we need to write that into the bylaws or or each board deci side I might say hey we this we already have this professional working for that board we don't want you know to so to not preclude yourself I just don't know how that H I honestly don't know how it happened last time well I know it happens in other towns so like where where people will Ser where the planning board attorney is the special see I'd rather say that you know I'd rather we have a policy or the municipal attorney is their fair share attorney know we are doing today yeah that's true today so now we have that dou that's a conflict yeah so so why is one permitted and not another I I just don't know well the difference I see a distinction between the TC having the you having you know the special counsel being the same and us having it they work the same two different so I I guess my question is are are you suggesting that we eliminate um or add you know is it a w it's we making a more dis says it can't be the township attorney that's why I asked but I guess David saying it can't be the special fure housing attorney either because they report to two you know reporting to two different ports right so other than the township attorney and a specially appointed you know special I think the better way to do it is to say you know no other attorney serving as a municipal land use attorney for any other board because we also have the HBC attorney which is AAL land use attorney okay that's a good point so we we ought to have those all be separate okay is that how everybody is what's the concern I'm not I'm not saying I disagree or agree I'm just I just want to make sure we have a consensus um to conert well one we don't want to have repeat of situation that we had over the past few years that didn't work out very well for our town number one number two I think it's important to have different voices on the municipal different legal voices on the different Municipal land use boards um if if they're the same person you you run the risk of two boards then potentially getting you know in incorrect or biased advice um whereas you know having them separate gives them checks and balances so for instance when the TC uh has you know a change to zoning laws it comes to the planning board for review if they had the same attorneys well that that could bias that review process and that would extend that would extend I guess to the fer or housing attorney because then we have to some of the fair share housing ordinances have to come here as well well so that's where that conflict would have would would also could could come up I guess and I don't feel strong I was askne in that situation that they would have to now because there the interests would not be in comms like the interests would technically be aligned but I'm inclined to agree with you in terms of um you know for the sake of protecting the town and its constituents you do want that diversity of opinion just one practical question and this is for those of you looked into when we were looking higher these are very specialized areas of the law you know how much Choice do we like the one thing I I don't want to do is back ourselves into a corner where we're like oh well the planning board essentially has to go with this attorney because you know this attorney that attorney has has the special master and this one is is the the historic all this is zoning and so like it backs us into a COR we only have the choice of to I just don't know I mean you could also say you know if if you're concerned about that you know based on a majority vote of the board members you can wave this provision we're also don't I'm only talking our town too I don't know if that's answering your question no even it's not that somebody represents a you know a special C Council for Livingston you know and I don't know if that's what I'm hearing in what every was saying is like well you know we have this committee and special master and this one and so I'm sorry to hear like all right we're going to need like four different firms representing which is fine if we have the option of four quality firms I just don't want to back us into the corner where but if we have the option to wave then yeah then you can avoid that concern and if we feel that there is a quality and we have to get the risks outweigh the rewards then we yeah yeah be comfortable with that last bit is just also kind of minor but under the board engineer she only comes when there are applications on the agenda this makes it seem like she has to come all the time well it says um as instructed by the board so who shall attend meetings of the board and Committees of the board as instructed by the board okay that's okay and similarly I will sometimes send a m message me saying do we need Eric tonight you know if we don't have an application it's fine yeah I just didn't want to yeah apprciate actually before we go too far from that other point I think if we're gonna say the majority can override it should be a super majority it's required to override with the attorney what's a super majority of theard I we just haven't used that I know I mean the zoning board it would be a minimum five votes so you could do that yeah so super majority of n six of n six or seven of nine whatever two3 would work out to be not for conc the attorney because majority majority be picking the attorney in the first place right so it in essence would defeat the the purpose of saying we would you know want separate attorneys if by default whoever the attorney the majority picked was then you know permitted to go past that check so the super majority gives it that little bit extra of a check I personally would say should require seven of the nine but six of fine it should be more than a simple attorney it's only it's overriding this R right yeah all right does uh anyone else have any comments on any particular rules I did you have any others no I just we don't do that don't right okay so then you you would take those revisions incorporate them will you send us a a Blackline version yes I will y fantastic so we'll distribute that and then hopefully be in position to uh take action at our next meeting thank you very much my pleasure okay um that said we'll move on and uh if anybody has any you know followup comments or questions um please reach out directly to you can ask any for the for an email via you to yeah comments are welcome up until the point that they're adopted and even Beyond because you'll adopt them again if you need to sure okay just in case anybody has any final reads okay let's move on to we have three ordinances tonight um we also received planners reports let's begin with ordinance 26 7824 which is the proposed ordinance Amendment um DRZ 425 checklist BR we have you here tonight if you want to recap your letter sure absolutely so good evening uh Madam chair members of the board board Grand PTO here this evening as the board planner um yes I did provide a consistency review of the ordinance um 2678 d24 application forms and checklists um I'll kind of go through this um in a high level because there's a lot of content here but I I don't want to belabor too much everybody had the benefit to read um but but for the benefit of the public and those watching I'll I'll be sure to cover cover the bases um so the township currently maintains two separate tracks and sets of procedures for applications submissions to the planning board and Zoning Board at this time um each board maintains their own set of application forms and checklists with separate submission requirements this can create problems for comprehensive impr prompt review should an application be transferred jurisdictionally from the planning board to the zoning board or vice versa um having been deemed complete before the planning board under their their checklist um while additional materials may be required by the zoning board or again vice versa which are not submitted um further the zoning board submission requirements are tailored to its most common application type which are site planning and residential variance applications um submission requirements are not organized by application type so an application may be subject to extraneous um submission requirements are otherwise not need to provide materials warranted by the application scope um and submission requirements at the planning board are much more detailed and expansive than what are required at the zoning board um including greater detail on architectural plan signage package sustainability checklist environmental impact statement circulation landscape and Facilities plans um but it's important to note that the zoning board does have jurisdiction to review site plans just like you all do um when the site plan application contains a d variance um the zoning board has jurisdiction and they really should be reviewing to the level of a site plan review as you all do here at the planning board um at both um boards various site plan requirements specified in article five of the DRC are either not included in the current checklist um or only partially so creating a disconnect between what the township wants to see in its application filings and what applicants and the board see on the application forms um references to the required application fees and escros are not referen on the application forms requiring applicants to locate the relevant sections within the DRZ or reach out to the board secretary to conduct calculations request required fees from the applicant and kind of go through that process um so in in some you know this is a a process that's designed to create some standardization for the applications for development the checklist so that both boards have the benefit of seeing the full set of materials understanding um the requirements that are within the ordinance uh so that applicants know what those submission requirements are know what where to look for the lighting standards know where to look for Landscaping standards um in accordance with the checklist um so that's kind of the summary of of what the the ordinance is doing to address these issues now regarding the relationships to the master plan um the ordinance advances the following objective and recommendation of the master plan which is number uh first one listed here on page M1 uh to promote clear userfriendly and transparent application review and public hearing processes for development proposals and applications so as to ensure an effective and well publicized mechanisms for growth for residents to report on quality of life issues and code violations um as an update to a consolidation of the Planning and Zoning board's application forms a checklist the ordinance does not represent a policy change but directly addresses the above this recommendation by limiting the forms needed by applicants and consolidating all submissions and fee requirements of the DRZ into one common streamlined application form a checklist to resolve those disjointed issues that were highlighted so any questions or clarifications um I have one question do are is there a concern and maybe it's even more for the zoning side than the the planning side but that this is going to result in like more waiver requests like for checklist items I know that we sometimes get them you know on our applications but if you're saying we have more stringent requirement than zoning that's a great question um you know and I think circling back to the the idea of the site plan exempt residential applications in particular um what we've done in structuring the checklist is we've listed the set of requirements by application type so single residential applications have a much shorter list of requirements to submit um as you scale up to larger site plan applications obviously those lists become more comprehensive so we've tailored the application form and checklist to to respond to that question yes well you have well first of all I think you should remove my name and first floor because I don't really think my name needs to be on the application because and when I leave you've got to adopt another you know what saying so I Really T the 375 AV Milbourne New Jersey maybe just the phone number just Ford secretary yeah yeah yeah well that's fine as well sure um my other concern is you have the date filed which is fine but you only have the completeness determination due by now there's no spot to put the date the application was deemed complete and there's no place for either Martha's signature or my signature deeming it complete okay so I think that should probably be put somewhere sure those two items yes just make great any other questions okay thank you now again um our action tonight would be um not in consistent or inconsistent with the master plan and then we could provide comments back to uh Christine you know as well as the the TC so uh I me I think we would if we were going to determine it not consistent you return it with those comments exactly okay um does anybody want to take action is not inconsistent second okay great and David you will be voting tonight in the absence of so you're you'll be voting on this Cory biller yes Michael Cohen yes deor NIS yes Frank SE Mundy yes s Shan yes sorry yes V yes David cosbro yes Gaston helbert yesel yes thank you um our second ordinance for discussions 26792 24 proposed ordinance amendment to DRZ 301 606 and 607 gr if you would similarly walk up absolutely um so again this ordinance um is a product of the zoning code examination subcommittee which has been working on various amendments to existing definitions and incorporation of new definitions to resolve identified issues uh in the um in zoning outcomes vness of terms and missing definitions of operative terms um in the DRZ following uh the prior definitions ordinance which we just reviewed uh previously which I think had a second reading last night at the TC uh 26742 4 this ordinance before you this evening for referral um advances several more definitional issues of priority at uh for the efficient operation of the DRZ the ordinance includes the following amendments to section 3011 which is the words and phrases defined section of the DRZ um first it amends the existing definition of floor area ratio non-residential um to apply to multif family uses as well uh further employing f is an intensity control it includes uh basements that meet the definition of gross leasable area within the F calculation so if a business is using uh the basement level for its gross leasable space for operation storage of materials that should be counted as f space or floor that's being used uh for that use operation um second it amends the prevailing front yard set Act definition to resolve some issues that have been identified um and deployment of the the revision that was made last year uh as Miss David has raised with us and the zoning board has also highlighted specifically adjacent properties included within the prevailing calculation are no longer limited to those on the same block and add clarifying language concerning applicability of Varan relief for building additions where the existing front yard setback is greater than which is permitted so for buildings that are further set back beyond the maximum line if they want to do a second floor they're too far back so kind of created an odd situation um in addition a former exemptive note has now been reincorporated um into the R3 four five six and seven districts which permits variance free minor modifications to existing non-conforming stairs or Stoops to add a roof and support column this is uh a limit um there was previously provision in the amend in the prior um definition here that allowed a small covering I believe I it was six feet wide I don't have the ordinance language six feet wide six feet wide on either side and no more than four no more than four feet out to allow just at least a cover over the front entry door um so that that could be exempt from the prevailing FR set back calculation um that's created a lot of issues be more potentially more than Fe or something no it was mistakenly taken out just put it right this is just restoring that exemption so a homeowner seeking to just do a small 4 foot by six foot covering over their front door you know so that from some Shelter From the weather from the elant um they don't need to go for a variance because it's a prevailing front yard setback issue at this time um uh the next one uh we add a definition for shopping center for multi-tenant uh commercial developments um this use is defined elsewhere in the ordinance but does not have a defined term associated with it um the use is listed under with parking standards and loading standards um but we don't have a definition of what a shopping center is we need to create that and constitute that within the ordinance um we've also uh amending the definition for front side and rear yards to remove the loophole that created voids on properties where portions of the property may not fall within a defined yard so um for example the front yard was to the nearest corner but if you had kind of an undulating front of a house you know what was that from the nearest corner to the street was a front but if you had a further point back what was that space was that a front yard wasn't clearly articulated how that was treated so that's clarified um clarifies and then finally clarifies the language and loading requirements table of section 6071 to employ defined terms for retail uses where the undefined retail store is presently used um so shifting gears to the relationship to the master plan this ordinance advances the following objectives and recommendations of the master plan reexamination and update uh the first is goal one objective 1.01 to protect the character of established residential neighborhoods and encourage land use and development at an appropriate scale and density and two again to promote clear user-friendly transparent application review and public hearing processes for development proposals and applications so as to ensure an effective and well publicized mechanisms for residents to report quality of life issues and code violations um the ordinance revises and adds definitions to reflect and improve zoning recent zoning amendments as well as resolving long-standing gaps or loopholes that have been present in the DRZ definitions or lack thereof to promote clear and purposeful functioning of DRZ um more specifically the Amendments relating to the front yard setback including the front yard prevailing setback seek to improve ease of use for applicants as they apply prevailing methodology against the surrounding disy character while also removing impediments for minor Home Improvements for residents can I ask can I ask you but also possibly address it to Eileen as the secretary so when I picked up when I was reading it I saw the the remov it looked like it was a strike through on the um the point closest to the corner or what whatever was the point closest to the street but then you said it clarify it so they know so you would know what to use and I was almost thinking well if you don't you're not going to use the closest corner then what are you using using the whole house the whole house rather than just it used to say to the nearest point so we had situations where the house was either not perfectly squared to the lot and so they were like well here's the closest point well here's so you had are if you draw a line across and the house was aew you had like parts of the front and side that didn't fit into the front yard but you feel that the Zone ordinance now includes the appropriate methodology to pick whatever the point is going to be okay so long because I read it as like oh my gosh this is making it more confusing but as long as you feel that you would know what to do with that yeah there's another one too we discussed during the subcommittee if you have a roundhouse without problem everything but it did Sol great thank you could you just for my sanity because I'm still prevailing front yard seta I understand what you added that the if it if it's beyond the maximum you're allow you can do the second floor but then it says so long as the distance of the closest point of the building to the front property line is not made greater than the existing non-conforming condition I completely do not understand what that so if the so they can go in line with the existing okay an addition that's in line they can't come forward oh they can't right so you can't can't deliver over so so it has to be in line with the existing but even though be okay because the in whatever they're adding is beyond the maximum correct yes thank you can you say in the positive so that someone saying yeah ex you may the ex I'll explain but your earlier Point your earlier Point what if it's not you they're on their own yeah it it well I mean in my case like I kind of inherited like when time did this I'm like I don't even know what that means he's like well that mean you know so it is but I don't plan on being here to instruct anybody when it's there to me I'm just gonna go think about saying it in posi might easier for next person well I think so I mean what I thought but I'm thinking that so it just says um expansions or modifications to existing principal structures whose existing front yard setback is greater than the permitted maximum so setback beyond the maximum setback um shall not require variance relief of the maximum front yard set pack so long as the distance to the closest point of the building to the front property line is not made greater than the existing condition so it's basically saying that you say is the same as the non um I mean I guess we could say is instead of is not made greater you're saying is in line with the existing nonconforming condition is that what you're seeking to change or less yeah is it in line or less I I'm just looking at a way to solve for if e didn't understand and yeah she's been doing this a long time and he pretty good at it I just I want we're doing the intent is you know under the master plan to make things more clear so I want to just make sure we're actually being I'm trying to figure it's hard because it's coming forward rather than going back yeah it's it's hard to think about yeah I think that it may not be something that we can solve like in this moment but perhaps your recommendation to the TC could be to clarify that last portion of the sentence so for clarity and we can do that and then present the revision back to the TC we will do yeah let reflect we can we can coordinate on that and and provide a recommendation pursuant to this body recomendation braining session when we're not all that's um zoning text is not an easy any other questions from fol to to Gram's points okay I will move to uh recommend ordinance 2679 24 is not inconsistent with the master plan and recommend possible rewarding on the the reference to the the setback just to to clarify the language second Cory Viller yes Michael Coen yes debor Nev yes Frank second yes San yes shj yes David cosbro yes Gaston yes yes okay and our final order of business tonight is ordinance 26824 propose ordinance amendment to DRZ 804 which is the designation of historic landmarks and historic districts and talked about sort procedurally how that sure sure um so um just kind of a summary of this ordinance for you this evening as well the DRZ outlines the procedure for designation of historic sites and historic districts in section 8043 um following recent historic preservation efforts such as the adoption of the new historic preservation element in August 2023 by this body um and subsequent designations this section of the code um has received an additional book by the zoning foot examination subcommittee um and amendments were identified to enhance Clarity and transparency of the process prescribed by the municipal land use law in particular regarding procedure for filing of a protest against a historic nomination in coordination with the HPC attorney and chair um and members of the zoning code examination subcommittee some additional necessary amendments were identified during the drafting process and are presented within this ordinance um so the ordinance amends section 8043 as I mentioned with the following clarifications and Corrections the first is that it specifies that the HPC review the nomination um received either by the uh prepared either by the township committee planning board or the HPC which are the entities that may prepare a nomination report um the HBC is to review that nomination report for completeness to ensure it has all the components of the required um submission um prior to scheduling uh of the public hearing the notice public hearing process um second it clarifies the language around procedural requirements during the HPC hearing and subsequent HPC report to the township committee uh recommending historic designation uh third it incorporates references to Municipal land use uh law requirements for submission of a protest uh petition against the proposed historic designations including the required number of signatures uh submission procedures and impacts on the final designation subject to uh filed protest um fourth it corrects the maximum time period for the planning Board review upon referral from the township committee uh from 60 days down to 35 days so that is now consistent with the municipal land use law requirement of 35 days uh re uh revises language for greater specificity regarding requirements for incorporation of historic designation into Township records um adds clarifying Clause regarding the usage of the term Landmark which is employed throughout article 8 of the DRZ inconsistent with the definitions within the ml which has a specific definition for what a landmark is um and then finally uh other clarifying amendments to language within the section um there's a couple of other tweaks to to kind of smooth things out um so regarding the relationships to the master plan for this ordinance um it advances uh objectives and recommendations of the master plan as follows goal one objective 1.01 to protect the character of established residential neighborhoods and encourage land use and development at appropriate scales and densities uh number two which we've talked about promote clear userfriendly transparent application review and public hearing processes for development proposals and applications so as to ensure an effective and wellp publicized mechanism for residents to report quality life issues and code violations and the third one is to uh the statement to monitor recent tear downs and new construction in single family districts to determine whether additional zoning modifications are necessary to protect such neighborhood character um following the adoption um in August 2023 of the Township's new historic preservation element of the master plan the township seeks to conduct a transparent public process for consideration of historic district dat designations that provides Property Owners uh with a full understanding of the designation process questions I just had one question mentioned you went from the 60 to 35 days to be consistent with the ml are boards allowed to give themselves more time or is it like if there's a discrepancy to defer to the ml um that's a that's probably more of a legal question than right it I guess just maybe in case meetings are out of sync or something perhaps yeah you know giving yourself this limited or more limited window right yeah so I mean yeah really it needs to just be consistent because it's the same as a as an ordinance change so like you know these ordinances before you there's that time period of review this would function in the same way for consistency review or inconsistency review I think it should be stated the zoning code examination subcommittee looked at this worked on this um actually had recommended against the inclusion of the specific details with regards to the protest provision uh that board felt that it would be better to Simply reference the municipal land use law as opposed to having detail in there um you one of the reasons for that was if Municipal anuse Law changes we then have to go back and change this um ordinance um the sub members of the township committee really wanted that protest provision in there um you know based on events that transpired last year uh I disagree with that I don't think it should be in there um know there might be others here that feel that way but I just want to put that on the record that I don't think it's a good idea to detail in the ordinance how to defeat the ordinance that I don't think will help Advance the uh historic element of the master plan um from coming to fr I tend to agree with you for a different reason mainly you're the first one you cited which is every time uh then you have to stay on top of the ordinance and and you to change your regulations every time it changes I just don't know that we have as a planning board what what we can do about it so well any answer to that question because I had raised that with uh with with you I guess right and with greme because I was concerned about things getting out of seeing and what we were supposed to say although I don't believe it does that where list the ordinance and then says as amended then that would keep it no no I know and look I draft policies all the time in my real job um but that that requires somebody you know yes technically it would be in compliance that way but then it says that if there is a discrepancy the the um the state statute overrides yeah but you're you're still giving people specific information that might have been overridden so they'd have to know to go to the Statue as opposed to if you don't put it in then they automatically go to the Statue I I felt that way as well that shouldn't be there I just don't know that it makes it inconsistent or not I don't know it makes it not inconsistent and it sounds like it has been discussed at the TC already so we certainly could include it in our report you know maybe maybe included as a note if this board feels that you know what Mr biller said is correct that it would be better to just simply say protest Provisions as per you didn't even site the part of Comm Minister L I think tying it to the planning board is if the intent is to make it more clear I think adding that detail arguably could make it less clear in the future so maybe that's something we can report back guess how often is that changing in the ml yeah just for the benefit of the board so it's it's uh njsa 40 col 55 d-63 is the provision and this protest provision is actually applicable to all zoning ordinance adoptions so there is a protest provision for um you know essentially historic designations are a zoning overlay um the protest process is applicable to all zoning ordinances so there is a protest option uh for all zoning amendments um so this is broadly applicable to a lot of things not just just a unique HBC specific protest provision um so and we haven't seen this changed in quite some time so and yet we haven't included this protest provision in other it has not been included in this local ordinance but I have seen it included in other historic reservation commission ordinances or they shouldn't say historic preservation ordinances and other communities I don't have an issue referencing the statute and saying as amended but referencing specificity outlined in the statute just seems to be confusing well we could we could make a recommendation back I mean I don't know that calling out that provision I think it's kind of like what you're saying may or may not be the difference in being not inconsistent inconsistent with the master plan but you're right I mean if we're trying to seek for clarity maybe just referencing the the state statute so that okay I think so I think it just I'll just say you know there not necessarily my view but I'll just the I think this Source from the fact of the the neighborhood that was protesting the uh the designation which is now likely to be tabled it's pretty obvious that they had 20 you know 20% of you know they they submitted the you know they hit the requirements of the protest provision but to this day they still don't know that they have hit that so the reason the language was there was for transparency so they would know that I don't think they received 20% in written form and the municip I don't know that they have that but given the number of people that showed up with the meetings I'm sure and all the emails we got I'm sure if they knew they had to go after it they would you site the statute and WR as amended then couldn't they just Google the statute yes yes yeah yes right okay I mean I think we're all saying that everybody should have the the the ability to act as they want to but it's just the how how much are we baking it into the the ordinance versus recommending how EAS it for them to know what they're looking for I see yeah making right giving them a point to go search okay thank you sure stay in it's up to that so we have to take action now okay um I would make a motion that ordinance 26824 is not inconsistent with the master plan but regarding the um uh Pro what it's not protest protest provision it's protest provision thank you um referencing the municipal land use law section as opposed to including that entire provision um which which could become in consistent down the road which could need to which could you know necessitate more updates in CL confusion CL confusion so not inconsistent with the master plan consider removal of the the protest provision with just a reference to the ml right now it's right but just yeah just the reference that's that's my motion second Cory biller yes Michael Cohen yes de ne yes Frank second yes John no try VJ yes David cosbro yes Gaston hbert yes that's all yes okay thank you um our next scheduled meeting is Wednesday July 17th at 7:30 I move to adjourn oh I'm sorry me uh just a question we're halfway through year and I wanted to just ask the board if anybody has any concerns or anything that that is not needed to be or not required to be discussed in public if we need to have a closed session if anybody wants to talk about anything just to open it up everybody okay all right thank you sorry no no appreciate that thank you okay that said uh when the meeting is Wednesday July 17 July said June and no the next meeting in June is falls on the juneth holiday right right okay um July 17 and then July is July 4th holiday it's a mess okay um I move to adjourn we have a second second all in favor good night meeting is July no I'll be