##VIDEO ID:i3F7J0eaCEs## Philipsburg land use board meeting December 19th 2024 adequate notice of this regular public meeting has been provided in accordance with the open public meeting act by posting notice on the bulletin board in the municipal building by publishing in The Express Times And The Star Ledger the official papers of the town of Philipsburg by posting notice on the website of the town of Philipsburg filing said notice with the town clerk of Philipsburg as well as fer machine said notice to those persons requesting it pursuant to the open public meetings act as advertised action may be taken at this meeting the board policy is that the town of Philipsburg land use board will not hear any new cases after 10 p.m. and no new Witnesses after 10:30 p.m. flag [Music] salute I pled aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to theel for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with libery and justice for all call Mr Bond is absent Mr Branch here Mr Bradman here chairman Duffy here Mr null here councilwoman PA is absent Mr Penrose here may pza here Mr turnball here Mr Zer is absent and chair Vice chairman Wier is absent we you have a quorum yes we do okay do I hear a motion on the minutes stated 11:25 24 are there any additions deletions corrections to the minutes all those in favor say I I any against any extensions okay nice have it uh do I have a motion on uh resolution 20 20 24-3 denial for 88 Heckman Street motion a second just a reminder just reminder only that those people who attended the meeting uh can vote on this okay unless they listen to unless they were abs and listen to the entire hearing okay um any discussion on the resolution okay uh roll call please Mr Branch yeah no Mr brodman yes Mr Penrose yes Mr turnball yes Mr null yes chairman not here and chairman copy yes five it's five yep 51 okay we have to communicate with Mr regarding publication talk about that oh yes okay completeness and public hearing completeness 575 Memorial Parkway we heard from Mr Edon today that he would like to um forward this to the next meeting okay so we don't have anything to do with that no um 382 the hearings 382 384 South Main Street they want to carry carry until the next meeting so at the last meeting uh they asked for an adjournment to this date and it was granted by the board and uh they've asked for for it to be carried to the January 2325 meeting so Mr chairman this is the notice providing to all in attendance that that application is being carried to January 23 2025 and there will be no further public notice or publication okay and 540 Marshall Street has also asked to be carried yes correct same thing 540 Marshall Street had noticed for today the notice is incomplete uh so that is going to be carried to January 23 2025 and once complete notice is made in jurisdiction is is established the public hearing will take place on January 23 2025 but uh anybody who's already received notice will not receive any further noce Beyond this evening okay then we have the land juice meeting dates and times for 2025 any uh discussion questions on that Thanksgiving is always the Monday because Municipal U the league of municipalities the week before yeah okay so it's still the third fourth Thursday yeah but Thursday but the except for Thanksgiving is the fourth Monday and then Christmas is the third Thursday Thursday okay the time is still [Music] 7:00 okay any questions on that then Okay no Okay Okay old business public hearing on draft version of re-examination town of Philipsburg mun uh master plan sir chairman so this is a continuation of the discussion that occurred at last month's meeting um the land use board's under taking a re-examination of the the master plan this is uh prescribed by uh State statutes uh so for the board and the public that may have not been at the last one um so as part of the re-exam the state prescribes that at least every 10 years uh the town should undertake a re-exam with the latest master plan which for the town of Goldsburg was 2013 um there is a hard copy of the document that I'm going over it's at the table over there if anybody hasn't picked one up um and if you're following along we're on page two at the top um 2013 re-exam was an update from the 2004 re-exam as part of the um re-exam New Jersey requires um the board to uh review do a number of items so they want you to look at major problems and objectives related to Land Development in the municipality at the time of adoption at the last re-exam uh they would like you to to review to the extent which such problems objectives have been reduced or have increased subsequent to date the extent to which there have been significant changes in assumptions policies objectives forming the basis for the re-exam uh since the last time it was uh addressed and reviewed there's a number of items they ask you to look into as part of that um they also indicate the specific changes recommended for the master plan or development regulations if any including underlying objectives policy standards or whether a new plan of Regulation should be prepared should be considered um recommendations of the planning board concerning it um incorporation of Redevelopment plans adopted pursuant to the Redevelopment Housing regulations into a land use element plan or of the M of the municipal master plan goes on from there um it also asked to review the recommendations of planning board concerning locations for appropriate development of public electrical vehicle infrastructure but not limited to commercial districts areas approximate to public transportation and similar facilities um as part of a a re-exam um the basis of the re-exam as I indicated the last one was done in 2013 the prior one was 2004 and the town had last adopted a complete master plan in 19 um 1988 and uh did its initial re-exam of that document in 96 it's not uncommon for towns to have a master plan that subsequent years they generally just do a re-exam instead of a complete um U revision to the document this time the the town land use board is undertaking a re-exam as permitted by the state regulations uh so chairman board as part of this if we go over to page three in this ver in this re-exam document we listed all the goals and objectives uh from the prior the prior re prior master plan and as amended by the uh subsequent re-exams any of the goals or objectives that were in the prior documents that were indicated to be removed or no longer appable were not included here um so as we list them here is how we found them in the prior prior documents uh chairman I think go through these individually or um just maybe touch base on each of the the high level topics I touch base on the high level topics does anybody have disagreement with that uh so the goals and objectives from the VAR the prior documents included topics on conservation um generally dealing with preservation Environmental features um and related matters it also went into um talking about the land use plan trying to establish goals and objectives related to that a touch based on housing touch based on circulation uh the number of the circulation goals listed here or uh taken from the latest circulation plan that the that the board recently adopted uh that continues through the latest circulation plan added quite a number of uh objectives related to that so we actually jump um we actually end up jumping all the way to page eight another area was Community facilities Recreation open space it touched based on historic preservation actually touch Bas and that in two different um elements so then that brings us to uh page 10 the next section that the regulation asks the board to look at is to review major problems that were identified in the the prior one so on page 10 under Section 3 um what we did was we took all the major problems that were identified in the prior prior reports um and listed them as in as they were written in the prior report so there was a clear clear picture of what the prior documents uh land prior land use boards has developed for your goals objectives and your major problem problem identified um one of on page 11 there was a edit since the last meeting that incorporated a discussion on Howard Street Redevelopment in the 2013 re-exam there was a section under recommendations and the discussion section that they touch based on Howard Street Redevelopment as related to incorporating residential development because the Redevelopment plan at the time that covered that area Incorporated residential and it was previously uh not residential So the re-exam plan looked at that conflict that would create by adding residential in an industrial Zone uh so we highlight it's highlighted in the boards in yellow and the public it's highlighted in Gray on the bottom 11 that's an edit that's been made since the last meeting as part of this process in the meeting tonight if there's any changes additions that can be incorporated into any action taken or potentially feedback from the public can be incorporated into the document so um those are all the major problems as it as they were listed in the various documents we then move into uh the top of page 13 this is section four so as part of the re-exam it require request that you review the status of major Pro the status of the major problems previously identified um so chairman um this part it would be i' recommend going through each one of these items because this is where we started clarifying potentially the position of where things stand as it is today M so this be good area to get feedback um the feedback that's the comments that are listed in here were based on feedback from the prior meeting and working with the subcommittee and uh prior experiences working with the board and the community so the uh first um problem statement had was related to uh nuances created by heavy manufacturing adjacent to residential areas um so we've indicated the comment was uh comment was reviewed recommended that the language surrounding industrial Redevelopment areas be adjusted to emphasize flexibility in the use of existing industrial areas to fill fulfill the best land use whether continuing as an active industrial Redevelopment to new industrial or rezoning and Redevelopment to residential depending on market conditions the original problem statement um may have been led to um conflict with other elements where it was could be have read that it was Pro not promoting industrial uses within the town particularly a Redevelopment of existing industrial sites that were active or uh vacant so the recommendation is to be in line with the town's um General census was that it's open to both types of Redevelopment for or uses the next item uh number two on page 13 lack of land available for future uh development uh so we did review this comment it's recommended that a distinction between vacant and incompatible land uses be recognized to better communicate the understanding that existing active uses are not assumed to be incompatible so the town has a long history of uh varying uses so um certain industries came to town they built housing around that to support those Industries um uh modern planning might push conflicting elements away from each other but fosburg is uh very intertwined so the it's recommended that the re exam and your master plan document consider that you do have that intrinsic element that you need to find a balance uh encroachment onto undevelopment undeveloped prop property is number three uh so we reviewed the the problem statement um which because the lack of available developable property and because there is such a demand for development many of filbur steep slopes ridges will be considered for construction if not done properly problems may occur with erosion structural stability obstruction of Scenic Scenic views um and it suggested the statement suggested uh developing regulation to uh protect those critical areas whether by outside agencies or by the town so we did review review this comment our recommend recommends that town consider adoption of steep slope codes to mitigate risk of encroachment in and to induced erosion areas so the comment was reviewed similar position as the last time was the recommendation for the town to undertake regulations to protect okay so the idea with the re-exam is if there's a potential concern or issue you can suggest um ways for the governing body to enact regulation uh to address it or to promote promote an activity so if you're trying to encourage development you would say provide four zoning of this trying to potentially discourage uh something like development on steep slopes you would ask them to develop a code to mitigate that or regulate that area zone boundaries of zoning ORS no longer reflect existing uses um this goes back to um was last revised re exam 96 to correct the problem there are still deviations and need for varing this this is typically full of fully developed communities where land uses may be intermixed uh so we did review this review this comment it's the the outcome was recommend that a comprehensive revision the land use plan and related code at a later date is uh considered recommended to the recommended um as part of this re-exam it was not a comprehensive review of the land use plan or rewrite of the land use plan but uh that to address that problem statement that's uh the recommendation uh substandard intersections um was a concern was a concerned problem statement uh this item the comment remains um and this was addressed as a was a comment theme as part of the circulation plan so that was reviewed in quite detail as part of the circulation plan with suggestions and uh goals additional goals and objectives to address that concern the next problem statement was substandard streets again that uh comment comment remains but um it's sugest it's recommended to review the circulation plan as that was reviewed in quite quite extensive detail uh poor local circulation again is a comment that is uh remains and it was uh addressed through the circulation plan po Regional circulation uh that's another item that the comment remains um and it's directed to review the circulation plan that again provides goals and objectives to potentially manage that concern through traffic on local streets the comment remains and it refers to the circulation plan number 10 on bot we're on the bottom of page 14 apologies for that um this is a new edit that was in so as pointed out in the prior items this relates to the Howard Street Redevelopment in the 2013 re-exam under section four recommend recommended master plan and ordinance changes that were discussed of power Tre on in 2013 re exam on pages 28 29 um the full text of it available in this document on 11 and 12 um we reviewed that comment that was more of a recommendation um discussion item it's recomend um the development of residential uses in this area has not been feasible as the approved developments never materialized or spurred Redevelopment as envisioned subsequently the Redevelopment Authority and land use board have resed the area to allow industrial uses and as such has been an approved uh has been approved as a use there the statement is recommended to be removed so that that Point's not carried forward through preure re exams because there's been action taken since 2013 to now that alters that position in 2013 that item was added in there as it had noted that residential had been permitted as in the Redevelopment area and there was a project pending then we go on to um we go on on page 15 we continue to go through the um through the document so the cons the current zoning of the current zoning state of town of fburg was analyzed in 2013 as part of 2013 master plan re-exam the re-exam recommended changes to the Land Development ordinance based on recommendations from the 20 2004 master plan updates land use element as well as ingersol Rand and Riverfront Redevelopment studies the proposed changes are outlined below with analysis the current state So within the 2013 it tied back to the 2004 master plan so we reviewed those items so uh item one was to create a multif family Zone to reflect existing multif family housing in the R50 Zone West of Roseberry Street including portions surrounding a B2 Zone as well as nonconform other non-conforming multif family developments through the town we've indicated the comment was reviewed did uh since then the town actually undertook a in 2014 a zoning map update that addressed that was an attempt to address that comment another item include a portion of the i1 Zone located east of Warren Street South of the extension of Anderson Street Middle School Residential Properties in the R50 zone so that comment Still Remains there's still a pocket of uh i1 Zone located off warrant Street um it's a right across from the park entrance there a Comm commercial industrial complex there that's surrounded by residential um convert uh portion of the i1 Zone bounded by Wilson Anderson which is now Fleming Warren Street and railroad uh vacant land to the R50 Zone uh the comment was reviewed it appears the 20 in 2014 a zoning map update uh adjusted the zoning for that property that's generally the property next to the F youth center it's currently owned by the f f Youth Center uh number four on page 15 uh we reviewed the B2 Zone along Route 22 make appropriate boundary adjustments to reflect actual development prar design standards to enhance the appearance and accessibility of the corridor incorporate appropriate recommendations from a 2009 22 Corridor Improvement plan um that reference plan for CL it was prepared by U for County the state of New Jersey it wasn't a town plan um the comment was was found to be address there is ongoing efforts needed to update update to the Route 22 Corridor standards but the town did make changes to its code book to incorporate standards to actually request of developments to incorporate to their best ability um so to an extent um you'll see that sidewalks have been added along 22 for properties such as CVS uh McD RB's popey as they've come around because that's an element of that Corridor standards uh number five the B2 Highway business Zone at the center of rosebury street should be reson for neighborhood commercial uses such as retail Ser retail and service businesses complement the bbor Commerce Park Redevelopment area that is uh bridg Point uh uh complex now and the surrounding residential neighborhoods uh the comment was reviewed this has been corrected as of the 2014 zoning map the small I2 heavy industrial Zone on Lock Street north of bridge appears to be remnant of the original industrial zoning that spanned that area uh for the ingersol rans site prior to Redevelopment designation uh the Zone primarily consists of Residential Properties and should be merged into the r75 Zone uh that comment also uh was reviewed and appears to be addressed as part of the 2014 zoning map um that's that area was uh just uh just about uh below Valley View and there's a wooded track the town has a Parkland there's apartments over there that was all ingr all ran property at one point so it was all Heavy industrial Zone but it's been subsequently rezoned not to be industrial um the next item uh merge the B3 zone of Union Square into the B4 Zone make adjustments to the list of uh permitted uses as outlined in a table within the code book uh comment review this appears to be Corrections adjustments revisions were made in 2014 uh zoning map additionally ordance number 20152 adopted in January has revised the list of permitted uses so that comment comment was reviewed and considered addressed um moving to uh page 16 number eight there's a comment to convert part of the B2 Zone at the southern end of South Main into a new B5 Zone to differentiate it from Highway oriented B2 Zone along Route 22 and adjust the list of permitted uses outlined in um a table referenced in the code book uh comment review com review this was addressed in the 2014 zoning map an additional ordinance uh 20152 adopted in January 2015 uh Revis the list of permitted uses uh so these are good examples where there's a problem that was identified recommendations were made over towards the uh future land use board and governing body that item was after the re-exam was adopted they then looked through for ways to implement it so to implement it they amended the zoning map and adjusted some of the zoning properties so as we go through this some of the goals objectives could be short-term that could be addressed in a couple weeks some of them might be longterm that might take 10 or 20 years cuz as see some of these go back to the eight late 80s that still still [Music] occur number nine to permit residential infill as a condition of the B4 B5 zones in accordance with R50 standards where more than 50% of the block is currently occupied for residential um we reviewed this comment section code section 62568 of town code enables this conditional use since passage of ordinance 201413 in May of 2014 so another example of a issue and a a solution came about not too long after the re-exam was implemented so that that was a review of all the major problems that were identified in the prior reports any problem statement that didn't appear to be addressed in the 2013 2004 96 and prior were outlined here the next section the state asked you to review which this is on page 17 section five um it asks that the as part of the re-exam should identify significant changes that have occurred in the state county and Municipal policies and objectives uh one of the items they ask you to address um is consideration of climate change Hazard vulnerability and land use plan this is uh as a result of uh Public Law 2021 C6 that was adopted February 4 2021 by Governor Murphy under the amended laws requires municipalities to are required to incorporate climate change related Hazard vulnerability assessment into any into any master plan land use element adopted after the signing re exams of the land use elements adopted prior to the law are not required to incorporate this assessment however future updates to the master plan of land use element require an examination of current future threats to the town of fosburg associated with climate change Rel the hazard this analysis shall be based on the most recent Nal Hazard projections as well as the best scientific knowledge provided by uh New Jersey the Environmental Protection Agency um so to be clear on this this is uh a new a new change to the planning regulations that impacts the land use plan as part of this re-exam did not incorporate an overhaul or complete revision of the land use plan this action be more appropriate not too long ago the board did undertake a update to its land use plan and the timing of the adoption and this regulation coincided so the town will actually have to undertake another update of the land use plan which will actually time well because um the state's uh issuing new guidance on uh COA housing that requires an update to the housing plan and land use plan so the town can incorporate all of those in a future updates uh the the second part of uh the that regulation um relates to Hazard vulnerability so as for this re-exam it acknowledges that in January 10th 2022 Warren County uh received FMA approval for its multi-jurisdictional Hazard mitigation plan billsburg is part of that covered under that plan which is an update from the prior plan adopted in approved in 20 16 in that in the current plan the Warren County Department of Public Safety divides counting into five Regional subgroups based on Regional risk present town of fburg along with neighboring townships of lpath Po hat Harmony Greenwich or in southern Warren County group two uh natural hazards deemed threats to the municipality across the county such as dam failure drought earthquakes flooding landslides hurricane severe weather Wildfire or unchanged from the 2016 plan the 2022 plan instead expands it Scopes to consider several human based hazards in addition to the previous plan's assessment of hazardous materials issues and the 2022 plan considers the threat of animal disease civil unrest crop failure Cyber attack economic collapse pandemic power failure and terrorism the inclusion of these human-based hazards is critical establishing a basis for risk assessment and evaluating decisions about risk control for both the town phsb and other municipalities across the county so by that you're incorporating um that the county has uh established this the mitigation plan for for the town that covers the town and that should be incorporated into your uh planning tools as part of your re-exam so that's a would be another document to consider for guidance uh the next uh major change is uh or change CH under change and challenges uh is the topic of canab abis with the passage of njsa 246 I3 cannabis retail is legal in the state of New Jersey this re examination does not propose any changes to current Town policies regarding cannabis cannabis retail presents a potential opportunity for municipalities in the search of new commercial ratables uh cannabis remains illegal at Federal level limiting New Jersey Growers and Retail to State internal Market this brings its own risk in of Market saturation and collapse and rable should industry grow faster than Interstate rate demand um so what that's entailed is that there is new land uses that are available to the town to Zone 4 that did not exist prior and that there's um challenges that come with that type of type of zoning that the board should keep be aware of and at this time there's no proposed zoning changes to to add a change anything that's on the current zoning m as a result of this were any other plans in place by the town uh the next item addressed which is required by the the statute indicated before is electrical vehicle charging stations um July 9th 2021 there's an amendment to the ml uh which enacted enacted stated variances will not be required for applications in propos which the proposed purpose of the submitt is for installation of electrical vehicle Supply or make ready spaces um installation shall be considered permitted accessory use and permitted accessory structures in all zoning districts with it within any municipality so the states have have determined that is a a new use and how it's can be what the ability of the town is to regulate it so that's a change since 2013 um additionally such infrastructure shall not be subject to site plan or variance relief for installation of any gasoline service station existing existing retain establishment or other existing building the approval shall occur through issuance of a zoning permit condition on compliance with the provided criteria criteria for installation of electric vehicle Supply shall be equipment for buildings with five or more dwelling spaces also stated in addition to the model land use requirements so the state in 2021 adopted policies that um established uh EV parking um as permitted uses and accessory uses and how that's regulated U by the land use boards and the what the recommendation in the recommendation is section is would be for the governing body to adopt ordinances that Implement what this regulation says it's very similar to rsis um the residential site Improvement standards with State wanted to set standards for residential the towns how to update their standards open space and Recreation plan um since 2013 in uh September 2018 Warren County published an amendment to its County and open space recommendation plan uh the amendment provided an updated strategic invatory assessment of the County's natural resources particular focus on protecting lands responsible for maintaining water quality most the available water for residential agriculture uses in the county is supplied via groundwater recharge this is due to Warren County's location within the Highlands which features many prime uh groundwater recharge areas the amended County open space and Recreation plan uh three major steps to preserve groundwater uh recharge resources protect water quality determining areas where preservation will be most effective targeting resources for preservation of these areas prioritizing lands for protection count the county initiated an effort utilizing GIS mapping and other technology tools to analyze and identifi water quality Water Resource attributes of the region throughout the county several identified areas provide uh benefits to the town of billsburg to determine the best course of action hydrology stream aqu aquer quality aquatic ecosystem functions were mapped and analyzed as part of the county study with this data warrant County can enhance their efforts to preserve water quality and Supply not only within the county but the wider Highlands region so um what that is is new uh county level planning document tool tool and data that's available for the land use to utilize going forward as appropriate so that is uh why that's listed there town is very aware it's in the highlands and has worked actively with the highlands I don't believe there's any actionable items out of that other than to be aware of it and to use that as a guiding tool going forward um County also updated in 2023 um updated their transportation master plan um which was in the response of the County's buildout and traffic within the county uh as they have seen in the past 5 years a rise in Warehouse development increasing crate volumes on underdeveloped one and twoa roadways um the issue directly impacts fburg which few years say construction multiple warehouses um the county negatively impacted roadway infrastructure and circulation um to the resolve the issue the county undertook efforts to identify a truck route map to be implemented with larger truck infrastructure Highlands C currently offers Grant programs to mitigate negative truck traffic impacts associated with Warehouse development occurring Highlands region in select waren county Warren County has proactive in analyzing Trucking route infrastructure study in 2020 by the county analyzed traffic impact with 15 industrial areas to assess the potential impacts at full B buildout under existing zoning determined that in almost every study are existing Transportation infrastructure would not support increase without significant improvements that would need several years to fully Implement um since excuse me since the study the national highway Transportation Administration has reported increase in number of fatal traffic accidents Warren County in response upcoming track truck route map for Warren County directs all trucks and free traffic to nearest State or Interstate roadway ever possible while this is just the start of a larger effort reduc truck traffic related issues within the county it's imperative to lay the foundation for larger Redevelopment Warren County transportation infrastructure to meet the demand um as part of that document um the town as part of the circulation plan that was updated did review those documents and incorporate them into it that was also incorporated into the designated truck route that was adopted by the town of billsburg recently um so that's just another guiding tool to to assist the town uh storm water management Plan update in 2023 DP adopted new Municipal stor Municipal basically uh new Municipal storm water regulations and permits um the town's obligated to meet its requirements under the revised tier permit as conditions of permit renewals um part of the requirements including developing up to the municial storm water management plan including all the necessary elements outlined in storm water management rules town of billsburg should Incorporated updated Municipal storm War management as as part of its master plan re examination so the town is undertaking uh updated storm water working to update storm water management plan and a planning tool that goes with that as part of uh compliance with the state regulation uh the other item I touched based on uh there is new uh additional round of affordable housing fair share obligations the state has provided guidance uh to the town on its obligation there will as a result it requires consider updating of the master PL um housing element and fair share plan to meet the requirements of these new regulations so that um that lengthy discussion uh addressed significant changes that occurred since the 2013 master plan um so we move on to uh page 20 so this is uh changes and recommendations uh based on the review of the goals and objectives and major problem statements the review of those so this starts on page 20 this is section six um item number one is highlighted in the document says there is some uh edits made to this statement the land use subsection of the goals and objectives should include an objective statement an objective to undertake a comprehensive update of the land use element to conform to the state requirements for incorporating a climate Hazard vulnerability assessment so that addresses the state's requirement for the board to do that update so that setting that as a recommendation to be addressed at a later date the truck subsection of the goals and objections section should include a consideration of Howard Street Industrial bypass to reduce the impacts of industrial traffic on local streets the trail uh subsection of goals and objectiv section should remove the goal to coordinate with developers in regard to Howard Street Extension project to interface um with existing propol trails from the 2013 re-exam the Howard sh development plan considers developing development alternative relating to this area so again in 2013 what that re-exam um development at the time was the re-exam is different than what is now permitted there so that that's not applicable um number number four the housing subsection of the goals and objective section should be updated to reflect recent changes to affordable housing regulatory Environ environment um goal within should be rev goal a within should be revised to reflect CO's formal formal violation of P public law 20242 that and the transfer its regulatory functions to the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs um available State funding programs for affordable housing have changed as a result the reexamination does not uh review fourth round obligations as the review the rules require municipalities to undertake in-depth review to develop an up an updated housing element and fair share plan this required update would be separate from this re-exam to be completed at a later date uh number five the parking subsection of the goals objective section should be amended to include adopting Jersey DCA guidance standards for electric vehicle parking uh section six the historic preservation subsection of the goals and objective section should be updated to reflect the following developments uh establ lishment of a historic preservation plan in April 2017 the end of Project funding for facade Improvement program the program that existed prior does not currently exist uh the completion of a fburg register of historic places that was a item that goal objective that's been addressed uh the preservation subsection of goals and objectives should I section should clarify the amount of regulatory weight the proposed arle architectural style manual have to better guide to Historic preservations commission authority over the planning interest in the historic districts number eight under major problems identified the problem of new S created by industrial uses should be updated to reflect the town's opinion that existing active industrial uses not assumed to be incompatible that Redevelopment of abandoned industrial uses into new industrial uses is allowed to consider a range of alternate uses in addition to residential depending on local conditions uh number nine is highlighted that's a a newer edit um this has to do with the discussion on pages 2829 of the re-exam report that report should be removed and not carried forward as recommendation or problem St the following sections reflect proposed goals um so what starting through um page 20 towards the end of the document what we did uh we relisted all the goals objectives and major problem statements with all the edits as proposed in the re-exam so there was a clear picture of what the goals and objectives would look like and the problem statements would look like going forward we found in some of the prior documents and may had been unclear what what goals and objectives remained and what the problem statements were so those are that starts on the bottom of page 20 and continues to the end of the document okay so at this time I can take answer questions um but there should be feedback feedback and discussion from the board on any questions related to goals or objectives problem statements changes to what you see here and then there definitely needs to be input from the public and okay um well my question really is the historic preservation I know we're laying it out here in our master plan but does that go over to the historic commission as a tool for them when they're figuring out their goals and objectives and what they need to do so everything the historic preservation does should be guided from the master from your master plan and the re-exam okay and the historic preservation plan that was adopted as a result of the right the re-exam what was found or what's recommended in here is to review the intent right acknowledge that items that were asked to be addressed were addressed MH so if we look at page 20 um on page 20 number six so reflect that there is a historic preservation plan as of April 2017 that should guide them going forward and also the master plan should be reviewed um okay faad program doesn't exist um and that the the other major item is number seven about um how much weight the preservations commission's Authority supposed to have over projects and The Styling and the historic elment of the community um in the prior Master plans that may not have been as clear so going forward it's what this is doing is recommending that the governing body provide that clarification in the ordinances okay so they they know what they what's desired of them and then for the land use board knows what the level of input from them supposed to be right okay and also the governing body also that will help them guide them when they get input from that from those members right anyone on board have any other questions I have a quick question on the uh end of Project funding for facade Improvement um when was that I don't have an exact date but the last so many years last seven years I've been involved that the funding for that has not hasn't existed it was hasn't existed um Bill do you I don't remember when when that ended is that for historic buildings only it it applied a lot of your downtown than the historic district so they were used I know there was a facade program to updates the business facades and stuff down there um it's probably a grant program yeah a grant or state funded funded it's expired so expired here but it's still funding that you could find it's no I don't generally not not in the form that it was here right this was out of the state the state had some sort of grant for this program for this program they no longer have it I mean I'm sure there are other entities that may have something but you've got to find them on your own so in the prior reexamined it it identified this as a potential goal objective that that program was available the program doesn't exist currently so it's removing that as a as an item it's not preventing anybody from getting grants or the town offering those grants it's just saying that that program doesn't exist so in the next re-exam that the town undertakes um since it doesn't exist now it will be eliminated so you don't have to review the status the historic program uh uh preservation plan uh that was in uh place in April 2017 do they have funding for the histor upkeep or is it that would be a question for the governing body of how they budget those items I'm not able to speak for that exact line item but I don't think you have uh funding for uh upkeep of buildings and so forth not not for well we've given some money to Roseberry House um for histor for history um they've gone to the county and been awarded grants to the county open space Municipal and charitable uh the train station has been uh awarded through Municipal and charitable with our support and our back and we went to the municipal and charitable to speak on their behalf so we have gone out to try to get um different funding mostly through the county um for those historical um rehabs do we have a count on Main Street of how many historic buildings we have you do as part of the historic reservation plan uh it list all the known uh properties that were identified whether they were on a federal state uh register and then the I believe the current uh commission is also reviewing that document the is identifying if any additional additional item property should be added okay no further question anyone else you okay yeah um yeah okay any one else okay this time I'm going to opening for public comment public wishes to speak please step forward to the microphone and state your name and address David Moret 5 fa heps phbg New Jersey over the years I've largely been pleased with the town occasionally I've been disappointed with some things tonight for the first time I have to say that I'm actually angry and disgusted I opened this document after the last meeting and when I opened this document there was nothing in here about the Howard Street project I would have thought that if something changed I've got another notification but that's okay so the document was posted on the website I looked to see if the document was posted on the website because if it wasn't posted on the website for the meeting I knew I had to get in and I had to check the document to see if there were any changes the document was posted on the website has the exact same revised December 2nd 2024 date and there is nothing in that document that's posted on the website about the Howard Street Warehouse the fact is is that the this town does not notify the public about significant changes that are going to be happening in the town a warehouse down on Howard Street is a significant change to the residents down there along Mercer Street and in that area so the notification of important things like trucks on Center Street and warehouses down there along Howard Street fall to groups that are run by many of the individuals that are sitting here in this room tonight I distributed the information that I had I checked the report on the website that was going to be presented tonight and there was nothing about Howard Street had we known that we would have gotten that information out to the public so the people in filisur do not want a warehouse on Howard Street in four short weekends two weekends we got 93 signed letters from residents that do not want a warehouse on Howard Street Additionally you have received or should have seen a petition that went in an attempt to overturn the ordinance that had over 400 signatures of registered voters from Philipsburg that do not want a warehouse down there on Howard Street although it was although there was a heavy concentration of people on Mercer Street those signatures were from throughout the town so why the lack of public input and transparency don't you think that public hearings should have been held before this draft plan was actually made a number of years ago a mayor held something called a design charet where he invited people to come down not to make a document but to get their input about what should be down there at the riverfront this appears and I know of no public meetings other than the public hearing that we're having tonight to discuss this document now who who all can anybody tell me who all participated in the input in this document it was mentioned that there was input from the public who from the public actually had input on this document chairman if I may you may so that comment was based on that you had the public hearing at the last at the last months that was open to the public that was publicly advertised mhm for this document also the circulation plan is a part of it which uh was featured heavily last year under the previous administration public meeting public hearing um we walked the entire town we advertised ahead of it I think I even put out videos of ourselves doing the circulation plan which is included in this document yes and the circulation plan is a piece of this document it is not this document fair enough on the circulation plan you you did a you did a fairly good job getting that out there this is not the circulation plan this is a master plan and this is something that is going to live with the residents of filisur for at least 10 years and things are founded and ordinances are supported by this document so there was no other public input you didn't have residents come in you didn't talk to people on Mercer Street anything like that so yeah kind of um I I would like to just point out the obvious so during the last I I'll just say the election I campaigned on wanting this project I won overwhelmingly in that District I made pulled no punches made no bones about it I support this project that was one of my heaviest one areas because I explained to them what it meant to me what I thought about it so if I so so so your petition that you filed which was not accurately representing because it wasn't a valid petition when I when people came out and voted and had to make up their mind when they saw the Billboards that laid out the anti- warehouse stuff that the circulation Flyers that said if you vote for this guy it's it's Pro warehouse and they still voted for me they were okay with it so in the last election there where there was a anti- warehouse vote there was no anti Warehouse vote the pro Warehouse people won in the last election yes last year this time let him finish please okay in the last election where there was an anti- Warehouse vote two of the three candidates won that election in the last election in the very last election that party did not run on anti- Warehouse because one of their candidates flipped and they couldn't run on so you're wrong on that they that when you ran there was not an anti- Warehouse U there was not an anti- Warehouse sen two elections ago save the library save the riverfront and two of the three candidates that ran on that one and the third one lost by 15 votes okay so so who who who was involved in writing the master plan the reexamination the reexamination there was a subcommittee who was on the subcommittee Mr Bond and U Vice chair Vice chairman Wier yep and uh do plan the yes okay and so did did three of them get any input from any public residents there is no there's no requirement Beyond public notice under the ml for reexamination the town did exceed the minimum requirements of the ml by holding this is the second public hearing on this item um on the matter actually wasn't a public hearing last uh last month Scott I believe that was publicly advertised it was public advertised it was really carried um so so the Public's opportunity to be heard is at a public meeting like tonight and you are being heard yes and this is the Public's opportunity for the board to consider The public's opinion and then make a decision on this reexamination report which could be to adopt it to table it to hold further public meetings and I'm going to re review those options with the board after the public comment today but there's no requirement the public be invited to a board subcommittee correct and attorney willham I agree with you 100% you are following the letter of the law but when you're are making something as dramatic as putting a warehouse down next to a residential area that is over burdened economically it's overburdened racially and it is an environmentally distressed area it is a place that more environmental harm is devastating don't you think maybe we should do more than what is just legally required well that's what the board's going to consider tonight no you're going to do what's legally re required you're not going to do more you're not going to go down and you're not going to invite the residents of Mercers of Mercer Street uh in that area to come and have input myself and many of the people in this audience have walked those streets and we have heard the residents and they've pleaded with us and supported us morally and financially to stop the warehouse that's all I have um if I if I may just to clarify for the board uh the resident's input the appropriate consideration is that you're would like to see either the goal or objective to not permit industrial zoning along Howard Street I'm trying to articulate the way it would be formatted in a m a re-exam they do not want the Corone Howard Street property to be Industrial they want it to be Riverside residential Riverside Heritage or Riverside commercial and along with the Heritage they put a slash at open space and anecdotally from my conversations and the conversations of others in this room the order of priority is they want to see open space Heritage they'd love to see a museum down there um they'd love to see commercial something that goes along with the river uh I've even heard grocery store you know it doesn't exactly go along with the river but and uh number four um uh River uh industrial they don't want that oh I'm sorry four was residential and they said they don't really prefer residential uh as one of their top picks but they'd much rather have residential than have a warehouse down there okay thank you very much so just a point of clarity sure uh 41 in 2021 was uh in the warehouse area was Marino LZ and fber top vot CS in 21 just up the street was uh Lee Clark fuler Marina top vot Getters discussion so in that area in the neighborhood that but directly against theare I'm I telling you what myself and others AFF thank you very much I just want to make sure every everybody's accurate here what's that I'm sorry I'm sorry hold no you anyone who wants to speak to the microphone name and address please y thank you my name is Fred Stan I work with the Delaware River Keeper Network it's an environmental advocacy organization based in burto but we focus on the entire Delaware River Watershed we have about 28,000 uh residents and and I thought it was important information being shared with Mr morett and the board and um the um you know you're you're it it still doesn't it doesn't eliminate the need to gather information from the community what he's coming up with anecdotal information you're basing your your discussion on votes you know which is a way of measuring measuring support so is anecdotal information but the the more important is and it is such a significant change in in land use in the town it's going to impact uh you know obviously the folks living down there but others too it would be it would be a a it would be criminal not to go down and have those types of charettes where you're coming in and you're walking away saying you know we truly gave you know maybe they'll come out and they'll say maybe we want a warehouse maybe we want those jobs but you don't know that for sure and I don't think that that's uh basing um your the votes on a definitive measure of what the the folks want they were looking at you as the big picture you know not just physically but the big picture of your position so it's not just the not just the um you know the number of votes that you got so uh if you do go back and you're going to be as you were saying that you're going to be re-evaluating what are your options today uh clearly getting more public input because sitting here tonight just walking into this room and quickly reading and hearing you read uh the the Howard Street the new information on Howard Street there's no time to be really review that that digest it discuss it and then come back with some real meaningful meaningful public input I I have a question so we did um Mr morset did circulate the um the reexamination maybe two weeks ago I'm thinking when did when was the new one the one that was that's being discussed tonight when was that finalized in cirle so as part of the internal quality control that I did as part of for the for the hearing tonight I reviewed any edits that needed to be incorporated that were not included clearly so the section that changed in the document uh when we reviewed the 2013 re-exam we found that the section discussing Howard Street Redevelopment um was in the recommendations consideration section of it it wasn't listed as a major major problem statement or goal or objective in the re-exam we wanted to make it um clear because it is a sensitive topic in the town that there's opinions on both both sides that um that that was potentially being suggested to be changed it's being suggested to be changed it's not a zoning change that's happening as part of this re exam in the 2013 there was a discussion on Howard stre being developed as residential at the time in 2013 it was approved as residential Redevelopment it indicated because it was residential development it would conflict with the surrounding Industrial Development that's already there um that there would be a need in the future to look at rezoning or re planning tools of how that area between Howard Street going up to South Main would be envisioned based on the type of development that was proposed on what's now the perone property for um industrial warehousing at the time it was residential so what we're saying in this re-exam is recommending that the board remove that discussion because it's no longer currently as the Redevelopment plan stands as of today it does not U include it's included as industrial use not residential so the concern of balancing residential development against indust existing industrial doesn't exist anymore because it's currently proposed to be industrial no longer residential this re-exam report does not change how that property is zoned there's no zoning changes included in in this m in this plan it's just removing the statement discussing that property being residential and the potential conflicts it created by becoming residential that's all this is doing but that's a big change though I mean if it's it's words being taken out saying that at what in the old version it said it was having industrial next to residential was a problem now in words you're saying having having it next to residential is not a problem but no no no no no no that's not what he's saying what he's saying is that there are certain things in the 2013 reexamination report that needed to be addressed and he's saying now that issue has already been decided for good bad whatever side you're on the Howard Street uh uh Industrial Development is is concluded okay and so that's not an issue that needs to be reexamined he's just looking at the things that need to be reamed just like he suggested some other things can be removed because they've already been reexamined in the last 10 or 11 years that's all it's not giving an opinion as to whether it's good or bad he's saying the debate over whether it should be residential or industrial has ended because the town acted thank you for that but to to clear up what your concern is though you may with this re exam you may take an issue with how an area of town zoned just like in the prior ones did in the town set a goal objective to look at that that's an option you could present as the board to consider is part of the re-exam um that that section may not be Z that way or that particular use you may not like drive-throughs on 22 so you may say you don't want to see drive-throughs on 22 because it causes this problem um whatever it may be or this type of housing or you want to see grocery stores in town so maybe you ask for that they put a problem statement that there's a lack of grocery stores into re exam and they should try to plan or facilitate providing for those type of uses so that's that's potentially how you can um incorporate your concerns into it um so and and let me I and I I I really really appreciate you going into the details and helping me understand that but my primary concern and what I started with was when did the these changes become uh become public I mean these are substantial changes the whole Howard Street uh um information in this new version when did that get articulated in this plan verus this the board is seeing it the board is seeing it now it's been it's been it was generally discussed at the last at the last meeting and at the subcommittee that this was a conflict so we've made it clear in this document now that's being presented and when I did the discussion of it I made sure to touch base that that was a change that wasn't Avail that wasn't seen before in the in the so it did happen yesterday at court of quality control going through it that potentially that conern that discussion on Howard Street which is Page 27 28 29 in the 2013 in the recommendation section recommendations section I believe I'm getting titled right um might be interpreted as a problem statement or goal or objective that it warrants making it clear where that sits going forward I think but In fairness to the gentleman I think Mr O Bren I think his question is this is a revised report dated December 2 and I think his question is when was that made available to the public is that so the document that they were handed tonight is just available as of tonight with the edits I made tonight there was a an addition on December 2nd that was circulated that was the most current one at the time so so my and my point is so this was just made available yesterday it really it it it for Clear transparent good government you would think that you'd want to you know certainly the member I would think members of the planning board would want to feel like they're fully engaged I don't think you know I don't know maybe they had time I would think that if you're working you don't have you may not have had time to really understand what these new changes are and and maybe they were hinted on or referenced in here but this is substantial so I really do hope when you do after this meeting and you go back that the board says you know what we really do want to understand this and and it would be great to get some real feedback not just uh characterization by Mr merette you know of what the the community wants but let's find out what the community wants I think it's it's it's important and it's uh you know it's it's Legacy information because these planning these Master plans last for 10 years and there's changes in land use changes in trucking changes in Environmental uh conditions all of this and it and it starts with decisions that you make here so that's why I think it's much more uh to the communities and to your legacy to get that information thank you thank you [Music] Sarah hair from hope I'm also on the Hope environmental commission how do you spell your last name please h a r in the 2024 master plan reexamination with port for Philipsburg is discussed under section five significant changes and challenges there's a consideration of climate change Hazard vulnerability and land use planning the 2021 New Jersey Amendment to the municipal land use law now requires municipalities to incorporate a climate change related Hazard vulnerability assessment into any master plan land use element adopted after the signing it is appropriate for that law to be clearly noted in this plan with that in mind I would like to praise mayor Randy fza for attending a recent warm County Environmental advisory committee meeting in which mayor of Hope Tim mcdna presented about the sustainable Jersey program that supportss in taking sustainable environmentally friendly initiatives mayor pza showed sincere interest in sustainable Jersey by asking questions publicly I would like mayor pazza and Phillipsburg L use board members and other Philipsburg officials to know that since H's environmental commission and green team under the leadership of chairwoman Monica saone and mayor MCD is very active in implementing sustainable Jersey initiatives in addition to applying for Grants our chairwoman welcomes you to contact her for any help you might need in setting up and going forward with any sustainable Jersey initiative in particular and highly connected to the climate change section of your new MP report sustainable Jersey has a comprehensive plan ready to offer any municipality that will help in meeting the state law requirements there is a webinar about this on their website there's a manual available and if you hurry because the deadline is tomorrow there is an easy application for a grant for technical assistance in Township planning for climate change hazards hope Township appli and if we did you can do it too it really is very easy finally regarding the development on Howard Street and the whole concept of climate change hazards please keep in mind that a warehouse would only complicate challenges for Philipsburg on the climate change front in an article on clean water actions website in July 2024 they state in recent years the economic pressure on communities to site warehouses has grown this pressure has run headlong into the dangers of climate change the benefits of job growth and ratables can come at a steep cost among the costs increased flood risk traffic congestion impacts on air quality and a disproportionate impact on overburdened communities under impacts on air quality it states according to the state Planning Commission emissions of air pollutants and and greenhouse gases from diesel power delivery Vans and tractor trailers represent the most substantial environmental impact from Warehouse facilities State Planning Commission guidance page 22 as the commission report reminds us there is mounting evidence that diesel exhaust poses major health hazards the World Health Organization classifies diesel exhaust as carcinogenic to humans even low concentrations the electrification of truck fleets to avoid these harmful emissions appears to be many years of way and regarding overburdened communities of which the neighborhood next to Howard Street is it states wherehouse sighting disproportionately impacts overburden communities consisting of lowincome residents who may lack the political Capital to mount effective opposition to inappropriate warehous house sighting with all of this in mind and with the hazards of climate change upon us please take my comments to heart thank you so much for your attention thank you um I'm Mike King 12 Front Street Philipsburg um I do want as to the conversation regarding whether it's residential or industrial uh actually that issue is not resolved there's litigation about this still in Superior Court on this issue so to say that it's resolved and that it's now we're going to be industrial that's not correct I I also just want to to add to uh to the other comments uh in the hierarchy of awfulness about warehouses it's the distance from the highway that's the key idea it's got to be on the highway when we discussing how our lives have evolved and the warehouses the thing of it is they at least got be on the highway not three miles from the highway thank you very much thank you seeing no other comments I'm closing public comment any discussion by the board so Mr Duffy I uh I think at this point the board the board has a few options the board is tasked with uh providing reexamination they delegate that to the expert which is the professional planner Mr O'Brien Mr O'Brien has made his report comments and U recommendations but it's the board that gets to make the final decision on that a report he's only an agent of the board the board has in my view three choices you can call for a vote to adopt his uh report as written and his recommendations number two you can carry this to the next meeting for further public hearing and number three you are free to uh direct to carry it and direct Mr O'Brien to go back and make um additional comments or investigate issues more um comprehensively if you don't think they've been done for instance there are some people here today who believe that there's been inadequate public um in input so again you can ask you can direct Mr O'Brien to carry this matter and direct Mr Brian to engage the public further um you can carry it to next month for for a further public hearing uh you really can do whatever you want um just think about what comments that were made think about what Mr Brian said and choice is yours okay anybody have anything they'd like to okay yeah I I think um even with the issue of Howard Street we've been talking about this um very public L for four years uh 2020 I think was when um we've had a lot of public meetings public hearings we've had different people on land use boards we've had virtual we've had inperson um just when it comes to those uh those matters ofest that area as far as the uh reexamination goes it's a year behind um it's yet another thing that we're trying to play catchup on um that was left to uh for this Administration to take over whether it be bills reexaminations um uh filings with the IRS that are again either two three years past dat so we are playing a lot of catchup so I do apologize if we're um trying to push ahead but we're trying to make sure that things that have not been done in a timely manner and on uh you know when they should have been done are getting done um and I think the subject matter has been discussed ad nauseum so okay um do I hear a motion motion to oh I I just have a sure it's Town Council that has changed the zoning from residential to Industrial is that correct we didn't change that it came from Council correct I'm trying to so yeah at at this point Town Council asked us to reexamine it we reexamined it Andis Authority they're the Redevelopment Authority they made that decision so it seems to me that they need to go to council well talk to council complain to to them for changing the zoning it it was basically their de final decision it was their final decision yes and it was their initiative to do it and at this point we can't change what council has chosen to do only Council can do that Council has the final say so I understand what you're saying understand saying we I don't know if we have do we have influence we can make recommendations to council yes but Council gets the final set the uh I mean and the status quo right now even though there are legal challenges the status quo is that is an industrial area correct so regardless if we adopt this tonight or not it's not going to change anything on the zoning of that that area it's not going to come from us anyway no and if the zoning changed in that area even with what this says the zoning changes so that part of the reexamination would have to be not necessarily modified but would have to be changed in the board's thinking that it got changed it's not industrial anymore now we have this I I'm I would just say again I I don't Advocate a position that's not my job it's just to provide guidance and while there seems to be a lot of emphasis uh on Howard Street you have to look at the global issue here this is a reexamination of the master report as a global document there's the public tonight has expressed concerns that they don't believe the Howard Street part of it was adequately addressed and are suggesting that there's been ins insufficient time time to consider that insufficient input from the from the public on that issue but it's one of many facets of it so if you believe that the public has not had adequate time to examine and comment on this report then you may want to consider carrying it if you believe the public has had adequate time then you know again you can vote this up and down or vote for an for an amendment but I think what you're hearing here is that there's a concern from the public that they believe they haven't had adequate time heard so again those are your options on the on the conservation uh the goals and objectives I I was just reading over it um it looks like they do address some of the environmental aspects of uh or that there's a want to address and and and and Safeguard those those uh environmental issues am am I reading that correctly you are reading that correctly and I believe with uh Mr O'Brien had said was that there will be a need for the housing and for the climate control not climate control but the climate U hazards and so forth we're going to have to have uh studies on both of those in the future is that correct so uh to your point yes there's a recommendation that the land use plan is Thoroughly examined uh in the future that would also address the state statute related to Hazard vulnerability that is listed in the document as a major change it does itemize it we just didn't copy the full text of the statute that could be added if desired um and then the housing plan we identify Co change and there's an obligation to update the housing and fair share plan uh so those two are recommendations to be done because those are more thorough than a re-exam right and the goal of this one and board members point on page 21 uh section 7 this is the goals and objectives revised so this is as it would be stated going forward uh under conservation it says Identify preserve environmental features create Riverfront development plan for the entire length of the riverfront is providing for River related activities business housing access plans for trails and view areas there's no change to that those two items create a continuous Greenway trail system along the lowack creek and Canal identify remediate and reuse Brownfield sites so those are those would be your goals and objectives for under conservation going forward and then right under that section is the land use and the first goal objective is to undertake a comprehensive land use element uh to conform to State requirements for climate change and Hazard vulnerability assessment I think that was one of the bigger issues uh that I I heard because I did ask a few people that live in the area obviously County so I know some folks down there and I did kind of ask a few questions about that and I'm conservative uh I like to think of myself as uh being a conservation you know I I try to recycle everything folks I watched all the documentaries as much as I can and that would be an issue obviously with the warehouse but I don't think that it's uh something that is uh absent from what we're looking at I think this is definitely something that we're looking at I want you to think that we're we're we're not looking at it it's it was right there because that was something public comments closed I I love that and and when she would was speaking I I I thought it was address and I think it is address the conservation thing that that's really really really important as much as traffic is I would say if not more in today's climate right so it is being addressed I think for our our sake thank you as you see the goals and objectives listed these are to guide future boards the govering body of how they look at going forward in the town shortterm long term so as you read those if there's something that need you would like to see added you would make a suggestion to the board for potentially tonight I do think as far as the conservation aspect goes the uh the highlands environmental uh resource inventory from 2022 has that area outlined as low water shed uh no Wetlands low Open Water no repairing area um low watershed area um no repair in integrity and has five uh severe steep slopes on that area um it also has it listed as not a critical area for wildlife and not a significant area for natural habitat so um if you go look at so where do we find that I'm sorry what what was that the the highlands the Highland Highlands Council um so they they identified Philipsburg as Warren County's basic basic area for multi-use Philipsburg is the the industrial area of Warren County so the rest of Warren County can remain War what everybody thinks of Warren County is um Philipsburg has always been the industrial area Philipsburg has its elements um you know it has more dense housing um it's what we are it's what it we've always existed as in Warren County um it's it's a p it's a 2 by two pocket of what kind of a urban area within um I don't know a very rural surrounding so um the Highland kind of addressed that in 2012 point of order is if new information is being presented to the community and I appreciate you reading that for everybody's benefit so this has been available let finish hold on a second hold on a second hold on hold on okay so Mr chairman you close public comment somebody would like to make public comment so the appropriate thing to do would be to ask the board if they would like to reopen public comment or not do you want to open reopen public comment does anybody want to make a motion to reop I have no issue with that I'll second I right take a vote I take a roll roll call motion to reop public comment is to Denial in a world of his own Mr Branch yes Mr Rod no Mr penos yes Mr turnball yes Mr null yes mayor pza yes and chairman Duffy yes okay I will reopen public comment at this point thank you uh Fred Stein again and thank I appreciate this this is I know it's going outside of Norm so it's appreciated um you brought up new information and and some characterizations are made about you know that the whole world of the environmental concerns have been met and and I just want to point out that that that what you read from the characterization of the property um you know he talked about steep slopes that's a big that's that's a big issue um because where they're steep slopes and they're clear they're leveled uh for a warehouse or for any reason now you're creating as we' talked about in you you in in this study you recommend that where there's steep slopes you have to come up with some a steep slope ordinance because there's erosion issues storm water issues towel in the bathroom hand hand inro so so that that that one reference does indicate that there's steep SCE on this on this property so that's an environmental concern it also has it as not a watershed area well everything's in a I think I if that's what it says I because everything's in a watershed area know it all Watershed is just an area of land so I'm not really sure but the um you know there's a lot of you you we've talked about the air quality we've talked about uh um um air quality you know if they clear that if they clear that site to put the um the the warehouse there I mean right now there is like hundreds and hundreds of trees it's been a successional forest so right now that would have to be eliminated in order to put a warehouse so again just and we're talking that's why it would be good to have uh more input from the community and and more time to discuss this because now you're going to clear you know we want to talk about climate change and have a climate change vulnerability uh plan or assessment eliminating those all those trees it I mean that's what's helping Philipsburg meat at least and again just a small thing it's not the everything but all of those hundreds of trees produce oxygen absorb pollution manage storm water uh reduce heat island effect all of these things are impacts to climate change If you eliminate that uh for a warehouse then you've elimin you've taken a step back and so just again just to make sure we're looking at this and and you know we we all recycle and that's good but that doesn't mean we need to uh we have considered all of the environmental impacts to this to this site and um I really do hope that you plan to delay this V the vote so you gather some more input from the community uh and let let the the the folks here come with good information that will help inform and make a better decision thank you very much thank you again for opening it up excuse me but I'm late to the show okay okay uh my name is Gary Willis I live at 35 Riverview Road and just to correct this young lady back here the environmental under federal law in 1996 they passed a law about the EPA on diesel trucks I've driven truck for 50 years I know about diesel trucks I own one and if you see a diesel truck with a black sup coming out of the sty that's illegal That's the Law okay all trucks now are uh mandated to have a DEF tank I think Mr Penrose knows all about that also okay so your environmental status on a diesel TR truck is limited cuz the air that comes out of a diesel nowadays because of the hot box that's they manufacture on them and put on them to burn the excessive fuel to come out are we on the same page yes but my concern is with the warehouse is this I almost know got Sid swipe this morning right down here by the laund map by a tra trailer if the laundry map had a car sitting there I would have been sence Swip cuz I had to go into the park I don't think the issue here is the warehouse I think it's the issue of enforcing the laws that are already on the books with the truck traffic go down towards the free bridge five to 10 trucks day go out that way and I think it's in the B of the town right now that they're not supposed to go that way okay truck traffic comes out of Atlantic states same way they go that way they go west whatever you want to call it by a free brid that's where this issue is coming from because it's not impacting just the streets down there it's entire Community I followed one up Center Street yesterday right he couldn't hardly climb the hill and make the turn to go out of town this is where I think the enforcement of all the situations has to come into effect you know I feel bad for Mr per because he sat on that L for 20 years because I sat on the zoning board I sat on the school board I know the Dilemma that we're going through here but this isn't about the warehouse It's about the community and to enforce what's on the books and that's I feel bad for you I really do thank you thank you chairman and board for reopening public comments um my understanding is is that this document was not completed until about two days ago and if that's the case this document was not available 10 days ago for the public to review so I don't believe it's legitimate in taking a votee to accept this document tonight I think that violates the notification thank you that's it closing public comment okay so I was just going to say I I think you're back to your options of um continuing this to the next month for more public comment at the next land use board meeting or number two directing Mr O'Brien to take into consideration more public input however he chooses or number three voting to adopt as written um Mr Moret makes a fair point Point there's a I think a legitimate question is to that the board has to decide as to whether they think that the the report as distributed by Mr O'Brien today is different from the report uh that was posted uh on honor about December 2nd or whether they view that is di Minimus di Minimus under the law means very minor and having no consequence um I don't know if anybody's going to ask me what I think so I would like to know what you think I would say in an abundance of caution you should continue this because Mr O'Brien did hand out documents with changes that he candidly admitted to I agree and I think in the abundance of caution um and given the response you're getting today um that that document that was handed out today could be argued to be more than di Minimus Superior Court Superior Court Judge would make that decision and it could very well be determined to be more than the Minimus with that said I like to make a motion to carry it second adjusts or changes any suggested adjustment or changes in other words are you making a motion just to carry it just to carry the public has more inut people have more time to digest it and what Mr O'Brien is asking is there anything additional to that that you want him to look into at the present time or is it just a carry generally I just want to say a carry won't you know get the public a little bit more time okay you made that motion you second okay any further discussion roll call Mr branch yes Mr brodman yes Mr Penrose yes Mr turnball yes Mr null yes may pza yes and chairman Duffy yes okay so the meeting will be carried without any further notice to January 20 23 23rd 2025 and uh the document that was presented tonight will be uploaded on the website okay um is there any public comment seeing none I close it we don't need an executive session anyone have anything for the good of the order Merry Christmas thank you same okay do I hear a motion for a ger second all those in favor say I I any against the eyes have it