Planning Board Meetings - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good evening and welcome to tonight's meeting of the Sparta Township Planning Board. Thank you to those joining us here and online. For the record, this meeting is being held on June 3rd, 2026 at 7 p.m. in the Sparta Township Municipal Building located at 65 Main Street, Sparta, New Jersey. The live stream can be viewed on YouTube at www.youtube.com slash at Sparta TWP. Please note that adequate public notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. No new business is to be conducted after 9.30 p.m. and the meeting will end at 10. Let us begin with a salute to our flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Raisha, would you please call the roll? Sure.

Birgit Bogler? Here.

Vice Chairwoman Jeanette Burke?

Here. Ron Day?

Here.

Christine Dunbar? Here. Joan Furman? Here. Chairwoman Celeste Luciano? Present. Christine Quinn, here. Ernie Ragsay, here. Deputy Mayor Mike Sylvester, here. Michael Wallace, here. Brian Zimmerman, here.

Okay, thank you. So this evening we're going to change the order of tonight's agenda. I do have a matter that needs to be taken care of first with regard to Minor Site Plan Subcommittee. There was an application that had been brought to Minor Site Plan Subcommittee in February of this year. That was our first application. and that was for the economic development zone. The way our ordinance is currently written, most things that are, sorry, not most things, all things that are relative to the economic development zone, even if they are based on a minor site plan potential, whether it be a new tenant or a new sign, the way that the ordinance is written currently, they are supposed to go to the full board. We now have a new application for a second tenant in that same spot. So what we are intending to do here, members of the board, is provide permission based on the fact that the original application for that same site was heard without this additional information at that time. We're hoping to get permission from the full board to allow this applicant to move through the minor site plan process given the understanding that their first application for their first tenant went the same way. SO I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH FOR A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ALLOW APPLICATION NUMBER, EXCUSE ME, THIS IS 26-19 FOR MINOR SITE PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE, HIGH POINT SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATION OF 2 AARON WAY, SPARTA, NEW JERSEY, BLOCK 16003, LOT NUMBERS 1 AND 2 FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ZONE.

to be allowed to be heard at the minor site plan level may i have a motion in a second could you just explain this because i'm not really understanding yeah what happened here is you have and in the audience we do have the property owner and the broker uh at two aaron way uh there is um a project that does not require a variance or a waiver and therefore normally would qualify to go to minor site plan review unfortunately your ordinance talks about the ed zone that the ed zone has to come before the full board so what the applicant is saying here's the full board uh Can it go to minor site plan for the review or they're here now if you want to hear their discussion or have them on next week's or in two weeks on the agenda with their architect, but they have no variance or waiver requirement.

Okay. I'm just going to speak from little past history here because we've dealt with this issue last year. And, you know, you were involved in it, and we had originally read that if it is in the ED zone, you know, it was treated a certain way, and we were corrected on that. And the minor site plan at that time started hearing those applications, and I think you concurred with it. So I don't think it – I mean, we can do the vote. I don't think it needs it.

I think it just clarifies for the record. Yeah, I am in support that applicants that are permitted uses in the zone even if it's the ED zone that do not require any variances or waiver, they can go to the minor site. That is my opinion. And the nice thing about everybody here in the dais, it has come before the full board, as the ordinance discusses, and you, I'm recommending to you, vote to have it referred to minor site plan. Therefore, you've complied with the administrative requirement.

Right. I think the only thing was if it had anything to do with hazardous materials, you know that was a no-no or if the minor site plan subcommittee and I think this is something we need to talk about later if they're uncomfortable with anything with the process that they don't have professionals they have the right to refer it to the full board but if they're comfortable with it then John that's well said what I recommend the applicant is here and the broker maybe if the property owner could stand up for a moment Sardia saw me swear to tell the truth hold if you wouldn't mind

Yes, I only swear to tell the truth or the whole truth and let them what the truth's help you got. Yes. State your name and business address for the record.

Patrick Terzi, T-U-R-Z-I. Business address is 105 West Dewey Avenue, Building B, Suite 220, Wharton, New Jersey, 07885.

And are you the owner or principal related to 2 Aaron Way? Yes. And just because you can tell the board what you're seeking and why you're here.

So we constructed a new building on Iron Way. It's a 44,000 square foot building. We were here in February, as a gentleman said, to have approval for our first tenant, which occupies or is going to occupy about half of the building. And today we're here for a tenant to occupy almost the entire second half of the building.

And there's no new variances and no new waivers on the property that you're a

There's no new variances or waivers, and this use is actually even less intense than the use that was previously presented in February because there's no offices being built. It's just a storage tenant.

And you heard Ms. Fuhrman, there's not going to be any hazardous waste or regulated chemicals in the building?

Not to my knowledge, an average lease does prohibit hazardous waste or hazardous materials within the building. The tenant has a representative here that can address those questions further.

Maybe we can just get the tenant up real quick. Sure.

Absolutely.

Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so be God?

I do.

Name and business address for the record.

I'm Sandra Curran. I'm the chief operating officer of High Point Solutions at 5 Gale Court, Sparta, New Jersey, 07871.

And what is High Point Solutions? What do you do?

We sell IT equipment on 5 Gale Court. We've been there about 30 years, and we need additional storage for our inventory. So we wanted to stay in Sparta right down the street.

And you recognize that if... the signage that's required is different from what was approved you may have to come back before the board for signage application we shouldn't need any signage it's just storage you don't need sign we do not I have no further questions of the board the the purpose of the these applications are know when there are no variances or no waivers that they can just be approved by the board in my opinion based upon the sworn testimony uh and it there were prior approvals in place i believe you could on the record uh approve this tenancy uh rather infer to the minor site plan uh subcommittee or You can refer it to the minor site plan committee. So whatever this board determines, if you want to approve it tonight, the tenancy, or refer it to minor site plan.

I would only ask that they take a look at the hazardous chemicals list and sign something that you won't have any of that in storage.

Is that acceptable? That tenant and landlord's acceptable? Okay. If someone moved, go ahead.

One thing, if I could, I'm going back to the ordinance where that was put in. And one of the concerns, one of the reasons we had to come back to the full board was just to make sure from a traffic perspective that the intensity, because nope, they didn't know who the tenant was at the time. So we said, you know, we'd like to be able to take a look at the traffic intensity, how many trips are coming in and coming out. And so there was something that was already approved as part of the main part of the initial application. So be good to get something that says this, you know, we expect so many trips coming in and coming out today.

Yeah, you heard Mr. Day.

Yes, I heard the question. So again, this is extra storage. So I wouldn't expect more than maybe two to three trucks a week. coming in and out. So it's light usage. It's our extra, we kind of call it cold storage, things that aren't used that much, but we need to store. And we're out of space in our current facility.

That will be part of the application and part of the approval will be somewhere, you know, two to three trips. What did you say?

Yeah, it would be a delivery of equipment or picking equipment up a few times a week. It's not going to be heavy.

Because, again, they're taking. Correct.

I'm satisfied that we have sworn testimony now. I'm satisfied that if this board wanted to prove it with those conditions, we could do that.

Thank you.

So I'll make a motion, if no one has any other comments, to approve it with the conditions that were mentioned here. So as long as there's something in writing that says, oh, sorry. As long as there's something in writing that addresses what Joan brought up as far as hazardous chemicals, and as long as something is in there that what Mr. Day brought up, which is how many trips you're going to have, I'm comfortable making the motion to approve it with those considerations.

Thank you. I'll second it.

Do we have a roll call, please? Birgit Bogler. Yes. Vice Chairwoman Jeanette Burke. Ron Day.

Yes.

Christine Dunbar. Yes. Joan Furman. Yes. Chairwoman Celeste Luciano. Yes. Yes. Christine Quinn. Yes. Ernie Baxter. Yes. Deputy Mayor Mike Sylvester. Yes. Mike Wallace. Yes. Brian Zimmerman. Yes.

All right. One question before you leave. On the trips, don't want to get you tripped up on it. A week, once a day, twice a day.

mean i i can't imagine it's more than a couple times a day most that we would would ever have and you're talking about fedex trucks that that kind of truck coming in ron what would you feel comfortable on the trip to the resolution i'll leave that to the minus i plan only because you know i don't know the size of the building i don't know how many employees are going to be there and so any recommendation on the language for the number of trips during the week

Maybe just as part of their application for they just have something written saying the number of employees hours of operations and it's just saying it's going to be standard deliveries Amazon FedEx that they're not getting you know wholesale deliveries to there, I think that would be because. I mean, FedEx, right, we can hope that they come a couple of times a week. But, you know, how many times do you get an email like your package is delayed? So I think maybe just saying kind of the standard delivery from FedEx, UPS, Amazon, and nothing beyond those like wholesale large box trucks kind of coming in. Sometimes Amazon comes five times a day. Sometimes it does not come. That could be my house.

Just real quick, the number of employees you have.

There are going to be three or four employees at the facility, and it's 8 to 4, 8 to 5. Saturday, Sunday? No. Okay.

And just to clarify, when we're talking about a trip or a truck, are we talking about an 18 Wheeler? Are we talking about a box truck? Are we talking about a van?

Yeah, just going to say that the building has 11 loading docs. So. I was just trying to be clear and I want to just leave the board that they will be getting if they don't want the other tenants in the building are getting track trail in the building. That's what it was designed. Right?

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That's intensive.

So I'll leave it at standard deliveries and this tenant not anticipating wholesale deliveries.

Correct.

Is that good?

That is correct.

Good.

Thank you.

Okay. I'm fine.

You good? I think we're good, guys.

Okay.

That may have been the fastest roll call I've ever experienced.

Well, and thank you for staying in Sparta and keeping your business in Sparta. We appreciate that.

Thank you. Okay. In keeping with taking our agenda out of order, we are going to move to the public hearings section. So we have on our agenda, Sparta Apartments Real Estate Fund, LLC, who is the successor in interest to Fluss Holdings, which was application number 24-708 for the extension of their prior approval. That has been carried to our June 17, 2026 meeting.

That brings us to- And if I could just real quick on that, the attorney called me. This is, if you recall, there's new construction of apartments. It has a long history. They have their approvals and finance in place. I did say to the attorney if he could show up, he said there's no amendments per se to the plan itself. But I think some of the board members had questions on where the application is and the status. and when they anticipate building so he is prepared at the next meeting to just talk about the history and where the application is thank you

Can I ask a clarifying question? Sure. I wasn't on the board when this was approved. I was on the board when it was Captiva and then it was something else. Yes. Floss. Yes. Now it's part of apartment real estate. So my question is, is anything in the design or anything that was approved by this board been changed or are they moving forward with exactly what was already approved?

And my understanding is exactly what was approved and not what was approved as captive.

The most current owner, so they bought it as is and are going to adhere to the plans that were approved.

Correct. Okay. So we make it clear that we are not reopening the approval.

correct no this is an extension of time come to the board they're giving us just an update and want our blessing to acknowledge that the transfer is taking place correct right because under the uh municipal land use act new jersey you have so long to get a building permit so they need a slight extension and in order to get that extension they're telling you why uh but my understanding is there is no uh change it's still a permitted use and uh that's where they're coming next month next meeting

thank you nothing further on that so moving to master plan consistency review for the ordinance amending chapter excuse me we're going to do minutes i'm sorry we're doing minutes we're going to do that at the end we're rearranging the order uh entitled comprehensive land management code of the township of sparta code to amend section 18 dashboard 21 entitled c1h community commercial historic zone before um before i open the floor to to Lindsay for for her comprehensive review we need to address a few issues with regard to process and procedure and How how certain things have unfolded? within the confines of the last few months between the introduction of this ordinance to date. Originally, just to clear up some miscommunication, originally this board was intending to hear this consistency review at our May 20th meeting. That did not happen because there was an issue at the council level relative to Their notice for their hearing and we were asked to remove it from our agenda There being nothing remaining on our agenda for that day. We cancelled that meeting There was a question at the council level to determine whether or not they were going to move forward with either consistency review or a re-examination report of the entirety of the TCC zone and In order to contemplate whether or not that would capture the issues they were having with the fair share So with the fair share property that's also within the confines of Lake Mohawk as well as the c1h ordinance they decided to move forward with the with the consistency review because it was more cost effective and it was a faster process and So just to clarify that information. I'm also going to open it up to the board because I know the board had a few questions in terms of process and procedure, how things should normally flow. And this way, Ken can help facilitate that process and give everybody a better understanding of what should have happened. and kind of dispel some of the confusion. So I'm going to start, Birgit, if you wouldn't mind, if you have any questions. You can reserve the right for it to come back around.

I would. Okay.

Okay. So, Ron, do you have any questions?

I do. I guess, first of all, typically, we typically have someone here to explain the ordinance and what it does. So I guess we're not going to have anyone here tonight to do that.

lindsay is here for her consistency review that is that that is the the entirety of of the scenario okay but to your point typically the author um i know when i write an ordinance right i present it to the governing body i bring it to the planning board and then it's my i'm tasked with showing how it is consistent with the master plan so it's most likely how that's been handled previously but i've read their um ordinance i've read uh miss armad's notes as well

and i'm prepared to discuss it um going over the ordinance as well as the master plan and re-examination reports so i i think one thing that would be helpful if you could lindsay's just again explain to people when we look at it for consistency what is it we're looking for

Absolutely. Yeah. So I kind of will go directly to the MLUL for this and just directly cite that since that is, you know, the governing document for the board. And just directly from NJSA 4055D26, the planning board serves as an advisory role in the municipal legislative process by reviewing proposed zoning ordinances and amendments for consistency with the master plan. Upon referral from the governing body, the board is charged with determining whether a proposed ordinance advances the goals and objectives established in the master plan and reports its findings accordingly. So you're tasked with reviewing the ordinance that was presented to us, as well as reviewing the master plan and the subsequent re-examination reports and determining if the ordinance this evening is wholly consistent. Um, is it consistent? However, maybe there are some pieces in it that are not and and we have suggestions to the governing body, which they are open to take or not take. Um, and then finally, if you find it just wholly inconsistent as well.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, not a problem.

Any other questions from. Okay, so we're going to move on to Ernie. Do you have any questions? No, no. Chris, do you have any questions? Me? Yes, you. That's a silly question.

Now you're being silly.

I know.

So yes, I do. And these are process questions about how we got here, but also around different things that affect this, just for clarification.

If you can't answer it, kick it to Ken if it's illegal. Got it.

So, first and foremost, when we're looking at the actual ordinances and the process of changing the zones and things of that nature, there is this zone exists right now on Route 94. And there are actually, it's not one piece of property, it's nine blocks. parcels of property that have been in this zone from the beginning. So the first question I have is, have the property owners of those nine parcels been notified?

Based on noticing requirements, I would assume so.

I need clarification on that. Not from you, I know, but Raisha, I don't know who can confirm this, but... That would be Carrie. Kent?

And yeah, I would say it's sent to us. It's presumed that the law was complied with. So it is our duty to review it. I am assuming that the law was complied with. But if it wasn't, then it's defective.

Can we please not assume?

It's really not our task.

Oh, okay.

She said carry.

Oh, carry. I'm sorry. I thought you said Ken. I'm sorry. Okay.

I realized that you heard Ken. I heard Ken. I was trying to say carry. Sorry.

Okay. So that's the first part of this. The second part of it is basically a duplication because the other are all of the parcels that are in the proposed expansion all of the properties that were identified in the ordinance itself and each one of those properties is currently in a different zone and will be moved into if they if approved a new zone so my question again is have these property owners received notice From a process perspective, because, and I'm asking this because at least from my perception, we've kind of, the process has sort of been a little bit fluid on this one. And I just want to make sure that through the fluidity, we are sticking to what the law demands, which in my understanding is that every property owner that's affected needs to be noticed that their zone is going to be changed.

My understanding is there was a problem in the past and that has been cured. Again, if it was done improperly, it's statutorily defective. But your task is to refer to you and to review it. And I will put in the documentation that we assume and recognize that if it was not done properly, that it would be procedurally defective. But again, we're tasked to review.

No, no, no. These are not even my questions on the review. These are my process questions. I got you.

And then to further that, the additional lots that you speak of in the ordinance, they're not repealing those lots from the area. There's no repeal or replace of those lots. So we're assuming that they are also included in this ordinance amendment.

So all of those properties are currently in TCC?

The other C1H zone.

the one on 94 yes okay so what i'm talking about the second question was the properties that are affected on block 5024 so that's in the lake mohawk district so that's what i'm asking i'm asking have the people on 94 been notified and then second question are we sure that the people in lake mohawk have been notified because all of those property owners their property if this goes through their property, the zone will also change. So I'm just from, again, this has been a little bit, a little fluid. So I just want to make sure that statutorily, you know, these steps have not been missed along the way.

Yeah. I think assuming that they got to this, it's now at this present at this board after fixing the mistake that occurred in the first time with noticing, I would assume that the second noticing is what has been done correctly.

Okay. And at the time when this was introduced, once it's introduced, what is the percentage of changes that drives it to have to be reintroduced? So in other words, changes, when you introduce an ordinance, if you make changes to it, and they are what's considered to be material changes, if they're sensitive changes, then the ordinance cannot just be checked off and changed a little bit and and introduced it has to be reintroduced and start from the beginning so are we of the opinion that that holds here or are we happy that what we have is ready i mean again from a process perspective process i have no indication that there has been substantial or material change but if you are correct if there were then you'd have to start over

What would constitute a material change in this instance? That's a good question. Percentage isn't it?

Um, well, in this case, I mean, at least when we were going through the affordable housing stuff, I know the material changes and that was erring on the side of abundance of caution. Um, just because those were are a lot of those are going through the legal process. Um, we went anything beyond a typographical error or grammatical error would be considered. City Council Chambers, A substantial change that would initiate a reintroduction. City Council Chambers, So can I.

City Council Chambers, So in the May 20 version in the section three block 502 for listed lots 123456789 and then in the June.

third version under section three block five zero two four it only lists slots one through nine ten has been removed is that a material change i'm okay with it because it's less intensive it's not more intensive so to me you know again think of your own experience with your own property if you're adding somebody that is a material change if you're taking someone out i'm not as moved by that

yes and also given that they redid notice for the lots included i i would assume that that would be a change that would be permitted to continue on the process

So the fact that the lot that was removed, being lot 10, is Five West Shore Trail, and Five West Shore Trail had been included in Sparta's fair share housing plan, and is also part of the $528 million fraud scheme that Sparta residents Joseph Pasolacqua and Raymond Perello Jr. pleaded guilty to, That's not a material difference. Cause if it was on February 24th, if Sparta council knew that five West shore trail was going into the affordable housing plan, then why would it have been included in the first place?

Well, my understanding is lot 10, uh, since it's part of the town's fair housing plan, that's why it was pulled out. The issues of the title owner and those issues are such that to be candid with, they're not land use issues. They are. You know, as far as this zone and this lot, as part of your fair housing plan, how many unit dwelling go there? I mean, that's Lindsay. You have anything you can add to that?

No. And the reason why it also might have been this is just. knowing the process of affordable housing i am not your affordable housing planner so i can't speak on behalf of what has gone through their mediation process but it's likely that fair share or through that process maybe they were asked to remove it or to be zoned a certain way Um, to reach kind of plan conformance. As part of the kind of their settlement process. So it's possible that, um, they suggested a type of zoning, a type of bulk or something like that, that why that might have since it is an affordable. Um, it is designated for affordable purposes. It might have a little hypersensitivity to the zoning, um, and the choice to remove it might have been associated with that.

just a question following it so so my understanding is whether it's affordable housing or not um if it's in the zone it still has to meet the requirements of the zone so by not including an amendment doesn't it relieve it of that that responsibility yeah i did get the opportunity and uh

I compliment Mayor Quinn on providing me the ordinance. The ordinance is not an overlay, it's a specific ordinance for that particular parcel. So you have on your fair housing, direct zoning and as lindsay said it may have been part of the settlement agreement because they have to put restrictive deeds on the property so i i i am guessing but i from a land use perspective it was referred to you by way of the ordinance 10 is taken out i don't think there's anything illegal that 10 was taken out especially in light of the ordinance that has it part of your fair housing plan and i respect the other issues that are related to the title owner but it is not before you and i don't think there's anything improper for you to look at the ordinance because lot 10 was not in it yeah and truthfully i don't think i really got an answer to my question there so if it's in the zone doesn't it have to meet the standards of that zone whether it be architectural or block standards

it's not in there it's going to be in its own separate zone for affordable housing purposes as part of your settlement agreement to maintain the township's immunity for the fourth round and ron if in that ordinance it said and they shall comply with the design standards of the historic district i don't know if it does or doesn't i haven't looked at it so that ordinance was pulled and it was a it was introduced and then it was pulled but to ron's point

And to the point of this, if you take one chunk of property and it's in a different zone, like a spot zone, which I'm just going to leave that out there. And if that is not consistent, then you can have a complete imbalance in what's going on in a very small space. Because where we're looking at the density, and that led into sort of my next question to you, but I don't wanna move on because it's very important. I think that, I don't know if we tell you or how this happens, but when that is reintroduced, if that is going to be what that is, then there should be something tying it to the design standards of what the rest of it is going to look like. So you don't end up with something that sticks out like a sore thumb in the middle of White Deer Plaza, And whatever else is developed there, so it should not be allowed to be its own thing and run that's a great catch.

So just to. You can absolutely put design standards when that comes forward, however, I would look at the zoning of that site. differently um it's mentioned in your housing element and fair share plan which is a part of your master plan so for consistency purposes if that lot is in your housing element and fair share plan and identified as one of your mechanisms for your fourth round compliance which leads to your immunity from builder's remedy suits I would be hyper sensitive to that particular block and lot just because deviations from your settlement agreement could potentially. put you at risk from losing to losing your immunity, however. when that is introduced, I would say you could put design requirements due to, and if you've read my memo, right, that's something I probably weighed pretty heavily on. I think, and that's something as we've drafted this master plan is something that has, we've heard from the public, we've heard from the boards that design standards are very important. So I think when that ordinance is introduced, either having it refer back to the historic preservation or having its own design standards is something that absolutely we as a board, when it comes to the planning board for master plan consistency, is something we can consider and recommend to the governing body.

But to Beergate's point, why couldn't it be in the zone and then there just be an overlay for affordable housing over it?

Because as part of your settlement... Oh, the settlement? Yeah, it's probably part of your settlement that they didn't... So historically, this is just... affordable housing historically in rounds one two three overlays were generally frowned upon so in this fourth round when overlays were kind of being pushed a little more a lot of the planners who have been you know ingrained in affordable housing were quite surprised but traditionally affordable housing has been zoning amendments not necessarily overlays and I'm sure that that is part of your settlement it was part of that process I can't speak directly to it but I would assume that that's why it's becoming its own zone and it's probably a general zone where all of the affordable projects that are used as mechanisms will be for your fourth round so to make sure I understand right now I appreciate the explanation yeah absolutely sorry it's long-winded it sounds like

Anything that's going to be included in the affordable housing settlement, any of those buildings, do not need to meet the standards of the zones that they're in? They're going to have their own standards?

They will, at least this one. I don't know. I haven't seen the rest because your settlement is still an ongoing process. But the ordinance will be drafted for these specific lots to have their own bulk requirements, most likely, or they will refer to another ordinance. um zone like how we have in some zones like the c1h which refers to the c1 um so in a similar fashion the um the new zones i haven't seen what has been written um i believe it like i said it's still ongoing but they will either have their own because it will be a zone in itself um and they will have their bulk requirements specifically for that zone if i if i may just so i could stay i'm trying to follow the conversation

can we be exact on the property we're talking about so we're not mixing up certain parcels down there one that was removed the one that's started the conversation what what's the lot block of that parcel yeah it's block 5024 lot 10. if you look on the map as well that i provided for you guys it's i know it's hard to see the red lines on this but

But it's the one that doesn't have red lines around it, but it's West Shore Trail it fronts on is the narrow side. And then when you see 5025 for that block, right to the left of it.

So it's the auto body shop. Yeah, the former auto body shop.

I only have two more questions. It's a narrow, long property.

Before we leave this question, though, along what you're saying, if this property is totally pulled out, Um, and it's not going to be in the list that goes in with the rest of Lake Mohawk. Are they still subject to the Lake Mohawk bylaws and part of that community or is that all pulled out?

Right. In my professional opinion, title is title. If you're, if the property is located, I think goes to what Ron day was trying to get out that the title issues remain the municipality under your power can have the power of zoning. and they can say zoning-wise here, but your Lake Mohawk title regulations, in my opinion, remain on the property, runs with the property. That's the term of art.

Because it's deeded.

Because it's deeded, correct. Now, as far as what Lindsay was alluding to, if the fair housing settlement says X is more than number of dwellings, I think it's fair, again, going to Ron's discussion, and everyone here, I think, is saying that the design standard should remain, though, for that historic preservation. And I think that's a fair comment to be made to the mayor and council and to be put as part of your review tonight, whatever you determine. I think that's fair.

Lindsay, another question. When you were doing your... Sorry. I never am told I can't be heard, so I'm sorry about that. When you were doing your review, because this area was pulled out because this property was pulled out. I know that there was discussion about the number of units that were going to be on this property, which is a pretty... You mentioned intensity several times in your review of this. So my question is, because that property was pulled out, did you take the additional intensity of that the build out of that property into effect when you created your report? Or did you not look at that and not look at that and include it in density or intensity when you were doing your review?

So to be completely transparent, knowing that it's an affordable designation is going to go there. I did not include that in the thought process for this memo because of the unique situation of affordable housing and truly the sensitivity of anything putting the township at risk of not being able to achieve that immunity. I thought that was kind of... the most important piece um so with that in kind of the forefront of my mind i chose to just ignore that property and you know and just look at the additional properties um that are included in the c1 that will are proposed to be included in the c1h zone

So and the reason why I asked that was not to put you on the spot or anything of the sort, but was just to say that when it comes to intensity, we also need to be aware that this is, you know, this is going to be a reality. So it needs to be at least understood that this is going to add intensity and density to this space as well. So I just that's why I wanted to just clarify that.

Absolutely understood. Yeah.

And just one more question.

Chris, I just want to add to that one of the, to your point. So as we continue the process for the master plan and the land use element, and when we do do the review of this section, all of that is going to be taken into consideration. So everything that's being done here is going to get re-evaluated in the master plan process. So I just want to put that out there.

Okay. And just, again, another general question. We're dealing with sort of a hybrid here, I think, because of the designation of the reservation. So it's a private community. It's a private reservation. It's got this retail component to it. It has its own HOA. It has its own bylaws. It has its own things. And then on top of that, we're kind of now looking, which is what we're going to be doing next, at this consistency review to understand it. And my question is the understanding of the township, any kind of ordinance that is put forth by any of our land use boards and approved by the council, the town is in charge of that. The town has the teeth, the town enforces it, the town does all of that. And what I want to confirm is that in no way, shape, or form, and how do we balance the fact that some of the uses that we're going to be talking about fly in the face of some of the bylaws that exist and that determination? And if that was taken into consideration, I know we'll talk about it when we get into the actual document itself. But I just wanted to ask, you know, how that's handled because I know we have a little bit of a sticky situation here and it's a little different because of the determination and the type of reservation that it is.

yeah so my task this evening is based on the municipal land use law and the municipal land use law is the guiding document for you know planning laws in the state of new jersey and unfortunately in this case it only speaks on behalf of looking at consistency with the master plan the master plan re-examination reports so anything associated outside of those documents would not be reviewed for consistency okay

Is it fair to say that because title goes to the properties that are owned by the reservation, that bylaws would be linked to title as opposed to zone?

I believe that the title issues run with the property and remain there. So, if there is a conflict between the title and the ordinance, that is not before us and I'm not giving an opinion on it. But again, you are here for consistency. If you have concern that they are inconsistent, I think you should bring that as part of your review.

all right so we are going to chris if that was your last question no i promise that was my last one okay we're gonna move on to mike i'm good okay i'll wait thank you okay i'm okay don't come on don't disappoint

We're just doing process now.

Yes, this is just process. Yes. Joan, you might want to just pull down your microphone.

Okay. So as far as process go, Celeste, you had said in your opening remarks that the town had asked for a reexamination report.

I had mentioned that, yes, the town was trying to determine whether or not they were going to move in the direction of a reexamination report or not. continue with the process of the super notice and the consistency review?

I just have a real issue there because asking for a reexamination report to support something is well beyond their purview. The master plan and the reassessments, especially when we're in the middle of a master plan right now, is totally unwarranted. So we can talk about that later. I'm just bringing it up. And under other business, I think there are a lot of things we really have to talk about as far as overreach. Legal question for Ken. Because of the way that this was mucked up, the 35 days ends today. We tried to get it in writing that when they said that the notice was incorrect and they were going to do a new notice, I know I had asked you and you had asked them, can you retract it and give us a new one? Instead, at the very last minute, we got something last Friday that said, April 29th, you have 35 days. That is up today, and we're not done with all of this. The mayor wrote back and he said, Well, you know, we're a community. We'll definitely take a look at it. But legally, we don't have to do anything. So if we're sitting here doing all this, what is our recourse, Ken? And how are we going to ensure that they listen to what we say, our recommendations, they follow the statute that says they can vote to disregard our findings but they have to put it on the record and they have to take a vote because they fell short last time in doing that and i don't want that to happen again i want to know where we stand legally as a planning board thanks joan i i think if we look to the negligee report the revised report of june 2nd on page one

talks about the New Jersey statute 40 column 55 D dash 26 that Lindsay had written before and it clearly says the planning board serves as an advisory role so basically we are advisory and the time period here the 35 days it's really meant to give our advice it's not meant to hold up the ordinance so if you did not act the uh mayor and council could say that they had done their statutory duty uh in my opinion we are here tonight uh we have a light agenda by way of uh this is the most important thing i think we complied with the review tonight within the 35 days and we give them our comments it'll be on the record so i think you're in very good shape. If you decide not to take action tonight on this, I think you are subjecting yourselves to the mayor and council saying that you had your opportunity. So I hope that does that help in what you're looking for?

No. I'm assuming we're going to have to do something tonight. So we do it. But I don't want them tomorrow or when this comes back to say they're kind of disregarding some of the things we say because they don't have to follow it by statute because it was beyond 35 days. But they were the ones who caused us not to be able to do that.

Well, they'll have actual notice. This is a public meeting. We have a council representative here. And I am satisfied that your decision tonight satisfies the 35 days. So I'm not worried about that.

Okay. So if we have something and the statute says that when considering the adoption or development regulation revision of an amendment thereto, they shall review the report of the planning board, may disapprove or change any recommendation by a vote of the majority if it's full authorized membership and shall record in its minutes the reasons for not following such recommendation. And that's what we expect them to do.

That's the statute and you're also reading Lindsay has that in her report yes yes yes okay and if not we're prepared to challenge that well that's beyond my pay grade but I am just the attorney if this board decides to take action that is remember that you are the planning board we have no power of subpoena we have no budget we have no ability to we have our municipal land use power so that's that is our road that's our rail that's where we are

let's hope it goes okay so that was uh number one um all right i'll save the rest for when we come back to okay well to um to piggyback off of what um what joan was was discussing um

My sole comment is predicated on this memo dated April 29, 2026 and the 35-day window. We are acting in good faith. We are assuming that the council will also act in good faith. We understand that there are legal ramifications that fall within the confines of the 35-day window. However, we do have confirmation from the mayor that regardless of any legal determination, they will act in good faith. So I am going to assume that the members of the council who are capable of voting on this will adhere to that and will take what's happening here tonight into consideration. And we'll move forward at their hearing on the 9th with our report and our advice in hand. That having been said, I am going to pass the microphone to our board planner, Lindsey Knight. Can I ask one more question? I apologize.

I just want to make it sure that I'm clear what we're doing here tonight. This is a consistency review. It's not a review, do we like it, do we not like it? It's a review, is it consistent with the existing master plan? We can make recommendations further than that.

that's the decision we're making time is that is that correct correct okay thank you everything that we just discussed was relative to process and procedure thank you are we getting into the meat and potatoes of the ordinance now or after right now Lindsay is going to do her is going to give us her her information and explain what's going on with the ordinance and so on and then we can ask additional questions relative to the consistency review

And just real quick, again, in Lindsay's first page, the paragraph on MLUL responsibilities, the board is charged with determining whether a proposed ordinance advances the goals and objectives established in the master plan and reporting its findings accordingly. Okay, thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Lindsay. Yeah. Thank you, guys. So I'll just jump right into it, starting with the 2020 Master Plan Re-examination Report, which actually was prepared by Catherine Sarmad, your Township Planner. So the... This plan really refers heavily back to your 2018 master plan. It was a re-examination report. It was kind of two years. So a lot of it was just referring back to it. And not much had changed in those two years. So many of the goals and objectives remained relevant. Specifically, the planning board raised concerns with residential densities in the environs and around the lake communities, specifically relating to water quality. so this is important to note because although bed and breakfasts um are not technically a residential use it is a gray area because it does have very many similarities to residences um however typically the person residing on the property it is one unit that is used for the agent or the person who owns the property. And it's typically looked at as an accessory use. But because they are acting as a commercial use, you know, there's commercial transactions, they require business licenses and tax registrations and health inspections. it kind of is this hybrid type use so depending on how the planning board would classify this use would kind of determine if this conditional use would be permitted as consistent with the problems identified in the 2020 master plan if this was categorized the board as commercial the environmental concerns should still be handled with extreme sensitivity though due to the c1h's own proximity to lake mohawk and kind of also looking forward to the comprehensive master plan we are currently working on i've been privy to many of the conversations to a lot of the public input and um the environment is a huge concern for residents. So I think when something like this is going to be proposed or when it does eventually come to, if it does look, we do determine this is a consistent use and it does come to a planning board, I think looking at the environmental conditions is extremely important. The next piece is from the prior recommendations that remain valid and should continue to be implemented. Residential densities and smart growth techniques such as transfer of development rights or credits should be examined to meet the challenges of managing growth while retaining open space and protecting environmentally sensitive land and water resources. Smart growth is developing in areas that already have utilities and infrastructure in place. So it's trying to avoid sprawl. In this case, making the C1H zone an identified area as kind of a traditional downtown certainly makes sense for that area. You have White Deer Plaza already. you have those other types of complementary historic in nature architecture as well as uses. And I think that by removing some of the uses that were previously in their hotels, motels certainly is consistent with creating smart growth as well as creating that traditional downtown. There were some uses that were in the TCC zone that probably would not normally be found in like a historic style downtown when you look through the various municipalities in New Jersey that have those quintessential downtowns, you're not gonna see a motel. So I think removing that would be consistent. the next piece is the 1984 comprehensive master plan goals and objectives um goal number six is to encourage the village neighborhood land use pattern so the proposed ordinance does not wholly consist with this goal and objective however i do believe pieces of the proposed amendment encourage the village neighborhood land use pattern of the c1h zone the removal of hotels and motels as permitted uses is consistent with this goal and objectives as hotels mostly require a large building footprint that is incompatible with historic streetscapes. They include card-dependent patterns that undermine walkability and historic character. Once again, it's kind of taking away from that quintessential charm of a historic downtown. Similarly, chain hotels often require that kind of prototype design that clash with local architecture. However, the addition of a bed and breakfast in as permitted conditionally is consistent with this goal and objective, but we should consider requiring more design requirements being consistent with the architectural standards illustrated throughout Sparta, Lake Mohawk, and White Deer Plaza. I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who has visited the areas, there's definitely a very specific type of architecture. And I think developing something beyond the historic preservation standards and creating real true design guidelines and requirements would be beneficial, not just to the bed and breakfast use, but to the C1H as a whole. So any new development inclusive of anything in and around it would have those design guidelines.

Was just a single, I think, single paragraph, which actually referred to an organization that no longer exists

So part of what the ordinance is also seeking to... On the other end of town, as someone pointed out, there's an old church there that is vacant right now. Yeah. But if somebody decided they wanted to bring that church back alive, it would not be a permitted use.

It would be an existing non-conforming because it runs with the land.

but to your point ernie if they added on to it yeah right it would then require expansion of a non-conforming or if it burned down if something horrible happened and you have something out there that's already being used and it burns down there's an accident or something like that they would not just be able to rebuild the question did the historic um registration and um also apply to those properties as well out there or just

Yeah, the C1H zone, the historic preservation is referenced in it.

It's referenced, but there are two different things.

Yeah. Well, there's a couple of things, too, with historic preservation as well. Historic preservation is, for lack of a better word, quite subjective. And so that's why when I speak about having requirements,

making the requirements actual part of your zoning ordinance so you have to do it as opposed to suggestions essentially applying if they apply to those parcels out there they support the comments that are coming down from this end of the dice that you've restricted you've just kind of devalued or restricted those properties have been in this c1h zone

but they've been allowed to have all these different uses and they have not been held accountable to the architecture. For example, Sabine was talking about, which is very specific.

The historic preservation is not being added. It's existing in your ordinance today.

It's going to put the standard historic preservation.

When I'm talking about doing design standards, I'm saying under the conditions of the bed and breakfasts.

So if we were doing... Oh, yes. Okay, so... See where I'm going?

Right.

Because if you're going to restrict, if those properties are deemed as historic preservation... Yeah, you don't want... Those are now... Yeah, you're requiring them to look like White Deer Plaza.

Yeah.

You know as well as what I know how difficult that is to go through anything through historic preservation.

Yes. And historic preservation, many times, unfortunately... don't necessarily have the teeth right so by putting design guidelines on this bed and breakfast use if something was to be built and constructed it would then have to be because it's a conditional use right that and that's and that's the thing we don't want a conditional use to fall back under a unilateral um you know situation i think i i think i got there

yeah all right as part as part of this consistency review can we say can we recommend that we just remove the Route 94 lots from this particular, understand that.

Wait a second, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. So to your point, that was what I was kind of saying before, but I think they never left that zone. Where's my thing? They never left that zone. They've been in that zone the whole time, tried and true. They didn't jump out, they didn't jump back. I think it's better... my opinion, to leave them alone, let them stay where they are under exactly what they are now, and talk about is it better to carve out a specific zone, Lake Mohawk historic, where all the nuances that Sabine is talking about and that Steve is talking about And if bed and breakfast and all these things shouldn't be there, they'd have more, they could work with, you know, and build that to be. But I think when I look at this, the more we talk about it and Brian's comments and your comments and everybody's comments, this just seems incredibly short-sighted when it comes to the parcels, the nine parcels, because I have the map. that chose not to jump out of the zone. Why should they be penalized and their land not, you know what I mean? So from a, you know, if we're talking about consistent and fair and all of that, and I know there's a whole term for consistent and all of that kind of stuff, But for me, I agree with you, Jeanette, 100%. I think that they should be left alone and figure out the rest of it separate and apart from those nine parcels out there. And Brian, with you too, and Birgit and Joan.

We haven't even gotten to my whole thing about the bed and breakfast section of the ordinance. And I have a lot.

We haven't even gotten to that yet.

We haven't even gotten there. Yeah.

Well, this is a shame because we thought that Lake Mohawk and whoever was writing this and everybody was speaking together, working together, and it doesn't seem to be, and we've left out this other zone. Part of the problem is we're talking about all of this for master plan. We're now deep in the middle of it, and we're trying to determine what's going to go in each zone. That's a function of the planning board and the master plan. we're kind of being deprived of that opportunity to do that. I don't understand the rush here at all. I think we need to really think this through. I think it is inconsistent. And let's everybody get in a room, not us, but you get in a room and talk it out and figure out what you really need based on our recommendations, because we are talking about all of these things. The other thing that was missing, I think, from the report, Lindsay, and that I wanted to ask you about was... Banks are also left out of it. So that wasn't mentioned. So that was taken out. And also the second floor apartments over retail. So. Now, we've focused so much on bed and breakfast, but there's a lot more to this that we haven't even discussed.

Well, Joan, if you go down White Deer Plaza, right, it's all apartments over residential there.

Right, but there's something in here that says only if you're existing. So we're going to still have like a blighted building if it's not going to be B&B and, you know, what's it going to be?

But if that was in there, it could almost be an extension of White Deer Plaza if you had retail on the bottom and apartments on the top.

right otherwise it's spot zoning because you're signaling that's the only building left you could do spot zoning and That is illegal. So we're setting up for lawsuits.

I'm not sure what the current Downing's furniture property is operating as, but that was furniture store down below and the Downing family, which I grew up with, they were living upstairs.

It's everywhere. Yeah. So you can't single out one building. We have to protect everybody. That's our job.

Sorry, I must just point out that it hasn't been removed. It's in there as a conditional use.

Wait, what?

Apartments over retail, is there new apartments over retail, as in there is a conditional use?

Okay, conditional. Yeah, that was confusing because I saw it in two parts.

Which is what it is in the existing C1H, I believe.

I saw it in two separate sections, so that's why I was going to ask about it, because it said one thing in one section and something different in another.

Could it be clear here that what we're talking about was the rush? Is the rush basically that right now Marriott could put in a... A application to build a hotel and the present zoning allows it. And so the rush is to head that off. Is that what the rush is? I don't know what the rush is.

Well, I mean, we have the interim GM.

This was brought up originally to really. Go back to getting back to getting this back to the historic guidelines for its design standards. Yeah, giving like, what they felt they want to control of simply like, just on that level. I think we all agree. That's a good thing. There's no debating that. We want, like, my walk. TO MAINTAIN AND PRESERVE THE DESIGN STANDARDS UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE THAT THEY ONCE HAD.

AND WHY NOT GO BACK TO THAT ORDINANCE UNTIL WE HAVE TIME.

RIGHT NOW ALL THESE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING THAT SO MANY THINGS ARE THE B&B'S ALL THESE THINGS ARE PERMITTED USE NOW. AS WE SPEAK, RIGHT? NO. Yes, they are.

In the TCC.

Conditional as a condition. Not as a condition. No, because they're TCC. In the zone they're in right now.

Go put an application in for bed and breakfast in the TCC zone, I could. I could leave here and go tomorrow morning, 8 a.m., show up and do it. So with no conditions, right?

In the TCC.

Yes. Right. But they but they're which these lots are currently in the TCC. So if I wanted to tomorrow wake up and say, I'm going to put an application in TCC zone, which these lots are in. Right. I could go tomorrow and do that. Well, I think the intention is putting it in the C1H because it has that historic nature. Right. So that there are some. And then what I've gathered here from Mr. Giles is that they understand that by removing hotels, motels, there still may need to be some kind of use that permits lodging. Obviously, I don't know. That's the decision that was made, and it seems like there's been discussions, and they seem to have agreed that they're comfortable with it as a conditional use because it gives it more requirements as opposed to how it is today. I could show up and say I'm putting a bed and breakfast here and not live on the property and just say it's a bed and breakfast.

So if we recommended to the council that they leave C1H alone, 94, Route 94, those parcels of property, leave it alone, and establish a new zone, LMCC, historic, take the wording that is in the ordinance, take out bed and breakfast, hotels, and motels. in two meetings Lake Mohawk could be protected and not have to worry about hotels, motels, or bed and breakfast. That gives them the master plan committee time to even identify what a bed and breakfast is properly. And it also gives Lake Mohawk time. They would have their own, a zone that they would truly have more control over and they could put in and customize it more to them. That could be done in, if the recommendation comes from here to the council, that could be implemented almost immediately, and you would be protected, so you would get what you want. The master plan subcommittee could take a step back and you're already working on these definitions and identifications. This way, if the club decides they want a bed and breakfast type thing, you guys could come back and make an application to add it to your zone, to amend your zone. But you wouldn't have to start off with it because it sounds like that's something that you guys were not excited about in the first place. And that could be done pretty quickly, right?

I can't. Right. I mean, you want to speak on behalf of the governing body, but I can only I'm going to just give you the blanket statement. I'm here just for consistency. I know.

We're all looking at you because that's the way we're facing. We're not putting a few. Thank you, Mike.

I feel like you should come and sit up here with us so you could look out.

I think we really need that. Ken, hearing all these conversations, what's the fix? Well, wait one second.

I just want to hear what Sabina has to say.

Okay, so just for clarity, again, and we had gone round and round, and even before the C1H was considered, that is exactly the scenario that was proposed to the township. However, we were discouraged from doing that because of the process and the complication and the timeframe. that was involved with adding another zoning district into Sparta Township. At this point in time, that was so long ago. This has been going on for, in essence, two, three, am I right?

A minimum of three years.

Minimum of three years. Three years? Yes. This is a three-year road that we've been on. So we have been, and I don't mean to sound excited, but... almost as if I can just about see a sliver of light at that end of the tunnel and then it's like dark. But when you read your current C1H community commercial historic zone, after the purpose, the first bullet point or the first number is accomplish the protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of the Lake Mohawk Plaza area. That is how your current C1H community commercial historic district zone reads now, which, I'm sorry, the plaza is no part of that. So we were recommended to go and get into there. And that is where we were originally. And the reason for going into the TCC was actually also in consideration and cooperation with Sparta Township, for obviously getting funding from the state. Exactly. It wasn't as if we were just like, okay, yeah, we want to do a hopscotch from one to the other. It was in cooperation fully with Sparta Township and taking advantage of that so that we could be enveloped and become more consistent with the overall plan for Sparta Township. and their streetscape project. So at this point, it's almost as if going backward and trying to create our own zoning district is a step back. I definitely appreciate the fact that taking those uses out completely definitely has an impact on the other properties in that other parcel that's now currently also I'm not a hundred percent sure how they ended up in that. quite frankly, if it blatantly was originated for the use, for the parcels in White Deer Plaza.

So that's... A twist on what you're saying, Chris, is instead, because there's not a whole lot going on out there right now anyway, I don't think anything's imminent, maybe make the suggestion to the council that they make a new zone out of that one out there. Leave them in... Leave them in this they'll, they'll be in that once there's going to be a change, there'll be in that and then it can always, they can add a new zone and put those things back in out there.

I'm just. Totally agree.

I mean, it's 6 of 1 and a half, but we're solving their problem and we're all eventually solve the other problem.

Correct. But the problem is, while that's all happening, I mean, right now, nothing's going on out there at all. But we don't want to put them in a bad spot either. And if we bring if we do this with with which totally agreed, we could flip flop it. We could say, OK, 94, you're in this zone. We're now going to call it this zone and we're going to give you all this stuff back. You know what I mean? Right. The other thing is, it sounds like even if this went forward, that maybe hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast should be removed from it. To be fair, okay, we are in the middle of a master plan.

So all of this is going to be re-evaluated in the land use element anyway within the next two months. So we do want to make sure that Lake Mohawk has the protections that it should have. We do want to make sure that Route 94 has the versatility that it may want. Here's the issue. We don't have anybody from Route 94 out here right now having a conversation with us saying that they absolutely have an eminent need for hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast. We do, however, have members of a private community saying we really need to have protections put in place, right? And a lot of this, as interesting as it is and as good of a conversation as it is, is not within our purview, right? We're talking about how to craft an ordinance. We're talking about the suggestions that we're going to make within the confines of our recommendations. We are a bit outside of our lane in terms of consistency review for the ordinance that's been presented to us as it is, meaning the amendments that have been presented to the C1H ordinance as we have them. So the question then becomes, right, how do we proceed? Yes, we have a list of things, but we are going to leave it to Ken to give us a little bit on process.

I've been taking some notes. If I could, though, I've been taking some notes. I mean, we're almost at nine o'clock and we got other things. The task before you are on the agenda is the ordinance 26-07. Is it consistent or non-consistent with the master plan? I think the consensus is that it's inconsistent as presented, and I would say that I could report to the mayor and council that was the review inconsistent because of, number one, concerns over the historic preservation design standards, traffic impact study, Signage and landscaping that is under one category number two concerns over route 94 the c1h current uses becoming possibly inconsistent and affecting economic growth number three. rather than ordinance 26-07, possibly creating new zones, a new Lake Mohawk historic district or a new Route 94 district. Those are my primary notes. And my last note was that these issues should also be addressed at the master plan review, which we were before. That's what I have.

What about bed and breakfast, hotel and motel?

Yeah, that's part of the concerns over landscaping, signage, traffic, historic preservation, design.

Well, that doesn't say hotels.

We can say whatever you want. We can say whatever you want.

I'm just saying that's a density issue, too.

So when I reviewed the ordinance, if part of our review here tonight is, does this have adequate protections? In my opinion, the bed and breakfast portion does not have sufficient protections. There's not a definition of a bed and breakfast that is in the traditional sense of a bed and breakfast. i mean when i read section 2a um i found it to be extremely poorly written and it was very confusing and it almost sounds like it's not a bed and breakfast a bed and breakfast let's all think back to the 1980s sitcom new heart that's a bed and breakfast bob and joanna ran a bed and breakfast they owned the property they lived there he worked there they had a housekeeper they had a certain number of rooms for sale i mean for for for rent um Nowhere in this ordinance is that made clear.

I'm so sorry. Can I interrupt you for one second? Because we have a few members who need a bio break. So I apologize. So we're going to do five minutes.

And just while we're thinking, I'm putting on my notes, I'm going to add another paragraph as to the bed and breakfast issues. The board finds the present proposal is too vague, sufficient safeguards, and possibly inconsistent with the Lake Mohawk rules and regulations. So we'll leave at that thought.

All right. While you're thinking, put in the design standards, too, because that's a big piece of it.

Yes.

Did you like another Altoid before we begin round two?

Are you sure? You know what I mean?

Oh, look at you. Okay. Together we're Christmas.

Red and green.

They're great. They clear your sinuses.

They're spicy. My minis, my littles, called spicy. not sure they're spicy waters okay so we are back and so ken from what i understand you've crafted

I think they're, in fairness, some of the members just wanted to conclude their thoughts for possible inclusion. My preliminary notes now are the proposed ordinance is inconsistent with PARTA's existing master plan. That proposed ordinance is 26-07. Based on the testimony, one of the main issues is the current Route 94 C1H uses. that do permit bed and breakfast as churches and the like should remain another issue as to the bed and breakfast proposed conditional uses they're too big insufficient design standards lack of historic district protections need for landscaping signage and traffic impact as to the same also another thought was a possible new lake mohawk historic district and one of the last notes i had was defer to the master plan for the that review process for the land use element and land use zoning mapping concerns at hand but I think the board should if there's any other concerns I'd like addressed so as I was saying the when I think of a bed and breakfast I think of Newhart I think of

someone who owns property in sparta and is a resident of sparta and is a taxpayer in sparta and operates a bed and breakfast with a certain number of rooms for guests and the way that this ordinance reads it's not that it's extremely vague there's also nothing about the permit for a bed and breakfast how long the permit would be effective for or um there's nothing about the permit automatically being voided if the property upon which the bed and breakfast was sold are transferred so that sounds more like a hotel or motel where oh i own this now this is my right and if the property sells they're selling the business which is not really what what the what what what a protection would be it it could get out of hand um there's nothing about notification being given to the people who live within a certain uh distance of a proposed b b so the people who live right next door they are not required to get notice that someone has applied for a conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast. There's nothing about as simple as the dining room, which is part of a bed and breakfast that you get breakfast as part of your lodging rate. There's nothing about requiring a dining room that can actually accommodate the number of guests that there are rooms for. There's nothing about fire safety codes or inspection of the property by the fire marshal. There's nothing about how many consecutive nights A guest can stay in a single visit, which could be abused in its current iteration and turn into a more short-term rental situation. there's nothing about the number of kitchens on the premises and whether or not you know the kitchen can really only be used by the owners of the property or for the preparation of the breakfasts for the guests There's nothing prohibiting food from being served in the guest rooms, which would be more of a hotel or a motel service. There's nothing about where guest rooms and guest bathrooms can be permitted. Like right now, there's nothing about preventing them from being in the basement or in a garage, a renovated garage. there's nothing about minimum square footage of the guest room there's nothing about the owner and proprietor of the bed and breakfast maintaining guest registration records or for how long there's nothing about the bed tax so you know the town council would theoretically be involved in setting the price for the permit for a bed and breakfast but also you know what is what is the bed tax there's nothing limiting how close a bed and breakfast can be to recreational facilities to schools to churches there's nothing about commercial general liability insurance or minimum limits speaking to you know what's already been talked about here tonight you know the liability that would come with with having a bed and breakfast there's nothing in the ordinance about proof requiring proof that the owner actually has legal title to the property and has the the the right by title to even apply for a permit There's nothing about having a valid food handling certificate and sanitation from the health department to be able to provide guests with meals that have been prepared in a sanitary way. And there's also nothing requiring the proprietor to work with the Sparta Police Department in the event that there are problems. With, uh, with with the guests, so, um, I also. Uh, had, um, I. Before they were banned by ordinance. I, too lived right next door to a Airbnb. Lake Mohawk as far as I'm aware has always had a 90-day minimum rental requirement and that fell by the wayside it was not enforced and it was extremely problematic and I would not wish that on anyone to go through the kinds of things that can sometimes come with having lodging uh transient lodging so I just I just wanted to say that that I think that the ordinance is is too vague and if part of our purpose is to make sure that Lake Mohawk has the protections necessary then I think that uh that these things ought to be taken into consideration thank you

Okay, I'm going to, I just want to address some. The consistency, I think a lot of good thoughts up here tonight and I agree with everything is being said. Just add a little bit more to the consistent versus non consistent. You know, I. my concern is you know when i look at the master plan amendments and the master plan itself and i'll start with the uses when you look at them the 1997 master plan amendment there are specific uses that are called out um in that amendment and they're in the c1 zone basically taken verbatim from there um so what this what this ordinance does it's starting to change those so And it may be the right answer, some of them. But they may not be. I'm not going to say. But what I will say is the minute you start changing, you know, if it was like just one, I'd say, yeah, I got it. But we talked about, you know, we're taking our theaters, hotels, motels, you know, a whole bunch of things. That makes it inconsistent with the master plan, with that amendment. So that's point one. So from a use perspective, it's inconsistent with the master plan for this particular zone. And then I want to talk to the land use element. The 1997 land use element took the C1 zone and moved it into the TCC zone. So if you want to be consistent with the master plan, you've got to leave it in the TCC. You almost need to do a master plan amendment first and then do the ordinance so the ordinance is consistent. And there's ways around that if that's not what the council wants to do. But if you're not going to do that amendment, this is driving inconsistency. I think we've talked about the design standards. I think we all agree. You know, the master plan says you want to protect those design standards. You want to draft. I think Lindsay and Catherine's report both recognize there's not enough there. So it's inconsistent with that goal. I want to talk about the bed and breakfast. So when you look at the ordinance, it adds certain conditions for the bed and breakfast. It makes it better. But it doesn't make it better everywhere. um bed and breakfast it's in lower main street commercial zone main street business zone and the r4 residential professional zones but they're permitted uses there so all these extra conditions that go with what's going on in tc don't flow down to those zones it's just a bed and breakfast doesn't talk about the minimum rooms doesn't talk about the occupancy i don't know if that was an oversight or if that was the intention it would have been nice to have somebody here to answer those questions but you know for those reasons I think there's a major inconsistency with what this ordinance does and what the master plan has in it.

Any thoughts, questions? Chris? Oh, all right.

All right. So back to me. So I want to just speak to, I think that Birgit brought up a lot of great points, as did Ron, as did Brian as well, Jeanette. I mean, I think everyone's bringing up really great points. There's a couple that I have questions on. And again, I don't know who this is going to go to or where it's going or whatever. When it comes to the zoning standards, when you are in the commercial one historic zone and you're talking specifically now about the bed and breakfast, right? So now we're on that. It says single family detached dwelling. So what exactly, you're taking the definition of a single family detached dwelling and you're plunking that in underneath the requirement for what a bed and breakfast would be. So my question is, What standards apply there? The residential standards? The commercial standards? What's the setback? What is the parking? Are there minimums when these things happen? Is it just like, okay, I built a house there, now I need to have parking? Or is it more formal because of the zone? So that's one question. Should we just go one at a time and then answer?

probably i have a few sorry and i know you did not i want to say loud and proud on this i know you did not build this ordinance so thank you for being patient and trying to answer our questions yeah not a problem um so some of the pieces of the conditions some of the conditions do address things like parking so there are parking requirements specifically for the bed and breakfast um

but they're they're strange because some of it says on street and then others say rear parking six spaces rear but there's three spots something like no it's off street minimum number of off street so it's the minimum two off street parking spaces for the owner of the dwelling and or his agent um

plus one additional space for each room approved for use for guests.

You can have 16, right, but you can have 16 adult guests according to what this says.

Yes.

So that would be, I mean, you could have 16 cars. Not that you would, but you could.

If that's what the occupancy load is on the drawings that are presented at a planning board application, yes.

Right. Okay. So are there specific setbacks and all that kind of stuff? Is that specific to the detached residential structure or is that, where does that go to?

So this, all of this has, refers back to the C1 zone for bulk requirements. So it would refer back to what the requirements are within the bulk standards for that zone.

Mayor Mrakas, i'm safety and supervision your gate you were touching on this, I think some other people touched on this as well safety and supervision, so you have this says, if I understand it correctly. Mayor Mrakas, Up to 16 eight bedrooms up to 16 but then you can also there's a there's an inconsistency in the ordinance in that it says. you can have two adults and up to two children with them in a room. But then if you look at the way it's written in the ordinance, it's inconsistent with what it says. So it says maximum, but you could actually have 32 people in that because if you had eight rooms, so it says maximum of 60. It's just the way it's written is inconsistent. It doesn't match up. It needs to be. And I know you didn't do it, but I'm not, I'm not, I'm looking at you, but I'm talking to them. I was looking at me. If that makes sense. I don't even know if that makes sense. I don't even know who I'm talking to at this point, but it's an inconsistency that should be addressed.

I think, yes, because if it's not addressed, right, the strict interpretation is you can have 16 individuals inclusive of children. So say somebody was to come with two adults and their four kids, right, and they're staying in the...

Kids, yeah. Four people in a room.

Yeah, but then they would have to restrict the rooms to have any additional people beyond the 16, which goes back to my memo. There are... pieces of the conditions that are difficult to enforce. So when looking at ordinances, you also have to think about like Carrie and Raisha, when an application comes to hand or when somebody calls, how can you enforce certain things as well? Or how can you as a board and application come here and how can you interpret things like, I mean, I think the, some of the things are very vague, so it's difficult to, um, difficult to enforce or difficult to say this is a variance or this is not because it just says follow the uh appearance of the structure the intensity of use and the appearance of the structure shall be consistent with the neighborhood in which it is located so And that's subjective, right? Right.

But that's where it needs to be, I think, to your point, made consistent with the things that you're talking about. I want to go back to safety and supervision because I think, you know, a lot of people have spoken about different things with Airbnb. You have a close proximity, eight rooms, eight different rooms that can be rented out. Monday to Thursday, Tuesday to Friday, Wednesday to Sunday. So you could have eight total groups of strangers in one space sharing bathrooms, sharing common areas, sharing whatever. But yet there's no requirement that I read anyway in here that says somebody's gotta be there. So there's nothing in there that says someone needs, because the Bob Newhart example, They were always there because they lived there, but no one's living here. It says the person needs to be five miles away. That could be 10 minutes. That could be 20 minutes in traffic. And the thing is, if you have eight different guests, you know what I mean? Eight different groups of guests. you know, they might not all get along. If something happens, what if someone gets hurt? These people don't know what's going on or what to do. They don't know. So I think when it comes to safety and supervision, something needs to be said because otherwise this is like a collection of bed and breakfast rooms. It's like renting rooms.

And the other thing is... You're not stopping a room from no one's there to say, hey, we're left four. Let's get eight in here and throw a party because there's no supervision. Right.

And the next question is, you know, so who's responsible? Who's going to be there? There was another ordinance that was provided to me from someone for review, and the interesting thing is they have an entire, like, five sections of security, one of which is cameras must be installed outside. So you must be able to see outside. Is this thing going to be able to have – I mean, these are in the – design standards, I guess. But is this thing going to have balconies? Like, are people going to be sitting on the balcony yakking it up? Because you have residents all over down there. You know what I mean? I mean, these are things that should be identified, I would think, somewhere. And the operational model, if the rooms are rented individually... How do they rent it? Online? Do you go to like Airbnb? Do you go to a website? Do you say, hey, I'm coming on Tuesday to Thursday? If no one's there, you're not talking to anybody. So do you get a code to a door and you just show up and go to your room? I don't know. But to your point, when it comes to operations and security and things of that nature, I think maybe the master plan subcommittee or whoever's looking at these things should maybe look at some of these other ordinances and just for inspiration and make sure that these things are locked down because you have to make sure that you're providing the safest environment, not just for the guests, but also for everyone else who lives in the community. The other thing is the expansion risks. So there's a lot of properties that you identified on your map that are in this new zone. What are their exposures or risks that others of these bed and breakfast could pop up in other of these properties. So could you get a rash of these things down there? Because there's no control. It doesn't say there's a maximum of one or there's a maximum of two. And if you look at the map, there's a lot of stuff here. So how do you know it's only going to be limited to one? What's the protection?

But in a similar just to play devil's advocate, there's no restriction on if every lot was to be a restaurant. Right. What the restriction is, the ability for to park the site. Right. You rely on the zoning for the used to be. City Council Chambers L' Successful there in a sense, or to be to be able to be located there, because you have your bulk requirements your parking requirements and those coincide with the use right So if you have I mean how many times do we have. City Council Chambers L' uses come here that don't have enough parking and we say that well that's not going to work, because you can't park the site you're not going to have enough parking for. People to use your site to access your site for people to work at your site so so those types of things zoning is all kind of interplayed in that sense. So what i've seen in my experience and i'm sorry for cutting you off is. Sometimes there are distance requirements. i've written redevelopment plans, where we have you know things like hair salons nail salons only can be X amount of feet from each other, because you don't want to have your downtown where every other stores and nail salon I mean. Or a hair salon.

I know a little something about that.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But, yeah, so there's, you know, there's things like that. But to your point, right, is at this time, the way this is written, if they're able to park it, they could put realistically and meet all those conditions. They could put a bed and breakfast at every... But just like they could do it with a retail store or a restaurant or... That's what I'm saying. There's really no protection.

The next thing you know, you have a whole little tourist hub down there because everybody...

that has apartments as i can make more money as an area okay just don't don't want to belabor it just want to confirm there's no there's no cap on it for our purposes can we recommend that they just take this out of here they should be looking at this as you know if they're going to do an ordinance on bed and breakfast it should be for the entire sparta not just for white deer plaza And they can work that out, but keep it out of here because we're not doing it for everything else in here.

But the change in the definition for it where it is everywhere.

Right.

The definition of what a bed and breakfast was is different once this ordinance goes into place. But then the protections that you have in the LNCC will not be in those other zones because they're not conditional uses. So would that be considered a possibility?

Right. Because it's not necessarily limited to the condition.

Yeah.

But you are devaluing the properties up on 94.

This is the issue. We've had come up all the time with different zones using different terms for the same thing. Right. And that's one of the things we talk about in the master plan of getting away from that and having consistent terms and consistent, you know, I mean, I mean, some places call it a gym, some places call it a fitness center. As the definition changes, yeah. It's just...

Ernie, don't talk about Pilates studios. We've been here long enough. Ernie, can you talk into the mic?

Ernie, can you talk into the mic, please?

Thanks.

That makes deliberations here longer. It costs money to the people that are coming here before us because it means more time for all their professionals and everything else. And this is one of the complaints we hear is that things – are slow, but part of it is because of the way everything's written, it makes it really confusing, you know, not only for the applicants, but also for us, you know, and to put consistency in. I mean, that's, you know, it's exactly, you know, exactly what we, you know, we're talking about here and what Ron's talking about is we've got to have consistency.

To that point, I think we see this now with the sign ordinance, right? So anyone who's that's been on the planning board or tried to put it in an application or anything knows that if you try to look at what the sign ordinances for a particular location, you will spend hours searching because it's buried. They're buried all over. There's like two or three different spaces where these design elements are for the signs. And, um,

I don't mean to be interruptive, but we can talk about inconsistencies for the next three hours.

The reason I bring that up is as an example of what Ron is saying, or what Ernie's saying about this and what Joan said. This shouldn't be buried in an ordinance for a zone. This should be a standalone thing that applies to all the places where this thing is. Otherwise, no one's ever going to find it. Okay. Here, Mike. Your turn.

Wow. Well, first off, Ken, thank you, Lindsay. Thank you. I know the lake Mohawk representatives left and I appreciate the public's comments. I think open dialog. It brought a lot of clarity, at least for me. It's it's complicated, right? Our task here tonight, we got to get back on task. I think we everybody's comments were very well appreciated. We had a chance to talk. I think we just need to get back on on task here and what our task is to, you know, either agree or disagree if this is consistent with the master plan or not. So I'm just an effort of time. Celeste, I'm finished. Your turn.

Is it time that we perhaps have a vote on whether or not we feel it's consistent or not? Then Ken will add his suggestions. Oh, I'm not. Yeah, I wouldn't forget you, Joan. And I just want to say thank you so much for coming, Lake Mohawk, because we were just saying as we came in, we want to know what you guys, what your situation is and what you want. And I'm still not clear what you would want in those properties down there. So think about it and get back to us.

Mike?

From what I picked up tonight, it doesn't seem like Lake Mohawk wants a bed and breakfast hotel or any rendering of that type of business in their zone. uh i think a closer look needs to be taken at this tcc zone town center commercial where they're located and maybe make an amendment uh to that zone for the lake mohawk uh historical area and can these types of businesses could be admitted that's it okay

I just wanted to pick up on something Jenny brought up before, and then Ernie just echoed about, you know, some of the terminology and the confusion and stuff. And that's going back to Section 4, where it has institutional uses in nonprofit clubs, lodges, fraternal organizations. That's what it currently says. And I think if we just left the period there, because that takes care of Lake Mohawk. It is a nonprofit club. It's a 501c4 organization. nonprofit club, and it's a homeowners association. When you start adding the rest of this and private recreational and residential homeowners associations with the 300 members, I don't know, but a recreational association, that actually is a 501c7 incorporation, which is for private, social, and recreational clubs like country clubs, hobby clubs, like it would be a yacht club or any of that for pleasure and recreation. And they're not really Zoned or they're not incorporated as that so it's two separate uses and I would like to make the recommendation that that part of the sentence regarding Recreation Association be removed You can leave it as homeowner association because we do have a definition in our ordinances for homeowner association, but there is no definition for recreation association, and it's just gonna muck it up again. And we don't know what the intentions are or the uses, so I would like to add that to the can your list. I also have a little bit of concern where it goes to on Section 5 with the required conditions because we haven't done any of the design stuff. They're throwing it into everything that is the C1 zone, but the C1 zone for design standards is different than the Lake Mohawk and historical type of standards, and I think that's a big mistake. I think, you know, they could use, they're better off using the existing C1H standards standards at this point until they're updated. And there are some problems with that, like with internally lit signs and boxes where they say it's discouraged, but in the TCC zone, it's prohibited. But the C1, I think, is something that I would recommend that they relook Got it.

I'm just going to top it off really quick by saying thank you to absolutely everyone here. Thank you to people in the audience. Thank you to everybody who's spoken, who's provided insight input into this situation. I know it's it's difficult at best and I appreciate everybody's opinions and I appreciate the effort that's been put out there. I also want to throw out there that we don't know as a planning board who in particular authored this ordinance. Well, not because there's no representative, but because it has not been indicated as to who authored this ordinance in particular, because the individual who would be the attorney is the attorney for the municipality as well as Lake Mohawk Country Club. So there's been no indication to us as to who the actual author this ordinance is so unfortunately I wouldn't even know where to direct those questions right to be candid with you I'm not sure who drafted it to work it was referred to as I don't know who drafted

I just know it was referred to us.

I know the original request was from town council and Lake Mohawk to sit down and discuss the ordinance. At that point, I don't know if it was the council representatives, the liaisons or not.

I just don't know. I'm sorry.

Where it came from. I think it may have been presented from Lake Mohawk to

It was. So after the introduction. Right. So after the introduction, how it gets to us is that the clerk's office sends it to the zoning office and the zoning office distributes it to to our individuals. So we don't I mean, historically, we haven't had this issue because the township has had the same planner for the municipality and the planning board. So historically, when there's been a situation like this, they've gone to the same person. But that hasn't been the case here. So, you know, asking Lindsay to do the consistency review and not knowing if there was even a planner involved in the in the authoring of of this document, because from what I understand, Catherine Sarmat is only contracted with the town for fair share. But I don't know what the logistics are on that. But one way or another, I just kind of want to get it out there that we didn't have not only no representation, but no indication of who actually authored it. So all of our questions in terms of the body of the document We had no outlet for those. So again, I want to thank our professionals for stepping up and stepping in and trying to clarify as much as humanly possible with their suppositions and what would be typical in these types of situations. And I think on that note, we are ready for a motion.

Yes gang, I think it's pretty clear from your discussion that the proposal ordinance 26-07 is inconsistent with the existing Spartan master plan that is based upon the uh the statements of the board at tonight's june 3rd 2026 regular meeting as well as the comments from the public and we have a written uh planners report from negley lindsay knight as the disane uh summarizing some of the main points but not limited to again the record is pretty clear the discussion number one concern was as to the current route 94 c1h uses such uses as a result of the ordinance could be impacted substantially more particular if those existing bed and breakfasts as church and the like should remain or be subject to this ordinance number two as to the specific language and and the primary purpose of the ordinance on the bed and breakfast on its face is too vague, insufficient design standards, lack of historic district protections, lack of landscaping, signage, and traffic impact standards, and as pointed out also by Joan, Uh, if it was to pass the particular language in section four B five dealing with recreation homeowners and the like is inconsistent and also inconsistencies dealing with the other zones, you have TCC, C one H and the like is set forth on the record. Another point, uh, uh, was brought up the possible new lake Mohawk, uh, historic district may be more favorable. Then the ordinance also there was a discussion of a possible new separate and distinct bed and breakfast ordinance that could be town wide and have some very detailed and specific standards and the like. And the last thing I have a point was deference. of these ordinance topics to the master plan committee which is reviewing under reviewing that process now to address the land use element and land use zoning mapping issues as we discussed those are my primary points that i could memorialize to be given to the clerk for the mayor council review nice job yeah i would make the motion to

support that. We have a second. I'll second.

I'll second. We have three seconds. Pick one.

You picked, who's the second?

So I believe, was it Jeanette, was it Birgit? I don't remember. Birgit. Birgit will be the second.

Wait, for voting though, maybe it should be Chris. I'm sorry.

Birgit, are you going to alternate?

Birgit is an alternate, actually, then Jeanette would be the second. No, no, Christine Dunbar seconded it. So did Jeanette. She said it at the same time that Birgit said it, so that's why there was a... We all want it. Okay, so the motion as spoken by Ken, we have a motion from Joan and a second from Jeanette, and we need a roll call, please.

Question first. Is this considered administration where they can vote as opposed to an application?

That's a good question.

I think everyone should just vote. It's an advisory. The record have everybody vote. Everybody is here to just vote.

So I just have one question about just so clear. So a yes vote says yes, we agree it's inconsistent.

Yes. A yes vote is you agree it's inconsistent as set forth by my parameters.

We're voting for your motion.

Yes.

Yes. All right. Roll call, please.

Christine Quinn.

Me? Yes. Well, yes is. Yes.

Yes means it is. Yes. Sorry. Mike Wallace.

Yes.

Deputy Mayor Mike Sylvester.

Yes.

Ron Day.

Yes.

Christine Dunbar. Yes. Joan Furman. Yes. Ernie Rackstatt.

Yes.

Vice Chairwoman Jeanette Burt. Yes. Chairwoman Celeste Luciano. Yes. Brian Zimmerman.

Yes.

Birgit Bogler. Yes.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Okay, that was unanimous.

All right. Thank you, everybody. So we're going to move very quickly into resolutions because we're going to put this on Ken's shoulders. I told you we would do that later.

Yes, I apologize. I just need two more weeks. It was a very good and busy month, so it'll be on your next agenda. Thank you.

Okay. We are going to run through approval of minutes. So I'm actually, Ken, I'm also going to put this on your shoulders. It was my understanding that the April 27, 2026 minutes were going to be held in perpetuity because that was a special meeting that turned into notice for an executive session. So there was going to be no approval of minutes until such time as those matters were

concluded that is correct uh under the uh closed session uh you do we do keep minutes and we do uh keep that but until the litigation and that being the fair housing is resolved those minutes are kept privileged yes okay so that brings us to the may 6 2026 minutes any questions or comments from the board regarding these minutes i have corrections on page four

and halfway down under environmental commission. So the environmental commission second line would be applying to Sussex County for a $25,000 grant. For a $25,000 grant, not a $2,500.

Okay, so there needs to be a zero. The comma is in the right place, but there needs to be a zero added at the end. That's a typo.

Yeah, for trail work. And Ms. Dunbar informed the board that the Environmental Commission has been closely following the data center discussions in surrounding towns and the impacts to protect the aquifer. And lastly, Ms. Dunbar stated that we're going to have to change that sentence because she did not state that we're applying for a program for bats. Oh, my. So we applied for a grant allowing us to educate residents regarding bats would be more appropriate.

Thank you.

All right. It is late. We are getting punchy.

We're fine.

Any other changes or amendments? Page two.

Fourth paragraph, where it starts, Mr. Dykstra outlined the requested variances for the board and members in detail. It talks about the different silos, and it says for the first one, silo two height variance of 45.11 feet, where 45 feet is required. And then it says required further down as well. It's not required. That is the maximum. So 45 feet is, you know, the maximum height, not the required height.

Good point.

same thing i guess with setbacks that was the issue point one okay and i just have yeah i just have one thing at the end of minor site plan i had requested an executive session just to discuss a certain minor site plan applicant um if that could be memorialized please i know that we're not going to get to tonight But that's fine.

The other thing we're not going to get to tonight, I was waiting to other business, but on page, I think there are two page fours or threes, but We were talks about minor site plan subcommittee. We had asked for Mr. Porro to invite the town manager to our next planning board meeting. I don't know if that happened, but he's not here. So our motion to adopt the minutes was contingent upon that. So the minutes at this point are not adopted. And I'd like to ask that you extend the invitation for the next meeting with adequate time notice, please.

I can do that.

Thank you.

And also your request for the executive session. Yeah.

Administrative. Why would 1 thing disqualify the balance of the meeting minutes?

It should just be taken out right?

And then everything else could be approved the minutes.

But for that, well, I think I think we can approve the minutes that it was discussed and that now tonight's meeting will say that, uh.

that topic is continued and will be carried to the next week so i'm okay with it inserted there and the minor site plan subcommittee did not put that in there so it's not something the the minor site plan committee did not put that language in there it was inserted in there so we want an explanation of why it was inserted in there we had something different

Right so but john the I mean the minutes can be approved, but you're saying this firm that there was an application that was submitted to minus site plan. subcommittee 2020 and was denied twice before the script committee, she said that the application ultimately approved by the attachment manager and town attorney requested and respond invite them for a better understanding that I think that's fine the way it stated.

Yeah, that's fine, but when I actually made the motion, it was with the condition that the town manager come. That was part of the motion that we both approved.

Oh, you're saying when you approved the minutes to the back? I think it's so clarified, and I think so you have, Ms. Furman, a motion to adopt the 25 motion subject, the minutes with the condition that you request planning board meeting to discuss unilateral return.

right so requested I want to follow up on that and have that done I think I'm already that forward all right I'm okay with that clarification on the record right especially since that motion carried yes that was yeah okay so for the minutes with those clarifications okay so a motion second to approve minutes with clarifications as indicated I'll make a motion I'll second roll call

christine oh wait i'm sorry yes beer get boggler yes jeanette burke yes christine dunbar yes ronde yes joan firman yes chairwoman uh chairwoman celeste luciano yes and christine quinn yes ernie rack said yes

And Brian Zimmerman.

Yes.

Okay. And we're going to be as brief as we possibly can for updates. Nothing on town council? Okay.

Environmental commission?

I'm good. Okay. Subcommittees, we went through minor site plan subcommittee here. That would have been the only update. And master plan subcommittee, our next meeting is this coming Monday on June 8th. there was a smaller meeting of some of the members to go over the the objectives as as they relate to goals that have been discussed by the larger group and we are going to discuss those at our next meeting looking forward to moving this this forward and so that is it on updates

other board business I think Joan you touched on what you wanted to touch on with regard to it's getting late it yeah but I did maybe we can save it next time but okay I think we need to establish procedures protocols of how this board operates and well we'll discuss how we give notice that others follow those rules

and then we are going to let ken expand on executive session yeah i'm going to carry that i think to our next meeting correct yes thank you all right uh and we are going to open it to the public for the last section jenny you're no questions that Oh my. All righty then, seeing none, that brings us to Ernie, you're on, adjournment.

All right, motion to adjourn. All right. All in favor?

Aye.

And we ended before 10.

There you go.

Yeah, I know. Remember the days?