Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Please.

Okay. Good evening everyone. I'd like to call this February 12th meeting of the Hillsdale Burough Planning Land News Board to order. We'll begin with the open public meeting statement read by Deputy Secretary Tanya followed by the pledge of allegiance. This meeting is being held in accordance with the open public meetings act. The notice of this meeting was published in two newspapers according to law and time and place of this meeting have been posted in a prominent location in Burough Hall. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance 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.

Thank you. When we're ready, we'll have a roll call. Chairwoman Case, yes. Vice Chair Reirden. Secretary Raymond, yes. Mr. Alter, yes. Mr. Freriedman, yes. Mr. Greet, Dr. Weinberg, Mr. Hip, here. Council Leazison Kleti here. Paris Shinfield here. Also present, board attorney Mr. Leman and board engineer Mr. Sat.

Thank you, Tanya. At this time, I'll open the meeting to the public. This is for any items or issues other than those that are listed on the agenda below or that may come before the board on another evening. Is there anyone that wants to approach the board? Seeing none, I'll close the meeting to the public and we'll move on to our invoices. First, Burgess Associates, we have a bill for total $240. Please review when we're ready. I'll take a motion. Motion to approve. Second. Chairwoman Case. Yes. Secretary Raymond. Yes. Mr. Alter. Yes. Mr. Freriedman. Yes. Mr. Hip. Yes. Council Leon Kleti. Yes. Mayor Shiner. Yes.

Motion's passed. Thank you. Then we have a bill for Harwood Lloyd. That's our other firm representing us. $5,42. Are you ready? I'll take a motion. Motion approved. Got Raymond. I have a second. I'll second it. Chairman Keates. Yes. Secretary Raymond. Yes. Mr. Alter. Yes. Mr. Freriedman. Yes. Mr. Hip. Yes. Council Lee on Kleti. Yes. Mayor Shanka. Yes.

Motions passed. Thank you, Tanya. We have a number of ordinances that are referred from the mayor and council this evening. Oh, sorry. First, we'll approve the minutes. Thanks, Tanya. Always jumping ahead. From January 27th, 2026, please review. They were excellent. When you're ready, I'll take a motion. Motion. Thank you, Mr. Alter. Second. Second. Mayor Shinfield. I will call the members that were present. Chairwoman Pete. Yes. Mr. Alter. Yes. Mr. Freriedman of this for the minutes. Yes. Uh the you were here for um Mr. Hip. Yes. Council is on.

Yes. Mayor Shin. Yes. Motion's passed. Thanks Tanya. Okay. Now we'll move on to our mayor and council referrals. U Mr. Leman, do you want to say something about them first?

Um sure. So, this is a a review under the municipal land use law to advise the governing body whether or not you believe these ordinances to be consistent or inconsistent and quote report to the governing body anything else that you have of concern. Um, I have had a chance to review the ordinances. I consulted with Mr. Barren who weighed and assisted in drafting this letter that we dated today. My suggestion would be that I read it into the record and if everybody agrees, you can vote to direct the letter to be sent to the governing body. Um, just for those who don't know, the process is that the governing body does a first reading, typically refers it to a board. The law gives the board 35 days to review it. You don't have to review it. You can blow it off, ignore it. Um, if you do that, then the governing body can adopt it 35 days afterwards without your input. Um, if you report back that it is consistent with the master plan or not inconsistent with the master plan, then they can adopt it without further action. If you decide that it's not consistent with the master plan or recommend against it, they can still adopt it because the governing body determine the zoning, not the board. Uh, but if they do that, they have to have a super majority of the governing body approve it and they have to state in the minutes of their meeting the reasons why they're doing that. So, there's a little primer on, you know, you all with that. and read it into the record because it's pretty self-explanatory. I write in my capacity as council to the Hillsdale Joint Planning Board. The board pursuant to 40 col 55D-26A with respect to the above reference ordinances refer to the joint planning board for consistency review under the MLUL. Uh the relevant portion of the MLU all states prior to the adoption of development regulation revision or amendment there too the planning board shall make and transmit to the governing body within 35 days after referral report including identification of any provisions in the proposed development

regulation revision or amendment which are inconsistent with the master plan and recommendations concerning these inconsistencies and any other matters as the board deems appropriate. In considering the inconsistency issued, the board has advised the commentary offered by its professional planner Tom's Barren and Burch Associates. In general, the proposed ordinance revisions update the municipal code consistent with the master plan and affordable housing mandates which are constitutionally required and in furtherance of the burough's obligations. Resolutions 2026 069 and 202670 are not ordinances and are merely resolutions and are not required under the ML to be reviewed by the planning board prior to adoption by the council. board does note that they are not inconsistent with the master plan. Resolution 69 endorses the 2026 amended housing element fair share plan recently approved by the joint planning board. Resolution 202670 uh adopts an affirmative marketing plan consistent with law. Ordinance 20268 merely updates the bureau code section 310-163 consistent with the amended fair housing act and new administrative regulations effective December 15, 2025 under NJAC 519 regarding an affordable housing spending plan waiver certain fees for nonprofits and various other updates consistent with law. Ordinance 20269 merely updates the bureau code section 310137 consistent with the amended fair housing act and new administrative regulations under NJAC 5 column 80.26.1 26.1 regarding UHAT, that's the uniform housing affordability controls, reporting requirements under the amended law, and various other updates consistent with law. For example, it sets a payment blue affordable housing unit at 248,000 up from 195,000 and establishes annual increase of 3%.

Ordinance 202610 merely updates Hillsdale Patterson Street redevelopment plan to increase the density from 28 units per acre to 32 units per acre as required by a settlement agreement of the Burish fourth grand affordable housing litigation. None of the foregoing ordinances or resolutions are inconsistent with the master plan. The joint planning board recommends their adoptions. I will just tell you this whole next section of the letter was drafted by Mr. Re. So when I say earlier that commentary from him, this is the commentary I'm talking about. The following relevant master plan provisions are noted. One, in general, these plan mechanisms now being implemented by ordinance are specifically identified in the bureau's 2026 housing element fair share plan. Two, achieve a balance between developed community and new development 2003 master plan. Three, any new residential, non-residential or mixeduse development should be limited to a maximum of three stories in height in the downtown area as has been determined to be the maximum acceptable building height in the context of the burough spurby character 2022 rate. Four, residential density should be context sensitive compatible with surrounding development should no case exceed 16 units per acre in the downtown area. 2022 exam. Five, to ensure that any new development minimizes impacts to surrounding uses in the community at large, including consideration of traffic and safety, school age children, the environment, natural resources, demands of public services and infrastructure, nuisances such as noise and glare and visual compatibility 2022. This plan amendment six to provide a mix of housing in accordance with the BO's affordable housing obligations and appropriate locations within walking distance of the downtown and public transportation which provides appropriate buffers for surrounding development does not negatively impact quality of life of residents and existing residential neighborhoods 2020 new master plan amendment seven to maintain the density

scales and characters of existing single family zones provide adequate buffers from other uses and limit the intrusion of non-residential and multif family uses in those zones as the burough's land use plan has identified more suitable location for such uses. 2022 master plan amendment eight to maintain and revitalize the downtown area of the burough as a vibrant walkable mixed use center which serves as a gathering place for the community and provides a diversity appropriate land uses to meet the needs of the burough residents with commercial personal service and office uses and development that respects the burough's suburban character and prescribed zoning with housing provided in accordance with the burough's land use plan and housing only and fair share plan 2022 master plan amendment Nine, the Burough Council adopted an ordinance creating an overland zone for block 1102, lots 2, three, and four, currently occupied by Bank of America branch and former larger macro housing, a total area of 1.45 acres. The overlay zone permits mixeduse development with commercial uses on the first floor, residential uses on the second and third floors up to a maximum density of 20 units per acre. An affordable housing set aside of 15% is required, assuming the prospective development of the site would include rental units. 2022 master plan amendment 10. Except as otherwise provided for in the Bur housing element fair share plan, residential density should not exceed the maximum rented density prescribed in the underlying zone district 2022 plan. Based on a review of the bureau's various master plan documents, the board determines that the ordinances are not inconsistent with the master plan and are intended to implement the burough's 2026 housing element and fair share plan. I see a little typo in fair share plan there. Uh therefore the board recommends that they be adopted by the council. So that would be the report to the governing body and I would suggest somebody make a motion and direct the

letter be adopted and sent as the board's report. Well, we can talk about separately any of the Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, we we can and u I'm happy to get into some of these if you've got specific questions. uh I don't have it all on my fingertips, but like for example the it if you uh are building an affordable project that's got an inclusionary component, but the numbers don't work out perfectly to the 20% set aside. So let's say if you're if you're building five units, you got to build one affordable. What happens if you're building six units? Do you have to build two affordable or are you okay with one? Well, the answer is you can build just one, but then there's a percentage left over. It's 20%. So, how do you how do how do we be fair to everybody? So, the rule there is, well, you pay 20% of the cost of what the unit would be. What's the cost of the unit? Well, we have a number. It's $248,000. So, you would write a check for 20% of that number. Um, so that's a useful update to have in your ordinance. And it's useful. I like what you're doing here to make it go up 3% every year because those numbers every time it adopts these ordinances and then 10 years later nobody's updated and the numbers are completely out of whack. So this is smart to update it from 195. It probably hasn't been updated in 10 years and now you'll never have to update it because it's going to go up 3% per year. There's crazy inflation they revisit it sooner. So I think that's pretty clever. The burrow is definitely I can tell from these ordinances has been getting good legal advice from its affordable housing consultants. Um the updates to the uniform affordable housing controls as U-Hack those are the administrative code sections that tell you what percentage of units have to be onebedrooms, two bedrooms and three bedrooms. U-Hack also tells you um the percentage of units that have to be affordable to very low, low and moderate income people. Uh you UAC also has the dollar figures that the people are earning and what those actual numbers are. So by

updating this ordinance, you're just cons becoming consistent with the law that that's changed a lot in the last 12 months. you've adopted uh there's I think the the resolutions are for a marketing plan whenever you have affordable units we don't want you it's New Jersey so we want to make sure that there's not shenanigans wherever we can somebody's building an affordable housing project next you know like you know the DBW's like chief's daughter's like living there or whatever there's a process to make sure affordable housing is properly legally fairly administrated that needs a marketing plan. So there now there's rules saying this is how we're going to advertise it. This is how we're going to collect applications. We're going to have a constant outside consultant who's going to conduct a lottery and randomly select the people. A waiting list is going to be created. This is the information that goes into the application. It's a ton of regulation. That's really it's really what we're doing there. It's kind of nuts and bolts of affordable housing. ready.

No, it's very important. We wouldn't be here if we were bored by this. So, thank you, Mark. Um, I just I have a question. The overlay zone, we're not voting on that. That's something the council already did. The board has no no role in that process. So, the overlay zone and I is part of a redevelopment plan. So just just like when there's an ordinance that's being revisited like redevelopment plans are adopted by ordinance right

the rules are slightly slightly different but same process for for an ordinance the council refers to the board the board is 35 days to report back for redevelopment plan you you have an extra 10 days 45 days to report back but it's the same process you report back you agree you disagree consistent not not consistent and it goes back to the governing body but the governing like with zoning has the ultimate say. They they decide if it it goes through or not.

But my point is unless I'm not not understanding this number nine in your report. The council already adopted this ordinance but we're not voting on it because it was that's not on here. That was I looked on the council that was uh 2603. So I think number nine and in and all the numbered paragraphs that that Tom added to the letter, these are just provisions in the master plan um that show that these ordinances that we're talking about are cons are not inconsistent with. So I think the the overlay zone um had recommended that.

But the council did, from what I'm reading, adopt this February 3rd. So I guess I'm asking why is that not an ordinance that we that comes back to us? The ordinance that they adopted creating the overlay. Yeah, it's an or no an ordinance amending land use article use schedule mixeduse district of the burough code to amend the permitted residential density to address the burough's affordable housing legislation. I'm just I just want wanted to see a copy of each of these and this is what was was on their agenda for February 3rd. Isn't that what came before us last meeting when Darling is here? Yeah, I think we were. Yeah, we saw that.

So, I'm just making sure that that's why we're not voting on it tonight. Okay. So, so this one here 2603 I had prepared a letter similar to this at that meeting. Did you and you voted on that? Like that? Well, I'm just making sure. But that's Yeah. The same one? Yes. That we voted on already? Yes. Okay. Mark, I have a question. The the monies that come from a for payment in L, where does that go?

So, it it goes into an affordable housing trust fund and I think you pretty much every town has got an ordinance um an affordable housing fee that you charge for non-residential development and very commonly residential development. could give could be a couple percentage points of the value that gets created and the towns that are organized collect that money and you basically keep stockpiling it. So when it's time to do an affordable housing project, the town has money to to put it where it wants. So you the towns are either capitulating to developers that are coming and saying, I want to build a project. I'm going to put a 20% set aside. I'm going to give you two units out of this 10 per unit project I'm building. Thank you very little. But if your town accumulates a fair amount of money in its affordable housing trust fund, then the town has the ability to say, "Uh, no, we're not we don't need you, Mr. Developer. We have a million dollars, $3 million in our trust fund. We going to have a piece of municipal property. We're going to build a 10 unit 100% affordable project here because then we can with 10 units of affordable. We don't have to have

50 units of housing with a with a 20% set aside. We're going to avoid building an apartment building. Last year, last year we used some of the money to help Bergen County United Way complete the project on Central Avenue. So, we took money from that trust fund to make sure that that that those units were were completed. They were running out of money and and we ended up getting credits in round four for so that was great. It's the circle of life. Yeah. My thinking was I didn't know if the monies went to pay for the consultants and everything you mentioned for marketing.

Okay. So, so there's law about that too. There is a there is a section that says a percentage of it can get paid for soft cost, attorney's fees, planning fees, engineering fees. I I will tell you this, Mr. Mayor, when I when I see screw-ups in this stuff, that's where I see the screw-ups. Um I once read about a town in our vicinity where that account was effectively looted by an attorney, right, over a course of years. Um, and it wasn't until he died that somebody else came in and took over and started looking and said, "Oh my god, this guy built your community a million dollars over the last 10 years." Well, and there's no money left. Luckily, our CFO is keeping a a tight watch on that.

We'll keep that safe. Who oversees that? That fun. The the burrow CFO. Yeah. Yeah. David, it's one question mark. the uh the 248 up from 195 uh for affordable housing units uh annual increase of 3% which is great. It's a built-in 3% increase. Um that 248 per unit is that a single, double or triple. And how does that who did it if it the law doesn't uh doesn't separate? It doesn't separate from a three to a one. Yeah, it it does not. just back in the envelope math is really the best answer I could give you. It seems a little convoluted, but

yeah, you're right. So, like if you were building a project and let's say you had determined that you needed to have an extra threebedroom unit, but you're not building it. Yeah, should be more. So, but it's still stuck at the 28. Yeah. All right. A lot of it ends up as negotiation. you know, if if they want to do it and whether or not they're going to get into the master plan or whether or not, especially from for route four, we sat down with the various people that came before us and we negotiated the numbers. That's what we just came down to. So, is that a median number? You would think I guess it's what

the 248. So, that's a maybe that would be for a two unit as opposed to a one or three. I'm just stuck on this number of 248. What is that? So, so, so the the idea is that that's roughly the cost of construction of of a unit of housing in a multif family project. So, if you're building, you know, a 10 unit building, $2.5 million to construct it, $250,000 a unit roughly. That's the back of the line, right? I don't necessarily agree, but Okay, that's that's the end table. I don't know what the costs are. All right. Is that is that uniform that number?

No, it's definitely not. And uh and it's definitely something that I see builders and towns fighting over pretty routinely. Um I can imagine. Yeah. Yeah. We want as high a number as we can get and they're looking to Right. Yeah. This is uh this is on the higher side of what I've seen. Okay. Um I've seen recently the lowest I've seen is 100,000. Um I know Fort Lee used to be like 213,000. That was like four or five years ago. They probably are back. They're probably at this number now if I had to guess. I know fair lawn is at a at $200,000 now. Um but sometimes it becomes a negotiating tool. So

thanks Mark. Yes. All right. Um I think I know what I was trying to get clarity about. The report we have here is really consistent review for ordinances 8 n and 10. Correct. Correct. But we're also voting on three, four, and five. And I know those we had seen before, but because we don't have a copy of them in front of us, that's why I'm All right. So I So I I I mean I have it here, but I just wanted to look it up because I think the board should be reminded what those are as well. All right. So I'm a little bit confused because and I know like I came to the meeting and then I left the meeting last time because I something I attend to at home. I prepared a letter at that meeting very similar to this letter

and it was it was sent out. Those were, if you look, these were all from Denise, which is why I for them. And each one, like it says 2603 adoption. Adoption. These were all adopted. The ones today were introduction. Yeah. So, she just sent she just sent the three, four, and five we voted on last week. So, they should be on the referral that we're voting on tonight. No, you're not doing because that's how it's listed. So, I just wanted to clarify that three, four, and five. We already heard we're not voting on. And we're not voting on the last two. So it's only 8 n uh 8 9 and 10

so that the board's aware of that and we can approve these all together. Correct. Okay. Are there any any other questions about 8 n 10? If not I'll take a motion to approve. I have one question before we start. Um I was not at the last meeting. Am I able to? Yes. Because it's only on you're here for the full conversation on 8910.

Thank you. Motion to approve. Motion, Mr. We need a second. Secretary Raymond. Yes. Mr. Alter. Yes. Mr. Freriedman. Yes. Mr. Hip. Yes. Council on Kleti. Yes. Mayor Shinel. I think I should abstain. It's coming back to It's being sent back to us. You can vote in both paths. Correct. You can vote on the plan. Yeah. Yeah. You You're absolutely allowed to vote. There's no prohibition that says that you can't.

You can't, then I'll vote for it. The letter is addressed to to us. Yeah. Yeah. It's kind of weird, but you're allowed to do it. Okay. Chairwoman. Yes. Motion's passed. Okay. Thank you. And thank you, Mark, for that for your report and all your help with this. Um, we'll move on to our resolutions from our last hearing. PZ 1125, block 203, block 12, 39 CR Court. Ashley Norris, you can remind us who's eligible to vote in your time. Okay. Chairwoman Case, yes. Mr. Alter, Mr. Freriedman, Mr. Hip.

Okay. So, please those members review the resolution and when you're ready, I'll take a motion.

Motion, Mr. Alter. Second. Mr. Fman, yes. Chairwoman Mates, yes. Mr. Alter, yes. Mr. Friedman, yes. Mr. Hip, yes. Motion's passed. Thank you. Moving on to resolution 2610 PZ 1325, block 21101, law 28 314 St. Mary Street and state people were present. Correct. Uh second chairwoman Kates, Mr. Mr. Hip, Council Lee Zetti, and Mayor Shank are all committed to vote on this. Okay. Thank you.

I'll make a motion to approve. Thank you, Mr. H. I'll second that. Mr. Alter. Chairman Mckese. Yes. Mr. Alter. Yes. Mr. Hip. Yes. Council Lee Anelleti. Yes. Mayor Shinu, yes. Motion's passed. Thank you. Okay, we have our annual report prepared by our engineer, Chris Tiel. It's a letter J uh dated January 12th. So, we will have our board review it. U Chris, if you want to add any comments as well. I think I believe Mark has has prepared a resolution. Yes, we have a resolution.

Yep. And Mark basically summarized it pretty pretty succinctly. We we only had nine applications we heard in 2026. Seems like it but we saw a lot more applications. We only had nine. Eight were for variances and seven were granted. We did deny one application and one application was was moved that we had no jurisdiction over that which we'll discuss later tonight. And that's it. I'll just say those were nine variances applications. We had a lot better hearings. Yes. request variances. Yes. Five hearings on one project alone. Yeah, it felt like a lot more work. It didn't seem like that. Yeah. Well, for some of us

um it lists here. I think the the denial is the the caner one I think on the sheet. I don't know if that I think that was eventually approved, wasn't it? Yes, it was originally denied and then they came back and it was approved. Yeah. So, how does should that be listed as a denial? I guess it was denied, but it should also be counted as an approval. Correct. Whatever Mark thinks. Um that came back.

Well, in terms of an outcome, that's what we're I will say this. Let's not get hung up on this. the the per the purpose of the annual report is to inform the governing body of trends that are taking place in tomorrow so that over time you can see where the ordinances need to get updated and revised. It was denied. It was later approved. We could update the chart to to note that but I wouldn't let that stop be

I think it's fine to update the chart as and just say as a condition of approval update the chart. Um, speaking of the kitchen, I know the point of, yes, especially for anyone who's new, the point of the animal view is for us to look for patterns and make recommendations to the mayor and council that we feel any ordinances or crimes needs to be changed. We brought up the outdoor kitchen last year and we brought that to the mayor council. Correct. I think our leazison, the mayor did the annual report was shared with the council. Correct. Yeah. So, Mark, would you would you how would we proceed? Will we remind them of this recommendation or

so in the ordinance in the resolution that I drafted pull it up? I did repeat that. Um comment.

Well, because Mr. Klet knew maybe we want to explain to him why we made that recommendation, you know, with the kitchen and what our recommendation was. So I I think the the board had seen some applications with people putting gazeos and outdoor kitchens and pergillas and there was a question about how they should be treated for bulk setback purposes, how close they should be permitted to backyard, sideyards, etc. Um and we had recommended that the governing body study this and clarify it however the governing body sees fit is what we had put in our recommendation. So it wasn't a specific recommendation training except for the governing body to study it.

Okay. I mean it's an issue that we're likely to see more of. That was our concern as it's becoming more popular. Should we approve we can we approve this or Well, we will. I mean, we're finishing the conversation. I just want to make sure our leazison's aware of what we're recommending the council so he can bring it back to the council. So to be clear, this was a recommendation that's carried over from the 2024, right? That was presented to the council last year, right? Hopefully. Yeah. Along with the recommendation that a study be performed to justify whether or not that change should be made. That's right.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Con. on this note of trends. Yeah, we're kind of limited in our data points here with only so many variances. But I think a point that came up during the application that I think was the one on Beachwood uh that had to do with F and a small size property in the floodway and the driver of the F was the ground floor garage area that was being considered as part of the F

and I didn't know if it was something that we could look if there's uh municipalities that are considering removal of that garage area as part part of the F. I mean, because they have to put it under the house in order to fit the house on, I guess. Um, and it's they I guess I'm trying to find a solution here for these undersized lots that that are in that in that neighborhood.

What do you think about that, Chris? Well, when we when we wrote the F ordinance years ago, we had considered that the types of lots in the in the zones and so the F does vary slightly in some of the zone districts to to your point. Yes. Sometimes lots which are undersized, they're just not going to work for them. Some lots down there are 50 foot wide. Yeah. One of those like it was like 50 by 100. You have two 10 foot side setbacks. So 40 house starts to get a little narrow. s that's very

I don't how how often do have we gotten those I think it's a matter how frequently they come too you know like how often is the board seeing them so aside from the one this year can you think of of other cases because if we've had a number that's usually when we make a recommendation to change right there's one other one with the height uh height restriction they built the house uh right down the street from the same area So if we have let's say there's two then for in in the same year that was I feel like that was a different issue with the height that would have to come down to I guess when I they went up instead of

I was trying to find a solution for the people that are trying to raise the house because they're trying to deal with the floodway and so because they're dealing with the floodway and they raise the house then the bottom becomes part of the F

because even though it's it's basically like their driveway which we wouldn't count the driveway towards their F count towards their impervious Well, and we can always research if other towns have like considered that and made chang. So that's why it was it was swept in with the F purpose F was goes back to the old McMansion era, the big houses. That's when that ordinance became became part of Hills ordinance was to prevent that from happening. So that's why the garage were included as well because that was be part of as you look at a house sighting it's going to be you're going to see the two three car garage that's kind of was pushed in there. I mean, usually any covered space is included in the F because there's the possibility that somebody could enclose it later without Yeah. know being a permit and that

which happens, you know, common like and for in those examples where they had parking on the ground floor, you know, later they could, you know, put some walls up there and I mean I mean I get that they were doing it because they were trying to avoid the flood, right? past where that situation. I mean, maybe there could be wording about that purpose and that need. It's something to think about. Well, that's going to change too because they expanded the floodway with through Denver Park applications. Now, the floodway is massive. That's what I'm saying. So, we have

you really you really can't do much with your house in a flood way. The flood fringe is different. The floodway is a whole different a whole different category. Now, DP doesn't allow you to do much. I mean, you could do like an overlay or something like that zone at the flood area and have some special condition just something so that people can we can still utilize the properties. The properties don't just become you know can we do something with them and allow but people need to build a house that is just going to be able to work there. Um, and if they have our own means they can have one floor there, then I don't know if families are going to do a little dip in a raised one floor ranch, I guess. Well, they have a hardship and they come before us. Yeah.

So, I mean, I that's the issue. It's like, do we want them to appear before us so they know we know that there's a hardship and we're giving it to them versus not knowing what they're doing there. I guess that's the question. But it's it's a good point you bring up for sure. I mean, we could research we could research what other towns are doing. I think about that. I'm sure there's other We're not the only flood and there's a lot of reconstruction in Glenber Park. A lot of those subs now. You drive through there. I remember a long time ago was just like little little summer bungalows. Now really it's just bigger houses down behind like the library and stuff.

Yeah. Because that was you know it was in the flood area. So people would just have one story bungalows basically. As real estate value became, you know, hot commodity, those lots started to get developed. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. I just have one general comment. I was at a public meeting where the planning board was referenced because um of a future a town issue that's you were up to a town hall that was held on an issue and it was mentioned that possibly this this um this issue would come before the planning board and the public shouldn't worry because we're very strict board. So, while I'm with my very strict board, I just want to point out that we've approved almost every variance that's come before us and asking questions and doing due diligence doesn't mean that we're not obeying and the point was just made like very responsive to our residents. So, I just felt like because I heard that I wanted to make sure it was put in context. Um, but thank you.

And the board the board does work with the applicants. Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. I've been I've been over the ridge with E4 and it's no it's no go there's the door but at least this board tries to work with some of the homeowners etc like that so it's a it's a different composure over here actually yeah I just like when that is conveyed conveyed to the governing body as well question yes on the one on the one denial um if I remember correctly we never approved a resolution even though we issued a resolution so it wasn'tic actually denied the mememorialized resolution.

Then they came back with an amendment and we approved it. You're saying we have never. So you're saying it's not official. Then I think Mark Mark's the one to ask. Yeah, let's let's uh let's look into that. I would say approve the annual report subject to that confirmation. I think you may be right. Is that prepare a resolution of denial? Then they made a they made a request for Yeah. We thought you recommended we reconsider. Yeah, that's right. So, yeah, I think I think you're correct. So, maybe we'll double check that up. I'm pretty sure we prepared this based upon actual resolutions. Yeah, I I think I prepared a resolution of denial. Yes, sir.

And then they and then they came in and asked to reconsider. We never adopted it. Otherwise, they were just going to refile a new application. So, we'll coordinate with Tanya. Okay. Yeah. And never forget. Okay. So, um, when you're ready, I can take a motion to approve our annual report and we have our resolution for that ready. You want to read it more? Actually, you know what? Because I have those details in there. I'm going to suggest that you table this. Okay. So, we'll we'll approve this once we see the new copy in our next meeting. Let's get measure twice.

Okay. Thank you. Good conversation everyone. Um, so we're going to go into close session and that's to discuss ongoing litigation. Um, you should. Okay. Do I have a motion to go into closed and and I would say we're going to go from closed into adjournment and we're not going to conduct any further. Okay. So, we're going to we're going to adjourn. Well, I I don't have to open the public again. Yeah. I would say end the meeting go and Okay. Okay. So, we'll adjourn from closed and our next public hearing. We don't have a public hearing on February 24th. We're going to cancel that, right? We're canceling our meeting on February 24th. We have a resolution that we see our court. Excuse me. I can't hear.

Oh, I passed one again. Did I miss one? Yeah. No, I thought we did see our court. That was the first one. We did two. Oh, you're thinking that I'm sorry. This is St. Mary's. Uh, we did both of them. Oh, shoot. You're right. Sorry. Sometimes I get it right. Scott's throwing me under the bus. Yeah, really. Cuz he's scared of me. That's why. All right. So, March 12th. All right. So, yes, we're going to go into closed and we're going to journ from closed. Our next meeting will be March 12th. Okay. Do I have a motion to go into closed? Motion,

Mr. Raymond. Mr. Friedman. Thank you, everyone. An off. Yeah. our picture. Good. Let's see. We're off.