Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Summerville Planning Board, for Wednesday, July 22nd, 2026, please come to order. Adequate notice to this meeting, as required by the Open Public Meeting Act, has been provided. A copy of the notice specifying the date, time, and location was, one, posted on the bulletin board outside of Borough Hall, two, mailed, faxed, or emailed to the Courier News, and three, given to the clerk administrator. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues the board may legally consider in reaching a decision, and the decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call.

Andrea Dare. Here. Chris Addicks. Here. Larry Cleveland. Here. Tim Hayes.

Here.

Bill Kael.

Here.

Jason Kraska. Here. John Manilio. Here. Barry Van Horn.

Here.

Mayor Gallagher. Here. Council Member Vroom. Here. Chairperson Warner.

Here. Please stand for the pledge. All right, I have no comments, except this should be a pretty short meeting. I know you're all upset. ARB was, we had the 156 West Main, which was a sign. Anybody have any issues that you guys got to review it? It was pretty simplistic. Approval for minutes from July 8th.

So moved. Second.

Andrea Dare. Yes. Larry Cleveland. Yes. Tim Hayes. Yes. Bill Kale. Yes. Jason Kraska. Yes. John Manilio. Yes. Barry Van Horn. Yes. Mayor Gallagher. Yes. Council Member Vroom. Yes. Chairperson Werner.

Yes. All right, moving on to ECBD. I feel we're on the home stretch on this one. I think we just have a few things to tighten up. One of them was, did everybody get the final review of Schedule A on the adjustments? You went through the definitions. Did anybody have any additional comments on this?

Go ahead, John. I'm going to be Monday morning quarterback.

It's okay.

So I went through a lot of it. I know I missed a couple of meetings when we were going through and reclassifying the properties. I guess one question just for everybody is the EB1 and EB2, they seem very similar. They're close to each other. I went through the uses. Maybe there's three uses that are different. And even with the zoning, it looks like most of the zoning is the same with the exception of one has a building coverage requirement, the other one doesn't. Would it make sense to combine the EB1 and EB2 to just one zone? Something to think about it would Know I just gotta look at the differences. Yeah. Yes, so I could go through those and some of the differences maybe too I don't know if they make sense because it sounds like most the eb-2 is actually on Main Street And the differences are Wholesale of groceries Schools and educational services Correct. Nonprofit parks, which I feel like should be permitted in all zones. And railroad transportation, which doesn't make sense because it's not near the railroad.

You never know.

I have no issue combining those. Just to make it easier and cleaner.

Mike, any issues with that?

It was one point, we made the difference, John. At one point, there was a Griffith Electric on Meadow Street that we kicked it around to make that a permitted use. This is Griffith Electric became a landscaping in the contractor's yard. And right now, I think it's a landscaping right on Meadow Street. I think that's the background to why there's a distinction, John. But I think it's a great point.

And the second one is that EB3. It just seems it's kind of isolated in the back. It's three lots. I think it's all owned by PSE&G, I want to say.

Well, if you look at it, EB3 on the back end has already been developed for the most part, and then the other EB3 on the original is under the flood hazard now. So to your point, there really isn't much there.

What is on EB3 right now? Metal fabrication. On the new map just looks like a parking lot. I'm not sure how up-to-date it is Yeah, that used to be an auto body shop way back I Mean I could see some uses there that are not permitted in other zones like a nursery or something I

I think he's referring to see this little box here. It's not marked. John's map has this.

Oh, there.

There's three houses. Yeah, you can see it on John's map really well.

So, yeah, so that's actually owned by PSE&G. Right. Which is?

That was the old raised auto body after they left the church.

Which is under a zoning board application right now. Yes.

Don't know that anything can go on Do we just pull that out of the eb3 and just make part of the EPR zone then I

That was my thought.

Because if we're making that flood hazard zone cover the rest of that.

We don't want anything else there. Why don't you just make it part of the flood hazard zone?

Right, I think that makes more sense if it's EP. Because it's not in a flood hazard zone, is it? No, it's not.

But it's attached to it.

It's high and dry.

Now, it's really high and dry in that spot.

But if it's going to be capped, can we put residential there?

No, that's why you do EPR. Is EPR, I think it's just professional and retail. If you're a professional, one family residence is allowed there, so no.

We could say something like government. Yeah, government. Because the intent is, and I know the mayor can chime in on this issue, but the intent is maybe an opportunity from PSC&G for the borough to use those properties. We've been after that property for 20 years. Right. So that would be like a government. We could just say government or institutional, like the county government district. We could do something similar, John, because it's only the three lots, and the three lots are owned by PSC&G. Right. So...

Okay, and then going through Schedule A, so that's the kind of.

So wait, does that now eliminate EB3? So existing up on EB3, we still have, I think, right off of Warren Street a little bit. I'm not saying we have to address that now, but if we, again, if we're gonna eliminate it, are we leaving it for one, two, four properties?

So, I'm sorry, is this the map that's the current, or are we going off the hand sketch?

Either or right now, it doesn't matter.

So the properties in the, on Warren Street there.

In reality, it's a station house, the bank, the multifamily apartment building, and then you have, you're at Bridge Street. That's the three properties. Santander Bank, next to Santander is a multifamily house, next to that is the station house. Then you have the Center Street, then you have Cobalt.

And on Warren, you're talking the firehouse? Yeah, that's the firehouse. You've got the county properties there?

Yeah, right.

I'd be more inclined to turn that.

Move that into the new EB-12, whatever we're going to call that one.

Yeah.

Yeah. Move those four properties.

Anybody have an issue with that? No, I don't.

This is also EB1.

Yes, it'll all be...

And we have no uses in the flood hazard zone? I don't know if that's what we're going to talk about today, or do we want to add uses?

I think we needed to decide what uses are. That was the only one. Basically, open space is really what's going to be.

Could it be active and passive recreation? Yes.

Active and passive, Bill made the distinction, which is current, that don't make parking lots there. So there was a distinction made that yes, we have parking lots associated with a park or something, but keep it that way. But we had the flood hazard ordinance that covered all the uses. So we were gonna use the existing flood hazard ordinance and I guess come up with uses which are green and passive that should be in that table.

So yeah, I like the idea of the open space and the parks. My only question with the parking lots is, let's say it all does become vacated, would a park be able to have a parking lot? Yes, accessory. As an accessory use? As an accessory use. Okay, yes.

So my thought also on the flood hazard, there are other uses I think that can go there that won't be affected if it gets flooded and could benefit the community as well. And the other, I guess, concern I have is a lot of those properties are privately owned now. That's assuming that somebody wants to make it park open space for some reason or there's some type of.

Yeah, there's no eminent domain here. This is planned for 2030 out.

TDR rights. Yep, so I'm thinking is there any commercial uses that could be there that could actively use those spaces? So commercial recreational spaces like soccer fields or private clubs, something to that effect, or baseball fields.

I mean, my personal opinion is that thing floods. I'd like to keep structures out of there as much as possible.

Oh, I agree. So if it's a field, you know, maybe it has like a concession stand that has to obviously conform with the state regulations, but it's still green space. It's not something that it's an infrastructure that will get damaged. Or the other thing is like a community. So I know there's a lot of people talking about community space or a theater. I think that that could work there if it's elevated. above the flood because nobody's going to go out to see a play if it's a 100-year storm coming.

So part of the problem we also have to remember is going back to what Mike is talking about, what our flood ordinance says. So I think we need to read that because there are very strict restrictions, especially if somebody gets an opportunity to do a FEMA acquisition. There is no opportunity for anything but open space. So I don't disagree in trying to think outside the box, but I'd rather see those plans and then us have to address it on a case-by-case versus a blanket where we end up with something that we weren't really intending on getting. And that's, again, just my opinion. I agree that it's not just about open space. It should be parks, recreation. But I think beyond that vague word, I think we'd want to see what is being presented. because that area is the worst of the worst there.

Yeah, so how do we encourage moving towards that? Because if I'm a property owner, I own it, I'm not going to sell it or redevelop it, because if I do that, then I can't do anything without coming for a zoning board approval on it.

I think the TDR comes into play. In the rest of the EB district, the... you can get density bonuses by picking up a piece of property in that area, in the FHA. You pick that up, you get X density bonus on that project.

Does the TBR stop in this zone?

No, that's what this zone is. That's where you'd want to use it.

No, I'm sorry. I mean in the east end. Can the west end come over and buy property and get better density at theirs? Is that allowed or is it restricted to the ECB?

The board wanted to do that. jason not any concern with that is what really needs to be developed is the east and the west is relatively good shape the focus in my opinion what has to decide that is trying to get that east east main street jump started yeah yeah and to lisa's point um i think we can take that on a case-by-case basis if there is a project that comes in um and they're shy on parking or they're shy on density and they can't make it work then

then it allows us to have the flexibility to determine whether that's an appropriate TDR or not. Yeah.

If it would help the board, I could fill in TDR, I could fill in the FHO, the flood hazard zone, and we could make the map changes, simplify the table.

Well, the next thing is going to be the map. I wanted to focus on this. Yeah. my chicken scratch and everybody else's chicken scratch ideas need to be discussed because we need to push through of where do we want to land with these now. Now that we know what the uses are, what we're getting rid of, what we're not getting rid of, where do we see that fully laying out in that ECBD area?

I did have a question. The Parkland area, the POR zone that's north of Park Avenue, Should we notch that off down Coddington and just make that?

That's not part of the ECBD, so we cannot do that.

That's where it stops, on this side of the park.

Larry, the idea is once we get to this flood hazard zone, I think Roger brought this up, we get the language right. Maybe it could be extended throughout the borough, but the idea was this is the start. We get the language right, and then we can extend it along the flood hazards. Is that right, Roger?

That's the intended goal. Right. If we can get it right here, then we can work this in everywhere else because, you know, going back to John, what you were saying before, at some point, folks have to realize, as we've discussed here, with flood insurance and things like that, it follows the property. So at some point, it's going to be – you're going to be way up – forget being upside down underwater, but you're going to be upside down financially to continue to rebuild someplace where you're not going to get finances for it. And so then we start to talk about green space takeover and some of the ways that folks can get FEMA buyouts and whatnot. But I think we need to, as well as working on this flood hazard zone, is also educating the public of those things because they may not realize when they bought into that property that their time may be running out to get assistance to maintain that property in the event that we get another Ida or another Irene.

I agree. I just want to make sure that we try to, I guess, encourage people to get down these structures. And that's why I thought, you know, the commercial, you know, recreational space, that's something that would take down structures and make it a field. But, yeah, I'm okay with that being a use variance and that's coming from, will have to come from the zoning board.

Can I make one suggestion on the mass? Sorry. Sorry. So at the corner of High Park, we have the old dentist office. Yes. And it's not included in the zone, in the FHA.

That's what I was thinking.

And it's kind of like a sore thumb just sticking out on its own, and we're not doing anything with it. My suggestion would be we just extend that FHA.

We can't.

Why?

ECBD is a designated area. We would need to have Mike do an area study to see if we want to add those properties.

We can talk to council about that. We have a study done for the county parcels. Yeah. If the recommendation from council is to study that, I would suggest we just add that lot into the county study. Yeah. If that's. I think it, yeah, I think it makes sense. So.

Yeah, I agree. I just want to make sure we.

Do it right.

Do it right. Yeah.

the normal process is care question we normally get a recommendation councilman council to study the area than planning boards yeah and it would just be an additional recommendation existing because we haven't closed out we're still in discussions on the area needs that's not closed out yet just be adding it adding a lot to the study area and if anybody sees another lot or something that sticks out like a sore thumb We do have the county open, and it's 90% written. So adding a block, a lot here and there, as long as council agrees and CARA agrees, I think it makes perfect sense to do all in one shot.

John, did you have anything else? You sure?

Yeah, I have two questions on the schedule.

Oh, go ahead.

So, EB2, I see wholesale grocery under a conditional use. Do we want a wholesale grocery in the EB2 section?

Well, I thought we were getting rid of EB2, so it becomes EB1. Okay, I mean- As a whole, so to your point, yes.

Do we want a whole, yeah, I mean, do we want a wholesale grocery in that? area I'm not sure just thought I'd bring that up so the definition of wholesale grocery is that bulk is that like generally yes yes something like that or an oldie or something so yeah okay yeah that makes that makes sense then and my other question was around I see a physical fitness facility only listed under EB3, which I'm not sure if that exists anymore.

Just got rid of that one too. Just got rid of it.

Yeah, so what's the thought with physical fitness? Yeah, I think that's an acceptable use. Yeah, I would think so. I would think anywhere in here.

So that would just flow into the EB, are we going to call it EB1 and get rid of EB2 and EB3?

Yeah, EB1 and then EPR right after that.

So we would just extend any of the uses that were in the EB2 and 3 into the one.

Okay, makes perfect sense then. I was just curious why we wanted a fitness center only in that little parcel in the middle of nowhere.

Is there anything in the EB3 that we don't want pulled in? I didn't look at that yet. That's not in the others.

Talk about that. the non-profit parks in 2, 3, and EPR, but not EB1 now.

So I think that would slide over into it.

Yeah, I think parks should be permitted anywhere if somebody wants to put a park. The only ones I think maybe we should think about is the transportation and public utilities. So I guess the SIC code 40 and 41 said the railroad transportation is permitted more like a railroad yard and then 41 is which yeah that's not okay so for railroad I would say just eliminate that and leave it as the eb1 where it's not approved all right right and maybe the second one is so local and suburban transit and inter urban highway passenger transportation so I looked that up that's Bus terminals, taxis, school bus terminals.

Does that include bus stops?

I don't believe so. No, I think John's right. I think it's the hub. It's the whole bus terminal. Like Greyhound would have traffic.

Then I don't think we need that as an approved use, so just keep that one out.

And then next page, um, the construction general building. Yeah.

I was just looking at that.

Yeah. So I, I guess in some areas I'm okay with that as long as there's no outdoor storage or equipment. So if it's like a general contractor, he has an office that that could be EPR. I think this has to be EB with the double CC though.

We have to be careful because now it says, I mean, we've, we've now delineated the flood hazard area. But it says only permissible on lots located either partially or fully in the NJ DEP flood hazard So if we're going to have the flood hazard area, I think we should remove Yeah Yeah, all right, so I think I'd like to see those go to EPR instead.

Yeah, and I glued any equipment or storage of materials So me that footnote CC could just change the note of CC.

Yeah.

Yeah, I

Any of the fabrication or the lawn and garden services? Yep. A bunch of them.

Yep.

And then to your point, Roger, on the next page, agricultural, we saw that CC condensation or indication there of that. So that could come out for lawn and garden services. We took that out, right, on EB? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I do have one more question on miscellaneous repair services. We have reupholstery and furniture repair as an accessory use. What's that accessory to?

I think it's typically accessory choose to a furniture store. Right.

Like the one that we have that doesn't do repair. Yeah. Yeah.

And to host events now. Right. That one. Right.

Hmm.

Tim, did you have another one?

No, that was it.

I have one. Just an explanation. That's all I want. Why are houses of worship prohibited and not even conditional uses? What page is that?

I don't think we can prohibit a house of worship. I think they're an inherently beneficial use. But it's the page, Lisa.

So I saw that as well. Actually, I don't know. I Googled it. I didn't know if it was because I thought it was permitted in all zones. It says you can. Page six.

Excluded from zones, but like you said it is a beneficial use so if it does come in from the board They have a good stance on that I would imagine parking is the issue the issue is houses of worship in the borough right now is the conditional use because of the parking and there's a lot size So many of the houses of worship don't qualify and I think the mayor is right It all goes back to the number of parishioners and on-site parking So couldn't it be a conditional as opposed to being a prohibited?

Yeah, I don't see why not.

Yeah, this way we're not opening ourselves up.

We can certainly make a condition, and the board states conditions on sizing.

Yeah.

Right? We say reasonable conditions given the lot size in the area. And on-site parking. On-site parking, right.

Yeah.

Yeah. We don't want to flood the streets with more cars.

Yeah.

To Andrew's point as well, so childcare centers, I think that's permitted in all residential zones. I don't know if the EPR is considered residential or is considered more professional office. And the ER2, we call it as an accessory. It should be a permitted use. That might be a CARA question.

The existing building that was a church or is not a church, is that still a church?

Yes, it's a house of worship.

It is a house of worship, so it's already there.

Yep.

So it either got approval.

It's seen many lives. It started out as a temple back in the early 1900s, and it's gone through many iterations of denominations, which is kind of neat.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Any others? No. All right, Mike, can you make those adjustments for us? Get a clean copy.

I'll work with Brian, and we'll get the table right, and it'll be red. All the changes from tonight's meeting will be shown in red, so it'll jump out at you.

Perfect.

And then update the map to...

Well, we're going to talk about the map. Listen, guys, I sent this out, but this was not gospel. This was just to give you an idea where my head was. So this is not a done deal. So we'll move on to the map at this point. So this gives you an idea of, and I know we just made some adjustments. I've made some notes on mine now. I WAS TRYING TO TAKE WHAT WE HAD AND LOOK AT, I WAS LOOKING AT USES OF, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I THOUGHT WERE APPROPRIATE, SOME THINGS I THOUGHT WERE MAYBE NOT. YOU KNOW, SPECIFICALLY IF YOU LOOK DOWN AT THE over by bridge south bridge towards the bottom of it that was an EPR I split that I think that we need to have some more movement above South Street that that needs to be you know that shouldn't be professional that's kind of like that gateway into our you know our downtown so I added that into eb1 This kind of turns into a like vast majority of eb1 now because we got rid of two and three I Did mark that one the property for government use I still did like around that Hamilton Street area, you know personally I thought you know some of those uses that are in eb1 even the eb2 at that point. I didn't think we're appropriate I think like that EPR is a nice, you know, especially coming out of that flood hazard like area not trying to draw I like that professional use. They could do still some residential there because there are residential homes there. We don't want to stop residential, but it is on that opposite side of the flood hazard. And then ER2, you can see at the top, I split that because those properties definitely needs based on the flood maps. This line basically follows those that we did in my GIS department where we overlaid the lots and blocks onto the flood hazard maps. So that was just where my brain was. Again, it wasn't meant like, okay, this is what we have to do. It was meant to start and ignite that conversation. Do you agree? Do you not agree? It really does, as we're going through this, turn us into a majority of EB1. I'm okay with that because we're losing such a big portion of this ECBD that we want to use this TDR. I think we need to allow more uses and more opportunities for something in the EB1. thoughts, comments, not able to follow it, chicken scratches, anything. You're not gonna hurt my feelings.

No, I think it's good. I think it's, I think if Mike, if you can take this and just kind of just clean it up a little bit.

And maybe, can you do redo the lines so that it's not so confusing? Yeah.

Okay. Just so everybody knows that the border is South Bridge, so the stuff to the west is not gonna be on the map. It's gonna stop at South Bridge.

Did we move those properties into the West? Yes. Okay.

Those properties were determined to be an area in need of redevelopment and added in the same study to the West Main Street. So the dividing line is South Bridge.

Okay. That helps a lot. Thank you.

They would all go back to B1 or B2?

It'll be B1. Oh.

I mean, those properties that are on... We'd have to look at the west end to see whether they got... Okay. Yeah.

Yeah, that's going to be handled, in my understanding, the parcels were added to the West Main along with the old council chambers. Yeah. That whole area was going to be addressed.

Okay. So the last piece that I had for tonight to talk about was, which we already touched upon, the area need where we're at. So you're saying we're about 90%?

The draft was done. I need to bolster the detention center. We talked about getting more data there, but you have 38 pages. It's 90% done. We can add a lot dentist office to it. Uh, the question is if the board's, I can polish that the area needs study and then we're going to have to go and do the noticing and all the proper procedures to

That's what, because, you know, I really, my goal is I really want to get this one done. Okay. We'll wait for the council to make that recommendation.

What I would suggest is, Mike, actually allow the board to take a vote, and then we send that formally to the council saying we are recommending that this be included. We can craft a resolution, have it on the next agenda, so it comes both at the same time. So it's less back and forth. Does that make sense?

You're saying the board makes a vote and I would send Kevin the council a recommendation that the dentist lot be studied yes and Be included in the in the previously approved study right and if Roger agrees on that agenda and the council would Entertain that motion the next council meeting whatever the next meeting is and the council agrees with it comes back here Then I can add that do the study add it to the already study and then we could do everything in one motion Yeah, you know the public meeting and the area needed redevelopment and what we we're done. Yes, I

So I'll make a motion then to add, it looks like it's to park Ave, um, to the area needs study recommendation from council.

Second.

Andrea dare. Yeah. Chris addicts. Yes. Larry Cleveland. Yes. Tim Hayes. Yes. Bill kale.

Yes. Jason Kraska.

Yes. John Manilio. Yes. Barry Van Horn. Yes. Mayor Gallagher. Yes. Council member of room. Yes. Chairperson Warner. Yes.

And that's a, was it block 67 lot one, I believe. I was trying to pull that up.

I'll get that recommendation out to Kevin tomorrow.

May I ask one question about the map? Sure. On the ER2 area there at the very northern part, I was curious, like the couple, let's see, one, two, three, maybe four of the lots closest to park, They seem to be closer to the brook. Are they not in the flood hazard zone? It just seems, you know, like the line was kind of just following the property line, and I didn't know if the flood line followed.

So according to the flood, they're not as, like, that is really where that, you know, where you could legitimately say severely flood hazard area.

So the flooding comes up, actually. It starts down, all the way down at the bend. Mm-hmm.

on veterans from that from that soccer field there and it works its way up that way so it it diminishes as it gets further up that way and if you're looking at those properties along mechanic mechanic street actually sits very high there's a big drop off in those backyards so you're not you're not getting flooded on those closer to main street

Okay, yeah, I just want to understand because the folks that are, how would you say it, in the flood zone there are probably a little bit farther away from the brook than the other folks.

Yeah, those ones did flood and have to be rebuilt.

Okay, thank you.

Mike, other than now that area in need, we're going to finalize this, you know, an updated Schedule A, get the map, area need what is left in the, we've touched everything in the ECBD, correct?

Correct. Well, we haven't. We talked the uses, which I'm going to amend, the zone districts. We haven't discussed. Once that's done, the plan was to deal with the bulk standards, which are typically Schedule B, the setbacks, FAR, improvement coverage, and then Schedule C, if the board feels we need one, how do we address parking? I'm not saying the areas we could address parking in a paragraph in the report as opposed to a special schedule. In the past, with ECBD, to encourage development, the board has been very, very flexible with parking. So the question is...

I think the flexibility comes with the TDR.

That's what the language says right now about parking. The question is, do you want to give specifics for uses, like a classic Schedule C, or do you want to say, by category, and then bringing in that... it says right now that you can park up to a reasonable distance away a thousand feet as long as the board agrees with it you don't have to have on-site parking if you're going to use the TDR that's the current language the question is to the board do we keep that current language regarding parking or do we say no this is your parking still have the TDR language but assigned parking for every use

I think 1,000-foot distance is extreme. Now, we've talked about it before in the past, and they've tried to do it in different places on Davenport Street and stuff, and 800 feet was outrageous, 1,000 feet. Plus, we're not going to be parking in the Park Avenue area because of the flooding. So that should be removed.

Yeah, and that was the intent, that they would buy it and it would become surface parking. Yeah. And then they could walk.

Hmm.

I'll throw in the Schedule C so the Board can do that. Yeah, please. And the language in the TDR, the idea was to try to encourage the growth. So, and this goes back to Bill, the old idea was you could park in the flood hazard zone, developed 400 feet away, 800 feet away, Larry, so that we could get the density in the, not in the flood. That's a mistake. I understand, but let me get that language to everyone. because it dovetails back on what Bill said three weeks ago, three meetings ago about do we want parking in the flood hazard zone? Do we want that as a primary use?

No, that should be only an accessory use.

So I'll get that Schedule C to the members for the next meeting and Schedule B. And we look at Schedule A, revisions all the done, EB1, change the zone districts out, get this map, corrected, updated, and then look at, get the Schedule B and Schedule C. I could just submit the existing schedules, and then we can mark it up like we did for Schedule A on this and see how there's going to be flexibility on the TDR or how we're handling parking to encourage parking in those areas.

Okay. I actually have another question. What about a structured parking, not surface parking? three or four story deck parking.

That was decided, Larry, to be an accessory use, not a principal use, being if you had a use, it was accessory, as opposed to putting a for-pay parking deck right down there. I think the discussion was that that was a poor use. We wanted residents, people, businesses.

Yes.

Yes, and the accessory was the parking, but we didn't want a parking establishment right in the heart of the ECBD. Gateway. Gateway, correct.

Thank you.

All right, any other comments on ECBD right now? All right, we're moving on to DCA, or DSA. Why did I say DCA? I know why, because it's something in my head. Stayed on my brain. Uh-huh, stayed on my brain. DSA, so Mike, you went through this, redlined it for us with some suggestions.

Yes.

YEAH, AND A LOT OF THESE, AS I WAS GOING THROUGH, THESE WERE SOME OF MY COMMENTS, SO, YOU KNOW, A GREAT, NICE, THOROUGH REVIEW. I THINK MOST OF THESE ARE ACTUALLY COMMENTS THAT WE CAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION FOR OTHER ELEMENTS AND FOR OTHER PARTS OF THE BASE PLAN THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO GO TO FOR THE MASTER PLAN.

You'll see that most of the comments were addressed, some were not, but will be addressed in the circulation plan. So if the board of people can save this, when we address the circulation, we can go back and tie up.

Yep. So that was actually one of my next questions is with the master plan. So we've gotten through most of the... Like we've gone through rec, gone through historic, gone through stormwater, we've gone through, what else have we gone through? Recreation, what else?

Facilities.

Facilities. Right. What's next? So we need to pick another piece of this pie to actually get through?

The big one is either circulation or land use.

I would say circulation first.

I was gonna say I'm not ready for land use yet.

Circulation, because that'll tie into a lot of this stuff.

Yes.

So I know everybody had it, but we could certainly give out the existing circulation element for review. The question is, do you want all this for the next meeting, or what is the...

I think get it out to the board members. I'd rather get it out sooner rather than later, and then we'll look at the schedule and see when we first want to start reviewing it. But these are things that we can, you know, once we have it, start reading it. And then maybe it gives a couple meetings for us to get through that, and then before we actually put it on to a review. Yeah. Okay.

Just a comment. I had a chance to review master plans of adjoining municipalities and the borough's master plan. The plan is easy to read and very concise compared to other municipalities. It's user-friendly, is what I'm trying to say. I was reading a plan that was about seven inches thick. And if you look what that plan said, it was well written. But I think we, the borough, accomplished that in 70 pages, just to give you just a food for thought. I was just doing it yesterday.

On your free time, you read other people's master plans. That's lovely.

On my free time, I read other people's EOPs.

Apparently, Mike, you're not busy enough. Jason, I didn't have a choice. I had to be prepared for bear. And I just... to the planning board that when you read other master powers, I'm not saying they're written poorly, it's just you have to read a lot to get the flavor, whereas the borough's plan, you read a couple pages, you know exactly where the borough.

Where they're going.

The intent is. The intent, yeah. In my opinion.

I know, and you know, I remember the last revision we did, we focused on a lot of that. Usually the last revision and the revision before that, we focused a lot on cleaning some of that up.

Yeah.

Okay, nothing from open business. All right, I will open up the meeting to the public for anything that is not listed on the agenda. Hearing none, I will close public session. Motion to adjourn.