Planning Board Meetings - Regular Meeting

I was like 11th hour.

Okay.

All right.

We're about ready to start. Good evening and welcome to tonight's meeting of the Sparta Township Planning Board. Thank you for those joining us here and online. For the record, this meeting is being held on August 19th, 2026 at 7.01 p.m. in the Sparta Township Municipal Building located at 65 Main Street, Sparta, New Jersey. And a 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 to be conducted after 9.30 PM, 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.

Carrie, would you please call the roll?

Here.

Here. Here.

Here.

Here. Here.

Here.

Here. Here. Okay, so as today is August 19th,

Many people in Sparta know and understand that this is when packets have gone in for the Sparta Town Council race. I just want to wish luck to all of the candidates who are about to enter onto the political stage. That having been said, As far as the agenda is concerned, we have no current minutes. We have no current resolutions. We're moving forward to the public hearing section of the agenda for the Lake Mohawk Country Club Ordinance. And I will pass the microphone to Ken.

Hello, gang. So thank you, David and Lindsay. In your package, you have the engineer and the planners analysis. One of the reasons for the public on the agenda, it says public hearings is that we're not doing this in closed session. There is transparency and we're discussing it's still in a working process. But if the this board. gives me the direction that I need. We'll be able to put this in its final form, but it's up to the board whether or not you wanted to accept public comment because it's still at a draft stage. But it's always been your policy to allow reasonable public comment. But again, for the public, this is in a draft stage and this is more of a work session which is being held in the public so if we look to the draft ordinance there were some comments that the we should incorporate well let me start off by saying the concept here is that the lake mohawk historic district be preserved and protected And there's been some confusion on White Deer Plaza, White Deer Plaza and Boardwalk. There's been confusion on TCC zone and other different zones, C1 zone. So the overall direction that has been given to me is preservation of the historic district. So what I did was I took Lindsey and David's comments and just you'll see handwritten on the first page. We're talking about the character of White Deer Plaza and the boardwalk. So I put in the boardwalk on the second page. You see where we have restaurants David had pointed out and it's not my best drafting. I hand wrote an outside dining. restaurants with or without outside dining, but not including driving. So driving is not But restaurants with or without outside dining is something that should be a permitted use. There was some concern on number six as to off street parking. So this permitted use does not extend to parking on public roadways and is limited to a parking lot or I just put a off street parking lot. uh just give a little clarification on section c uh and your package uh joan and birgit had made reference to tcc zone and some of the positive aspects of those design standards so i just made reference there that we should discuss that and the rest of the ordinance is really just kind of uh boilerplate Uh, I think the conversation should really go and thank you, Joan, your comments that you laid it out. On Jones comment attached current TCC zone and proposed changes. And if we go through those, if we look at principle permitted uses on Jones email. Number one, stores or shops or retail business or wholesale display entirely within the confines of a building. No change there. Number two, banks and offices for business, executive, professional purposes. Joan was suggesting that we delete banks. And I'm just going to go through the list first. Number three, opera houses and theaters and motion pictures. Propose that, delete all that. Bed and breakfast is it's clear that you do not want the bed and breakfast is Suggest Jones comment suggests changing from a permitted use to a conditional use and any definition and conditions We can talk about that restaurants just interrupt for one second here.

This was comments to the

i don't know what version number it was but not the last one when they still had bed and breakfast in and the version now that's being presented it's totally out anyway good correct yes good uh then number seven uh second floor apartments over retail office but not over service station public garages are and uh there was a concern here uh highlighted area Proposed existing or approved at the time of passage. There was some comments there. So noted bowling alley sports centers suggested that be deleted. Institutional use is nonprofit lodges. And that suggests adding residential home association of at least 300 members. And, uh, Joan goes on then number 10. Houses of worship, churches, cemeteries to take that out. Uh, parking lots, uh, the reference there, parking lots, otherwise prohibited as principal uses. And, you know. That's for discussion apartments and multiple unit buildings Suggested that be deleted and proposed new language accessory buildings customary incidental to the above should be permitted So those were some comments that were given Lady chair, I think would be Good to have a conversation. Maybe Joan you may want to start because they were your comments Sure

Well, one, two and three are self explanatory for that.

The bed and breakfast is probably doesn't have access to this. Is that something that we should get?

This is a work documents, a document and it's a document in process.

It's not mentioned the public hearing and all of this, but we're discussing it in public.

Yes. Yes.

Okay. Uh, number five restaurants, but not including driving restaurants. And can you, you said you already made a change to that. So We would incorporate what you added. I don't have the proper wording, but we put that in there. Second floor apartments over commercial and office establishments. Right now they are allowed in the TCC zone. I asked Sabina the last time she was here how many buildings did not have have apartments over them at the current time because I didn't want this to result in spot zoning she said she didn't know, but I kind of drove by and the only ones, I can really find I know ernie last time you mentioned. St maritz but they have apartments over the back building. And Crows has a second story on it already. So instead of apartments, they now have a second floor for the restaurant. So I believe that only leaves Nine West Shore Trail and Coldwell Banker. And spot zoning. So it's usually if you favor somebody in a certain zone and you're giving them like extra privileges. But in this case, it might be considered reverse spot zoning. So I just wanted the legal interpretation on that one.

It could be like that's why there's so many lawyers in the state of New Jersey. Someone could say that it is spot zoning. Let's discuss whether on the merits of it. Do you want to have in the historic district second floor apartments over retail, commercial and office establishments, but not over service stations, public garages or dry cleaning establishments?

I comment on just that one. sorry about that I'm so loud I'm not used to happen to need one so to this point and I'm just speaking now specifically on number seven dry cleaning establishments are not allowed according to what you've got now in the zone so I think we could take that out because it doesn't apply and honestly I think not having apartments over service stations or public garage, in my view, that's a safety issue.

Correct.

So to me, I think that that is not spot zoning because I think that's more of a safety thing.

Right now, the service stations, public garage, and dry cleaning establishments, that's already prohibited.

Okay.

I just highlighted it because it was prohibited already. Right.

And I think there are apartments in that Caldwell building. It's contiguous, and I think there are apartments in the front of that.

Oh, you know what? And they might have them downstairs. There are. I know Angeloni's has them downstairs.

And so does underneath by Casa Mia over by the Elks Club. Like, there's all apartments all in there. Okay. So I don't think it's a spot zoning thing because they already have them.

Well, no, that speaks to spot zoning now because now it's only 9 West Shore Trail that you're talking about, and I think— It's going to end up being an issue, not my issue to fight, but just don't want to get us in a position of putting ourselves. That's why I'm looking for the legal aspect. If you're taking one building and you're signaling it out. But doesn't this I don't think to me that that it's.

Help me understand where it's one building, because what the whole thing says is based on what's there now. Right. And I'm not understanding where this is just specific to nine West Shore Trail.

Because they changed. Remember I said this was an earlier version? Yes. But what they have changed now is saying second floor apartments over retail, commercial, and office establishments that are existing currently. So every other building has something currently except this one building. And seven, but seven West Shore Trail we know is already being having its own specific zone for the affordable house.

That's five, right?

Oh, five. Five.

Okay.

Right. So that just leaves nine as being the only one singled out.

The only one that does not have.

Yeah. That's what we're figuring. Yeah.

Doesn't have pre-existing as of today. Correct.

So it would only apply to the one.

So if we just took that clause out that says pre-existing as of today.

Then we're good. And then they can just come on their own merits if they want.

Wouldn't that, Ken, wouldn't that just be. they'd be existing non-conforming if there was one today, right? It would be an existing non-conforming condition similar to, say, a two-family house in a single-family residential zone that preexisted the ordinance amendment. So it wouldn't be spot zoning. It would be spot zoning if you didn't include one lot in that and said all lots except lot nine.

But that's exactly the intent of it. That's what it boils down to. The rest of the... whole White Deer Plaza would be non-conforming then.

It's number four on the proposed discussion. It says apartments over retail, commercial, and office establishments. So the question is, number four, apartments on the ordinance itself. So the very second page of the ordinance. number four apartments over retail commercial and office establishments and the question is do you want to just that would be a permitted use apartments over retail commercial and office establishments it says existing or approved at the time of this packet chapter so that's the question could you make them a conditional You could put on conditions. You can say apartments over retail and commercial establishments, and then say, based upon certain conditions, Lindsay, any thoughts on if you want to say apartments are permitted over retail. Commercial office establishments if. They have off street parking or if they have, I'm not sure if they're less than X dwelling units, you know, there are, or you just say, this is just saying they're permitted uses.

Before you answer, I'm just trying to keep caught up because there's a lot of different discussion. So if I understand before, I want to make sure I understand before I hear the answers, that says anything that exists today is a permitted use. Anything that doesn't exist today would be what?

It would need to use variance. So what questions do we allow?

Yeah. And the ordinance is just saying that anything that's pre existing is lawfully existing non conforming moving forward, which would technically be implied. If you change the ordinance anyways.

And I think what the conversation was if there's only one property that is affected or prohibited by this is that spot zoning and I don't have the opinion of yes or no, but that is an issue.

So we're saying there's one existing property that has a residence above.

I actually think there's two. I think the dentist's office doesn't have apartments over it.

In my opinion, spot zoning would be looking at one lot and saying, this lot is not included in this ordinance. That would be spot zoning. Every lot in this overlay can have this except one lot. That would be spot zoning.

That's it. Yeah.

But that's not saying that's not saying this is not implying this is spot zoning the way it reads now.

No, there's just one.

If we were calling it out, it would be.

But it would be the same thing if you said no more restaurants beyond this point. So then are we now spot zoning for the restaurants that are existing or a bank?

Well, that's general. It's not. one property that's being so we're not calling out this one property in here and i think the dentist office also does not have apartments because the top suite i think is the dentist office which is going to be the school so i don't think there's only one it's going to be something else but it allows for something i don't know i just don't want to get caught up in that and that's why there's also the boardwalk maybe can you research it a little bit more and we'll come back to that one um and there are things in place that do talk about the square footage because they could be two and a half stories and the third story or the half story or whatever.

square footage has to be 50 percent of the second floor square footage so half so that does limit as well because i think you're asking that question but let's come we can come back to that these are generalized broad strokes not specific so that's the intent of this ordinance not to start going down the batting order of all the properties within the district it's to put a general ordinance over the district to then be

Yeah, and I think the thing is, too, is once you make it a condition and you put conditions, you have to have parking. Well, you have to have parking if you want the use, right? You have to meet the parking standards. I think there's other ordinances in place that support things like, yeah, there's height requirements. There's setback requirements. So there's all these other things that are going to govern the way the building is constructed. So I think right now it's just saying second floor apartments over retail and commercial. the whole that's what the ordinance is saying right yeah as a pre-existing non-conforming they all become non-conforming uses then yeah just like if you just like all the if there is a bank in the area the same thing would be so we wouldn't we're taking banks out right so in the same area if there was a bank and now we're saying no more banks this is very very different though there aren't like a hundred banks I'm just looking at as use use right very black and white use use we're saying one use is no longer permitted in the zone it previously exists it exists today it can continue to be used in that manner forever until they make a change right until there's a change in in it it can't go back to being that use again so i think when we just say use it becomes much more black and white and doesn't become we don't have a bias towards what the use actually is so what's your recommendation to simplify number four so number i don't know if i'm looking at the right thing because number four on mine right now says bed and breakfast because i'm looking i think what we're talking about seven right number seven no no it's not the actual ordinance not her not jones email the ordinance got it apartments over retail commercial and office establishments existing or approved at the time of the passage of this chapter right so basically they're saying anything beyond before this is approved right so

Pre-existing non-conforming.

Pre-existing non-conforming. So to answer Ron's question, though. It makes no difference whether you have apartments or you have that language, because either way, it's existing non-conforming.

Yeah, so every apartment that exists today, which is almost all of White Deer Plaza, will become pre-existing non-conforming. I think that was your question.

Yeah. Yeah. And if somebody wanted to do something new.

If somebody had two units and they want to make it three, then they would need a variance. Yeah. Yeah. But if you have two units right now.

Which, by the way, is exactly how it is today.

Yeah, and you have two units now and you don't do anything. You don't want more units. You keep it as two units. You can keep it that way without having to get variance relief.

So it's not adding to or detracting from the design standard aspect of your ordinance. It's a use aspect.

It's use.

It's just saying exactly this is how it is today and we're going to continue doing it.

You can continue doing it lawfully based on the ordinance.

So the discussion is on number four apartments over retail, commercial and office establishments existing or approved at the time of passage of this chapter. That's the current language that's in there. And the, the issues are that if they are at apartment over the retail commercial office establishment. That's existing or prove they are they become pre existing non conforming. If there was discussion, if you took out the language of existing or approved at the time of passage, you take that out. That's merely saying that apartments over retail, commercial and office establishments are permitted. It's not giving any conditions on the numbers of dwellings. It's just saying that use is permitted.

And I don't know if that's really up for us to decide. That's why I want to punt it back to you and maybe look at some legal things and come back to us.

Why don't we just take out? Why don't we just say apartments of retail, commercial and office establishments? And leave that last piece off.

You would just remove it as a permitted use.

No, it's a permitted use.

No, no, I'm saying though, but I'm saying if you take it out as a permitted use, right, there's no difference then, because once it's adopted, it's no longer a permitted use. So if it lawfully existed prior to it being permitted, and then you took apartments over retail out completely, it's the same thing. I don't want to take them out. She's saying having the first part. I'm saying it's the same thing, though. I'm saying right now you're saying at the passage of this ordinance, apartments are no longer permitted, right? No, no, no, no.

On the permitted uses.

So number four. That's what I want to take out.

Let me try something. Because there's two pieces you've got to look at here. If you look at the permitted use, all the permitted use is doing is saying, here's what exists today. It stays exist. So that sentence, in my opinion, could be there or not be there. Yeah. But then going forward. under paragraph uh where is it i think this was a conditional use yeah under paragraph d so it's not permitted it becomes a conditionally used which has a certain set of conditions that go with it which sounds like the right thing to do again it's what they're doing today i believe no today it's tcc um and it's allowed okay it was replaced

No. Right now, it is the TCC zone.

This, it will be its own zone, so TCC rules will not apply to this. Right, but they do today. But they will not moving forward.

So the question to me, again, I'm going to try to keep it, in my view, simple. Right now, all it's allowed is what's there today. That's what we want to go forward. If we want to have it going forward, we make a permitted use or conditional use or prohibited use. Those are our three choices. The way it's written up here, it would become a conditional use, which I think has the right things that says if you're going to do an apartment, you've got to meet these conditions in addition to everything else, which makes sense.

I think that's clean.

Do you agree with that, Wendy?

Yeah, I think the way it's, what I'm trying to say is the way that it's currently written is confusing and it leaves it open to interpretation. So having something directly as permitted, prohibited, permitted with conditions is the better way to go rather than leaving the gray area out there. Is that the way it's currently written? Ken, you can correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's written in a way that is very confusing.

The original drafter of this was saying a permit to use apartments over retail, commercial and office establishments that are existing and approved at this time and then Paragraph D. The proposed says it's a conditional use for anybody new subject to those provisions in eighteen four to seven, which, as I understand the TCC zone standards.

So then number four, in essence, should just point to paragraph D.

Or we could say it should just be D D one apartments over retail. That's what it should be. Apartments shouldn't be as a permitted use. In my opinion, it should say conditional uses apartments and then it has your conditions. So you were saying take out four completely and then put it and you move it to D and then you put the conditions of how it is must meet parking requirements, you know, things like that. But it's already indeed so it's really just the leap for yeah because it is yeah and then you would have I guess here in references what it has to be in accordance with that's easy. yeah because the way it's written now. I understand what the whoever drafted is trying to say that it's a lawfully existing nonconforming use so that when people come forward and they say this is an existing nonconforming use. they won't get punted to the zoning board, right? Instead, they can probably change out their kitchen and it's not gonna require a variance for an expansion of a non-conforming use.

So just for the public's sake, let's just summarize what we just said.

Yeah.

I'll take a shot. So what we're saying is there is no permitted uses for new apartments over office buildings. But there will be a conditional use. Okay. What says you got to meet more conditions than than the other buildings in the area. Yes. I think that's it.

Yeah, that's correct. Yeah. So it's conditionally permitted.

I think that gets us there.

So we take out four just to clarify, we just delete four and move on.

Yeah, it's listed as a conditional use in D. No, I'm just clarifying because we've done a lot of talking so.

Okay.

Yeah, it was just very confusing.

Yeah. Agreed.

Okay. Let's see. All right. Bowling alleys and sports centers.

Which document are you all looking at now? The one with all the comments.

Now Joan's going through her letter. This one.

With the red. This one. Right here.

And John, I apologize, but just, I think it'd be easier to discuss it here. Item three, where it talks about an outside dining. I think that's intended also for existing uses.

Yeah, I already had that conversation with, uh, with Ken before he, so yeah.

So basically, so that note comes out. Yes. So outside dining remains a conditional use. Correct. Perfect.

For those that are confused, number three above, where I had my handwritten comment, it's fine. Restaurants are permitted, but it does not include drive-in restaurants. And then under Section D, the conditional uses, outdoor dining is permitted as a conditional use in accordance with those other 18-4.7 conditions. Okay, good.

Okay, next one. We talked about this last time for the institutional uses in nonprofit clubs, lodges, and fraternal organizations. And we voted on this already as a board and said that recreation should come out of there because that's a 501c7 organization and the homeowners association is a 501c4. And there's no definition for recreation association. It becomes very confusing. And it's just easy enough to take it out. And since this, it changed a little bit where they put uses in and everything. But we don't have accessory uses for anything else here. I don't think it's the right place for accessory uses. So I would leave it as institutional uses in nonprofit clubs, lodges, fraternal organizations, and

private residential homeowners associations with at least 300 members period number five I know we're going back and forth yes it's too confusing can I ask another question on this I think because I think it makes more sense to go through this one by one rather than happen all over the place my concern so I'm fine with taking out recreational and leaving it Residential Homeowner Association. But if you read down a little more, it says associations with at least 300 members. How does that affect the Elks Club? Because that's a bi-member organization, and it's not part of the HOA. And I don't know if someone can tell me if they have 300 people, but I'm not thinking that they do. And I want to make sure that they are not, because their entire lodge is in here.

I didn't realize that the 300 members was for the fraternal organizations. I took that to mean that it was only for the homeowners association.

Okay. Where does 300 come from, though? There are so many more in there. Why don't we just strike that all together? You don't need 300 written in there, and that way nobody will get confused with the ELCs and the...

So the thought is strike with at least 300 members.

Yeah.

And just take that out?

So it would read institutional uses in nonprofit clubs, lodges, fraternal organizations, and private residential homeowners associations. Okay.

Right. And then it says accessory to this use includes playgrounds, beaches, docks, boardwalks and ancillary structures.

But then that relates to everything and that just doesn't belong in there.

I think the reason the numbers in there is what if somebody decides to form their own little tiny homeowners association with 20 members? And, you know, I mean, I think the idea there is to is to maintain that. But then they'd have the parking issue as well. There's private clubs and everything else in there, but. There's only one homeowners association in that, for that area.

Well, the 300 members is a qualifier, right?

Why don't we just say LMCC?

Why don't we just...

Right, there you go. I like that. That takes all the guesswork out.

It affects against the existing uses. So they're in a produce. So nothing we do here tonight affects their ability to continue.

Right. Whether or not they have 300 members, doesn't matter. That's their spot.

Right. And so we had a little bit of professionals to see if you agree with this.

I mean, the ordinance is historic White Deer Plaza and Boardwalk District.

Yeah, I think that 300 members is not related to fraternal organizations.

The way it's written, it could mean that.

No, not the way you read ordinances is it would not. Because the way you read it is institutional uses and nonprofit clubs, lodges, fraternal organizations. and private recreational and residential homeowners associations with at least 300 members so private and private recreational and residential homeowners association with at least 300 members is one Yeah, but I'm saying that's how you would read the ordinance. Yeah. So they're all separate.

All right. So but I like your good idea. LMCC Residential Homeowners Association.

Guys, we're getting input from the outside audience that we need to use our microphones because nobody can hear what anyone is saying. So if everyone can please put your microphones closer because no one can hear what anyone is saying.

All right. So to move on, we're taking out number four on the proposed ordinance. Number five is being changed to the recreational language is being taken out and replaced. We're going to say and private LMCC and we'll define it Residential Homeowners Association. We don't need the with at least 300 members.

Just period after association.

I'm going to question that a little bit before we agree. So, again, I'm going back to existing uses and future uses. I think what we're saying is we don't want future uses down there of this nature unless they're of some size. We don't want the small ones there. So if we take out the WID 300, we're allowing someone to come in with a homeowners association of two or three.

I think they want to add.

Well, it does if that's a permitted use and it's just saying lmcc Why don't we ask the bean Sabine is here so

actually Sabina if you wouldn't mind I don't know if that microphones on but you know if you can kind of come in and we can work with you

So, I apologize for being late, but and I very much appreciate this and the attention to detail that this board is actually placing on this request. But I'd like to give a little bit of background with respect to number 5 and the private recreational. That is really specific to the existing use of the tennis club. While that is LMCC property, it has a 99-year lease to be reinstated periodically to the tennis club. And so, therefore, they have gone through, most recently, a conversion and minor expansion to allow for pickleball. They had been before this group, I believe. And so I would imagine that in the future they would also have additional improvements, not necessarily associated with expansion, but wouldn't want to hinder that process with having an additional zoning requirement.

But they're already preexisting. And, I mean, it's just like we're saying LMCC, Residential Homeowners Association, we could put an LMCC tennis club. That way, other recreational things can't be coming in there. You don't want a little miniature golf course in the back of 9 West Shore Trail. So rather, if it is specific to that, then let's just say it. We're looking to be clear.

Let me ask, could we say accessory to this use, playgrounds, beaches, docks, boardwalks, the tennis club, and ancillary structures? Or an ancillary structures including the tennis club? No.

It's own standalone. It's a private recreation. So unless the miniature golf course is a membership-based miniature golf course, right?

No, no, no, no. The 300 is only pertaining to Lake Mohawk Country Club is what we're saying.

It says private recreational.

Two different things. The tennis club is a whole separate thing.

Entity and it's a private recreational.

It's not open to the members not open to the members of Lake Mohawk Country Club, but it's It works for our understanding and the way it exists currently I

So do we need private recreational comma and private residential homeowners association is would that be more clear.

I just think we say tennis club, just like you wanted to make LMCC clear. Let's just say the tennis club, because this is going to lead to questions down the road. Well, then is pickleball not permitted? Well, that's part of the tennis club.

Yeah, no, but I'm saying if we say tennis club. That's its name. Or you could just call it LMTC. I'm just saying if you private recreational makes sense. I don't know why we would need to recreate the wheel for that.

Because it opens the door to other recreational things coming in that You don't want, and then it's going to be a permitted use.

Which private recreational would want to be excluded from that?

We don't know.

You could have somebody come into, say, 7 West Shore or 9 West Shore.

Yeah, do a little mini golf in the back.

But it would have to be private recreational, right? It would have to be a membership-based. I haven't seen it yet, but I haven't seen a membership-based miniature golf course.

But to Ernie's point, somebody could put in batting cages behind properties. That property goes back far. All of them do. And what if, like, the tennis club said, wow, tennis is great, but, you know, hey, we could put a little wing on and do batting practice, right? I mean, it doesn't take a lot of space, but. i i get the i get the point of it i think the thing is what is the clearest cleanest way to you know the the goal is let's get through this thing in a way that makes sense let's let's do things that make sense and be clean and clear to move it forward so i think what we're searching for is how do we address you know is is the thought we leave it private recreation or that we say private recreation the same thing as before like if it's existing now it'll be existing but you can't do it moving forward it becomes a conditional I don't know I'm asking make it a conditional use It'll be for going forward.

If you're not going to define a tennis club in that section right there, why don't you put existing in front of those? That's what I'm saying. Recreational. And then anything else other than that falls down to the condition. Why not just say tennis club?

Because we just did for LMCC, Residential Homeowners Association. Just make it clean and clear, as Chris is saying, and call it a day. Because it's going to lead to a lot of questions.

So now the tennis club wants to expand into a pickleball.

They already have. That's just their name. It doesn't mean that they can only do tennis. So they're doing pickleball under their name.

Sabina, are you comfortable with that?

Yeah, I'm comfortable with that. Again, it's really to alleviate because I know that the structure there itself is somewhat aged. So I know that that's probably going to have to require some kind of maintenance or upgrade and alleviate them from coming in for a variance.

Right. So it'll still be their name, LMCC Tennis Club, and they want to do XYZ.

That's fine.

Okay.

So are you saying on number five, rather than say private recreational, we're putting private LMCC, Residential Homeowners Association, and LMTC.

And LMCC Tennis Club.

No, it's not the LMCC Tennis Club.

It's the Lake Mohawk Tennis Club.

Yeah, it's individual.

Yeah, because it's not related to Lake Mohawk.

I think I heard you say that you can be a member of the tennis club without being a member of Lake Mohawk. Exactly.

Ron, can you pull your microphone a little closer?

It is limited, though.

Yes, it is limited.

It is limited. The primary members are members of the country club. And when spots open up, then members who are not country club members can join. But it is limited, and they are charged a different rate.

So I think the point is just called by the proper name, not the LMCC. Exactly.

The Lake Mohawk Tennis Club and the Lake Mohawk Country Club Homeowners Association.

Got it. So if we take number five, institutional usage. uh fraternal organizations comma lmcc uh residential homeowners association and lake mohawk tennis club and i'll define uh lmcc in the draft should we put in 501c4 and 501c7 respectively or is that too confusing i don't know because it's an irs designation and it's extremely clear in the irs

I mean, it works in my business, but I'm not exactly sure it works.

Lindsay, what are your thoughts? Just to make sure that I understand, I apologize again. So going forward, you've got institutional uses, nonprofit clubs, lodges, and fraternal organizations. We're allowing those to go forward as new entities. Or does that need to come out and just start the sentence with private recreational?

Well, I'm thinking private recreation.

So we're allowing going forward institutional uses, nonprofit clubs, lodges, and fraternal organizations.

Lake Mohawk.

I was ready to move on, but originally the non-profit club was Lake Mohawk. What other non-profit clubs exist there now besides Lake Mohawk?

The Elks.

And that would be... Well, that's more of a fraternal lodge. Fraternal, right. So do you want more non-profit clubs? Maybe we just strike non-profit clubs because it covers Lake Mohawk now.

Okay.

Yes, but they're a club under our umbrella. So anything that they require is something that we put forward.

So what do you think? Do you think it should come out?

Well, with what is existing now, I mean, we certainly wouldn't want

more non-profit clubs. They don't have restrictions even on numbers now, the way Lindsay was saying. Right.

Given the fact that LMCC is identified individually, there is no reason then to include or have the category use of non-profit clubs.

How about institutional? Maybe just say lodges, fraternal organizations, LMCC, private homeowners association, and LM, like Mohawk Tennis Club.

But it should also keep playgrounds, beaches, docks, boardwalks.

Right. That's accessory.

I think that should stay on there. Those are real, tangible things on there.

They should be accessory to LMCC, yes. That's what it says. Yes, and that should remain, yes.

It says accessory to this use. Yes. So I'm saying I think that should stay in the paragraph. Yes. The last part of it, definitely, yes.

I think the question was whether or not to remove institutional uses in nonprofit clubs. Correct? Yeah. Okay. And I agree unless we want to actually do the same and extend this provision to label the Elks Lodge directly.

But the Elks Club is an existing use. So they're there as long as they want to be there, is my understanding. Whether it's staying here or not, because they're an existing use, they're good to go as long as they want to be.

Okay.

What's the difference between lodges and fraternal organizations?

Good question.

I mean, now that we're really dissecting this.

I'm really not. Yeah. It was to capture the use.

if they ever left what do you want it replaced with i mean should we just as we're doing this say elks club

A fraternal organization would be Rotary, Lions, Kiwanis. Could it be religious groups too? As far as I'm aware, fraternal organizations are not houses of worship. They don't have the religious exemption. They don't have that. It's my understanding that a fraternal organization would be Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions, Elks,

but i want to make sure if we're going that way do we know that or is that is that against you guys let's not guess because i think the elks club may be a lodge yeah yeah trying to thread a needle here let's not trip everything up here like because you know you're going after institute institutional you got to define that not-for-profit got to find that lodges fraternal organizations are two separate entities

I think the legality and the legal definitions, I think Ken's got some homework in terms of defining the legality of what each of these entities is so that we have correct definitions and the right language.

Yeah, because we don't want to end up with a frat house, which is a fraternal organization maybe. Right.

And they may be a fraternal organization and a lodge.

So you're going to mix and match here. I think you're trying to thread in, you know, define it too much.

What if we just... Well, I think that's why Ken has some homework to do in this area in order to give us the appropriate language.

All right, John, keep going.

All right, so we're leaving this one open for now. We're going to come back to it.

Yeah, I got to clean it up. I'm going to clean it up.

And maybe, you know, there's a separate area for accessory structures in the ordinance. Like number seven, when you go down to it, it says accessory uses customarily incident to the above permitted uses, but it's only being detailed in this one. So take a look at that. Okay. Well, I'm taking a look now. Okay.

So I would like to be specific with respect to the ancillary uses because if that is the case, it would be unfortunate to include what is currently existing and as a separate accessory use that could possibly then be extended to the other allowable uses within that number five.

Can you say that again?

So in other words, if there is a small plot of property or vacant area at the Elks property to put up a playground, that might be somewhat challenging. as opposed to protecting the allowable use and renovation of the existing playground associated with LMCC.

The accessory uses that are defined in five are specific to the country club. Yes, that is true. The accessory uses that are customary in number seven cover what you're talking about. It's outside of that.

That's the point.

So it has to stay. We need it to stay. So then if it's staying, can you put in there, just so it's not confusing down the road, within the White Deer Historic Plaza District?

Well, that's what the zone is. This is the zone.

But it only pertains to that zone, not to the rest of like Mohawk.

Lindsay, David, just real quick. So the issue is number seven says accessory use is customarily incident to the above permitted uses. Any thoughts?

I think you should keep those accessory uses associated with LMCC, right? Because accessory use is customarily incidental. It should be incidental as well to the other permitted uses. That's kind of a general thing, right? A house is something that's customarily accessory to a house is a shed. Right. So it's saying you can have a shed, you can have a fence, you can have all these things. But I think these specific accessory uses, beaches, docks, I don't look at, you know, obviously LMCC, everyone knows HOA, but I don't think it's customarily incidental for, you know, a homeowners association to have a beach. Exactly. I think having specific accessory uses for that specific use makes sense. So it should be like something like LMCC, HOA, inclusive of accessory uses, right? such as playgrounds, and I think it should just be all kind of together. So the way that it's worded in number five. Five is limited.

The accessory use is limited. The name five are limited to five.

To five. And limited to LMCC HOA. No, limited to the zone. I'm not finished talking, but yes. No, it's limited to LMCC HOA, which is limited to this whole ordinance is just this zone.

Playgrounds, beaches, docks, boardwalks, and accessory structures are limited to five only, which is LMCC. The other uses may have accessory uses that aren't listed, but they may have accessory uses.

No, I get that, yeah.

So I think the way it's here seems to work.

Yeah, the way it's written, I think, is right.

You may want to make five clear that says, I don't think you need to, that these are limited to five. I think it kind of says that because it's in five.

Yeah. So I'm... And then this is all the same zone. Right. So it wouldn't be outside of the zone because this is specific to this zone.

Right. So it's not all beaches. It's not all playgrounds. It's not all docks. It's just the zone. It's limited to five. The thing that we are writing in five.

Right.

Okay.

Great.

What else you got, Joan? This is not in my notes because this came... This wasn't in the original one, but I'm taking a look at the... The lot and the lot and the blocks and stuff. And I just I don't know if it's in here.

Yes, that's a good question. Number E. There's a lot going on there. Block boom. So that is something that I would verify or just

We are definitely comfortable with this this is if this is everything that is within that area and originally cited Yes

after this after this is it possible for us to just go back to the beginning of this thing and go in order and Joan and Birgit and anyone that wrote things

can add it, because I feel like without the public having these documents, we're jumping all over the place, and maybe it's easier to just address the stuff as it's listed in the ordinance. Do you guys have a copy of at least the ordinance? There's no paper there that has the ordinance on it, on the dais?

No. Okay. Is there a way just to maybe take a break? We've got like 10, 12 people. Just get 12 copies of the ordinance so people can have it in front of them.

Well, what I would suggest, because to be candid with you, there's some drafting that needs to be done here. And I don't want to have chaos, and there's no need to be here two more hours. I can very easily, from the comments here, put a draft that is on, and we meet every two weeks, on the next agenda that has, and the public will have a copy of that, Incorporating these comments, which are pretty clear to me and thank you. I'd like to end the conversation by one of the confusions I have is your goal is to call this the Lake Mohawk Historic District. So we were calling it on this document C-HWD Community commercial historic White Deer Plaza and Boardwalk District Zone. I'm okay with that. Or do we want to simplify and just call it something easier to digest?

Where did that language come from?

That came from actually an adoption of the C1H, but we're fine with abbreviating it to White Deer Plaza Historic District or White Deer Plaza Zone. It doesn't matter to us so long as it has White Deer Plaza in there and we're good. That would be appropriate.

One of my suggestions, I don't even remember if I sent it to everybody or just to Ken and Lindsay, but whatever. We have now six TCC zones. And right now, White Deer Plaza is TCC. And TCC is all about the town center. White Deer Plaza is the original town center. So I was, and I don't really care, but I was playing with it and thinking, how about TCCH? And it would be the historic part of the whole town center with its own designations.

I think the point of it, what we were calling it when we were talking about it was LMCC1H. But I think the thing is, they want to get away from TCC. And I think continually dragging them back to TCC, the whole point of this is not to come up with something we already have with whatever. The whole point of this is to be specific to the historic nature of this district. And actually, my understanding, I mean, as much as that is definitely a town center, if you will, like if you want to say that, but the original, you know, the whole town wasn't developed around Lake Mohawk. The town was here before Lake Mohawk was built, constructed. So really, Woodport Road was the town center originally where the church is and where all of those buildings, all of those historic buildings are. So I think the whole point of this ordinance was to make you autonomous, to give you your own name for your own zone, and not just make it a subset of something else. Because that kind of, to me, the name, if we keep it with TCC, it lends it back to there's some correlation.

The whole point was to decouple off the TCC. So let's use the TCC references.

It's not a big deal. I just did it because a lot of this is going back to the PCC standards.

And if I may, I think, you know, Chris's suggestion, I think it would take quick five minutes. We're talking about three pages. I think we're through with a lot of the comments. You captured quite a bit of it.

I had one more new one based on Lindsay's report.

But what's in front of us? I think we're done with all the suggestions and edits. No. So why don't we just go down a dais and just go in order and work through the document and then summarize it at the end?

One of the things I would like to do before we get there is hear from our engineer and our planner, since they actually did do a review and are the educated parties get their take on it before we... Continue to wordsmith a document that we were not really very familiar with. So, um, Dave, if you wouldn't mind.

Sure, just a few questions. I did their comments rather. I did do a report dated August 11, 2026. Again, I pointed out the outside dining existing in the board has discussed that I think the key thing for me was do you want that as a permitted use or stick it as a conditional use that was my one comment on that which way you wanted to go. The second comment I had was basically with regards to the parking lot. My recollection, and I stand corrected, I know there was a site plan submitted years ago for the parking lot, and I know they were reconfiguring a lot of it, reconstructing a lot of it, and there was a question about the fees. And I know there was some discussion in here, it's in this ordinance, that if I understand it right, non-members can be charged a fee, but I wasn't sure if that's how it was ultimately decided or not.

Yes, it absolutely was at great expense to Lake Mohawk Country Club. Yes, it was and actually that ties to the opening up of the use of the parking lot in general for all of the people who are then frequenting the businesses at White Deer Plaza and therefore their their uses are not specifically restricted to the parking that is strictly on their property or available in White Deer Plaza and on the street there itself. So there is definitely a lot of, yeah, a lot going on with the parking lot and the language speaks to that and that is why it is stated as such. And that is the way it was decided in the courts. And that was, I believe, 2016, 17? Mm-hmm.

And then the last item I had, I noticed when I was cross-checking what was in the ordinance versus the tax maps of the lots and lots listed in the schedule, I saw where, if I understood it and read it right, The boardwalk has its own tax lot number that I didn't know. I didn't see that listed in the ordinance, and my recollection is some of the businesses open up in their doors over to the boardwalk. I didn't know if you wanted to specifically include the boardwalk itself in this special list of lots.

Okay, so we can definitely take care of the boardwalk itself. However, the businesses that do business outside and on the boardwalk is actually their private lot.

But is that part of the zone?

Yes. Yes, to the point, yes, it should be. However, there may have to be... That lot actually extends all the way to Tamarack Beach.

What? I didn't understand that.

The boardwalk lot extends all the way to Tamarack.

So as a suggestion, it might be appropriate to have that block and lot listed up to a point X feet up from another landmark. That's fine. We can take care of that, no problem. And those are my comments, Madam Chair.

That's a good catch. I think that three of us can work on that, the engineers.

I think to Joan's point, if you didn't put the boardwalk in there, talk about spot zone, like the look of that. So, yeah, good catch. Good catch, Dave.

And that kind of brings me to one of my main points in mind was just the ordinance is silent on restrictions on the waterfront properties. And in that sense, I think that we should at least refer back to the applicable regulations at county, state, higher levels. And there's other municipalities that will do specific ordinances for waterfront properties. But I think in this instance, we should just rely on the overlying regulations that are given by the state. So I think if anything, we should reference that in the ordinance. And then also possibly since this is going to be the historic area, we do reference the historic guidelines. but possibly adding additional design guidelines to um you know just materials something as simple as um you know if we have specific types of street furniture things like that for streetscape should be included as well i think it might be because ken just changed with his comments back to the tcc for the design

On second page under required conditions condition. Oh, that's just for I'm sorry. That's just for the required conditions shall be the same as TCC zone. TCC has a lot of those details in there already. But you're right, it is missing.

Honestly, I think, Sabine, aren't there specific guidelines that the club follows that already exist? Can't we just refer to those?

Refer to those, yeah. I think just having a reference if you have specific guidelines.

We do. The town has ordinances on how far docks can go and dock construction and everything else for all the residential properties all the way around the lake. This area here is over there. There's no private residents that are on this portion here within that zone. So it would be only the country club that controls that area.

It's exempt.

Well, you still have regulations you have to follow. Yes.

We submit to the state.

I think just reference that.

You're going to reference them in a very general blanket sense.

Yeah, I think there should just be a reference to the guidelines for waterfront should be in line with the pool at the time, right? Yes. Yeah.

Ken, would you agree that the lake should have some standards throughout, that it be consistent?

i think what ernie just said is they do and i think that's good i'm putting some notes that you know nothing in uh herein shall uh mitigate or delete the existing waterfront regulations but i'll work on some language i don't think that we should have adopt specific for this zone i think we should just not remain silent on that there are applicable regulations that need to be followed at a higher level

except it does say LMCC is required to follow the same requirements as privately owned properties. So, and there are everywhere throughout here, it does not say. whether it's the policy and rules from Marine Services or the bylaws. Well, that's what we're clarifying. Yeah, that's what we're clarifying. Specifically saying what it points to.

I can put in language as to what a front. Keep them separate.

Yeah, keep them separate. Refer to it. Say this is applicable at this time. Must refer back to those. It's just kind of CYA. Yep. Right. God bless you. God bless you.

And specific to this zone doesn't impact once you go out to zone docks outside of the historic one.

Yeah, this zone.

Ken, you can make a clear statement there at the end that this does not, this excludes.

This does not mitigate what's already there.

Other lake wall properties outside the zone. Just this zone.

Yeah.

All right, good. I know that, Mike, you had mentioned, you know, given a break, but I guess we can I need I need time to work on this. I'll have it by your next meeting. But I do need some time on drafting and great comments from everybody. So if there's any other comments from the board that I need to incorporate, I'll start down on your good side.

Okay, Jeanette's good.

Well, you know, I have some. So, page 1, B2, when we met, last time we talked about this, there is a daycare also as a use there, and that is not included here. And including that is going to become more and more important because it's also going to now be part of the Sparta school system. So I think that we'll be mindful of that, and I think that it needs to be included and added. to number two underneath B.

Is that okay, everybody?

With offices, executive and professional purposes?

Wouldn't it be its own?

Why not just put, we took out number four, why don't we just put daycare in number four?

We could do that.

it's a print because this specifically says it's a principal permitted use and not only is it going to be important because it's already there it's going to be important because that building is going to become part of Sparta Board of Education just make it its own if it's part of a board of ed building wouldn't that be an institutional use

Well, I think the thought is that a daycare would be permitted, whether it's private or public. So maybe you and I can work on some language on what.

The important thing is that a daycare in the school needs to be written in here, so it's protected at all costs.

Okay, loud and clear. I agree that number four would be a better place for it, and I'll come up with language with Lindsay on daycare, respecting private prior public.

Okay. Page 2C. It says required condition the requirement of this zone shall be the same as C1 zone and the provisions. I think that needs to come out because again, we're referencing C1 and the point is to make it your own zone. So I think that this reference to C1, I think we talked about this last time, that that should be removed.

I think it's pointing specifically to that subsection, 18.4.2R, and specific to that portion of this dark transformation. So it's not pointing to the entirety of the C1s. Okay. I think we, I mean, if we want to redefine historic preservation underneath this particular ordinance.

Well, I'll have, you know, Lindsay and I will look at this from a planning perspective. David, your comments are welcome also. But I think good comment.

And if I read it wrong, then that's fine. Just leave it. also in that same paragraph my understanding is that when new structures go up when things are built when things go on in Lake Mohawk anywhere in Lake Mohawk the property owner needs to go before Lake Mohawk Country Club to get approval before they can even come to a planning board or go to construction or anything else and my question is do we think we need some language in here because it talks about Changes, alterations, blah, blah, blah, blah, goes on and on and on. Not limited to alteration improvement, dee, dee, dee, within the zone. Notwithstanding any other provisions in the land code, preliminary and site plan approval shall be required, but it doesn't say anything about the fact that they need to go to Lake Mohawk Country Club before they come for... before one of the land use boards. And I'm asking the question, maybe it doesn't need to be there, but do we think it should be added in there so that it's clear?

I think it should be clear that they need to require both approvals 100% because I think that's part of some of the issues that we've dealt with in the past that some people think all they need to do is go to Lake Mohawk and some people think all they need to do is go to the town.

I think it should be very clear that they need to do both.

So I would think... That you'd want them to go to Lake Mohawk first. Yes, yes. They actually have to.

It's in your checklist, right, Dave?

I'll incorporate it into required conditions. I'll work on some language for that. That Lake Mohawk Community Country Club will be a pre-approval requirement.

My last question on this is... C1, signs and graphics refer to subsection 18.5-3M, signs and the provision of subsections, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. What is that 18.5.3? Do those sign ordinances... Do they collide with the historic nature of Lake Mohawk Country Club and what would be acceptable in the historic zone? I'm asking.

Well, it's saying refer to subsection, but what are you referring to?

Because I think that's the general sign ordinance, but for what zone?

Every single zone in Sparta falls under 18-5.3M. Then each of the different sections has additional codes. So you might see additional for TCC. You'd see additional for C1. And what we'll have to do is develop something eventually for Lake Mohawk. But in the meantime, it's going to refer to whatever this other one is. I did look it up. I just can't remember what it is.

But what I'm asking, I understand that. But what I'm asking is, do you need something different than that for that zone? That's a whole big rewrite of design standards. Okay, so think about it moving forward, but let's just make sure that what this is pointing to meets the aesthetic requirements of, because 18.53.

Why does it have to be in there? It doesn't. We could just remove it. Lindsay, can you just leave that section out?

I think it's more David, because David's looking at signs. You know, this is not only... This is required conditions and they have any thoughts about that.

I actually looked this ordinance up and highlighted several pages of it that is included and it's basically entitled signs. The purpose of this subsection is to control the size location and character of all exterior and on premises signs. so as to provide for attractive, coordinated, and efficient signage in the township. Also, it is the intent of this chapter to promote signs which are, one, compatible with their surroundings, expressive of the identity of the individual proprietors and of community character, two, orderly, readable, and appropriate to the activities which they maintain, and three, non-distracting to motorists and do not constitute a traffic hazard. applicability of regulations following regulations shall apply to all signs and outdoor advertising and shall be in addition to other regulations for specific uses elsewhere in the chapter so it's generally as i read it applicable to everything but then it gets specific to 4.24 12 a b c d e f g h i

If you don't have anything in there, people won't know what they have to follow. Yeah. Right. Okay.

It's important to keep it there for now. And the thing is, quite frankly, to Joan's point, yes, the standards will have to incorporate a revision. Okay. Or not just that, but also the architecturals.

It was just a clarifying question.

Absolutely.

So that's all I have.

Just just quickly time frame can you're gonna you're gonna draft we're getting closer, right? Yes, we're getting, I think, really close. So. Next meeting you'll have a a final draft to be presented to then move.

Yes, and it'll be on the website. So the public can see it and that's great.

Great. Okay.

When's that meeting date?

Next meeting date is September 2nd. But I understand that that won't happen. It's supposed to be a joint meeting.

So that's why I'm going with it. So that's going to be September 2nd.

It's supposed to be a joint meeting between the council and the planning board.

So then it would be September 18th?

September 16th.

It's up to you to know best.

it's a joint meeting with the mayor and council is it so terrible to discuss or is what's going to go on the joint is that the highlands that's the highlands yeah so depending upon how long that takes presentation is what's happening we can put it on as an agenda item but depending upon how long that meeting takes um then you know it may get pushed that's fair

Because we were trying to, my discussion at council was to try to keep that agenda specific for our 10 minute, half hour presentation from the group that's coming in and not have a heavy docket on top of it. Because whose board meeting is it? Is it the planning board's meeting or is it the town council's meeting that's joint?

It's a joint meeting.

Is it our regular meeting or their regular meeting? It's our regular meeting. We're the host. We're the home field. We've got a home field.

Planning board, we're the home team. So... This should be on the following agenda that gives us plenty of time to circulate it. Get all the professionals to comment on it and have a final clean draft. Which would incorporate the all these notes here that we just went through. Correct? I just want to understand.

So you're not carrying September 16th, not the 2nd.

Correct. He's suggesting September 16th, but I am unfortunately going to hold you to the second date because I would like to have a draft available for us to digest very well prior to. Yeah, we want this sooner than later to. I don't want to give this a deadline of the 16th and then we're kind of in the 11th hour.

And the only thing I do say when we go through these exercises, no different than any other ordinance that we review, that this meeting just incorporated everybody's changes, concerns, you're going to rewrite it. We don't need to revisit everything that's been discussed here. We're just going to get ourselves caught up in a circle here. So hopefully the draft will be sanitized. We'll take a good look at it, clean it up. And presented on that 16th, right, Celeste?

Yes. You'll have a draft on the 2nd, and it'll be on the 16th of January.

Sabina, are you comfortable with that?

September 2nd draft discussion with the public, September 16th. Okay.

I'm not in the country on the 16th.

Oh. Well, let's see how the second is. Let's see where we are. Maybe you're happy by the second.

Well, we're going to get the draft to her. When are you leaving? I mean, is it the 16th you're not going to be here or the second you're not going to be here?

The 16th. That week is blacked out, yeah.

Okay, so if we get it to her sooner rather than later, then she can go out of the country with peace of mind, knowing that everything... I can definitely do that. No problem. I will work that out. Because it works so well all the time, I'm sure. But I think that if we can get it to you by then, and you can get your comments back... Then at least we have all of that. And then, because there's also, once we agree on it here, then as you know, it's got to go to the council and they'll be hearing. And if we need to change something, that's fine. But I think we're just trying to get this. This has been three and a half years in the coming.

So people understand the process. This is where I always say, way out of flow chart of the process. So the public's very clear and everybody up here is clear. After we do it, we put this to council, ask to go to two council meetings. gets introduced, and then it gets heard. Then it has to come back down to us, correct?

Well, it's an interesting process in that Lindsay had done a nice job of saying the conformity, it's in conformity with our master plan, so she would, in essence, it has already been reviewed on us, but there's nothing wrong with the

the it's introduced normally it's referred to the planning board we would say yes this is what we had agreed to and what we recommended so that would be so when council gets its pack a recommendations it's going to have the supporting reports from the professionals that prevents that coming back we're volleyballing it back and forth correct it's more just a filing requirement okay I just wanted to just know that this thing would then go either three meetings or three meetings at this point.

We would be hard pressed when it's introduced and sent to us to say it's no longer conformed after our engineer and planner. An attorney has said it's good. That it was. Okay. Just real quick before we end this.

Mike didn't have any comment. I'm sorry.

Just real quick, Mike. Do we want historic White Deer Plaza and Boardwalk District, or do we want the word historic at the beginning, or White Deer Plaza and Boardwalk Historic District? Do you want historic first, or do you want it after the term White Deer Plaza and Boardwalk Historic District? or historic White Deer Plaza Boardwalk District. The word historic at the beginning or at the end?

At the end, I do too. Yeah, I think so. Yep, and don't care.

Well, we still have a few more people who have, Mike, do you have anything else that you need to say? Sorry, Michael.

No, I'm good.

Through the title, I can verify exactly what the designation states on the report. Thank you. For clarification, you can go with it or you can do whatever.

It should be in conformity.

That's fine.

You can do that.

Before we end, I just want to know when this is done and you're getting ready to give it to Sabina and it comes back or whatever, The public should be posted somewhere. When we get it, the public should get it. Can we tell them where it's going to be and...

It'll be posted on the website with the agenda. That's why I'm, that's why I want to make sure they know deadline of the second. Yeah. Cause they need time to have it. And then we can post it with, with the agenda.

Okay. It won't be published until Celeste, until Sabine reviews it. Right. And gets back to us. Right.

Until we have, until we have the draft that we are going to discuss at the point of the meeting. And then it'll be everything that having been said, um, anybody from public was a general question comment or what have you who wants to be heard? You're welcome to come up to the microphone.

So.

I heard all of you talking about... Can we just have your name? Oh, sure. Sidling Guido. Sorry about that. I live on Lake Mohawk on West Shore Trail. And I heard lots of discussion. I think you guys said it was item five, but since we don't have that, I'm not sure. But it was with regards to the designation as recreational. And I think it originally said all beaches... boat docks, et cetera. I am extremely concerned about that if it's the whole lake, and here's the reason. So last year, if you'll indulge me a little bit, last year the residents in Turtle Cove, which is just one of them, has a dock running down the center. The dock wanted to expand it. Sabina had to sit through all these meetings in my yappy mouth at the time. They wanted to expand that dock, and I had an architect draw up, their reasoning for wanting to expand it is because they wanted larger boats, understandable. I had an architect draw up for the existing dock how they could reconfigure it and allow for those larger boats. The feedback from the dock committee was that's too expensive. spent quite a bit of time doing a lot of research on on that and how in the impact of docs can negatively impact the residents property value there and it can be as high as twenty five percent negative impact on property value so we fought it onto the board the board ultimately approved it much to our dismay we were very upset about that but you guys said no You're not approving it because it didn't meet the standards. As a matter of fact, what's there right now is not supposed to be there. There's five parking spaces. There's 21, I believe, boats. So there's not room for 21 cars or however many people are on those boats in those cars. So my concern is if you make this... you know, what did I say it was? Recreational. If you make this a recreational, what happens is that eliminates, my understanding, not an attorney, but I read real well, that eliminates the residents and the neighbors from objecting to those changes because they no longer have to apply for variance.

Just to clarify, what we're talking about is White Deer Plaza. And that's my question. The zone that we're speaking about is specific to the Historic Business District section

Because there's no, there's no, there's some of the things that are in that are not in White Deer Plaza, which is...

The on the waterfront that we would say that it's still subject to the other, and I think ernie up here read reference to that, so I will, and I have agreed to incorporate that the waterfront is subject to. Nothing in this ordinance minimizes or impacts effects in any way, shape or form the waterfront regulations, the only the only waterfront this this affects is from what your Plaza where the where the little.

So I would only ask that it is very clear because we don't want to fight this battle again. And we don't, you know, it's not fair to us when there is another solution for them to have larger boats for it to be expanded and hurt the property values of those that live in there. So I'm not the only one saying this. I've just got the biggest mouth, apparently. Who was that that said that before? I guess you and I. We're sisters at heart. So that was my only concern, because when you were talking about it, and I had heard about it in advance of this meeting, because I don't have any paperwork, and I'm not an attorney, so I would not have any idea how it's worded. I just want to make sure it doesn't impact all of those, because that's not a battle we want to fight again.

That's exactly why we're beating this up to make sure we're not opening up some other new problem for Lake Mohawk or for the residents.

And I totally appreciate you guys because you saved us last year by saying, wait a minute, that's not right. And we want to make sure we stay protected. It's already expensive to live there. We don't need our property values to go down. So thank you. Anyone else?

Okay. That's okay. Just one quick thing.

If you're taking this, if this is currently TCC, the language of the C1H needs to be reviewed because it says right in the purpose it talks about Lake Mohawk Country Club. So just put that as a note so that you don't have conflicting ordinances.

Thank you. Good point. The ordinance is currently conflicting. The C1H is already inconsistent.

Okay, that having been said, um, we're going to take the agenda out of order a little bit. We're going to do, um, correspondence and updates really quickly before we move into an executive session. So we will start with town council, Mike.

Okay.

Uh, seeing as though there's no environmental commission liaison today. I will move forward with subcommittees. Master Plan Subcommittee will meet on the 26th of this month to go over the presentation that's intended to be prepared and presented at the joint meeting on September 2nd. Additional subcommittee meeting schedule is pending, providing I get updated information in terms of availability, and then we will be capable of putting together a better schedule of additional presentations for master plan segments. Minor site plan subcommittee, we have had 32 applications to date. I believe we are only pending two at this time um in terms of approvals um yeah that is it with regard to minor site plan so mike do you have any updates sure the presentation on the second that is with highlands who that is with the highlands council council yes thank you all right so the

joint meeting everybody is aware that we're having that on the second that's confirmed correct providing council is coming and if we're noticed for if our council is noticed and there's going to be a notice for that right yes okay uh that was that was the only information from council that i could recall right now uh and that should be it

Okay, we will move very quickly in case there's any other board business. Brian? Ron?

No.

Christine?

Get ready. No.

Oh, my goodness. Mike, other board business? No. Mike and Mike?

No.

Okay. Joan, any other board business? We talked last time. We were going to have, I don't know, a couple meetings ago under executive session. Birgit had wanted to have one, and we had some of that other stuff to discuss. If we can include that under the executive session, the legal chatter there instead of here.

Okay, um, all that having been said, we will open it up to the public for comments and questions for matters and items that are not on the agenda.

Just asking some follow up questions before you go into executive about diamond chip. The status of diamondship, so they lost their appeal in New Jersey Appellate Court, but the civil case is still pending in the federal court. It's my understanding there's been two mediation sessions. Is that correct?

I don't know. I'm not involved in the federal matter. There is a federal matter going on. I only know ancillary about it. I don't have first-hand knowledge on the federal matter.

Mike, you were in on it, though. Excuse me? You were in on it.

Were there, you had two meetings with the?

There was no other meetings with that.

Okay, but there were the two. And then you're saying that DCR is scheduled to come back. When are they coming back?

There is a public reference from the property owner that they want to come on November 4th.

And so they're coming back, even though the members of the board who would be hearing this will have the federal civil rights violation case hanging over them.

We have an obligation by the appellate division to give them a hearing date within 45 days. We've given them that option, and they have chosen to go beyond the 45 days and chose the November date, just as if it was your property. and you had an application pending, you can determine what hearing date, if you're vested, if you're complete.

I understand that, but the issue is that what is going to protect the members of that board from any implications in the federal civil case?

Well, if the... If the mayor and council through the town attorney or their special counsel advises a basis that we should not hear the matter, we will look at it and review it. But at this time, I'm not aware of any prohibition. We have a directive from the appellate division that we have to give them a hearing, and that is what we have done. We've given them a hearing date.

So I know you're not involved with the federal case, but have you asked or have you had anyone ask on your behalf for guidance from the federal court about how to proceed?

I cannot advise you if anything that was told to me, attorney-client privilege, it is pending litigation, but I am not involved in that matter.

I'm sorry. I have to interrupt. I thought that this was going to be part of executive session tonight. So I'm really taken by surprise right now that we're talking about this because I thought specifically that this is public.

I am not.

I'm only given finish here. I completely understand. But I thought that this was something that was going to be discussed in executive session tonight. Okay.

That is a very good point. I'm only giving factual information, and good point. I could, again, I'm only giving factual information, and we are going into closed session to discuss other issues related to this matter. DCR, thank you.

So going on, they're coming back theoretically on 11-4. You had submitted a letter to them, they being Diamond Chip, publicly. You said that in your letter you said that they are administratively dismissed. And so under what circumstances will their case be coming back to this board?

It's pending litigation. I cannot advise that any further.

And can you tell me who will be sitting on the Sparta diamond chip planning board?

I cannot at this time, but that will become public record. How is that not public? It will become public record. It's just at this time, I cannot... give you my legal opinion. You can do simple math. You can look at the judge's opinion, but I am not prepared because of the pending litigation to give anything further at this time. But it will be public ed absolutely prior to the November 4th hearing.

Okay. There is concern. I've been... doing this for a while, and conflict always comes up, the issue of conflict, and this is in no way a personal conversation or discussion, but the concept of conflict is always around, whether it's warranted or not. And conflict comes in many forms, and most conflict that people think about and the courts look at and the legislation addresses are pecuniary. But there are also non-pecuniary circumstances where there is conflict. And there are many over the years, I've had a lot of discussions back with Tom Ryan and all kinds of all other experts on this and Some of the questions that arise are with Mr. Sylvester about a conflict. And again, not a pecuniary conflict, but because you've sat in on the, because Mr. Sylvester has sat in on the mediation sessions, there could be the consideration that there would be, it wouldn't be impartial for him to hear. Again, Mike, it's not personal. This is just process. from Michael Payne, New Jersey practice series, which is a treatise on this topic. Would an impartial and concerned citizen, intelligent and appraised of all the facts in the situation, feel that there was potential for non-objectivity on the part of the officeholder making a decision? If the answer is affirmative, the appearance of conflict exists. That's just one of many. There is a court finding out of Lafayette Township, actually, on this topic. One particular on point is Thompson v. Atlantic City, where the public confidence requires that municipal officials avoid the conflict interests, and on and on. So I would just ask that you would consider, since you haven't confirmed who's on that board or not, consider that the public has an interest in being represented by somebody that's free of any, even the perception of a conflict. Again, Mike, not personal, just process. And I think that everybody would like this to be done as fairly as possible. So I will leave it at that for now.

I prefer you don't. That's our comment was made on the public side.

Because this is pending litigation, there's going to be time, hopefully in the future, that I'll be able to really tell you what's going on with all these litigation matters. Conflicts come perceived and real. That's what I just said. And I think historically through this particular case, I was the only one that was not conflicted. So I'm pretty proud of that, being representing the former planning board and current council. I mean, I know you're coming at me for certain reasons. I'm not taking it personally. Right, it's not personal. It's a process. I'm entitled to at least comment on that. So I think that board's going to be determined, right, Ken? At some point.

I do not see a conflict at this point, but you're so noted, and we'll see how that goes.

All right, I appreciate it.

DCR may not even go forward on November 4th. We don't know.

You also I did have one other question you made a comment at the last meeting it was after executive so I launched it on the video that DCR would decide how many members are beyond this board and

You know, it's an interesting question. Let's say you have an application before the board. This is a nine-member board. You're entitled, in my opinion, to a full board. Let's say you come to a hearing, you, and there's seven members here and you need four affirmative votes. And two of the members that are absent are ones that You may have respected or thought their vote should be included so and the Municipal Land Use Act this is a nine member board and If I was the applicant and I wanted nine members the board would Have to in my opinion provide nine members there is so let's say we can only provide seven then two senior members from the Board of Adjustment would be brought over and

And that's if zoning, if the applicant is asking for that.

That's an interesting question, too. We have a quorum, and let's say we say, do we have to? I have not researched that, but, again, we are a nine-member board. Forget about DCR. Forget about, think of yourselves. Would you want all nine members? I personally would want a full board. My odds are better. But that's me. That's all I'm saying. Or not. There you go.

All right. Thank you.

Okay.

Okay. Any other members of the public? Seeing none, we will move into executive session. I will give it to you, Ken.

Yes, I just real quickly. We do not need the board engineer planner for closed session, so I have no objection if you would discharge them or.

Have a great night. Can I just ask a follow-up question to what Jenny was asking and you?

Would you prefer it in closed session?

No, it's a general question. So if we had an applicant here, you know, like we've had one applicant in the past, they came five times, and there's somebody absent at the last meeting, they could defer the vote?

I don't want to mix apples and oranges. Because if they say we want the full board complement, I don't... You know, are there a lot of public's opinions on it? Again, the Municipal Land Use Act, SPARTA established nine members. You are volunteers, but the public is entitled to a full compliment. If you have eight and somebody's not here and you have a quorum and they need that vote and they file an appeal and they say that we asked to have it carried and you said no, I think that's a reversible error.

But they would have to ask. It wouldn't be just somebody's absent, we have eight. Because I thought the law was if you had a quorum, you could take your vote.

if you have a quorum you can open the meeting and you qualify under the open public meeting act under the municipal land use act we have other standards and requirements so again we're talking hypothetical i don't want to give an opinion on somebody who was at one meeting and not at the next meeting we don't know if the applicant is asking for it we don't know if the board's asking for the vote so there's too many other ancillary issues just interesting It's a good law school exam.

And this is why you have alternates.

And this is why I stay in business.

Well, I was figuring if they weren't there. No, I said this is why we have alternates.

Oh, yes.

But if they weren't there or just there were three people absent during holidays or whatever, I was just in general.

Okay, so, Ken, take it away.

We're going to go. I need most to go into closed session. We're going to talk about diamond ship, Realty, Sparta, land company. And also there was a discussion that was carried on a prior agenda as far as bearded raised as far as oversight of the planning board. Those three member matters. We will not be coming back out making a decision. We will only be discussing them. I'm not looking for any decision on any of those matters. So the public does. We will not be coming back out to make a decision.

Are we adjourning after this?

You will have to open up.

We'll open back up and then adjourn.

Take a quick break. You're not making any conversation after this.

Correct. Correct. All right, so vote to go into closed session, please.

I'll make a motion. I'll second. Roll call, please.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Okay, we are officially in close second. Good night, Jenny. Yes. Good night. So before we get started, everybody who wants to use the restroom.