Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:03]

ON AND HELPED. ALRIGHT GOOD EVENING. THIS IS THE MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD.

MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP, SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. IT'S OUR REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER.

14TH 2022 THE TIME IS 702 P. M AND IT IS OUR INTENTION TO CONCLUDE THIS MEETING NO LATER THAN 10 P.M. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS, ACT NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE. THIS MEETING HAS BEEN POSTED AND SENT TO THE OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED NEWSPAPERS . SHERRY ROLL CALL, PLEASE. CAMPUS HERE. CHAIR ROBERTS HERE BATTLE IS UNABLE TO MAKE IT LARGER, IS UNABLE TO MAKE IT. MAYOR KEENAN IS UNABLE TO MAKE IT MONEY. HERE MATTHEWS? YEAH.

DEANER. BLOCK COLOR IS HE. HAMBLETON HERE, CASEY? YES SULLIVAN. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SHERRY. UH DON, COULD YOU LEAVE US IN A SALUTE TO THE FLAG, PLEASE? UNITED STATES.

[III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA]

OKAY NEXT NEXT ITEM NEXT ITEM IS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. AND SUBJECT TO OUR DISCRETION. WE DO RESPECTFULLY ASK MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS AND OUR Q AND A TO NO MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. AND I'M DELIGHTED LOOKING FROM THE OTHERS. THE PODIUM. UM. I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON THE GOLDEN BACK FORM UP APPLICATION. WE NEED TO HAVE YOU PULL THEM PULL THE MICROPHONES. THAT BETTER? YEAH. AND I'M NOT GONNA OH, YEAH. 25 YEARS. WE WANTED TO MOVE IN, WHERE THE REFORMS AND OPEN VERYE GOOD. YOU'RE GOOD. AND MY NEIGHBORS HAVE DONE THE SAME.

I'M WITH A COUPLE THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 40 YEARS. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT WE ARE AGAINST FARMS. WE LOVE FARMS. WE LOVED IT WHEN THE GALLUP CENTER FORM AND WHEN BOB CAME IN ORGANIC FARMING, WE WERE SUPPORTIVE. WE OPPOSED SEVERAL COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES AND I WILL ADDRESS THAT. DURING MY 15 YEARS ON MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. I UNDERSTAND THAT EVERY PROPERTY OWNER WHO RECEIVED A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION PROMPTLY RECEIVED FULL DOCUMENTATION. THIS ENABLES PROPERTY OWNERS TO UNDERSTAND THE APPLICATION AND DISCUSS IT WITH MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS PRIOR TO A PUBLIC MEETING. REGARDING THE GOLDEN BACK FARM APPLICATION. I RECEIVED A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 3RD. I CALLED THE SOMERSET COUNTY AGRICULTURAL BOARD FOUR TIMES OVER A PERIOD OF THREE DAYS TO ASK FOR A COPY OF THE APPLICATION. ON OCTOBER 9TH. I FINALLY WAS ABLE TO TALK WITH CATALAN COUNT. CAT, SIR. PRINCIPAL PLANNER. S C, A. D B ADMINISTRATOR SHE TOLD ME. THAT BEFORE ANY APPLICATION COULD BE RELEASED. PERSONAL INFORMATION HAD TO BE REDACTED. AND THEN THIS HAD TO BE REVIEWED BY A LAWYER. MS CATCHER EMAILED ME A DETAILED, DETAILED REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FORM. BUT I IMMEDIATELY SUBMITTED ON NOVEMBER 9TH. KELLY MAGER CUSTODY CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF MY REQUEST FOR RECORDS. A NEIGHBOR WENT TO SOMERVILLE AND MET WITH MS CANCER. SHE PERMITTED HIM TO PERUSE THE APPLICATION. BUT HE WAS NOT PERMITTED TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS OR TO OBTAIN A COPY OF THE APPLICATION. SHE SAID THAT LEGALLY. THE S C A. D B DOES NOT HAVE TO RESPOND TO A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION UNTIL 14 DAYS AFTER THE REQUEST MY REQUEST OF NOVEMBER 9TH WILL NOT HAVE TO BE RESPONDED TO UNTIL NOVEMBER, 23RD THE DAY BEFORE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAYS AND FIVE

[00:05:02]

DAYS BEFORE. PRIOR TO THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 8:15 A.M. ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28TH. OR NUMBER NOVEMBER 9TH. I WAS INFORMED THAT THE MONTGOMERY PLANNING OFFICE DID NOT HAVE A COPY OF THE GOLDEN BACK FORM APPLICATION AND THAT THEY WERE WORKING ON GETTING A COPY OF THIS. AT THE NOVEMBER 10TH TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING. IT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP HAD NOT YET OBTAINED A COPY OF THIS APPLICATION. A KEY ISSUE IN THIS APPLICATION IS THE SAME. THAT WAS THE FOCUS IN THE INITIAL BACK APPLICATION MORE THAN FIVE YEARS AGO. WHAT AREAS OF AN APPLICATION DOES MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW UNDER THE RIGHT TO FARM PROVISION? THIS WAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED IN THE INITIAL BACK APPLICATIONS. UNDER THE RIGHT TO FARM ANSARI COMMERCIAL USES ARE PERMITTED. BUT COME UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF LOCAL MUNICIPAL ZONING REGULATIONS. THE ORIGINAL BACK FARM APPLICATION PROPOSED A LARGE BUILDING THAT COULD BE USED FOR A DIVERSITY OF ACTIVITIES. I RECALL THAT INCLUDED FIVE BATHROOMS OR PORTA POTTIES. PARKING FOR 76 VEHICLES. AND A RESTRICTION THAT MUSIC WOULD END AND LIGHTS WOULD TURN OFF BY 11. PM MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DIRECTOR LAURIE SOVEREIGN. AND THEN COUNT YOUR PATERNITY CHRIS, ADDING, ER CONCLUDED THAT THESE ACTIVITIES WERE NOT APPROPRIATE UNDER MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP ZONING. THIS BUILDING WAS REMOVED FROM THE APPLICATION. AT PRESENT, IT IS UNCLEAR WHAT THE SCOPE AND PURPOSES MIGHT BE FOR THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL KITCHEN. WENT BACK RECENTLY APPEARED BEFORE THE MONTGOMERY LANDMARK'S COMMITTEE. HE STATED THAT HE HAD NO PLANS FOR TASTING OR OTHER EVENTS IN HIS UPGRADED 18TH CENTURY BARN AND WHICH HE HOSTED IN 2019 LUNCH FOR 95 PEOPLE, MOSTLY BUSTIN THAT WAS PART OF A FOUR FARM VISIT. ORGANIZED BY LOCAL FARMERS. UNTIL RECENTLY, THERE WAS A STATEMENT ON THE BACK FORM WEBSITE AND ITS FACEBOOK THAT THEY HAD JUST HIRED A QUOTE. AMAZING FULL TIME CHEF. AND HAD PLANS FOR COMMERCIAL KITCHEN. THE JOB OPENING AD FOR A FARM MANAGER.

THE PREVIOUS FOREIGN MANAGER HAD DEPARTED MORE THAN A YEAR EARLIER. HIGHLIGHTED HOW THE FARM MANAGER WOULD INTERACT WITH THE CHEF AT THIS TIME. NEITHER THE NEIGHBORS OF GOLDEN BUT FARM NORMAN RUMMERY TOWNSHIP. HAVE CLEAR INSIGHTS INTO THE INTENDED USES OF THE COMMERCIAL KITCHEN AND AN AMAZING FULL TIME CHEF AS THEY RELATE TO MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP ZONING REGULATIONS.

THEREFORE I PROPOSE THE MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP REQUESTS A POSTPONEMENT OF THE SCHEDULED NOVEMBER 28 S C. A. D. HERE. TO PROVIDE TIME FOR THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NEIGHBORS AND MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP. TO PROFESSIONAL SAYS THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE GOLDEN BACK FARM APPLICATION. MY CONCERN. IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE SLOW ROLL. INTO A SITUATION WHERE NEITHER THE TOWNSHIP NORTH. THE NEIGHBORS HAVE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO INVESTIGATE. WHAT'S THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF OUR ZONING IS AND WE'RE GOING TO END UP IN 28 SO UNLESS THIS IS POSTPONED RIGHT AFTER THANKSGIVING. WE ARE DEAD TURKEYS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. SHERRY WE HAVE SHERRY WHERE WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THAT APPLICATION YET. CORRECT YEAH. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE APPLICATION YET, SIR. SO SOMEBODY WHO SERVED ON TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING BOARD 15 YEARS. I FIND IT ASTONISHING. THAT WHEN I WAS NOTICED ON NUMBER THIRD MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP HAS BEEN UNABLE TO GET THIS APPLICATION. UM. WELL, I'M ASTONISHED QUITE OFTEN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. DID THE SERVER IGNORE APPLICATION? YEAH, EFFECT. NO I DON'T BELIEVE THE TANGENT. YEAH. OKAY ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC? NOT HAVING TO DO WITH AN APPLICATION TONIGHT. OKAY? MOTIONS CLOSE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. ANYBODY. EXACTLY.

[IV. APPLICATION]

[00:10:09]

ALL IN FAVOR HIGH, OKAY? NEXT ITEM NUMBER THREE IS AN APPLICATION. IT'S CASE P B 0 3-22. THE APPLICANT IS PRINCETON ERROR CORPORATION. IT'S BLACK 34 001 LOCK 57 ROUTE 206 AND AMENDED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL MAJOR SITE PLAN WITH PHASING FOR A MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS OF A PRIOR APPLICATION, GRANTING APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCTION TO CONSTRUCT IN ADDITION TO A HANGAR A NEW HANGAR AND ASSOCIATED TIED DOWN AREAS. THE EXPIRATION DATE IS 12 31 22 AFFIDAVIT AND NOTIFICATION OF PUBLICATION REQUIRED AND PREVIOUSLY FOUND TO BE IN ORDER.

OKAY? TO THE APPLICANTS. THANK YOU, STEPHEN NURENBERG FOR THE, UH, PRINCETON ERROL CORP. AH AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO LIMIT THE PUBLIC NOTICE WE'D LIKE TO JUST TO ADDRESS THE AH, THE BOARD ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMOVAL OF THE WATERLINE. THAT'S B ONE ON THE NOTICE. AND WE'D LIKE TO ALSO, UH, BE IN COMPLIANCE FROM THE LAST AH! YOU KNOW, FINAL SITE PLAN FOR ALL THE OTHER ITEMS, SO IF WE COULD JUST, UH THE REQUEST IS JUST TO ADDRESS BE ONE FOR THE WATERLINE TODAY. AND I'D LIKE TO PASS IT ON TO DAVE, THE ENGINEER. OKAY? MR SCHMIDT. I KNOW YOU WERE SWORN IN LAST TIME. BUT WE WILL SWEAR YOU IN TONIGHT. WE'LL ALSO MAKE SURE OUR OWN PROFESSIONALS OR SWORN IN. SO THAT'S MR SCHMIDT. MR SULLIVAN. MR. DARCY WE HAVE FIRE CHIEF. UM GUCCI HERE AS WELL.

GENTLEMEN, YOU ALL SWEAR, AFFIRM YOUR TESTIMONY THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL. YES, THANK YOU.

OKAY I'M DAVID SCHMIDT FROM DS ENGINEERING. I'M THE APPLICANTS . ENGINEER UM, I WENT THROUGH TESTIMONY ON OCTOBER 2022 OF EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE PLANNING TO DO. BASICALLY THE AMENDMENT OF THIS PREVIOUS APPROVAL IS THAT WE HAVE MR PARDUCCI HERE. IN HIS LETTER DATED SAVING WATER LINE THAT WAS REQUIRED AT THE TIME IS NO LONGER REQUIRED. BASICALLY ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS NOT AN EXPANSION TO THE AIRPORT, BUT JUST WE'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE THE WATERLINE AND THEN GET THE APPROVAL WITHOUT THE SO THAT'S WHY THEY WERE HERE FOR THE AMENDMENT. WE HAD TWO OTHER ITEMS, UM, FOR THE AMENDMENT. ONE WAS TO PUT THE SIDEWALK IN AND IN THE PHASE TWO IN THE FOLLOWING OF A RAIN GARDEN DESCRIPTION THAT GETS FILED TO THE COUNTY. UM THE APPLICANT IN DISCUSSION, AND SINCE THE LAST MEETING, HE'LL PUT THE SIDEWALK IN A S. A P, AND HE ALSO WILL FILE THE UM, RAIN GUARD DESCRIPTION OF THE MAINTENANCE MANUAL TO SOMERSET COUNTY. ONCE RAKESH HAS REVIEWED THAT DOCUMENT, SO THOSE TWO OTHER ITEMS THAT STEVE NOTED TOO. HAVE BEEN REMOVED. IT'S JUST REALLY THE AMENDMENT OF THE EIGHT INCH WATER LINE FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS, UM WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO CONSTRUCT. THE REMAINING OF WAS JUST TO RE HATCH WHAT WE DISCUSSED BECAUSE THEY KNOW DAVEY. WE'RE NOT HERE FOR THIS PAINSTAKINGLY WATCHED THE VIDEO. TRUST ME. I DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH IT. BUT YOU DO NOT. OKAY SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO AMEND THE WATERLINE FROM THE PLANS. UM, A LOT OF DISCUSSION. THAT WERE QUESTIONS NEEDED TO BE ANSWERED WERE FROM THE FOR THE OWNER, WHICH I COULD NOT ANSWER, AND STEVE COULD NOT ANSWER AS WELL. SO WE DECIDED TO COME BACK TO THE AND THAT YOU GUYS REHASH ALL THAT NEEDED TO BE REHASHED BECAUSE YOU'RE ALL NEWPORT. I'VE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE 1999 WHEN PRINCETON AIRPORT AND CHANGES WAS FOR ALL YOU GUYS TO CATCH UP WITH WHAT'S GOING ON? UM AND ALSO CLEAN OUT SOME ISSUES THAT WERE FUZZY THAT WE WEREN'T SURE ON AND SINCE WE HAVE NIRENBERG HERE, I GUESS WE JUST GO RIGHT INTO HIM IS THE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ON THE WHYS AND WHATS AND HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE'RE AT. SURE JUST ONE QUESTION. THE APPLICANT THEN IS NO LONGER SEEKING THIS EXTRA 40 SQUARE FEET I GOT I GOT. I'M A LITTLE DIFFERENT ON THAT FUZZY. WE HAVE WHAT I CAME UP WITH. WAS THE APPROVAL FROM 2014 IS EXACT SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN IS THE APPROVAL ON THE PLANS THAT ARE OFFERING RIGHT NOW. I SAW ON THE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD IN 2000 BECAUSE YOU GO THROUGH A PROCESS. THE PLAN SUBMITTED IN 2014, AND I'LL GO TO MR SULLIVAN'S LETTER. UM HE CITES IN THE LETTER ON PAGE. THREE OR SEVEN ITEM 3.3 FLOOR AREA RATIO IN THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION. THE FAA OUR CALCULATION INDICATED PERCENTAGE OF 9.97. THIS HAS INCREASED THE 999.99% THIS IS DUE TO THE FOUR AREA OF THE RECENT BUILDING HANGARS INCREASING FROM 59 030

[00:15:08]

SQUARE FEET 2 59 TO 12 SQUARE FEET. AS A REQUEST FROM SURREY CRUISE, YOU REQUIRED ME TO SUBMIT TO SET OF PLANS THAT WAS APPROVED FOR THE 2014. UM AND I LOOKED AT THE FIRST SUBMISSION PLAN, AND IT IS QUITE CORRECT. MR SULLIVAN HAS THE 59. COMMON 030. BUT AS THE PLANS GOT SIGNED , THE SQUARE FOOTAGE MIGHT HAVE BEEN CHANGED IN A PART OF A RESOLUTION OR PART OF THE HANGER SIZE, BUT THE APPROVED SET WAS FOR 59 TO 1 TO SO THERE'S THE NUMBERS HE'S CITING IS CORRECT, BUT I'M NOT SURE THERE WERE A LOT OF SETS THAT WERE OUT THERE AND HE MIGHT HAVE REVIEWED THIS SET THEM WAS WAS A PRIOR SET. UM YOU KNOW, WE BOTH AGREE THAT THE INCREASE WHICH I CAME UP WITH WHICH WAS 100 AND 82 SQUARE FEET. DIFFERENCE IS STILL CONFORMING. WE'RE STILL MEETING THE STANDARDS SO EITHER WE CAN'T CLEAR IT UP, BUT THAT'S OUT THERE. IS THAT THE SAME AS AND MICHAEL, MAYBE YOU KNOW THE RESOLUTION FROM JUNE. 19TH 2017. ORIGINALLY APPROVED. PULLING IT UP. SO DAVE, ARE YOU WILLING? AND ARE YOU PRESENTING THAT? WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR ON THIS APPLICATION IS THE SAME AS WAS APPROVED IN 2017 IS THAT WE DID NOT CHANGE ANY OF THE HANGERS OR ANY OF THE SIZES FROM THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL. UM YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU'RE UNDER OATH. SO EXCUSE ME. YOU'RE UNDER OATH. CERTAINLY I'M UNDER NO CAN I ALSO REVISED THE PLANS? I DIDN'T CHANGE THE HANGAR SIZED WHATSOEVER. WE JUST COPIED CHANGED THE THINGS OVER. YOU JUST BASICALLY REMOVED THE WATER LINE. IT WASN'T LIKE THE HANGERS . YOU KNOW, AS THERE WAS DISCUSSION WAS THE HANGERS INCREASE IT? NO BASICALLY, ALL I CHANGED WAS, I ADDED, OR REMOVED THE WATER LINE FROM THE PLANS AND WE UPDATED THE PLANS AS BEST WE COULD, BECAUSE IT'S A BIG SENT A LOT OF STUFF. A LOT OF INFORMATION. A LOT OF RESOLUTION COMPLIANCE STUFF WITH THESE MINTS AND AREA, NO FLY ZONES. ALL THAT STUFF WAS DOCUMENTED TO GET THE FINAL SIGN OFF. SO YES, I'M UNDER OATH. AND YES, BUT JUST THAT IF I COULD JUST JUMP IN THE 2020 17 RESOLUTION ONLY INDICATES THAT ONE OF THE BUILDINGS BUILDING FOR WAS CONSTRUCTED. 182 SQUARE FEET LARGER THAN WHAT WAS APPROVED, BUT IT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED AND APPROVED IN 2017. THAT THEY DID THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY MARCH ABOUT THE OTHER BUILDINGS IN THAT CASE, SO OKAY. OKAY? SO YOU KNOW, REALLY THE THINGS THAT ARE ON THE TABLE, AND I KNOW THE AUDIENCES HERE IS BASICALLY NOISE AND THE ACTIVITY OF THE AIRPORT, I THINK CAN CAN GO INTO DETAIL WHAT HE'S ALLOWED AND PERMITTED TO CHANGE. THESE ARE VALID CONCERNS, AND I THINK HE CAN ADDRESS THEM AS BEST AS POSSIBLE. SO I GUESS YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE BEEN NERENBERG SWORN IN AND KIND OF YOU CAN GIVE A BRIEF HISTORY OF HOW LONG YOU BEEN ON THE AIRPORT AND THE OPERATION AND THE FAA REQUIREMENTS. MR NURBURGRING SWEAR YOU IN THEN DO YOU WANT TO WALK? THERE'S NO ROOM THERE, THEN I GET TO COME TO THE PODIUM. NUREMBERG. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM YOUR TESTIMONY THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL. THANK YOU. SORRY. THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT BY THE WAY. DO YOU WANT ME TO? DO YOU WANT THE HISTORY? I MEAN TO BE A LONG NIGHT? UM YOU KNOW, MY PARENTS GOT AN AVIATION IN MY FATHER STARTED THE FIFTIES . WE RAN CENTRAL JERSEY AIRPORT BACK IN 67 WERE THERE FOR 20 YEARS. I JOINED HIM IN THE SEVENTIES. AND THE RELEASE WAS RUNNING OUT. AND IN THE EIGHTIES, I BEAT TOM MATTHEWS TO BUYING PRINCETON AIRPORT AND 1985 TOOK ABOUT TWO YEARS TO BUY THE AIRPORT HAD SOME ISSUES. WE DEALT WITH IT. WE, UM MY MOTHER , MY FATHER MYSELF AND MY GRANDFATHER. WE ALL PUT EVERYTHING WE HAD. WE BOUGHT PRINCETON AIRPORT AS WE KNOW IT BACK WHEN DUNN AND I WERE AROUND 50 ACRES AND, YOU KNOW 2030 AIRPLANES. UM AIRPORTS EXPANDED SINCE THEN, ACCORDING TO THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FEDERAL MONIES IN 90. SIX RESERVE AND THAT'S SIX OR 99. I FORGET, BUT AROUND 99. WE GOT FEDERAL MONEY TO EXPAND THE AIRPORT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID HERE. THE EXPANSION WAS KEEPING THE SAME CHARACTER THE AIRPORT EVEN THOUGH IT'S A LONGER FACILITY AND A LITTLE BIT LARGER OIL OVER SAFETY. THEY'RE ALL SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS WERE NOT DESIGNED TO BRING IN A WHOLE ANOTHER CLASS OF AIRCRAFT. UM SO IT'S STILL CONSIDERED AGUILA

[00:20:04]

AIRPORT. UM AND TAKING THE FEDERAL MONIES OBLIGATED THE AIRPORT TO A LOT OF FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS. WHEN YOU TAKE FEDERAL MONEY, YOU HAVE TO PLAY THEIR GAME. NO DISCRIMINATION THINKS THAT EFFECT. UM. WHAT HAPPENED? IT'S SORT OF OUR FIRST GRANTS FOR 99 FOR THE FEDS, AND THAT KEPT THE AIR PROGRAM FOR 20 YEARS FOR THE LIFE OF THE IMPROVEMENT AND THEN INTO LATER ON IN 99 PURCHASED LAND FROM, UE AIRPORT WENT FROM 50 ACRES, 200 ACRES AND HAVE AND THEN THE AIRPORT IS ALL FEDERALLY OBLIGATED IN PERPETUITY BECAUSE IT'S LAD AIRPORT CAN NEVER CLOSE . I CAN'T SELL IT IF I WANTED TO OTHER THAN AN AIRPORT, SO THE AIRPORT AND IT'S GOT IT'S I GUESS IT'S SORT OF LIKE A FARMLAND. UH, RESTRICTIONS BY THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ARE THAT'S AN AIRPORT FOREVER, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. WE'RE PART OF THE FEDERAL LEVER PROGRAM, AND WE CONSIDERED IT VERY CRITICAL AIR AIRPORT IN ITS SIZE, IT'S NOT TO GROW ANY BIGGER IS TO TAKE THE LITTLE AIRPLANES AWAY FROM GOING TO THE BIG AIRPORTS.

THAT'S WHAT WE ARE THERE. UM MY FATHER PASSING 15. MY MOM PASSES LAST YEAR AND TRYING TO GET SOME HELP IS VERY TOUGH AS WE ALL KNOW, OVER THERE, MY DAUGHTER OVER THERE. THAT'S NEXT GENERATION, AND YET THEY ACTUALLY WORK ANYWAY. WORKING ON THAT, UM ALSO AS PART OF THE BIG SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WE DID WITH JOHN WARMS IF YOU REMEMBER JOHN , UM, AND IT WAS AFTER YEARS OF LITIGATION, LOTS OF LITIGATION, WE DECIDED AND PART OF IT IS, WE'RE GONNA SIT DOWN AND DRAW THE MASTER PLAN OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD AND WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD. WE WENT FOR INSTEAD OF JUST 111 SITE PLAN. ONE SITE PLAN ONE BUILDING. WE SAID WHAT'S THE TOTAL TOTALITY OF WHAT YOU CAN BUILD, AND THAT'S IT. ALL THE F A. R S. HE USED UP. ALL THE IMPERVIOUS IS ARE USED UP. THAT'S IT. THIS IS THE LAST BUILDING AND THEN, SON, YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN. I'M OUT OF HERE. WE'RE NOT. I WON'T I PROMISE YOU SHERRY, WRITE THIS DOWN. I WON'T BE COMING FOR THE PLANNING BOARD ANYMORE. THIS IS IT. THIS IS AS FAR AS WE'RE GONNA GO. ACCORDING TO THAT PLAN. WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IS HIS PROBLEM. BUT THE IDEA IS WE HAVE ALL THE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS WE HAVE. WE HAVE ALL THE SIDES OWNS. THE AIRPORT IS BUILT TO BE ONE OF THE MOST SAFE AIRPORTS IN THIS REGION. BECAUSE OF THAT, UM AND THAT'S ABOUT IT. UM QUESTIONS GO, SIR.

IN THE LAST MEETING. THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS WE HAD THE MAYOR OF ROCKY HILL HERE. OUR MAYOR WAS SHE'S NOT HERE TONIGHT , BUT SHE'S ON OUR BOARD. AND THERE WERE THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT PEOPLE REACHING OUT TO DISCUSS THINGS LIKE NOISE, ETCETERA AND NOT GETTING ANYTHING IN RETURN. COULD YOU JUST ADDRESS THAT FOR THIS BOARD? A LOT OF TIMES WE GET PHONE CALLS. WE GET COMPLAINTS, AND I WOULD SAY CIVILITY DOESN'T STARTS TWO WAY STREET. WHEN YOU COME OUT, YOU GET ON THE PHONE. YOU START YELLING AT PEOPLE VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE A CIVILIZED CONVERSATION . THREE MAYORS GOT ON THE PHONE AND YELLED, YOU KNOW THERE'S EVEN TALK TO ME. I'VE NEVER MET HIM. THE MAYOR'S DID NOT COME TO ME. YOU KNOW, THE MAYOR IS DEAD.

THEY WENT TO THE FAA AND ASKED THEM FINE. THE MAYOR'S DID NOT COME TO ME. OKAY BUT THERE'S NO MAYOR SIERRA. I CAN'T ARGUE WITH YOU. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. HAVING GONE FROM THE MAYOR MET THE MAYOR, ROCKY HILL. A WEEK AGO. AND HE WAS OPTIMIZED DOOR. HE DIDN'T REALIZE WHO I WAS, AND HE WANTED MY VOTE. NEVER MET. THE GUY EVEN SAID SO. I SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE YOU KNOW YOU'RE TALKING TO IS HILARIOUS. CAN'T MAKE THIS UP. SO YOU KNOW YOU'RE TALKING TO THE AIRPORT GUIDE NIRENBERG. THAT'S ME. HE NEVER MET ME. SORRY ABOUT THAT. OKAY, QUESTIONS QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD HERE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT, UH IT WAS A LOT OF AGONY INTO THOSE YEARS.

THERE'S NO QUESTION WE HAD THE MONEY TO THE TOWN HAD THE MONEY I WAS MARRIED TO BUY IT. TALK INTO IT. YOU CAN'T TURN IT UP. YEAH ANYWAY, WE HAD THE MONEY TO BUY THE AIRPORT. WE HAD FEDERAL APPROVAL, AND STATE D O T WAS REALLY INTERESTED. AND THE GENERAL FEELING WAS. THEY WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO OPERATE IT BECAUSE THE PUBLIC WOULD JUST WOULDN'T ONE. TAKE IT. THERE WAS NO REAL INTEREST. GOODBYE EVEN THOUGH I WENT THROUGH ALL THE PROCESS OF FAMILY MONEY, AND IT'S WORKED OUT VERY WELL SINCE THAT 0.1 OF THE THINGS WE DID WAS DEVELOP A COMMITTEE, WHICH WOULD BE A REPRESENTATIVE BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND THE AIRPORT. I THOUGHT THAT WAS WORKING FINE, BUT IT'S AS YOU WERE SAYING THE COVID PERIOD COME UP, AND IT JUST KIND OF

[00:25:02]

DISRESPECT ABANDONED. IS THAT STILL A GOOD IDEA FOR THE AIRPORT? IT SOUNDS AND THERE WILL BE A GREAT IDEA FOR THE THAT WAS THAT WAS ACTUALLY PART OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BACK IN 1996 AND WE HAD LEAST ESTABLISH IT PLAN. IN FACT, PAT BRADLEY, I BELIEVE WAS ON IT, AND THERE'S SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE AND I THINK IT WAS THREE SUPPOSEDLY AIRPORT PEOPLE. THREE NOT AIRPORT GOT TOGETHER AND THE REASON WHY IT'S IT THAT THE GROUP DIED. ISN'T IT STOPPED GETTING NOISE? COMPLAINTS WHAT WASN'T GETTING NOISE COMPLAINTS ? COMPLAINTS WEREN'T COMING IN.

THERE WAS NOTHING EVER MEETING ABOUT. SO WE POSTPONED THE MEETING BECAUSE WE HAVE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT. AND THEN OVER THE YEARS, WHICH IS GOTTA BE OVER 10 YEARS. WE HAVEN'T HAD A COMMITTEE MAYBE LONGER JUST BECAUSE THERE'S NO, THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY ISSUES. OKAY WELL, THAT'S BUT THERE IS A POPULATION IS MUCH GREATER NOW WHETHER THAT'S STILL ■A GOOD IDEA, AND I I'M NOT SURE I'M READY. READY TO TRY IT. I DON'T MIND TO HAVE THAT. I DON'T MIND HAVING OPEN DISCUSSION. THE QUESTION IS WHAT FORUM IS IT IS? IT ISN'T PLANNING BOARD ISSUE. IS IT A WATERLINE ISSUE? OR IS IT ATTACHING COMMITTEE ISSUE? I'M JUST ASKING. RIGHT AND WE ARE HERE TONIGHT, AND I'M SORRY. NONE I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF. BUT WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO CONSIDER YOUR APPLICATION. AS IT PERTAINS TO US PERIOD, THE PUBLIC HAD A CHANCE TO TALK LAST WEEK AND THERE SEEMS TO BE YOU KNOW A LOT OF TALK ABOUT NOISE COMPLAINTS, ETCETERA. THAT'S NOT THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD. SO WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE CURRENT APPLICATION. AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN THE CURRENT APPLICATION NOW HAS GOTTEN DOWNY LINE. BASICALLY IS THAT IS THAT A CORRECT ASSUMPTION? CORRECT OKAY, SO DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR NUREMBERG REGARDING? THE CURRENT APPLICATION. DRY LINE, ETCETERA. TONY MR NUREMBERG. UH, BUT THE LAST MEETING AS YOU WELL KNOW, THERE WERE LOTS OF COMMENTS ABOUT THE NOISE. AND IT APPEARED TO RELATE TO THE TRAINING. TEACHING NEW PILOTS TRAINING NEW PILOTS ARE THOSE SCHOOLS. UH, OPERATED BY YOU, OR. DID THEY PAY YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE THE AIRPORT? QUESTION NUMBER ONE AND QUESTION NUMBER TWO. IS ANYTHING IN THIS APPLICATION FACILITATE AN INCREASE INHOOLS?E LOOKING AT THOSE HANGERS IN THE BACK THERE OR FOR WHAT'S CALLED ITINERANT BASED AIRCRAFT. IF YOU OWN AN AIRPLANE, THAT'S THAT'S WHERE THEY GO. THE SCHOOLS ARE IN THE OTHER PART OF IT. I'LL GO OUT IN A MINUTE. BUT WHERE THAT WHERE THE SECOND BUILDING IS GOING TO BE BUILT AND WHERE THE DRY LINE IS NOT GOING TO GO, HOPEFULLY UM, THAT IS FOR BASED CUSTOMERS. I IF YOU OWN THE PLANE, AND YOU WANT TO FLY MY AVERAGE PILOT FLIGHT THAT OWNS A PLAY, MAYBE FLIES ONCE A WEEK, MAYBE TWICE A WEEK. THAT'S IT, AND THAT'S WHERE THEY WOULD GARAGE THEIR AIRPLANE. RIGHT NOW. I HAVEN'T TIED DOWN IN OTHER AREAS. AIRPLANES ARE TIED DOWN INSTEAD OF HANGERS, HANGERS. BETTER GARAGE KEPT CAR. FIGURED IT THAT WAY. SO THAT THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING TO PUT THIS BUILDING IN. AS FAR AS THE FLIGHT SCHOOLS. THERE'S A HELICOPTER FLIGHT SCHOOL THAT'S IN. YOU GOT AN ARROW. DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE DOWN A LITTLE BIT. YEAH, RIGHT, RIGHT. RIGHT, RIGHT RIGHT DOWN. YEP STOP RIGHT AROUND THERE. THAT'S WHERE THE FLIGHT SCHOOL IS ON THE MOVE THE MAP ON ME IS THAT YOUR SCHOOL OR THEY JUST THAT'S A THAT'S A TENANT. ANYWAY EITHER WAY THERE IN THE MAIN MAIN AREAS OF THE FLEXIBLE IN EFFECT, SHERRY HAS IS THERE IS IN THIS DEBACLE OF REQUIREMENTS IS NO HELICOPTER TRAINING IN THAT SECTION. CORRECT THE SHERRY? YES IN THE BACK, OKAY. AND THEY DON'T THEY DON'T. THEY DON'T TRAIN BACK THERE. SO THE FLIGHT THE FLIGHT SCHOOLS ARE NOT MODIFIED WHATSOEVER TO THIS APPLICATION. YEAH HOW ABOUT THE FIXED WING SCHOOLS? ARE THEY YOUR SCHOOLS OR AGAIN? TENANTS ONE OF THEM IS MIND ONE OF THEM. SOMEBODY ELSE'S AT THE AIRPORT. AND THEN THERE'S A NATIONAL FLIGHT TRAINING SCHOOL CALLED 80 P.

THEY FLY OUT OF MARS SANTA TRENTON, AND THEY USE MY FACILITY ALL THE TIME. THERE'S AN INFINITY FLIGHT CENTER THERE AT THE TRENTON ROBBINSVILLE FLIGHT SCHOOL USES MIND SOMERSET USES MIND. UM THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS WE MADE A NICE SAFE FACILITY. THEY LIKE IT. THEY COME IN. THEY COME OUT AND WITH THE FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS FEDERAL MONEY, I CAN'T STOP HIM AND I GET ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY FROM HIM. I WOULD LOVE TO GET RID OF THEM. SHOW ME HOW DON'T GET THE FAA MADAM, EITHER BY DOING IT AND I CAN'T IT'S GET A LOOK AT THE AIRPORT AS A ROAD. IT'S NOT

[00:30:04]

A PRIVATE LITTLE RALLY STRIP. THIS IS A PUBLIC ROAD PAID FOR WITH PUBLIC FUNDS AND ITS PUBLIC . I CAN'T SAY I'M SHUTTING IT DOWN TONIGHT AT CERTAIN HOURS. I CAN'T DO THAT. BECAUSE I KNOW YOU GUYS ROUGHED ME UP. THE FAA WILL. THEY'RE A LOT WORSE. SO I TOOK THEIR MONEY. I TOOK THEIR OBLIGATIONS AND THAT'S IT. I CAN'T DISCRIMINATE TO. I DON'T WANT THOSE PEOPLE THERE THIS MORNING. I CAME INTO WORK. THERE'S TWO HOURS AND I GET TO WORK AROUNDS. 6 37 O'CLOCK. TWO AIRPLANES ARE FLYING AROUND THE AIRPORT. ONE WAS MARS TOWNS. FLIGHT SCHOOL, AND THE OTHER ONE WAS TRANS FLIGHT SCHOOL. WAS MY PEOPLE. OTHER QUESTIONS. UM REASON I PROPOSE THAT YOU BE HERE TONIGHT. BECAUSE YOU COULD GET IT FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH COMMENT BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC THAT WAS HERE THE OTHER DAY, AND I RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT ONLY TO YOU, ISN'T IT? AS A AS A RESIDENT AND OWNER, BUT TO THE PUBLIC AND SO IT IT SHOULD BE ANSWERED IN SOMEWHAT, AND SO I THOUGHT YOU WOULD BE THE LOGICAL ONE OR SOMEBODY OTHER THAN YOUR ATTORNEY. UH BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND SOMETHING. MY ATTORNEY WORKS THE AIRPORT. HE SPEAKS TO ME. HE RUNS THE AIRPORT. JUST THAT'S A FULL TIME JOB. BELIEVE IT. THIS IS PART TIME JOB PASSING IT ON MUCH IN THIS FAMILY. THAT'S WHY I GOT HIM. BUT IT'S AMAZING. SOME OF THE ISSUES WERE FAIRLY SMALL. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WAS A LEFT HAND TURN. SOMEBODY ONE OF THE FORMER MINISTER TRAITORS. MY SON WAS HERE TOO. AND HE BELIEVED IN AN ANSWER, UH, CAREER HERE. HE WAS HERE AND HE HE'S I DON'T SAY HE SPEAKS FOR ME. BUT YES, HE'S A PILOT. HE'S RUNNING THE AIRPORT. HE KNOWS ALL EVERYTHING . I KNOW. HE KNOWS THE TRAFFIC PATTERN HE KNOWS. SO JUST IN THE FUTURE, NOT NOW. I'M HERE GOT NO PROBLEM. I WAS OUT OF TOWN, AND I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A RELATIVELY AS YOU SAID, QUICK, ADMINISTRATIVELY THING BECAUSE WE'RE ALL DOING THERE SOME WATER LINE. I DON'T THINK WE WOULD GO TO A LEVEL OF CONVERSATION OF AIRCRAFT NOISE. BUT WE ARE WE ARE. WE'RE HERE. SO INSULTED BY NOT SHOWING UP. I'M SORRY. OKAY? I THOUGHT IT WASN'T GONNA BE A NOISE QUESTION. SO I'M HERE NOW.

QUESTION ABOUT THE RESOLUTION FROM FROM 2017. AND IN SECTION SEVEN, THERE'S A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT YOU ASKED TO BE CONSIDERED THAT THE CURRENT SITUATION. THE CURRENT STATE OF THE AIRPORT, YOU WERE REQUESTING THAT THAT ARE BEING KNOWLEDGE. UM ONE OF THOSE, FOR EXAMPLE, IS LIKE THE WIDTH OF THE RUNWAYS. YOU KNOW, IT'S 28. IT HAD BEEN 25 IN THE PLANS. ANOTHER WAS 18. AND IT WAS NOW 25. SOME OTHER THINGS ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE BUILDINGS AND THE DISTANCES BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS. SO MY QUESTION IS WHY ? WHY? AT THAT TIME DID THOSE NEED TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED? WHY WERE WE NOT? WHAT WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTED BACK IN 2017 WHEN THIS IS PASSED, OR LIKE WHAT CHANGED THAT MADE THESE NOT IN COMPLIANCE AT THAT TIME? MAYBE THEY WEREN'T COMPLAINING.

THAT SORT OF SAYING THE QUESTION. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. MY QUESTION IS SO SPECIFICALLY FOR THE INTERNET. 27 RESOLUTION. WE'RE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE RUNWAY WITH WENT FROM 18 TO 25 FT. AWAY WITH FROM 18, 21. EXCUSE ME. I GOTTA LOOK AT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. SOMETHING IS WRONG. THERE ALWAYS 75 FT WIDE. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WHAT'S SO IT'S DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THE WIDTH OF THE NORTHERN RUNWAY INCREASED FROM APPROXIMATELY 25 FT TO 28 FT. THE WIDTH OF THE SOUTHERN RUNWAY INCREASED FROM 18 TO 25 FT. DO YOU KNOW? ON NOT BEING SARCASTIC MILLION, NOT AS AS THIS HAS BEEN MOVING ON WHAT WE HAD TO DO IT AS A CONDITION OF THE APPROVAL AND THE SIGN OFF. WE HAD TO DO AN UPDATED AS BUILT SURVEY. SO I THINK THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS OF THE RUNWAY. THAT DIDN'T MEAN EXACTLY MY DESIGN WITH BABE. THIS CANCELS THE RUNWAY IS 75 FT, BUT I THINK THE THERE TO THE WEST REPORT OF THE OF THE AIRPORT RUNWAY. THERE ARE SOME DEVIATIONS THAT WAS AS BUILDING COMPARED TO WHAT WAS BUILT HAS CHANGED. AND SINCE WE WERE COMING IN FOR A MODIFICATION, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT WE NEEDED TO CITE THOSE MODIFICATIONS AND CHANGE. AND THEN WE ASK, YOU ALSO HAVE TO COME INTO DID THAT AFFECT THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN ANY REGARDS, WHICH I HAD ALSO JUSTIFY SO IT WAS JUST PICKED UP AS FAR AS THE AS BUILT AND SO WAS WAS, IT ADDS BUILT ORIGINALLY IT WAS LIKE IT NEVER HAD BEEN THAT. DID YOU EXPAND THE WIDTHS? I GUESS AT SOME POINT EXPLAIN TO YOU THE WAY IT WAS BUILT. MAYBE UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE ACTUALLY, MAYBE I CAN. MAYBE I CAN. I THINK I KNOW WHAT

[00:35:01]

YOU'RE ASKING. BECAUSE IN THE 2017 RESOLUTION YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU HAD IT'S SAYING THAT YOU HAD PRIOR APPROVALS FOR SIZE RUNWAY, ETCETERA. AND THEN WHEN YOU CAME BACK, YOU SAID, WELL, IT WASN'T QUITE EXACTLY WHAT WE GOT APPROVAL FOR. CORRECT YEAH, IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE WAY THE RUNWAY WAS BUILT IT WAS ALL WRONG LAND AND THE CONTRACTOR HUGE AMOUNT OF JOB. IT WAS A FIVE YEAR JOB. 45 YOUR JOB, AND EVIDENTLY HE BUILT SOME AREAS A LITTLE WIDER THAN HE SHOULD HAVE, AND THAT'S BASICALLY ABOUT IT THAT THAT'S IN A NUTSHELL. THAT AND IT WASN'T A SIGNIFICANT , YOU KNOW, BLATANT OUTRIGHT. WE DID MORE THAN WE SHOULD. IT WAS JUST I THINK IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES TO AN APPROVAL, I THINK IT NEEDS TO COME BEFORE US. CORRECT CANADA BUT WE DID COME IN FOR YOU IN 2017, BUT BUT AFTER IT WAS DONE BUT THAT'S BECAUSE WE PICKED WE PICKED UP AN AS BUILT IS WHAT WE DID REQUIRED TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD. I HAD TO DO A COMPLETE NEW AS BUILT FROM FISCAL ASSOCIATES, AND WHEN WE PUT THE FISCAL ASSOCIATES PLANS, THERE WERE MINOR DEVIATIONS. THEY WEREN'T MAJOR DEVIATIONS. I MEAN, IF YOU KNOW YOU YOU HAVE YOUR ROADWAY WITH SOME IN MONTGOMERY OR 30 FT WIDE, BUT IN THE SENSE SOME OF THEM ARE 29 TO 20, AND SOME OF THEM ARE 30. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT MAJOR DEVIATIONS WHERE YOU SAY, OH, MY GOODNESS. WE BUILT THE RODENTS. YOU'RE YOU'RE BUILDING CONCRETE AND ASPHALT. IT'S NOT YOU KNOW YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE US SIX INCH, FIVE INCH AREA CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCE . I MEAN, THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE DID IS, YOU KNOW IT WAS PICKED UP THAT WE WERE OVER IN SOME AREAS. IT WASN'T A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF AREA THAT WE WERE OVER WELL IF THE SOUTHERN TAXIWAY INCREASED FROM THE APPROVED 18 FT 25 FT THAT I'M NOT SLAGGING ENTIRE MATH, BUT THE ENTIRE LENGTH I MEAN, IT'S CITING THE WIDTH THE WIDTH. THE WIDTH OF THE SEVEN TAXIWAY HAS INCREASED IN THE APPROVED 18 FT. 25 FT. IN MY HEAD. THAT'S MORE THAN 30 30% THE CUT THROUGH SO WE'RE HERE. LOOK, I THINK IT'S THE CENTER PORTION HERE. THIS ONE RIGHT HERE. THAT LITTLE AREA IN BETWEEN WAS SUPPOSED TO BE 18 FT. I THINK IT CAME OUT TO BE 25. I MEAN, THAT'S A RUNWAY. THAT'S I MEAN, WE ADDRESSED THIS IN 2017. THAT'S THAT'S THE LITTLE STUFF THAT YOU KNOW IS THAT TREMENDOUS MISTAKE, BUT WHO DECIDES THAT ITS LITTLE OKAY? WHO DID WHAT WE SUBMITTED AN AS BUILT TO THE TO THE ENGINEER AT THE TIME, 17 PLANNING BOARD SAID SO AND THE WHOLE TIME AND THEN THEY MADE ME CHECK THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DETENTION BASINS THAT WERE DESIGNED COULD ADEQUATELY THAT YOU KNOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT A 25 FT LENGTH. FIVE FT OVER. I MEAN, IT'S NOT A GREAT AREA ABOUT 20% BUT YEAH, OKAY, A SHORT LENGTH. I GET IT. WE WENT THROUGH THAT EXERCISE, AND WE DEMONSTRATE THOSE DETENTION BASINS THAT WERE OUT THERE ARE ADEQUATE SIZE AND WE MOVED FORWARD. OKAY SO I GUESS THE REASON I RAISE IT. IT'S JUST IN THE LAST MEETING. AND THEN EVEN AS I'M READING THIS MEMO, THERE SEEMS TO BE A HISTORY OF NOT QUITE ALWAYS COMPLYING WITH THINGS. AND I THINK IN THE LAST MEETING EVEN WHEN WE WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE USE OF THE AIRPORT AND SOMEONE RAISED, UM YOU KNOW HOW HOW THIS, YOU KNOW BE MONITORED, AND I THINK YOU SAID WELL THAT THE TOWN TRIPS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT. AND I THINK THE MAYOR THEN RESPONDED, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU REALLY SHOULD ALSO BE SELF POLICING. SO THE THING THAT CONCERNS ME IS, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW THE TAXIWAYS CHANGED IN LENGTH AND WITH FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. UM A SIDEWALK THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE BUILT A LONG TIME AGO HASN'T HASN'T BEEN BUILT. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF INSTANCES OF JUST WHERE WE HAVEN'T BEEN COMPLAINING. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A CERTIFICATE OR WHAT ARGUMENTS IN YOUR USING THIS HANGAR FOR GATHERINGS WITHOUT EVEN A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MISSING . YOU'RE NOT, SIR. YOUR APPLES AND ORANGES. YOU JUMPING FROM ONE TO THE OTHER CERTIFICATE, AGASSIZ ON ONE, BUILDING THE GATHERINGS, WITH ANOTHER BUILDING TO BUILDING TWO MIXED UP IN A SECOND. THE ANSWER. I MEAN, I'VE BEEN HERE 35 YEARS PUT EVERY ASPHALT THERE IS BRAND NEW. I PUT IT IN. THERE'S TWO BUILDINGS THERE AND IS AND BE THE B'S AND C'S AND ONE OTHER BUILDING WHERE THERE'S THREE BUILDINGS I PUT IN ALL THOSE BUILDINGS. EVERYTHING'S BEEN DONE. WE LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE PLACE. I'VE PAID 2.6 MILLION IN PROPERTY TAX. OKAY SO YOU GUYS WORK FOR ME TOO, AND I'VE NOT. I DON'T EVEN SEND MY KIDS TO THE SCHOOLS. SO I AM A GOOD READABLE HERE. OKAY OKAY, 100, I HEAR YOU , BUT BUT AGAINST THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE THOSE. IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THERE'S A HISTORY OF NOT ALWAYS COMPLYING AND SO TO ME. WHEN IT COMES TO THIS DRY LINE AND REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR IT. I'D BE VERY

[00:40:06]

NERVOUS OF DOING THAT, BECAUSE IT'S A SAFETY. IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE. THAT'S THE FIRE MARSHAL'S . IT'S CALL, ISN'T IT? AND WE'RE GONNA WE'RE GONNA HEAR FROM HIM . I MEAN, YOU YOU LISTEN TO ME.

THAT'S THE FIRE MARSHAL WAS CALLED TO SAY IF WE HAVE A HANGER THAT'S USED IN THIS WAY.

IT'S NEVER BEEN YOU. IT'S NEVER BEEN USED FOR GATHERING BUT THE HANGER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

IT'S NEVER BEEN USED FOR GATHERING. OKAY, I'M JUST SAYING THAT I'M I THINK THAT THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE ON WHAT THE COMPLIANCE WITH, UM OTHER RESIDENTS YOU KNOW, WITH WITH THE ORIGINAL SITE MASTER PLAN AND OTHER THINGS THAT WERE PROMISED, NOT NECESSARILY ALWAYS BEING PROMISED. I WOULD FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE APPROVING NOT HAVING THIS THIS DRY LINE TO THIS BUILDING. UH, BECAUSE I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT. BUT IF THEY DRY, THE DRY LINE IS DEEMED NOT TO BE NECESSARY. QUITE YOUR FIRE MARSHAL THEN BY NOT PUTTING IT IN. WAS IT DOING? UNDERSTAND HE'S ONE. HE'S THE ONE WHO'S GONNA DO IT CONDITIONS. BOARD MEMBERS. THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA SINCE WE DO HAVE THE FIRE CHIEF WITH US TONIGHT. AH WE'RE GOING TO LET THE APPLICANT CONCLUDE THEIR PRESENTATION. AND THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM OUR PROFESSIONALS AND THE FIRE CHIEF , SO PERHAPS IT WOULD BE BEST TO HOLD SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS UNTIL YOU CAN SPEAK TO THE FIRE CHIEF DIRECTLY BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS RELYING ON WHAT THE FARC AND ACTUALLY JUST A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS JUST PERTAINING TO THE LAST, UM, APPLICATION THAT WAS APPROVED. I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF, IN FACT THE CONDITIONS WERE MET FROM FROM YOUR GUYS' PERSPECTIVE, THE ONLY THING THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN DONE AS THE SIDEWALK INSTALLATION OF THE SIDEWALK WAS NOT DONE. AND IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT, IF EVERYBODY ELSE WHAT THE SIDEWALK IS SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND IT. IT STARTS IN THE WHERE AND YOU KNOW WHERE IT GOES NOWHERE. MARK KENNEDY PLAN APPROVING THE PLAN WAS WHEN THEY BUILD WE DO IT ALL ONE FLOW AND THAT WAS THE IDEA OF IT, AND NOBODY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. IF YOU GUYS WANT ME TO PUT THE SIDEWALK IN FROM NOWHERE TO NOWHERE AND LET IT SIT FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, I'LL DO IT. IN FACT, THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO DO. I HIRED. I HIRED A GUY THAT WAS JUST ONE. THAT WAS THE SIDEWALK. CAN I HEAR YOU? I HEAR YOU COMPLIANCE WITH MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY RAY RAIMONDI. REQUIRING BEFORE ANY NEW BUILDINGS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO DRY WATER LINE SHALL BE INSTALLED TO SUPPLY WATER IN CASE OF A FIRE. SO THE NEW BUILDING HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED YET. YOU'RE SAYING CORRECT, CORRECT, OKAY? UM REVIEW AND APPROVAL SITE PLANS INSTALLATION OF MONUMENTS ALONG THE NON FIXED AIRCRAFT EASEMENT LINE, FILING THE DEED RESTRICTION FOR THE RAIN GARDEN, FILING THE SIDEWALK EASEMENT FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION, RESTORE AND MAINTAIN THE LAWN AREA, ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN AN ESCROW ACCOUNT SUFFICIENT TO PAY PROFESSIONAL REVIEWS AND INSPECTION FEES POSTED PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. ATTAIN ALL OTHER AGENCY BOARD ETCETERA APPROVALS AGAIN PERFORMS GUARANTEE PAYMENT OF A NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORDINANCE MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF MONTGOMERY ORDINANCE SECTION, 16 9.2 FOR GUARANTEES STARTED CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS. MUST SATISFY OR CONDITIONS OF PRIOR APPROVALS.

AND UH I GUESS THAT'S ABOUT IT. SO ALL OF THOSE HAVE BEEN AND WE DID GET A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION ON THE ON THE OTHER BUILDING THAT IS TALKING ABOUT TWO. WE HAD A FINAL. ALL OF THESE HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE RAIN GARDEN MAINTENANCE, WHICH I HELD OFF ON SO YOU'RE PULLING THAT OUT OF ME WHILE WE'RE GOING TO FILE IT? THE REASON WHY I HELD OFF IS BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS GOING TO AMEND THIS PLAN TO MEET THE NEW STORMWATER RAGS AND I DIDN'T WANT TO FILE OLD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, SO WE'LL FILE IT NOW BECAUSE IT'S DONE AND RICK HAS HAS STANDARD VIEW IT, BUT IT WAS JUST WHY DO SOMETHING WHEN I KNEW IT WAS GOING TO CHANGE AND HAVE SOME FILE DOCUMENT THAT YOU GOTTA YANK SO WE CAN DO IT NOW, SINCE IT'S BEEN DESIGNED THAT WAS FIVE YEARS AGO, THOUGH. YES, IT WAS FIVE YEARS AGO. SO DID YOU KNOW FIVE YEARS AGO THAT YOU'D BE COMING BACK IN FIVE YEARS, SO THAT'S WHY HE DIDN'T DO EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO USE. IN FIVE YEARS WE HAD TO DO ALL THOSE THINGS IN THAT CHECKLIST WAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT ITSELF TOOK OVER A YEAR. ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU ASKED THE MEATS ABOUT DESCRIPTIONS, THE MONUMENTS, MONUMENTS THAT HAD TO GO IN THE PAVEMENT. IT'S MONEY BE IT HAD TO GET DONE. IT GETS REVIEWED, SO THAT WAS THE MAINTENANCE MANUAL WAS THE LAST THING THAT I HAD TO ADDRESS AND AT THAT TIME, WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN TWO OR THREE YEARS LATER, GOING RIGHT. I KNEW THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RAGS CHANGED. THE CANAL COMMISSION IS NOT YOUR REGULATIONS IN THE CANAL COMMISSION REGULATION WRECKED NEW THEY WERE GOING TO ASK NEW STORMWATER MANAGEMENT,

[00:45:04]

OKAY? SO EVERYTHING ELSE BONDS REVIEWS, ETCETERA. ALL THEN DONE. YES, SIR. GREAT. OKAY.

SARAH. OKAY SO IF THE TOWNSHIP IS WILLING, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO START UP THE AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGAIN? TO SOME FORM OF IT. YES I'D BE OPEN TO HAVING CONVERSATION FORM OF IT. THE SAME THING THAT WE HAD EXISTING WOULD BE THE WAY IT WAS ORIGINALLY THAT WAS SET UP BACK BACK IN THE DAY WE WOULD AGREE TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. YES YEAH. LONG AS THE TOWN TREATS ME RIGHT. I'LL GO IN WITH SWEET. YEAH WELL, THIS IS NOT. THIS IS NOT A QUID PRO QUO, BUT IT'S A TWO WAY STREET. MAKE NO MISTAKE. YOU BEAT A MAN UP ONLY SO MANY TIMES WE HAVE WE HAVE HAVEN'T DOCUMENTATION OF HOW IT WAS ORIGINALLY SET UP. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GONNA AGREE TO DO.

ALRIGHT I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE TOWNSHIP WILL WANT TO. I PERSONALLY WOULD RECOMMEND IT ALREADY OUTCRY THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE AUDIENCE. I THINK WE DO NEED TO HAVE IT. I MEAN, IT'S TOO AS I UNDERSTAND WITH CANNONS. WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO SAY IS WHEN HE GETS THE PHONE CALLS, THEY'RE IRATE PHONE CALLS. SO YOU DON'T GET A DIALOGUE THIS WAY, THE CONVERSATIONS CAN GO TO THE ZONING OFFICIAL. AND THEN THERE COULD BE A LITTLE BUFFER, AND AT THAT TIME IT CALMS IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT. UM WORK PROVED JUST JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

THERE'S ACTUALLY AN ORDINANCE ABOUT IT. BUT I THINK THE DETERMINATION AS TO YEAH, IT MAY HAVE EXPIRED. THAT'S REALLY UP TO THE TEAM. HOLD ALL SETTLEMENT EXPIRED. SO IF YOU WANT TO RESURRECT THAT SECTION OF THE SETTLEMENT IS WHAT I BELIEVE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THIS. THIS IS THE DETERMINATION FOR THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE AND THE MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY, BUT, UM, SARAH, WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD COULD DO IS RECOMMEND TO THE GOVERNING BODY. WE CAN ALSO INDICATE THAT MR NUREMBERG IS AMENABLE TO DOING THAT. BUT THE PLANNING BOARD IS NOT A PARTY TO ANY OF THAT, SO ALL WE COULD DO IS RECOMMEND TO THE GOVERNING BODY THAT IT SHOULD BE REINSTATED. UM AND THE GOVERNING BODY WOULD DECIDE SHOULD THEY RE ADOPT A NEW ORDINANCE OR HOW SHOULD IT PROCEED? RIGHT I WOULD CERTAINLY FEEL BETTER IF WE COULD RECOMMEND THAT. TO THE TOWNSHIP. AND IF YOU'RE WILLING TO DO THAT, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR NUREMBERG. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY OR THE BUILDING THAT HAS THE TEMPORARY CEO ON IT. YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT HAS RECEIVED ALL OF ITS FINAL INSPECTIONS? YES. HAVE A STICKER YESTERDAY. THEY DIDN'T BRING THE STICK AROUND. ACTUALLY MIGHT CEO HAS BEEN THE PERMANENT CEO HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THAT BUILDING THEN OR STILL IN PROCESS OR BECAUSE WE'RE WAITING FOR THE OFFICIALLY WE'RE WAITING FOR THE ALP TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE PLANTER AND THAT WENT ON FOR YEARS. AND NOW LIKE WE, WE ASSUME IT IS. I GUESS, SHERRY, BASICALLY, WE'RE DOWN TO SIDEWALKS. GOTTA GET DONE THAT NEXT, AND THAT'S IT, UM, ALSO UNDERSTAND FROM THE TANGIBLE MINISTRATIONS THAT SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FINES HAS ACCRUED. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS THAT TONIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO.

WE'RE GONNA CONSTRUCTION BORDERS SOMERSET COUNTY AND DEAL WITH IT. I TRIED. I REACHED OUT TO ROY. ROY IS BUSY. HE HASN'T TRIED. WE TALKED ABOUT IT. HIM AND ALICIA READING IT TOGETHER.

WE'RE GONNA SIT DOWN AND TALK ABOUT IT AND THEY'VE BEEN BUSY. I'M NOT GOING TO BEAT THEM UP.

BUT YOU KNOW IF WE CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT, OR V CAN DO ADMINISTRATIVELY WILL GO TO THE COUNTY BOARD. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY AND THANK YOU FOR COMING. ANOTHER QUESTION, TONY. MR SMITH AND IN 2017 AT THAT MEETING. UH YOU SAID THAT THE SIDEWALK WILL BE BUILT NOW. I? THAT'S A QUOTE.

AND I JUST WONDERED WHEN NOW IS OR WAS IT JUST THE SIDEWALK WITH IT, BUT THE HEART POWER THE POWER LINES UP. SAY AGAIN. WHERE'S THAT SIDEWALK SIDE WILL GIVE YOU ON THE FENCE. AS A BYWORD. THEY PUT THE POWER LINES UP. IT'S ON MY SIDE. YEAH, AND IT'S UNDERSTAND IT'S GOING TO GO. THERE'S 600 FT OF IT. OKAY, SO IT'S GONNA IT'S GONNA START IN THE MIDDLE OF MY PROPERTY, THE EDGE OF MY PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE MIDDLE OF THE WHOLE RUN, AND IT'S GONNA STOP. MADISON.

MARQUETTE IS NEVER GOING TO BUILD RIGHT NOW. THEY WOULD GO NOWHERE NEVER WAS AND IF WE BUILT IT WAS THEORETICALLY SUPPOSED TO DECIDE WILL COME APART AND YOU WILL BE PAYING REPAIR BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE AN 8 10 YEAR OLD. CONCRETE THING. IT'S GARBAGE AND WHO'S GOING TO

[00:50:02]

MAINTAIN IT? IT MADE NO SENSE AT ALL. WHAT THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS. I ALSO DID THE PRINCETON UM BAKER CRISIS DEEPENED JARS AND WE WERE THINKING THE INTENT WAS BRANDON WAS GOING TO BUILD THE AUTO PLACE, WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED AND AS HE BUILDS THAT, JUST CONTINUE UP. I MEAN, JUST TO RETAIN ITS A SMALL SECTION OF SIDEWALK. WE'RE NOT TALKING AT 600 FT. SO WE WERE THINKING, OK, WE'LL GO FROM POINT A TO POINT B, YOU KNOW, THEN YOU HAD THE COVID. AND YOU HAD THE AUDIT DEALERSHIPS TAKING A HIT AND THAT PROJECT IS NOT UNDERWAY. AND I GOT THAT APPROVAL MANY YEARS AGO. UM SO IT WAS JUST THOUGHT THAT THE CONTRACTOR THAT WAS BEING RETAINED FOR BRANDON BAKER'S AUTO DEALERSHIP. WHICH IS IN THE. THE SOUTHEAST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. WHEN HE WAS BUILDING HIS SIDEWALK. WE WOULD BUILD THERE, SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE JUST DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT. WE JUST FIGURED HAD WE HAD DIFFERENT ELEMENTS THAT WE WERE COMBINING EITHER WITH HIS CANCER WITH MADISON, MARQUETTE OR WITH THE CONTRACTOR WITH BRANDON BAKER. I MEAN AND, YOU KNOW. AS IT ALL FITTING IS KIND OF SAYING THAT SIDEWALK WOULD HAVE BEEN SITTING FOR 10 YEARS. NOT ONLY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET A NEW SIDEWALK, WHICH I THINK MASTER MARKET IS ACTUALLY FINALLY BUILDING. WE'RE GONNA GIVE YOU A FIVE FT SIDEWALK, WHICH IS THE CORRECT WITH THAT SHOULD BE FOR THE FOR THE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING TO BE ON. IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. BUT IT DOESN'T HURT THE RULES THAT AGAIN THAT IF YOU HAVE A PLAN THAT'S BEEN APPROVED. AND YOU MAKE A STATEMENT THAT SAYS WE'RE GOING TO BUILD IT NOW AND THEN, FOR VERY GOOD REASONS. YOU DECIDE NOT TO. DON'T YOU COME BACK AND SAY THIS PLANNING BOARD. I KNOW YOU APPROVED THE PLAN THAT HOW ABOUT GIVE ME A BREAK ON THE SIDEWALK BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE WOULDN'T COME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD. IF WE WERE, WE WERE ALWAYS INTENDED TO BUILD IT. IT WAS. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE YOU'RE IT WAS A CHECKLIST ITEM THAT WE NEEDED TO COMPLETE. SO NOW WE'RE AT THE FINAL PHASE ONE. WE'RE TRYING TO COMPLETE THESE ITEMS AND WHAT MR CHAMPIONS WENT OVER HIS ALL THE THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE COMPLETED. IT WAS A DAUNTING TASK. THIS IS THE PRINCETON AIRPORT, 100 ACRES OF LAND WITH EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS AND IN MY WATERLINE, PSE AND G. IT WAS A DAUNTING TASK JUST IN YEARS TO GET THAT DONE, SO IT'S NOT LIKE YOU KNOW, IT'S A LOT OF MONEY FOR THIS. AND TWO OTHER UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS THE PUBLIC GOOD FOR THE SIDEWALK OF YOUR GOES NOWHERE FROM NOWHERE AND THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T A QUESTION OF WE NEED THE SIDEWALK IN SO WE CAN MOVE PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T MOVE PEOPLE AROUND THERE. THERE'S MUD ON EITHER SIDE AND THE EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK. YOU TAKE A NICE SIDE WALKING AND GO INTO A NICE PILE OF MUD. AND THEN FOR A WHILE AND ALSO QUITE FRANKLY. SHERRY'S GOT MORE MONEY IN ESCROW STILL FROM OH, FOUR. A FOR THAT, SO IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF MONEY, BECAUSE ONCE I BUILT A THE CONCRETE, WHICH IS WHAT I'M GOING TO GET DONE VERY SOON. I'M GOING TO GET MY MONEY BACK AND I'M GETTING MORE BACK THAN I'M SPENDING. SO WAS HE THE MONEY THING? I JUST NOTICED, QUITE FRANKLY STUPID TO PUT ASIDE, WE'LL GO NOWHERE AND THEN IT GOES BAD AND THEN I HAVE TO MAINTAIN IT. WELL, WHAT WOULD THE RESPECT THOUGH IT WAS APPROVED BECAUSE FIVE YEARS AGO MADISON MARKET WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GIVE APPROVAL TO BAKER TO BUILD WOULD HAVE DONE IT TOGETHER. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GREAT, BUT YOU DIDN'T DO IT. AND THEN AND THEN I'M I STILL QUESTION WHETHER I GIVE YOU THE MONEY AND BUILD IT WHEN IT'S GOING TO BE USED AS OPPOSED TO BUILDING NOW LET IT GO DETERIORATE AND THEN USE IT. YOU KNOW, WE CAN WAIT ANOTHER 20 YEARS AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO I , YOU KNOW, ONE IS JUST ONE OF THE BUILDINGS THE BUILDING. I'LL GO EITHER SIDE OF ME, BUT GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. I DID SEE SOMEBODY A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. START DOWN THAT HILL ON A MOBILITY SCOOTER. I DIDN'T I WAS DRIVING THROUGH. I DIDN'T STAY TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED, BUT THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO GET TO THE SIDEWALK IS THE PROBLEM. THE SIDEWALK IS GOING TO BE ON THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT IT'S GONNA BE UP BY THE FRENCH LINE WITH HIS OWN MUD. THAT'S PROBABLY YOU CAN'T ACCESS THE THING. IT'S AN ISLAND. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. I'M GOING TO BUILD IT. YOU'LL SEE. I SUPPOSE THE TOWNSHIP COULD TEMPORARILY CONNECTED TO THE, UM THE SHOULDER OF THE HIGHWAY. IT DOESN'T GO THAT FAR. YOU DON'T WANT J D YOU WANT TO SHOW WHETHER I KNOW WHAT SHE'S SAYING ? I GOT IT DOESN'T YOU CAN'T GET TO IT. SHE'S SAYING THE CREATIVE HANDICAP YOU HAVE A TIRE WINCH. OKAY. UM, ANYTHING ELSE? CONTROLS NECESSARY, RIGHT? SCROLL MONEY AND DEVELOPS NEXT TO YOU, THEN IT COULD BE THEN DONE. THAT'S SHE'S GOT $36,000 OF ONE ESCROW, THIS BUNCH OF OTHER ONES TOO. AND THE AND THE QUOTES COME IN ABOUT 30 GRAND TO DO THE JOB THERE. THEIR APPROVAL WAY. WE'RE JUST SAYING YOU WANT TO DO IT NOW? OR TRY THINK THAT'S KIND OF RIDICULOUS. AWESOME I'M GONNA PUT THE THING IN. WE WANT TO BE MORE CONVERSATIONS. AND THEN WHEN THE THING DETERIORATES, WE'LL SEE. WE'LL SEE IF WE GET TO BUILDING

[00:55:02]

IN NEXT TO ME SO WE CAN ACTUALLY USE OR NOT. THAT WILL BE THE FIVE OR 10 YEARS. WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT WITH YOUR SON. THAT'S HIS PROBLEM. AND MAYBE YOUR SON OKAY , UM, BEFORE WE FINISH UP, JUST I WOULD STRONGLY URGE SO THAT YOU RECONSIDER STATEMENT EARLIER THAT YOU'VE HEARD NO ABOUT NO NOISE COMPLAINTS? I NEVER SAID THAT I NEVER THE MAYOR'S GAVE, YOU KNOW, NOISE COMPLAINT.

THAT'S WHAT I SAID. IT'S NOT PEOPLE. YOU KNOW. PEOPLE CALL I GOT THAT THE MAYORS OF THE TOWN DID NOT EVER COMING TO TALK TO ME ABOUT NOISE COMPLAINTS. THAT'S WHAT I SAID. OKAY THAT'S NOT HOW I HEARD IT. BUT SO YOU SEE, YOU WERE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT COMPLAINTS FROM THE COMMUNITY ABSOLUTELY JUST WANTED TO GET IT WASN'T NO. THOSE THREE PEOPLE. PEOPLE. THE ROCKY HILL GUY. THE FIRST TIME I MET HIM WAS AT MY HOUSE, AND I'VE NEVER MET THE MAYOR, THE MAYOR OF MONTGOMERY, ONE AND AGAIN, THEY'RE NOT HERE TO, YOU KNOW, AGREE OR DISAGREE SO, BUT THE PUBLIC IS OKAY. AND I WOULD URGE YOU TO LISTEN AND YOU KNOW, I THINK SARAH'S CORRECT IN THAT WE CAN ONLY RECOMMEND AND SUGGEST BECAUSE THAT'S OUT OF OUR PURVIEW. BUT THERE CERTAINLY SHOULD THAT THAT COMMITTEE SHOULD BE RESURRECTED . I THINK JUST FOR YOU FOR YOUR SON'S WELL BEING, AND THEN LET HIM DO YEARS AND FOR THE PUBLIC AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THAT OPEN DIALOGUE SHOULD HAPPEN, BUT IT'S JUST ONE MAN'S OPINION. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. A WOMAN IN A MAN'S OPINION. OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE ASKED THE FIRE DOWN AMONG TO COME UP THE FIRE GENTLEMAN, MR CARDUCCI DUTY. NOW, IN THIS CASE, HE WILL SWEAR YOU IN THEN YOU'RE GOOD TO GO.

YOU'RE GOOD TO GO. ALL RIGHT? AH I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING THAT WAS SAID, UM I'M ONLY SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE FIRE COMPANY AND THE FIREFIGHTERS NOT FOR ROY MONDI AND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT. I HAVE NO PART IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT AND WHAT ROY AND HIS GUYS ENFORCED ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. I HAVE NO CODE ENFORCEMENT POWERS. AH SO JUST KEEP IT QUICK, BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO TALK HERE. UM BASICALLY, IN SHORT, WE ARE OKAY WITH GETTING RID OF THE 2000 FT EIGHT INCH DRY LINE. UM I DON'T I CAN GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THE BOARD WISHES, BUT , UH IN GENERAL, WE ACTUALLY JUST DON'T FEEL THAT IT'S NECESSARY. I WAS NOT IN CHARGE WHEN THE DRY LINE WAS PUT IN, SO I CAN'T COMMENT ON TO THE STRATEGY AND TACTICS AS TO WHY THAT WAS ORIGINALLY IN THE PLAN . I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S PART OF THE FIRE CODE OR ANY OF THAT THING. IT'S NOT PART OF FAA CODE. UM THE ONLY THINGS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IS THAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, UH NOT CHANGED FROM S TWO STORAGE. UM FOR WHAT IT IS STORING OF AIRPLANES AND VEHICLES, NO BULK STORAGE OF ANY KIND OF FLAMMABLES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT , EITHER DRY OR LIQUID. UM, OBVIOUSLY NO GATHERINGS OR NOT.

HANGER FOR PEOPLE TO BE HANGING OUT, AND IT'S JUST STRICTLY FOR STORY OF THE AIRPLANES. UM AND THEN THAT EACH UNIT HAS A £10, ABC DRY CHEMICAL EXTINGUISHER, UM, AT THE MINIMUM SIZE SHOULD THE FIRE CODE. UH DICTATE A LARGER SIZE FIRE EXTINGUISHER. THAT SHOULD BE THE MINIMUM SIZE IN EACH UNIT. AND YOU ALSO SAY IN YOUR MEMO, CHIEF THAT THERE SHALL BE NO LARGE GATHERINGS IN THE PROPOSED HANGER, CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT AND WHAT IS LARGE? DO YOU HAVE A NUMBER IN MIND? I THINK FOR A PERMIT YOU NEED 50 50 PEOPLE WOULD DICTATE A LARGE GATHERING, WHICH WOULD BE A PERMANENT GATHERING. I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THAT. BUT BASED ON THE SIZE OF THOSE HANGERS, AND MR NUREMBERG HAS SHOWED ME AROUND THE AIRPORT. I WENT DOWN THERE WITH MY DEPUTY CHIEF.

THOSE UNITS ARE NOT VERY LARGE, SO FITTING 50 PEOPLE IN THERE YOU'D BE PACKED SHOULDER TO SHOULDER. I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE. UM SO I GUESS YOU COULD SAY 50 PEOPLE IF YOU NEEDED TO PICK A NUMBER. CHIEF JUST A QUESTION. YOU WOULD INDICATED THAT YOU DON'T HAVE CODE ENFORCEMENT POWERS. WOULDN'T THE APPLICANT NEED TO APPLY FOR PERMITS? FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OFFICIAL IF THEY WANT TO DO ANYTHING THERE OTHER THAN STORAGE WOULD THINK SO.

OKAY, SO WHETHER WHETHER, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, YOU'RE SAYING NO LARGE GATHERINGS. WE JUST DON'T WANT A LOT OF PEOPLE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE THE WAY WE LOOK AT IT FROM A FIREFIGHTING PERSPECTIVE IS IT'S AIRPLANES AND CARS, WHICH, AT THE END OF THE DAY, OUR PROPERTY IT DOESN'T PRESENT A LIFE HAZARD. IT'S NOT A PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO GATHER, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE PRIMARILY

[01:00:04]

FOCUSED ON PROTECTING HIS PEOPLE . YES WE WANT TO PROTECT PROPERTY, BUT THAT'S A LITTLE LOWER ON THE LIST WERE MAINLY CONCERNED ABOUT HUMANS AND LIVES . SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE OKAY WITH AS LONG AS THERE'S JUST STUFF THERE. WE CAN REPLACE STUFF. WE CAN'T REPLACE PEOPLE SO BUT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IF THE APPLICANT WANT TO HAVE GATHERINGS THEY STILL NEED TO GO TO THE CONSTRUCTION OFFICIAL AND GET A PERMIT TO DO THAT. YES I WOULD BELIEVE THE YOUTH GROUP OF THE BUILDING WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE. SO WOULD PROBABLY SOME OF THE REGULATIONS THAT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT AND WOULD HAVE TO ENFORCE OR CHANGE OUR THEIR BUILDINGS. OTHER BUILDINGS OR HANGERS ON THE SITE. I MEAN, I KNOW IN THE PAST, WE'VE HAD, LIKE FUN FEST THERE HAVE BEEN THERE. UM, THAT COULD BE USED FOR LARGE GATHERINGS FROM A FIRE SAFETY PERSPECTIVE OR NONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS REALLY? SUITABLE FOR THAT, UH, WELL AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ASPECT, SO IT'S KIND OF TOUGH FOR ME TO COMMENT.

THAT'S THAT'S ROY AND HIS GUYS. UM YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS I DON'T WANT TO COMMENT ON THE APPLICABILITY OF PREVIOUS EXISTING BUILDINGS CONCERNED WITH PUTTING THE FIRES OUT, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT MY JOB IS HERE, AND THAT'S WHY WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE DRY LINE BECAUSE OF DRY LINE THE WAY IT'S SET UP IS VERY HARD TO MAINTAIN. SO KIND OF WHEN YOU NEED THEM. IT'S LIKE 15 YEARS FROM NOW, AND THE LINES CRACKED, AND IT'S JUST IT'S THEY'RE NOT REALLY PRACTICAL. UM THE OTHER THING IS DRY LINE IS GOOD IF THE FIRE IS RIGHT THERE, BUT OBVIOUSLY, LIKE MR NUREMBERG SAID, HE'S GOT 100 ACRES OF LAND, SO THE WAY WE RESPOND TO THE AIRPORT IS DIFFERENT THAN WHEN. THEN AWAY. WE RESPOND TO ANOTHER BUILDING, SAY, SHOPPING CENTER. SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE A LARGE LANDMASS WOULD NOT ALLOW TO HYDRANTS. WE HAVE TO BRING IN TANKER TRUCKS, WHICH WERE PREPARED FOR BECAUSE 50% OF OUR DISTRICT DOESN'T HAVE FIRE HYDRANTS. SO A LOT OF WHAT WE DEAL WITH IS NO FIRE HYDRANTS. CHIEF IN YOUR OPINION, JUST ASKING YOUR OPINION AS AS THE FIRE CHIEF. THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION ORIGINAL ORIGINAL I BELIEVED WAS, I BELIEVE WAS FOR A WHAT'S THE OPPOSITE OF A DRY LINE OF WET LINE LINE? YEAH, OKAY. THAT WAS THEN CHANGED TO A DRY LINE. NOW THEY'RE PROPOSING NO LINE, CORRECT, OKAY? IS THAT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY UH, IT'S NOT. I DON'T KNOW IF THE COMMUNITY HAS AN INTEREST AT THE END OF THE DAY. IT'S ALMOST LIKE MY PROBLEM THAT I HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DEAL WITH. SHOULD THERE BE, UH, AN INCIDENT THERE, BUT LIKE I SAID, HALF OF WHAT WE PROTECT NOW DOESN'T HAVE A FIRE HYDRANT. AND THESE ARE PEOPLE WHERE PEOPLE LIVE IN THEIR HOUSES, AGREED. SO WE ARE USED TO OPERATING AND WE'VE BECOME PROFICIENT AND OPERATING IN AREAS. WITHOUT FIRE HYDRANTS WHEN WE DO HAVE LIFE HAZARD USES, WE HAVE A SCHOOL THAT IS, DOESN'T HAVE A FIRE HYDRANT. CONNECTED TO IT. SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE USED TO NOW, AND THAT'S WHY WE JUST DON'T FEEL THAT THE DRY HYDRANTS AND ASSESS IT. E, UM WE? IT'S JUST IT'S ALSO JUST NOT REALLY PRACTICAL. WE CAN ONLY PUMP THAT DRY HYDRANT AT THE CAPABILITY OF THE LINE AT 206, THEN WHEN IT COMES TO FRICTION LOSS, AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO PERFORMANCE OF THE DRY LINE IS REALLY NOT THAT GREAT. IT'S NOWHERE NEAR THE WHAT A REGULAR WET LINE WOULD BE AND THE WET LINE COMING DOWN. THAT ROAD IS REALLY NOTHING. IT'S NOT A HUGE LINE ANYWAY, SO IT'S NOT GIVING US A TON OF WATER, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE USED TO WERE USED TO FIGHTING FIRES WITH NOT A LOT OF WATER. AND WHAT? WHAT'S ON THE IS THAT THERE'S NOT A DRY LINE OR WHAT LINE FOR ANY OF THE BUILDINGS THERE RIGHT NOW, SO THERE IS THERE'S I BELIEVE THERE'S TWO OR THREE HYDRANTS ON A PROPERTY. UM THERE'S ONE AT THIS. THE STORAGE FACILITY, WHICH IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, THERE'S ONE RIGHT AT THE BEND. AS THE ROAD COMES TO THE LEFT, THE DRIVEWAY COMES TO LEFT, AND THERE'S ONE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE. OF LIKE THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING . I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR TERMINOLOGY IS FOR IT, YEAH. SO THERE IS. YEAH, THERE'S ONE RIGHT WHERE THE CURSOR IS. ANOTHER ONE. I THINK RIGHT HERE. YEAH, THERE'S ONE RIGHT AT THE BEND. AND THEN THERE'S ONE BITE OF STORAGE, THE DRIVEWAY TO THE STORAGE FACILITY AS WELL. YES.

YEAH. AND SO IF ARE THOSE NECESSARY BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING AT THIS POINT LIKE A DRY LINE DOESN'T REALLY HELP WITH THIS BUILDING. SO WHY? WHY ARE THOSE THERE? I MEAN, IN ALL PRACTICALITY. IF WE COULD HAVE A FIRE HYDRANT ON EVERY CORNER, WE WOULD, BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE KIND OF A COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO AT LEAST THE WAY I SEE IT IS THE COST OF PUTTING THIS IN FOR MR NUREMBERG AND THE PRACTICALITY OF IT, WORKING PERFECTLY FOR US WHEN WE NEED IT. IS JUST NOT

[01:05:02]

WORTH IT. IT'S NOT WORTH THE SHAKE. UM IT'S A LONG PIPE. ANIMALS GET IN THERE. DIRT GETS IN THERE. GRIME GETS IN THERE THEY END UP CORRODING AND FALLING APART OVER TIME, AND WE GO TO OTHER MUNICIPALITIES WHICH HAVE THESE SYSTEMS AND THEY END UP GETTING GUMMED UP WITH STAFF, AND THEY DON'T WORK AND ALL THIS STUFF THAT WINDS UP IN THAT 2000 FT OF PIPE WINDS UP INSIDE OF THE FIRE TRUCK, AND THEN THAT'S A BIGGER PROBLEM. SO THEY'RE NICE, PROBABLY ON DAY ONE AND YEAR ONE. THEY DETERIORATE OVER TIME. AND LIKE I SAID, TO REALLY ONLY AS GOOD AS THE BEST HYDRANT THAT'S CLOSE BY, BUT WHEN YOU TAKE FRICTION LOSS INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE HOSE CONNECTING FROM THE HYDRANT TO THE DRY LINE. IT'S JUST NOT VERY FEASIBLE, AND IT'S A TIME CONSUMING OPERATIONS SET UP. TIME CONSUMING TO SET UP, GOD FORBID THERE'S A FIRE. BECAUSE NOW I NEED TO DEDICATE A FIRE ENGINE TO STAY THERE. SO THE FIRST FIRE ENGINE HAS TO GO TO WHERE THE FIRE IS. THEN I HAVE TO HAVE A SECOND FIRE ENGINE BE AT THE ONE END OF THE DRY LINE AND THE OTHER FIRE ENGINE AT THE OTHER END OF THE DRY LINE WHEN REALLY THE BEST WAY IN THE EASIEST WAY AND THE WAY WE TRAIN TO FIGHT FIRES IN AN ON HYDROGEN AREAS, THE USE OF TANKERS SO WITH THE TANKER TRUCK. THEY CARRY 3500 GALLONS OF WATER. WE CAN JUST RUN THEM IN A CIRCLE.

THERE'S A HYDRANT BY BURGER KING , WHICH IS ON A 48 INCH MAIN, WHICH FILLS UP THE TANKER TRUCKS VERY QUICKLY AND WE CAN SHUTTLE 2000 GALLONS OF WATER A MINUTE, UH, WITH TANKERS. THAT'S SIMPLER. IT'S THE WAY WE PRACTICE NOW. WE DON'T HAVE ANY DRY LINES, SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'RE ACCUSTOMED TO USING. WE JUST GO TO THE TANKERS WHEN WE NEED WATER. SO AS AS THE FIRE CHIEF, SHOULD SOMETHING HAPPEN IN THIS BUILDING YOUR PREFERRED WAY TO FIGHT IT WOULD BE WITH A TANKER TRUCK. YES AND THAT'S ASSUMING YOU KNOW WE HAVE AN INCIDENT AT THIS BUILDING. IF YOU HAD SOMETHING ON THE FAR END OF THE RUNWAY, WE WOULD NEED TO USE TANKERS. ANYWAYS THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO THAT. THIS IS THIS WOULD JUST BE JUST LOOKING AT THIS. THIS ONE BUILDING THEN.

YEAH, IT'S THE EASIEST WAY TO DO IT. CHIEF JUST AH, MINISTRATIONS QUESTION. SURE OH, WAS MARCH 8TH 2021, BUT I UNDERSTAND YOU REVISED IT TODAY. IT'S THE SAME EXCEPT YOU REMOVED. UM YOUR REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT LET YOU DRILL FOR AH! DRILL ON THE ON THE PREMISES ONCE A YEAR.

CORRECT THAT'S JUST WHAT I WANTED TO THANK YOU. MR BANDUCCI. I KNOW YOUR INTEREST IS MINIMIZING. UH HARM TO ANY PEOPLE. CORRECT I THINK YOU KNOW I SHARE THAT YES. UH, SO CONSIDERING THAT WOULD WOULD YOU OBJECT IF AND WHERE WE TO PUT A CONDITION ON OUR APPROVAL. WOULD YOU OBJECT TO REDUCING THAT NUMBER FROM 50 TO SAY 20? NO, I WOULD NOT OBJECT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE REASON I THINK LARGE AND I SAID 50 IS, I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED FOR A PERMIT. BUT SHOULD THE PLANNING BOARD FEEL THAT AS A SMALLER NUMBER WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE? IT CERTAINLY BE MORE, YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY BE IN SUPPORT OF THAT. CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN THAT AGAIN? THAT THE REASON IT SAYS LARGE AND I CHOSE THE NUMBER 50 IS BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE FOR A PERMANENT GATHERING. SHOULD THE BOARD FEEL THAT A SMALLER NUMBER IS MORE APPROPRIATE? I WOULD CERTAINLY BE IN SUPPORT OF THAT. SO IF YOU WANTED TO GO WITH MR BLOCKERS, RECOMMENDATION OF 20 PEOPLE I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THAT. IT'S REALLY SHOULDN'T BE ANY GATHERINGS THERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. WHAT ABOUT ZERO? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD SAY ZERO, BUT I, I GUESS THE CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT GIVEN THIS AS TWO STORAGE USE GROUP THE CHAMPAGNE. THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT. SO I THINK FROM THE BOARD'S PERSPECTIVE, I UNDERSTAND. THE CHIEF HAS SAID WELL, FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE AS THE FIREFIGHTER. NO LARGE GATHERINGS. WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I THINK THE CHIEF THAT'S CONFIRMED THAT THAT IT'S IT WOULD NOT BE FOR HIM. TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. IT'S UP TO THE CONSTRUCTION OFFICIAL FOR SPECIFIC EVENT IF THE AIRPORT SAID WE WANT TO USE THE HANGAR, THERE WILL BE PEOPLE IN THE HANGAR. THEY NEED TO GO TO THE CONSTRUCTION OFFICIAL AND MAKING APPLICATION SAY HERE'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A MATTER FOR THE BOARD OF PICKING A NUMBER AND SAYING 25 50 30. AND I THINK IF THE BOARD IS INCLINED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION, WE COULD MAKE THAT CLEAR IN OUR FINDINGS THAT THIS IS OUR UNDERSTANDING STORY. CONSTRUCTION OFFICIALS ASSUMES HE GOES TO THE CONSTRUCTION OFFICIALS TO GET PERMISSION TO HAVE 1/20 30 PERSON PARTY, SAYING HE MAY NOT ACT GO TO THE

[01:10:01]

CONSTRUCTION OFFICIALLY MAY JUST GO AHEAD AND HAVE A PARTY FOR 30 PEOPLE. AND IT WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW THAT WE HAD SOMETHING IN OUR MATERIAL THAT SAYS HE SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT. YES AND I AGREE WITH THAT, AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THE FINDINGS COULD REFLECT THAT. IN FACT, YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY GATHERINGS. UNLESS YOU HAVE SPECIFIC APPROVAL NOW FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OFFICIALS, BUT THIS BOARD IS NOT IS NOT AUTHORIZING ANY GATHERING. THAT THAT THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO CONVEY THAT INSTEAD OF INSTEAD OF FIXING ON WHAT THE CHIEF SAID, WHICH IS NO LARGE GATHERINGS, WELL, HE'S ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT'S NOT REALLY THAT'S NOT HIS CALL. HE'S SAYING PRACTICALLY SPEAKING. SHOULDN'T BE ANY PEOPLE IN THERE ANYWAY. SO THERE. THERE ARE PROBABLY PEOPLE IN THERE. OCCASIONALLY SOMEBODY TAXES AND AIRPLANE INTO THERE. AND MAYBE THERE WAS A PASSENGER IN THE AIRPLANE. I DON'T KNOW. AND THEN THERE WAS YOU SAID THAT THERE WERE CARS PARKED IN THERE WHEN THE PLANE WAS OUT, FLYING AROUND. SO UM, RIGHT, SO THERE MIGHT BE WHAT I HALF A DOZEN PEOPLE AND THERE ARE A DOZEN PEOPLE IN THERE JUST IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS, RIGHT? BUT THAT WOULDN'T RIGHT. THAT'S NOT A GATHERING RIGHT? WOULDN'T COUNT AS A GATHERING. UM. AM I CORRECT IN THAT? I MEAN , I DON'T I THINK I THINK THAT IF WE WERE TO SET A NUMBER, IT SHOULD BE. I DON'T. I DON'T THINK I DON'T THINK WE CAN SET A NUMBER. IT'S JUST IT'S FOR STORAGE. AND I THINK IT'S FOR STORAGE AND THERE'S JUST NO NO GATHERINGS. I MEAN, PEOPLE ARE USING IT IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. THEY'RE GOING TO USE IT IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. APPARENTLY THEY'RE GONNA PARK THEIR ELECTRIC CARS IN THERE.

FROM WHAT I SAW. OKAY, UM BUT YOU KNOW, WE JUST WE OKAY? I BELIEVE IT HAS TO BE THAT IT'S NOT A PLACE FOR GATHERINGS. OKAY GATHERINGS, GATHERINGS PERIOD. SO. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF? THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMING UP. OKAY ANY OTHER PROFESSIONALS COMMENTS RAKESH MICHAEL. NO COMMENT. ME NEITHER. OKAY? PUBLIC COMMENTS. HOLD ON FOR ONE SECOND, THOUGH HOLD ON UM. I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THE PUBLIC THAT IF YOU WANT TO COME UP FOR A COMMENT, WHICH WE WELCOME THAT YOU KEEP IT TO THIS APPLICATION, WHICH IS ABOUT THE DRY LINE, NOT BEING A PART OF THE APPLICATION THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. SO IF IT'S ABOUT NOISE IF IT'S ABOUT THE OPERATIONS OF THE AIRPORT. WHILE IT MAY BE REALLY FRUSTRATING, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S THAT'S NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OR YOU KNOW, WE REALLY CAN'T EVEN RULE ON ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THIS IS REALLY JUST ABOUT THEIR APPLICATION. TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION THAT WAS APPROVED. SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME UP AND TALK ABOUT DRY LINES WHILE THE CHIEF IS STILL HERE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE NOW IN THE APPLICATION. WE WOULD WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS. COME ON UP. GOOD EVENING. I'M JANICE BARTH. 1 37 CHERRY BROOK. DRIVE MA'AM, DO YOU SWEAR? AFFIRM YOUR TESTIMONY THIS EVENING? I'M SORRY. I REMEMBER YOU SURE YOU DO, AND I'M SURE HE DOES AS WELL. DO YOU SWEAR FROM YOUR TESTIMONY THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL.

ABSOLUTELY PLEASE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DRY LINE, RIGHT? RIGHT. WELL, YES. BUT I'M GOING TO DIVERGE A LITTLE BIT, TOO, BECAUSE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE WITH RESPECT THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE I'M GOING TO GO UP AND TALKING ABOUT THE F A. A SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS MENTIONED WAS UM, BY MR MATTHEWS AND MISS ROBERTS WAS THE POSSIBILITY OF REALLY COMMISSIONING THE AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW FRUSTRATING THAT WOULD BE. UNLESS THAT YOU HAVE SOMEONE ON THAT COMMITTEE WHOSE FROM THE TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENT BECAUSE I ATTENDED MANY OF THOSE THEY WERE FILLED WITH THE CRONIES FROM THE AIRPORT. NOTHING EVER WENT ANYWHERE. TRUE. WELL. THAT WAS MY OPINION. OKAY SO YOU CAN SAY THAT'S NOT TRUE. I'M GOING TO TELL YOU. THAT'S MY OPINION. WE CAME WITH END NUMBERS. AND IF YOU KNOW HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO GET AN END NUMBER OF A PLANE FLYING THROUGH YOUR BACKYARD. IT IS NOT AN EASY TASK. IT TAKES ABOUT FOUR PEOPLE. UM SO HAVING USED THAT YOU NEED ANOTHER KIND OF SET UP BECAUSE THAT'S GOING

[01:15:07]

TO GO NOWHERE AND YOU'RE JUST GOING TO FRUSTRATE THE RESIDENTS OF THIS TOWN. THAT'S NUMBER ONE NUMBER TWO, MR HAMBLETON. THANK YOU FOR ASKING THE QUESTION ABOUT THE RUNWAY. UM. WHILE THAT MAY NOT BE DIRECTLY WITH RESPECT TO THIS APPLICATION. UM IT DOES HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE PEOPLE WHO UM. BUT WHEN THE PLANES TAKE OFF, THEY NO LONGER GO WHERE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO GO. THEY PURGED MORE TO THE SOUTH AGAIN THAT THIS IS ALL PART OF WHY THEY COME HERE AND ASK YOU AS WELL. SO WHAT CHANGED? YOU NEVER GOT AN ANSWER TO THAT WHICH CHANGED FROM THE APPLICATION THAT WAS APPROVED. WHY DOES WHY DOES HE NEED THIS NOW? AND NOT WHY DID HE AGREED TO THE APPROVAL FOR THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT YEAR IT WAS, BUT IT NOT ALL NOT ALL THAT LONG AGO. UM SO AND JUST I MEAN THE WATER LINE TO ME . I DON'T CARE AT THIS POINT. HE WEARS PEOPLE DOWN. THIS IS WHAT HE DOES. HE FELL THROUGH MY BACKYARD THE OTHER DAY, SO HE DOESN'T FOLLOW. WHATEVER THE RULES ARE, AND HE DOESN'T FOLLOW THEM. IT'S NOT FOR HIM. IT'S FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO FOLLOW. UM SO, UM, ANYWAY, UH, WAS A LONG PROCESS FOR THE PREVIOUS PLANNING BOARD. THERE ARE A LOT OF LAWYERS INVOLVED. THERE WAS RESIDENTS WHO HAD LAWYERS, UM I WOULD SAY THAT YOU SHOULD THINK VERY CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU INSERT YOURSELVES ON THE NEW APPLICATION FOR CONCESSIONS TO WHAT WAS ALREADY AGREED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND JUST AGAIN AS A FOLLOW UP, I WOULD URGE BECAUSE THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE IS THE GOVERNING BODY THAT WOULD HANDLE THAT COMMITTEE. I WOULD URGE YOU TO TALK TO THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE. WELL SUGGESTION THERE. COME ON UP. HI HANSEN. ROCKY HILL, 90% AVENUE GOING TO SWEAR YOU IN. DO YOU SWEAR FROM YOUR TESTIMONY THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL. ABSOLUTELY I ACTUALLY JUST REALLY HAVE A QUESTION. AND, UM WHAT I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND IS WHEN THE FIRE TRUCK FOR ALL TALKING ABOUT THIS AS 100 ACRES IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE AND ALL THIS LAND AND BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE'S A WHOLE FOODS AND POTENTIALLY A MOVIE THEATER NEXT DOOR AND THERE'S A FIRE AND WE'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT PROPERTY, JUST PEOPLE. WE THEN HAVE A WHOLE LOT MORE PEOPLE. SO ISN'T THAT A CONSIDERATION? NOBODY'S EVEN TALKED ABOUT THAT. UM. WE HEAR YOU MIND BOGGLING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? THE FARM IN HERE. WE'RE GOING THERE. HMM. HELLO. WENDY RAINER. PARDON MY GLASSES. I HAD A CATARACT OPERATION. SO OUR SURGERY SO I'M TRYING TO GIVE HIM THE LIGHT A LITTLE, BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT. UM I LIVE IN 34 MAIDENHEAD ROAD AND PRINCETON ALREADY AND YOU SWEAR, AFFIRM ANY TESTIMONY YOU GIVE THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL. THANK YOU. I'M REALLY CURIOUS ABOUT THE PROCESS AFTER TONIGHT AND WHAT YOU ALL ARE GOING TO DO SO WE ON THE CITIZENS CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR NEXT OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE YOU OR AND I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION AS A FOLLOW UP IF I MADE A OF COURSE. UM AGAIN. THIS IS JUST A SELF CONTAINED APPLICATION TO AMEND A PREVIOUS APPLICATION THAT WAS APPROVED. REGARDING THE DRY LINE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY AGREED TO AND THEN WE'VE HAD THE FIRE CHIEF HERE, SAYING THAT YOU KNOW, FROM FROM THE FIRE CHIEF'S POINT OF VIEW, APPARENTLY, THE DRY LINE WILL NOT HELP IF SOMETHING WOULD HAPPEN, BUT YOU KNOW, ONCE THIS IS DONE, THIS WOULD NOT COME UP AGAIN IN FRONT OF US UNLESS THEY WANTED TO AMEND IT AGAIN. SO WHAT'S THE PROCESS? DO YOU MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE? OR YOU THE FINAL SAY ABOUT APPROVING OR NOT APPROVING THIS REQUEST? WE ARE THE FINAL SAY ABOUT APPROVING THIS AMENDMENT TO THEIR PREVIOUS APPROVAL. I JUST READ, RESPOND OR A COUPLE OF THINGS YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS EVENING AND ONE OF THEM. IS THERE ACCOUNTABILITY AND COMPLIANCE. PLEASE MENTION SOMETHING THAT IN YOUR APPROVAL BECAUSE WHAT I HEARD A LOT IS ABOUT IF THEY WANTED TO. OR IF THEY COULD DO IT. MHM ROAD SIDEWALK. I'M THERE SEVERAL OF THOSE SO I WANT. I'M JUST ASKING YOU TO THINK OF HOW

[01:20:06]

THIS CORPORATION HAS COMPLIED. FROM THE DAY THE SETTLEMENT WAS AGREED TO THE ORDINANCE INITIALLY STARTING THIS THIS BUSINESS AND MR NORMAN HAS SAID EXPANSION SEVERAL TIMES. SO PLEASE CONSIDER THAT IN THE FUTURE. AND WHEN YOU RECOMMEND TO THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE, WHATEVER YOUR FINDINGS ARE WHATEVER YOUR BRITAIN AGREEMENTS ARE I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I THINK THIS BUSINESS IS NOT ALWAYS COMPLYING AND WHAT I READ. THERE'S A BACKUP MATERIAL . IT'S QUITE CLEAR. THEY HAVE NOT. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HI RYAN BERGARA. I'M AT FIVE MONTGOMERY AVENUE. ROCKY HILL, YOU SWEAR? AFFIRM ANY TESTIMONY YOU GIVE THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL. YES, THANK YOU. SO MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND COUPLE OF THINGS BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO RESPECT YOUR OBVIOUS, UH , DESIRE TO LIMIT THE DISCUSSION . BUT IS THIS NOT THE FINAL STRAW OR FINAL ELEMENT OF A APPROVAL? THAT HAS ITS FOUNDATION IN THE 1996 AGREEMENT. ISN'T IT SPELLED OUT THERE AND THIS IS THE COMPLETION AS WE HEARD, ENGINEER SCHMIDT SAY MULTIPLE TIMES LAST MEETING THAT THIS IS JUST THE FACT TONIGHT AS WELL THAT THIS IS THE JUST THE COMPLETION OF THAT APPLICATION. I BELIEVE THIS IS REGARDING. AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICATION THAT WE OR THE APPLICATION THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED IN AUGUST OF 2017. AS IT PERTAINS TO THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING. THAT IS ALL THIS IS ABOUT. BUT IS THIS NOT THE APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE HANGAR SPACE? OH, THEY HAD THEY HAD THEIR APPROVAL IN 2017.

SO. I GUESS THAT'S PUZZLING AND FRUSTRATING BECAUSE AT THE LAST MEETING. WHEN I RAISED THE QUESTION OF THAT AGREEMENT. UH ONLY BECAUSE I HAD THOUGHT IT HAD EXPIRED, BUT IT WAS USED AS THE BASIS FOR APPROVING THE REQUEST. SO HOW IS IT NOW THAT THEY DON'T NEED TO RELY ON IT? AND HOW IS IT THAT THAT THE SEVERAL MEMBERS, AT LEAST OF THE PLANNING BOARD SEEMED NOT TO BE FAMILIAR AT ALL WITH THE AGREEMENT, AND SO ONE OF THE POINTS THAT I BELIEVE YOUR ATTORNEY MENTIONED, WAS THAT OR IN FACT, ONE REASON FOR NOT RULING ON IT LAST TIME WAS THAT YOU NEED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE AGREEMENT. SO HOW CAN THE AGREEMENT WHICH IS THE POINT OF MY COMMENT IS THAT THE AGREEMENT IS NOT BEING LIVED UP TO NOT BY THE BY THE TOWNSHIP AND NOT BY THE AIRPORT. SO HOW IS IT THAT YOU DIDN'T WANT TO RULE ON THE REQUEST. WITHOUT REVIEWING THE AGREEMENT, BUT NOTHING IN THE AGREEMENT. IS GERMANE TO A DISCUSSION OR THE FACT THAT THE AGREEMENT IS NOT BEING CARRIED OUT. IS NOT YOUR MAIN TO YOUR CURRENT APPROVAL. THAT'S PUZZLING TO ME, CAN YOU CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN IT? WELL, LET ME TURN RESPOND. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT AT THE LAST HEARING. AH THE APPLICANT REFERRED TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. UM THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT BECAUSE OF ITS AGE 1996 SO THAT DOCUMENT WAS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD. UM WHETHER THAT AGREEMENT IS STILL IN EFFECT, I THINK, UH, WILL HAVE TO BE A DETERMINATION BY THE MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY AND THE GOVERNING BODY . UM, BASED ON. WHAT YOU SEE ON THE FACE OF IT, PERHAPS OTHER COMMUNICATIONS THEY MAY HAVE HAD OVER TIME WITH THE APPLICANT.

BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT THAT AGREEMENT CALLED FOR AN ORDINANCE TO BE CREATED. IT WAS AND THE APPROVALS THAT THE APPLICANT GOD UM. I THINK IT COULD BE FAIRLY SAID THAT THEY WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT ORDINANCE. IT SET OFF SET UP STANDARDS, ETCETERA. THE APPLICANT FILED THEIR APPLICATION. AND. PAST BOARDS FOUND THAT THEY HAD COMPLIED WITH THE ORDINANCE AND GAVE THEM THEIR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SIDE PLAN APPROVAL. SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. UH IT'S NOT FOR THIS BOARD TO ANSWER. OR TO ENFORCE THEY ARE NOT A PARTY. TO

[01:25:03]

THAT AGREEMENT. THE TOWN IS UM HOWEVER, IN TERMS OF WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT IN IN 2004 IN 2017 PRIOR PLANNING BOARDS GAVE THE APPLICANT THE APPROVAL. FOR THE HANGERS. THEY GAVE THEM ALL THEIR APPROVALS. THE APPLICANT HAS CHOSEN TO COME BACK NOW, BUT THEY DON'T NEED TO IF THEY JUST WENT AHEAD NOW AND CONSTRUCTED WHAT THEY HAD APPROVAL FOR. THEY WOULD NEVER BE COMING IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AGAIN. THEY CHOSE TO, THOUGH, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT TO CONSTRUCT THE DRY LINE.

THEY'VE INDICATED THAT ALTHOUGH THEY HAD ASKED FOR OTHER RELIEF FROM THE BOARD, THEY WANTED TO MAKE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HANGAR SPACE SLIGHTLY LARGER, THEY HAVE SAID TONIGHT. UM THEY BELIEVE THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS WHAT THEY WERE APPROVED FOR. AH SAME THING WITH THE SIDEWALK. THEY'RE SAYING THAT'S FINE. THEY WILL MOVE AHEAD TO GET IT DONE. AS FAR AS ANY ISSUES THEY HAVE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT OF THE TOWN AGAIN. THIS IS FOR THE TOWNSHIP TO RESOLVE. AND THE CONSTRUCTION OFFICIAL TO RESOLVE THEM. SO WHAT WE'RE LEFT WITH TONIGHT IS THIS QUESTION OF SHOULD THEY BE REQUIRED TO MEET THAT CONDITION? AND I DO UNDERSTAND. I DO UNDERSTAND, UMG THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. UNFORTUNATELY, THOUGH, A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THAT AGREEMENT IS STILL BINDING, I THINK REQUIRES ADDITIONAL REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS, WHICH ARE NOT. THEY'RE NOT PLANNING BOARD DOCUMENTS. THEY'RE NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD. UM THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD NOT BE IN A POSITION TO TRY AND FORCE MEANING REASONABLE TO EXPECT THAT THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD DEFER ANY THE DECISIONS ABOUT APPLICANTS. AH APPLICATIONS THAT COME BEFORE HAVING THE EVEN THE BASIC, VERY , UH, CORE DETERMINATION THAT THIS AGREEMENT IS EITHER IN EFFECT OR IT ISN'T IN EFFECT, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT WAS CITED BY THE APPLICANT AS REASON FOR YOU TO APPROVE THEIR CURRENT APPLICATION. WELL I CERTAINLY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK AND I CERTAINLY CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE APPLICANT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS SETTLEMENT A WAS REFERENCED. IN RESPONSE TO COMPLAINTS FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT NOISE AND FLIGHT PATHS, HEIGHT PLANES MY RECOLLECTION BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS BROUGHT UP IN TESTIMONY BEFORE THE PUBLIC COMMENT. AND I'M QUITE SURE ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I'VE LISTENED TO IT AND I BELIEVE YOU ARE CORRECT. UM. AGAIN THEY REFER TO THAT, AS AS MISS CASEY SAID THAT WAS PART OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWNSHIP. THE GOVERNING BODY. THEY, YOU KNOW THEY CREATED AN ORDINANCE. THERE. YOU KNOW GOVERNANCE ON THAT THEIR ENFORCEMENT ON THAT IS UP TO THE ELECTED. BARRY THIS IS REALLY JUST ABOUT THE YOU KNOW THEY COULD WALK AWAY TONIGHT. WE HAVEN'T VOTED YET, BY THE WAY, SO THEY'LL WALK AWAY TONIGHT, EITHER. ONE OF TWO THINGS EITHER . WE WILL APPROVE THEM NOT HAVING TO PUT A DRY LINE IN OR WILL SAY NO, YOU HAVE TO PUT A DRY LINE IN. I MEAN THAT THAT'S THAT'S THE QUESTION IN FRONT OF US WELL, THE POINT IS THAT THEY DID COME BACK. AND NOW YOU'RE DISAGGREGATE NG. THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT WHICH EITHER IS IN EFFECT, OR IT'S NOT AN EFFECTIVE IT WAS IN EFFECT IT WRAPS TOGETHER ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF THAT DEVELOPMENT IN A VERY FORWARD LOOKING WAY TO COVER THE FUTURE OF THIS SITE, AND THIS AIRPORT AND SO IF YOU IF IT'S IN, IT'S IN EFFECT, THEN IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU CAN'T DISAGGREGATE ONE PIECE OR ANOTHER PIECE OF IT. AND IF THEY HAD NEVER COME BACK THEN, OBVIOUSLY WE WOULDN'T HAVE THIS DISCUSSION. BUT THE FACT IS, THEY DID COME BACK AND THEY ASKED YOU FOR A RULING, SO I WOULD SAY THAT IT MAKES IT APPROPRIATE TO AT LEAST DETERMINE WHAT IS GOVERNING THE CONDUCT OF THIS BUSINESS IN A IN A COMMUNITY THAT IS IN EXTREME UPSET. OVER THE DISRUPTION TO EVERYONE'S LIFESTYLE. WHO'S IN A FLIGHT PATH? AND THE, UM, THE UNCHECKED EXPANSION OF FLIGHTS

[01:30:07]

THAT HAVE NO LIMIT DAILY AND I AND I UNDERSTAND I IS THAT NOT A AT LEAST IF ANY CITIZEN OF THIS TOWNSHIP CAME BEFORE THIS BOARD WITH AN APPLICATION NO MATTER IF THEY OWED MONEY ON PROPERTY TAXES OR NOT, WE WOULD WELL, WE COULD, BUT BUT BUT BUT ANYONE WHO COMES TO US WITH A VALID APPLICATION WE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT FOR US TO RULE ON IT. YES OR NO? NO MATTER WHAT THE BACKGROUND IS, IF THEY ARE YOU'RE SAYING IF THEY ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ANOTHER OBLIGATION TO THE TOWNSHIP. THAT YOU'RE STILL OBLIGATED TO GIVE THEM AN APPROVAL. IF IT IS A PLANNING ISSUE? YES IF IT IS NOT A PLANNING ISSUE, THAT IS AGAIN THAT'S NOT AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION I TRULY TRULY DO. WE DO. WE ARE OFTEN FRUSTRATED. PERSONALLY I THINK WITH THE STATE LAWS THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW WELL, I'M JUST I'M NOT. IT'S NOT MY FRUSTRATION.

ABOUT THE SITUATION. IT'S MY DESIRE TO UNDERSTAND YOUR RATIONALE FOR YOUR DECISION.

ANALYSIS I FRUSTRATION IS IRRELEVANT. I'M JUST INTERESTED IN IN THE RATIONALE FOR THE DECISIONS ARE RATIONALE IS THAT WE RULE ON THE APPLICATIONS THAT COME IN FRONT OF US. THAT'S IT.

YOUR POSITION IS REGARDLESS OF THE CONDUCT OF THE OF THE APPLICANT. YOU ARE OBLIGATED.

SOMEHOW WE ARE. GIVE THEM A DECISION. WE WILL RULE ON AN APPLICATION THAT COMES BEFORE US ARE OBLIGATED TO RULE THAT DOES NOT MEAN APPROVAL NECESSARY, WHICH AND NO ONE HAS VOTED. YET, SO IT'S I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC. OKAY BOARD DISCUSSION.

FIRST OF ALL MOTIONS, CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT. SOME OF THE SECOND FAVOR HIGH KNEES. OKAY.

BOARD DISCUSSION. MR HAMBLETON. NO NOT NOTHING AT THIS TIME FOR ME. OKAY? COMMENTS. MARVIN YEAH, YOU KNOW, I'M I'M VERY SYMPATHETIC TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE NOISE. I'M 3500 FT FROM THE RUNWAY, SO I GET TO HEAR QUITE A BIT OF THAT AS WELL. THE REALITY IS WE'RE HERE TO MAKE A VERY NARROW DECISION AS TO WHETHER TO WHETHER TO BELIEVE THEM THE OBLIGATION OF PUTTING IN A DRY LINE AND OUR EXPERT HERE AND CHIEF VERDUCCI BASICALLY SAYS IT'S NOT NEEDED. SO I MEAN, THAT'S I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT HERE. I WOULD LIKE FOR THE PLANNING BOARDS TO RECOMMEND TO THE TANTRA COMMITTEE. UM THAT WE RE ESTABLISH THE AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE AS IT WAS CONTAINED IN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE AND AGREEMENT. THAT ESTABLISHED ALL THE ALL OF THESE THINGS BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. I THINK THE PUBLIC NEEDS A YOU KNOW, UH, AN OUTLET TO BE ABLE TO HAVE UM WE'LL CALL IT A NEUTRAL BARRIERS. I THINK THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. UM AND HAVE SOMEBODY BE ABLE TO MODERATE THAT AND BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME. RESOLUTION AND I'M HAPPY TO HEAR THAT THE APPLICANT UM HE WAS GOING TO DO THAT. SO THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. ANYONE ELSE? I WOULD AGREE ABOUT RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWNSHIP TO THE GOVERNING BODY. THAT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. BE RE ESTABLISHED. MR CHAIRMAN, I'M. I AM. UNCOMFORTABLE IN SOME WAYS. THE PROBLEM. IS HOW. HOW BIG THE AIRPORT HAS BECOME, COMPARED TO THE WAY IT WAS 30 YEARS AGO. THAT PROBLEM. ISN'T WHAT WE'RE FACING. TODAY. WE'RE FACING A DRY LINE. RIGHT? THAT PROBLEM WAS FACED, FOR BETTER FOR WORSE IS UP TO YOU TO SAY. IN MANY OTHER APPLICATIONS. THE AIRPORT HAS COME THROUGH WITH FOR EXPANSION THAT HAS GOTTEN THE AIRPORT AS BIG AND AS BUSY AS IT IS TODAY. AND, UH, YOU KNOW,

[01:35:08]

IT'S A TRIBUTE TO MR NIRENBERG AS AN ENTREPRENEUR HOW SUCCESSFUL HE HAS BEEN BUT THE.

THE TIME TO HAVE DECIDED THAT WE DIDN'T WANT AN AIRPORT ANY BIGGER. WAS. PLANNING BOARDS MET LONG AGO, RIGHT? AND THIS DRY LINE ISN'T GOING TO MAKE THE AIRPORT BIGGER OR BUSIER. THEN IT WOULD BE WITHOUT THE DRY LINE. YEAH I AGREE, TONY, AND, UM I WOULD JUST I WOULD URGE THE NEW GENERATION. UM. TO BE REALLY GOOD CITIZENS. UM YOU KNOW THE AIR. THE AIRPORT IS HERE AND IT IS FEDERALLY MANDATED AND YOU KNOW? FOR EVERY NOISE COMPLAINT . THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE A LIFESAVER. SO WE, YOU KNOW WE'RE NOT HERE TO RULE ON THAT. AND IF WE WERE HERE TO RULE ON ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN THE DRY LINE WHICH OUR FIRE CHIEF WHO WE RESPECT THEM, AND WE HAVE TO LISTEN TO TELLS US IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE IT ANY BETTER. SHOULD GOD FORBID THERE BE A FIRE. BUT IF THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE, OTHER THAN THAT, I WOULD BE VERY RETICENT TO SAY YES TO ANYTHING JUST BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY. SO I WOULD URGE YOU PLEASE BE REALLY GOOD CITIZENS IN THE TOWN. FROM YOU KNOW, FROM TODAY ON, YOU GUYS HAVE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY. TO LISTEN TO BE REALLY GOOD CITIZENS, SO. OKAY SO DO WE HAVE A I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE THIS INTO TWO MOTIONS. THE FIRST MOTION SHOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION. TO THE TOWN TRICK COMMITTEE TO RE ESTABLISH THE CITIZENS BOARD. IN ADDITION TO THAT, I MEAN, ARE WE GOING TO ASK THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OR SOMEONE IN THE TOWNSHIP TO INVESTIGATE THE DURATION CLAUSE OF THIS? UM HMM, BECAUSE IT SAYS, YOU KNOW, SPECIFICALLY IF IT IF THIS CONSTRUCTION HASN'T HAPPENED IN 15 YEARS, AND WE NEED TO RE EVALUATE THIS AND I KNOW IT'S ALREADY CODIFIED IN AN ORDINANCE WHICH EXTENDS BEYOND THE 15 YEARS, BUT YOU KNOW 3.0 TO THE DURATION CLOSET DOES SAY , YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD WE SHOULD RESISTANT AFTER 15 YEARS, WE SHOULD LOOK AT THIS AGAIN. AND IF IT HASN'T BEEN BUILT, YOU KNOW TO LOOK AT SECTION NINE AND 10 OF THIS SO I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL OF THIS MEANS, BUT I THINK THE TOWNSHIP SHOULD LOOK INTO IT. SO HOW WOULD YOU CRAFT THAT RESOLUTION? TO THE TOWN. RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE SHOULD INCLUDE YEAH, TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER 3.0 TO THE DURATION CLAUSE OF THE ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. AH! ALLOWS THE TOWN TO REEVALUATE THIS. UH SOLUTION WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE TOWNSHIP REEVALUATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS WELL AS RE ESTABLISH A JOINT BOARD. INCLUDING CITIZENS. CORRECT, FAIR FAIR. KAREN OKAY. ROLL CALL. ONE QUESTION. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. SURE I WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. DON NEEDS TO PUT IT. I CAN'T HEAR DON. THIS IS THIS IS THIS FIRST ONE ASKING? I WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY KEEPS SAYING WE'RE JUST VOTING ON DRY LINE. HMM. WELL, WE'RE BOARDING ON. AMENDED PRELIMINARY RIGHT ADDITION TO HANG HER NEW HANGAR VOTING ON THAT. WELL, LET'S LET'S DO THIS. I THINK THAT NUMBER HERE WERE CORRECT, RIGHT ? THIS IS JUST THE RECOMMENDATION, THOUGH TO THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE REGARDING MAYBE WE'RE GOOD TO JUST MAKE THAT ALL IN PART OF ONE MOTION.

OKAY? ALRIGHT. WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT IS, UH, REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A PRELIMINARY FINAL MAJOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THE PRIOR APPROVALS HAVE A HISTORY OF THE MOST RECENT BEING 2014. THE APPLICANT TOLD US TONIGHT THEY ARE AMENDING THIS APPLICATION, SO THE ONLY RELIEF THEY SEEK IS NOT TO INSTALL A DRY LINE, WHICH WAS A CONDITION OF A PRIOR APPROVAL. AH, SO THE QUESTION FOR THE BOARD TONIGHT IS ARE YOU GOING TO GRANT. THIS AMENDED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SO I PLAN APPROVAL. AH BY ALLOWING THE ELIMINATION OF THE DRY LINE. THE OTHER PORTION OF THAT MOTION. IT'S BEEN SUGGESTED THAT RECOMMENDATIONS SHOULD BE MADE TO THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE. THAT IT. AGAIN REVIEW THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. AND THAT DETERMINE

[01:40:06]

WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE TO RE EVALUATE. I GUESS WHERE. EVALUATE THE COMMITTEE. THERE'S EVALUATE, UM, TRYING TO AGAIN CREATE THE AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE. I KNOW FROM THE ORDINANCE, WHICH MAY HAVE IT MAY HAVE EXPIRED SINCE IT'S TIED TO THE SENTIMENT OF GRANT. IT ONLY TALKED ABOUT CITIZENS AND I KNOW SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE HAD ASKED. CAN YOU INCLUDE UM WELL TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEMBER ON THAT SO THAT THERE IS ON AWARENESS NOW BY THE GOVERNING BODY ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING. AS OPPOSED TO JUST HAVING A CITIZENS COMMITTEE AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY JUST BUT THE IDEA IS THAT THAT WAY ATTENTION COMMITTEE MEMBERS EITHER MEMBER OF LIAISON AND THEY HEAR DIRECTLY NOW. WHAT THE CONCERNS ARE. AND THEN THE LAST PART OF THIS AND I THINK THAT'S THE CLARIFICATION. I NEED. THE REQUEST WAS THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE GOVERNING BODY THAT THEY I GUESS TO REVIEW THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S STILL IN EFFECT STILL BINDING AND AH! SHOULD I DON'T THINK IT'S ABOUT BECAUSE IT SAYS IT EXPIRES AFTER 15 YEARS, BUT I THINK IT SAYS AFTER 50 YEARS, THE PARTIES CAN ARE NO LONGER BOUND BY THE THINGS THAT ARE IN THAT, SO IS IT APPROPRIATE NOW FOR THE FOR THE TOWNSHIP TO, UM, LOOK FOR CHANGES. WELL I MEAN, IF THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE'S DETERMINATION IS THAT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAS EXPIRED. THERE'S NOTHING TO CHANGE ITS EXPIRED SO. I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK IT'S THAT SIMPLE. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A CALL THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNING BODY AND ITS MUNICIPAL. TURNEY'S SO EITHER YOU KNOW, THE RECOMMENDATION COULD BE TELL TO COMMITTEE SHOULD CONSIDER THE ZONING OR TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE ZONING . EXACTLY AND THAT'S WHAT THAT PARTICULAR DURATION PROVE. TALKS ABOUT. THE ZONING NOW MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO THE ZONING AND 15 YEARS. AND SO IT SAYS THAT HIS GOVERNING BODY DOES NOT AFTER AT THAT TIME IS NOT COMMITTED TO WHAT THE FUTURE GOVERNING BODIES WILL BE, AND THEY CAN REEVALUATE ZONING LAND USE. WHATEVER ACCORDING TO THAT DURATION CLAUSE, YOU JUST WANT THEM TO REVIEW THAT CLAUSE AND AMENDED IF NECESSARY. CAN'T AMEND IT IF IT'S NOT IN EFFECT ANYMORE, BUT I GUESS THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE CAN TALK FURTHER ABOUT SHOULD THERE BE ANY CHANGES MADE TO ZONING IN THE AIRPORT EXISTS. IT HAS APPROVALS. IT'S OPERATING. IT'S UNDER, UH FEDERAL LAW AND STATE LAW PRETTY MUCH PREEMPT. AH. ALMOST ALL ASPECTS OF IT, BUT, UM THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SEEMED TO CONTEMPLATE THAT THE TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY COULD AT LEAST LOOK AT THE ZONING FOR THE AIRPORT. AND TALK ABOUT. ASPECTS OF IT NOT TO ELIMINATE IT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE. BUT UM SO I THINK THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD IS LOOKING FOR THAT THIS IS THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE. AND ALSO YOU'RE WILLING TO RECOMMEND YOU WANT RECONSTITUTE. THE AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE. TWO. INCLUDR MEMBER GOVERNING BODY GOVERNING BODY. AND MAY I ASK WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE, UM TOWN DECIDED TO REDUCE THE FLOOR AREA RATIO? IN THIS OR ANY OTHER ZONE. JUST A FEW CHANGE THE ZONING.

REMEMBER THAT? PROJECTS THAT GET PRELIMINARY, FINAL MAJOR SLIDE PLAN. THEY HAVE A PERIOD OF PROTECTION FROM ZONING CHANGES. BEYOND THAT. I SUPPOSE IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT NOW IT'S NON CONFORMING WITH RESPECTING THE FLOOR AREA RATIO. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT I'M NOT SURE IF IT CAN BE BUILT OUT ANYMORE ANYWAY UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S CONFORMING AND THEY'VE THEY'VE EXCEEDED ALL OF THEIR AVAILABLE FLOOR AREA. RIGHT AT THIS POINT , THEY COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE HIT THE CAP. THEY HAVEN'T EXCEEDED ITS CONFORMING. THEY HIT THE CAB. SO IF WE DECIDED TO LOWER THE FLOOR AREA RATIO IT'S ME. WELL THEY WOULDN'T TEAR DOWN

[01:45:02]

A BUILDING. NO NO, NO, NO, THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE BUILDINGS, RIGHT? SO IT, UM PERHAPS THE. LET'S SEE. THERE'S THE ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SAID THEY WOULD CHANGE . THEY WOULD, UH, MAKE A CERTAIN ZONING FLOOR AREA RATIO. AND THAT THEY MIGHT CHANGE THAT.

SOMETIMES MAYBE THEY ANTICIPATED INCREASING IT BECAUSE IT'S VERY HARD TO TAKE AWAY A RIGHT. IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE. I THINK TO TAKE AWAY A RIGHT THAT YOU'VE GIVEN SOMEBODY. LIKE I SUPPOSE IF THEY HADN'T AFTER 15 YEARS UM, HOW MANY APPLICATIONS IN AND THEY HADN'T GOTTEN TO THE MAXIMUM AT THAT TIME, THEN THE TOWNSHIP PERHAPS AT THAT POINT HAVE DECREASED IT AT THAT POINT. I.

IS THAT? IS THAT CORRECT? CAN YOU SAY IT ONE MORE TIME. IF THEY HADN'T IF THEY HADN'T BUILT ALL THE FLOOR AREA THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO AND WE DECIDED TO CHANGE THE ZONING. WE DON'T CHANGE THE LOWER LOWER THE FLOOR AREA THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO. WOULD THAT BE A BASIS FOR A LAWSUIT, FOR EXAMPLE, FROM THE AIRPORT TO THE CHANGE IN ZONING COULD BE A BASIS FOR A LAWSUIT.

IT'S NOT A REASON NOT TO DO IT, AND IT'S NOT A REASON TO DO IT RIGHT. BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT SPECULATING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE MIGHT BE CHANGES HERE IN THE FUTURE. REALLY UM, WHEN THEY'VE EXCEEDED OR HIT THE CAP OF WHATEVER THEY CAN DO HERE FROM A BUILDING STANDPOINT, UM UNTIL SOMEONE IN THE FUTURE MAY COME FORWARD AND SAY, LISTEN, I HAD THIS GREAT PLAN. I THINK WE WANT TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO INCREASE FOR YOU. THEN YOU CAN CONSIDER IT, BUT THERE'S NOTHING ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW. RIGHT? RIGHT. I KNOW. OKAY, SO THE. THE WORDING WOULD BE. OF THE MOTION THAT WE WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE, A TO RECONSTITUTE THE ADVISORY BOARD AND INCLUDE A MEMBER OF THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE ON THAT BOARD. THAT AS PER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE HAS THE RIGHT, LET'S SAY TO REVIEW THE ZONING. AND THIRD, UM. THAT AND DOWN TEAR TO YOUR POINT. THIS IS JUST A MODIFICATION. TO THE APPLICATION THAT HAD GRANTED THE APPROVAL ALREADY. IT'S A MODIFICATION RIGHT AND THIS WILL BE A MODIFICATION TO NOT REQUIRE THE DRY LINE. AS AS EXPLAINED BY OUR FIRE CHIEF. AND EVEN THOUGH I THINK IT'S A GIVEN IF I COULD JUST ADD TO THAT THAT ALL PRIOR CONDITIONS APPROVAL UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY CHANGED TONIGHT WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT. SO THAT AND COVER THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE SIDEWALK, CORRECT. OH YES. OH, YES. EVERYTHING EVERYTHING FROM PRIOR APPROVAL. OKAY. DO HAVE EMOTION. SO MANY SECOND. OKAY, LET'S DO A ROLL CALL. THAT'S A MOTION TO APPROVE CORRECT MOTION TO APPROVE MONEY, SINGLE MODIFICATION. MONEY YES, MATTHEWS, ROBERT. YES SHELDON ER YES, BLACK LOR. YES. MILTON? YES. CAMP? YES. YES. THANK YOU.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY WE HAVE THE MINISTER. THE OCTOBER 10TH 2022 REGULAR MEETING. DO WE HAVE

[VI. MINUTES]

A MOTION TO APPROVE? SO MOVED. SECOND CALL, PLEASE. I NEED SOMEONE ELSE TO MOVE. BESIDES TONY, BECAUSE HE WASN'T CAN'T MOVE IT. I WASN'T HERE. I'LL MOVE IT. SECOND. OKAY. THANKS, BOY. ROBERTS. YES HAMBLETON? YES USE? YES. THANK YOU. FUTURE MEETINGS NOVEMBER 28TH 2022.

[Additional Item]

SHERRY AS FAR AS WE KNOW. YES EDIE, THE PLANNING BOARD SEVEN PM DECEMBER 6TH 2022 SITE PLANTS SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE VIRTUAL MEETING AT 8:30 A.M. AND DECEMBER 12TH 2022 PLANNING

[01:50:05]

BOARD MEETING AT SEVEN P.M. OKAY DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE OUR MEETING BEFORE YOU BEFORE YOU? YES, TONY ADJOURNMENT. UH, MR WHEELOCK. MADE A CASE BEFORE US THAT THERE IS AN APPLICATION WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH THE COUNTY WHERE WE HAVE NO COPY, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, AND HE REQUESTED THAT WE REQUEST THE COUNTY TO POSTPONE THE HEARING ON THAT CASE, AND WE HAVE NOT ACTED ON IT. AND I THINK WE SHOULD WE? WE DON'T THINK WE CAN TELL ME BECAUSE WE HAVE. THE TOWN HAS NOT SEEN THE APPLICATION. SO WHEN THE APPLICATION DOES COME IN, AND WE GET IT I BELIEVE WE CAN CARRY IT. IF WE SELL MOVE, CORRECT OR NO, I DON'T THINK WE CAN. I MEAN, WE CAN MAKE THE REQUEST, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE COUNTY HAS TO FOLLOW OUR REQUEST. UM THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW IT. BUT IF WE SEE WHEN IT COMES TO US, NEVER COME TO US. CORRECT THAT'S THE POINT. AND SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN IT. AND THERE MAY BE THINGS IN IT THAT WE OBJECT TO, AND WE'RE NOT THERE AT THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING TO CITE OUR OBJECTION. I KNOW THIS ACTUALLY CAME UP WITH THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING LAST WEEK AND I THINK THE CONSENSUS AMONG THE LAWYERS WAS THAT WE HAVE NO, THE TOWNSHIP. HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THIS BECAUSE IT'S ALL BEING DONE AT THE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL BOARD, SO IT'S NOT EVEN WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE TOWNSHIP. OUR ZONING ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT WAS THAT WAS WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS A DETACHMENT COMMITTEE. MEETING, SO WE COULDN'T EVEN ACT ON IT AT THE AT THE GOVERNMENT BODY. MARVIN, HERE'S I HAVE A QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW THE SCOPE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE GOING ON HERE. FORMS ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM SITE PLAN APPROVAL RIGHT SO IF THEY TECHNICALLY WOULD REQUIRE CYCLONE APPROVAL OR ZONING APPROVAL THERE'S JURISDICTION RIGHT IN THIS BOARD PERMITTED USE. SO, UM YES, A D. C CAN TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO REVIEW A SITE PLAN EVEN IF YOU LIKE A FARM STANDARD THINGS LIKE THAT, AS IF THEY TRIGGER SITE PLAN, UM, REVIEW AND APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS . THEY'RE NOT EXEMPT FROM THAT THAT THE COUNTY AG BOARD CAN SAY THIS IS FANTASTIC, BUT RIGHT, BUT I THINK THE BIGGER QUESTION IS, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THE ACTUAL APPLICATION, SO THAT'S ACTUALLY THAT'S THAT'S THE BIG PROBLEM. SATISFIED THE COUNTY AG BOARD AND COME IN HERE AND SOMEONE SAYS, OH, WELL, YOU NEED A ZONING PERMIT, AND YOU NEED CYCLONE APPROVAL. AND YOU KNOW THEY'RE NOT EXEMPT FROM STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OR ANY OF THAT STUFF. ZONING PERMIT POINTR TRIGGER TRIGGER ZONING OFFICER WOULD LOOK AT IT AND SAY, BECAUSE OF THE REASON X Y AND Z. YOU NEED TO GO TO PLAIN WATER YOU NEED TO CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SO ON. SO, SO THAT'S YOUR UNDERSTAND. WE HAVE NO JURISDICTION THAT MIGHT WE AS A COURTESY HAS THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FOR A COPY OF THE PLAN? THEY COULD REFUSE. OF COURSE, WE HAVE ASKED. WE HAVE ASKED FOR WAITING FOR THEM TO GET BACK TO US TO GIVE US A COPY. MORIN HAS REACHED OUT TO THE COUNTY. AND SHE'S IN TOUCH WITH THEM, AND WE'RE WAITING TO HEAR BACK FROM THEM ON ON SOME OF THESE APPLICATIONS, HASN'T THE TOWNSHIP SUBMITTED A STATEMENT IN FAVOR OR AGAINST IT? YES WE HAVE GONE TO THE COUNTY I BOARD MEETINGS AND REPRESENTED THE TOWN AND PROVIDED COMMENTS. AND THEN THE COUNTY WOULD TAKE OUR COMMENTS INTO CONSIDERATION. I DON'T KNOW. YOU KNOW WITH THE PLAN IS ABOUT THIS ONE UNTIL WE SEE THE APPLICATION, SO I DON'T WANT TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO GO UP THERE. BUT THERE'S A GOOD POSSIBILITY THAT A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE TOWNSHIP WILL GO TO THE MEETING. GOOD. OKAY QUICK QUESTION. CAN YOU TALK? I CAN'T FROM THE TOWN MAKES THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. LAUREN LAUREN WASILEWSKI WILL REVIEW IT AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS. OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE COORDINATOR. YEAH MHM.

THIS GOLDEN BACK FARM IS THE SAME THING. WHAT THEY CALL THE GREEN THE GREEN FLASH FORM. YES YES. YES THANK YOU. YEAH, WE WERE THERE RIGHT THERE. I MEAN, THE TRIGGER WAS THE LAST SENTENCE OR THE IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH THAT SAYS THEY HOSTED 95 PEOPLE FOR LUNCH. THAT IS THE MAIN MONTGOMERY 2019. SO RIGHT, WE ORGANIZED ITS HISTORICAL SOCIETY, RIGHT? THE MAN WHO RELIGION SOCIETY ORGANIZED TOWNSHIP, RIGHT, OKAY. MY I SENT CORRECTED. OKAY DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING? YEAH. WE HAVE A 2ND 2ND. ALL IN FAVOR. I THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.