[0:05] Public meetings act 1975 chapter 231.
[0:09] The nose requirements have been
[0:10] satisfied. The meeting dates for the new
[0:12] year are confirmed at the annual meeting
[0:14] are posted on the both on the public
[0:16] voting board in the lobby of the
[0:18] municipal center and published in the
[0:19] record within the first 10 days of the
[0:21] new year. Salute to the flag.
[0:25] >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the
[0:27] United States of America to the stands.
[0:32] One nation under God, indivisible, with
[0:35] liberty and justice for all.
[0:40] We have a roll call, please.
[0:42] >> Yes, Mayor. Councilman Corsair
[0:44] >> here.
[0:45] >> Councilman Dayton,
[0:46] >> here.
[0:47] >> Councilman Jackson,
[0:48] >> here. Councilman President Michaels
[0:52] >> present.
[0:53] >> Councilman Dr. Okconor
[0:55] >> here.
[0:56] >> Councilman Rogillary
[0:57] >> here.
[0:59] >> Mayor Zinna
[1:00] >> here.
[1:02] >> Okay. First item on the agenda is the complete streets update.
[1:08] >> So yes, Mayor, we have um uh only uh
[1:11] agenda for introduction is the ordinance
[1:14] uh for the complete and contacts
[1:15] sensitive streets policy. Um I I as I
[1:19] explained at the last council meeting
[1:20] and it's in more detail under the
[1:21] authority and the several um uh on the
[1:25] ordinance. This basically sets the broad
[1:28] framework of the policy um to uh and by
[1:35] adopting this policy it will allow us to
[1:37] be better position for additional grant
[1:39] funding and other funding opportunities
[1:42] with both federal and state government.
[1:44] Um if this uh ordinance gets adopted in
[1:47] September, then you would have some
[1:49] implementing resolutions that would be
[1:51] uh adopted after this ordinance is
[1:55] adopted. And it's my understanding that
[1:57] you're considering a um a complete
[2:00] streets committee that would consist of
[2:04] major of most of your key department
[2:06] heads that have uh some responsibility
[2:09] regarding traffic and in streets and
[2:12] some public. Sure.
[2:15] >> And just questions just in in a sense
[2:18] for me is this is all about pedestrian
[2:21] safety, vehicular safety, everything.
[2:24] >> Yeah. It's going to encompass
[2:27] key, pedestrian safety, traffic lights,
[2:30] but improved vehicle and pedestrian
[2:35] >> integrate some of all those, right?
[2:40] » Lauren, oh, you have a question. Sure.
[2:42] Um, so I wanted to talk about the speed hump ordinance
[2:47] >> and we have two ordinances that we're
[2:49] looking for. One is an always stop
[2:50] guidance and the other is about speed
[2:52] humps and when they're appropriate. Um,
[2:55] and I know we have discussed and I have
[2:57] been adamantly uh against adding a
[3:01] significant number of speed humps, but
[3:02] with this ordinance, this is criteria
[3:05] that if they don't meet it, they don't
[3:07] get the speed up. I just want to let the
[3:09] public know very
[3:10] >> that's what that's what the goal is. Now
[3:12] in this complete streets ordinance it's there by reference to the
[3:16] memorandum if in fact the council wishes
[3:19] to
[3:21] codify the memorandum the
[3:24] recommendations
[3:26] for either student homes
[3:30] always.
[3:32] So my recommendation is that we notify
[3:34] both of them. And what that does is it
[3:36] gives notice to our residents like if
[3:38] they want to know, hey, am I pulling in
[3:40] about a speed like a stop sign? Let me
[3:42] see what the burrow says. Someone in a
[3:44] burrow is very quickly able to pull this
[3:46] up, reference it, have the rules right
[3:48] there. And I think that that is a great
[3:50] thing for our residents.
[3:53] >> Yeah. Just just to be clear though, I
[3:54] mean, I don't think it's something that
[3:56] someone's going to be able to answer.
[3:57] It's more of an investigation to see if
[3:59] the criteria is met. And then the
[4:01] recommendation would be either a yes or
[4:03] a no based on the criteria. But if not a
[4:05] check the box.
[4:06] >> No 100%. It's not like somebody you can
[4:08] fill out the DVDW.
[4:10] >> This would be something that would go,
[4:12] you know, but at least our residents can
[4:13] reference these regulations.
[4:15] >> And just because if you satisfy the
[4:17] criteria doesn't mean you are 100%
[4:22] clear.
[4:22] >> And the opposite is also true. If this
[4:25] the criteria is not satisfied, that
[4:27] doesn't mean you can't put one in.
[4:28] >> Correct. I thought that
[4:33] I mean the way I read it there's a lot
[4:35] of judgment statements in that too often
[4:37] asked and and we can
[4:39] >> so it's not
[4:41] >> well no it's not necessarily always
[4:43] black and white but it's it's a
[4:44] procedure and I think that um John could
[4:46] probably speak to it quite well what
[4:48] they just went to next to the Smith
[4:50] school with um painting the roads
[4:54] different measures to try to slow
[4:55] traffic if things don't work then you
[4:58] may try the next step. It's not always a
[5:00] yes or a no right away, but I'll defer
[5:02] to John. But
[5:04] >> John Jar, your least favorite traffic
[5:06] engineer for the moment. I think that
[5:08] the mayor's what the mayor's saying is
[5:10] actually correct is that it does go both
[5:11] ways. There is flexibility, but the most
[5:14] important thing is to follow the rules.
[5:16] Title 39, it's state of New Jersey and
[5:20] UTC and it have guidelines. That's what
[5:24] you're that's what you're saying. We're
[5:26] going to go by the rules. and here are
[5:28] the rules and if resident has hey I want
[5:30] to be on street they can read the rules
[5:32] and sometimes it might make make them
[5:34] think that okay I really need to call up
[5:35] and and get someone to do something or
[5:37] they might read it and say well I guess
[5:38] I don't fit into that category all right
[5:40] so it it it goes both ways some of the
[5:43] actually many of the towns that we've
[5:44] done this for they have actually posted
[5:46] the rules on their website so that when
[5:47] residents want you know ask for that
[5:49] they they're instructed please first
[5:51] read this on the website and if you
[5:53] still think that you know it's
[5:54] appropriate for your street because
[5:56] again most people really happy you'll
[5:58] have a speed bump until it's front of
[5:59] their house
[6:00] >> or they're listening to the numbers,
[6:01] >> right? You know, once it's in front of
[6:03] my house, well, I'm not feeling so good
[6:04] about it. But the mayor's also right and
[6:06] that is that, you know, there are
[6:08] mitigating services sometimes where you, know, for example, by a school is a
[6:12] place where you don't have to meet all
[6:14] the criteria. It's by a school. That's
[6:16] one of the criteria, right? But to the opposite of that, in front of the
[6:20] ambulance court is not a good place to
[6:22] put a speed bump.
[6:23] >> Sure.
[6:23] >> Okay. And even though it might meet the
[6:24] buying criteria or other speeding
[6:26] criterias, it's not a good place to put
[6:28] speed. You're not, you know, we're not
[6:30] going to recommend, you know, so there
[6:32] is, like the mayor said, go both ways.
[6:34] Is that helpful?
[6:36] >> It's helpful.
[6:37] >> We need a consensus to budget.
[6:41] >> I think it's a consensus as the
[6:44] administrator asked the director to move
[6:46] forward with drafting.
[6:48] >> We didn't have an ordinance. Those two
[6:53] It could also be by resolution. It would
[6:56] be discussed in the past as well unless
[6:58] they're on disagree who could do a
[6:59] resolution and it would be adopted and
[7:02] given many in place and another
[7:03] resolution that would amend right here.
[7:06] >> I prefer it to I would like to testify
[7:10] the ordinance.
[7:11] >> That's fine. How's everybody feel about
[7:12] that?
[7:14] >> The drafting process is no different for
[7:16] me. It's just whether you're going to
[7:17] have anyone meeting, right? It's not
[7:19] going to make a difference.
[7:24] Okay,
[7:24] >> one thing. Go ahead.
[7:26] >> Congratulations.
[7:28] This is a giant step forward in
[7:30] following the rules and doing what we're
[7:32] supposed to do and helping us to be less
[7:34] carentric as many other things are going
[7:36] to be discussed tonight.
[7:38] Congratulations, council. I think it's a
[7:39] great move.
[7:40] >> Thank you for all your help with making
[7:43] it happen. I'll leave it, please.
[7:46] >> Okay. Electronic sign protocol Route 9W
[7:49] and East Clinton Avenue. Before we start
[7:52] with the protocol, I would like to if I
[7:54] now I'm not sure if anyone else is
[7:56] getting this, but I'm getting some phone
[7:57] calls about complaints about our sign on
[8:00] NW
[8:02] >> electrical the electronic sign. I'm
[8:03] getting opposite. I'm getting crazy. I'm
[8:05] getting people saying you love the sign.
[8:08] >> Well, I'm getting that at night that it
[8:10] is um very blinding when you make the
[8:12] curve that the louvers are too hot. The
[8:14] lens are too high. It's too bright. It's
[8:16] blaring. Somebody actually named it. So,
[8:18] Las Vegas, Lost. I mean, that's, you
[8:21] know, we thought that was kind of funny.
[8:23] Um,
[8:25] you know, it's not this time, but maybe
[8:27] the brightness. So, I was wondering if
[8:28] maybe we can be toned down.
[8:33] >> I I've I've heard the same complaint.
[8:35] I've not only heard the same complaint.
[8:38] I've driven home at night. I've taken
[8:39] that left. We need to tone it down at
[8:42] night. There should be a warm switch to
[8:44] get the a warm light instead of the
[8:46] glaring light. It's a very fair comment
[8:48] >> and I've heard it from a bunch of people
[8:49] and lived it myself.
[8:51] >> All right, so we'll tone that down a
[8:52] little bit. All right, but let's get in
[8:54] touch. I'm sure John
[8:58] assume that there's some ordinance. How
[9:00] about we just change the brightness down
[9:02] a little bit?
[9:04] >> I think I actually think that's a fair
[9:06] thing. I think it's
[9:07] >> all right. So what the protocol now
[9:10] we're going to talk about.
[9:10] >> So yeah. So, one of the things that that we wanted to do is is still the
[9:15] last
[9:16] >> is clean up that intersection so it
[9:18] doesn't look like used car sales lot or
[9:21] food um with all the signs that so we
[9:25] our electronic sign is there. Um I asked
[9:28] Bob to hold off in issuing permits for
[9:31] that location. One of the agenda is to
[9:33] remove that location as a as one of the
[9:36] four areas for for building signs. And
[9:40] we have uh initiated a test in our pilot
[9:44] on putting what would have been one of
[9:46] those four board signs very much to um
[9:49] to very great um reception. So one also
[9:53] talk about the JCC event that's coming
[9:57] up and we put that up in their artwork
[10:01] colors and all that. They're really
[10:03] happy with it. I think they're going to
[10:05] fill a couple.
[10:07] I think I think all those billboard boys
[10:09] up there should go away. I think that
[10:10] this year was just and it's fair to
[10:13] everybody because everybody's in and you
[10:15] can put your whatever your marketing on.
[10:18] >> No. No.
[10:19] >> Why not?
[10:21] >> It's all bad. Can I have a conversation?
[10:23] >> Why you discuss the community events and
[10:28] nothing more? Because it's a Pandora's
[10:30] box.
[10:31] >> We already discussed.
[10:33] >> Yeah. My my point is if we're allowing
[10:35] billboards, why is that not already a
[10:37] panel response?
[10:39] >> It is. So you've regulated the time,
[10:42] place, manner, but not the context,
[10:44] right? So you set certain locations that
[10:47] are quote unquote open for that type of
[10:51] facility. They can only be for a certain
[10:52] amount of time. They're related to
[10:53] certain events. They're not offsite
[10:56] marketing. Um we don't allow off signs.
[11:00] That's the equivalent of billboards and
[11:02] advert. So, do we want to get rid of all
[11:03] those votes up there and just follow the
[11:05] day?
[11:05] >> I think I No, we agree on this, but we
[11:07] find this conversation.
[11:08] >> Yeah, we there's no need for more
[11:10] conversation on the same thing. disagree
[11:12] that we agreed because I'm adamantly
[11:14] against removing an open forum for
[11:17] public speech for political speech or I
[11:19] would like to keep saying as to whether
[11:21] or not you want to keep that as one of
[11:23] your locations that you know you have an
[11:25] ordinance that says you have certain
[11:26] location you will set by resolution
[11:28] every year locations where these
[11:31] temporary signs can go and we have a
[11:33] definition for temporary signs what I'm
[11:35] saying is content but do not move all
[11:39] content onto your digital
[11:41] We have a clear um you know
[11:44] >> community signage, community events,
[11:47] >> our churches, our JCC, that's our
[11:49] community and that and that's just to
[11:51] say
[11:51] >> that's okay.
[11:52] >> It's okay.
[11:53] >> We can be like
[11:55] so just so just so they say not the
[11:58] Pandora's box
[12:00] we are our community nonprofit community
[12:04] nonprofit.
[12:05] >> That's what that's
[12:09] on the song. electronic sign.
[12:10] >> Correct. So it will reduce some clutter
[12:13] because now like if the school's having
[12:15] a play, we can have it on our sign. We
[12:17] don't have to have a separate billboard.
[12:19] >> So really it's just any temporary
[12:22] signage which at this point I think only
[12:24] political signs are going to fall into.
[12:26] >> Y suggestion for that and may I hear you
[12:28] that it definitely looks
[12:30] >> looks terrible.
[12:31] >> What if we change the size requirements
[12:33] of a lab today are smaller?
[12:36] >> We have five other places. We're good.
[12:38] I'm just saying that but obviously trust
[12:40] the Ford in in downtown um you know when
[12:42] you have basketball courts and so
[12:44] instead of these huge six by you know
[12:46] eight billboards or whatever the size
[12:48] they are 4 by8 um we do smaller ones
[12:52] that that you can only go up to a
[12:54] certain size.
[12:55] >> So for the other for the other three
[12:57] locations I think that's definitely a
[12:59] worthwhile conversation to have. I would
[13:01] keep it at this so that it's
[13:04] >> it was a mess.
[13:05] >> Yeah.
[13:07] >> Even smaller. It's a mess. It's going to
[13:08] be a me. It was It was a disaster. But
[13:10] it's an open public. It's a way to
[13:12] communicate with people and
[13:16] for that
[13:18] >> I question
[13:21] >> and the last discussion I think you had
[13:24] the policy
[13:25] >> the technology of it was whatever was up
[13:28] at 9w would also be the same thing
[13:31] that's on the other two.
[13:33] >> Yes.
[13:33] >> Right. Is that still the case?
[13:36] >> Yes. So any anything we're putting in
[13:38] that's again the school community events
[13:41] obviously events is going to be on
[13:44] three.
[13:45] >> Okay.
[13:49] All right. Uh reform of tree
[13:52] planting ordinance and practices.
[13:55] >> I'm sorry.
[13:56] >> I think we decided smaller sizes. Yeah.
[13:59] No,
[14:00] >> you have to put that on the agenda for a
[14:01] whole another conversation which we will
[14:03] do. Let's put that for the other sites.
[14:05] That's fine.
[14:13] where the new bill was.
[14:15] >> I'm sorry.
[14:16] >> The one the
[14:19] one.
[14:19] >> Okay.
[14:21] >> They just want to pull it out. So, did I
[14:23] pull that resolution when the time
[14:24] comes?
[14:25] >> Thank you. It's 12. It never be.
[14:30] >> Go ahead. Go ahead. Tree management.
[14:32] >> Yeah. So on the tree management uh
[14:35] ordinance practices, I broke you a very
[14:37] lengthy item along with a draft
[14:41] ordinance and u and dedication by writer
[14:46] resolution for new committee and input
[14:49] and consideration that this is this item
[14:52] is on the agenda for to be considered.
[14:55] It's not one for introduction. Um, so
[14:59] you know, I'm going to ask we look at it
[15:02] and and give some additional feedback so
[15:04] that it can be moved forward the
[15:07] September 8th committee. Um, in the
[15:10] interim uh we draft um dedication by
[15:15] writer resolution. Uh they plan to sell
[15:18] that to the state just to ask um them to
[15:22] review it for compliance and if they
[15:24] have any comments or um recommendations
[15:28] that they want it changed so you know we then have resolution in form that
[15:34] would be approved by the state
[15:35] department to go back and visit that
[15:41] and that can be sent to this
[15:43] >> where disability they would not have
[15:45] gotten from another town or something.
[15:48] >> I do a lot of research. I I intend not
[15:51] to copy just other towns because there's
[15:53] no balancing of other.
[15:58] >> So yeah, I tend to to cross.
[16:02] Okay.
[16:03] >> You studied under Shakespeare.
[16:08] I I had um I I'll let Warren jump in,
[16:13] but I had given David some thoughts with
[16:16] like CC Wendy as well. There's some
[16:18] questions regarding some of the
[16:20] allowable expenditures.
[16:22] Um, you know, my concern is that since
[16:26] it's going to be using tree fund money,
[16:29] you know, uh, I just want to make sure
[16:31] that we don't open like to use a
[16:35] metaphor again that we have some more
[16:38] expenditures that are not tree funds
[16:42] expenditure. So I was a little concerned
[16:43] about there was something about doing
[16:46] the the man forestry management plan.
[16:50] You know as I was telling David those I
[16:54] know those are these costly things these
[16:57] forestry management plans and unless the
[17:00] town was compelled to do one for you
[17:02] know specific reasons like the state say
[17:04] you need to do a management plan. These
[17:08] are not usually things that we tend to
[17:10] like just do, right? Because um there's some downsides to doing them
[17:16] too, which I'm not going to get into.
[17:18] But uh the whole thing is and then some
[17:20] equipment stuff. I just wanted to make
[17:22] sure that the pools of money were the
[17:26] type of things that we don't open up the
[17:28] tree funds to doing some of the things
[17:30] that were covered or would be covered
[17:34] should they ever come up by other
[17:36] sources. And my other concern is again I
[17:39] said it the first time is that we still
[17:43] need to hold PSC and GSP to the fire in
[17:46] the sense that they're the ones who are
[17:48] supposed to uh maintain the trees around
[17:53] the power plant and I you know I know we
[17:56] talked about it reaching out I think it
[17:58] said six feet. So the PSG is not
[18:02] responsible to maintain, right? All they
[18:05] do is come in and cut branches. They'll
[18:07] trim branches that are within six feet
[18:10] of our lawn. So what this does is to say
[18:14] we're going to manage our our trees that
[18:16] if there's a hazardous tree or dead
[18:18] tree, rather than waiting for it to take
[18:21] that power, you know, we're gonna we're
[18:23] gonna responsibly maintain that.
[18:28] >> Yeah. Um again, uh you know, I I wrote
[18:31] the feedback basically, but um I had
[18:34] concerns about a couple of expenditures,
[18:36] but I didn't I'll let the attorney
[18:40] >> on that. And it's also important what
[18:42] the what they can't use for so
[18:46] resolution, it specifically talks about
[18:49] what it can be used for. So it can't be
[18:51] used for just to plum a hole in the DPW
[18:54] budget. it can't be used to really uh
[18:58] fund personnel in the budget. I assume I
[19:02] guess like anything we do no matter
[19:05] where it sits it has to come to the
[19:06] castle that's the other
[19:11] discretionary body
[19:12] >> right so even if you uh
[19:14] >> it'll be in your bill
[19:15] >> even if you did even if you do this stud
[19:18] equipment you know that has to initiate
[19:21] and be controlled here right so uh
[19:24] you're going to be awarding a contract
[19:27] or you're going to be authorizing a bid
[19:29] or you're going to be accepting
[19:30] rejecting bids. So at every step of that
[19:34] level, the council has control.
[19:37] >> Yes. I just again when we're opening up
[19:40] allowable expenses into something that
[19:43] we hadn't previously used the fund for,
[19:46] I have concerns.
[19:49] >> No, I understand. I think it's a larger
[19:50] public safety issue that was trying to
[19:53] >> So I actually agree with Julie that and
[19:56] this is a note I wrote that it should be
[19:58] a separate account that this should be
[20:00] you know the tree can management or the
[20:02] you know utility protection zone fund
[20:05] should be separate than our tree escrow
[20:07] which is used for our residents and I
[20:10] have to say the other thing I was very
[20:11] concerned about is that we are actually
[20:13] encouraging using the tree esil within
[20:16] the first 10 ft of into property with
[20:18] many power lines. So, if this is going
[20:21] to counteract that and we're going to,
[20:23] you know, plant a tree and then cut it
[20:24] back the next year, we should really
[20:26] think about uh figuring out how to
[20:28] coordinate over those weeks because
[20:30] right now we are
[20:30] >> I think I can tell you from personal um
[20:33] discussions as as a resident that that
[20:36] is something that your tree expert in
[20:38] town is looking at. um because I
[20:42] asked if I could get one and I have a
[20:44] pole right in front of my property
[20:47] >> potentially create a problem
[20:48] >> and so um circular indicated that
[20:51] there's only certain trees that we would
[20:53] recommend for planting and they're the
[20:54] ones that don't grow this pole so that
[20:56] it will impact the poll. So it is
[20:57] something that he's already looking at.
[20:59] >> I think Mr.
[21:01] Right now it's
[21:05] » $700,000.
[21:07] >> But that's that's that's a misnomer. A
[21:09] lot of money is going absolute back to
[21:11] the to the resident.
[21:18] So I would like to go ahead
[21:19] >> again. It is as Julie said, it's a
[21:21] revolving account where when mitigation
[21:23] happens, we return to large source of
[21:26] that account. And so really what's
[21:28] usable at all times is not 700k. It's less.
[21:32] >> Dave, what's the
[21:34] >> But
[21:36] before you ask a question in the middle
[21:37] of my question, can I just
[21:39] >> Oh, no. Please go on.
[21:40] >> I I was just going to say, but I also
[21:43] don't think that I want to hire outside
[21:45] companies and pay for them to cut back
[21:47] our dead branches. Like that is we have
[21:49] tree poor men. We hire our DPW guys. We
[21:52] hire our tree guys. We are spending the
[21:55] money currently and one of their tasks
[21:57] is to cut back dead or dead trees. We
[22:00] have a tree foreman that inspects. If
[22:02] there is a dead tree, he's allowed to
[22:03] remove them. If there's branches in the
[22:05] way, they're allowed to be, you know,
[22:07] noticed and RCW does it. So, we're
[22:09] actually creating an additional expense
[22:11] for us to do something. We're already
[22:13] paying a salaried employee to conduct.
[22:16] Well, that's an operational question of
[22:18] whether right how many how many hours,
[22:21] >> but I haven't seen
[22:22] >> available to actually do that.
[22:23] >> You didn't see the 300
[22:25] sc without power for
[22:27] >> and that was a healthy tree that's split
[22:29] in half at Dave Johnson. I saw the tree.
[22:31] I walked over to it. I touched it. He
[22:33] was still perfectly helping inside. He
[22:35] just got hit by lightning and took down
[22:37] the power and the stuff I can completely
[22:40] agree is very hard to anticipate and we
[22:43] need to react. But I'm saying I don't
[22:44] necessarily
[22:45] >> I don't think you should react. I think
[22:47] we should be proactive. We should
[22:49] protect our people. I don't want to
[22:51] double dip. I don't want to have two pe
[22:53] two different people in charge of
[22:55] cutting and tearing for our trees. We
[22:57] have people outside
[22:59] >> except we're not double dipping for our
[23:01] trees.
[23:01] >> It's like any any other thing we do. If
[23:04] we don't have enough resources or we
[23:06] have this much work and only this much
[23:08] resources in a period of time, we use
[23:10] outside.
[23:12] >> Yeah. I mean this is what we earn an
[23:14] assessment
[23:15] >> again we have someone who assesses we
[23:17] have tree born who are graduates of
[23:20] people with degrees the health of trees
[23:22] >> no one's arguing that
[23:23] >> so maybe we hire an additional tree
[23:25] person instead of hiring an entire bid
[23:28] to go put an outside company
[23:30] >> that's just a simple economic $1,000
[23:33] >> yeah I mean that's that's a economic
[23:35] question of which is
[23:37] >> I see 12 in here I see an open bid I see
[23:40] not two
[23:43] Okay. But again,
[23:44] >> so to to protect,
[23:45] >> how many times are we going to do this
[23:46] versus having someone on staff do the
[23:48] job that we hired them to do?
[23:51] >> They they are doing the job of hiring
[23:53] them to do it. But sometimes if we have
[23:54] more more things to address, then we
[23:57] need people and work hours. We need to
[23:59] get help from
[24:00] >> unfortunately these storms as we're
[24:02] seeing are happening more often. And
[24:05] again, if we could spend a little bit of
[24:07] money to protect our residents, the
[24:09] houses, I'm full protecting our
[24:11] residents.
[24:12] >> Not for cutting down our tree canopy so
[24:15] drastically when we are actually trying
[24:17] to replant most of our tree plant tree
[24:21] so drastically. I don't drastically
[24:25] it's misleading because we don't know
[24:28] how many trees. Someone's got to go
[24:29] around and see. I think we're talking we
[24:31] have to look at the one
[24:34] professional
[24:36] >> to tell us if we're safe
[24:38] >> or we're not.
[24:39] >> We have that person. It is our DW tree
[24:42] for copy someone with that exact job
[24:44] description. Make go see if there's
[24:46] health. Go see if there's
[24:49] >> He's not licensed.
[24:50] >> We don't have licensed street for right
[24:52] now.
[24:52] >> He's not lic. And as a matter of fact,
[24:56] um our former super our former director
[24:59] is president and he's to do the book.
[25:04] So, it's someone that we're familiar
[25:05] with.
[25:06] >> And again, I might not be interested in
[25:08] private,
[25:09] >> you know, to me like again, my my topic
[25:12] was it's it's definitely I support
[25:14] everything to protect the citizens. I
[25:18] I'm just also
[25:20] ensuring that the money is
[25:23] protected in the sense of I don't want
[25:26] people to think they're paying for one
[25:28] thing and then we find out it's not for
[25:31] the purpose as they thought that it was.
[25:33] So I have to say your your thing that
[25:36] you brought out about having two
[25:38] separate funds, those type of things are
[25:39] more interesting to me because I believe
[25:41] the transparency that I can tell you for
[25:45] the pure donation
[25:50] port is very limited. Most of this is
[25:52] that you're grabbing it from the lack of
[25:54] mitigation.
[25:55] >> Yeah.
[25:56] >> Right.
[25:57] as we talk.
[25:59] you try to you need to adjust that
[26:02] somewhat you ask to um so um you know
[26:06] this is something that uh arguably you
[26:09] control the money uh so it can't be you
[26:12] know it's not a slush volume that we can
[26:15] use and say go a lot and hire you want
[26:18] and do this stuff
[26:19] >> right
[26:19] >> the control is still here even when an
[26:21] outside treaty company comes in to
[26:23] assist
[26:24] >> so David when you say outside company I
[26:27] mean obviously we don't look at public
[26:28] business but for you to saying is that
[26:30] the person who was our tree foreman who
[26:32] left Tennifly to get a different job in
[26:35] the middle of a very important season um
[26:38] now wants us to pay him to come back to
[26:40] assess the trees and he took the job as
[26:43] the for that has nothing to do with
[26:45] anything he resigned to get it to get a
[26:47] different job.
[26:48] >> Okay,
[26:48] >> we have no there's nothing everyone at this table is at some point
[26:52] in life.
[26:52] >> He knew then he was walking with his
[26:54] licensed tree foreman and now he wants
[26:56] us to pay for that privately. or we
[26:59] could pay a different license. I don't
[27:00] think that's the issue with
[27:02] >> just a very
[27:05] like I I gave the feedback. I just want
[27:08] to make sure that the funds is, you
[27:10] know,
[27:12] clear and that those expenditure.
[27:16] So, you know, I know we're talk talking
[27:18] about these things for September 8th.
[27:20] What about uh Lauren's suggestion about
[27:24] different demonetation understanding? I
[27:26] understand what you're saying about most
[27:28] of the money is coming from un uh
[27:31] mitigated situations for trees.
[27:36] How we resolve that?
[27:38] >> Well, I mean
[27:39] >> I mean just just to actually discuss
[27:42] I think everyone is aware that we need
[27:44] to do a new resolution dedication by
[27:47] trust um a dedication
[27:51] by writing
[27:53] proper ways. I'm sorry my brain's not
[27:55] punching but so no matter what we used
[27:58] to have a reservation on to now reflect
[28:00] the new free ordinance which is required
[28:02] by state law right now it's under the
[28:05] administrative code. So just want to
[28:08] keep that clear. We can certainly kick
[28:10] off one way or the other but we do need
[28:12] to establish a new resolution
[28:16] to authorize our our tree fund based on
[28:18] how our ordinance is written which
[28:21] >> well we did we did that a couple months
[28:23] ago. We did the ordinance. We have not
[28:24] done the residency.
[28:26] >> Oh, okay. So, I I would like to request
[28:30] that the DPW I'd like to speak with our
[28:32] DPW and our food group and see if I'd
[28:36] like them to weigh in on this to see
[28:38] what kind of timing and commitment they
[28:40] have to do this kind of work versus what
[28:43] if they think they need outside.
[28:47] » Yeah, but I haven't on the DPW.
[28:50] >> You can have a DPW. Thank you. Me too.
[28:53] That's not what I should do all the four
[28:55] September.
[28:58] >> I'd like to talk about staffing and we
[29:01] need another license.
[29:03] >> I can tell you that you have one trooper
[29:06] and if law enforcement is on vacation
[29:08] sick they don't utilize
[29:13] three people right
[29:14] >> and to hire additional people just to do
[29:16] treats. You're talking
[29:20] forward talking about labor health
[29:21] benefits. You're talking a commitment of
[29:24] 150,000 hours where you can utilize a
[29:27] tree contract with the Riverside
[29:30] Cooperative for a rolloff
[29:35] » $10,000.
[29:38] Well, they are contract
[29:41] >> but a lot of times in the storms
[29:46] they fall.
[29:46] >> Well, this is so this isn't about doing
[29:49] it. We don't cut trees down during
[29:51] storms. Nature takes care of that and
[29:53] takes the trees down and destroys
[29:54] everything that's bad. But we this sort
[29:57] of pruning of trees and things like that
[29:59] would happen in an organized fashion
[30:01] before and after storms, not you know in
[30:03] anticipation of storms, not during the
[30:05] storm, right? Again, this is not to
[30:08] exceed 70,000
[30:10] under the sun.
[30:11] >> So So I'm good with any council people
[30:14] speaking to anybody. I just want to make
[30:16] sure this is on the agenda because I
[30:18] don't want to delay and protect.
[30:21] >> Yeah, it'll be on the agenda for the
[30:22] next meeting. We'll have a deep
[30:24] like in the hurricane.
[30:27] >> I think it's also important to note the
[30:29] DN
[30:31] setting out their MSP storm water
[30:33] furnacing in the model 3 or specifically
[30:36] that the fees that are set into the
[30:39] first one are for city planning and
[30:42] continued maintenance. All of this is
[30:44] falling between the regions. I was a
[30:47] little concerned about the cost of being
[30:50] of the most
[30:52] equipment. I don't think we ever bought
[30:54] equipment through preferences
[31:03] equipment right now. Especially
[31:07] this part of the satellite
[31:10] just like we do in the old space, right?
[31:12] You decide what you feel like you want
[31:14] to put through for a generalization
[31:16] model. What you put through wanting to
[31:18] trust or devot
[31:26] we've never like I know like my time on
[31:28] council like we we kill ourselves to try
[31:31] to spend a little bit of the money.
[31:33] We've never got anywhere near spending
[31:36] all the money and sit down. Right.
[31:38] >> True job.
[31:38] >> Yeah. The hundreds of thousands of
[31:40] dollars.
[31:42] Okay. I still think we should look to
[31:45] our offerings in house, but we have to
[31:47] bid this out every single year.
[31:49] >> If we had the time in house, then it
[31:51] would be done and it's not. Everyone's
[31:54] working super hard. The DW was amazing.
[31:57] So clearly additional help could be
[32:01] again
[32:03] >> $17,000 could protect our res. We ready
[32:06] to move on to the next topic?
[32:07] >> Yes. Good. Rank choice voting.
[32:09] Counciloman Dave put this on the agenda.
[32:12] >> I did. So, a member of the TDMC has
[32:15] actually asked that this be brought to
[32:16] council. So, I put this on the agenda
[32:20] and um this is to consider for our
[32:23] elections. Right now, it's a one vote
[32:26] option, but rank choice voting is you
[32:29] have your top choice and your secondary
[32:31] choice. So, you can rank your candidates
[32:33] in the order in which you'd want to
[32:34] succeed. It actually allows for you make
[32:37] your first choice, you get your second
[32:39] choice and maybe not support a different
[32:43] choice that you would want to see
[32:45] succeed. It actually allows for people
[32:47] to have more flexibility in voting. Um,
[32:49] it ensures that the winner has a
[32:51] majority of more residents than less.
[32:55] Maybe it's someone's second choice.
[32:56] >> So, does primary voting go away? And
[32:58] it's just a general election.
[33:00] >> And it would be the finals legislation
[33:03] does not apply to the governance.
[33:06] >> It doesn't apply to the finance.
[33:08] >> Not the legislation that he's referring
[33:10] to.
[33:12] >> It hasn't technically shelled yet. Um
[33:15] the general sent
[33:20] there is and I also note because I
[33:22] looked into it. Um there's proposed
[33:25] legislation coming out of the Senate
[33:26] which is different than coming from the
[33:28] Assembly.
[33:29] >> What's exciting?
[33:30] >> Um neither one has primaries in it which
[33:33] quite frankly for 10:00 is when you have
[33:35] the most opportunity for rank choice
[33:37] voting.
[33:38] >> But I would just caution that because
[33:40] there's conflicting bills proposals
[33:43] right now coming on two sides. I would
[33:45] suggest waiting because we're not sure
[33:48] what the process would be if and when it
[33:51] >> I can't do anything now. as response.
[33:53] Well, cool.
[33:54] >> It's a very very interesting concept,
[33:56] right? It's all in different places
[33:58] around the country.
[33:59] >> Can you get copies of the bills?
[34:02] >> I I did think other municipalities were
[34:04] putting in rank choice at the municipal
[34:06] level even before the state bills were
[34:09] passing.
[34:10] >> How could they do that deal with
[34:13] both?
[34:16] » Yeah. So, the municipalities don't set
[34:19] the ballots, right? It's not on the
[34:21] county.
[34:22] >> I think they put it in
[34:24] >> we want we want or we support franchise
[34:27] bill.
[34:27] >> Yes. There's resolutions that have been
[34:30] floating around looking with support
[34:32] board for it to send to the um
[34:34] legislature, but they're not actually
[34:36] able to implement anything until such
[34:38] time as we go out.
[34:39] >> So, I'm going to make a recommendation
[34:40] here that we can you distribute the bill
[34:46] to the council members and then maybe
[34:48] after we've had a chance to read it and
[34:50] think about it, we consider a uh a uh
[34:54] resolution to support it to the state
[34:55] legislature.
[34:57] Again, I'm happy to have put this before
[35:00] everybody.
[35:01] It's not necessarily mind. I think
[35:03] everyone should look into this and think
[35:05] about it. Um I'm glad it should be part
[35:07] of the discussion. I think elections it
[35:10] does make a lot more flexibility in
[35:11] elections.
[35:12] >> Okay. As I understand it, just think
[35:15] again. There's nothing else to implement
[35:18] till things get closer. But I would
[35:21] assume this is when there's lots of
[35:24] people running. You know, one 10 people
[35:26] run for mayor of New York.
[35:29] >> Well, if it's two, then there's no need
[35:30] the right choice. You need three. You
[35:32] need three. So, that's my whole point.
[35:34] We kill our So, having two creates no
[35:37] value.
[35:38] So, again, it's kind of
[35:42] >> look at it.
[35:43] >> It doesn't. No, I wish more people ran
[35:45] here.
[35:45] >> Mr. President, I think it is looking at
[35:48] places that have nonpartisan buildings.
[35:51] So it's open the school board and that
[35:54] are nonpartisan. They could potentially
[35:56] incentivize voting. But I think you're
[35:58] right. I think it's very limited
[36:01] opportunities
[36:02] different for that council
[36:11] » question because I have a lot of
[36:13] questions on um our safe streets and our
[36:16] complete streets. Would it be possible
[36:18] to ask you the presentation with
[36:21] breakthrough now before we get into the
[36:24] admin report and that way we can review
[36:29] ordinance or do you want to wait till
[36:30] later?
[36:31] >> Let's wait too long then. Let me get
[36:32] because so much of this stuff we'll be
[36:33] able to dispose
[36:35] >> trying to get John on earlier.
[36:36] >> Sean, you don't want to go home anyway.
[36:40] » Okay, we're going to move to public
[36:42] comment. Sorry. Oh, sorry. No jokes.
[36:48] So the third truck issue uh is has come
[36:52] across is that there's somewhat I I'll
[36:54] refer to it as a loophole um where uh
[36:58] there's an annual permit that the food
[37:01] truck can can apply for $100.
[37:05] And the way it's being uh looked at
[37:08] right now is that that food truck gets
[37:11] the permit for 100 hours and then can go
[37:13] and permanently park it uh for a number
[37:16] of consecutive days permanently parked
[37:19] at a location. Uh Bob Burns has uh I
[37:23] think rightfully uh determined that it's
[37:27] it would not
[37:29] come since not classify or qualified as
[37:32] a permitted excessive abuse. Um on the
[37:35] other hand you know from the revenue
[37:37] perspective I always this is that you
[37:40] know food truck is going to provide adal
[37:43] taxation opportunities for the
[37:44] municipality and uh quite frankly if uh
[37:49] they can
[37:51] um don't have to dial it in comparison
[37:54] to what they pay taxes. Um, that being
[37:59] said, it's my understanding, as goes to
[38:02] those of you that have been around,
[38:04] um, that the original legislative intent
[38:07] of food trucks was to allow for food
[38:10] trucks to be permitted at special events
[38:13] and, um,
[38:16] at a construction zone or an
[38:18] industrialized zone. um as opposed to
[38:22] just another business zone where we can
[38:25] fill in the burrow where you know
[38:27] restaurants are million half mile away
[38:31] what have you. Uh so Julie looking for
[38:33] feedback as to whether or not the
[38:36] burough attorney should be looking to um
[38:40] take a to to clarify the code intent or
[38:44] whether the the intent that I stimulated
[38:46] is actually what the intention was or
[38:49] what the current memory value feelings
[38:51] intention should be.
[38:53] >> So I say to ask the question what is the
[38:55] current what does the governing body
[38:56] want to do if anything about this? No.
[38:59] To to explain, we don't want we should
[39:03] be giving people $100 million worth of
[39:06] property for $100,
[39:07] >> right?
[39:09] >> When we initially passed the food truck
[39:12] ordinance, a big a big concern was of
[39:14] course supporting our existing
[39:16] businesses downtown and not giving them
[39:18] direct competition. You know, in a
[39:20] coffee truck for a while that was
[39:21] directly competing with the coffee
[39:23] shops. And as much as I like a coffee
[39:26] truck, I want my businesses to stay open
[39:28] more. And so I I do agree with David's
[39:31] point of view. I think that it should
[39:33] absolutely be limited to the special
[39:35] events and construction is over, which
[39:37] is a great time when we get to have
[39:39] them, but then I'd rather our residents
[39:41] support our downtown.
[39:48] » Oh gosh. Um, so first of all, that $100
[39:51] food trick truck permit that is paid for
[39:53] is there's only a couple of food trucks
[39:55] that actually see that opportunity. So
[39:59] that's just a couple of ice cream trucks
[40:01] that we have in town. That's it. our
[40:02] special events food truck is a different
[40:05] the the current applications that are
[40:07] before my office Jen or Councilwoman
[40:10] Jackson I'm sorry are um are uh food
[40:14] trucks actually food trucks that are
[40:16] looking to locate uh along here
[40:20] location so one I think is a is
[40:24] something and I don't know the other
[40:26] nots
[40:28] >> I'm sorry I just it's kind of hard to
[40:30] understand you from here I wish I was at
[40:32] the meeting it would be a lot easier.
[40:34] Um, you're saying that it's a Jamaican
[40:35] food truck for that specific location.
[40:38] >> Yeah, there there are two there are
[40:39] actually two food trucks that that have
[40:41] applications right now. They're not the
[40:43] ice cream trucks
[40:44] >> and that right. Okay. So, those people
[40:46] want to be more regular food trucks on a
[40:49] specific piece of property. Not anywhere
[40:51] around town, but they want to be on a
[40:52] specific piece of property. Is that
[40:54] correct?
[40:55] >> At this particular point, yes.
[40:58] >> Okay. So, um, which is interesting and I
[41:01] think that, like you said, it's a
[41:03] loophole and we should address that, but
[41:05] I think that the current, uh, food truck
[41:08] ordinance that we have, this $100
[41:09] doesn't also apply to the special event.
[41:13] So, just to like decipher that for all
[41:15] of us that like we have this ordinance
[41:18] that isn't quite the food truck
[41:20] ordinance isn't quite applicable to the
[41:24] regular use of um, of food trucks in our
[41:27] town. So, just to put that out there, I
[41:30] think that sure I I I would say that
[41:32] personally my opinion is that we could
[41:34] invite more restaurant opportunities in
[41:37] our town. I'm not against that. I think
[41:39] it's actually we actually need that. I
[41:41] wouldn't want to turn it away. I don't
[41:43] think that maybe $100 is not the right
[41:45] fee for that, but I don't think that
[41:48] turning away a potential business owner,
[41:50] small business owner who's certainly not
[41:54] um
[41:56] wellunded, not a corporate. Okay. So,
[41:59] anyway, that they shouldn't be spending
[42:01] $10,000
[42:03] to do business in our town. There should
[42:05] be something um in the in the
[42:07] intermediate.
[42:08] So that's my question.
[42:10] >> If you if we wanted to allow the idea of
[42:13] a food truck,
[42:15] >> if we want to allow an idea of a food
[42:17] truck, is there a number that's not $100
[42:20] and it more kind of
[42:22] >> again this is more of a permit. So like if we want, you know, a
[42:28] weekend or a food truck to come,
[42:30] >> this has nothing to do with what we're
[42:32] talking about. Right. But I'm also
[42:34] >> So, so the question is if there is a
[42:36] more permanent food truck,
[42:38] >> is there a number?
[42:39] >> Do we want more?
[42:40] per permanent food
[42:42] trucks? I think Jenny was saying
[42:44] possibly. Yeah,
[42:46] >> I'm seeing we have a lot of interest in
[42:48] food trucks. We have a lot of people
[42:50] coming repeatedly to town. And I know
[42:52] David didn't wasn't really intending to
[42:54] bring this up, but I've been trying to
[42:56] talk about this for a while. We have
[42:58] people coming on repeat, paying $54
[43:01] every time they come. Um, and it this
[43:03] $100 permit fee doesn't apply to them.
[43:07] Um, and it only is two ice cream trucks
[43:10] that are coming to town that are paying
[43:11] that. I see it's a loophole we need to
[43:13] close.
[43:14] >> And that's Jackson. Just to clarify, the ice cream trucks are not regulated
[43:20] under our food truck ordinance. They're
[43:21] underwater ordinance.
[43:23] >> Then who is?
[43:26] So presumably these food trucks, they
[43:29] have to get licensed before they can
[43:31] ever come to one of our special events.
[43:33] I'm not sure.
[43:35] >> Right. So the the $100 is covering the cost of the fire and health
[43:40] inspection and then you know it might be
[43:43] $54 for another event when they come
[43:45] back just because the the truck has
[43:47] moved. I'm not really sure where that is
[43:49] coming from, but this is part of being
[43:53] allowed to do business. Even at special
[43:55] events, you should have a license first.
[43:59] >> So, we don't have that's not how we've
[44:01] been doing business. I'm regularly
[44:03] interacting with these businesses. So,
[44:04] just to point that out that there's a
[44:07] lot of gray area here clearly now that
[44:10] all of this is coming to the table. So,
[44:13] >> and perhaps the answer is to look at our
[44:17] special events permits and only through
[44:19] that application.
[44:22] » I guess a problem.
[44:25] >> Yeah, sorry. Council,
[44:28] so are you interested then in having
[44:30] some trs sort of like stay for a couple
[44:33] weeks in a certain area here? I'm
[44:35] interested in
[44:38] what I'm interested in is not turning
[44:40] away a a business uh who wants to have a
[44:43] food truck on their property or turning
[44:46] away that food truck that wants to be on
[44:47] that business property. How do we allow
[44:49] it if we you all agree that that's okay
[44:52] to have a food truck there? How do we do
[44:54] that in a way that makes sense for the
[44:56] burrow? Okay, that's like in line with
[44:58] our with our vision for the town. Cuz
[45:02] that's what that's what David was
[45:03] bringing up was like, is this in line
[45:05] with our master plan? He was questioning
[45:08] that it's not and I think that is what
[45:10] is in line with our master plan if we
[45:12] have more restaurant opportunities in
[45:13] the town. That's what I'm saying.
[45:15] >> So, can I just ask a followup? I mean,
[45:18] would you
[45:20] >> like do you see a limit on how many
[45:21] trucks will allow or do we want a
[45:23] limited number? Because, you know, if we
[45:25] open this up hypothetically and we get,
[45:28] you know, 15 trucks parking and they're
[45:32] competing with our downtown businesses
[45:34] or blocking businesses or private, you
[45:36] know, sports sports areas. I mean, just
[45:39] I'm just trying to delve through this.
[45:41] So, I want to know what you what you
[45:44] >> I listen it just got
[45:47] >> I see what you're asking me. It's like
[45:48] it just got brought up like two hours
[45:50] ago. It just happens to be something
[45:52] I've been dealing with for uh years now.
[45:55] So, but I didn't have a big vision for
[45:57] it. I I I I wouldn't see a problem with
[46:01] one food truck being permanently at a a
[46:04] business in town because I think that we
[46:06] have a demand for more food
[46:07] opportunities in town. I don't think
[46:09] that it's going to take away from our
[46:11] downtown businesses. Lauren, that's what
[46:13] I'm saying. I don't know that there is a
[46:16] number necessarily. I don't think we've
[46:17] reached capacity.
[46:21] Okay. So, do you want to continue this
[46:23] conversation offline?
[46:25] >> I think this
[46:26] >> Yeah, I'm fine with that.
[46:32] » Yeah, that's okay with me. But David,
[46:34] you know, David, I think you you can
[46:36] explain a little bit further about why
[46:38] that this is a problem. Or maybe that's
[46:40] what I couldn't really hear you saying
[46:42] and I think that that's important that
[46:43] we close the loophole like you said.
[46:46] But uh other than that, I'm interested
[46:48] in in looking at food truck permits like
[46:51] as as a separate item because I think it
[46:54] brings the up the the problem that we
[46:56] already have right now.
[46:59] >> Yeah.
[47:00] >> I'd like to hear from the chamber
[47:02] contest.
[47:02] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, we want to hear from the
[47:04] chamber as well. But the the immediate
[47:06] thing is is that um I I support Bob
[47:09] Burn's uh uh position as a officer on
[47:13] this call that um that uh he would he
[47:17] would deny an application because it uh
[47:20] it would not be admissible accessible
[47:22] use uh and that the zoning code does not
[47:24] allow for it.
[47:26] If we want to uh entertain some kind of
[47:30] parameters or bars that would allow for
[47:34] selling limited locations or number of
[47:37] days, hours, what have you, then I think
[47:40] we come back with some of the listening
[47:41] team discussion.
[47:43] >> Okay. So then essentially maybe we can
[47:46] come back to that business. We can say
[47:47] that you know we have to we have to
[47:50] readress it. we deny this permit but we if they still are interested in the
[47:55] opportunity
[47:56] you know can we provide that opportunity
[47:59] that's my
[48:00] >> David's going to come David's going to
[48:01] come back with some suggestions and talk
[48:03] with the chamber um for the next meeting
[48:06] >> okay thank you
[48:07] >> from there okay um public comment time
[48:13] audience member audience members wishing
[48:15] to speak will have a threem minute time
[48:17] limit to address the governing body on
[48:19] items on the agenda Large groups are
[48:22] asked to have a spokesperson
[48:23] represented. Uh, anyone here in the
[48:26] chambers like to speak? Yes, please come
[48:27] to the microphone.
[48:30] >> My balance isn't so great.
[48:31] >> We have to bring the microphone over
[48:35] here.
[48:36] Hold on one second.
[48:38] >> My name is Marie.
[48:41] >> Okay, hold on one second.
[48:43] >> Let me see how we can get the microphone
[48:45] to you. Otherwise,
[48:45] >> you might have to come through. Andrew,
[48:47] could you slide in so young to that
[48:49] area?
[48:51] Does it
[48:58] » come to the front row sit down?
[49:09] » Yes.
[49:13] » I'd like to address the issue of
[49:14] handicapped parking. I've been emailing
[49:17] the mayor about this. uh we left
[49:20] Oakwood. We're going to speak to some
[49:22] department head about it, but uh
[49:24] Washington Avenue has no handicap
[49:26] parking at all. And I think that that
[49:28] would be very advantageous for old
[49:30] ladies like me and other handicapped
[49:33] people because we shop too.
[49:36] >> And I said the only ones are like in the
[49:38] post office and at CVS or in by the uh
[49:42] in the old high school. That's far from
[49:44] someone.
[49:44] >> So I did speak to the chief chief about
[49:46] the old chief about this. Um, and there
[49:50] was something he said that he had no
[49:51] problem making north handicap in the
[49:54] middle, but there has to be a ramp
[49:56] leading
[49:58] on the sidewalk.
[49:59] >> So, right.
[50:01] >> Yeah, you have to cut the Yeah. So, that
[50:03] was kind of where we
[50:04] >> Okay. Was that going to be something
[50:06] coming up soon?
[50:07] >> So, now we'll we'll continue the
[50:09] conversation.
[50:10] >> We have we have the chief of police here
[50:11] with us today. Chief, we're gonna put
[50:13] you right on the spot. Come on, Mike.
[50:14] >> Yeah. Yeah,
[50:17] >> this is sharp.
[50:20] Don't take like three minutes
[50:23] next to each other.
[50:25] >> All right, let's do this. So, um, first,
[50:28] uh, thank you for coming out and
[50:29] speaking to to the council on behalf of
[50:32] all handicap folks in town. Um, it is
[50:35] absolutely important to us that you guys
[50:36] have your space to be able to access
[50:38] everything in town. Um, I'm going to
[50:40] work with uh Don Nard here to see if
[50:43] there's any provisions that we need to
[50:44] make sure are appropriate and in line to
[50:47] make sure we're able to do this. I don't
[50:48] see why we can't uh any space downtown
[50:51] or adequate number of spaces so that
[50:55] we're able to provide that access to our
[50:57] residents 100%.
[50:59] >> Thank you very much. Yes. I also have a
[51:01] problem with the enforcement of certain
[51:03] rules and regulations in the town. When
[51:05] a tree took down our garage, we didn't
[51:07] get a a variance for inches to put back
[51:10] our garage. Now I see little houses
[51:13] going down and the mansions going up in
[51:15] their spaces with no backyards and no
[51:18] sideyards. It's very uh ugly looking and
[51:22] I'm just very surprised that Temply
[51:24] would allow something like that. It
[51:25] seems we had a variance for inches in
[51:28] our yard.
[51:28] >> You on you said
[51:30] >> yes. I also have a question in regards
[51:33] to uh enforcement of trees being cut
[51:36] down. We pull out on I told the police
[51:38] also on JW Avenue on the corner of
[51:41] Clinton. There's some very big
[51:42] evergreens and it's very hard to make a
[51:45] left-hand turn out there. There's a
[51:47] slight incline and the cars are upon you
[51:49] fast. And I said when I spoke to the
[51:52] department uh relaying department, he
[51:54] said to me they've already received a
[51:56] notification to cut back their trees. I
[51:58] understand there's a lot of would be
[52:00] very very expensive but it is a
[52:03] dangerous situation.
[52:05] >> So when you when you're driving on Jew
[52:09] left there's a little rise there and
[52:10] it's just enough a man was killed
[52:13] years years ago. So also I I wanted to
[52:16] ask about um lawns and I said we got
[52:20] years ago and noticed that our lawn
[52:21] needed to be cut. you get a fine, but
[52:24] there are laws all over town that are up
[52:26] to your knees and they're not enforced.
[52:28] And there's one place particularly
[52:30] that's got hoarding issues. Now, it's
[52:32] concerning to think about people like
[52:34] that because they really need to be
[52:37] addressed by the board of health because
[52:40] people need help and they may need some
[52:42] social services and it's not fair to
[52:44] their neighbors because they pay high
[52:46] taxes to have to live like that. So,
[52:48] that was another issue. Then uh we had
[52:51] tree limbs that went down in the storm.
[52:53] We put ours out. He got another notice
[52:55] saying that they were more than three
[52:57] feet and that was our responsibility. I
[53:00] called the department uh building
[53:01] department. He said, "Oh, I told the DPW
[53:04] about your situation." When I called
[53:06] them, the girl said to me, "One, it
[53:08] wasn't their job. Two, they did it as a
[53:11] favor to the town. And three, they only
[53:13] did it for a week." And I said to her,
[53:15] "How would I know any of these things?
[53:17] What if you're poor? What if you're old?
[53:19] She will come out and get it, but our
[53:21] landscaper had to come back and get
[53:23] them. I also um am missing the um corner
[53:27] house by us. Uh I think is a Airbnb and
[53:32] I spoke to you told me that on June 4th
[53:35] >> because we changed the rules on that.
[53:37] >> I know you said in 90 days it's not
[53:39] happening.
[53:40] >> 30 days. 30 days.
[53:41] >> 30. It's not happening. I don't think 30
[53:43] days. I'm really surprised at that
[53:46] because someone I know in real estate
[53:47] said you'd be very surprised that TFly
[53:50] would allow that. Don't
[53:54] >> go 90 days.
[53:55] >> No, 30 days is allowed.
[53:57] >> 30 days minimum.
[53:58] >> Yeah, I'm surprised. She said she'd be
[54:01] surprised that it shouldn't been 90
[54:03] days. They they're doing it by weeks.
[54:05] >> Yeah.
[54:07] >> I have personally checked that one. It's
[54:10] really um you know oversees it.
[54:12] >> So both David the administrator and I go
[54:15] on periodically check Airbnb and the RBO
[54:18] to see what's listed and they don't like
[54:21] it.
[54:21] >> They're not they're not posted for less
[54:24] than 30 days. Okay.
[54:25] >> If they're making side deals, we're not
[54:27] over
[54:28] 90 days and that is much more annual to
[54:32] other.
[54:36] So, the state board doesn't allow us to
[54:37] be with it till more than 30 days.
[54:40] >> Okay. We're no longer getting the Friday
[54:42] halls from the mayor.
[54:43] >> We are. You must not be signed up for
[54:45] it, but they're going out.
[54:46] >> Oh, we
[54:47] >> they are.
[54:48] >> We always got them and then all of a
[54:49] sudden they just stopped.
[54:50] >> Yeah. I don't know why that's going on,
[54:52] but it's been going on every Friday at
[54:53] 4:00.
[54:54] >> I said, "No, I can just speak to that."
[54:56] So, we're right now still investigating
[55:00] when we transferred over from our old
[55:02] system. We have a pocket of individuals
[55:04] that have signed up that are not getting
[55:06] those notifications where we've made the
[55:09] company aware of it. We're trying to
[55:10] solve that.
[55:11] >> Thanks. Because then we would have had
[55:12] some of those things about the trees at
[55:14] the street and the limited time to know
[55:16] all that. Also, I wanted to know about
[55:19] the police department sitting here. Um
[55:22] my assistant woman is scattery. They
[55:24] have a thing for uh either handicapped
[55:27] or people that live alone. It's like the
[55:28] help I'm fallen thing forms that you
[55:31] fill out. People know where your keys
[55:33] are so that in time of emergency police
[55:36] can get in and there is some kind of I
[55:38] guess notation that they can to carry on
[55:41] them.
[55:42] >> So So I'm not made aware of systems that
[55:45] are currently to allow
[55:48] police. However, in an e situation like
[55:50] that, short of calling by by way of
[55:52] home, but we do house fees for a great
[55:55] many. And beyond that, we have um we
[55:59] have provisions in our system to be able
[56:01] to take down information and keep that
[56:03] just
[56:05] because she's
[56:08] still like two of us, but there's some
[56:10] people that don't just like who knows
[56:13] how long it's going to be.
[56:16] Also, I've heard
[56:17] >> Wait, before you There is something you
[56:19] put on your refrigerator. It's a sheet.
[56:21] The senior services committee does this.
[56:23] >> It's a sheet you put on your
[56:24] refrigerator. It is usually bright
[56:26] yellow. Yeah.
[56:27] >> Um, you keep it on your fridge, on your
[56:29] kitchen cabinet or somewhere in your
[56:30] kitchen. Police and emergency responders
[56:32] know to look for this. It's emergency
[56:34] contacts and medical information.
[56:36] Anyway, it does exist and I'm sure the
[56:40] >> My last my last question to you is I've
[56:43] heard from several people that don't
[56:45] live in town that the Clinton M is
[56:47] planning to build a multi-story hotel
[56:50] with some kind of a nightclub or
[56:52] something on top of it. Now, I heard
[56:54] this from two other people and I would
[56:56] be very distressed to hear that that
[56:59] actually happened.
[57:00] >> So, if the multi-story part is true, the
[57:02] nightclub part is not. There's no
[57:05] nightclub.
[57:06] They're planning to put a pool wall in
[57:07] the roof.
[57:08] >> Oh, that's what I heard.
[57:09] >> But not a nightclub.
[57:10] >> Okay. And we're requiring the pool to be
[57:14] screened and um
[57:16] >> sound for well, not sound approved, but
[57:19] for sound modifications. There'll be
[57:21] hours of operation and so it won't be
[57:24] something.
[57:25] Was there any possible way that the town
[57:28] of Tennifly could maintain some of its
[57:31] beauty with some of the boxes with
[57:34] windows that are going up in this town?
[57:36] I said, we're losing the little capes,
[57:38] the beautiful Victorians. I said, uh
[57:41] they're all going by the wayside and now
[57:43] we have cement blocks. I said, they're
[57:46] really quite ugly. And I said, this town
[57:48] was always so beautiful. In November, I
[57:50] would have lived here 60 years. So, I've
[57:52] seen a lot of changes in the town and
[57:55] it's not pretty. And I said, I hope the
[57:58] Clinton would put something that would
[58:00] kind of resemble the bucolic kind of
[58:02] look that it had years ago. Maybe I'm
[58:05] living in the past, but that's kind of
[58:06] the way I feel about 10 fry. I said I
[58:09] really don't like to see some of the
[58:11] things that are are being built and
[58:14] going up with a nice little houses.
[58:16] That's all. Thank you for your comments.
[58:20] Thank you.
[58:21] >> Thank you, Gish. Okay. Is there anyone
[58:22] else here in the chambers that would
[58:24] like to speak? And McKel
[58:33] according to you Andrew McK
[58:36] um couple two two things. So first of
[58:39] all the uh complete streets policy
[58:43] uh wanted to say and fortunately traffic
[58:47] engineer took away the upon but
[58:49] congratulations.
[58:51] We're very proud of you. Uh, it's
[58:53] something that the Northern Valley
[58:55] Greenway Committee has been talking.
[58:58] We've been talking to a group called
[59:00] Bergen County Concrete Streets. That's a
[59:03] group that goes around and tries to get
[59:04] each other of the towns to pass here a
[59:07] ordinance on concrete streets. So, you
[59:10] guys saved us from having to bring all
[59:12] of them in to talk to you. Um, because
[59:16] you took the initiative. David, thank
[59:18] you very much for going to a session
[59:20] actually following up on it. Um, my
[59:24] understanding and again between David
[59:26] and John, it's the experts.
[59:29] It's not the any exact specific word
[59:31] that's in the ordinance that counts, but
[59:33] the fact that you have because it opens
[59:36] up doors for funding, for policy, for
[59:39] being included in county plans, and all
[59:41] types of things. I'm way above even me.
[59:44] Um, congratulations. I think it's also
[59:48] great because it will give you the
[59:50] framework to start preparing the town
[59:53] for the northern grid uh connectors,
[59:56] traffic arrangements, whatever. And if
[1:00:00] you're you're ahead of the other five,
[1:00:02] so we'll take credit and we'll take some
[1:00:05] uh pride in that one. And the other
[1:00:07] thing I wanted to talk about is I don't
[1:00:10] want to talk about that, but the sign on
[1:00:12] 9W by Clinton and beautiful sign. Um, I
[1:00:16] also drove by it at night time and maybe
[1:00:20] I'm getting old, but uh, it was just
[1:00:23] blinding,
[1:00:25] incredibly bright. So, I know on my
[1:00:28] apples there is something called the
[1:00:30] night mode where you can reverse the
[1:00:34] colors, the black and white at night.
[1:00:36] There's all types of things that you
[1:00:38] guys can figure out what works.
[1:00:40] >> We're going to look into it.
[1:00:41] >> But definitely look into it. And then as
[1:00:43] far as the messaging,
[1:00:46] and I hate to bring it up because none
[1:00:49] of you seem to like the ability to have
[1:00:52] six messages up on that corner or 20 at
[1:00:55] any one time, but the reality is again,
[1:00:59] there are public communication experts
[1:01:01] here in this room who know more about
[1:01:03] it. But a sign like that rotates through
[1:01:07] a set of messages.
[1:01:10] If you're driving by it, the chances of
[1:01:13] having enough time to even read one of
[1:01:15] those messages is pretty small because
[1:01:19] it goes through one after the other. So
[1:01:23] you may catch one of the 20 messages or
[1:01:26] six or five, whatever that it goes
[1:01:29] through over its cycle, but no. But
[1:01:32] that's it. You know, it's an interesting
[1:01:34] I'm going to just throw it out there,
[1:01:36] but it's like one of the mantras in
[1:01:39] terms of billboards
[1:01:41] is seven words or less. Other words, the
[1:01:44] human ability as you're driving by is
[1:01:46] for seven words or less to understand
[1:01:48] it. So, when you have 10 billboards up
[1:01:50] there and you're driving by, the average
[1:01:53] person is only, which is all of us, is
[1:01:55] only grabbing seven words out of the
[1:01:57] whole thing.
[1:01:58] >> I picked the one I want to look at and
[1:02:00] that's what I
[1:02:01] >> absolutely correct. But on this one,
[1:02:03] what I'm concerned is
[1:02:06] that you may catch one of the messages
[1:02:11] as you drive by me,
[1:02:14] >> which is what you do in the billboard.
[1:02:15] Besides, if you're typically driving by
[1:02:17] there like myself, like many people
[1:02:19] every day, drive by 501, 502, 449. So on
[1:02:24] different days, you see different
[1:02:25] flashing signs. That's all.
[1:02:26] >> It's right,
[1:02:28] >> whatever. But the brightness at night
[1:02:30] time is something I highly recommend.
[1:02:32] You guys look good. Thank you.
[1:02:34] >> Thank you. Anyone else here in the
[1:02:36] chamber want to speak? Um, is there
[1:02:39] anyone online who would like to uh be
[1:02:41] heard? Public comment. Anyone raising
[1:02:44] their hand?
[1:02:45] >> I see no hands. Mayor,
[1:02:46] >> no hands. Okay, we're going to uh close
[1:02:49] public comment time then and move on to
[1:02:52] the administrative report. Council
[1:02:54] members or questions for the
[1:02:55] administrator?
[1:02:59] really
[1:03:00] obviously committee for complete
[1:03:02] streets. I would like to get out of it.
[1:03:04] >> Yeah, Dave and I both did that in the
[1:03:07] lead and I did follow up a little bit of
[1:03:09] our budget mall and I am definitely
[1:03:12] working
[1:03:14] on that. I have a question about
[1:03:18] May
[1:03:21] in the report. I know this might be a
[1:03:24] question that comes up because you know
[1:03:26] it's in the resolution
[1:03:29] to just tell me if when you want me to
[1:03:31] ask it but um I know now we've uh we're
[1:03:35] going to be awarding tonight a
[1:03:39] we're going to be awarding like
[1:03:41] engineering services tonight.
[1:03:44] >> So two different one is we already
[1:03:46] authorized the student to like special
[1:03:49] meetings. This is just um codifying the
[1:03:53] actual number. Okay. Um uh so that's not
[1:03:57] part of the bank scenario like the new
[1:03:59] person rate engineering services and
[1:04:02] specifically uh time towards the bank
[1:04:06] application and John can talk about that
[1:04:09] you know when you know it's ready for
[1:04:11] the process take place but it's a um you
[1:04:15] know it's a very involved study
[1:04:18] basically
[1:04:20] filling um
[1:04:23] the intersections that live traffic
[1:04:26] lights and design so
[1:04:29] we
[1:04:31] can conver
[1:04:34] one
[1:04:36] that was we we didn't get the bids uh
[1:04:40] was that a one we didn't get bids for
[1:04:41] the the amount
[1:04:45] rejected on technicality and the rest of
[1:04:47] the bids the second time were too high
[1:04:49] >> too high was authorized to negotiate a
[1:04:52] contract so we negotiated get them over
[1:04:54] there. Um, right. And you reduce the
[1:04:58] amount by 74,000.
[1:05:01] >> Oh, okay. So, that that's on the
[1:05:04] resolution.
[1:05:05] >> That's correct.
[1:05:05] >> So, my question is about that. is
[1:05:08] explained going to be that that it
[1:05:12] becomes a four-way stop sign in that
[1:05:15] area or it will be just two stop signs
[1:05:20] where when a person is coming out of
[1:05:22] what that entrance will be crossont
[1:05:25] I just I just want to know
[1:05:28] >> in fact
[1:05:31] that we chief put in
[1:05:36] >> currently the The plan is that behind is
[1:05:40] where the stop signs be in the street
[1:05:42] farming. Uh the chief raised some
[1:05:44] concerns about you know people trying to
[1:05:46] get out of of
[1:05:51] the study of you start to see whether or
[1:05:53] not
[1:05:54] it's not what the impact that would lead
[1:05:56] to the disruption of the other.
[1:06:00] >> All right. I mean personally I think
[1:06:01] it's probably going to end up needing a
[1:06:02] light you know that you know because it
[1:06:05] is a high school crazy area
[1:06:08] >> but uh okay so so that's going to be
[1:06:10] looked at. That's what I wanted, you
[1:06:12] know. And I I just want to uh one other
[1:06:15] thing on your end is your administrative
[1:06:17] report was you mentioned about the table
[1:06:20] is now going to Grove Street. So we'll
[1:06:22] be able to have security cameras. I
[1:06:26] wanted to say that Omar uh ordered the
[1:06:29] signs for the little stream flots. So
[1:06:32] the desk or anybody who's interested in
[1:06:34] also um gardening there that we'd have
[1:06:38] the security in case anyone wanted was
[1:06:40] >> actually council lady.
[1:06:46] So, I just was I asked how many were
[1:06:48] being taken because if they're not being
[1:06:50] used, I thought maybe it'd be a good
[1:06:52] idea to offer them up to our restaurants
[1:06:54] so that they might want to grow some of
[1:06:57] their own herbs and vegetables there. We
[1:07:00] could really be a farm-to-table
[1:07:02] community. Um,
[1:07:03] >> that's that sounds really compelling.
[1:07:06] Uh, I think just we were going to do a
[1:07:08] little bit of like a promotion of it
[1:07:11] because it the it roll out is a little
[1:07:12] funky. But but I think that's that's
[1:07:15] >> I mean I just want them to be to be used
[1:07:18] to me that space is great. So I want to
[1:07:20] have to be used and if it's first to the
[1:07:23] residents if not let's businesses.
[1:07:26] >> Absolutely.
[1:07:26] >> There's people grow their own basil and
[1:07:28] herbs and rosemary and garlic and
[1:07:31] tomatoes and I think it'd be amazing
[1:07:34] market kind of thing here. And now we'll
[1:07:36] have security.
[1:07:38] All right. Thank you. That's a good
[1:07:39] point.
[1:07:40] >> Another question on street. So, you
[1:07:43] know, and this is old. Um, but we had
[1:07:46] initially when we were talking about
[1:07:48] girls street years ago and passed it,
[1:07:50] we're talking about naming the dog park
[1:07:52] after our former mayor. um never
[1:07:56] happened, but uh I believe that our
[1:07:59] former mayor actually was hoping that it
[1:08:01] would supposed to be after Mayor Rosen.
[1:08:05] Um and so I just want to follow up on
[1:08:07] that request
[1:08:09] >> and I know that he's called me. I know
[1:08:11] he wanted to speak with her mayor about
[1:08:13] this. Um
[1:08:14] >> I wish we could talk about that all.
[1:08:17] >> So I just wanted to know if it ever went
[1:08:19] to our naming committee, if it's ever
[1:08:21] reviewed. So because our council back
[1:08:24] then had discussed it, it had let the
[1:08:26] mayor outgo mayor at that time know it
[1:08:29] was going to be named after him. It was
[1:08:31] told to him. So again, I just don't want
[1:08:33] to leave that game. I believe that prior
[1:08:36] to the renovation, the park had been
[1:08:38] named previously. Yeah.
[1:08:41] >> So it was the original dog park. It all
[1:08:44] has obviously changed with the
[1:08:47] >> and then we just named it the Gro Street
[1:08:49] Park,
[1:08:49] >> right? I think this the area he would
[1:08:51] like is the dog park. You know, he was
[1:08:53] always seen walking his dogs. It was not
[1:08:55] horrific giving to an outgoing mayor. I
[1:08:57] would like to just follow up and see
[1:08:59] maybe if we can put that honorific back,
[1:09:02] you know. I think
[1:09:04] years it was done in his name.
[1:09:10] » I think
[1:09:12] it was
[1:09:14] okay.
[1:09:14] >> So I don't remember discussion about
[1:09:17] removing it. So that's why I think it's
[1:09:19] not going to um I did have another
[1:09:21] question just I wanted to tell the
[1:09:23] public status of the little leaf fields.
[1:09:25] I know construction begins and they're
[1:09:28] waiting on them every day but
[1:09:30] >> Yeah. Yeah. So um the the be offsite by
[1:09:35] September the 1st.
[1:09:36] >> Okay.
[1:09:36] >> Uh borrowing torrential raintorms. Um so
[1:09:41] the the contract was is you know under
[1:09:44] contract. So they're taking a little bit
[1:09:45] on the chin. Um they've had to uh
[1:09:48] dewater and remove silks. Um I got a
[1:09:52] hill talks now. Uh so you know they have
[1:09:55] that expense and they're working
[1:09:57] diligently. I
[1:09:59] was not pleased with some of the
[1:10:01] communication from my OG uh frankly on
[1:10:04] the status of of the project and I spoke
[1:10:07] with the contractor directly uh this
[1:10:09] morning and we were advised that that
[1:10:11] parking lot is needed for school faculty
[1:10:14] for August 24th and that the school
[1:10:17] opens on August 31st. area they wanted
[1:10:20] to uh certainly be off of that parking
[1:10:23] lot
[1:10:25] if they could be out of the area
[1:10:29] 347.
[1:10:30] So that's what we're hoping to see. And
[1:10:32] as you know from the joint committee, we
[1:10:34] obviously
[1:10:38] as you know from the joint committee,
[1:10:40] you know, schools absolutely want their
[1:10:41] parking lot done.
[1:10:42] >> Yeah.
[1:10:46] » So I I feel like, you know, we really do
[1:10:48] need to abide by that.
[1:10:50] >> But collective care is underway.
[1:10:54] and um and I've communicated the the
[1:10:56] status to general cleaning and
[1:11:00] they they have to take a seat there
[1:11:01] which may be done by all
[1:11:05] one more question. Um it's on the
[1:11:08] amphitheater. Um, so I will say, and
[1:11:12] maybe I just don't have it, but I did
[1:11:14] think it was going to be wider and
[1:11:15] lower. And again, I I know I asked this
[1:11:18] to you last time, but it does seem to be
[1:11:20] higher than the what the spec showed. It
[1:11:23] did show like a wider, lower indicator,
[1:11:26] and I asked last time, is it being built
[1:11:28] to spec?
[1:11:29] >> So it's it's being built to the spec
[1:11:32] that the actual contracting photograph
[1:11:35] that's in it's temporary sign. So we
[1:11:38] stop the
[1:11:40] >> Yes. That's not that's not the design we
[1:11:42] ordered.
[1:11:43] >> Yeah. So
[1:11:44] >> a lot of residents ask me about that.
[1:11:46] They see that picture and then they see
[1:11:47] the epid
[1:11:49] is that you can see all our downtown
[1:11:51] business. It doesn't block the running
[1:11:53] of any of our downtown businesses. So we
[1:11:55] have brought down still
[1:11:58] everything on railroad which I think is
[1:12:00] so important and they were really upset
[1:12:02] when like things do block.
[1:12:04] >> Um so I know that is off the top of my
[1:12:06] head. It's 50 ft wide at the widest peak
[1:12:09] and then it was 36 ft.
[1:12:15] » Yeah. 506 opening day.
[1:12:18] >> So
[1:12:22] from US Open finals weekend definitely
[1:12:26] which is
[1:12:28] 12 and 13
[1:12:29] >> subject to the weather.
[1:12:31] >> It keeps raining like it's raining. Um
[1:12:34] uh we're hoping that it will be ready
[1:12:36] for the previous weekend for the
[1:12:37] semifinals uh which is the fifth and
[1:12:41] 6th. Um but you know we we are
[1:12:44] definitely planning to have a grand
[1:12:46] opening card so and so forth will be US
[1:12:50] Sunday the 13.
[1:12:54] So we anticipate we hope that uh that
[1:12:59] the contractor will have progressed far
[1:13:01] enough that the community
[1:13:08] that they don't punch this scenario by
[1:13:11] meeting.
[1:13:15] » All right. Uh next item on the agenda is
[1:13:18] correspondence regarding the block party
[1:13:21] on Richard Street. Everybody good with
[1:13:23] that? Yes.
[1:13:24] >> Okay.
[1:13:29] Next is
[1:13:37] » Okay. Introduction of ordinance 26-22
[1:13:41] complete streets. Councilwoman Dayton,
[1:13:43] would you like to make a motion, please?
[1:13:46] >> Discuss this. So I I am, you know,
[1:13:50] looking at the $1 million for surveying
[1:13:54] and and possible I'd like to bring out
[1:13:57] discussion.
[1:13:57] >> That would probably be
[1:13:59] >> Isn't it as part of it?
[1:14:02] >> This is just the
[1:14:06] streets policy
[1:14:08] >> and it says I'm passing the right.
[1:14:11] >> Yeah. Okay. That's resolution.
[1:14:13] >> And yes, I absolutely want to run. Um,
[1:14:16] so a movement introduced on first
[1:14:18] reading ordinance 26-22
[1:14:21] and set the hearing for September 8th,
[1:14:23] 2026 at 7:33 a.m.
[1:14:27] >> Have a second, please.
[1:14:28] >> Second.
[1:14:29] >> Okay. Kira, can you please read title of
[1:14:31] the ordinance and conduct those votes?
[1:14:34] >> Introduction of ordinance. Ordinance
[1:14:35] number 26-22,
[1:14:38] an ordinance establishing a complete and
[1:14:40] contextsensitive street policy and
[1:14:43] supplementing the revised general
[1:14:44] ordinance of the Burrow of Tennifly.
[1:14:47] Councilman Corsair,
[1:14:48] >> yes.
[1:14:49] >> Councilman Dayton, Councilman Jackson,
[1:14:52] >> yes.
[1:14:54] >> Councilman President Michaels,
[1:14:56] >> yes.
[1:14:57] >> Councilman Dr. Okconor,
[1:14:58] >> yes.
[1:14:59] >> Councilman Robi,
[1:15:01] >> yes.
[1:15:07] In terms of the consent agenda, there's
[1:15:10] two resolutions. 26293, which is the
[1:15:13] traffic engineering study, which we just
[1:15:16] talked about. I did a vote on that
[1:15:17] separately. So, we discussed and then uh
[1:15:20] resolution 26 296 the temporary science
[1:15:23] display
[1:15:26] on that side. I just one question
[1:15:30] was that 294
[1:15:33] street
[1:15:37] just super quick. Um with the awarding
[1:15:40] of that is that also you had said that
[1:15:43] the chief was bringing up possible
[1:15:46] concerns about making it like a four-way
[1:15:48] stop sign. Is that like a conclusive
[1:15:50] event or is this like a conversation
[1:15:53] after the
[1:15:56] >> as
[1:15:58] you got the traffic engineer?
[1:16:02] It's my understanding that there is put
[1:16:04] it in place with the two stop signs and
[1:16:07] then do a study to then see if the
[1:16:09] conditions warrant in the stop.
[1:16:12] >> And would that cost me one?
[1:16:14] >> No.
[1:16:17] Either way, you're going to do the
[1:16:18] study. So,
[1:16:21] >> well, you know, as long as it's not, you
[1:16:24] know, more money because I do think
[1:16:26] you're probably going to need four.
[1:16:27] >> I mean, and the chief wasn't in here
[1:16:29] when I made that comment, I believe. But
[1:16:31] what the chief had expressed in our
[1:16:33] earlier meeting was that uh he made he
[1:16:37] had concerns of Peter left him in terms
[1:16:39] of
[1:16:42] >> Yeah. to kill and if you will always
[1:16:45] stop and wait.
[1:16:46] >> Okay. You can try.
[1:16:48] >> All right. As long as it's you inclusive
[1:16:50] of this cost. Okay. Thank you.
[1:16:53] >> Okay.
[1:16:55] I get a motion to approve resolution
[1:16:57] R26-284
[1:17:00] through R26 292 and R26 294 and R2695.
[1:17:08] >> Do I have a second?
[1:17:09] >> Second here. Please call the roll.
[1:17:11] Councilman Corsair,
[1:17:12] >> yes.
[1:17:13] >> Councilman Dayton,
[1:17:14] >> yes.
[1:17:14] >> Councilman Jackson,
[1:17:16] >> yes.
[1:17:18] >> Councilman President Michaels,
[1:17:19] >> yes.
[1:17:20] >> Councilman Dr. Okconor,
[1:17:21] >> yes.
[1:17:22] >> Councilman Robi,
[1:17:24] >> yes.
[1:17:25] >> Okay. Resolution Rule 6293. Who has
[1:17:29] questions? Lauren, you have a question?
[1:17:30] >> Do.
[1:17:32] >> Yeah. John, come to the microphone,
[1:17:34] please.
[1:17:36] So, just so the public understands, this
[1:17:38] is a proposal for a million dollars for
[1:17:42] the review and survey of 14 different
[1:17:45] intersections
[1:17:46] throughout Temply. Um, thank you. First
[1:17:50] of all, thank you for the proposal and
[1:17:51] work to create it. I'm so excited about
[1:17:54] these rates. I mean, I feel like we
[1:17:56] looked at that like a year ago already.
[1:17:57] I'm so excited to get them. Um, but so I
[1:18:01] wanted to talk about some of the
[1:18:03] limitations here that things that are
[1:18:05] not included in a million-doll proposal
[1:18:07] and I'm hoping maybe we can include a
[1:18:10] little bit more survey work. One of them
[1:18:12] is um an intersection on the on the
[1:18:15] water flow. Is there any way as we look
[1:18:18] at this intersection to see if that
[1:18:20] intersection has flooding issues
[1:18:24] >> on all of them? I'm sorry. All 14
[1:18:26] intersections.
[1:18:28] At all 14 signalized intersections, we
[1:18:31] are going to upgrade them all to be both
[1:18:33] pedestrian and vehicular appropriate.
[1:18:36] That will include reviewing the drainage
[1:18:38] at every intersection. Now, remember,
[1:18:40] we're doing we're doing the most
[1:18:41] critical places, right? We're doing 14
[1:18:43] critical locations in town, right? We
[1:18:46] will be looking at everything. The
[1:18:47] sidewalk, the curbs, the gutters, the
[1:18:50] grass, you name it, it's all getting
[1:18:52] done. Right.
[1:18:53] >> I just didn't see that kind of wording.
[1:18:55] So
[1:18:56] that that was done.
[1:18:57] >> Good question. No, it doesn't say that
[1:19:00] specific in there. You're spot on.
[1:19:02] >> Um I actually want to talk about um
[1:19:06] excuse me, I know we're not doing, you
[1:19:08] know, traffic counts and that's our
[1:19:10] traffic division with our police and um
[1:19:13] I wanted to ask about how much
[1:19:14] coordination you're going to have about,
[1:19:16] you know, prior accidents. Um,
[1:19:20] are you getting the information from our
[1:19:22] traffic division on count and
[1:19:24] intersection?
[1:19:25] >> Your police department is fantastic.
[1:19:27] >> Yeah, they followed it.
[1:19:28] >> Okay. We have we have never been
[1:19:30] disappointed by them and we work very
[1:19:32] closely. We work closely with Chief
[1:19:34] Chamberlain. I'm looking very I've
[1:19:36] already met with the new chief and we're
[1:19:38] looking very forward at the chief's
[1:19:40] office.
[1:19:42] >> How long you send that up? just want to
[1:19:44] be sure, you know, obviously we have
[1:19:46] more intersections where we've had a lot
[1:19:48] of fender benders. You know, I'm
[1:19:49] thinking Angle Flinton, that's a huge
[1:19:51] one. Um where, you know, we have a lot
[1:19:53] of traffic. I just want to make sure
[1:19:55] that as we're looking at that, we're
[1:19:57] considering all of those. Um the other
[1:20:00] things I want to talk about is um
[1:20:04] I know this is algebra but as we talk
[1:20:06] about you know free cutting the
[1:20:07] landscaping and the sight lines
[1:20:09] >> uh is that something we're going to be
[1:20:10] looking at about things that would
[1:20:12] improve site
[1:20:13] >> at every one of these 14 intersections
[1:20:15] that will also be reviewed. Trees will
[1:20:17] be trimmed or removed and we're going to
[1:20:19] bring them all up to current standards
[1:20:21] that big leap forward.
[1:20:23] >> I mean I know you guys are doing that. I
[1:20:25] just want to make sure my understanding
[1:20:27] of of what's about to occur is is
[1:20:31] >> No, these are good questions and the
[1:20:32] public should be aware of all the
[1:20:34] detail.
[1:20:36] >> Um, and just so the public understands,
[1:20:39] this is an incredible proposal because
[1:20:41] it's a million dollars from the
[1:20:43] intersections. So, it really is $70,000
[1:20:46] approximately per intersection. And
[1:20:48] that's to survey and do all this work is
[1:20:50] an incredible proposal. So, thank you.
[1:20:53] Um, I'm I'm a quick question following
[1:20:56] up with Councilwoman and Dave. Just
[1:20:58] remind me of something. Do you study
[1:21:01] when um when you're doing these
[1:21:03] intersections that this results in cars
[1:21:07] then avoiding intersections and then
[1:21:10] going up different roads and how that
[1:21:13] might
[1:21:14] >> that's not that's not part of this this
[1:21:16] project.
[1:21:17] >> Okay. This is
[1:21:19] >> what this is going to do is we're going
[1:21:21] to fix so people will be okay to go to
[1:21:24] the intersection right now. You know,
[1:21:25] we've made some improvements already
[1:21:27] downtown, right? We had some nice
[1:21:28] success last year. Everybody forgot
[1:21:29] about that by now. Okay. And you know,
[1:21:32] we did do Easton and Dean and we kind of
[1:21:34] forgot about that now. All right. Now,
[1:21:35] we're going to put the next big bite of
[1:21:36] the apple when we make the intersections
[1:21:38] where people will pretend less not to
[1:21:40] avoid them. All right. Um Okay. The
[1:21:43] we're going to have a fully coordinated
[1:21:44] intersection program where they're all
[1:21:46] going to talk to each other. All right,
[1:21:47] we're going to have them all on call GPS
[1:21:49] timer. So, I'm be able to organize these
[1:21:51] lights so they can work. And the chief
[1:21:53] and I were actually getting into the
[1:21:54] detail of that today. We have decided
[1:21:55] how we want the green band to work. We
[1:21:57] want it to be where cars drive along,
[1:21:59] get a green light as they go. We want
[1:22:00] them all to turn red at the same time.
[1:22:02] All right. He and I need to figure that
[1:22:03] out and figure out what works best for
[1:22:04] time to fly. So, the first time we do
[1:22:06] turn everything on, it might not be the
[1:22:08] way it stays because we may find that a
[1:22:10] better solution might be in place. Okay.
[1:22:12] But the idea here is we're taking on the
[1:22:14] biggest challenge, the intersections,
[1:22:17] right? The parts in between we can take
[1:22:18] care of later. This is the challenge,
[1:22:20] guys. You guys have taken this on and
[1:22:22] we're going to not just improve it for
[1:22:23] the cars, okay? The cars are very
[1:22:25] important, but we focus too much on the
[1:22:27] cars over our entire lifetimes. It is
[1:22:29] time to get less carcentric. Let's look
[1:22:31] at the pedestrians. Let's look at the
[1:22:33] other users of the intersection and
[1:22:35] let's make it unifiedly safe and usable
[1:22:37] for everybody. And that's what the focus
[1:22:40] of this job is to make it good for us
[1:22:41] all and improve everything for everyone.
[1:22:44] So we won't be looking at other you know
[1:22:48] right now it's just this this part. All
[1:22:50] right. And I think in the future there
[1:22:52] you know there may be you may find when
[1:22:53] we get done with this that we're good
[1:22:55] for a while that your lights are 80
[1:22:57] years old in many cases. They're so old
[1:23:00] that that it's it's amazing.
[1:23:02] >> They're experienced.
[1:23:03] >> They're very experienced. They're some
[1:23:04] of the most experienced I've seen in my
[1:23:06] whole career.
[1:23:08] and a chief that your past chief and his team including the new chief were
[1:23:13] miracle workers keeping these things
[1:23:15] going. So they all deserve they deserve
[1:23:17] the credit here, not me or or anybody
[1:23:19] else. My goodness, they've done a great
[1:23:21] job.
[1:23:22] >> All right, question.
[1:23:24] >> You have another question?
[1:23:25] >> Just in terms of the um public
[1:23:26] transportation, the buses and the
[1:23:28] coordination of the bus lines,
[1:23:30] >> I assume all of that is going to work as
[1:23:32] well on these intersections. We're
[1:23:33] looking at it. We're going to look at
[1:23:35] commuter traffic, public transportation.
[1:23:39] >> I'm not really sure what the question
[1:23:41] you're asking. I'm sorry.
[1:23:42] >> So, we're adding a lot more public
[1:23:44] transportation. Let's say on County
[1:23:45] Road, right? We're trying to take it off
[1:23:47] of some of the side streets. We've
[1:23:48] closed Higher Center down. So, the buses
[1:23:51] are now um county and you know, they're
[1:23:54] turning down to Dean. So I I just want
[1:23:57] to make sure that as we look at these
[1:23:58] intersections, we're incorporating
[1:24:01] a look for public transportation for the
[1:24:03] commuters, for the timing. You know, if
[1:24:05] the bus turns, it takes a whole light,
[1:24:07] for example.
[1:24:08] >> The mere nature of these improvements
[1:24:10] are going to improve the experience for not just um our our our automobile
[1:24:15] drivers and and pedestrians, but also
[1:24:16] the bus drivers as well. I mean, the bus
[1:24:18] drivers certainly can anticipate they'll
[1:24:20] be able to get through town a little bit
[1:24:21] more efficiently.
[1:24:26] Okay, any more questions in this
[1:24:28] resolution?
[1:24:30] All right. Can I get a motion to approve
[1:24:31] resolution R26-293,
[1:24:34] please?
[1:24:34] >> So move.
[1:24:35] >> Can I get a second?
[1:24:36] >> Second.
[1:24:37] >> Uh, please call.
[1:24:39] >> Councilman Corsair.
[1:24:41] >> Yes.
[1:24:41] >> Councilman Dayton. Councilman Jackson.
[1:24:45] >> Yes.
[1:24:47] >> Councilman President Michaels.
[1:24:48] >> Yes.
[1:24:49] >> Councilman Dr. Okconor.
[1:24:50] >> Yes.
[1:24:51] >> Councilman Rogilleri.
[1:24:53] Yes.
[1:24:56] >> I get a motion to approve resolution
[1:24:58] R26-296.
[1:25:03] » I get a second.
[1:25:04] >> Second.
[1:25:05] >> Call the roll, please.
[1:25:06] >> Councilman Corsair,
[1:25:07] >> yes.
[1:25:08] >> Councilman Dayton,
[1:25:11] >> Councilman Jackson,
[1:25:12] >> yes.
[1:25:14] >> Councilman President Michaels,
[1:25:15] >> yes.
[1:25:16] >> Councilman Dr. Okconor, no.
[1:25:19] >> Councilman Rogaryi,
[1:25:21] >> yes.
[1:25:24] Okay. Minutes to be approved. Can I get
[1:25:27] a motion to approve the minutes of May
[1:25:29] 19th, 2026, June 30th, 2026, and July
[1:25:34] 13, 2026?
[1:25:36] >> Ma'am, we do July 13th separate. We f
[1:25:43] July 13 separately doesn't have a
[1:25:44] meeting.
[1:25:45] >> Sure. We get a motion to approve May 19,
[1:25:47] 2026 and June 30th, 2026. So have a
[1:25:52] second. All in favor?
[1:25:54] >> Any opposed?
[1:25:56] Okay. A motion to approve July 13, 2026
[1:25:59] minutes.
[1:26:02] >> Second.
[1:26:03] >> All in favor?
[1:26:05] >> Any opposed?
[1:26:07] Okay. Committee reports. Counciloman Dr.
[1:26:09] Okconor.
[1:26:10] >> Yes. Just last one, the new resident
[1:26:13] event is going to be on September 9th.
[1:26:17] Uh there will be new resident event. Uh
[1:26:20] that's that's my report for the new
[1:26:22] regular committee and just to let the
[1:26:25] police commission chief know um you're
[1:26:27] going to be receiving invite me email
[1:26:30] and of course fire to support.
[1:26:36] » Okay. Thank you.
[1:26:38] >> Just want to um announce that we have
[1:26:41] community night coming up September
[1:26:43] 15th. one of our best events organized
[1:26:48] by the town and radical police. It's
[1:26:51] really an amazing community event and I
[1:26:53] encourage everyone to come.
[1:26:57] >> Okay. Thank you, Council President
[1:26:59] Michael. Any comments tonight?
[1:27:01] >> Yes, sir.
[1:27:02] >> Council Dave,
[1:27:04] >> I just wanted to discuss an issue I
[1:27:07] feel. It's not an issue. Excuse me. But
[1:27:10] just Yeah, I know I I brought this up.
[1:27:12] We've had in in the past couple months a
[1:27:15] lot of subdivisions come before us and
[1:27:18] so I mean David spoke very briefly on
[1:27:20] this is sort of chicken and egg. I would
[1:27:22] like to actually review the ordinances
[1:27:24] on subdivisions uh with the planning
[1:27:27] board and with the council. Um it's up
[1:27:29] to the council which place you'd like me
[1:27:30] to start. So, I can go to the planning
[1:27:33] board and see if there's any interest in
[1:27:35] amending those rules or working with our
[1:27:37] city planner, uh, David Novak, to see if
[1:27:40] there's an interest. Um, or we can
[1:27:43] discuss it as a policy initiative here
[1:27:45] and see if you'd want to discuss the
[1:27:48] subdivisions. And what's happening is
[1:27:50] that many applicants are coming before
[1:27:52] the planning board that don't meet the
[1:27:54] parameters of our ordinances, but we are
[1:27:57] allowing them to subdivide given uh you
[1:28:00] know the applicants and
[1:28:03] the size of the lot. A lot of times it's
[1:28:04] like an R two R10s but just short of the
[1:28:07] second R10. So a lot of the planning
[1:28:10] board is saying well it's okay but what
[1:28:12] happens
[1:28:12] >> that is the purpose of the planning
[1:28:14] board
[1:28:14] >> of course but as as the neighbors are
[1:28:17] watching these houses go up and per
[1:28:19] resident you know we are expanding our
[1:28:21] borders and shortening our sideyards and
[1:28:24] front yards and backyards to accommodate
[1:28:26] these uh subdivisions that may not meet
[1:28:29] the code. So the question is are you
[1:28:31] interested in reviewing this as a
[1:28:33] policy? Do we want to make it easier
[1:28:36] harder? We want to see what's happening
[1:28:38] in a pattern of practice here. Um
[1:28:40] because what's happening again like I
[1:28:41] said is planning boards approving things
[1:28:43] that are
[1:28:46] not meeting code. There's not enough
[1:28:48] land. And so the surrounding neighbors
[1:28:50] that we're hearing from surrounding
[1:28:52] neighbors, you know, this house is
[1:28:54] encroaching my like mayor was not
[1:28:57] >> but you understand that the entire
[1:28:59] purpose of the planning goal is to
[1:29:01] empowering it.
[1:29:02] I I understand that to
[1:29:04] >> I guess your question is what's the goal
[1:29:06] of what we're trying to accomplish. Um,
[1:29:08] I think that I think that I'd like to
[1:29:11] review why we constantly need to have a
[1:29:14] variance of subdivision and should we be
[1:29:17] changing our our size of lot or
[1:29:19] subdivision? Should it say you must meet
[1:29:21] a minimum of a certain size to R10s for
[1:29:25] example before you know it has to be an
[1:29:27] R20 size before we can divide to two
[1:29:29] R10s instead of like a R15.
[1:29:33] >> So just a little bit of um ballistics.
[1:29:37] So generally it it is a true like a
[1:29:41] large deviation it goes to the zoning
[1:29:43] board um not to the planning board. It's
[1:29:45] at the planning board is because it's
[1:29:47] very minor deviations. The zoning board
[1:29:51] um
[1:29:52] should be providing an annual report to
[1:29:56] the council of the matters that it
[1:29:58] looked at in years prior to see whether
[1:30:00] these kind of um situations keep
[1:30:04] occurring so that you can reconsider
[1:30:06] what your zoning would be. Um, what I
[1:30:08] would suggest is perhaps to since we're
[1:30:10] already not obvious, if you want to wait
[1:30:13] till November, December for that report
[1:30:15] and see what's happening at the zoning
[1:30:16] board level, that might be a great place
[1:30:18] to start. I'd actually like to see what
[1:30:21] they are seeing now because what I'm
[1:30:23] seeing sitting on the planning board is
[1:30:26] not minor variances, but actually larger
[1:30:29] asks for variance that really do deviate
[1:30:31] from our code. Um, and they're not I
[1:30:34] don't see them going to zoning. I see
[1:30:35] them coming before us. So, Not the oil
[1:30:38] like the highest oil would been 10%.
[1:30:41] That's a major
[1:30:42] >> over 20% variances.
[1:30:43] >> It wouldn't be would be at the board of
[1:30:45] adjustability.
[1:30:49] » You had 20%
[1:30:53] variances
[1:30:55] possible
[1:30:56] >> in the setbacks.
[1:30:58] >> Oh, in terms of the feet maybe perhaps.
[1:31:00] Yes.
[1:31:00] >> Yes.
[1:31:01] >> And so again the question is it could
[1:31:04] start on either any of the three boards
[1:31:06] actually is what you said. I could start
[1:31:07] with a discussion of the zoning board
[1:31:10] planning board for this house wouldn't
[1:31:11] be a discussion with the zoning board.
[1:31:13] Um the zoning board is you know
[1:31:16] autonomous priority they always the
[1:31:19] planning board purpose is to take the
[1:31:21] policies that are enacted by the
[1:31:23] governing body and they're almost like
[1:31:24] it's board you know they it's only here
[1:31:27] based on what the ordinances say. the
[1:31:29] zoning board has the ability to grant
[1:31:31] deviations which is why we're saying
[1:31:34] that to get to the planning board level
[1:31:36] they're have to be within a certain
[1:31:38] percentage anything that exceeds that
[1:31:40] would be the zoning board um but we're
[1:31:43] seeing there like I said all the all the
[1:31:46] yards all
[1:31:47] >> the res the residents that are
[1:31:51] residential peers that have been
[1:31:52] appointed to that that's their job they
[1:31:56] oversee
[1:31:57] >> my question is I could actually start
[1:31:58] that conversation with plenty board or I
[1:32:00] can start that one here. What I wanted
[1:32:02] to understand is what is the council's
[1:32:04] take on this and see do you want to even
[1:32:08] discuss this as a policy you know do we
[1:32:10] want to continue to allow subdivisions
[1:32:13] all over even though they don't meet our
[1:32:15] so
[1:32:19] » no this council says we the council
[1:32:22] based on the ordinances and the res that
[1:32:24] we put together that is our view it then
[1:32:27] goes to committees of residents that sit on these committees that may
[1:32:33] might make a recommendation to create a
[1:32:36] barrier which again
[1:32:38] >> well they would be approving by resol
[1:32:40] resolutions or any developments but I
[1:32:43] guess what I'm not sure similar to city
[1:32:46] council what the goal would be because
[1:32:48] the only thing we could do at this point
[1:32:50] is potentially to reduce the size of
[1:32:53] what is required for minimum lot area in
[1:32:56] a different zone because if you now make
[1:32:58] it bigger you're going to create a lot
[1:32:59] of pre-existing nonform Those
[1:33:03] are grandfathered.
[1:33:05] >> Correct. But that's still going to put
[1:33:07] So that's more hardship on the residents
[1:33:09] who want to do anything that they
[1:33:10] otherwise could have done in the
[1:33:12] property that they're in now that they
[1:33:14] won't be able to do later if the lot
[1:33:17] sizes are changed. But again, maybe
[1:33:18] their next door neighbor didn't have the
[1:33:20] right property and still was allowed a
[1:33:22] variance to subdivide and now is
[1:33:23] encroaching. So they're not because no
[1:33:27] on somebody else's property.
[1:33:29] >> I'm just saying light, air, shadow,
[1:33:30] sunlight, you know, tree lot, etc.
[1:33:33] generator.
[1:33:34] >> We're saying we don't want we don't want
[1:33:36] that. So now I think you have to you
[1:33:38] have to have on the planning board.
[1:33:43] >> I don't see it happen like it's not like
[1:33:45] an epidemic that's happening all over
[1:33:47] town once or twice when they come. You
[1:33:49] have to just I think the planning board
[1:33:51] has to have a strong you know
[1:33:54] so you know we've had very few
[1:33:56] subdivisions.
[1:33:58] >> Yeah. But a bunch is like there's one on
[1:34:00] angle that was one up on the west side
[1:34:03] of town near uh near near river and chew
[1:34:08] lots.
[1:34:10] I mean what's that sweet
[1:34:14] island? That's a two family zone.
[1:34:16] >> That's a two family zone. That's all
[1:34:18] love.
[1:34:19] So I don't know what any of us would
[1:34:22] want to be different.
[1:34:23] >> When I when I sit at the planning board
[1:34:25] and I hear discussions, there is a lot
[1:34:26] of um middle and close. People are not
[1:34:29] really sure if it's really a very gray
[1:34:32] area where we're deciding some of these
[1:34:34] substitutes,
[1:34:36] >> right? But I feel like we need to be
[1:34:38] clear and we're saying we don't want to
[1:34:40] go against our code and this is our code
[1:34:42] for a reason. But when you have a
[1:34:43] planning board, wait, I'm speaking like
[1:34:45] it's not a legal thing. When you have a
[1:34:48] planning board deciding against your
[1:34:50] code each time, then it's a policy.
[1:34:54] >> Not deciding against the code. Their
[1:34:56] existence is to grant variances. They
[1:34:59] have no other purpose is to grant
[1:35:01] variances.
[1:35:05] I have some subdivisions you don't need
[1:35:07] a variance, right? It's right.
[1:35:10] >> It's as of right. So I'm thinking that
[1:35:14] how many TB have you granted? How many
[1:35:16] variances did you grant subdivision?
[1:35:18] >> I think you did three at the most.
[1:35:21] >> I sure subdivisions. No.
[1:35:24] >> So I'd be provocative to see if I could
[1:35:27] speak on behalf of my fellow council
[1:35:29] would say we would love you as our
[1:35:30] representative to speak up and speak
[1:35:33] more influentially to stop it. I think
[1:35:36] the council we don't want these
[1:35:37] variances. you're our representative on
[1:35:40] account on the planning board. We'd like
[1:35:42] you to be more influential.
[1:35:44] >> So the mayor and I actually both voted
[1:35:46] no to one of them and the rest of vote
[1:35:48] yes. So you know we we are
[1:35:51] >> well independent. They were going to
[1:35:54] they have they
[1:35:56] >> they go to their thought process.
[1:35:58] Well, I I have you know just the one
[1:36:01] thing I would just say to your query
[1:36:05] about this as I do think it's important
[1:36:08] for us as a governing body to have
[1:36:11] information and to know what's going on
[1:36:13] in these committees any committees. So
[1:36:16] like I know that we have a separate
[1:36:18] project in environmental commission
[1:36:20] where we've had the DPW report on tree
[1:36:25] mitigations like how many trees you know
[1:36:28] year upon year that are you know more
[1:36:31] coming down and more going up and I've
[1:36:34] always you know at different times in
[1:36:36] our discussions with my colleagues here
[1:36:38] I' I like to share that and I kind of
[1:36:41] want to share that. So I I do think it's
[1:36:44] important that all of us kind of know
[1:36:46] what's happening on these committees. So
[1:36:49] to to that point, if there is some data
[1:36:52] that we can share or if it's not new,
[1:36:55] maybe it makes more sense to have the
[1:36:58] attorney who's the attorney for the
[1:37:00] zoning for the board of adjustments or
[1:37:02] something just to give us all
[1:37:04] information because I I think that's
[1:37:06] important.
[1:37:07] >> I do try to support each one.
[1:37:10] >> Yeah, absolutely. Thanks.
[1:37:12] from a from a like a like a dad like
[1:37:15] what's happening
[1:37:17] >> trend that's the word because I know I
[1:37:20] can tell you that friends with the trees
[1:37:21] are not right
[1:37:22] >> in this town so that you know I would be
[1:37:25] curious are are we subdividing our towns
[1:37:28] more than I'm aware of and I so I don't
[1:37:31] know what's the best way for you to um
[1:37:34] present that to us or or have that data
[1:37:38] made maybe by one of our uh
[1:37:40] professionals know, write a book, but reports don't necessarily mean much.
[1:37:44] Like I'm more interested in the in the
[1:37:47] attorney or someone to like explain what
[1:37:49] we want
[1:37:50] >> and also which trend do we want to go
[1:37:52] forward, right? What's our future look
[1:37:54] like? And
[1:37:54] >> that's our
[1:37:57] experience.
[1:37:59] >> Anything else to report on so we could
[1:38:00] keep moving?
[1:38:02] >> Okay. Councilwoman Jackson, do you have
[1:38:04] anything to add?
[1:38:06] >> Yes. Yes.
[1:38:08] >> Hold on. Hold on a second.
[1:38:11] I did. I wanted to actually um I spoke
[1:38:14] with fire department and I spoke with
[1:38:15] David. I wanted everyone to know that we
[1:38:17] are applying for a grant for our
[1:38:20] firefighter equipment. Um I also spoke
[1:38:22] with Congressman Dohammer's office who
[1:38:25] is going to write a letter in support of
[1:38:27] our grant application and we've applied
[1:38:29] for grants for firefighter equipment and
[1:38:31] we've lost on them in the past. um we're
[1:38:34] losing to all our stress downs and so I
[1:38:36] really hope this year it's us and we can get this included in our budget.
[1:38:41] I just want to let everyone be aware.
[1:38:43] >> Thank you.
[1:38:44] >> Councilwoman Jackson.
[1:38:46] >> Yes. Couple of quick updates. Tomorrow
[1:38:48] night um in Higher Park, we have Soul
[1:38:50] Farm coming to play their amazing um
[1:38:54] Israeli bluegrass band. It brings a big
[1:38:56] audience. So because it's so awesome. Uh
[1:38:59] next week, August 20th, on Thursday
[1:39:02] night, we're having the Grateful Dead
[1:39:04] cover band and uh food and art festival
[1:39:07] to accompany accompany. So would love to
[1:39:10] see you guys out there for that if
[1:39:11] you're in town. And then October 4th,
[1:39:14] the fall festival, the applications for
[1:39:16] participation are open. So if you can go
[1:39:18] to the Tennifly Chamber of Commerce
[1:39:20] website, tenniflychamber.org,
[1:39:22] um you can share that with anyone who's
[1:39:25] interested to apply to participate.
[1:39:27] Thanks.
[1:39:29] Thank you. Council Councilman Rolieri
[1:39:32] have anything?
[1:39:34] >> No, sir. No report for you this evening.
[1:39:37] >> Okay. Thank you. Uh council, can you
[1:39:40] read the close session line please?
[1:39:43] >> Resolution R26-1097
[1:39:45] at a meeting of the mayor and council of
[1:39:47] the Bifite County Burton State of New
[1:39:49] Jersey held on August 2026.
[1:39:52] We resolved in the announcement of JSA
[1:39:55] 4-2 the mayor and council testify go to
[1:39:58] post executive session to discuss the
[1:39:59] following matters attorney privilege of
[1:40:02] litigation update and potential
[1:40:04] litigation real property property
[1:40:06] acquisition will be taken in the meeting
[1:40:09] to the public and items I need a motion
[1:40:11] to