[I. CHAIRMAN’S OPENING STATEMENT, ROLL CALL ]
[00:00:06]
PUBLIC WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MAHWAH. ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THIS MEETING HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY PUBLICATION IN THE RECORD AND THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS.
COPIES OF THE AGENDA HAVE BEEN FORWARDED TO THE TOWNSHIP CLERK AND POSTED ON THE MUNICIPAL WEBSITE AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING BULLETIN BOARD. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS MEETING IS BEING RECORDED AND STREAMED ON THE TOWNSHIP OF MAHWAH LIVE VIDEO PAGE. WE HAVE FOUR EXITS, ONE DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM AND TWO ON EACH SIDE. AND WE ALSO HAVE AN EXIT TO THE LEFT HERE OF MYSELF ON THE DAIS. ROLL CALL PLEASE. MAYOR. WYSOWSKI. MR. IRVING HERE. MISS GALLO HERE. MR. GRISWOLD HERE. MISS YANKOWSKI HERE. MISS MICELI HERE. MR. MILLER HERE.
MR. O'LEARY HERE. MR. MONTROY HERE. MR. REINERTSON. THANK YOU. HEY, DO YOU WANT TO LEAD US? IN? I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE, PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. OKAY, LET ME JUST START BY FIRST THANKING VICKI FOR FILLING IN AT THE LAST MEETING. YOU HAD RAVE REVIEWS AND SAID, DON'T BRING THE OLD MAN BACK. BUT HERE I AM.
[II. APPROVAL OF BILLS]
OKAY, FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS THE APPROVAL OF BILLS. WE HAVE COLLIERS AND TWO FROM MARK.CAN I GET A MOTION ON THOSE? SO MOVED. SECOND. MOTION. TRACY. SECOND BY GARY. ROLL CALL PLEASE. MR. IRVING. YES. YES. MR. YES. MR. JANKOWSKI. YES. MISS. MICELI. YES. MR. MILLER.
YES. MR. O'LEARY. YES. MR. MONTROY. YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT MATTER IS APPROVAL OF
[III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
MINUTES. CAN WE GET A MOTION FOR THE AUGUST 10TH, 2026 MINUTES. SO MOVED. TRACY.SECOND. SECOND BY GEORGE. ROLL CALL. MR. IRVING. YES. YES. MR. YES. MISS. MICELI? YES. MR. O'LEARY. YES. MR. MONTROY. YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 24TH, 2026 MEETING. CAN I HAVE A MOTION ON THAT? MOTION TO APPROVE. MOTION. SECOND BY EDDIE. ROLL CALL, PLEASE. MR. IRVING. YES. YES. MR. WINKOWSKI. YES. MISS. MICELLI. YES. MR.
[IV. 1. Docket 684 - CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. ]
MILLER. YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS RESOLUTION DOCKET NUMBER 684, CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC. MR. CHAIR, TO RECUSE MYSELF. ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY. THIS IS PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN APPLICATION AND THE SOIL MOVEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT THE PREOWNED AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY WITH ACCESSORY IMPROVEMENTS. THE PROPOSED SOIL MOVEMENT EXCEEDED 1000YD■!T. CAN I GET A MOTION ON THAT MOTION? OH, JUST BEFORE WE DO, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I HAD MADE A MINOR CHANGE TO CONDITION NUMBER 30 THIS AFTERNOON. AND SO THAT'S ON THAT'S NOT ON THE VERSION IN FRONT OF YOU. BUT I WANT TO DRAW TO YOUR ATTENTION. CONDITION 30 SAYS USE TIRES AND OIL SHOULD SAY SHALL BE STORED INSIDE AND WILL BE PICKED UP IS WHAT IT SAYS. IT'S ACTUALLY NOT INSIDE. IT'S IN THE DESIGNATED.FENCED IN AREA OR MORE LIKE A SOLID WASTE AREA. SO THERE'S TECHNICALLY NO ROOF. SO THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY QUESTIONED MY USE OF THE WORD INSIDE, AND I THINK I DID A LITTLE AMENDMENT TO IT. I JUST MAY NOT HAVE SENT IT OVER YET. SO JUST FOR THE RECORD. SO EVERYBODY'S CLEAR. CONDITION 30 WILL BE MODIFIED VERY SLIGHTLY. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. SORRY TO INTERRUPT. NO PROBLEM. OKAY. CAN I GET A MOTION ON THAT WITH THE AMENDMENT, AS MARC JUST EXPLAINED. MOTION. SECOND. MOTION BY MEG. SECOND BY EDITOR. ROLL CALL, PLEASE. YES. YES.
MR. JANKOWSKI. YES. MISS. MICELI? YES. MR. MILLER. YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC. IF YOU CAN COME BACK UP AND YOU CAN STAY THERE TO. CAN WE GET A MOTION TO OPEN TO THE PUBLIC? SO MOVED. SECOND. MOTION BY TRACY, SECOND BY MEG. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. OKAY. THIS IS THE PORTION OF THE MEETING WHERE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC CAN COME UP AND ADDRESS ANY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA. SEEING NO ONE, CAN WE GET A MOTION TO CLOSE TO THE PUBLIC? MOTION TO CLOSE. MOTION BY GEORGE. SECOND BY VICKI. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. OKAY. WE HAVE NO PUBLIC HEARINGS. WORK SESSION IS ON ONE FIKE ROAD.
[VII. WORK SESSION]
[00:05:01]
REGARDING SOME OF THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT WE HAVE, I. I WENT THROUGH IT. I LOOKED AT IT. I DON'T NECESSARILY ON MY OWN PERSONAL BELIEF, SEE ANY REASON WHY WE SHOULD DISMISS THE APPLICATION, BUT WE CAN ASK MARK ANY QUESTIONS AND GET MARK'S INPUT AS TO WHAT HIS LEGAL POSITION IS AND WHAT, IF ANY, OUR REQUIREMENTS ARE IF WE, AS OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE BEEN ASKED BY COUNCIL TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION. SO I CAN PROBABLY SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE. I'M GOING TO RELOCATE A LITTLE BIT IN FRONT, IF I MIGHT, JUST SO I CAN SEE EVERYONE A LITTLE BETTER. SO THIS. THIS FOUND ITS WAY TO THE AGENDA. AND IT REALLY WAS INTENDED TO BE LISTED AS A DISCUSSION ABOUT A CORRESPONDENCE ITEM. IS IT OKAY IF I SIT HERE? ABSOLUTELY. YEAH.SO I CAN HEAR YOU. I'LL JUST DOUBLE CHECK. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS PLUGGED IN. AND IF NOT, I'LL MOVE OVER BY MIKE. IT SHOULD BE PLUGGED IN. OKAY, SO THE THIS WAS REALLY WE WERE SORT OF LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE REALLY IT'S CORRESPONDENCE. AND WE WANTED YOU AWARE OF THIS CORRESPONDENCE. IT'S NOT AN APPLICATION. IT HASN'T BEEN. SO THIS HAS BEEN PENDING THE THE APPLICATION WAS NEVER DEEMED COMPLETE, ALTHOUGH I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT THAT I'M SURE MARY JO CAN HELP ME WITH. SO WE HAVE THIS APPLICATION THAT'S BEEN SITTING HERE, FRANKLY, IT'S SITTING IN A BOX. ABOUT A YEAR AGO, JOHN LAMB WROTE ROUGHLY THE SAME LETTER. HEY, IT'S BEEN SITTING FOR A YEAR. WHY DON'T YOU DISMISS IT? WE'RE SICK OF HAVING TO CHECK THE AGENDA EACH MONTH TO SEE IF IT'S COMING UP. AND ADMINISTRATIVELY, WHICH IS TO SAY, MARY JO, MYSELF. SOME DISCUSSION WITH JERRY, MAYBE SOME DISCUSSION WITH MIKE AND SOME OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ATTORNEY JUST BASICALLY SAID, LEAVE IT WHERE IT IS. WELL, ANOTHER YEAR GOES BY AND WE GET KIND OF THE SAME LETTER. AND AT THIS POINT, I THINK STAFF AS A STAFF MATTER OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER AND AS A LEGAL ADVICE MATTER, WE FELT IT WAS BETTER THAT AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, THAT THESE INQUIRIES WERE BEING MADE. SO HERE'S THE, THE WHAT? IT COMES DOWN TO. MR. WHITAKER'S APPLICATION, FILED TWO YEARS AGO ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, IS SUCH THAT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HIM VEST HIS CLIENT WITH SOME SOMEWHAT BETTER POSITION WITH THE DEP BECAUSE HE CAN SHOW A FILE DATE OF WHATEVER DATE. AND IN THE EVOLVING WORLD OF DEP REGULATIONS, IT MIGHT BE MARGINALLY BETTER TO HAVE THAT DATE THAN TO HAVE THEM WITHDRAW IT AND REFILE A DATE. YOU KNOW, MR. LAMB'S POSITION IS IT'S BEEN SITTING AROUND FOR TWO YEARS, AND IT'S KIND OF A PAIN FOR US TO CHECK EVERY MONTH. THEY THEY BOTH REALLY DON'T HAVE MAYBE A SUPER STRONG POSITION. MR. LAMB'S POSITION, I THINK, IS A LITTLE BETRAYED BY THE FACT THAT WHEN THE APPLICATION STARTS, HIS CLIENT WILL GET PUBLIC NOTICE. THERE WON'T BE ANY SURPRISES BECAUSE THERE'LL BE A COUPLE HUNDRED LETTERS THAT GO OUT. RIGHT. MR. WHITAKER'S POSITION MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. I REALLY DON'T KNOW BECAUSE HIS APPLICATION, WHILE FILED, WAS NOT DEEMED COMPLETE YET BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN HOLDING OFF AND DEEMING IT COMPLETE. BECAUSE HE'S WAITING REALLY FOR DEP, BECAUSE HE'S REALLY GOT A LOT OF DEP ISSUES ON THAT PROPERTY. SO I, I CONSULTED WITH OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ATTORNEY. I ASKED DARLENE WHAT HER THOUGHTS WERE AND THEIR OPINION BOTH IS GENERALLY LEAVE IT AS STATUS QUO. WE DON'T KNOW. THERE'S NO PRESSING REASON TO DISMISS IT. AND WE'RE NOT SURE IT BENEFITS ANYBODY WITH ANY RIGHTS DOWN AT DEP OR NOT. BUT ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, JUST LET IT RIDE. NOW, THAT KIND OF FALLS IN INTO THAT SORT OF HIPPOCRATIC OATH THOUGHT OF. I'M NOT SURE I CAN TELL YOU WHICH IS BETTER OR WORSE. BUT ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST PART OF THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH IS, FIRST, DO NO HARM. AND I WOULD HATE TO. A YEAR FROM NOW IN COURT, SOMEONE PUT IN A
[00:10:03]
CERTIFICATION. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OKAY UNTIL THE BOARD GOT STUPID ON SEPTEMBER 14TH AND DISMISSED THE THING. SO MY GUT REACTION IS, LET'S NOT DO ANYTHING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT MANDATED TO. NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, THE CHAIRMAN RAISED AN INTERESTING POINT, AND I FEEL LIKE I HAVE A LITTLE HOLE IN MY MEMORY HERE BECAUSE I THOUGHT, MARY JO, DID THAT APPLICATION ACTUALLY START? AND I THOUGHT WE STARTED A HEARING OR MAYBE IT WAS JUST INTRODUCED. I THINK WE DEFINITELY STARTED HEARING THERE WAS A SEPARATE APPLICATION THAT WAS MADE THAT WAS WITHDRAWN. OKAY. THANK YOU. BECAUSE THIS IS A NEW APPLICATION THAT CAME IN THAT WAS DEEMED SUBSEQUENT. OKAY. OKAY. OH, THAT MIGHT HAVE. YEAH. OKAY. I REMEMBER SEEING A WHOLE PLAN. WELL, WE STARTED, AND I REMEMBER WHEN THERE WAS A SEPARATE APPLICATION THAT MR. WHITAKER WITHDREW. OKAY. SO THAT FILLS IN THE BLANK. OKAY. AND THAT FIRST APPLICATION FOR THOSE OF US, I WAS NEW TO THE SUBJECT MATTER, BUT THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT A POND AND HOW LONG THE PONDS BEEN THERE. AND WAS THE POND FILLED IN OR NOT FILLED IN? IS IT NATURAL OR REDUG? I DON'T KNOW. THERE WERE A LOT OF POND QUESTIONS AND IF I RECALL AT THE TIME, THE MAYOR REALLY SEEMED TO HAVE SOME ALMOST LIKE 40 YEAR OLD MEMORY OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROCESS.LIKE HE REALLY LAID IT ALL OUT AND THERE WAS EXCAVATION AND STUFF WAS PILED THERE. IT WAS A WHOLE THING THAT THE MAYOR WAS ABLE TO EDUCATE US ON A LITTLE BIT. SO OKAY, THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE. THANK YOU, MARY JO. AND HAVING SAID THAT, THEN MY ADVICE REMAINS. LET'S I'D RATHER DO NOTHING THAN DO SOMETHING STUPID IF IT MATTERS. YEAH. WHAT'S. I MEAN, THEY PAID THE APPLICATION FEE. WHAT WHAT HARM COULD THE OBJECTORS HAVE? I MEAN, FROM MY READING OF THE THE LETTERS BACK AND FORTH, BRUCE WHITAKER HAS ADVISED EVERYONE THAT THE NEXT STEP FORWARD THAT LAMB WILL BE MR. LAMB WILL BE ADVISED OF EVERYTHING. ANY NEW SUBMISSION, THERE'S GOING TO BE NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC. SO I'M CONFUSED AS TO WHY THERE WOULD BE ANY SORT OF PREJUDICE, IF ANY, TO THE OBJECTORS, AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. YEAH. THE WHERE THERE COULD BE PREJUDICE TO THE APPLICANT. THAT'S JUST AN EXCELLENT WAY TO BALANCE THE EQUITIES HERE. YEAH. AND REMEMBER TO SOME EXTENT AS WE'VE SORT OF BEEN. INUNDATED WITH OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, I WOULD SAY IS IF IT'S PREJUDICIAL TO THE APPLICANT, THE SUBTEXT HERE IS THAT IS ULTIMATELY PREJUDICIAL TO THE TOWNSHIP IN SOME REGARDS.
BECAUSE REMEMBER, THIS PROPERTY IS A PART OF OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN. I WAS GOING TO ASK THAT. RIGHT. SO WHEN YOU REALLY CONSIDER, AND I LIKE THE WAY THE CHAIRMAN JUST SAID THAT WHEN YOU REALLY CONSIDER WEIGHING THE EQUITIES, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO VERY BE VERY MUCH NEGATIVE ON THE PART OF THE OBJECTORS CONCERNS OTHER THAN THIS, SOME SENSE OF, WELL, AT LEAST I DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT FOR A WHILE. ON THE OTHER HAND, A DISMISSAL MIGHT IN FACT, IN SOME WAY PREJUDICE THE APPLICANT AND THEREFORE, AS WE KNOW, POSSIBLY PREJUDICE THE TOWNSHIP. THE ONLY PERSON WHO WE LAUGHINGLY TALKED ABOUT LAST WEEK OR THE WEEK BEFORE IS REALLY PREJUDICE IS MARY JO, BECAUSE SHE HAS TO KEEP STEPPING OVER THE BOX, BUT SHE SEEMS TO BE GAME TO DO THAT FOR ANOTHER PERIOD OF TIME, AND SHE'S A GOOD SPORT ABOUT IT. SO HAVING SAID THAT, WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT WE DON'T NEED A VOTE OR A RESOLUTION, MAYBE JUST A SHOW OF HANDS OR SOMETHING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO DISAGREES OR MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THAT'S. YEAH, IF ANYONE DISAGREES, DISAGREE. BUT I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. HOW LONG DOES THIS GO ON? I MEAN, HOW LONG CAN SOMETHING LIKE THIS GO ON INDEFINITELY? IT CAN GO ON. THERE IS TEN YEARS FROM NOW. THEY COULD THEY COULD COME BACK. I MEAN, THAT'S EXAGGERATING, BUT THERE IS NO MAXIMUM FOR US HOLDING THAT BOX. OKAY. WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING? AND WILL THE CONTENTS BE REJIGGERED? I MEAN, WELL, I WOULD IMAGINE, AND I MEAN, MIKE WOULD KNOW SO MUCH MORE THAN ME ABOUT IT, BUT I WOULD IMAGINE THAT BY THE TIME THIS YEAR OR TWO GOES BY AND THERE'S DEP INVOLVEMENT AND THERE'S REVISIONS TO THOSE PLANS, RIGHT.
I WOULD IMAGINE THAT AT SOME POINT, WHAT YOU REALLY LOOK AT WOULD LIKELY BE A REVISION OF THE PLANS THAT ARE CURRENTLY UNDER MARY'S JOE'S DESK. BUT MIKE, I MIGHT BE WRONG ABOUT
[00:15:03]
THAT. YEAH, THEY THEY NEED TO MAKE REVISIONS PERIOD TO BE DEEMED COMPLETE. SO RIGHT NOW THEY'RE INCOMPLETE. IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE UNTIL THEY ADDRESS THE INCOMPLETE ITEMS. AND I DON'T HAVE A LIST OF WHAT THOSE ARE RIGHT NOW. BUT IF THEY ADDRESS THE INCOMPLETE ITEMS RIGHT THEN IT WOULD BE DEEMED COMPLETE. THEN IT WOULD BE SCHEDULED. I THINK THEY'VE GIVEN US A VALID REASON. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT AN APPLICATION THAT WAS FILED, WAS DEEMED INCOMPLETE. AND WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING. I MEAN, THEY'VE GIVEN US AN EXPLANATION WHICH MAKES SENSE, WHICH IS THEY WANT TO COME TO THIS BOARD AND TELL US THAT THE DEP HAS APPROVED WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO DO. SO PRESUMABLY THEY'RE DRAGGING THEIR FEET BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN.PRESUMABLY THEY'RE GOING TO COME BEFORE US AND WE'RE GOING TO SAY, WELL, WHAT WHAT'S THE DEP SAY? HAVE THEY SO THEY DO. WE KNOW THAT THEY HAVE IN FACT, FILED A NEW PERMIT WITH THE DEP.
I THAT'S THE I BELIEVE, THE REPRESENTATION THAT BRUCE MADE IN THE LETTER. MR. WHITTAKER SAID HE DID SAY THEY WERE WAITING. RIGHT. OKAY. I THINK THE I THINK THE OUTCOME HERE, WHETHER IT WAS THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE PROCESS OR JUST WILL BE THE RESULT OF THE PROCESS IS THAT WE'RE. NORMALLY WE MAKE AN APPLICATION CONTINGENT CONDITIONED ON DEP AND CONDITIONED ON BERGEN COUNTY APPROVALS, CONDITIONED ON NJ O T CONDITIONED ON DEP.
THIS APPLICATION IS LIKELY TO COME TO US WITH IT HAVING ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED. AND, YOU KNOW, OCCASIONALLY AN APPLICANT COMES TO US WITH A HIGHLAND'S LETTER THAT ALREADY SAYS, RIGHT.
YEAH. YOU KNOW, HERE'S THE ANSWER. I THINK MAYBE ONCE OR TWICE WE'VE GOTTEN, WELL, HERE'S THE DEP LETTER WE GOT IT ALREADY KIND OF THING. MIKE IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, THOUGH.
THAT'S NOT THE ONLY THING THAT'S MISSING. AND THERE PROBABLY WAS A BIGGER INCOMPLETE LETTER. BUT YOU WILL DEFINITELY SEE AN UPDATED VERSION FROM WHAT'S SITTING IN THE OFFICE. SO BRUCE'S CLIENT HASN'T CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY YET BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE DEP APPROVALS TO BE ABLE TO BUILD. WHAT THEY WANT TO BUILD IS THAT THE WHOLE BACKGROUND OF THIS THING? I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEIR CONTRACT WAS CONTINGENT OR NOT. I DON'T KNOW IF THEIR CONTRACT PURCHASER, FOR ALL I KNOW, THEY COULD BE THE OWNER. I DON'T KNOW THE THE NEXUS TO US IS. IT MAY NOT MATTER WHETHER THEY'RE THE ACTUAL OWNER YET OR CONTRACT PURCHASER.
THEY HAVE AN. THEY HAVE APPLIED THAT APPLICATION IS PROBABLY GOT A COVER LETTER WITH A STAMPED RECEIVED DATE, WHATEVER THAT'S WORTH OR NOT WORTH. GOOD LUCK. AND MIKE IS RIGHT THAT.
EITHER WAY THERE'S PROBABLY SOME NON DEP RELATED UPDATES JUST LIKE IN ANYTIME MIKE DOES A REVIEW LETTER THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO BRING UP TO SPEED BEFORE THEY COULD GET BEFORE US ANYWAY. YEAH. WE'VE HAD YOU KNOW, MR. WHITTAKER HAS FILED YOU KNOW, EVERYONE'S BEEN ON THIS BOARD NUMEROUS. SO I, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERN THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAVING ANY SORT OF GAMESMANSHIP HERE BY MR. WHITTAKER. I THINK THERE'S A VALID REASON HERE. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE A YEAR FROM NOW, WE GET IN THREE YEARS AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT. BUT AS FAR AS I COULD SEE, THERE WAS NO CASE LAW CITED THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION AFTER 60 DAYS, AFTER 90 DAYS. CORRECT. WE DO HAVE REASONS WHY WE UNDERSTAND THE APPLICATION IS BEING, YOU KNOW, HELD UP A LITTLE BIT. AND SO, DICKIE, DID I INTERRUPT YOU? NO, I WAS JUST HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, BUT THE ONLY OTHER SECONDARY PART WAS THAT WAS THAT MR. LAMB'S LETTER INCLUDED THOSE DIFFERENT DEP PERMITS OR WHATEVER THAT HAD BEEN, YOU KNOW, HAD BEEN DISMISSED OR, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER HE PHRASED IT, THEY HAD BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. SO, I MEAN, THAT COULD BE JUST A DIFFERENT SET OF DEP REQUIREMENT. AND NOW THEY FILED SOMETHING NEW OR WE'RE NOT SURE. BUT THAT'S IT WAS JUST I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW IF MAYBE THOSE WERE CLOSED, BUT THERE'S NEW ONES OR OTHER ONES. AND THE ONUS ISN'T ON US TO KNOW THAT NO, NO, NO, WE CAN LET THIS RIDE, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE HAVE TO GO TO THE DEAD. THAT'S ON THE APPLICANT'S ISSUE. RIGHT? RIGHT. SO I, I WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE REQUEST. AND, AND IT WAS MORE THAN JUST MARY JO AND I ADMINISTRATIVELY SAYING, NAH, FORGET IT. IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING YOU'RE AWARE OF AND WE WANT YOU AWARE OF IT. BY THE SAME TOKEN, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PRESSING REASON FOR THAT DISMISSAL TO OCCUR. SO IF EVERYBODY'S REASONABLY OKAY WITH THAT, WE COULD, AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE. I MAY HAVE INTERRUPTED THE SHOW OF HANDS. MR. CHAIRMAN, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? WELL, I WAS IS
[00:20:03]
THERE ANY ONE OF THE OPINION THAT FEELS THAT THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DISMISSED ADMINISTRATIVELY? DISMISSED. I THINK MIKE WAS THE ONLY THING I WAS GOING TO SAY WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ASKING FOR US TO DISMISS IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THERE'S NOTHING TO DISMISS.WELL, RIGHT. I MEAN, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WE DON'T HAVE IT. WHAT COMPLETE APPLICATION REASON? WELL, HOW CAN WE DISMISS IT WITH PREJUDICE? WHAT? WE WOULDN'T ALLOW THEM TO REFILE. YEAH, I KNOW THERE'S NOTHING TO DISMISS. WE DON'T HAVE AN APPLICATION. OKAY. BUT THEY'VE PAID, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, FROM FROM THE APPLICANT STANDPOINT, THEY'VE PAID AN APPLICATION FEE, RIGHT. THEY'VE SPENT CONSIDERABLE MONEY ON IT. WE KNOW HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO BRING THESE GUYS IN, YOU KNOW, EVERY MEETING. SO, YOU KNOW, I, I JUST FEEL THAT IT'S FROM FROM THAT STANDPOINT, THERE'S NO PREJUDICE TO THE OBJECTORS. EVERYTHING IS CORRECT, OF COURSE. AND AND THAT WAS WHAT WE SAID A YEAR AGO. RIGHT. AND, AND WHICH WAS THERE REALLY IS NO, THE REASON WHY THIS IS NOT IN THE PACKAGE IN FRONT OF YOU IS THAT THE APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN DEEMED COMPLETE. IT HASN'T BEEN UPDATED TO MIKE'S SPECS, MUCH LESS DEP SPECS. AND SO A YEAR AGO, WE INTERNALLY MEANING OFFICE AND BACK STAFF SAID IGNORE THE LETTER. NOW ANOTHER YEAR GOES BY. MIKE'S POINT IS STILL VERY TRUE. THERE IS NO PERFECTED APPLICATION BEFORE YOU, BUT I THINK YOU ARE. YOU SHOULD ALL KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, YOU KNOW, UNDER YOUR WING. SO YEAH, SO THAT THAT THAT MAKES IT EVEN EASIER BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING TO DISMISS RIGHT THERE.
NOTHING HAS BEEN NOTICED TO THE PUBLIC. WE DON'T HAVE A FINALIZED APPLICATION YET. DO NOT HAVE A, THE ONLY THING THAT WE THAT THEY'VE, I GUESS IS FINALIZED, MIKE IS PAID THE APPLICATION FEE, I'M ASSUMING. RIGHT. OKAY. AND THAT'S JUST HOLD. RIGHT. THAT'S IT. OKAY.
OKAY. SO IF THAT'S GOOD WITH EVERYONE, I'M HAPPY TO SAY, I THINK YOU GUYS NOW KNOW EVERYTHING THAT MIKE, MYSELF AND MARY JO KNOW YOU'RE IT'S YOU'RE AWARE OF IT BEING THE BOARD MEMBERS AS OPPOSED TO ADMINISTRATION DOING STUFF. SO I THINK THE CHAIRMAN ASKED, IS THERE ANYONE WHO FEELS STRONGLY THAT WE SHOULD DISMISS IT JUST TO GET THE BOX OUT FROM UNDER MARY JOE'S DESK, OR IS EVERYONE OKAY FOR A BIGGER DESK? SORRY. RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. MARK, THANKS FOR GIVING US SOME INSIGHT ON THAT.
OKAY. OLD BUSINESS COMMITTEE REPORTS. NONE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I KNOW WE'VE BEEN WRAPPED UP IN THE. NOW THAT I'M RETIRED, I HAVE MORE TIME. YEAH. MY GOODNESS. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNING?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.