2-17-26 Land Use Board Meeting

That's not bad.
>> Yeah. [cough]
>> Okay. We started
>> 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.
>> My country to the
>> All right. Uh this meeting, the uh land
use board meeting February 17th, 2026
was advertised in the Anakin Gazette,
the Atlantic City Press and right here
in the municipal building on board. I
would ask the secretary to add that to
her minutes.
And then Mr. Tina, you want to sign in?
M. You want to swear in Mr. Dennis?
>> I sure would. The honor to Mr. Dennis,
you want to
>> raise sir?
>> Yes.
>> You know, you've done this a few times.
I think I state your name. So,
>> I
Edward D. Tennis
>> do solemnly swear
>> that I will support the Constitution of
the United States
>> that I will support the Constitution of
the United States
>> and the Constitution of the State of New
Jersey
>> and the Constitution of the State of New
Jersey.
>> And that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same.
>> And I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same. and to the
governments established in the United
States
>> and and to the governments established
in the United States
>> and to this state
>> in the state,
>> county,
>> and city
>> under the authority of the people
>> and that I will faithfully
>> impartially and justly
>> and partially and unjustly
>> perform all the duties of the office of
>> perform all the duties of office of
>> member of the land use board.
>> Member of the land use board. Alternate
number one. Is that correct? Okay.
Very good.
Sign that. Pass it back to you, sir.
This
>> chair's broke for the record. Donna,
roll call, please.
>> Okay. Mayor Chimpetti. Mr. Walker
>> here.
>> Mr. McKenna
>> here.
>> Mr. Peterson
>> here.
>> Mr. Mulleno.
>> Mrs. Torres
>> here.
>> Mr. Frick
>> here.
>> Mr. Timbers
>> here.
>> Mr. Gart
>> here.
>> Mr. D
>> Mr. Mr. Hut
>> here
>> and Mer. [snorts]
No. Okay.
>> Okay. Can I have an approval motion for
the minutes of January 20th?
>> So move.
>> I'll second it.
>> Second. All in favor?
>> I
>> against.
Okay. So, [clears throat]
uh, new business. Ryan, you want to give
us a a short little Sure. Um so the
[clears throat] city in reviewing its
land use ordinance and trying to spur
economic development uh came across a
restriction in the city's current land
use ordinance which requires a minimum
spacing of 1,000 ft between fast food
restaurants. Um the city uh at this
point [snorts] has interest in removing
that restriction uh as a conditional use
requirement. uh in order to do so um
they need to refer that matter to the
planning board for consideration and um
for recommendation of whether that would
be consistent with the city's master
plan. So u I handed out this uh memo
that we drafted that pulls a couple of
sections from the city's master plan and
current master plan uh
just to provide some examples of you
know what the intentions of the master
plan are. I mean generally it's to uh
support economic development in the town
um to support you know smart growth and
to uh provide for you know adequate
transportation light air open space all
the the goals of the municipal land
staff um so the [clears throat] city uh
believes that this requirement does not
support um the objectives of the master
plan um and
sort of refer this matter here for you
guys to consider whether it is
consistent Um, so the the current
ordinance restriction does not support
any of the objectives that we listed.
Um, and we determined that removing uh
any the restriction would not conflict
with any of the city's current master
plan objectives. Um, we knew this rule
was kind of a dated um tool that used to
be fairly common. Uh, I think in the 80s
um fast development patterns, you know,
people weren't quarrely sure how things
were going to go. There's a lot less
variety. there's a lot less
understanding of how to engineer sites,
a lot less site controls. Um, so we
don't we don't believe that this
requirement is necessary anymore. Um, so
our recommendation to the board is that
we believe that this making this change
this the land use ordinance would be
consistent with the city's master plan.
Um, but it's ultimately up to you guys
to to vote on whether you believe that
is the case.
>> So there'll be no restriction
whatsoever. Now
>> well, so it's only in the highway
commercial does this requirement exist.
there is a 1,000 ft separation distance
between fast food restaurants. City's
proposing to just remove that
restriction entirely. Um real world
impact um there's only one
there's probably more than one
restaurant or establishment that could
be considered fast food. You can make an
argument that Dunkin Donuts would be a
fast food restaurant. um like Dominoes,
something that you know, but uh
realistically the the vacant parcel
that's next to McDonald's, I think, is
the one that's probably comes to
everyone's mind most immediately. Um but
it it really just removes a cloud. The
city's had discussion with numerous
developers uh both about that parcel and
others. And this has come up as a
concern or as a potential uh conflict.
Um the the pad site that's over by Wawa,
excuse me, there's a [clears throat]
redevelopment plan for that site. um and
that one of the uses permitted it
includes fast food. So like that's
within thousand feet of Dunkin Donuts.
So there's there's other um other
properties that this requirement sort of
clouds. Um so we just think it would be
easier to work with developers um and
they would have a much higher level of
comfort if that was not in there. They
just had to meet all the other there's
still a whole bunch of other conditions
>> just to be consistent with everybody
everything else that's going on.
>> Yeah. Exactly. and and there are there
are still conditional use standards that
apply just to fast food restaurants.
There's still there's still a minimum
square footage. There's still parking
requirements and other requirements that
apply only to fast food restaurants. Um
so it would just be striking that
requirement from the conditional use
standards. All the other conditional use
standards would still apply and if they
didn't meet those conditional use
standards then they would have to go for
a use variance.
>> So okay, you got something?
>> Yeah. What about the area of say
Philadelphia Avenue from the White Horse
Pike to Deer Street or two along there?
>> So this is this is only in the city's
highway commercial zone which extends no
more than a couple hundred feet from the
White Horse Pike in any direction. Um
actually goes to to Atlantic Avenue is
the farthest that
>> so in other words let's say a restaurant
wants to go Philadelphia Avenue to
corner Argo wants to buy one of those
buildings and convert it.
>> So that is in the retail commercial
district.
>> So they would have they'd have to get
variance. Why wouldn't you include that
in that highway commercial?
>> So that that would be a larger the
city's ordinance. We're not proposing to
change the or the where the boundaries
are or anything like that as part of
this. We're just trying to remove the
the conditional use standard.
>> What about from White Horse Pike to
Atlantic Avenue?
>> So a good portion of that is actually in
the city's highway commercial zone. Now
there's sections where the highway
commercial zone extends all the way to
Atlantic, but it's sort of inconsistent
up and down the Route 30 corridor. So I
I don't have the zoning map in front of
me, but there there's sections where it
goes all the way Atlantic and there's
other sections where it's only like half
the block because there's some
residential areas and other other
sections where it's not highway
commercial.
>> The parcel behind Wawa.
>> Uh so the the parcel behind Wawa is in
the highway commercial zone. Highway
commercial extends, [clears throat]
excuse me, down Philadelphia up to the
railroad tracks there.
>> What about between the teamsters and
uh uh Dunkin Donuts that area?
>> That that's in the highway commercial
zone.
>> So that's all included. the other side
where Waw Wa is included.
>> Yes. Well, that technically that side is
subject to a redevelopment plan as part
of the Waw Wa project, but otherwise it
would be a highway commercial zone.
>> So, it's an overlap.
>> Uh yeah, it's
>> redevelopment plan overlaps,
>> right? The redevelopment zone sort of
overlaid on top of highway commercial.
>> So, if Burger King want to come in next,
there's no concern. It's a 1,000 ft from
say Dunkin Donuts that they consider to
be fast. It would be permitted after we
remove this.
>> Correct. because right now it's less
than a thousand feet from Dunkin Donuts
and potentially other things that could
be considered fast food.
>> Sure.
>> So,
>> what makes a place fast food?
>> Well, that's uh it's tough to define now
because it's there's a wide gamut. I
think in the in the mid 80s, fast food
was a little more clearly defined. You
know, there were far less chains. Yeah.
>> Um and it was, you know, McDonald's,
Burger King, and a few others. So, I
think fast food has a pretty wide
variety at this point.
>> You got a W for lunch and that's fast.
>> Yeah. Exactly right. Is is Wawa fast
food? Um
>> like a Garo type building, they're not
considered a fast food.
>> I don't believe so. No,
>> just curious.
>> So Ryan, if if we did nothing, a
developer could ask for a variance,
>> correct? A developer would have to come
in and ask for request a use variance.
Um which as you know is always a much
higher lift for a developer. There's a
significant investment of resources up
front. Um, so if someone's going to buy
the property and start to go down that
path, no one wants to spend $10,000 to
figure out if they can build a
restaurant there. They want to buy the
property and build a restaurant there
because they know they meet all the
conditions.
>> It's what could actually scare them away
by us leaving it in there.
>> Yeah, actually growth.
>> We've had numerous conversations with
other developers who have said that
exactly like I don't I don't want to
mess with that. I'm going to deal with
that. It's not worth it. So Ryan,
>> yes 1,000 ft is
at least 100 feet longer than a football
field at some point.
>> We got to look at this and say this is
not reasonable.
>> This is not three city blocks like you
said.
>> Say it again.
>> It's 3 city blocks.
>> If you take a 1000 foot from the center
of the McDonald's, you're talking about
avenue.
>> And then you're talking almost Halo
Street.
>> Yes.
>> Real close to Halo Street.
>> Yeah. Right. It extend all the way into
Gallup.
>> Well, whatever this ordinance was that
got put in there, it wasn't put in there
for planning purposes. It was put in
there for political purposes. We're not
not political, but you know,
>> foundations.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. Purposes that are not uh
advancing goals of the master plan or
municipal land use law
>> uh and no longer applicable. So
>> is there any instance where you can see
that there could be a conflict in that
somebody comes in and if there's an area
along the pike or something or a
restaurant that comes in that wouldn't
meet the criteria of a fast food
restaurant or something.
So [snorts]
I think the the bigger restriction that
development is going to have in like
tight parcels next to McDonald's say is
um highway access requirements from New
Jersey Department of Transportation. So
you're not they're not going to let you
have a whole series of driveways all 20
ft apart. Um, so I I think that
um you know that working through that
process they they may require like a
shared driveway with McDonald's or a
shared driveway with um the the uh strip
mall or something like that. Um but I I
don't I don't see a way that this would
create a conflict that another business
type would not.
>> But in in a corporate I mean the along
the pike the biggest distance
>> that you normally have is 150 ft.
traffic can be can be moved to either
the terrace
>> or the main street. I mean,
>> even in Fsein where they're building all
that at the old ball fields,
>> they all that traffic really exits back
on New Jersey Avenue and then goes to
either the U-turn or to to to the other
end. So, I mean, it's a little bit of an
inconvenience for the people exiting,
but it's not a an impossibility.
>> Sure. Yeah. There's there's definitely
alternate ways to approach it. Yeah. And
like I said, the Arbor City's [snorts]
pattern is very unique. Very few lots
are wider than 150 ft. So most are very
narrow and you have some depth to work
with and access to multiple furnishes.
>> And and even the one next to McDonald's
[clears throat] when that was approved,
that's why that that area by McDonald's,
the terrace was cut where the curb cut
was put to to bring the traffic to St.
Louis,
>> right?
>> I mean, it was always intended. So they
have that blocked off now, but but
>> but that's [clears throat] what the
intent was.
>> So if a restaurant wanted to locate
there, they would be able to use that
driveway.
>> That was the original approach.
>> Get back out on on the St. Louis Avenue.
>> Yes. They they would use that common
driveway. If you also remember, well,
no, you wouldn't [clears throat]
remember when the red light was put in
at St. Louis Avenue, the city passed a
an ordinance. Actually, the driveway
that exits McDonald's was supposed to
have been eliminated. That exit was that
at the red light there, there are no
lefthand turns permitted in all of our
ordinances. They're supposed to close
that up just like they did in Hamilton.
Their McDonald's closed off their exit
onto the pike. They now go rack around
and come out to the red light. And
that's what was supposed to happen
there, Jack. All traffic was to be
circulated back around.
So, Ryan, that I'm maybe getting a
little too far ahead here in
anticipation that they might want to do
something on that that property there,
but uh would the state is there enough
highway frontage there that the state
would allow a driveway into that that
lot there in between and McDonald's?
>> Yeah. So I would think at minimum they
would allow an access drive to
[clears throat] come into the site and
then they would I'm sure encourage uh
exiting the site to go either through
the McDonald's property or to come out
to neighboring
>> or they can go the other way and come
out at the entrance to Inolingos.
>> Right. That's what I said either either
the McDonald's doesn't have anything to
say about that. They can't hold that up.
I mean,
I don't think they would have the
ability to to fully block it, especially
if their original site plan included the
potential for
so that that what would remember the
owners of properties that time when they
went to get the approval on both
properties
>> and they agreed to that.
>> Now, it goes back to the 80s, but I mean
that was what was agreed to. Well, the
rumor on the street is that there's a
new buyer, a new owner of Incalingos
[clears throat] that owns that both of
those properties, the one that's
developed and the one that's not
developed. And I obviously want he wants
to do something there.
>> I hope he does.
>> So, I Yeah, I I don't know what the
future plans are, but I I know that they
took a portion of that and were able to
add some parking. Um I don't know if
he's trying to develop the rest or move
the rest or or what, but it would be
better than a vacant lot. So,
that's the idea.
Okay. Anybody else have any questions?
So, tonight you're looking for
a motion to send it back to council. Is
that what you're
>> It would be a resolution recommending or
or finding that removing this
requirement from the city's land use
ordinance uh would conform with the
city's master plan.
>> I'll offer that motion.
>> I'll second. Second.
>> Okay.
Ed.
>> Okay.
>> Roll call. Don.
[clears throat]
>> No. Second. Um, first.
>> Okay.
[laughter]
>> Mr. Walker.
>> Yes.
>> Mr. McCann.
>> Yes.
>> Mr. Peterson.
>> Yes.
>> Mrs. Torres.
>> Yes.
>> Mr. Frick.
>> Yes.
>> Mr. Timbers. Can I vote on this since
this is effective?
>> Yes, you may.
>> Okay. Yes.
>> Mr. Gar.
>> Yes.
>> Mr. Dennis?
>> Yes.
>> And Mr. Hess?
>> Yes.
>> Ryan, what document does this appear in?
Is this in the city code?
>> Yeah. City's land use ordinance um
section 1705806
uh under A2A.
So that that line minimum distance
between fast food restaurants 10,000 ft
will just be deleted from the ordinance.
Okay. Uh, any old business?
>> Council report.
>> Not at this time.
All right. Comments
from the public.
>> I have a question.
>> Question and comments from the board.
I think that reference a reliable news
source is Facebook, but there have been
a lot of Facebook posts about the Acme
>> being an approved growth facility.
>> So, they the city just um appointed a
new redeveloper to that parcel. That
that redeveloper has expressed interest
in cannabis cultivation, I believe, but
they have not approached the city with
any formal documentation on what their
proposed use will be. I actually just
spoke with their attorney today um to
sort of walk him through the process
again. Um so we're going to provide them
[clears throat] with the current
redevelopment plan. They're going to
draft the revisions that they're
requesting and uh present that to city
council for consideration. Whatever they
do, whatever the city authorizes will
have to come here for a site plan at
some point.
>> I mean hopefully there's some progress
in getting something in that building.
[snorts]
>> Yeah. Yeah. That's that's the idea. I
mean, it's it's been hard to attract
developers there. So, if somebody's got
a plan and shows up with money, um,
>> it's not the same owner that has it
right now.
>> No, it is not.
>> He sold the building or he's going to
sell it. [snorts]
>> So, Jim Mallion, I believe, is the
current owner. I believe he's under
contract with another um group. I don't
I don't remember what the the group was
called. I didn't deal with. [snorts]
So,
>> you know what's strange about this,
Ryan, is that that parcel there
>> with the existing paving
>> and in I won't say it's move in, but
there's no visits to the plan to the
highlands or anything like that.
>> Yeah.
>> You're not finding that anywhere in
Atlanta County.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I I can't believe that somebody
can't find it. Why doesn't marketing
correctly? Just like you said, you could
you could expand that building because
[clears throat] the whole thing is
impervious already. you just got to
reduce it by what, one square foot to
make it
>> so the the rules have changed a lot
lately. Um they're they're kind of
trying to get rid of that loophole. Um
so now even the reconstruction as of
January 20th, even the reconstruction of
a quarter acre of asphalt requires you
to deal with stolen quality and stuff
now.
>> So I don't know how we're going to
rebuild roads or do anything, but we'll
figure that out, I guess. Um but yeah,
to answer your question, part of the
complication is that the the parcel is
privately owned. So, if the city owned
it, we could put out an RFP and try to
attract developers and things like that.
Kind of like what we did with the tower
site, um, where we seem we've made a lot
of progress. Um, but because it's
privately owned, same thing with the
Better Build Door site across the
street. If somebody wants to sit on it
for 20 years and pay the taxes, that's
their prerogative, unfortunately. So,
um, you know, we've tried to work with,
that's changed hand numerous time. We've
tried to work with numerous property
owners. um when it's gone up for sale,
we've tried to, you know, increase that
uh level of awareness and let people
know that it's out there and available.
Um but I mean, it's been 20 years and
obviously we haven't got
>> you look at you look at South Lake
Harbor, but this old Peter Lmer, the
massive building they were able to put
there because it went over existing
>> Sure.
>> concrete.
>> Yeah, that's that's always been a big
advantage. I don't know what the storm
water runoff design would be for
building of that size, but they put it
up and didn't have to do anything.
>> Yeah, it's it's a huge advantage having
all that impervious cover there still
even even with the change requirements,
but um yeah, we still haven't had any
takers and I mean the price of that
building has dropped and dropped and
dropped. So,
>> I don't know where it's at now, but at
one point it was um about the price of a
single family home. It's
>> So, the the uh it's never been
completed. Was that
>> that the construction that of the Acme
building?
>> Correct.
>> Yeah. Gentleman that had it who was
trying to do a used auto dealer wall was
kind of working on it himself as he came
into funds. Um did some work, did some
facade work and then ran out of money.
So that's kind of how it sat.
>> So where does that leave the city with
any ability to enforce anything? Because
you go on the Argo Street side and the
sopets are still open and there's, you
know, all those water getting in. I mean
it all sides are not enforcement. Um so
that's a conversation department but
>> whoever owns the partial is using that
property.
>> Yes, we I believe they have been citing
for storage of vehicles and and other
things uh at least once. Um because that
another at one point another group came
in and and inquired about using it for
um there's a company that does work with
like the electric company where there's
major travels the country right so they
wanted to use it for like indoor
maintenance uh in indoor storage and
then they would stay vehicles outside we
had some discussions with them but they
kind of backed out of it but around
those discussions a bunch of equipment
showed up anyway so um we conveyed to
the owner at the time that none of that
was permitted and it all had to be moved
moved. I don't think they met the the
time frames that were provided, but I
think they were cited. So,
>> but at least it keeps it neat and clean
because trust me, there's you got
properties on
30 that time are horrible. It could be
worse, that's for sure. But um but yeah,
I do believe they were cited it.
>> Well, the same rules would apply that
nobody could open up anything without
the building being completely done.
>> Yeah, correct. And and again, anyone who
um advances development there has to
come back to Landingport. Um and I think
that the prior owner like ripped up a
bunch of sidewalks and disturbed the
site various ways. All of that would
need to be restored. Um so and all of
those would be conditions of any
approvals that they sought from this.
>> So as far as we're concerned, the
existing site plan was for these rental
offices for the for the used car.
Nothing has changed since that,
>> right? There's been no um concrete
proposals back to the city at this
point. There's been no action by the
board. So that's still the approved use
and site plan at this point. Uh but
that's not what's being pursued at this
time. So does not appear at least.
>> Ed a different subject and I think
everybody has seen it. If you go past
the inkingos every couple months the
fence falls down. Supposed to be a
permanent fence.
>> It's not addressed. Pardon me.
>> That's being addressed by the city
administrator
tangentially.
>> If it's not, can he be brought back to
the planning board? Because that was
supposed to be a permanent fence and all
he did was take 4in blocks and screw the
the fence into the blocks and it falls
over. It's just it's a safety hazard.
>> The block is is glued to the
>> to the foundation blocks.
>> Yeah. It doesn't last
>> with constru. No kidding. Well, listen,
I feel bad for him because they put And
that's an expensive fence, you know, and
it wasn't two days somebody had backed
into it,
>> Jack. After the first time, I don't The
guy went in, he tried a cheap way to do
it, fix it, right, and be done with.
>> I don't know how you could fix it,
right?
>> Well,
>> put regular fence and and attach it to
the as I'd be in the next day, too. just
drew a regular fence and instead of
putting up a temporary
>> I believe that an alternate fence
material and type is being considered
something that would be easy to repair.
>> Nothing that you put in that existing
location is going to work until you stop
the cars from being able to back into
it.
>> Well, I think I think he's trying to
encourage the owner to install parking
bumpers, too.
>> There's parking bumpers there. When you
get a guy with a pickup truck who's got
10 ft from the back wheels, that it
needs to be angle parking. Uh
Okay, that's possible. Correct. You'd
have to you'd have to change the whole
section.
That's why I was asking about if it's
the same owner and that [clears throat]
owns the McDonald's lot and when it
comes time to do something with that
would be something to address to
straighten that out.
>> I think they added on one side.
>> Then you can't drive over it and you
don't have your problem.
>> But that didn't work. You got a block
wall. Somebody's going to knock it down.
people are just don't
>> I'm not deeply involved with that. I
just know that they're he's been meeting
with the the property owner. They're
considering alternate fence materials.
>> Well, like I said, the only thing you do
is put a guardrail in in front of the
fence.
>> That would be the most visible cuz then
you can bang into it all day long.
They're not going to tear down tear up.
>> But anything else other than guardrail
in front of a fence,
>> it's way too narrow. That's the problem.
Like you said, you have a pick pickup
truck in there and you're going to pull
when you back out. It is just going back
to years ago when they approved
anything.
>> It's Yeah, it's a small uh as far as I
know, Don, from what I recall, we don't
have like a a site plan on file the
city's records. Correct. Able to locate
anything.
>> Well, for for the Inkling property,
>> anything that includes the fence.
>> Yeah, that's what we were having trouble
finding.
>> So, angled parking definitely help that.
[clears throat]
>> It would, but you'd have to reconfigure
all the drives or the stall depths are
different. The drive aisle widths are
different. just the parking circulation
is different because when you have a
parking it's on the oneway drive aisles.
So that that would be like a major
reconfiguration of the site plan
>> and it's mandatory that they have the
fence.
>> We can't find an approved site plan that
that shows the fence, but it's kind of
always been there. So apparently the
owner wants to retain
>> there was a fence from the stool that
was there that they
>> Right. I remember that was trans and
they cut that down and then put
>> they left some of the foundation there
and they just tried to
>> try to mimic it in the same location.
Yeah.
>> Well, um yeah, I would say if you want
to inquire on the specifics, reach out
to the city administrator because he's
he's dealing with that property. I just
worry that if it's mandatory that they
put a new fence and they've already
spent all that money in that fence and
I've seen it go down two or three times
already
>> that they decide maybe they need to move
the market elsewhere then where we're
going to shop. We don't have very many
places. So I mean you have to think
about that too.
>> Sure. Understood.
>> Ryan, a few months back we did have
somebody come in for an application for
cannabis on Atlantic Avenue and I think
we approved it. Did they drop that?
>> No. I actually got um their compliance
site plan yesterday
>> um that showed a trash enclosure
location that was like way too close to
the wetlands.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. We the city or we in our
discussions, one of the conditions was
that they provide a trash enclosure.
>> Um so they sent a revised plan uh with a
proposed trash enclosure yesterday and
then an updated one today. Um, so I
still have to review it against the
[cough] resolution, [clears throat]
>> but they are they do appear to be.
>> Okay.
>> How about the grow in the industrial
park?
>> That one is still stalled. Oh, the
there's two
>> right on Mos Mill Road.
>> One is So that one is stalled. Um, from
what I understand, that project is up
for sale. We met with a prospective
purchaser, I don't know, probably four
or five months ago who was interested in
it at the time. Uh I haven't heard
anything about that particular
individual since but I do get occasional
inquiries um from people who appear to
be considering purchasing.
>> Is this the one on wash mill?
>> Yes.
>> The the doctor group.
>> Yes. Dr. John.
>> So he he still owns that but um he found
another facility in but that was a
building that was already constructed
and started his operation there. So
>> is Trucky growing yet? That is a matter
of intention depending who you talk to.
So I believe the city is investigating
whether he's growing because he does not
have all the permission to begin growing
yet. We don't believe. So I'm sure
that's shocking. Um
>> that would that be enforced by the
state?
>> Uh yeah, potentially. Um so we we have
no official word that he's growing, but
we've gotten some indications that that
operation has already started. So I
believe the city is looking into that.
>> So were the note three buildings were
taken down last week?
>> Yes.
>> Two on Cincinnati Avenue and and the Old
Harbor Tavern.
>> Yeah. The city started to pursue uh
numerous buildings and the owner of them
asked for the city to stop those
proceedings and said that they would do
it themselves and we haven't proceeded
with that since.
jump in.
>> Anybody else?
>> Oh, yeah. I got a question. Has there
already any been any more movement on
St. Nicholas
since he met here and gave, you know,
>> everything they were going to do with
the 104 unit?
>> I can tell you from a realer's point of
view, the property has been under
contract for two years. It's just put
back on what is active last week for
sale.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I heard he finally just decided to
walk away.
I don't I I so I I've been in
communication with the the gentleman
that's been here a few times. Um his
name is escaping me at the moment, but
um as far as I know, he's still pursuing
a project um in the city. He's been
having issues with the dascese um about
extending the contract andor what the
price point is, I guess. Um so I don't
know if he's fully severized, but I do
believe that the contract was canceled.
>> Yeah. And it's active on the market for
sale right now.
>> Yeah.
What what's it worth, George? What are
they asking for?
>> I I think they're asking for 75.
Something like that. It's all city
block.
>> I thought the highest and best use is
tear it down and put eight high-end
homes there. It would be perfect for the
neighborhood.
>> No one have a problem with that.
>> Yeah, no one would have a problem with
that except the guy who has to pay for
it.
>> The builders say they can't put enough
there. Yeah, there's a lot of asbestous
and
>> they need the whole block. They need the
church and all. They need to take the
whole block down.
>> There's asbests, there's lead paint,
there's lots of issues. So,
>> we'll see.
>> But that did come up here once before.
>> It did. There was a gentleman who was
pursuing a project there for a lengthy
period of time. He um
>> he finally settled in on um
>> some type of assisted living, wasn't it?
Yeah, like an assisted living type
facility, which would have been a
conditionally permitted use in that zone
because it's a residential zone. I we've
had numerous people approach the city
with 50 unit condos and all kinds of
stuff. Um, and we kind of tell everybody
like, look, we be we'd be thrilled if
you build eight houses there, but you're
not going to make money doing it. Um, so
if you came up with a reasonable
proposal, we'd love to hear it. But, you
know, there's a lot of space between
eight houses and 50 condos. So,
>> any other comments? [clears throat]
Motion to adjourn. So we
>> I
thank