Page 1

TOWNSHIP OF KEYPORT PLANNING BOARD KEYPORT, NEW JERSEY Wednesday, July 20, 2005 STENOGRAPHIC TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDING

IN RE: AEROMARINE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN

I

B E F O R E : JOHN KOVACS, Chairman PASQUALE MENNA, ESQ. VIRGINIA FEBO, SECRETARY ALFRED DE GRACIA GERALD FREDA RICHARD HASSMILLER JOHN KOVACS CHRIS MONTARTTI

14

GERALD FREDA, ENGINEER

GEORGE JOSEPH ANDREW THOMAS

R. SAPPAH VECCHIO J. WILLNER A. THOMAS, Planner

M&M COURT REPORTING Certified Shorthand Reporters P.O. Box 190 Toms River, New Jersey 08754 Telephone: ( 7 3 2 ) 349-1196 * Fax: ( 7 3 2 ) 349-1413

1 3

A P P E A R A N C E S : GIORDANO, HALLERAN BY:

4

CIESLA, ESQS . ,

&

PAUL H. SCHNEIDER, ESQ.

125 Half Mile Road Middletown, New Jersey 07748

5

(732) 219-5487

6

ANSELL, ZARO , GRIMM BY:

&

AARON, ESQS . ,

GORDON N. LITWIN, ESQ.

1500 Lawrence Avenue

Ocean, New Jersey 07712 (732) 922-1000

Page 3

.......

MR. LANE:

Density for the RA

zone is defined by the KLUR specifications in the Section 25:1-16 Table. The 2001 Master Plan update did not find the present KLUR out of alignment with the Master Plan for defining RA density. As submitted in the "Planning Issues Analysis" the above set of boundary conditions equates to 5.1 units per acre for the RA Zone and 7,500 square feet and approximately 7.3 per unit 4

square feet, but that's below density.

As you

know, you've experienced, both the Keyport Planning Board and zoning officers have both made their rulings based on the present KLUR. Further, the ARP definition allows inclusion of wetland area in the calculation, which is not supported by the rulings in a previous Keyport Unified Planning Board case. In the Keyport Meadow LLC case decided by the Keyport Unified Planning Board last year, the applicant had an RA zoned site dictating acres of wetlands along the creek that Aeromarine borders. His density and fit was determined by application of the above-listed Keyport Land Use Regulation criteria. The applicant was not granted relief

Page 4

from the height and single-family use because of his acreage.

He had a three and a half acre site

and its density is in the

so he would have been

about 30 units.

He had a buildable lot of less

than half acre.

So I ask you relative to the

charges to identify these inconsistencies for the Master Plan. Now, a couple of other things.

There are some

additional inconsistencies that I would like to identify in summary. And I ' d also like to suggest

is this, as I indicated in the two pages I'll hand out to you an example of what could be a response back to the Borough council, and the first page is a listing of the inconsistencies with the Keyport Master Plan concerning the Aeromarine Redevelopment

plan, which contains a conceptual plan that promotes developments in wetlands and wetland buffers, which is not consistent with the 1989 Keyport Master Plan update and NJDEP coastal regulations.

And the handouts that we gave you

back on I believe it was June 23 gave you a whole set of coastal resolutions. On Page 23 of the Keyport Master Plan, it indicates that the overall development tract is substantially regulated by NJDEP Wetlands and flood hazard regulations and

Page 5

again, we call your attention to the fact that there is no requirements and there's coastal regulations. Aeromarine Redevelopment which allows residential buildings a height of five stories is not consistent with RA density called for in the 1989 Keyport Master Plan and present Keyport Land Use Regulations.

The Keyport Land Use Regulations

introduced with the 1989 Master Plan upgrade eliminated building heights above three stories in

all non-highway districts. Density is a function of both building foot-print and building height as recognized by the boundary conditions both defined in the Keyport Borough RA Zone that the Master Plan calls for adherence to. So we ask you to look at those inconsistencies and with all the preponderance of these and support them.

Set recommendations regarding the

inconsistencies, Page 2, which I had suggested that you make based on the ordinance that the Borough council pass. For multiple family inconsistency, limit the allowed residential units to single family and townhouses as recommended by Redevelopment Steering Committee and residential Committee.

Page 6

For the density inconsistency, limit density to five units/acre non-wetland area on site. For the coastal regulation inconsistency, rework the conceptual plan to align with CAFRA regulations and specify alignment with CAFRA regulations as a requirement in the ARP environmental section 3. 7 . For a height consistency, limit number of stories to three. Again, that was the recommendation of the residential committee. Regarding other Aeromarine Redevelopment Plan matters, the conceptual plan shows an access road that will not fit within the use of Eminent Domain power to acquire residential lots.

This is not in

alignment with Section 4.2 of the Aeromarine Redevelopment Plan.

Take action to either fix the

conceptual plan or redefine the redevelopment boundaries. The Aeromarine Redevelopment Plan and present Keyport Land Use regulations are critically deficient in design criteria for Multiple Dwellings as evidenced by design rules the previous '72 Keyport Land Use Regulation which allowed multiple dwelling buildings up to 10 stories and through the

Page 7

Master Plan reworked in '89, all of that was eliminated.

Add a Section 9 to the ARP covering

Multiple Dwelling design guidelines, see table one. Section 9 to the Aeromarine Redevelopment plan covering multiple dwellings design standards, and

we gave you a suggested table in the information that we shared with you in June 23, and there's sections to be filled in that we left to be determined, but we think the original '72 requirements provided a pretty sound base for that dispute.

Add a clear referral to the Keyport Land Use Regulations in the ARP for definition of terms such as building height, townhouses, et cetera.

Right

now there's no definition determined in the ARP simple language that would solve that issue. The Aeromarine Redevelopment Plan fails to address the infrastructure issue surrounding school capacity. Obtain an analysis from the Keyport Board of Education on school capacity breakpoints and an analysis from under redevelopment planner on potential growth in students population as a result of implementing the ARP.

Share this data with

Keyport residents and Keyport Board of Education. In other words, have some

--

we're asking you to

Page 8

recommend we have some collaboration. The Aeromarine Redevelopment Plan fails to address the infrastructure issue surrounding traffic capacity on First and Second Street. Obtain an analysis capacity and circulation for these streets. For those who have been around a while, there were plans to make First Street one way and Second Street one way.

This has been

discussed and we think you should ask the Borough council to consider this option as residents of these streets prior to ARP.

Finally, a due-diligence evaluation of the ARP

and a marked version of the ARP consistent with above recommendations is included in this report to document misalignment and gaps in the plan's requirements and basically to increase the quality of the product.

Prior to adopting an ARP, address

these issues in a joint design review with redevelopment planner and members of the Keyport Planning Board and Borough council. Thank you very much for the opportunity to give you this.

MR. VECCHIO:

Quick question, Mike, the

recommendation that talked about the multi

family inconsistencies down at the redevelopment

Page 9

and the recommendations for the development, you went on to add a Section 9 to the Aeromarine Redevelopment Plan covering multi-family design, is it in your opinion

--

MR. LANE:

resolutions.

clarify that. Two things, look at the

Your first is to identify

inconsistencies, your second is then to make recommendations. MR. VECCHIO:

Understood. That is reflecting back to

MR. LANE:

you, the residential committee and the multi family residential committee felt that townhouses were very acceptable. In my opinion, townhouse are single family. defined.

But that is not the way they're

That's not how you defined the MR. VECCHIO:

officially

--

--

I didn't know whether you

you realize multi family is the only

way that it would ever get it done. MR. LANE: more.

I can't agree with you

But what we're suggesting is one, if it's a

family boundary set six stories high and density at 25 inch per acre, we will never get an answer. I mean, look at what happened in Kara Homes.

Everything comes in with 25 or 30 units per acre and you can't ever afford it.

I mean, this is - -

Page 10

look at your experience. I think you had an oil

tank leak next to you, the guy couldn't sell the property without fixing it or if anybody was to buy the property, I can't imagine that he wouldn't want the property discounted.

I mean, we heard a lot 20

million dollar cost, we have no information about the financials at all. million dollar project.

This is a 325 or 350 20 million out of 350 is a

small percentage and you know, I know we're not used to looking at those kinds of numbers, but do it in terms of thousands.

Thank you very much.

MR. MENNA: Thanks. AUDIENCE MEMBER:

My name is Bill

Lordman. I live at 170 Division Street.

My wife

and are fairly recent members of the Keyport community. 17.

We moved three years ago on August the

I just wanted to express the issues, and some

of the other community members that we have spoken to about the frustration which with what seems to be a continuing change of direction of the water front development. It was our understanding that water front development was going to be the repair and beautification of the bulkhead, make the water front area more family friendly with parks, shops,

and it seems like every time we read something in

Page 11

the paper regarding redevelopment, it's about some type of high-density urban, how many townhouses can we shove into the smallest areas that we can find or largest areas that we can find. But, you know, the Aeromarine Redevelopment Plan, we are talking

about increasing the population of the town by one-seventh. That is a conservative estimate from what I can tell from the current population. Add the amount of people that we projected from anywhere from 480 up to 530 some-odd units

--

and

we have a water and sewer situation that's deteriorating for a while, and now we're going to add 1,500 more sinks and another thousand showers and toilets to that, we're going to flood the school system with nobody can actually put a good number on how many children might be involved in the amount of townhouses that we are talking about, so we don't know what the affect on the board of education is going to be.

And in the meantime,

every day I get off the Parkway where I come back from North Jersey where I commute to and see the dilapidated water tower that makes Keyport look like the Borough that time forgot.

My wife and I

go down to the water front and we see the sea of asphalt is the first thing.

Everybody that's goes

Page 12

down

--

and it's often flooded out when it rains

or we have high tide.

We have in my block alone

there's two or three other families that have moved in since we have and in speaking to them, they're all disappointed that they haven't - - that the directions that the redevelopment seems to be taking not to fix up things that need to be fixed, but the focus seems more often to be on what can we do for people that aren't even here yet, and we would just like to see more focus on making the community as it is nicer for the people that live

in it right now. That's all I have to say. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Jack Johnson, 80 Main

Street.

Taking the pessimistic view, in all

probability, the planning board as I see it is going to recommend the adoption of the development plan, that is with some changes.

You have been

advised that this type of development does not attract families and that therefore we need not worry about the influx of many children with the accompanying impacts on our school system.

But the

first session I disagreed with that judgment because of the location right at the shore of Raritan Bay and the Parkway surrounding an ideal place to raise children. There are many families

Page 13

across the bay who will be attracted.

A large

influx of students into the Keyport school system will cause an overload beyond what the system can handle without a very, very large expense.

And

there's no room to be building additional schools

in Keyport. We have the eighth grade meeting in the high school as it is.

The only obvious

solution I can see to avoid a severe impact on the school system is to designate the development for residents 55 and over:

If you're going to build

it, make it 55 and over.

In neighboring Marlboro,

they're about to approve a large 55 and over development essentially where the Marlboro Airport used to be.

If this development and Keyport were

so designated, people would be far more likely to choose these kind of condominiums right on the bay. The Marlboro where the plan shows a restaurant looking out over the bay, there could be a clubhouse for the development, a liquor license wouldn't be out of the ordinary, a dredge and bulkhead and the residents could even dock their boats.

Those are just pies in the sky.

A 55 and

over development could create rateables that would bring in tax revenues without school expenditures far in excess of those revenues. The future

Page 14

proposed condominiums and townhouses, there are a number of them in the middle that would pose the same problems.

But do we have to approve them?

Does the planning board have to approve them?

We

aren't ready for them and above all, the people of Keyport do not want them.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:

Ms. Guerin,

G-u-e-r-i-n, 75 First Street. This is very brief and it's a comment that I applaud all of the previous speakers because they're right on with their facts and information and I hope it's absorbed and adhered to. But something that it hasn't come forward and it was presented, but unfortunately I wasn't here

enough, but across middle America every contractor, every builder will always ask you for the pie in the sky.

The sun, moon and the stars. They want

400, 500 units.

They'll walk away from 300 units

and we'll say oh no - - I will not say it, but other people will say wonderful, we beat them down. No, you didn't, that's what they wanted in the

beginning.

So you really have to think they're on

with the density, less density.

There is no way

we're any different than any small town in the USA. The builder wants his profit at our expense.

Thank you, gentlemen. AUDIENCE MEMBER:

brief.

I will keep it

I think what I was trying to do is

incorporate some of the analysis.

Your

representation Mr. Lane has referred to, and you

have copies of the drafts documents page by page, there's some correction that incorporates I believe the Section 9 recommendations.

And other than

that, I was take the advice of the planning board. Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Jennifer Henning, 102 Main Street.

I just want - - the redevelopment

plan calls for an objective, and there's 11 of them and they starts with the environmental clean up and how to facilitate it and we got one idea how to do

think somebody talked about

that.

And from Mlke I

the

we don't know what the cost involved, we

--

don't know what the cost will involve. taking that from the developer.

We are

As far as I know,

I own a home and I don't know the legality of this, and if I have an environmental clean up, I ' m responsible, so I assume any owner is responsible for that clean up.

Am I right?

MR. MENNA:

the site.

Let me ask that.

It depends on the history of

It could not be

--

obviously the owner

Page 1 6

or predecessor might be involved.

There's also

federal and state regulations that apply.

So

without knowing who exactly contaminated or spilled on it, it may not necessarily be one or the other. It could be a number of different predecessors or

entitled users of the property. MS. HENNING:

know.

So it is a goal

--

I don't

My concern is that we are rushing in to make

a decision here and whoever owns that had to do a clean up and we don't knowwhat the costs are.

We

are taking this data and we don't have on own data yet. Number two, which is a really important one, to stimulate development that provides public benefit and does not overwhelm the infrastructure. We have not studied whether 1,000 people will be moving in, more police, more fire, more, you know, more schools.

We don't know, and we do know the

negative affects.

We know it's going to cost us in

the many ways that everybody here has spoken about.

So we're unsure about the positive impact,

but we h o w there's going to be a negative impact. And two, three and four, number four, you have a lot of testimony at these meetings of people concerned about what the development of the high

Page 17

density housing is going to cost them. In my neighborhood, and there's people in this room that have talked about their concerns about Walnut Street and what is going to happen. the impact right now.

They don't see

And you go on and on.

Down

here Joe Reynolds spoke very eloquently about number 7.

We know there is a negative impacts for

development on that land. We know we have an environmental problem now, but we know that there is going to be an increase and a risk to the

environment which sometimes, with all due respect, I think that this planning board gives very short

shift to, and with Kara Homes, nobody wanted

to

talk about the environmental impact. So in closing, I just want to state that I think that the planning board's charge is not to do what you think, what you personally think might be better for the town, but to follow these objectives and to decide based on that and really look at whatever data there is, not only the data we're getting from developers. And we don't know what the impact is going to be, but I ' m really concerned that the 1,000 people, 1,200 more people, we don't know. And

to the planner, I feel like with all of

Page 18

this our heads are spinning, and it's come to the point where we just come and go day after day and

we work very hard and we have said to whoever will listen we don't want high density housing here.

We

think the costs are too great to the quality of life and we want

--

and you guys agreed with us

that preserving the quality of this town was the most important thing, and if anybody thinks here that you're going to preserve the quality of this town with 2,000 or 3,000 people, you're kidding yourselves.

You're going to have a totally

different community.

It's not going to be as

friendly, we're not going to be a able share space.

cars?

Where you are going to park 1,000 more

I couldn't get a cup of coffee this morning

because I couldn't find a parking space in town, which I guess is good except for the guy in the coffee shop who is worried about his business. So I think we're moving along with a feeling that it's

going to improve business in town, on a feeling that it's going increase, but you can't make decisions that are going to change the entire structure based on feelings. It's got to be data. We don't have it.

Thank you.

MR. MENNA:

Anyone else?

Are there any

Page 19

other comments. AUDIENCE MEMBER: MR. MENNA:

Come up. Don't be shy.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:

(phonetic) 60 Walnut Street. b e g i n really.

Yeah.

Ronald Schekinger, I don't even how to

I spent hours and hours and hours

serving on a committee at the request of our town council to give them information, a charge, a feeling of what we as the citizens of this town want this town to become, and I see that up town council has been be thrown through the wind. I live on Walnut Street. I live adjacent to this project. Would I ' d like to see the area cleaned up?

Of course.

Would I like to see the erosion of

the beach stopped?

Yes, of course I would.

There's 20 feet that has been gone in the last 10 years. I doubt very seriously if any of these members have even looked at the erosion on that beach.

They have absolutely no idea or concept of

what has happened there i n the last couple of years.

They probably don't know where the muscles

beds are. They may not even know where the oyster beds are.

I do because I live there and I enjoy

the recreation of that area, but I am so upset that I feel that we the citizens of the town were duped

Page 20

into serving on committees that have not been given the consideration that we were told that would be given to us. One of the things that still concerns me I see a proposal for Eminent Domain.

Oh, well, we don't

really want to take somebody's home, and I realize the town council has a right to do that.

why

don't they also exercise their right and say we will not do that-

They could do that.

They could

do it, but they haven't. They put in their plans

and it admonishes the folks who live in the redevelopment areas, some of which are here tonight.

I think they may very well lose their

homes because the streets that are in this proposal go right through their houses. Now they may want to sell, may not want to sell. one of those today.

My house is not

It could very well be

tomorrow if the same developer decided that they want to build bay front property, and they may very well decide that.

It's up to you, gentlemen.

There's something wrong with this when you give information to a group a citizens and then they

express themselves about what we want our town to become and then they get ignored. They cannot be ignored. Thank you.

Page 2 1

MR. MENNA:

members of the public?

Any other comments from any

Now is the time to express

any comments concerning everything that you've heard. MR. KOVACS:

We will close this section

of the meeting. MR. MENNA:

It's not just this section

of the hearing, the public comments sections will

be formally closed at this point. MR. KOVACS:

MR. MENNA:

Thank you. The board still has to

review all of the testimony and consider the comments from the public, consider the comments of the Borough's professional that testified, seek guidance from our planner MY. Thomas, who is here, and who has heard the testimony. And perhaps at

this point, unless you think otherwise, it would be appropriate for you, or do you need a few moments to collect your thoughts after you heard everything

to offer sort of guidance in terms of what you've heard from the members of the public.

Unless of

course you want to hear from members of the public --

of the board first. MR. THOMAS:

Let met me start out, one

of the key things, the first thing that the board

Page 22

has to do is obviously is to make a determination whether the proposed plan is consistent with the Master Plan.

The current Master Plan that adopted

was the 1989 Master Plan. My reading of that plan indicates that the density is referring to the RA density, and I ' m assuming that it's 5,000 square

foot lots, and it would be for that type of development, single family homes. There are some inconsistencies in the planning in that it is also recommends the possibilities of that the area would be rezoned as a planned district under the provisions of the Municipal Land Use law and in parenthesis, provisions for plan

development.

Plan development provides for a

variety of things.

It can have a planned

residential amendment, planned industrial or planned commercial or a mix.

So there's some

inconsistency in the Master Plan about what exactly was proposed. In terms of the density issue, the proposed development

--

redevelopment plan has taken the

premise that the density is the way it's stated had in the Municipal Land Use Law, which is to take the total tract of that area divide the number of units

and thereby come up with a density on a gross

Page 23

density basis.

I believe that the Master Plan,

however, was talking about single family homes and that they would have been on small lots and that they would have been - - and when do you that, it's basically upland, so I think there's an inconsistency in the Master Plan. If you take the developable area, and I've heard in the number of around 20 acres, perhaps in this document it implies that it's 30 acres, but let's assume it's 20 to 30 acres.

If you take that kind of a

density, you are talking about quite a different density.

Even if you were to take the entire 62

acres, I think that is one of the first decisions the planning board has to make is to determine what

the density would be based on the Master Plan. So that would be I think question number. Question two is when it talks about mixed development, what exactly does that mean?

And I

believe that the redevelopment plan has provided for some reasonable options for mixed development in terms of providing for service uses, restaurants and perhaps some amenities that could be related to the development. In terms of consistency in terms of the land uses, there's no doubt that all through the years that every one assumed this was going to

Page 24

be commercial development on the site.

So in terms

of the use, I think there's an inconsistency.

The

question is the density and the intensity. I've also listened and observed myself what some of the problems would be if this development occurs as proposed.

I was a little surprised to

see that there's a ten percent provision for senior seniors.

I don't know how that works because I'm

not quite sure

--

that would work.

I couldn't figure out quite how

I believe that perhaps the best

use if a residential development is going to occur on the site that the entire site should be age restricted.

There's several reasons for that.

One

is that the number of persons generated on the site

would be considerably less. The second reason is that It would have less impact assuming the same number of dwelling units and would have less impact on utilities.

It will also have less impact on the

peak hour traffic in that area and within the .-

municipality. impact

--

It will certainly have a major less

I guess it is backwards, but it will have

less impact on schools, and it would also be a major rateable, When you look at all of the problems that are associated with that site, it seems to me that if that site is going to be

Page 25

developed, that developing it an age restricted community would be the best option. That's my opinion, and that's sort of looking at it over the past several months. The density issue is related to some extent on the clean up costs, and I can appreciate both the redevelopment concerns and the costs of the clean up.

We don't really know what the costs are.

A

number of 20 million dollars seems that it's possible.

It may be more and again, if you start

to think new development, one of the advantages, again going back to the type of development, going back to age 55 and over, the 55 and over market in this region is quite different than it was five or

six years ago. I worked in a lot of different municipals that five or eight even 10 years ago that when we are talking about senior development in the range of 250 and 300,000 per units.

Even

the rural areas such as Manchester Township they're

talking about costs, and now their selling costs of the Renaissance and some of the new developments in the range of five and $600,000. Some of the projects in Wail Township, they're in the seven and $800,000. There's a new project in Wall, 96 units which is going to over million dollar, and that's

Page 2C

inland.

That's not even in the water front.

So I think the cost of use in the market is available for seniors, as someone mentioned. And right now, it's a very hot market.

There's a big

demand for that, and I think that it's some of

--

a

lot of the problems in the event that they're going to develop a site for multi family housing, we have to be most cognizant of the fact that you have to consider the height of the structures.

I know

that the advisory committees have been talking about one family perhaps, townhouse developments, but let's go through one other option. and

--

One family

one story and two stories structure under

building codes can fit.

But the minute you talk

about three floors, three stories, what happens is that you have to use a different type of construction. It has to meet building code requirements, which is much more stringent than for single family and two family. It's stringent in terms of hurricane, earthquake proof, believe it or not, and also stronger structure for elevators and

a lot of other things. So I would hope that you would consider at least t h r e e stories for a portion of the project, but three story structures are much stronger structures than one and two stories

Page 27

structure under the current building codes. One other factor on the three story structure is that if it's a three story residential structure, they also have to have sprinklers, which also helps the fire department. So when you start to put all those factors into your thinking process, three story structures may not be consistent with the Master Plan or with what the recommendations are, but they wouldn't be that far off, and it would be

-- it results in a much

--

I

can't tell you how much better structural building and a much better development in terms of fire protection and everything and also for hurricanes

and severe winds and things that happen, as we know, along the coast. So those are all the factors that should be considered. I haven't heard a lot of these factors discussed.

But you can talk to your construction

official and he will explain.

Also he

can explain that, just as an example, that when you

start talking about a three story structure residential with an elevator, that an elevator column has to withstand and be independent of the

rest of the building so that in the event of a

severe hurricane or earthquake, it is actually

Page 28

designed for earthquakes, that that elevator structure should be structurally independent from the rest of the building.

So there are some

advantages to going three stories. There are a lot of comments that were provided for I believe on a detailed basis for individual regulations by Mr. Lane and one of his reports -- I went through most of those, and most of those are really I think should be incorporated

into the regulations., It's very difficult when you're dealing with regulations, and I appear in court a lot on ordinances either that I write or that I ' m working for a municipality in defending something, and words like should, words like may, I'm going to tell you that the judges don't look at

that very nicely.

Ordinances should be written in

such a fashion that they are definitive.

And as

the judges have explained to me, and Pat well knows, that once an ordinance is drafted, it's a guideline. It's supposed to be clear to the developer, to the planning board and also to the public.

If a developer doesn't agree with that

particular regulation, he can ask for a variance. Some of the words about should, could, may, I think should be taken out and definitive standards

should set. I also am cognizant of the fact that

redevelopment is somewhat a new process.

When you

are starting to get in the process, I think that if someone starts the redevelopment process and they don't agree with the regulations as they are written, they can always come to the governing body and to the planning board and in that respect, I

agree with comments from the board and from the public the board should be cognizant of developing a set of regulations and a set of recommendations

that everyone can be proud of and everybody is willing to live with. happy.

You can't keep everybody

I've been in this business for 30 some

years, and I can assure you that no matter which resolution I've written, not everybody is happy. Even, believe it or not, when I wrote an ordinance in the Pinelands for 37 acres, I was chastised by the commanding officer of Lakehurst Naval Air

Station because he thought it should be less density than I proposed. So like I say, you can't keep everybody happy.

But certainly a compromise

in terms of height and in terms of density I think are important.

In conclusion, what's being proposed is

Page 30

consistent with the Master Plan, but the density I believe that is not. I don't believe that the amount of

--

or the type of development is

consistent either.

But I hope that the planning

board recognizes that that's something that should --

it was perhaps alluded to by saying that the

plan developments should have been provided for at that location, and that is something I think that the board should consider very seriously because it's obviously some more density than single family homes are warranted in order to develop the site, and also to provide the mass of costs that are involved in cleaning up the sites. Jerry?

MR. KOVACS: MR.

FREDA:

That's all.

Well, from an engineering

perspective, there's really not a lot that I can

add at this point because if we don't have any plans of what the development would be, much as a

many people have said, there will be impacts to your infrastructure. Traffic is an issue. utilities are an issue.

The

But on planning sites, one

of the things to keep in mind is flooding, and because you're near the water, and as you may know yourself, there's flood insurance and you have to set your unfinished floors at certain elevation.

Page 31

Those elevations may be higher than the elevations that are out there now.

So if you're talking multi

stories and, you know, three story buildings that you may perceived to be out at the site could be starting at an elevation higher than where it is today, so I think you do need to take that into consideration. That is really all I have to add. MR. KOVACS:

So you are dealing with a

the sprinkler systems in anything over three stories, right? MR. FREDA:

I believe that's true.

Sprinkler systems would be available.

However,

from a fire fighting perspective, the sprinkler system are not

--

I understand you still need an

apparatus and equipment to fight the fires. You can't rely solely on the sprinklers. MR. KOVACS: No, but that's a start.

Anybody on the board, do they have anything they

would like to say? MR. WILLNER: I don't have an assistant, but I do have hand outs.

The following are some

thoughts about the Borough's redevelopment proposal.

I hope the following is of some use for

the board as we hear the testimony and in the making of decision, on recommendation for the

Page 32

council. Phillips Preiss, Shapiro prepared a plan based on market rate condominiums, with some set aside for open space and public access.

This proposal

and the attendant plan differ significantly from the recommendations made by the topical committees, and in the final report made available to the planning board and the council.

My comments

reflect what I heard her from the public, and I want to ask this question which I heard asked quite eloquently at the last meeting, how did we wind up with two plans, the Borough's and the developer's, both similar and both very different from what the

public prefers.

The broader question of whether or

not the plan is in conformance with the Borough's Master Plan is obviously the primary consideration of this board, and I wanted to make some additional comments about the plan itself. Residential development provides little tax rateable advantage-, specifically if commercial, industrial or mixed-used development is an alternative.

The Borough's plan suggest that

market rate, condominium development on a significant portion of the site perhaps with some senior houses would be a preferred alternative. I

Page 33

respectfully disagree and refer the council planning board to the comments of the redevelopment work groups.

Every group was adamant that high

density multi family housing was by no means the highest priority for redevelopment on the site, and the water front topical work group suggested

other non-residential development alternatives. Because of the history of the Aeromarine facility, its connection to the economic and cultural history of the Borough, the potential to make use of some of the historic, although deteriorating, existing buildings and because of the input on the citizen's redevelopment committee members, I believe the Board should recommend to the council to direct the planner to incorporate re-use of these historical buildings into the redevelopment plan.

And I have some reason to

believe as a result of conversations with officials n that there may be significant state Green Acres programs interest in that preservation effort.

The

Council should contact the appropriate DEP Green Acres officials or recommend that the planner do SO.

A significant part of the site, more than

half, should be conserved a public open space, a

Page 34

continuous walkway along the waterfront and wetlands and stream corridors and beaches and water habitats should be preserved and restored.

There

may be tax incentives for a redeveloper to convert

some of the brownfields to greenfields, and opportunities and financial incentives for the Borough to do the conversion if the property were to be condemned and the municipality become the owner. The liability for the contamination after the Aeromarine site resides with the current owner,

also known as Bushwell Realty Corporation, Bayridge Realty Company, Waste Disposal Incorporated Landfill and any other responsible parties. State and federal law requires that the party responsible for pollution remediate the site, pay any penalties required and return the site to the condition it was before the pollution occurred. These are called natural resource damages. Those are damages in addition to the remediation costs.

And in

addition, the state has affirmative programs for remediation of brownfield sites, as well as enforcement powers to compel the responsible parties to clean up and be subject to these natural resource damages.

The Borough or the redevelopment

Page 35

planner as part of any redevelopment plan should engage the Department of Community Affairs and Environmental Protection brownfield offices during the design and implementation process.

The Keyport

Environmental Commission has already contacted those officials on this issue. If the assertion of the Century Land Group

that would be 12 to 20 million dollar remediation cost is true, it could make the present land at that site value less than zero.

The Board should

recommend that the Borough condemn Aeromarine and work with the state to get the responsible parties, listed above in four, to remediate and pay for natural resource damages. The Council or authorized redevelopment authority would then be in

a significantly better position to redevelop the property in the best possible manner consistent with the input of the public, redevelopment committees, the planning board, the state Green Acres Program, Natural Resource Damage Office, Department of Community Affairs and the Borough's historical society and environmental commissions. The plan I see that was to be provided by

planner is deficient in several areas.

In general,

when considering the redevelopment plan, good

Page 36

planning sense and contemporary practice demand that the Borough adhere to the following smart growth principles, redevelop using mixed rather than segregated land uses. Residential development give the Borough the least amount of net tax revenue and the highest cost of any kind of redevelopment.

Use compact and even clustered design.

What I

see here are barracks, not a cluster of design, and it means that you can actuallycreate more density on less land preserving more open space if this is designed correctly whether it be residential or

mixed use. Include a range of housing choices and opportunities.

It is likely that there will be a

COAH requirement.

One out of eight homes must be

affordable if there's a significant amount of residential on this site. Design distinctive, attractive communities that offers a sense of place. The Bay and Aeromarine and a connection to the rest of the Borough must be an imperative part of any redevelopment plan, not just in terms of architectures, but also transportation, culture and visual connection.

A redeveloped Aeromarine

Page 37

should not be hidden or off limits to the rest of the residents of Keyport. Preserve open space and scenic resource. Direct future development toward existing communities while making use of the existing infrastructure. Sticking houses on the end of our ageing water, road, and sewage infrastructure is extremely costly and must be paid for by the redeveloper, and should include improvements to the entire Borough, not just the site. Ensure that development decisions are predictable, fair and cost-effective. And encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in the development decision making. Listen to the members of the topical redevelopment committees and incorporate those ideas into the redevelopment plan. Set up a redevelopment authority that has a diverse membership including members of the informed and engaged public. Aeromarine should be a mixed use redevelopment, the remediation of the site paid for by the responsible party, and a significant portion

of the site should be set aside for public open space and a cultural/environmental/recreational center.

Page 38

Physical solutions by themselves will not solve social and economic problems, but neither can economic vitality and environmental health be sustained without a coherent and supportive physical framework. In The Charter for New Urbanism, a movement that encourages communities to develop and redevelop coherently, much the way that Keyport has done naturally, the following policies are guiding principles: Neighborhoods should be diverse in use and population, communities should be designed for pedestrian and transit as well as the car. Communities should be shaped by physically defined and universally accessible public spaces and community institutions.

Communities should be

framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrates local history, climate, ecology and building practice. In conclusion, Aeromarine is Keyport's opportunity to do it right, not the way that the developers want us to, but the way that a consensus based inclusive program of citizen involvement will lead us to.

The best way to design Aeromarine is

to give the people the pen.

Take advantage of the

talents, the commitment, and the resolve of the

Page 39

engaged and involved residents of the Borough, and trust us to come up with guidance for the planner. Take into consideration the present owner responsible for any clean up.

A redeveloper can be

found who is interested in a lower impact development, and that a small aquarium and an Aeromarine and Raritan Bay Heritage Museum and a recreation center making use of the historical buildings should the centerpiece of the Aeromarine redevelopment. A mixed use development, incorporating some residential component and the best of all, these ideas are better for traffic, for safety, for commerce, for schools, quality of life and the environment and the Borough's fiscal bottom line. MR. VECCHIO:

First of all, I mean I've

been on the planning board a year or so, and I want to thank everybody who came out for here and spoke. You've done a tremendous amount of work.

Mike and

Jack and Bob. There is a lot of people, and a lot of information and for certainly have heard most and read most of It that I have been able to read. But I think the importance is that we go through it

and take everybody's recommendations and thoughts

into account.

And I my big concern is that I want

Page 40

to hear from professionals. And Tom spoke a few minutes ago and said some things that I hadn't heard before and I think it's important that we incorporate that.

I think that's important.

Born and raised in this town.

I ' m a young guy

compared to a lot of people, but born and raised here. I have a lot lot of pride.

--

I know this towns carries a

People in this town have a lot of

passion about this town and how it looks. I served on council and all that stuff and did that, and one of the biggest things I always regretted when I was on the council looking back on it now is this town is notorious for doing

--

we always say we are

going to do things and we never do anything.

I ' m not talking about the water front.

And

For years,

and you made an excellent point, you are the new guy in this town in saying you see it being the new guy, trying living here as long as the other 30, 50 percent. AUDIENCE MEMBER: 74 years. MR. VEHCCHIO: I mean, look at the

political flyers that said we'll redesign the water front.

Everybody saw the political flyers that

came out about the redesign the water front. For 10 years we are going to redesign water front.

Page 41

Looks like it's been 30 years.

So we always have

good intentions, but nothing gets done and that is my fear here.

Although I say that with all due

respect, I have tremendous respect for Andy and his knowledge of the water front, and I want to take all that into consideration.

I really do.

I don't

want to just throw something out to council and go run with it.

I want to be part of it.

I think the school has some impact that has to

be here, and I think there is other people in town,

and I really enjoyed listening to everybody here talking about what their thoughts were, but I gotta tell you, if I can do my time on the council over again, I think I might have just tried to do something, even if they threw me out four years later for the simple fact that we had a lot of great plans for that water front and design for that water front, and there was a lot of time and people in this room have put a lot time and energy into that and we just don't do anything. It's a very frustrating thing.

Arid believe me, I know.

Here is the chance to get done and here is the chance to get it right.

You have to take into

consideration all those things that everybody has brought up here. There's concerns.

And I think

Page 42

the 55 thing that made a lot sense to me.

There's

a lot of things that makes sense that we can do and we can.

I gotta tell you, it's a frustrating thing

when we sit here and we talk about it year after year, after year that we are going to do something,

and every year you look at the political flyers, and you'll see them again, there will be pictures of the beautiful water front and what it's going to look like, and there is 30 years I've seen these political flyers saying the same thing.

No

disrespect, Richie. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Rich too.

But it's just

--

I just

don't want it to be one of those things.

And I

want to get it right, and I just don't want this to be one of those things I ' d look 30 years from now saying we just prolonged it again and again and again to where eventually nothing took place. So it's our chance to get it right.

But I

gotta tell you, it's a concern of mine. If we want to do it right, I know

there is issues about how

much it is going to cost.

As Jennifer said, we

don't know what it is going to cost.

I don't know

as a taxpayer whether I want to pay for our town to go out and handle that cost.

But the point is we

don't know what it's going to cost us, but at the

Page 43

same time, we gotta figure out whatever the right way is to get it done, and we have to get something right instead of just looking at an empty lost year like the asphalt water front we have. I mean, I know we're Pearl of the Bayshore. Right now we got

a lot of things we have going for us. town.

I love this

I just put a lot money into my house to make

it look nice.

I want to stay here.

part of it for the future.

I want to be

I just don't want to be

here 30 years saying should have, could have, would have.

But it's important everything I hear here,

and I think it's time we gotta get it right. That's all. AUDIENCE MEMBER: It shouldn't - -

MR. MENNA:

Ma'am, please.

Let's keep

some order. MR. HASSMILLER:

Joe stole some of it.

This Master Plan first time I looked it it said 1965.

I was 18.

My youngest son just turned 16,

we moved here in '77. They had another plan in '89, and that's 16 years ago.

Then we re developed

it and re-examined it in 2001, now we are in 2005. I have four grandchildren, and nobody is going to see that front.

You don't want commercial really

down there, but then block it off completely.

Page 44

There are a lot of problems with this plan.

Maybe

we can send it back and get it straightened out and approve it over here along with the other members of the council, but I think it should be a little more detailed.

A lot more detailed.

everything into it.

Put

But like Joe says if you got

smaller homes, who's going to be there. won't be able to afford it.

They

At 560 homes, it's

$40,000 a home just to clean up the place with the

prices we got right now. So I don't know if you can lower or what you can do, but I just recommend that we check with everything. Senior citizens. I qualify.

That's all I have to say. MR. KOVACS:

Chris?

MR. MGNTARTTI:

I concur with Joe

lot of things that the residents are saying.

and a

I

think we really need to go back and re look at this

entire plan and really come up and do it the right way.

And it's

--

that's my opinion.

MR. KOVACS:

Al?

MR. DE GRACIA:

You look at this plan

and I say to myself who does it benefit.

And what

are we, the residents of Keyport getting out of it?

I see nice a little walk around the beach,

couple of open areas. Is that enough?

I don't

Page 45

I ' m not naive. I realize it's going to

think so.

take a lot of the money to clean up this site, and I realize and we are pushing for high density. is was our job to keep that to a minimum. important thing is what does it do for us.

It

But the And

the way the plan sits now, I don't see much for u s . It only benefits the builders and they're in it for the money and we live in America, that's what it's all about. I personally would like to see a lot

more mixed use in there, something that would benefit everyone, not just residents that aren't even here yet.

What kind of mixed use?

My pie in

the sky would be I ' d like to see restaurants there, maybe some shops, things like that. Something where the residents that are part of the town can walk to.

Don't forget, if this plan stays the way

it is, I see one restaurant. Once you get tired of going there, what are you going to do?

Most of

these people are probably going to get in their

cars, and chances are, you're going to get in your car and go to Friday's on the highway, maybe even

Union Beach.

So if we're going to put people

there, we need something to keep them there. The nice part about Keyport is you can walk p l a c e s .

Page 46

This is the furthest

--

isolated out there.

Where the people are actually

going to walk from?

I don't know.

Keyport is kind of

Some will, some

won't. But the bottom line is it really doesn't benefit, or at least there aren't any benefits besides cleaning up the site and putting a trail around the area.

I don't see much benefit to the

town residents now at all. I think that the plan should go back, and I think they should incorporate a lot of mixed use.

I think Andy had an excellent

idea with the use of the building and the historical aspect of it. point.

That should be a focal

Whether somebody will want to do it and

develop it, whether there's enough money, I don't know, but I think we might want to take a wait-and-see attitude. And you're right, I've been here 24 years now and I moved in, I saw a lot promise in town.

I'm

thinking man, this place, has gotta go up. That water front

--

and you are right, it is

frustrating, very frustrating, and we are in position now that we can lead some input into this.

That's a big responsibility and, you know,

we could make the wrong move. So we gotta be

Page 47

careful. MR. KOVACS:

Well, as I looked around,

the meetings we've had on this here Aeromarine property, I looked out at the public, I see maybe 80 percent of the people that are sitting out here

that have only been in the town for less than 25 years, and everyone wants to see the proper thing

done with the Aeromarine properties. Well, within 25 years that I've been in the

town, the Board of

Education had opportunity to purchase property to enlarge schools and the area of the schools, which they let go.

The area is a RA industrial.

I

think it should stay industrial down there because where are your children in years to come are going to have jobs?

Jobs are going out of this state.

We need an industry in the area.

And an industry

will not create things for the schools.

And it

won't take that much more infrastructure, what we got there now.

Sure, they can put restaurants and

some other things on the property, but I think we should keep it as an industry. MR. MENNA:

Mr. Chairman, are there any

other comments by members of the board?

Mr.

Litwin, I know you want to say something, but before you do, may I inquire of you one or two

Page 48

questions?

Number one, I think the last time we

met, the request was made by the mayor and council granting the planning board an additional 30 days to enable a comprehensive report to be forwarded

back to mayor and council. I think that would be over at tomorrow morning at six o'clock,so has mayor and council granted us the extension? MR. LITWIN: Mayor and council granted

the extension. MR. MENNA: So I don't need to stay up

all night? MR. LITWIN:

MR. MENNA:

30 day extension.

Secondly, in light of the

comments from the members of the public, as well as the members of the planning board, I was going call upon Mr. Thomas to maybe give us some guidance as to a methodology we should proceed with after the comments have been made and we'll formulate our reports.

But would you have any direct comments on

behalf of the mayor and council based upon what you've heard at this point, or would you like to waive that? MR. LITWIN: Well, one comment I would make, and I respect Andy Willner's comments on the division for the Borough, but I would not recommend

Page 49

consideration of contamination. Number one, under the law, the Borough would not be an innocent purchaser.

You would not have immunity with any

environmental claims, and now you're giving someone who wants to have a remediation with the deep pockets of the Borough. My suspicion is

--

I do

that kind of work in my practice, is that the I question of the deep pockets of anyone now involved, but Keyport has been living with problem on and off for 25 years, and I doubt that it is going to be remediated unless we get this kind of proposal where you get large public funding involved. I also question the reality of the historical

preservation. I think it's admirable whether you're rebuilding hangers out there that are completely dilapidated and rusting and create a division of World War I plane manufacturing, but it's a hard sell.

If any one out there remembers

the Battle Ship New Jersey, which was an existing national landmark, and that took about 25 years to get that into New Jersey and refurbish and it was a

huge state wide public effort.

So these efforts

are many times very difficult to bring about.

I

think there is a sense if this public benefits for

Page 50

the redevelopment of the Aeromarine site, and I would not discount creating a very fine public walkway around the entire peninsula. The creation of perhaps 20 acres more or less of all fields, and I don't have a definitive number for that, but

that's a major recreational facility that could

exist out there.

And I do believe that there would

be a tax rateable benefit. I understand the concern about children, and I

think that to some extent it was addressed by Mr. Bowers who indicated that the concept that would not attract anyone with a limitation of two bedrooms, and I suspect most of the houses in Keyport that have children in the schools have more than two bedrooms, and that a family with children would not be attracted to that type of facility.

I

would ask Mr. Thomas to comment about may-be perhaps

if you would for three to four stories what the additional construction requirements could be in terms of wood versus concrete and when you lift up that level, which would also give additional protection, I believe there is a jump in there. It's not my area, but I believe that is a factor that has to be considered above a certain level you can't build a frame type construction.

But

Page 51

otherwise, I would recommend that you do a report. Perhaps you can get something in writing from Mr. Thomas and then that can assist you in putting something together that you can get a reaction upon and then pass a resolution identifying your reaction to the Master Plan issues and such other matters you deem appropriate under the decision to be given.

MR. MENNA:

I was going to recommend now

that the hearings are closed,and if it meets Mr. Thomas' and the board's approval, that since our planner has listened to all of the testimony that a report with respect to all of the concerns, the plan, and the goals and objectives and also consistency with the Master Plan or inconsistency be addressed in that report.

And then as an

appendix to that report, certain recommendations with respect to some of the comments as heard from one of the board members this evening when

- - SO

when we do a comprehensive resolution at a future planning board meeting, the board can then vote with respect to those particular individual comments and/or resolutions that be incorporated into recommendations. That would probably be better way to do it.

Would you agree with me, Tom?

Page 52

In other words, a general report and then an appendix concerning the different proposals or recommendations of various members to see whether or not it meets with majority of the consensus of the board. MR. THOMAS:

Prior to actually preparing

the final report, what I may been able to provide to you are some options that have been discussed and we've heard everything from single family homes to industrial.

How do I prepare a report showing

single family homes to industrial?

So one of the

ways to do that would be to list some of the proposals that may have been made and then come back to the board or poll the board to find out generally what they a11 feel. I mean, that not everyone is going to agree with it.

That's the way

it is, as with most development applications, but at least we would have a general consensus of whatever we are going to do.

And I think that

would be helpful so when it finally gets back to the governing body that we are not talking about everything from a single family home to pure industrial development.

We will actually have

some kind of consensus about what's acceptable to the board.

Page 53

MR. MENNA:

That is what I meant. In

other words, prepare sort of like a long list of options that we can vote on and then agree on. MR. DE GRACIA:

I thought that is what

they wanted from the board.

MR. MENNA:

That is what we're going to

do. MR. DE GRACIA:

having

I ' msaying as far you're

--

MR. MENNA:

N o , w h a t I ' m saying is

we've heard a lot of comments this evening. think what the board should do is

--

I

you listened

to a lot of comments. There is a lot of voluminous information you perceived and you should go through the Master Plan, go through all of the comments and the exhibits that have been produced and then be prepared to discussed those with your concerns with Mr. Thomas, who's going to prepare a planner's report and then we direct from that what the recommendation would be as a body. MR. DE GRACIA:

W e have all different

opinions. MR. MENNA:

That's correct. That's what

Tom is saying. MR. HASSMILLER:

We will vote on it.

Page 54

MR. VECCHIO:

Council, if I can, I ' d

like to make another suggestion.

I think it's a

great idea, and I'd the like to know whether the board as a whole

--

I know personally I would like

to meet with the school. I don't know if you want to do the board separately or a committee of the board, but I think it's important to listen to the school board members and at least let them give us some insight. I think there's a major impact of whether you think single family or over 55 or whether it could be mixed or can't be has an impact.

Obviously it would have an impact I would

think about the future proposal recommended by the council, but if the school says maybe X amount to be put in there without too much impact to the school, maybe my thoughts might be a little different.

I think it's important that we hear

from then. MR. MENNA:

Joe, the concern I have with

that is this, that the public hearing on this particular plan and the public comments have been advertised to the public, school board, regional board, members of the public had every right to participate in those comments, and the board's information should be what it has heard, just like

Page 55

a court of law would be in terms of the comments that people expressed to you.

As a board, I think

it would be imprudent for to us re-open the hearing, invite the school board to give us a presentation when they did have or individual school board members also had the opportunity to do

If we do that for the school board, you are

so.

going to have to do it for every one else. You're basically re-inventing the wheel.

As an

individual member, if you want to educate yourself or any members want to educate themselves on statistical information, that's up to them.

But

because of those reasons, I would not re-open the

MR. DE GRACIA:

hearing .

When are we

going to get together? MR. MENNA:

now.

We are going to decide that

We have a meeting next week, but I don't

think that gives you enough time. MR. THOMAS:

I'll be gone three days

next week, but I can draft up certainly most of the

--

I think most of the options that have been

discussed, we want at least review those, and in light some of the key points that have been made generally through the public hearing MR. KOVACS:

--

You can put it together by

Page 56

next Thursday? Yes.

MR. THOMAS:

MR. DE GRACIA:

Not necessarily what's

going to be presented to town council. MR. MENNA:

That is correct.

MR. VECCHIO:

The only problem with that

is that's a day that already has a gigantic schedule for that meeting. Do we have time even to discuss it? MS. FEBO:

When can we get everybody

again together, after that meeting or should we set the date at that meeting? MR. MENNA:

I think, Mr. Chairman, with

all due respect, you got members of the public who may have an interest in it, we should really set

the date this evening so people would know, and set a 30 day time limit. MR. VECCHIO:

Thursday. I am okay with

that too. MR . KOVACS:

What about the first

Thursday of August, August 4 ? MR. MENNA: MR. Thomas is indisposed

that evening.

He's testifying in another county.

MR. MENNA: What about Wednesday, the

Page 57

MR. THOMAS: I ' m good on the third.

We'll meet

--

we can meet here again.

MS. FEBO:

I have to find out, but I ' m

sure. Is that okay with everybody? MR. HASSMILLER:

Yes.

MR. WILLNER: MR. KOVACS:

that's Thursday.

Fine.

Or what about the llth,

Or the 10th which is a

Wednesday? MR. DE GRACIA:

MR. KOVACS:

Fine.

Pat?

MR. MENNA: Yes. MR. KOVACS:

George?

MR. SAPPAH: Yes.

MR. KOVACS:

Joe?

MR. VECCHIO: Yes. MR. KOVACS:

Wednesday the 10th at seven

o'clock. MR. MENNA:

These hearings are going to

be adjourned to August the 10th at seven p.m.

without any further public notice.

The hearings

will be here at the senior center just like this evening. MR. KOVACS: all in favor?

Motion to adjourn,

Page 58

THE BOARD:

Aye.

(Hearing concluded at 8 : 4 5 p . m . )

C E R T I F I C A T E

SHEILA M. LAHERTY ,

Certified Shorthand

Reporter of the State of New Jersey do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of the testimony as taken by and before me at the time, place and on the date hereinbefore set forth. I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither a relative nor employee nor attorney nor counsel of any of the parties to this action, and that I am

neither a relative nor employee of such attorney or counsel and that I a m not financially interested in the action.

SHEILA

FLAHERTY, C.S.R.

CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NO.