August 8, 2000
August 8, 2000
The Regular meeting of the Mount Olive Township Council
was called to Order at 7:30 pm by Council President Sohl.
According to the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate Notice
of this meeting has been given to the Mount Olive Chronicle
and the Morristown Daily Record. Notice has been posted
at the entrance of the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown
Road, Mt. Olive, New Jersey, and notices were sent to those
requesting the same.
ROLL CALL: All Present: Mr. Heymann, Mr. Guenther, Mr.
Scapicchio, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Spino, Mr. Rattner, President
President Sohl: I would also like to acknowledge the attendance
of the Mayor, Paul Licitra; the Business Administrator,
Sandy Kaplan; the Township Attorney, John Dorsey; and Township
Clerk, Lisa Lashway.
PRESENTATION: Blue Atlas Nursery/Armenio Landscaping -
Ray Perkins (Pride Committee)
Mr. Perkins: I would like to present two plaques this
evening This plaque is Presented to Armenio’s Landcape/Maintenance,
and this one is presented to Armenio Landscaping, by the
Mt. Olive Pride Committee for the donation of Labor, Materials
and Maintenance of the triangle at Flanders Road and Flanders
Netcong Road, Mt. Olive, New Jersey.
Mayor Licitra I do want to thank the Nursery. It’s
probably the first in many of the businesses getting involved
in Mt. Olive. I want to thank you on behalf of the Township.
It’s nice to go past that area and see something
besides campaign sides–and I’m guilty of most
of that. But, what we’re going to try to do in the
Township is do more of that. And it’s on the plans
for this next year. And, I want to thank you for being
the first one to step forward in this area, and I know
it’s going to set a precedent. Thank you very much.
Proclamation - National Gymnastics Day - Mayor Licitra
NATIONAL GYMNASTICS DAY
WHEREAS, USA Gymnastics is celebrating National Gymnastics
Day on August 12, 2000 to help bring attention to the positive
physical fitness gymnastics fosters;
WHEREAS, National Gymnastics Day exists to acknowledge
the past and present champions from the United States;
WHEREAS, gymnastics helps develop coordination, flexibility
and strength and is a way to increase young people’s
self esteem and confidence- qualities that benefit them
throughout their lives;
WHEREAS, gymnastics provides strong foundation for fitness
and helps develop skills that enhance performance in other
sports, and is a fun way to keep fit;
WHEREAS, collectively, our nation strives to encourage
greatness and achievement in our young people, helping
them all to become champions in life;
WHEREAS, USA Gymnastics is partnering with local clubs
during National Gymnastics Day to support gymnastics in
NOW THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED, that I, Paul R. Licitra,
Mayor of Mount Olive and Olympic coaching great Bela Karolyi
do hereby proclaim August 12, 2000 as National Gymnastics
Day in Mount Olive Township.
President Sohl: I received in the mail the “Ragtimes” that’s
a publication put together by the Morris County MUA, and
I just want to pass on, Sandy (Kaplan), because it indicates
that the various plastics that are labeled–in this
case #2HDPE, are supposed to be recyclable within the Morris
County Recycling Program. I still think we are telling
residents that we can’t take these.
Mr. Guenther: To my knowledge–I’ve been putting “1's” and “2's” out
for years and they’ve been taking them. I thought
that information was disseminated some time ago.
President Sohl: Well, for clarification. If that’s
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Mayor Licitra: I had a meeting
with GPU today–right over here–you can see
the blood on the floor. But, it went very well. Of course,
I haven’t accepted a lot of their answers, and it’s
a “show-me” basis. Myself, five people from
GPU. It was on the day that they just merged with another
company, so they were a little apprehensive. Also, Mayors
from surrounding Townships, Business Administrators, there’s
a list of many people, plus Senator Bucco and Assemblyman
Gregg. I was especially proud of our Assemblyman and our
Senator for the way they also jumped on the bandwagon with
GPU. I would like to go through very quickly some of the
things that were discussed, and some of the things that
were promised. First of all, I committed them to a Public
Meeting on September 20–it’s a Wednesday and
it doesn’t interfere with a Council meeting. I wanted
the Public to be able to ask GPU their questions that I
have posed already to them. In essence, we all kind of
agreed on the same things. The first thing was communication.
They have to do a better job with that. I can go on and
on, but we have to know the same things when they know
it so we can tell our people what’s happening. Priority
calls, maintenance–I think, for the first time, I
actually got them to admit, “Maybe we’ve grown
too fast in Mt. Olive. We need more voltage in the substations.” So
this is a first. For the last three months, they’ve
been saying, “No, we haven’t. We can provide
the service.” And, so on. But, they did admit that
they are short in that area, and they’re working
on it. They’re going to upgrade the systems. They
have to be more proactive, and we have to be more educated–the
infrastructure has to be for tomorrow, not just for the
present. The future is decentralization. Which is probably
more local control. They’ve tried the control out
of their home office, and they went back to where they’re
going to have more local control. They normally spend $130
million a year on upgrades, they’re going to be spending
$190 million by the Year 2002. They’re adding new
voltage in the substations and they’re going to have
troubleshooters within the Towns. The tree trimmers were
on a six-year cycle, they’ll now be on less than
a four-year cycle. And we’re getting a response from
GPU in writing on what exactly they’re looking to
do within the next couple of months and couple of years.
Something like a Three-year report and a Five-year Report.
I was cautiously optimistic with what they had to say.
I say “cautiously” because I’ve heard
almost the same thing already, and you had to put their
feet to the fire to come back. They have improved in certain
towns–like Rockaway, they were in the meeting, they
were very pleased with what they were doing. I can only
hope we will be pleased in Mt. Olive. As I said, we’re
having a meeting on September 20 so they can face the Public
and their questions. We will try and advertise it. I had
it out of the summer time so there can be more people there.
Hopefully, we’ll have a good audience and they can
explain what their future is and satisfy the questions
from the Public.
LEGAL REPORTS: NONE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
July 25, 2000 CS (Present: Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Spino, Mr.
Rattner, Mr. Guenther, Mr. Scapicchio, Mr. Heymann; Absent:
Feb. 1, 2000 PM (Present: Mr. Heymann, Mr. Guenther,
Mr. Scapicchio, Mr. Spino, Mr. Rattner, Mr. Sohl; Absent:
Mr. Heymann moved for approval of the Minutes and Mr.
Guenther seconded the Motion.
ROLL CALL: Passed by the majority. Exceptions: Mr. Sohl
ABSTAINED on July 25, 2000, and Mrs. Kelly ABSTAINED on
February 1, 2000
Letters From Residents
1. Letter received August 1, 2000, from bill and Janet
Zaikowski RE: property at the corner of Hudson and Whippoorwill
Road, Block 2303, Lot 5.
2. Letter received August 1, 2000, from John Alexander,
RE: Proposed New Ice Rink in Flanders
3. Letter received August 1, 2000, from Robert I. Elms,
RE: Indian Spring Water Company.
Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders
4. Letter received August 4, 2000, from the Morris County
Board of Chosen Freeholders, RE: Conference Meeting 8/23/00.
Mr. Steve Nicholl, Vice President of GPU, Customer and
Community Relations will address frequent power outages
in many parts of the County.
Resolutions, Ordinances, Correspondence from other Towns
1. Resolution received July 31, 2000, from the Borough
of Netcong, supporting the Passage of Assembly Bill #429,
The Highway Accident Property Tax Relief Act.
League of Municipalities 2. Notice received July 24, 2000,
from New Jersey State League of Municipalities, League
Seminar, Contract Writing for Solid Waste and Recycling
3. Legislative Bulletin received July 28, 2000, from New
Jersey State League of Municipalities, 2000 - 2001 Legislative
4. Memorandum of Meeting received July 21, 2000, from
County of Morris, Department of Public Works, RE: Preconstruction
of conference meeting for drainage improvements to County
Route 6613 (Drakedale Road)
5. Notice received July 24, 2000, from USDA, RE Committee
on Farmland Protection is hosting a listening forum, Wednesday,
August 9, 2000, 9:00am, at the Frelinghuysen Arboretum.
6. Letter received August 3, 2000, from the State of New
Jersey Department of Agriculture RE: Gypsy Moth control
7. Letter received July 26, 2000, from Killam Associates
RE: New Jersey American Water Company Route 46 Interchange
Project, Freshwater Wetlands General Permit No. 2. (Water
main crossing of Wills Brook adjacent to Route 46
8. Letter received July 26, 2000, from Killam Associates
RE: New Jersey American Water Company Route 46 Interchange
Project, Stream Encroachment Permit Application (Water
main crossing of Wills Brook adjacent to Route 46
9. Letter received July 31, 2000, from, DEP, Division
of Water Quality, RE: MSA, Reporting period, 4th Quarter,
10. Notice received July 31, 2000, from Simoff Engineering
Associates, RE: Application to the NJDOT for a concept
review. (Old Budd Lake Road and Chamberlain Lane)
11. LOI/Line Verification received August 1, 2000, from
State of New Jersey DEP RE: 1427-00-0002.1, Block 4300,
Lot 6. (Old Ledgewood Road)
12. Letter received August 2, 2000, from State of New
Jersey DEP, RE: Permit Application W-05-00-6494, NJ American
Water Company, West Jersey Water System. Permit to construct,
modify and operate a Public Water Works.
13. LOI/Line Verification received August 3, 2000, from
State of New Jersey DEP RE: 1427-99-0016.1 Block 5900,
Lot 10 (Ironia Road)
18. Letter received August 4, 2000, from Keller & Kirkpatrick,
Inc. RE: Application for NJDEP-TWA Block 4100, Lot 52.01
Correspondence from Organizations/Committees/Boards
Correspondence Regarding Tort Claims/Verified Notice of
Land Use/Development Matters
Correspondence from Cable Networks/Utilities
1. Letter received August 1, 2000, from Comcast RE: Musconetcong
River Blues Festival, Sunday, August 20.
2. Notice received July 26, 2000, from NJ Natural Gas,
RE: New Jersey Natural Gas Company- Levelized Gas Adjustment
Clause; Demand Side Management Adjustment Clause, Weather
Normalization Clause, Remediation Adjustment Clause.
Correspondence from Legislative Representatives
3. Letter received July 28, 2000, from Assemblyman Richard
H. Bagger RE: Receipt of Resolutions passed by the Township
Council expressing Support of Assembly Bill 129 and Assembly
President Sohl stated that we had received 21 items of
correspondence and asked Council if there were any comments
Mrs. Kelly: On #10–I’m not in favor of the
State doing a Gypsy Moth analysis of our Community. I wasn’t
happy with the last time they came in. So, let’s
President Sohl: Mayor, is that something that you were
planning on responding to?
Mr. Kaplan: We were going to respond favorably based on
the Health Officer’s recommendation–now that’s
just for the survey. It’s not for the actual spraying.
All you’re authorizing them to do is a survey.
Mrs. Kelly: I’m not in favor of their survey either.
I don’t believe that we have a problem.
Mr. Kaplan: I need to know what you want us to do. If
you don’t want me to submit the paperwork I won’t,
but I need to know.
Mr. Spino: I think a survey would be appropriate. For
them to come in and look at the situation and tell us what
they could do, and then we have to decide whether we want
them to do it or not. This is just a survey.
Mr. Rattner: I also think the survey is important because
the gypsy moth runs in cycles. Basically, they keep getting
worse and worse, more wide-spread until they really eat
themselves out of house and home and that’s where
it backs off. So, if they start taking a survey now, they
can see where the hot spots are. And this is so they can
give us an opportunity to buy in if we want to go in their
program. But, I believe we still have the opportunity to
say yeah or nay when they come in and say what they want
to do in Town.
President Sohl: Is there anybody besides Charlene that’s
opposed to the survey? No one? I think you got your answer,
Mr. Kaplan: Thank you.
ORDINANCES FOR PUBLIC HEARING
President Sohl: Before I do Open the Meting to the Public
on Ordinance #29-2000, I would like to ask Chuck McGroarty
to come up and provide a few words of background information.
I believe a major portion of our audience here tonight
is interested in this Ordinance.
Mr. McGroarty: Members of the Council, Mayor. What we
have proposed tonight is an Ordinance to rezone a section
of Route 46. What I would like to do is just to describe
to you the materials we used in doing the study, give you
a very brief description of what the changes are and the
rationale for that, and then, of course, if there are questions.
We have several exhibits here tonight. We have a board
which is the tax maps with the color-coded properties on
it, that’s a composite of tax maps with the existing
properties within the study area, with four color codes.
Yellow, being residential; red being commercial; Green
is vacant; and there is one partial which is a combination
of blue/green, it’s vacant, and it’s owned
by the municipality. It’s the one lot within the
district which is owned by the Township. The source of
that information is the Township Tax Assessor records.
So that information is current. Secondly, we have an aerial
photo of the study area. We secured this aerial from the
Morris County Planning Office, it was taken in April, 1999.
The study area is outlined in the yellow tape. We also
have on the easels on the opposite side of the room color
photographs of the properties that are effected by this
proposed Zoning Change–which I took in June of this
year. A description of the properties, or the District
itself, as indicated on the aerial and tax maps, the section
that we are looking at is along the west side of Route
46, it begins at the eastern most point–here, which
is the intersection of Netcong Road and Route 46, and it
travels all the way down the study area to the intersection
of Cove Street and Route 46, just before the waters of
Budd Lake. Within the District itself, there are 46 Tax
Lots. Of those Lots, which, again, are reflected on the
tax map in the color coding, 21 of the Lots are Residential–per
the Tax Assessor’s records. Several of the residential
properties presently are not occupied. I’m not prepared
to say they’re completely abandoned. But, 21 Lots
are residential, and that comprises 46% of the study area.
14 Lots are commercial, that’s 30%, and the 11 remaining
lots are vacant, that’s 24%. The proposed Zoning
Change would take this westbound section of Route 46,which
is presently in the C-1 Commercial Zone, and change it
to a new district to be known as the Professional Business
Zone. The purpose of this new district is to create more
appropriate land uses for this area. And, in particular
the concerns here, which date back and are reflected in
the 1995 Master Plan re-examination report and more recently
were addressed at a Public Hearing of the Planning Board
at which time my report was discussed. My report was dated
July 25, 2000–which I believe Council has. Incidently,
the property owners in question were mailed a copy of that
report as well. The purpose of this new district is to
deal with several issues that have been obvious to us for
many years. The Lots in question along this section of
Route 46 by and large–the majority of them cannot
comply with the standards of the C-1 Zone District. The
bulk standards simply cannot apply. Of the 46 Lots in the
District, 35 of those Lots have less than the 150' depth
which is required in the Zone District–the present
C-1 Zone District. That’s 76% of the Lots can’t
comply. And there are a substantial number of those that
don’t even meet the 100' setback. So, it is a situation
where the Zoning simply does not work. What has been analyzed
and determined to be appropriate is a change in some of
the permitted uses. A reduction in the permitted impervious
coverage, a reduction in the required parking standards–which
is to say the businesses that develop along the highway
in the future will be held to a lesser–“lesser” is
the wrong word–they will not have such a great demand
placed upon them to provide off-street parking unless it
becomes obvious during site plan review that that’s
necessary. That’s an effort to reduce impervious
coverage also. We were very keen to look at a selection
of uses which–while it allows the development of
the properties in question, will help reduce AM and PM
peak traffic–that is trip generation to and from
the properties. A very important concern in an area that
has–many of the Lots have substandard Lot frontage,
and we’re concerned about multiple curb cuts, multiple
exit and entry points to the highway which is a situation
that we feel is not only dangerous, but is not conducive
to good development patterns along the highway. We are
very concerned and we believe that the new zoning addresses
the concern of the proximity of this district to the established
residential neighborhoods which are immediately behind–these
are areas of primarily single story, single family homes
that are well established neighborhoods and, as I said,
many of the Lots on the Commercial District on the highway
are with 100 - 110 feet of these residential properties.
What we suggest in the new zoning is to allow the buildings
on the highway to be closer to the highway. Instead of
a 75' setback, the new zoning would allow them a 40' setback.
It would then increase and improve the buffer standards
to the rear so it would create a real possibility, not
an imaginary possibility for buffers between the Commercial
businesses on the highway in the residential area. And,
by reducing the height from 30' to 25', and the floor area
ratio from its present .4 to .15, we believe we will encourage
development at a scale that’s more appropriate for
this section because of the configuration of the Lots,
the proximity of the residential area, and, again, the
traffic. Lastly, but, certainly not least, by reducing
the impervious coverage, by reducing the intensity of the
development within the District, we hope to reduce the
storm water runoff that’s generated therefrom. I
am not aware of any Lot within the Commercial District–at
least the District that’s outlined here, that can
maintain and control storm water runoff on site. There’s
simply no room for it. Detention basins, underground storage
systems are very expensive, and themselves need a fair
amount of room to work. So most of these sites do discharge
directly into storm systems which ultimately lead to the
waters of Budd Lake, and that is a contributor to prime
non-point source pollution. We are not suggesting they
not be allowed to develop and continue this way, we simply
want to reduce the volume–the cumulative volume from
a district which is approximately one mile in length. We
identified this area in the 1995 Master Plan re-examination
report. But, when we were looking at the goals and objectives
from the 1986 Master Plan, we found some of them still
to be valid, and this area is one. And, on Page 10 of the
1995 Re-examination Report which was adopted by the Planning
Board on September 28, 1995, we said commercial development
along the Route 46 corridor, particularly along the western
edge remains problematic due to undersized and shallow
Lots. And we have other language throughout the document
which addresses this issue. So, for those reasons and let
me cite in closing, if I may, two particular reasons from
the Municipal Land Use Law which we believe justify and
support and encourage the proposals you have in front of
you from the purposes of the Act, which is found in 40:55D-2.
Mr. McGroarty (cont’d): We have A) To encourage Municipal
Action, to guide the appropriate use or development in
all lands in this State in a manner which will promote
the Public Health, Safety, Morals and General Welfare.
We think without question that is what we are trying to
accomplish here. Secondly, I) To promote a desirable visual
environment through creative development techniques and
good civic design and arrangements. And, on this point,
I’ll just briefly mention some of the other standards
which are in the Ordinance, and I’m sure you’ve
read. We have addressed Sign Regulations as they are not
addressed elsewhere in the Commercial Districts in Town.
We feel we’ve posed signs that are more realistic
in scale and appropriate to the proposed uses. As I mentioned
earlier, we encourage buildings to come closer to the highway
so we’re not forcing Developers to be pushed 75'
back and then be faced with several variances that they
must justify for location of parking, and the like. We
have included proposals here which do not exist, unfortunately
I believe, in other sections of our Ordinance dealing with
landscaping and site lighting. That is something that we
will continue to pursue with other Districts. With that
type of design criteria, I draw your attention lastly to
40:55D-62, under the “Powers to Zone” Land
Use Law, where it says, “The Zoning Ordinance shall
be drawn with reasonable consideration to the character
of each District and its particular suitability for particular
uses to encourage the most appropriate use of land.” Then
it continues that the regulations in the Ordinance shall
be uniform throughout the District for each class of building,
and so on. But it ends by saying, “But the regulations
in one District may differ from those in other Districts.” Which
is something we all know, what we’re saying is that
this District is unique. There is no other area in Mt.
Olive Township–that I’m aware of–that
has the combination of constraints that are found out here
in addition to the shallow Lots. Several of these properties
are impacted by freshwater wetlands, which require a buffer
of 150', thus further reducing the kinds of development
that could take place upon them. And, as I said earlier,
the proximity to establish residential areas. For those
reasons, we propose the changes that you have in front
President Sohl: Thank you, Chuck. Ron?
Mr. Heymann: Before we go into the Public Session, I want
to bring up a couple of questions, as it gets to the technical
aspect of this Ordinance that were drafted to John Dorsey
on the August 7, letter from Mr. McConnell. I guess I want
to start with. I think that this is a fairly significant
change to the Zoning Code and I question whether or not
the proper Notice was provided to all of the people located
within that area. If we’re relying upon Page 10 of
the 1995 Re-examination Report that Route 46 is problematic.
That’s a general catchall phrase, just as we can
say “to the health and general welfare.” But
does that, in fact, satisfy N.J.S.A. 40:55D-62.1, which
Mr. McConnell references in his letter, wherein, I think
this is a significant change. We are changing from a C-1
District to a PBO District, which I’ll make my own
comments on after the Public has had a chance to address
this. But, I think in light of the fact that we received
a protest petition by 20% of the parties within that Zone,
I want to ask John (Dorsey) whether he thinks we have statutorily
met the requirements. Because if there’s a question,
if this is a gray area, then I really don’t want
to proceed with something that we should renotice and do
it the proper way. We clearly know there is a group of
people who are opposing the changes being made, so I don’t
really want to give them the fuel to begin that before
Judge Stanton. You probably didn’t get a chance to
respond to Mr. McConnell, so that’s my first question.
Before we open this up and see where we’re headed.
Mr. Dorsey: The answer to that question and to the inquiry
made by Mr. McConnell, essentially-wise, with the representation
made to me by Mr. McGroarty, who is the Director of Planning,
that this is not the product of a 1995 Re-examination of
the Master Plan, but a Year-2000 Re-examination of the
Master Plan. Mr. McConnell references a specific statute
that requires that all property owners within the District,
and within 200' of the District must be given specific
Notice of the change or the proposed change in the Zoning.
And that would apply here, except for the fact that Mr.
McGroarty advises me that this is the result of a re-examination
of the Master Plan done in the Year 2000. Because it is
the result of that re-examination the Notice referred to
by Mr. McConnell in his letter is not required. And only
the standard notice is required. There’s a particular
case on that, “Gallo vs Township Council of Lawrence
Township” in which they discuss at length. The Statute
is N.J.S.A.40:55D-62.1 and makes the point that the Legislature
drew it in such a fashion to exclude the “Super Notice” where,
indeed, it is the result of a re-examination of the Master
Plan primarily because where there is a re-examination
of the Master Plan, rather than just a re-zoning without
a re-examination of the Master Plan, the Planning Board
holds hearings and Mr. McGroarty advises me, very specific
Hearings were held on Notice and on Notice to those that
are required to be noticed. So, based upon the fact that
this arises out of re-examination of the Master Plan, I
do not believe the Super-notice that you’re referring
to is required.
Mr. Heymann: Mr. Spino, I know you’re a Member
of the Planning Board. If my recollection serves me correctly,
these changes were generated by a Subcommittee that was
formed to review the Master Plan.
Mr. Spino: A Master Plan Committee was formed, not a Subcommittee.
Mr. Heymann: When did the Planning Board make its recommendation
and approve these changes?
Mr. Spino: I don’t remember the date but it was
Mayor Licitra: August 3.
Mr. Heymann: August 3? A couple of days ago. We had already
adopted this for First Reading prior to the Planning Board
acknowledging and confirming this. Are we still going to
say Notice isn’t required, or Supernotice? I’m
not putting you on the spot, John, I’m just saying
I think technically, there is a major hole in what we’re
presenting here today. I’m not saying that–because
I don’t know who was pro and con, I just saw the
15 out of 51 who were against it. Mr. Heshemi’s Attorney
is Mr. McConnell. I would think if we go forward, there
will be an application made to Judge Stanton for obvious
reasons–not only by Mr. Heshemi, but others. Why
are we doing that? We have taken much more time to consider
many other applications and things then what we’re
doing–especially when someone tells me that August
3 it was done backwards. The Planning Board approved this
after we already introduced this for First Reading. Therefore,
it is absolutely defective and I think that we should Table
this and redo it, and renotice everybody to be on the safe
side, and then we can discuss this entire Ordinance. Whether
or not it passes or doesn’t pass is a separate issue.
And I can go on to that after the Public is heard. But
I think we have a major problem.
Mayor Licitra: John, do you want to give an opinion on
President Sohl: I think he just did.
Mr. Spino: He did.
Mr. Dorsey: I have to rely upon what Mr. McGroarty had
advised me when I made the inquiry after receiving Mr.
McConnell’s letter. Apparently, Mr. Spino confirms
that fact. So, therefore, there is no question there is
a very tight time-frame here, but this zone change is apparently
consistent with what the Master Plan and the Planning Board
recommended in connection with the re-examination. That’s
all aside from how you conduct yourselves up here.
Mayor Licitra: Some of the things that Mr. Heymann said–it
sometimes boggles my mind. He knows that we’ve been
working on this, probably since November 30, picking people
and discussing it, and bringing it forward. So, some of
the words like, “rush” and “blind” things
like that, I don’t buy that. I think we’ve
had–the Committee has had monthly meetings–sometimes
bi-monthly meetings to put this together. So, some of the
things that are going to be picked up, and rushed through,
it hasn’t been done. This has been methodical, and
before we even went forward, we did get John’s legal
opinion. So, I’d have to go with John’s legal
opinion and say it’s been done properly.
Mr. Heymann: It’s not a point of whether it’s
been rushed. I understand the Committee did its work talking
about here. We’re not talking about anything else.
It’s a serious impact on plenty of people located
in that corridor. I’m not in favor of PBO, so that’s
a separate issue. But that is a technical issue here as
to they haven’t received notice, and whether or not
pursuant to the Statute they are entitled to Notice. If
we’re not worried about that, we can discuss the
Ordinance ad nauseam. And I don’t care when that
starts. But I think it has been defectively moved forward
at this point in time. And I move that we TABLE this until
everybody is properly noticed. Because I think we didn’t
follow what the Zoning Statute requires.
Mr. Guenther: Second.
Mrs. Kelly: I have a question. Is there any harm in holding
this off for the next Public Hearing–if we pull this
off the Agenda, the Public that is not here would not be
allowed to speak. Correct? Because we wouldn’t be
voting on it. I would like to hear–while the public
is here–I would like to hear some of their comments.
I don’t want them to go away without having a chance
to voice their concerns. I would like to hear the Public.
President Sohl: We can do that.
Mr. Dorsey: You can table the ordinance and still hear
the Public at the point in time when you normally would
hear the Public.
President Sohl: Or we can do it right after we Table it.
Mr. Dorsey: Yes.
Mrs. Kelly: Yes, I don’t want the Public to wait
until the end of our meeting.
President Sohl: Roll Call on the Motion to Table.
ROLL CALL: Passed by the majority, Exception: Mr. Spino
President Sohl: Ordinance #29-2000 is Tabled. President
Sohl: I will open the meeting to the Public–we’ll
probably have a formal Public Hearing later, right, John?
Mr. Dorsey: I don’t know. At the moment, the Ordinance
is Tabled. You killed the Ordinance. The question is, whether
or not–perhaps what the Motion should have been to
continue the Hearing until additional Notice could be given.
President Sohl: Well, we could just “untable” it–I
need to know the mechanism here, John.
Mr. Dorsey: You are right. After you hear whatever discussion
you want, someone who voted to Table would have to move
to Untable the Ordinance. That would bring it back up.
But, presumably not for a Public Hearing tonight.
President Sohl: All right. Is there anyone from the Public
who would like to address this Ordinance?
Mr. Guenther: I really don’t think that this is
a useful exercise right now.
President Sohl: But these people came out–
Mr. Guenther: Wait a minute. I think we have to define
what we’re going to do next. We’re very unclear
as to what we’re going to do here. I think, as the
Attorney said, we should reintroduce a Motion to say that
we’re going to Notice people–
President Sohl: I think that’s what we will do–
Mr. Guenther: And give everybody a chance. Not just the
few people that are here. How about the residents that
are behind this Zone?
Mr. Dorsey: Bernie, I think the answer is, Mr. Heymann
believes the Statute should apply so that Supernotice be
given. That would mean that before the time you next hold
a Public Meeting on this, the Clerk would have to give
Notice to everyone in this District, in this new Zone,
and everyone within 200' of the Zone. That would then comply
with the Supernotice referred to within the Statute.
Mr. Guenther: Okay. I just want to make sure that’s
Mrs. Janice Swack: I have a very small business at 198
Highway 46 West. I have been out of Town, as many of us
have. I was on vacation, and when I got home this morning,
I found this Notice for the first time I really didn’t
read it because I was very busy getting to my business.
When I got there, one of my employees said, “Did
you read that paper?” I said “What paper?” And
she told me about it. I looked at it–let me tell
you some of the things that I discovered. When I hear you
talk about technicalities, I know about technicalities.
I’m not here to talk about the technicalities. You
are possibly ruining my life and the lives of many of the
small business people. Small businesses are practically
out of business, because as I’m riding to Budd Lake
every morning, I see that I pass “Home Depot” and “Home
Depot” and “Home Depot” and the same
business over and over and over again, and small businesses
are fighting so hard to maintain ourselves that we practically
don’t exist. And, here we are in competition with
these huge companies and we’re trying to Mrs. Swack
(cont’d): stay alive. And as I very casually read
this thing today, I saw so many horrors in it. First of
all, the fact that I wasn’t notified, and I had to
hear it from an employee this morning because I didn’t
have time to read my mail, how horrible. I don’t
have very many more years in this business. I want to leave
this business to my children. They’re not particularly
interested in the kind of thing I do, but I can leave them
a small building. Now, if you say–I think I saw–that
my children are now limited in what that business will
be. They’re not going to take my business, so grandfathering
me isn’t going to do any good. But what if my children
want to open a candy store? You’re not going to allow
them to do that. I have to have a beauty shop. I have a
beauty shop next to me. Why would they open a beauty shop?
A Doctor’s Office? Right on Route 46 in a little
tiny house? Never. The things that I saw that should belong
won’t apply to my children. Another thing I thought,
if, indeed, this happens to my house where I have my little
business, I’m not going to be able to fix it up,
my kids won’t give a damn about it, it’s going
to turn into a “Bluebird.” You’re going
to have a far worse state than that pretty little house
I have right now. You’re going to have one hell f
a mess there. If I had read this prior to tonight, I would
have taken it to my lawyer. I would never be here–I
feel like I’m here naked. I don’t even know
what I’m saying. I would have taken it to my lawyer,
but I didn’t have enough time. Why did you choose
such funny things–as offices, as beauty shops? Why?
Why didn’t you take a little mail order business
or a candy shop, or something else? People said that they
were worried that we would get a McDonalds in there. That’s
ridiculous. You have the power not to allow things to occur
there so there isn’t going to be a McDonalds. You
could make sure that my kids only do a shoe store, or whatever
they want to do. I feel that this thing that I heard today
is shocking disregard for my big investment, and my hard
work, and I am incensed. I think that you people that we
have put in the position of power should be rewarding me,
not penalizing me. You should be asking us, “What
can we do for you?” Not trying to give us something
that’s going to make a horror for my children. Another
thing is, I’m looking for a home here and I may have
found one, but I’ll be damned if this goes through,
if I want to live in this Town. I don’t. That’s
another thing. I guess that’s all I have to say.
I’m really enraged.
President Sohl: Thank you.
Mr. Constantino Liccardiello: My wife and I own the beauty
shop next to her. We’ve lived in this Town since
1939. Before most of you even got to this Town. There’s
a lot of insanity in this Town. Future politicians, past
politicians, but this is the worst. First of all do we
get a tax a break? Being that I’m limited in what
I can do with my property–what I can do and what
I can’t do. Do I get a nice tax cut? Second, am I
grandfathered since I’ve been here since 1939?
Mr. Dorsey: The answer to that is, “Yes.”
Mr. Liccardiello: To both questions.
Mr. Heymann: No.
Mr. Licardiello: In the Ordinance I am grandfathered in?
Mr. Dorsey: That’s in the Statute.
Mr. Liccardiello: Do I get a tax break being that I’m
limited when I want to sell? Do I get a tax break that
I can only sell to what you have in that Ordinance?
Mr. Dorsey: You could sell it for the use you’re
Mr. Liccardiello: I know. Do I get a tax break? Are my
taxes going to come down because my uses are limited now?
Mr. Dorsey: Your uses have always been limited in one
fashion or another. And your property is presumably assessed
on the basis for which it’s currently used.
Mr. Liccardiello: But you’re going to be changing
everything around where I can no longer sell that–if
I wanted to sell that to a bank, I have to have an acre
or more, or fastfoods, two acres or more. Like she said,
she’s basically landlocked. What’s she going
to do? You’ve got her hogtied if this thing passes.
President Sohl: Thank you. Next?
Mrs. Fran Liccardiello, New Street: I own a Beauty Salon/Barber
Shop on Route 46. I live up over the business. I have been
here for 36 years. I just got this in the mail a week ago
and I’m not going to expect any feedback. I went
over it, and I just want to give you input of what I got
out of it. I agree with Janice, her stating that instead
of kicking us around, we should be patted on the back for
what we’re doing and bringing into Mt. Olive a place
that was down in skid-row about 30 years ago. It’s
been slowly improving. People have been bringing businesses
in here, improving on Route 46. We have greatly improved
that area. Most people that have been here for years know
exactly what I’m talking about. In reading this Ordinance,
it says, “The current Master Plan Committee has studied
the area in question and has formulated revisions.” If
you have studied the area, fine. I know Master Plan, I
have seen the Master Plan. I did not know there were going
to be revisions made to this Master Plan. You’re
studying properties that belong to people. Whether it’s
their livelihood, whether they live there, or whether they
just own the property. If you’re studying something,
I think these people need to be notified what’s coming
down the pike, what concerns they may have. Instead of
giving this a week prior to something like this. “This
does find that said change to be in the best interest of
the Township...” How? The Township? The Township
is Flanders and Budd Lake. We’re talking about one-mile
stretch on the Westbound Lane of Route 46. I don’t
see how these few properties that are involved are in the
best interest of the entire Township. The people down in
Flanders–I don’t think they even know what’s
going on up there–and I’m not saying that to
be derogatory. I’m just stating it is not in the
best interest of the Township. Route 46 has been problematic.
I know that. It has been for years. When they stated that
it was a depressed area, the State came in and it was funding
people in my neighborhood to improve on their homes. The
State notified us, they knew exactly what was going on.
With the Township now stating it is problematic now, we’re
not totally unaware of that. Under the “Professional
Commercial Zone.” “Professional Business Zone
is created to promote a new Land Use pattern which does
not intrude upon the established residential neighborhoods.
It has integrity of activity and sale of buildings and
structures.” Well, from what I’ve been reading,
I think we have a double standard here because, over in
Flanders, what about that hockey rink that you’re
proposing to put in there right in the middle of an entire
residential zone? So, how can on Route 46 effect the business
behind on, when you’re doing something opposite of
what you’re saying here? Parking requirements are,
I would consider unfair. You have for “Medical Offices”–which
I doubt they could come in because this is such a small
lot size, but for “Medical Offices, one parking space
per 300 square feet.” You have for beauty salons–which
is myself–and it’s not clear–you have
three spaces per operator station/chair. Is that three
spaces per operator, or three spaces per chair? It’s
not clear. According to the New Jersey Laws–and I
am in compliance–it’s 300 square feet per first
operator, 150 square feet after that. So, if you want to
average it per operator, it would be myself, a customer
and one on the way. So, three spaces per operator is right.
The same for a dentist has to apply. For the site lighting–and
I’m not quite sure I understand this, the lights
are to be off from 11:00pm to 7:00am. Now, that’s
on one side of the highway, on that little stretch. So,
in essence what you’re saying, everybody on the Route
206 corridor and Route 46 can have their lights on all
night, or however long they operate their business, because
some do stay open late. They’re okay, but I keep
my lighting and my spotlights on until 11:30pm for security,
I don’t want anybody hanging around my grounds, I
want to be able to look out my window before I go to bed
and make sure my grounds are okay, but this is going to
read 11:00pm. Now, I’m sure there are going to be
revisions, but the thing is, once this is an Ordinance,
it applies to me. I’m not expecting to get any response
back on any of this tonight, I just want you to know what–I
read this, and what I feel so far. Are we going to be able
to take this further at another meeting and get some feedback?
Mr. Dorsey: That depends on whether or not the Council
reintroduces the Ordinance tonight. If it reintroduces
the Ordinance tonight, it will set a new Hearing date.
Mrs. Liccardiello: Okay. On at that date there will be
a Public Hearing?
Mr. Dorsey: Yes.
Mrs. Liccardiello: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Dave Jones: I represent the interests of 236 Route
46. My wife is Tammy–over there–we both own
a property in the form of a corporation, and my in-laws
own 234 Route 46. I have a lot of questions. One of the
main questions I have. Is this Ordinance directed to increase
property values or decrease them? And, Number Two, we just
received this in the mail within the last week or so. I
don’t think that’s proper time for us to consult
our lawyers or read into it.
President Sohl: We’re already taken steps–we’re
not going to act on this tonight. So the notification–
Mr. Jones: If there is anything that effects our properties,
I would like notification well in advance. A week and a
half. I would also like to know what effects does this
have against residential properties on a highway that may
be grandfathered or aren’t grandfathered. Like all
those yellow areas that are represented on the map.
President Sohl: Whatever exists today is allowed to exist
Mr. Jones: And what if we sell the property?
President Sohl: If it’s not a change in the use,
it’s allowed. You can change ownership, but you can’t
change use, right?
Mr. McGroarty: The residential properties are not permitted
under the current zone.
President Sohl: So they’re not permitted today.
Mr. McGroarty: No–the same protection applies. As
long as they’re not abandoned.
Mr. Dorsey: Let me answer it this way. The current Zoning
Ordinance, as well as this Ordinance does not make residential
a permitted use. But, residential use has existed there
for many, many years, and therefore, it is what they refer
to in the law as a prior pre-existing use. Therefore, nothing
can be done to interfere with that use. You can sell your
property if it’s currently residential, for residential
use in the future.
Mr. Jones: Let me get back to my other question that hasn’t
been answered. Is this plan intended to increase property
President Sohl: Let me answer that. I cannot recall any
time that we, as a Council, in terms of Land Use have deliberately,
or consciously taken steps to either increase or decrease
the value. I don’t think that’s anything that
we can determine with any accuracy anyway. So there is
no answer to that question. I mean, it’s certainly
not intended to depreciate deliberately. Nor is it a conscious
effort to appreciate. It’s just the way it is.
Mr. Jones: Well, I would like some sort or investigation
or statement by the Council that goes into the positives
and negatives of the property values before you guys proceed
on any decision or anything like that.
President Sohl: I hear you, but I don’t think that
Mr. Jones: Why doesn’t it?
President Sohl: Because it’s speculative at best.
Mr. Jones: Then you hire an outside firm, like a real
Mr. Guenther: I’m a real estate agent. It’s
speculative, as Bill said. Nobody can tell the future.
You really don’t know. This could possibly increase
the value. We don’t know. If you got an appraiser,
he cannot project the future of what’s happening.
He can only go by what’s presently on site. What’s
being used and what the values are. The same thing as a
Tax Assessor does. So as far as being able to tell the
future of what the value of the land is, that’s not
really possible for anybody to do. Either way. Either with
the current zoning or the proposal.
Mr. Jones: To be totally honest with you, as I said before,
we received this a week and a half ago, it’s all
in legal mumbo jumbo that we can’t really understand
at all. Uninformed.
Mr. Guenther: Well, it’s not mumbo jumbo–
Mr. Jones: Maybe not to you.
Mr. Guenther: No–listen–if I had a crystal
ball and knew how much that value was–
Mr. Jones: I’m not trying to say you have a crystal
ball, I’d like a projection.
Mr. Guenther: But if I made a projection, I would be out
there buying up the land and being on a Carribean Beach
in five years.
Mr. Jones: I’d still like a projection. Some sort
of projection. That’s all I have to say. Thank you
Resident, Connelly Ave. Country Oaks: First off, I would
like to thank Mr. Kaplan and the Mayor for responding to
my letter. I am taken aback that I didn’t know about
this. The funny thing is, prior to my foundation being
poured in my development, they notified us of a so-called
meat-packaging plant to be built in the surrounding area.
We were notified about that. I wasn’t notified about
this. I open my mailbox and I find a letter about these
Mr. McGroarty: Are you talking about the street vacations?
Resident: I’m talking about the–
Mr. McGroarty: You didn’t get a letter from our
Office regarding this. You’re on Connelly Avenue.
You got it about the street closing.
Resident: No, I got it regarding the Mall being built
in my backyard.
Mr. McGroarty: That’s different.
Mr. Guenther: That’s not what we’re talking
about right now.
Mayor Licitra: You’ll have your chance to beat us
President Sohl: Your comments are relative to the next
Ordinance that will be open to the Public. So if you could
hold those until that point. We’d appreciate it.
Resident: Okay. Thank you.
President Sohl: Thank you.
Mrs. Angela Tartell: I’m not going to belabor the
points that have already been made about lack of notification,
etc. That’s already been discussed. I’m happy
that this has been Tabled. I’m very concerned as
a property owner in this Township. I’ve been paying
taxes for over ten years. This property that I put together
was a realization of goals that I have had for the last
17 years. I put this piece together by buying several different
lots and did this over a long period of time. My retirement
objective was to put a small strip mall on this piece of
land, and I now feel that my retirement is being taken
away from me by this possibility of the matter that we’re
discussing tonight. I’d like to be able to leave
this Asset to my children. If that’s not going to
be possible with all these changes. I have six EDUs on
the property. I would like to know why I was allowed to
install six EDUs on the property if we knew that we would
be looking at a 1995 Master Plan, and discussing things
relative to that. Am I going to be reimbursed for the money
that I’ve spent to date, and is this going to be
retroactive to when I bought the property. If so, then,
maybe we have something we can discuss here. But, I am
not in favor of this at all, and I’m more than a
little concerned that this was done without adequate notice.
Not only that, but it wasn’t done with standard legal
Notice by Certified mail. I feel this Ordinance would devalue
my property. I would like a study done relative to that
fact. I would like a study done on this one-mile strip
of land and how this is going to effect all of the properties
involved. Whether commercial, residential, vacant, non-vacant,
etc. And, I would like a reimbursement of some of the–I
would like a commitment on the part of this Council that
this matter will be taken with a great deal of seriousness.
I’m not saying that you’re not serious about
it. I certainly appreciate the position you’re in.
I was on the Byram Township Committee myself a number of
years ago, so I know what it’s like to have to face
the Public and explain why you’re doing what you’re
doing. But as a member of the Public, and as a private
land owner, I feel incensed over this and I’m here
to express my objection. Thank you.
President Sohl: Thank you.
Mr. Steve Masotti, R&S Sporting Goods: One thing you
guys have done for me is, this is the most Town meetings
I’ve made in my 30 years here. Great. But, in any
event, my concern is the same as many of the other owners
here. One of the things I find–I keep hearing you
want to support the Town, and the Town to grow and businesses
to come to Town. I think the people that you’re referring
to in changing this Zoning probably accounts for a good
$30,000 - $40,000 worth of tax revenue per year. One of
the things you need to understand, I would think, simply,
in my mind, any changes or limitations in the use of this
property at this point will bring nothing but a dead zone.
I’m sure I’m the only retail store within that
one-mile strip, and maybe a lot of people don’t even
know I exist. That may be the case, because I get more
people coming in from Hackettstown, and Long Valley off
or Route 46. If we’re concerned about the traffic
and the amount of people on Route 46, I think you should
look at the residential development. The businesses don’t
bring that kind of traffic in at that time of day. It’s
people going to and from work. Notification, that’s
a problem, because I never received anything. The only
thing I got was a letter from the Chamber of Commerce.
That’s where I got my Notification. Anyway, I would
like to voice my displeasure in the way this was handled.
And if that needs to be changed–and change may be
necessary, I think you ought to take into account the investments
that a lot of us have made and our concerns–and maybe
some ideas that we may have that may be able to help. And
I thank you.
President Sohl: Thank you.
Mr. Ted Gillium, 10 Forest Road: I’ve lived in Budd
Lake for 30 years now, I”ve been a tax payer and
property owner. Let me tell you, I’ve not been happy
with some of the things that have happened over on Route
46 in the residential surrounding areas. I’m happy,
whether you followed due process or not, that you’re
at least thinking about doing something for us. And I know
a lot of other people are as well. So, it isn’t all
one-sided. I would like to be reassured that any existing
uses as long as they remain as that existed use not be
affected by this Ordinance.
Mr. Dorsey: That is a matter of State Statute, and it
is also cited, according to Mr. McGroarty, in this Ordinance
itself. So, whatever you use is at the moment, it is protected
regardless of what’s in this Ordinance.
Mr. Gillium: I just wanted to hear it on the Record.
Mr. Dorsey: Okay.
Mr. Gillium: Secondly, I’d like to ask the question–as
far as I know, all the undeveloped Lots that exist along
Route 46–and now we’re talking undeveloped
Lots, so this is not going to affect an existing business
owner, would be non-conforming Lots for almost any commercial
use. Isn’t that correct? I don’t think there’s
a Lot out there that meets all the requirements to put
a business on.
Mr. McGroarty: What I said was, 76% of the Lots in the
District today could not be developed under the present
Zone. So, the changes that we’re talking about, a
reduced lot depth, shared parking arrangements between
businesses and the like would allow for development without
variances where today that is not the case. For the permitted
Mr. Gillium: So, what we’re basically saying, there
probably will be more development on the undeveloped property
with the Ordinance if it passes than there would be under
the existing conditions.
Mr. McGroarty: That’s very possible, or at lease
without variances. Yes.
Mr. Gillium: Thank you.
Mr. Ed Borkowski, President, Mt. Olive Chamber of Commerce:
As you’ve heard, we did get involved, or we have
contacted most of the people who are here. We contacted
17 businesses in that area, although you’re saying
there are only 14. We do have some questions. You said
that 76% of the Lots in that area are less than 150'. Can
you tell me how many are less than 100'?
Mr. McGroarty: I can in a moment–I’d have
to take the time to look.
Mr. Borkowski: We’d appreciate that number, because
you are lowering it down to 100 but we did a quick survey
and most of those Lots are under 100 as well. The big thing
was, about seven or eight years ago, when they expanded
Route 46, the Westbound side lost ten feet, so their Lot
was already reduced. They were sitting at the 100' and
it suddenly went down to 90'. So I would like to find out
what number of those Lots, if they were to be developed
would have to go through variance. If it’s going
to be a significant percentage, maybe the number should
be 75% so that we don’t have to get through and get
waivers each time.
Mr. McGroarty: The answer to your questions–the
current standard is a Lot depth of 150' and a Lot width
of 200'. The majority of Lots–in fact the overwhelmingly
majority of Lots fail on both points. So those Lots automatically
are faced with variance situations when they seek to develop.
By reducing the Lot Depth to 100' there will still be some–and
I will find the number in a moment, that don’t satisfy
the Lot depth, but they will be far fewer, and our effort
is to make the bulk standards more applicable to the actual
land patterns that are in there. And as I also mentioned,
the current standards require a Lot depth of 150', requires
the building to be set back 75', and then it also requires
a 25' buffer to the rear. You put those three factors together,
virtually nobody, perhaps one or two Lots today could satisfy
that without variances. So, these changes would address
that, in our opinion, by changing, reducing the required
depth, allowing buildings closer to the highway and by
securing a buffer in the area that is in the rear of the
Lot which is protected, and yet, allows for the on site
Mr. Borkowski: Again, the Chamber had no problems with
the proposal, other than we were looking at the 100' depth.
We’re saying, we’re glad he’s going smaller,
but is that small enough? Just something that we’re
asking you to look at. Secondly, I know we talked about
grandfathering. I’ve talked to most of the business
owners there and we understand that it’s safe with
Statute, but we, as a Chamber, would really appreciate
it if you will include that statement somewhere in the
Mr. Dorsey: We can recite in this Ordinance what is in
the Zoning Ordinance and other places, and in the State
Statute, if that makes somebody happy.
Mr. Borkowski: That would make us very happy. We would
really appreciate that. I also would like to ask you–you
selected three of the categories of types of business that
could be in that Zone. According to the book–and
I only got to see it early this morning. The American Industry
classification system, there’s actually about–I
can see a few more options put in there–why the three
general ones you picked out–the language restricted
only to those. There are other businesses along the same
type of line that could be included in that. Could we look
to have that expanded so that if someone is selling property
there are other options?
Mr. Dorsey: Chuck, are you familiar with whatever classification
list he’s referring to?
Mr. McGroarty: Yes. But without the volume in front of
me–there were some that were not selected because
of the nature of the business–some of them had testing
on site, relied on a higher clientele movement. There were
a variety of reasons–it’s a good question,
we can answer it. I’d have to get the book in front
of me to go category by category. I will say, the sectors
referenced there are to add some precision where we’ve
had none in the past, leading to all kinds of difficulties
with interpretation. But, the intention was not to just
grab a section of that–what was used to be the Standard
Industrial Code, throw it down and say that it will all
fit, because some of them, in our opinion did not fit.
Mr. Dorsey: That’s fine.
Mr. McGroarty: But I would have to get the volume–it
is a fair question, I don’t have the volume in front
of me, but I will get it to answer your question. My notes
on the Lot depth are in my Office. I can get them tonight,
or it seems like this will continue, so I will get you
Mr. Borkowski: Thank you very much.
President Sohl: Is there anyone else from the Public who
would like to address this matter?
Mr. Bob Kensel: I’m a small business owner, I live
in Budd Lake. I’m concerned with this–how does
this affect like a standard industry vs whether you own
a doctor’s office or a blue collar trade, such as
small engine repair shop, or mechanic, or gas station?
What is the zoning affect? Because professional means like
medical, or legal or what not. So, I’m just a little
foggy on what this Zoning will enact.
Mr. McGroarty: It was our opinion–and this was not
meant to sound negative, but other areas in the C-1 Zone
and the C-2 Zone offer plenty of opportunities for gas
stations. Mechanical operations generally–even today–are
limited to the light industrial district–light assembly,
things of that nature are not permitted today in the C-1
Zone or the C-2 Zone. They must locate in the L-I or General
Industrial Zone District. So, but again, if they’re
in place today, they’re protected. But, those types
of uses–service stations and the like, particularly
on this side of the highway, for reasons that I mentioned
earlier, for the shallowness of the Lots, proximity in
residential areas, issues that go with service stations
and so on, we felt that this was not the appropriate location
in Town for additional gas stations.
Mr. Kensel: What if you’re an established business
Mr. Dorsey: You’re protected.
Mr. Kensel: What if I want to purchase the Lot next to
me to expand my business?
Mr. McGroarty: Are you in this District now?
Mr. Kensel: Yes, I’m on 142 Route 46 West.
Mr. McGroarty: What is your business?
Mr. Kensel: Budd Lake Glass and Mirror. I do commercial,
residential repairs, and home improvements. That’s
why I’m concerned. I don’t know how it’s
going to affect me in the future.
Mr. McGroarty: Well, the general answer is, if you’re
not a permitted use, you would need a variance to expand.
Mr. Kensel: And what does that mean?
Mr. Dorsey: It would appear that you would need a variance
to expand on to a different Lot than you’re currently
President Sohl: You would have to apply through the planning
process for that variance.
Mr. Kensel: But I can still do what I’m doing on
the same side of the highway.
Mr. Dorsey: Yes.
President Sohl: You can do what you’re doing, but
if you want to expand that, if what you described, if you
have an existing use, it’s on a particular lot, there’s
a vacant Lot next to you, or somebody sells you whatever
is there, and you want to now expand your current business,
which is a non-conforming use, you’re grandfathered
for what is there, you would have to apply for a variance
through the planning process.
Mr. Kensel: But, basically, I’m still protected
President Sohl: Let’s be fair–I don’t
want to create a misconception or any promises here, there
is no guarantee that a variance is granted. Would it generally
be? I think a lot tend to be. And there’s got to
be a rationale not to approve it.
Mr. Kensel: Okay, I have to go for a variance.
Mr. Guenther: If you want to expand.
Mr. Reza Heshemi: If you are in a C-1 Zone and this Zoning
is adopted, then you’ll be a non-conforming use.
If you decide to expand, you will be treated as a non-conforming
use and you would go before the Board of Adjustment. Correct?
Mr. Dorsey: The expansion would be treated as a non-conforming
Mr. Guenther: I have a question, just for my own edification,
Chuck. Why was this done only on one side of the highway?
I’m sure there’s a reason.
Mr. McGroarty: Yes. The properties on this side of the
highway–the characteristics of the properties in
this District–the boundaries have to be established
some place and we felt the boundaries were logical. People
can disagree about that, and honest people can disagree.
But the reason why this area is distinct from the opposite
side of the highway is, the opposite side does not have
the established residential areas. There are some homes,
I grant you, but generally speaking, you don’t have
that concentration. For the most part, you don’t
have the small Lots and the shallow Lots on the other side
of the highway that you have here. You have much larger
tracts of land. You also have–it’s a different
characteristic on that side. Here we’re concerned,
but the concern was, again, the amount of existing curb
cuts to reduce them, whereas on the opposite side of the
highway, there are large tracts undeveloped. So we’re
trying to accommodate by the bulk standards the existing
land patterns that are on this westbound side of Route
46. The shallow lots, the proximity of the residential
areas and so on.
Mr. Dorsey: Council, I think you now have to make up your
mind whether you wish to reintroduce this Ordinance or
you wish–it was approved by the Planning Board–you
to send it back to the Planning Board for more study. How
do we want to conclude this.
Resident: Send it back.
President Sohl: Please.
Mrs. Kelly: I just have another question. Maybe Chuck
can clarify this for me. Basically, what we’re trying
to do is make it easier for those Lots along Route 46 to
have businesses, correct? Without requiring variances?
Is that what you’re trying to do?
Mr. Heymann: No. That’s not–
Mr. Dorsey: Wait a minute. The answer to that, I think
is two-fold. There are some provisions here that would
make some of these Lots either conforming, or less non-conforming
than they are under the current zone. On the other hand,
the Ordinance also changes the uses–not all the uses,
but some of the uses that can be made in this Zone. So
in one sense, it may make a particular Lot more easily
to obtain developmental approvals. On the other hand, a
use that someone might want to make may no longer be permitted
under this revised Ordinance. So it’s a two-edged
Mrs. Kelly: Well, my next question is, if the Lot qualifies
and variances are required, that also means that the people
that live closest to this will not be required to be Noticed.
Mr. Dorsey: That would be true.
Mrs. Kelly: When an applicant applies for a use change,
then he has to ask for a variance, which means that he
has to Notice the residents, correct?
Mr. Dorsey: If he asks for a D-type variance, which requires
everyone within 200' to be Noticed.
Mrs. Kelly: And if they meet all the requirements and
do not need any variances, then there is no Public Notification.
Mr. Dorsey: I think the answer to that is generally “Yes.” There
may be a site-plan application involved. I’m not
sure. That would depend on the particular use to be made
of the property.
Mrs. Kelly: Okay, I just wanted that clarified.
President Sohl: We Tabled it at this point. Do we want
to discuss this further now?
Mr. Guenther: I would like to ask John (Dorsey) what’s
the proper procedure? To go back and have one of us that
voted for it to go back and re-introduce it
Mr. Dorsey: Is that what you wish to do? That would be
an appropriate motion if somebody is prepared to do that.
The instruction would be in the form that the Ordinance
is currently in. Then you’ll have to select the date
upon which you want to hold the Public Hearing. And I suppose
you wish to instruct the Clerk to give the Supernotice
required under 40:55D-62.1.
Mr. Scapicchio: I have a suggestion. I was part of the
Master Plan Committee that met that made this recommendation
to the Planning Board. I think there have been some valid
points made by the Public that has spoken tonight. I think
what I would like to propose, Mayor, is, we go back with
the notes and comments that have been made to the Master
Plan Committee for one meeting, revisit that and then send
it back up to the Planning Board. Let the Planning Board
then send it to us as they have. Then for us to Notice
everybody within that District so that everybody that is
Mr. Dorsey: Well, in that process, we’ll have to
reintroduce that Ordinance.
Mr. Scapicchio: That’s fine. But we’ll reintroduce
this Ordinance after the Planning Board passes it off to
Mr. Dorsey: I understand that, it could come back in a
Mr. Scapicchio: It could come back in a different form,
or it could come back in the same form.
Mr. Dorsey: So you wish to make a motion?
Mr. Scapicchio: I make a Motion to refer this Ordinance
back to the Master Plan Committee for reconsideration based
on some of the comments that have been made this evening.
Mr. Guenther: Second.
ROLL CALL: Passed by the majority, Exceptions: Mr. Spino
and Mr. Rattner voted NO.
President Sohl: Okay, that concludes tonight’s activity
on Ordinance #29-2000.
Ord. 29-2000 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive
To Revise the Township Zoning Map to Reflect a New Professional/Commercial
Zone District and to Amend and Supplement Chapter 400 Entitled “Land
Use” to Reflect the Permitted Uses and Development
Regulations of the New Professional/Commercial Zone District
to Rezone Certain Lands from C-1 to Professional Business
(P.B.) (Rezoning of Route 46)
Ord. 26-2000 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive
to Vacate a portion of Old Budd Lake Road, A Portion of
Netcong-Flanders Road, A portion of Gold Mine Road, and
An Unimproved Right-of-Way.
President Sohl opened the Public Hearing on Ord. #26-2000
President Sohl: We will take a five minute break so Chuck
(McGroarty) can get the maps. All right, let’s get
back to the meeting–is Chuck going to give an over
view–no? All right.
Mr. Chrum: I have a question on the wording–the
Vacation of Old Budd Lake Road. My concern is there is
a New Jersey Natural Gas Line under Old Budd Lake Road
where it is today. Does this Ordinance require that that
line be moved?
Mr. Dorsey: No, it won’t. The Ordinance does not
vacate the right of New Jersey Natural Gas. Their right
to have their line there is not eliminated by this Vacation
Ordinance. If it is to be moved, that is going to have
to be an arrangement made between the Developer and New
Jersey Natural Gas.
Mr. Chrum: Everybody is aware of this–I spoke with
Les Smith, I spoke with the Planning Board, everybody agrees
that it should be moved, but it looks like the Ordinance
as it’s written doesn’t require that.
Mr. Dorsey: I’ll find out for you.
Mr. Chrum: Thank you.
Resident, Flanders-Netcong Road: I live near the tennis
courts by the High School. If this goes through, it would
create problems for cars going down Flanders-Netcong Road–I
am pleased you’re putting the cul-de-sac in there
because of the expansion of the Trade Zone, I believe it’s
a very important thing to do because the construction of
Route 206, people have found a way to get around the construction
and used Flanders-Netcong Road. I would say in the past
year and a half since that construction, the noise that
you get from those cars, and the power plant that’s
there. I hope you can do something with GPU in cutting
that noise down at that power plant. I hope and pray that
this will be passed tonight. Thank you.
Resident, Country Oaks: The reason why I’m here
tonight is because of the cul-de-sac. I have several concerns.
As you know there is an asphalt company that is right there
on Goldmine Road. How are they going to access the plant?
Mr. Spino: The same way they go out now, Goldmine Road,
and out the new road that will lead out to Route 206.
Resident: So a new road is going to be built?
Mr. Rattner: The road is going to split. It’s going
to terminate at the end of the Residential Zone. That will
force the commercial zone, is still going to be going East
towards Route 206. The light at the end of Gold Mine Road
is going to be removed, so you won’t be able to get
out that way. The way you will be able to get out, from
Goldmine Road there will be what they call a Connector
Road into this Trade Zone Development and that connector
road will go out to Route 206. But all the commercial vehicles
will have to go out that way.
Resident: Now my other concern is that–I work in
Parsippany, so when I come home, I can’t take Exit
#26 because it’s almost impossible to make a left
off of Route 46 on to Connelly. It’s dangerous. My
concern is, if you close that, a lot of us are not going
to have that capability to come up Goldmine Road, so you
can eliminate making a left on to Connelly. So, now, I’ll
have to take the ten cent tour and take a chance of making
a left on to Connelly Avenue off of Route 46. We were told
a light would not be put in that area for the simple fact
because it would increase more traffic into our development.
Mr. Spino: Well, I don’t know if that’s the
right reason. We haven’t been told that. The big
question for the light is how close it is to any other
lights on Route 46, that’s what we were told. We
were looking at that, we haven’t made a decision,
but that’s not up to us.
Resident: As far as the mall goes? That’s another
Mr. Spino: Well, the mall is in front of the Planning
Board. We can’t really do anything about that here.
It’s a Planning Board matter. The mall has the approval
already. It’s not something that can be stopped–I
don’t think at this point. What they are doing now
in front of the Planning Board are making some changes
for their plans, and that’s why they have to come
back to the Planning Board. They have preliminary approvals.
Mr. Jonathan Irving, Country Oaks: We have worked very
well–our Development as well as Town Council has
worked hand in hand very well over the past two and a half
years I’ve been a resident of our development. We
have appreciated the support that you people have provided
us by coming out and supporting us in some of the other
issues that have been in front of the Planning Board as
well as some of the other Ordinances and other violations
that we’ve dealt with. We really do appreciate the
support of the Town Council.
President Sohl: Thank you.
Mr. Irving: With that being said–
President Sohl: Is there a “but...” coming
Mr. Irving: Absolutely not.
President Sohl: Oh.
Mr. Irving: We do–“thus” we do appreciate
the–we have actually looked at some of the plans
for this mall now. We do know that it has been in the works
probably longer than our development has been in the works.
And, the cul-de-sacs, in our opinion, are an excellent
idea. I’m trying to say “our opinion” because
I don’t know whether I speak for all the residents,
but, I think that none of us want to pick up an additional
five or ten percent of the traffic that was originally
planned from the original mall plans to come through our
development. I don’t need 200 to 1,000 cars coming
through my streets every Saturday and Sunday to try and
catch a $2.99 sale. Our biggest concern now is, with the
closing of the cul-de-sacs and the elimination of the traffic
going down Route 206, you’re now going to increase
the traffic flow out of Connelly Avenue. Now, we understand
that you can come out, make a right, go down into the Trade
Zone, make a right and back on Route 206. That’s
all fine and dandy, we have no problems with that. The
issue would then be making the left to try to go up to
Wolf Road to attend a Town Council Meeting, or to the schools,
or to vote. But, our concern is not only making the left
out of the development, which we feel is very dangerous
now, but also making a left into the development because
that would be the only way to come in to our development
at this point in time without going all the way down to
the Mt. Olive Road turn around. We would appreciate that
if someone would look into possibly putting a traffic light
at that corner. I know there are some regulations regarding
the State and how close traffic lights can be. But, as
it turns out, our friend Bernie here has done some work
in engineering with traffic flow, and I think Bernie has
a couple of words to say about possibly putting up a traffic
light that may assist you in going to the DOT. Thank you.
Mr. Bernie Boerchers, 24 Crestwood Circle: I’m a
traffic engineer. I have designed hundreds of traffic installations
in the State of New Jersey. I’m licensed in New Jersey,
I’m licensed in Pennsylvania, Maryland and New York.
I got the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes from
the DOT from 1995 along Route 46. The volumes there were
24,000 vehicles for annual average daily traffic. I converted
that down to a daily hour volume, utilizing your AM, PM
peak hours. I then did a trip generation study of County
Oaks, which was 166 homes. I had an “Exiting volume
left turns” on to Route 46 West in the morning, approximately
97 vehicles. It is our belief the first traffic impact
study that was done for the development was based on a
weighted percentage that a certain amount of the vehicles
would access Route 206 via Goldmine Road. So if that alternative
is no longer viable, these volumes will now have to access
via Connelly Ave on to Route 46. I have not had the pleasure
to review any traffic impact studies. I called the Planning
Board and they said they weren’t available at this
time. However, I would like to review them. I would add,
I think that the traffic is only going to increase on Route
46. That ‘95AADT is probably a lot lower than it
currently is today and it will only increase as time passes.
So, I feel at this point we should submit a Transportation
Problem Statement from the Council to DOT. That is the
process that must be started to begin a concept development
study. Until we reach that point and we all concur that
the traffic light is necessary, we’ll never get DOT
to consider it.
Mr. Dorsey: Well, if we get that in writing, I’ll
be happy to do the appropriate Resolution. I can’t
fill in the blanks.
Mr. Boerchers: All the information that I have, I can
give you in a written format. Hopefully if the Council
President Sohl: Why don’t we run this through the
Mayor Licitra: Sandy (Kaplan) has already–we’re
in the process of looking at Smithtown Road and Route 46
in the same vein because of the increase in traffic that
we feel is going to be there in years to come.
Resident, Flanders-Netcong Road: My concern is–I’m
police officer, and I kind of know a lot of things people
do when they want to find short cuts. Since Route 206 was
under construction, Flanders-Netcong Road has become a
busy street. Traffic has picked up quite considerably.
The cul-de-sacs that are going in on Goldmine Road on the
other end of Flanders-Netcong Road, I think are great.
I would like to see something on my side of the street.
I know there are only six houses there, but there are 11
kids there. But it is a concern to me that the traffic
will use this to get to the new International Drive, which
is probably about 100' from my house. I would like the
Council to consider making that a cul-de-sac on either
end. I’ve talked to several of my neighbors. They’re
pretty open to suggestions on the Ledgewood end or the
International end where a cul-de-sac could possibly be.
I would like you to consider that, look into it.
President Sohl: I don’t think there is an access
Mr. Spino: Yes, there is.
President Sohl: Is there?
Mr. Scapicchio: There is. I met this gentleman at a Planning
Board meeting and he brought that to my attention, and
I have been under the impression that that was always a
cul-de-sac. I had a discussion with Gene Buczynski, the
Township Engineer who informed me that the FTZ has an agreement
with the Thompsons whom they purchased property from to
enable them to build this four-lane road that requires
access from that end of Flanders-Netcong Road to this road.
But I agree. I think something certainly needs to be done,
and it needs to be addressed so that traffic does not use
that end of the street to access this road here. I think
we need to sit down and explore that a little more with
Chuck (McGroarty) and Gene Buczynski.
Mrs. Robin Florance, 53 Connelly Ave: I’m in favor
of the cul-de-sac going in on Gold Mine Road because I
don’t want to see all that additional traffic going
through. But my concern, again, is the left hand turn coming
out of Connelly going West on Route 46. You sit and you
sit and you sit. The traffic lights are not always timed
properly. My main concern is, in the morning with the school
buses coming down Connelly Avenue, a lot of them used to
cut through the back way, up Goldmine, and past Flanders-Netcong
Road, get over to Tinc Road, and perhaps the High School.
Now they’re going to have go out Route 46, make a
right-hand turn and then go back up by the trailer park
and come up Flanders-Netcong Road that way, but that way
is going to be closed off, right? Because of the mall.
My concern is, how are they going to get there? They’re
going to have to make a left on Route 46 and go up Mt.
Olive Road, possibly. I think that’s going to be
a very dangerous situation in the morning. The buses for
my kids come at 8:10am. So, they’re down there when
there’s still a lot of traffic from rush-hour and
they’ll sit trying to make that left-hand turn. There
are two school buses in our development for each school–the
elementary school, the middle school, and the high school–that’s
six buses. So, I think that’s a very dangerous situation,
the school buses having to sit and wait to make that left-hand
turn. I think that’s an accident waiting to happen.
That’s why I think we should consider a traffic light
because of that, or change the timing of the traffic lights
on either end because I just think it’s a dangerous
situation. So, I would like you to consider that when you’re
President Sohl: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Scapicchio: To address the school buses–I think
that’s a valid concern. One way to address that is
to have an Officer stationed there in the morning hours
during the school year directing that traffic.
President Sohl: We can make that recommendation to the
Mayor Licitra: Charlene–I don’t know what’s
done in these situations, but I do know they will take
a school bus the safest route.
Mrs. Kelly: As a rule, our buses aren’t supposed
to make left-hand turns on to Route 46.
Mrs. Lisa Wiener, 10 Tanglewood Way: I agree with the
traffic light. But if a traffic light is not possible,
perhaps some type of signage saying, “Residential
Resident: I just have a couple of questions. I remember
about two years ago reading an article about the ITC South,
that’s been on the plans for about 25 years in this
Township, the Master Plan. Was anything done back then
to address these issues–jug-handles or traffic lights?
You knew this initially back then–you could tell
this residential area was going to go in, and there’s
no light there, no jug-handle. I mean, it seems you had
a lot of time to think about this, no last minute.
President Sohl: I think the only thing we can offer at
this point is–I’m not sure about “25
years ago” because the ITC came into fruition some
20 years ago. But, what their ultimate plans were for that
section have only come clear in the last three or four
Resident: But you knew that was going to front on Goldmine
Road and Flanders-Netcong Road, you had to know that as
part of the Master Plan.
Mr. Spino: No.
President Sohl: No, we didn’t.
Mr. Spino: The Zone was changed for this. The original
zone was a–the first zone change was a warehousing
zone in that area–that the Trade Zone asked for.
Mr. Sohl: And they also have acquired a lot of property
Mr. Spino: They did not own the property before that.
The only thing the Town really had to do–there was
always a road planned to go from Route 46 to Route 206.
That road was always in our transportation plans. The only
difference is, it is now coming out directly on Route 206.
The original plan was to have it come out in the Township
on to Goldmine Road and they going out to Route 206. So,
that’s been changed because they got approval from
the Netcong Water Works to put the road through their property.
Mrs. Millie Spino, 106 Flanders-Netcong Road: I’m
really happy with the closing up of the road. It reminds
me of Succasunna–they closed off the residential
area because it doesn’t go directly in to the mall.
I’m really happy because I’ve lived there for
30 years and I want to keep it safe. Thank you very much.
President Sohl: So we pretty much know how Earl is going
Mrs. Spino: Well, let’s just say, if he wants to
be happy at home.
President Sohl: Is there anyone else who would like to
address the Council?
Resident: Do we have a timeframe on when we will put the
cul-de-sacs vs when the ITC Drive would be operational?
Mr. Dorsey: Yes. The Agreement is very specific that the
cul-de-sac on Flanders-Netcong Road and the cul-de-sac
on Goldmine Road will be the first things done in terms
of construction. So that should be put in long before anybody
starts to drive to the mall.
Mr. Frank Arminio, 155 Flanders-Netcong Road, Blue Atlas
Nursery: We presently have a business on that road. You’re
putting a sign up that says “No through traffic” or “Dead
end.” We would appreciate it if we could possibly
put a sign up under that stating that the Nursery is down
that road. Because it is somewhat of a hardship to us that
the road is being closed off.
Mr. Spino: That sounds reasonable to me.
Mr. Rattner: Fine.
Mr. Spino: I have no problem with that.
Mr. Dorsey: Put it up tonight.
President Sohl: Is there anyone else from the Public?
President Sohl closed the Public Hearing on Ord. #26-2000
Mr. Heymann moved for Adoption and Final Passage on Ord.
#26-2000 and Mr. Rattner seconded the motion.
Mr. Dorsey: I want to make one statement–so everybody
understands. This Ordinance does not become fully effective
until a number of things occur. Final publication, execution
by all parties of the four agreements that are recited
in paragraph three, the posting of all the financial guarantees
by the FTZ called therein, and payment to the Township
of $133,000–the first payment of the $400,000, and
then the filing of this Ordinance. So this is just the
first step and it will be held in that status until the
checks are written.
Mr. Heymann: John, I know what you just indicated to the
gentleman from Blue Atlas. Of course, it’s not in
the Ordinance and we know it’s on the Public Record.
There will be a means that they will be able to put something
up there so at least their business will have some notice.
Mr. Dorsey: Those boys can put anything up they want.
Mr. Heymann: All right–
Mr. Dorsey: I grew up with one of them.
Mr. Heymann: All right. Good. That’s my question.
Mayor Licitra: Nobody looked that old, John.
Mr. Dorsey: Thanks.
Mr. Scapicchio: I shared this with the Council members,
and I would like to let the Public know, it was on a Friday
afternoon, the Mayor, myself, Mr. Dorsey, and representatives
of the FTZ sat down. The Mayor and I made several demands–
Mayor Licitra: Requests.
Mr. Scapicchio: Requests. And, I must say that it was
easy for Paul and I to sit in that office for an hour and
make those demands.
Mayor Licitra: Requests.
Mr. Scapicchio: They were demands. But it was really the
efforts of Mr. Dorsey in putting together–it’s
a series of complicated agreements that really will memorialize
what’s happening here. I think he needs to get most
of the credit for putting together the finite details that
none of us really pay attention to except when we read
them in Ordinance form. I think one of the most important
details of those agreements in this Ordinance are the physical
barriers for these cul-de-sacs, will, in fact, be in place
before any construction can start with regards to either
the mall or that major highway. So, John, good job. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Dorsey: Thank you. But you participated immanently
in this, and you will share any blame with me.
President Sohl: Any other Council Comments?
ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously
President Sohl declared Ord. #26-2000 as Passed on Second
Ord. 27-2000 Bond Ordinance Providing for the Construction
of a New Connector Road to Join Routes 46 and 206 To Facilitate
the New Jersey Foreign Trade Zone Venture In And By the
Township of Mount Olive, In The County of Morris, New Jersey,
By The New Jersey Foreign Trade Zone Venture, Appropriating
$3,000,000 Bonds, Notes Or Loans Of The Township To Finance
Part of the Cost Thereof. (International Drive South)
President Sohl: I will just add, before we have anyone
speak on this, the $3,000,000 is coming from the State,
not out of your property taxes.
Mr. Dorsey: This Agreement is written in such a way that
the Township of Mt. Olive never expends any of its money.
The Township is to receive $3,000,000 from the State of
New Jersey as a Grant, and in the interim, if that money
doesn’t come through quite as quickly as it should,
the FTZ must put up the money, and, indeed, they have to
underwrite this Ordinance with $750,000 in cash and $2,250,000
by way of an irrevocable letter of credit. This Ordinance
is a technicality to permit the Township to spend the money.
President Sohl opened the Public Hearing on Ord. #27-2000
President Sohl closed the Public Hearing on Ord. #27-2000
Mr. Guenther moved for Adoption and Final Passage on Ord.
#27-2000 and Mr. Heymann seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously
President Sohl declared Ord. #27-2000 as Passed on Second
ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING (September 12, 2000 Public
Ord. #30-2000 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive
RE: Goldmine Road (No Longer Thru Street).
Mrs. Kelly moved that Ord. #30-2000 be introduced by title
and passed on First Reading and that it be scheduled for
Adoption after a Public Hearing on September 12, 2000 at
7:30 p.m. Mr. Scapicchio seconded the Motion.
Mr. Rattner: Being a resident of Goldmine Road, hopefully,
this is going to bring it back to what it was when I moved
in, when Goldmine Road was primarily a dirt road.
ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously
Ord. #31-2000 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive
Vacating a Portion of Flanders Netcong Road.
Mr. Spino moved that Ord. #31-2000 be introduced by title
and passed on First Reading and that it be scheduled for
Adoption after a Public Hearing on September 12, 2000 at
7:30 p.m. Mr. Scapicchio seconded the Motion.
ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously
CONSENT RESOLUTIONS AGENDA:
Resolutions on the Consent Agenda List are considered
to be routine and non-controversial by the Township Council
and will be approved by one motion (one vote). There will
be no separate discussion or debate on each of these resolutions
except for the possibility of brief clarifying statements
which may be offered. If one or more Council member requests,
any individual resolution on the Consent Agenda may be
removed from the Consent Agenda List and acted on separately.
1. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township
of Mount Olive Authorizing a Place-to-Place Transfer of
Alcoholic Beverage License No. 1427-33-003-004 Owned by
Kennedy’s Pub, Inc.
2. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township
of Mount Olive Renewing the Plenary Retail Consumption
License of Michael J. Monaghan License Number 1427-33-002-004
(previously known as Elsie’s Sizzling Steaks or the
Blue Bird Inn).
3. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township
of Mount Olive Authorizing the Release of Performance Guarantees
Posted by Camelot Estates, Inc.
4. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township
of Mount Olive Awarding a Contract to Mount Hope Products,
Inc. for Improvements to Bartley Drakestown Road in an
Amount Not to Exceed $139,800. (NJDOT Grant)
5. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township
of Mount Olive Awarding a Contract to the Concrete Masters,
Inc. in the Amount of $58,687.85 for the Installation of
Sidewalk Improvements Along Wolfe Road/Flanders Drakestown
Road. (NJDOT Grant)
6. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township
of Mount Olive Cancelling the Award to Ceco/Taylor Co.
Firecab in the Amount of $129,513 for a Rescue Truck. (BLFARS)
7. Resolution of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing
the Use of Various State Purchasing Contracts.
8. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township
of Mount Olive Authorizing the Execution of a Developer’s
Agreement Between the Township and K-Land No. 53, LLC for
Final Developer’s Agreement, Oak Hill I, Section
9. Resolution to Award a Contract for the Paving of Various
Streets Under the Morris County Cooperative Purchasing
10. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township
of Mount Olive Authorizing the Business Administrator to
Execute a Treatment Works Approval Application on Behalf
of Eric Kottman. (Sewer extension permit - Connolley Ave.)
11. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township
of Mount Olive Authorizing the Execution of a Developer’s
agreement Between the Township and Commerce Bank North.
(Flanders Bartley Road)
12. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township
of Mount Olive Authorizing the Execution of a Developer’s
Agreement Based Upon Preliminary Site Plan Approval Between
the Township and DPC Cirrus, Inc. (Amendment to resolution
adopted on 5/9/00) - (Flanders Bartley Road adjacent to
13. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township
of Mount Olive Awarding a Contract to Odyssey Automotive
Specialty, Inc. in the Amount of $136,979.00 for a Rescue
Mr. Rattner moved for approval of the Consent Resolutions
and Mr. Heymann seconded the motion.
PUBLIC PORTION ON CONSENT RESOLUTIONS
President Sohl: Is there anyone from the Public who would
like to address any of the Consent Resolutions? Seeing
no one, I close the meeting to the Public.
Mayor Licitra: I just want to make sure everybody is clear
on Resolution #13.
President Sohl: We are. We got a very extensive package.
Mr. Heymann: Sandy gave us a very nice memo.
ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously
1. Bill List. - ATTACHED
Mr. Heymann move for approval of the Bills and Mr. Rattner
seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously
2. Appointment of Alan Abels to Board of Adjustment (Alt.
II, 2 year unexpired term to expire 12/31/00).
Mr. Spino: Regarding this Appointment. I spoke to Mr.
Abels. He’s quite amenable to resigning his position
on the Open Space Committee to serve on the Board of Adjustment,
and to give someone else an opportunity to become part
of the Mt. Olive family as a member or that Committee.
President Sohl: Is that a Motion?
Mr. Spino moved for approval of the Motion Mr. Scapicchio
seconded the motion.
Mr. Guenther: I thought we’d have more discussion
about this because there was a whole bunch of Resumes from
other people. I thought we’d have a little bit more
discussion. This comes as a surprise to me, quite frankly.
Mr. Spino: It’s been talked about already, informally.
Mr. Abels was one of the original people to send a Resume
way back when I asked for them in the newspaper. It’s
just that he was appointed to an opening on the Open Space
Committee. When the opening on the Board of Adjustment
became available, he asked if he could fill that vacancy,
and he would be willing to resign from the Open Space Committee.
I don’t really see a problem.
Mr. Guenther: Well, it’s my opinion, I would like
to see other people involved.
Mr. Spino: We’re going to get that opportunity,
Mr. Guenther: Some of those people with those Resumes–we
ask for volunteers. It always seems to be the same people
Mr. Spino: We’re doing exactly that, Bernie. He’s
going to resign one seat for another seat. Someone else
is going to get an opportunity to fill the vacancy on that
Mr. Scapicchio: Well, I think Bernie has the same opportunity
as anyone else here to review that list–
Mr. Spino: Well, he has the list. I believe we all have
Mr. Guenther: What’s the procedure that this comes
up for a vote today? Did we discuss this? I don’t
remember discussing it in a workshop.
Mr. Spino: We discussed it in workshop last time around.
My confusion at the point, I was not sure at the time whether
the Open Space Committee met on the same night as the Board
of Adjustment and Mr. Abels told me it wouldn’t make
any difference. He would resign to give someone else an
opportunity. It’s not something we haven’t
President Sohl: Any other discussion?
ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously
President Sohl: We will contact Mr. Abels and tell him
he needs to be sworn in.
Mr. Scapicchio: And we now have to make an appointment
to the Open Space Committee.
President Sohl: All right, we can discuss that in workshop.
3. Approval of Raffle Application #953, Knights of Columbus
Mr. Scapicchio moved for approval of the Motion and Mr.
Rattner seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously
COUNCIL REPORTS: NONE
President Sohl: I now open the meeting to the Public.
Is there anyone who would like to address the Council on
Mr. Earl Robinson, 81 Flanders-Netcong Road: We were away
to my daughter’s house. Upon returning home, at the
corner of Flanders-Netcong Road and Drakedale Road, there
was a sign, “Construction/Drainage on or about July
21, 2000.” We and my neighbors were never advised
of this drainage construction by Morris County. This drainage
has affected us a great deal. This run off from Drakedale
Road and about seven houses on that street have been draining
water run off to my back yard and my neighbors. I have
some pictures here I would like to show you, from the recent
rain we had.
President Sohl: Probably the best way to channel this
would be through the Mayor’s Office.
Mayor Licitra: We could contact the County.
Mr. Robinson: Can I finish what I wanted to say?
Mayor Licitra: Sure. You handed me these pictures, I just
wanted to comment to you what action we would take.
Mr. Robinson: I have a lot of acreage. I can only use
about one fourth of this property. I spoke to the Morris
County Engineer in Mt. Olive about this problem. The County
Engineer told me that they were doing this drainage because
the water was going in to the homes, seven houses on Drakedale
Road. Well, I told him those seven houses are draining
the water on our property, and now you’re going to
put more water on my property. That didn’t phase
him. The Township Engineer came and he saw the problem
and he couldn’t believe it. He saw the pictures.
The water runs off Drakedale Road on to my property. The
County Engineer said maybe the Township can do something
about this. The other thing that I have concern about is
traffic speed. I back out of my driveway on to Flanders-Netcong
Road. If I want to go to Route 206, a car coming up in
back of me can’t wait long enough for me to get straightened
out. He goes past me on a double line going 40 mph. Now,
I think it’s crazy. If the road here, Flanders-Drakedale
is 35 mph, Cory Road is 25 mph, and Drakedale Road can
be 35 mph, why can’t Flanders-Netcong Road be at
least 35 mph, and enforced. Now, I will say this, if Mt.
Olive Police is in the area and they see a car passing
me, they do stop them. And I’m glad. They should
be there more often, because that is a very bad area. The
speed limit is unbelievable. Something has to be done about
it. I thank you for your time.
Mayor Licitra: Understand, Bob Casey, the DPW Director
has twice weekly meetings. This probably has been discussed
if he’s discussed it with the Engineer, so Sandy
(Kaplan) will check into it and get back to Earl (Spino.)
Mr. Spino: I spoke with Mr. Dolan, from the Engineering
Department. I would think that if he can get together with
Mr. Buczynski and the County to come up with a solution
that we could do. There might be things that could be done
that we can’t do, but at least something that we
could do could help ameliorate the problem.
Mayor Licitra: The Township is going to alleviate the
problem the County created?
Mr. Spino: Well, I’m saying we can work together.
The other question about the traffic speed, hopefully we
can get the cul-de-sac done and reduce the speed. I think
it will be a lot easier–the previous Administration
was not helpful in that manner, to be honest with you.
Mr. Robinson: The problem that this Township has right
now is that we do not have drainage.
Mr. Spino: Absolutely.
Mr. Robinson: Well, when this comes up before the Board
of Adjustment, if the Township can tell them, you have
to put in drainage, I think it would help a lot. Thank
President Sohl: Thank you. Anyone else?
Mr. David Yourish, Sandshore Road: It’s interesting
that you’re talking about traffic because that’s
exactly what I want to talk about–and Route 46 in
particular–and the two traffic lights at the entrance
of the Trade Zone and the Village Green. I don’t
know if any of you ever traveled during rush-hour, you
know that there’s a synchronization problem. What
we need to do, we need to synchronize those lights so they
stay green longer, or they stay green at different times
so that all the cars can flow properly through those intersections
without backing up on to Route 80. It backs up all they
way to Exit 26 on Route 80. I know, because I was in it.
I just happen to have a digital camera with me, so what
I was able to do was take some pictures for you. They’re
not really that great–you can have them–but
I would suggest you synchronize those lights–implore
the DOT to have someone come out, take a look, and do something
about it. It’s an accident waiting to happen–you
know as well as I do, there are people going 70 mph in
the left lane, “Oh, I have to get off at Exit 26.” And
they’re going to cut everyone off. You can’t
see around that bend, cars are stopped, they’re going
to smash right into it. That’s one of the issues.
The other issue is Naughtright, Sandshore and Route 46.
There is no demarcation lines on the Naughtright section,
and that’s Mt. Olive Township, I believe. The demarcation
are the double yellow lines. When they did the construction,
they put the Exxon Station there, where the new A&P
is. You have two lanes, basically. You make a right-hand-turn
on red there, but on the other side of the roadway, you
can’t make a right-hand turn on red on to Route 46,
which is illogical. I don’t know why we don’t
have that. But, I think what you need to do is put demarcation
lines there for people coming on to Route 46.
Mr. Guenther: You don’t have the sight visibility
there. I’ve been at that corner. You can’t
see, that’s why they put the “No Turn On Red” there.
Mr. Yourish: You can see.
Mr. Guenther: It’s an obstructed view.
Mr. Yourish: All I’m saying, they’re some
things you should take a look at.
President Sohl: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the
Public who would like to address the Council on any matter?
Seeing no one, I will close the meeting to the Public.
Mr. Rattner: I don’t have the article with me, but,
I think two weekends ago, one of the Sunday papers they
were talking about the State, the inspection problems,
inspecting cars. They were talking about a trial of the
fixed emission testing on the sides of highways. And they
were going to put up three–if you drive past, and
your car pollutes, they send you a ticket in the mail.
Mrs. Kelly: Your car pollutes?
Mr. Rattner: Using infra-red.
Mr. Guenther: I think that will be thrown out of court,
just like the one they were going to try for speeding.
Mr. Rattner: Well, it’s being used, and it’s
actually permanent in about16 - 18 states–and it’s
sponsored by the EPA. The problem that I saw was that they
were talking about three in New Jersey. One was going to
be on Route 206 in Flanders, and one was going to be on
Route 46 in Budd Lake.
Mr. Spino: There’s only three in New Jersey?
Mr. Rattner: I kept the article, we can find out who’s
coming up with it. It’s just disturbing me. If your
car is polluting, you just get a ticket, you don’t
even get told you have a problem.
President Sohl: You have the article at home?
Mr. Rattner: Yes. It was in the paper. For me, it was
just unbelievable. Hopefully it was just a typo.
President Sohl: Big Brother is watching.
Mr. Rattner: Either that or somebody doesn’t like
President Sohl: Any one else? I will just add–and
maybe this is apropos–I was on vacation–I saw
up in Canada, in Ontario Province, at least in this particular
town, when a Developer is going to develop a particular
piece of property, they put up a sign noticing that fact.
It gives the detail–“A Public Meeting will
be held on...” But, I think this might be something
worth discussing relative to putting on–not necessarily
if someone has a single lot and they’re going to
put up a single-family dwelling, but for anything where
there’s a Public Hearing involved, I don’t
see any burden to the developer, short of notification,
probably a $50 sign. It may get people involved. I’ll
pass this on, we can suggest this to the Attorney, the
Planner, etc. That’s all I have. I’ll entertain
a Motion to Adjourn the Public Meeting and we’ll
go directly into our Workshop Meeting.
Motion made for adjournment. All in Favor, None Opposed.
The Meeting was adjourned at 10:25pm
William H. Sohl
I, LISA M. LASHWAY, Township Clerk of the Township of
Mount Olive do hereby certify that the foregoing Minutes
is a true and correct copy of the Minutes approved at a
legally convened meeting of the Mount Olive Township Council
duly held on September 12, 2000.
LISA M. LASHWAY
Mount Olive Township Clerk