Mt. Olive Township Council Minutes
August 8, 2000

Council Minutes 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 Sohl

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 local communities;

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.

COUNCIL REPORTS:

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 the case.

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: Mr. Sohl)

Feb. 1, 2000 PM (Present: Mr. Heymann, Mr. Guenther, Mr. Scapicchio, Mr. Spino, Mr. Rattner, Mr. Sohl; Absent: Mrs. Kelly)

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

CORRESPONDENCE

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.

School Correspondence

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 Professionals.

3. Legislative Bulletin received July 28, 2000, from New Jersey State League of Municipalities, 2000 - 2001 Legislative Session.

State/County Agencies

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 program.

DOT/DEP/Permits/LOIs

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, 1999.

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 (Starr Street).

Correspondence from Organizations/Committees/Boards

Correspondence Regarding Tort Claims/Verified Notice of Lien Claim/Petitions

Land Use/Development Matters

COAH

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 Bill 2086.

Notices

President Sohl stated that we had received 21 items of correspondence and asked Council if there were any comments on same.

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 not respond.

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, Sandy.

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 of you.

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 done–

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 that?

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 voted NO

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 done.

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 currently making–

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 tomorrow.

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 values?

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 exists.

Mr. Jones: Why doesn’t it?

President Sohl: Because it’s speculative at best. It’s opinion.

Mr. Jones: Then you hire an outside firm, like a real estate agency–

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 very much.

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 proposals.

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 up later.

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 uses.

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 parking.

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 Ordinance.

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 that answer.

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 owner–

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 on.

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 there.

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 use.

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 sword.

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. Correct?

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. Correct?

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 affected–

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 us.

Mr. Dorsey: I understand that, it could come back in a different form.

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 issue?

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 here?

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 agrees

President Sohl: Why don’t we run this through the Administration.

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 from there.

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 reviewing this.

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 School Board.

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 Area.”

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 years.

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 relatively recently.

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 to vote.

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 Reading.

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 Reading.

ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING (September 12, 2000 Public Hearing Date)

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 II.

9. Resolution to Award a Contract for the Paving of Various Streets Under the Morris County Cooperative Purchasing program.

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 Flanders Crossing)

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 Truck.

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

MOTIONS

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, Bernie.

Mr. Guenther: Some of those people with those Resumes–we ask for volunteers. It always seems to be the same people getting appointed–

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 seat.

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 the list.

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 talked about.

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 Council #6100.

Mr. Scapicchio moved for approval of the Motion and Mr. Rattner seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously

COUNCIL REPORTS: NONE

PUBLIC PORTION

President Sohl: I now open the meeting to the Public. Is there anyone who would like to address the Council on any matter?

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 you.

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.

COUNCIL COMMENTS

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 us.

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

Council President

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

mee


 



 

 

2012 Mount Olive Township. All rights reserved.