Township Council Minutes
November 26, 2002
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MOMENT OF REFLECTION in recognition of the men and women
fighting terrorism and defending the freedom we all enjoy
OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT ANNOUNCEMENT
According to the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice
of this meeting has been given to the Mt. Olive Chronicle
and the Daily Record. Notice has been posted at the Municipal
Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road Mount Olive Township,
New Jersey and notices were sent to those requesting the
ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Guenther, Mr. Greenbaum, Mr. Perkins,
Mr. Scapicchio, Mr. Spino
Absent: Mrs. Miller
Also in attendance: Cynthia Spencer, Business Administrator;
John Dorsey, Township Attorney; Sherry Jenkins, CFO; Nicole
Whittle, Deputy Township Clerk
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
President Scapicchio: That brings us to the first public
comment period of this meeting, anyone from the public wish
to address the Council?
Ned McDonald: Just one quick point on Ord. # 52-2002. I
think there may be an error in the wording in the sentence
where it says a stop sign is hereby authorized to be installed
on the near right side of each street intersecting the stop
street. Wouldn't the stop sign go on the near right side
on the stop street?
Mr. Dorsey: I took that out of the NJDOT manual. When I
drew it and sent it up to the Administrator, I thought she
turned it over to the Chief of Police. That may be so, but
I think we should as quickly as possible have this reviewed
by the Chief to see. You may be right, may have picked up
the incorrect wording but we will check that okay? Thank
President Scapicchio: Thank you. Anyone else from the Public?
Bob Elms, 72 Smithtown Road: I realize you are going to
ago into a discussion of the Linwood Ave. Ordinance on December
10, 2002, but I have a suggestion in the way of a couple
of maps that I would like to present to the Council tonight
for their consideration before you get to that. It will
only take a minute. If you look at the existing drawing
which is the top drawing we actually went out and measured
that whole street end where the parking lots are. The real
problem is exiting three different locations on to Linwood
Ave. If you turn to proposal No. 1. What we are proposing
here is to not have an exit on Linwood Ave, instead put
a Jersey barrier down Linwood Ave. that obviously the kids
can't climb over. If you want to repave parking on that
one street, that is one thing. On the existing one they
have put a cut into the curb to put diagonal parking on
Linwood Ave. which causes those cars to stick out and make
the street Linwood Ave. less then 30 feet wide which inhibits
two way traffic on that street. So what we were proposing
was to cut off any of those exits and to put that other
section of 30 - 40 feet wide so that the exit would all
go out onto Cloverhill Drive.
President Scapicchio: Bob, what are these arrows at the
bottom of the parking?
Mr. Elms: There is something in that parking lot that has
yellow arrows right about where those are shown. I don't
know whether they use them for buses or what they put in
there but we were trying to replicate what was actually
President Scapicchio: So that is not the flow of the parking
lot that you are proposing?
Mr. Elms: Well instead of white parking lines they are
yellow parking lines and they are not big enough for buses,
so they may be parking something like the small vans there.
President Scapicchio: Are these the existing number of
Mr. Elms: Yes. There are 45 parking spaces in there. The
other side of the school has another whole parking lot.
Since this is an elementary school I don't think we are
dealing with student parking here. However we are dealing
with student safety. What has been happening is the students
are running out into the street on Linwood Mr. Elms (cont'd):
Ave. where mommy/daddy comes down the street with the car
to pick up the students and they have these three exits
coming out of these parking areas from the school and it
is a dangerous situation I think everybody realizes. So
we thought the best answer would be to prevent the students
from getting onto Linwood Ave. and having the parents come
into the parking lot to pick up their students after the
day is over. The gentleman who helped me with this was concerned
about the number of parking spaces whether or not there
was enough there, if you block off parking on Linwood on
that side of the street and he thought maybe we should add
parking spaces in that other area and all the way down against
the Jersey barrier.
President Scapicchio: Is that your proposal No. 2.
Mr. Elms: That is.
Mr. Rattner: I know the second proposal has a greatly expanded
number of spots. It probably almost triples it. But I don't
know if the problem really is actual parking. It is the
stacking of people waiting for the kids. It's the line waiting.
I don't know if that is enough traffic flow to go in and
out. I mean it is an interesting concept and obviously if
the School Board could do something it would make a lot
more sense. I also think that you talk about a jersey barrier,
which I don't know if that is really needed. I am sure if
you put a picket fence that would serve the same purpose.
Just a fence, I think it would look better in a residential
zone and we don't need a concrete barrier like that there,
but I understand what you are doing to just keep people
Mr. Elms: If it is not a substantial fence Steve, they
will drive over it, you know that.
Mr. Rattner: A four foot picket fence, I just think it
will look better.
Mr. Greenbaum: You are not blocking access to Linwood Drive
through your proposal?
Mr. Elms: No.
Mr. Greenbaum: So there is nothing to stop the parents
from still utilizing Linwood Drive although your proposals
have this wall high enough so that the kids can't get over
it. That is your Proposal?
Mr. Elms: That is correct.
Greenbaum: Would Linwood Drive still be wide enough with
the Jersey barrier to access to both way lanes of travel?
Mr. Elms: Yes. Well, Linwood Ave. right now is only 30
Greenbaum: Right, so your Jersey barrier would not diminish
the width of the roadway/?
Mr. Elms: No. It wouldn't change the width of the roadway.
Greenbaum: All it would do is block off the access for
vehicles to Linwood Ave. all access would have to be off
of Clover Hill Drive?
Mr. Elms: Where the crossing guard is I might add. That
is the only place as far as I understand that they have
a crossing guard.
Mr. Spino: Am I wrong or are the biggest complaints because
of the people going through this diagonal parking area and
out on to Linwood Ave?
Mr. Spino: That's what I am saying. The biggest complaint
from my understanding is that people go through there, pick
up their kids and come out on Linwood. So I agree, if you
close that off, you eliminate that problem. I said that
a while ago, I agree and I am not taking any credit. I said
when that lady was here complaining about it and gave us
some suggestions, I thought that's what we could do, close
it off and just make it a continuous road from one parking
area to the other. So the people can't go out onto Linwood.
They have to turn around and go back out onto Cloverhill.
Mr. Elms: That parking area extends into Linwood Ave.
Mr. Spino: In your option two, you eliminate that.
Mr. Elms: We eliminated it in option one too.
Mr. Spino: I think the problem is going to be, trying to
get the School Board to do it. Maybe somebody else will
have better results; I don't think we have had much results
Mr. Bonte: You might want to turn this over to the Police
Department and see what their comments are.
President Scapicchio: That was going to be my suggestion.
Mr. Guenther: In the middle section Bob, on the existing
down below the side walk area, there is an area. You marked
the line down here, 187 and a half. This area in here, what
Mr. Elms: It's grass.
Mr. Guenther: It's just grass.
Mr. Elms: The sidewalk is ten feet wide. The parking area
juts out into Linwood Ave. to make it 15 feet or 19 feet
long for vehicles to park there.
Mrs. Spencer: We did a little bit more research because
the complaints that we received were from the residents
on Linwood that were having their vehicles hit from the
people parking on Linwood on those angled spaces. The School
Board put those angled spaces in without any permits or
without any approvals to put them in which is part of the
problem. It definitely makes that roadway narrower than
what DOT would certainly approve a two way street today.
Mr. Elms: So we could take them out the same way without
President Scapicchio: What you are saying is the School
Board has created illegal parking on a street.
Mr. Guenther: Oh yes. Scott Van Ness said that. There's
nothing to permit them to do the diagonal parking.
President Scapicchio: Cindy, why don't we turn the two
proposals over to the Police Department and see if they
have any concerns or comments. Then maybe the next step
is to turn it over to our DPW Dept. let them review it and
whatever comments or concerns they have maybe at that point
we could pass it onto the School Administration? You'll
make sure that works through the process?
Mrs. Spencer: Yes.
President Scapicchio: Thank you. Cindy, Lisa tells me that
on December 10, 2002 we are going to have this Ordinance
for a Public Hearing. Can you see if it is possible if we
can get some answers back prior to that meeting?
Mrs. Spencer: Absolutely, I'll make sure people are working
on it as early as tomorrow.
Mr. Rattner: Mr. President, on that, I think we should
still have the Public Meeting on the 10th. We don't have
to take a vote on it that night, we can just continue it.
We can say we want to consider what the people have said,
this has come up and really do it right. We said we wanted
to hear their comments. I think by just extending the Public
Hearing for a couple weeks we don't really lose anything
and we may get more accomplished and a better agreement.
President Scapicchio: Okay Steve.
Mr. Dorsey: Mr. President, I see Mr. Chung out here and
I want to bring everybody up to date where we are. For a
year and a half, we had a running battle with his liquor
license under which he did business. We denied it in 2001,
we denied it in 2002. Each time he filed with ABC and they
issued a Stay as to the suspension of his license. The Township
Council's position was that this was essentially an issue
to satisfy Chief Katona who of course has the obligation
through his department of enforcing the liquor law rules
and regulations as well as specific conditions that were
placed on the renewal of his license after the 2001 appeal.
In July of this year the Township entered into a Stipulation
of Settlement with Mr. Chung, Rocklim Inc. Trading as Limericks
and it provided as follows: at that point in time he was
applying for all necessary building permits to transfer
Limericks, and I am not personally familiar with Limericks,
into a Japanese Restaurant. At the time the matter arose
that he had made the necessary building applications etc.
and it was a proposition that Chief Katona very much liked
because, the stipulation provides that he is in the process
and will obtain a conversion. Secondly it provides that
upon the reopening as a Japanese restaurant, the two activities
in Limericks that had caused the problem, namely dancing
or adult entertainment of any nature would no longer be
authorized. On that basis the stipulation was approved and
it was signed by me with the understanding that once the
conversion was complete, i.e. the renovations of Limericks
to the Japanese Restaurant, his license would then be automatically
reinstated. He advises us, but of course this would have
to be confirmed by the Construction Department issuing a
CO, he advised us that he is a day away or hours away from
obtaining the CO. When he obtains the Mr. Dorsey (cont'd):
CO in accordance with the stipulation of settlement there
is nothing more to be said. The license then is reinstated.
It is of course reinstated in accordance with the specific
condition that there will no longer be dancing and there
will not longer be adult entertainment of any nature and
of course all of the rules and regulations dealing with
liquor licenses will be in full force and affect. So it
is nothing that you have to act upon. I will give Lisa a
letter because she loves me to write to her, a letter tomorrow
instructing her that the license simply becomes reactivated
once the CO is issued. Now that's it. I don't think there
is anything more to be said because it was resolved by the
way of the Stipulation of Settlement sometime ago.
Mr. Rattner: John, when we voted for all the renewals of
the liquor licenses last July we didn't renew this one did
Mr. Dorsey: You are absolutely right. Then there was an
Order to Show Cause issued by ABC that was going to stay
our action and that is when the Chief and I then reached
the Stipulation Settlement.
Mr. Rattner: But don't we have to vote? Even on a normal
renewal we would have to vote.
Mr. Dorsey: If you wish to vote you can. The Stipulation
of Settlement carries the day, and his re-issuance of the
license is automatic based upon that. Okay, you can go home,
just get the CO.
President Scapicchio: Anyone else from the public wish
to address the Council?
TURKEY BROOK PARK PROJECT STATUS
Mrs. Spencer: We had our last meeting before Conte will
be pulling off the site, closing up for the winter. The
irrigation system testing and any incidental repairs will
be done this week. The preliminary testing was very positive
and they believe that they will finish it tomorrow and we'll
blow out the system and winterize it. The fencing contractor
is on site and should also be finished by Thanksgiving.
He is completing all the fences and installing locks on
the gate and he will be replacing the fences around the
barn and the Seward Mansion before he leaves. There are
two final electrical power needs for the wells and that
is being coordinated with GPU to make sure that we have
the three face power that we need. The pond before it is
actually drained, they are studying it to make sure that
there is no leakage in the clay lining and that sort of
thing but over the winter it will be drained so that they
can remove the silt and ensure that it is ready for operation
in the spring. Conte was going to ask Pryslack, the sod
farmers to come up and just roll the existing sod that has
been put down so that the edges will knit properly over
Mr. Rattner: So that's different from a report a month
ago you said they would be rolling it in the Spring.
Mrs. Spencer: Right, and we brought that up at our meeting
and it was agreed that it needed to be done at this time.
President Scapicchio: Cindy, how much work, percentage
wise, still needs to be completed and where are we in terms
of our payments to Conte? How much do we have left?
Mrs. Spencer: I believe that the project is 89% completed
and they had put in request for payments up to that point
and we retained the two percent that we need to retain.
President Scapicchio: How much is that in dollars?
Mrs. Spencer: I don't know off hand. I know that we still
have a little bit over $500,000 to go.
President Scapicchio: In a conversation that you and I
had, you raised the issue of phone calls that you received
from several of Kyle Conte's vendors and contractors with
regards to them not receiving payment. Has anything further
transpired in relation to that?
Mrs. Spencer: Not to my knowledge.
President Scapicchio: John, do we have the ability to hold
additional payments above and beyond the two percent retain
age or should we require general contractors to supply us
with certificates of payment to all vendors and suppliers
that have worked on major projects?
Mr. Dorsey: Let me say this, if any of these suppliers
who have called and I have not heard from any of them nor
do I know exactly what they said. If any of them should
file a Municipal Mechanics Lien Claim then life becomes
very simple because at that point you have to withdraw from
Conte's monies that are due him,
Mr. Dorsey (cont'd): whatever the amount of the Municipal
Lien Claim is and you simply put it aside, what is standard
practice at the conclusion of the job which would be at
this point in time is to demand of Conte that he provide
you with a specific affidavit of names of at least all of
the primary subcontractors and the affidavit must certify
that all of these subcontractors and suppliers have been
paid in full. Until you get that kind of affidavit, you
simply don't release any further monies to them, because
it is his obligation to leave the job clean. As far as I
know, Lisa would be the one who would know definitively
Municipal Mechanics Liens have been filed.
President Scapicchio: What happens if a lien has been filed
after we've paid and we don't have sufficient funds?
Mr. Dorsey: Municipal Mechanics Lien Claim can only be
effective as an instrument of collection of monies if it
is filed before Conte is paid in full. If he is paid in
full then the contractor has simply waived his rights to
what he would be protected under if he were to file a Municipal
Mechanics Lien Claim. There is a lot of give and take in
this business. When we had it more recently in connection
with a contractor that did work on one of our roads up here,
Valley Contracting or something. The sub and the general
really locked horns and then the sub filed a Municipal Mechanics
Lien Claim. Many times the general will threaten the sub,
if he files the Mechanics Lien Claim he will not get paid
because it's theory anyway, it's a black mark against the
contractor. Now the contractor can get away with it without
paying the Municipal Mechanics Lien Claim, but he is required
to post a payment bond in double the amount that is claimed
and that is what was done by AIG Baker in connection with
lien claims that were filed by Voller's and now they are
into a $2 -$3 million law suit in Federal District Court.
Generally the Township doesn't reach out to become a collection
agent for these subcontractors. They know what thier rights
are, we don't know unless we are told specifically why they
haven't filed. They know they have the right to file. Lots
of times they work it out and then they don't want to go
back on their word and sit there I suppose rather nervous
and on the edge of their seats as to whether or not they
will get paid. The Township is clearly within the terms
of it's contract has the right to demand from Conte an affidavit
saying that all subs and significant suppliers of materials
had been paid in full before he is paid in full. He would
be required to name the principal subs and the suppliers.
President Scapicchio: Cindy, can we get that kind of a
Mrs. Spencer: Yes.
President Scapicchio: Jim, I know you have taken a lead
roll in watching what is going on up there. Do you believe
about 89% of that work is complete? I have taken a ride
through there several times. The last time was with Rob
and Bernie and although what is done looks real good, it
sort of looks like to us that there was a lot left to do.
I don't think any one of us can put it in terms of a percentage
or quantified. But it did look like there were a lot of
little miscellaneous items that needed to be done.
Mr. Lynch: It's just my professional opinion, I expressed
to the Council very early on in my position; great volume
of the work in this park is underground. It is irrigation,
it is drainage, it is a lot of other infrastructure. Unfortunately
at Turkey Brook, right now what is missing is the most tangible
and visually pleasing part of it, the sod. I agree with
Cindy's estimation 89% of the project is probably complete.
Yes there are things that you look at that seem disjointed
probably in terms of the sequential operation. I can't say,
in my professional opinion, that it is less anything less
Mr. Dorsey: Let me make this simple, I understand everybody
going forward has talked in terms in the percentage of completion
and then said if 89% is completed and his contract was for
$10 million he would be entitled to $8.9 million at this
point, right? That's the way you do it going forward. Now
we're at the end of the job, and the end of the job I would
suggest that it is more conservative and more appropriate
to say there's a million dollars worth of work that has
not been done and that comes off the top with some calculation
as to what it would cost you to do the incomplete work assuming
he was not to finish. That's the way I would do it.
President Scapicchio: That's a good idea. Cindy, can we
Mr. Dorsey: Buczynski can calculate it.
Mrs. Spencer: I actually asked Gene a question very similar
to that and he believes that at this point we are not at
risk and that the funds that we are still holding are sufficient
to guarantee that we can complete this project.
Mr. Dorsey: Let him certify that.
President Scapicchio: Good idea John. Steve?
Mr. Rattner: One comment, I don't have any problem with
the 89% understanding what went under there. The one thing
I do have and this is just to make an easier winter for
all of us, is that we still have certain areas Mr. Rattner
(cont'd): that really aren't stabilized because there isn't
sod, a little bit of grass, and every time we get a little
bit of heavy rain, I am talking 2 -3 inches like we did
a week ago. There is a certain amount of run off, there
is a certain amount of dirty looking water that goes into
the lake. Is there anything they can do because we are probably
going to have a couple storms. We could have a northeaster
or something like that. I know the last storm I went down
there because I get the call to go down, I look at the dirty
water, and try to evaluate what happened. I did go back
up last weekend, it's actually a week and a half now to
the retention basin, it was full so it was doing what it
was supposed to. All the water was running in. Some of the
silt was settling but then through the over flow it was
going down the brook into the lake. Now to say what was
there, I did talk to Gene and he said it was basically just
dirty water, there was not a lot of silt in it. I have no
reason not to believe that it is just that it looked bad
because the brown water went up north past Mt. Olive Road
because the wind was blowing so it wasn't dissipating. Since
we know this is an unstablized area, even if they clean
out the retention basin if they don't it is going to fill
up with mud by the time we come back into Spring anyway.
Mr. Dorsey: You see you don't want the Township to get
double jeopardy here. Double jeopardy in this instance I
think would be Number one, the contractor either didn't
proceed quickly enough or he was delayed for whatever reason
so that he didn't finish as much as it was originally anticipated
that he could have finished and then because he didn't do
that it leaves items open that obviously are vulnerable
to disagreeable things happening as a result of severe weather
conditions. So you know that fact that you didn't finish
the whole thing two months ago is not the Township's fault,
but the Township must protect itself against the fact that
now there are intervening things that will occur that can
make the situation worse.
President Scapicchio: How do we protect ourselves?
Mr. Dorsey: You protect yourself by having Gene estimate
as to what it will cost the Township if it must go back
it and complete the work. Not Conte, the Township to complete
the work and make some allowance for the fact that severe
weather conditions, I assume, can have an adverse effect
on what has yet to be done and that is up to Buczynski.
He is the only one that I know because you and I could go
out and do it but I think will leave it to Buczynski.
President Scapicchio: Cindy, is Kyle Conte requesting or
will they be requesting any additional funds prior to getting
back on site?
Mrs. Spencer: I don't really know the answer to that, there
may be one additional small request for funds because we
are still in the process of hammering out the remaining
change orders a couple of weeks ago that are all part and
parcel of the $50,000 allowance within the contract
President Scapicchio: So I guess we to get some of these
questions answered prior to giving them any more money.
Mr. Rattner: What I was asking was about stabilizing the
soil. We spent $2.5 million taking about 11,000 yards of
silt, if we are getting a lot of it back in and it does
accumulate quickly how are we going to remediate that? We
know things can happen. On the AIG Baker site if you remember
they got nailed by the DEP and had to restore about 10 or
11 miles of the Musconectong River from the silt that flowed
off because of an unexpected storm. Since we have seen the
mud going into the Lake, we had I believe in June and another
one in September and then the one two weeks ago. We had
about 2.5 inches of rain. There are things that are going
to happen and I just want to look at it proactively, what
can they do. If they are leaving it a certain way they should
leave it in a way that is not going to harm the Lake, because
if it does go into the Lake, it is a violation in itself
under DEP rules. You know all that is going to happen is
we will get a heavy rain this weekend and we are all going
to get calls about mud going into the Lake again, and then
it is too late. We know what is going to happen if it is
not properly stabilized.
President Scapicchio: What is you recommendation Steve?
Mr. Rattner: I just want to put Conte in our notes that
they have to be there and also get a phone number if we
start seeing that if there is a heavy rain that it's not
Mark and Jim that have to be there all night trying to put
their finger in the dike to hold the water back like they
did last June. You know that it is Conte that comes up and
does whatever they have to do to stop the mud from going
into the Lake.
Mrs. Spencer: We have required just recently that they
give us emergency phone numbers for just that propose. The
dirty water is one thing, but you don't know and it does
look bad. It probably looks worse than it is. I just wanted
to make sure that they know that they are going to be up
there next Spring.
President Scapicchio: Anything else on Turkey Brook?
Mr. Dorsey: Number one, we owe Councilman Perkins a vote
of thanks in connection with the Morris Hunt Developers
Agreement. As you know at the last meeting, he picked out
item three on page three and questioned why it provided
for the developer to retain the water system once constructed.
So you know, when I draw these things I send them to McGroarty
and the form that you got was approved by both of them.
I have now decided and Buczynski agrees the developer's
agreement should not say that. The developer's agreement
I believe should say what we have typically said is the
Municipality retains any new water system in terms of any
individual package septic systems, we allow the developer
to keep that and grant them a franchise towards its subsequent
operation of the public utility. The Planning Board didn't
really resolve the matter. The Planning Board adopted a
resolution, Mr. Spino I will let you defend the Planning
Board if you think it is appropriate. But they essentially
left the matter open and simply mentioned that Mr. Fuller
was discussing the issue with New Jersey American Water
Company but the resolution does not say for what purpose.
Apparently this water system developed in Morris Hunt is
physically connected to the water system developed in Durham
Woods which I think is Morris Chase. That system is to be
turned over to the Township. I think there may be a battle
with the developer over this point. I advised this Council
as to the position of the Township, today he wants a meeting,
I said fine we will have a meeting and Mr. Perkins will
be there to represent the interests of the Township. In
connection with our other ongoing litigation with Fire Tower.
I am convinced Mr. Paragano and Fire Tower think that they
could simply litigate the Township into submission. We have
the appeal going on as a result of our win in terms of the
original case before Judge Stanton and we then have the
second piece of litigation involving whether or not the
requirement of the qualifying map in connection with our
request for development is a reasonable requirement of the
ordinance. Fire Tower was to file their appellate brief
by November 14, 2002 and they did something quite unusual.
They filed a motion entitled to Settle and Supplement the
Trial Record which means they now want to get things into
the record that were never part of the trail. What they
seek to get into the record is evidence of a secret clandestine
devious plot by Councilman Spino who was then a member of
the Planning Board and whose name always pops up in these
litigations as inappropriately seeking to deny developers
their right to proceed on this basis. Interesting of coarse
that Fire Tower claims they never knew any of this was every
going on, but I was fortunate enough to get Phil Garber
to get me a copy of the article in which the Township reporting
the situation going back to the year 2000 when the Township
Council adopted a resolution asking the State to pursue
the acquisition of the site and the arguing goes that they
did not know this in time, they tried the case and what
it shows is that Spino was manipulating the Council and
in turn telling the members of the Planning Board that under
no circumstances should they vote for this development and
if they deny they could reduce the value of the property
for acquisition costs. Of course I have attempted to defend
Councilman Spino's integrity; we'll have to see where that
goes. In any event they filed a Motion to Settle and Supplement.
We then filed a Brief in opposition to that. They then filed
their Appellate Brief. Then we thought we would do the one
better, we would file the Motion to strike their Appellate
Brief because it included material they weren't supposed
to include mainly the material they sought to get the court
approval to include in the record when it clearly should
not have been part of the record. You can never be sure
what is going to happen, I don't really think it makes much
difference even if their record is supplemented because
as we understand the law, if there is a legitimate purpose
for a municipal action as well as perhaps not a proper motivation,
it is enough if you can show that there was a legitimate
purpose. In this
Instance the legitimate purpose was not to decrease the
value of their property for acquisition case, acquisition
costs as we know, where it is alleged Councilman Spino is
doing, it was to uphold the integrity of the Township's
Land Use Ordinances at all points. I want to tell you something,
they aren't litigating interesting points anymore. They
are just trying to swamp the Township with paper and with
costs. So we simply have to reduce our fees and continue
the battle to the end of the earth. I'll tell you, it is
amazing how they always pick it up at the end of the case.
With Mount Olive Complex, the last day of a 14 day trial,
they leap forward with a copy of the Netcong Newsleader
and there's Spino on the front page urging 10 acre lots.
Okay, that's where we are.
Mr. Greenbaum: John, I have a question for you in light
of the fact that Mr. Paragano comes back before the Planning
Board on December 5th and December the 19th with three concept
plans which I assume relate to that piece of property which
is now in litigation with the Township is a concept plan,
he is looking for direction from the Planning Board. First,
does the Planning Board have to entertain concept plans?
Second, does the Planning Board have to entertain concept
plans where we are in litigation over that particular piece
of property? Number three, if we were to entertain the concept
plans could anything which is said at the Planning Board
level then be used either on remand or to supplement the
record, and what pitfalls are we now going to encounter
by going forward with these concept plans on the Crown Tower
Mr. Dorsey: I do believe they have the right to come back
and submit whatever they want to submit providing what they
submit has some relationship to the way the Planning Board
operates. They are not barred from doing that because there
is ongoing litigation. Of course we do point out in our
Briefs that now the Planning Board is under a much stricter
and discipline rule by Councilman Greenbaum and we know
he is not trying to manipulate to acquire the property cheap
as Spino was. But we also point out what's the point in
this litigation because he is back before the Planning Board
anyway. Number two, there is one thing that I should greatly
appreciate, your leadership with the Planning Board is that
this time they take the application shall we say very seriously
from the very outset and don't say anything or do anything
that appears that they are clearly in favor of whatever
it is that Paragano puts on the table and they should adopt
or you should tell. The Planning Board should adopt that
the line of march here, whatever you want us to submit,
and if there is a process for it under your Planning Board
Rules, that is fine. This should be the line of march; if
he is going to apply for preliminary approval which we assume
he will, number one they should require him to obtain his
LOI which I assume is still valid because he got one from
the last one. Number two, if any of the lots are going to
be affected, or must have their transition area buffers
averaged or adjusted, he should be required to have that
buffer averaging plan approved by the DEP before you can
consider the preliminary plat. Not until that is done can
the applicant and the Planning Board then define the building
envelopes on each lot, and not until after that is done
can it then be decided as to where satisfactory perculation
tests must be taken. The perculation tests cannot be taken
in the wetlands they cannot be taken in the buffer areas
and they have to be at least 100 feet from a house with
a basin. He should be required to have a satisfactory building
envelope and a satisfactory perculation test on each and
Mr. Greenbaum: I would appreciate if you could have a very
brief conversation with Ed Buzak concerning what we just
Mr. Dorsey: I will write the two of you a letter saying
this is my suggestion based upon what's occurred thus far
in this litigation.
Mr. Greenbaum: Thank you.
Mr. Rattner: On the subject from the Administration, if
by the end of the year we could get a total cost of how
much this suit has cost us. I think it is very valuable
so the public understands when they see parts of our budget.
You just heard our Attorney say that one of the strategies
of the developer is to try to spend us into submission.
There are certain times and certain projects and certain
things to protect the Town that we just can't do. But it
also is very expensive. I think that is important, especially
as we go into the Budget process, that we could give examples
Mr. Dorsey: I could give you the answer to this right now
because I committed myself to the CFO. The answer is the
litigation from day one, and it started about December 15,
Mr. Rattner: This includes all the other professional fees
Mr. Dorsey: Oh, that I don't know.
Mr. Rattner: The total cost because we had to hire a lot
Mr. Dorsey: Yes, okay. Well I could tell you that our number
for the Trial, the Briefs there and the Appellate Briefs
and all of these things now is going to be about $42,000.
That's just legal.
Mr. Rattner: But that is only one piece of it. We have
to look at the total amount. I think it is important when
the public says why are we going to fight something that
it is not going to be cheap if you are going to do it right
and you are going to go to win. We have been successful,
what you see with our court system there are still ways
you can keep going and we know that is the strategy.
Mr. Dorsey: Of course I also think we should make a assessment
against intervener Bonte because we arrange for him to intervene
in this case and he has had the pleasure of arguing before
the assignment Judge at Superior Court and he has not filed
any Briefs in the Appellate Division yet.
Mr. Bonte: It's not until December 12th.
Mr. Dorsey: You didn't file a brief to stop them from supplementing
and accusing poor Councilman Spino of this nefarious plot.
Com on you are not smiling.
President Scapicchio: Okay, thanks John.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
September 24, 2002 Present: Mr. Guenther, Mr. Greenbaum,
Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rattner, Mr. Scapicchio, Mr. Spino
October 29, 2002 Present: Mr. Rattner, Mr. Greenbaum (6:35),
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Miller, Mr. Guenther (6:35), President
Absent Mr. Spino
November 12, 2002 C Present: Mr. Guenther, President Scapicchio,
Mr. Rattner, Mr. Greenbaum, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Spino, Mrs.
Mr. Rattner moved the approval of the minutes; Mr. Perkins
seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously with the Exception of Mr.
Spino; abstained on October 29, 2002.
Resolutions, Ordinances, Correspondence from Other Municipalities
1. Resolution received November 19, 2002, from the Town
of Morristown regarding Resolution Amending the Budget Cap
2. Resolution received November 20, 2002 from the Borough
of Netcong to Annex Land in the Town of Roxbury.
3. Resolution received November 20, 2002 from the Township
of Chester to Amend Chapter 113, "land Use", Article
53, "Regulation of Signs"
4. Resolution received November 20, 2002 from the Township
of Chester Amend Chapter 113, "land Use", Article
35 "Supplementary Regulations".
5. Resolution received November 20, 2002 from the Township
of Hanover Endorsing the Passage of Senate, No.1586, Hotel
6. Resolution received November 21, 2002 from Washington
Township to Amend Chapter 111 Land Use Procedures, of the
Code of the Township with Respect to Fees.
7. Resolution received November 21, 2002 from the Township
if Washington to Amend Chapter 217, Zoning of the Code of
the Township to Amend C-1 Zone District Standards.
8. Resolution Received November 21, 2002 from Allamuchy
Township Amending the Land Development Ordinance to prohibit
Certain Uses throughout the Township of Allamuchy.
DOT / DEP / LOI's
9. Letter received November 19, 2002, from the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection regarding the Mount
Olive Township Library (18,313 of library) Block 7900, Lot
10. Letter received November 19, 2002, from NJ Transit
regarding 2003 FTA Section 5310 Grant Notification.
11. Letter received November 19, 2002, from James P. Fox
regarding the Trust Fund Awarding $86,000.00 to the Municipal
Aid Program for Ironia Road.
League of Municipalities
12. Legislative Viewpoint received November 12, 2002, from
New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Hotel
Levy Bills Approved by Assembly, Health Benefits, and Opposing
A-2699/S-1734, Regarding Nonconforming Uses.
13. E-mail received November 13, 2002, from the New Jersey
State League of Municipalities regarding Oppose A-2699,
Regarding Nonconforming Uses.
14. Minutes received November 19, 2002, from the Musconetcong
Sewerage Authority regarding the October 9th meeting.
15. E-mail received November 14, 2002, from Congressman
Frelinghuysen regarding a Newsletter on Homeland Security,
Cyber Security, and Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
President Scapicchio stated we have 15 pieces of correspondence
on the agenda and asked if Council had any comments on same.
Mr. Rattner: Just a comment on number two, the letter we
got from Netcong, that it appears they are still on their
quest to become what I call respectable and become a square
mile that you see they are annexing some land in Roxbury.
We annexed some land twice from Mt. Olive which got them
up to I guess about 480 acres which for comparison is our
Greenway Park which is Turkey Brook and the B & H property
is larger than the entire municipality of Netcong. It has
been a running joke that I have had with the Public
Officials that someday they are going to be respectful and
that is when they hit one square mile.
Mr. Spino: I think we can annex some of their property
because it is closer to Mount Olive because of Route 80
than it is to Netcong.
President Scapicchio Thank you.
ORDINANCES FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Ord. #42-2002 Bond Ordinance Amending Bond Ordinance Numbered
36-2000 of the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of
Morris, New Jersey Finally Adopted October 10, 2000 Providing
for Various Park Improvements to Turkey Brook Park in Order
to Amend Such Bond Ordinance in its Entirety. (maintenance
President Scapicchio opened the Public Hearing on Ord.
President Scapicchio closed the Public Hearing on Ord.
Mr. Greenbaum moved for adoption and final passage of Ord.
#42-2002; Mr. Guenther seconded the motion.
President Scapicchio: Council Discussion? Seeing none.
ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously.
President Scapicchio declared Ord. #42-2002 passed on second
reading and hereby directed the Clerk to forward a copy
of same to the Mayor and to publish the notice of adoption
as required by law.
ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING - (Public Hearing December
Ord. #52-2002 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive
Authorizing Certain Stop Intersections.
Mr. Perkins moved that Ord. #52-2002 be introduced by title
and passed on first reading and that a meeting be held on
December 17, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. at the Municipal Building
204 Flanders-Drakestown Road Mt. Olive, NJ for consideration
of second reading and passage of set ordinance and that
the Clerk be directed to Publish, post and make available
set ordinance in according to the requirements of the law.
Mr. Guenther seconded that motion.
President Scapicchio: Council Discussion?
Mr. Perkins: I would just recommend that it was brought
up that the last sentence where it talks about the near
right side street of each street intersection stop street;
that this be verified with the Chief first.
Mrs. Lashway: I will.
Mr. Guenther: Lisa did you say there was an amended Ordinance
with the addition of the Carson & Sunset? I didn't see
Mrs. Lashway: Right in front of you, on the top I had revised
with today's date, then I hand wrote in Carson and Sunset.
Mr. Guenther: Okay, I just did not see it.
Mrs. Lashway: The copy that is out for the public and that's
posted has the amendment in it.
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
that 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 the Change Order from Absolute Fire
Protection for the Brush Truck/Mini Attack Pumper for Flanders
2. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of
Mount Olive Authorizing the Issuance of $88,760.00 Bonds
by the Governing Body of the Township of Mount Olive in
the County of Morris, State of New Jersey in Order to Receive
a Loan from the New Jersey Economic Development Authority
Through the Petroleum UST Remediation, Upgrade and Closure
Fund, Public Loan Program and Determining the Form of Such
Bonds and Other Details in Connection Therewith. (UST Remediation
3. Resolution to Amend the Capital Budget. (UST Remediation
4. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of
Mount Olive Authorizing the Execution of a Developer's Agreement
Between the Township and Rare Hospitality International,
MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT RESOLUTIONS AGENDA
Mr. Rattner moved Resolutions 1 through 4; Mr. Perkins
seconded the motion.
PUBLIC PORTION ON CONSENT RESOLUTIONS
President Scapicchio: Public discussion? Seeing none.
ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously
RESOLUTIONS NON CONSENT
PUBLIC PORTION ON INDIVIDUAL RESOLUTIONS
COUNCIL COMMENTS ON INDIVIDUAL RESOLUTIONS
1. Bill List.
Mr. Guenther moved for approval of the bill list; Mr. Perkins
seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously
Library Board Liaison Report - None.
Mr. Guenther: There was a meeting I guess a couple weeks
ago, nothing of a particular note to report. They have a
lot of report obviously on Turkey Brook which we have already
heard so there is nothing earth shaking on the Recreation
Board of Health Report
Mr. Perkins: A couple things that came up, one is that
we had a presentation by Strategic Innovative Management,
LLC. They are looking at a suggested format for a Morris
Regional Public Health Partnership which Frank Wilpert has
also helped to develop, it's kind of thinking outside the
box. The State was very gung-ho on this to begin with. Mr.
King was given a copy of the proposal and they should be
reviewing that in their offices before we bring it before
the Council for any endorsement on that. Also, one of the
members have brought up our standard policy for grading
restaurants right now where it is satisfactory, it runs
satisfactory and the possibility of us going along with
other places like Los Angeles that have and A, B, or C rating,
and kind of breaks it down and makes it a little bit easier
for people, so we are going to possibly entertain doing
something in the future on that. That was it Dave. Other
than that it was uneventful.
President Scapicchio: Ray, has the Board discussed this
new agency that the County wants to create which I believe
would be called a County Board of Health Department?
Mr. Perkins: At present, the County as you know Dave does
not have a Board of Health. Right now they are looking more
at this outside the box as Morris Regional. They want to
more or less "regionalize" things within Morris
County itself. Pequannock has already signed off on the
Resolution approving that. They are trying to kind of Build
on that where the emphasis comes on shared services. We
are not really quite sure how that all plays out with competitive
bidding. The bylaws have really never been reviewed. There's
nothing directly from the County. This is kind of outside
but it involves the County, so it involves everybody from
President Scapicchio: Who is looking to create the Board
Mr. Perkins: The Board would be this Strategic Innovative
Management LLC, would be the actual Board that would oversee
all of the facilities within the County. Each Municipality
would be required to give out a small amount of funding
as well as the possibility of providing a small office space
for the worker that would be there. They would then coordinate
between lets say us, Netcong, if something else was going
on in Pequannock or any other areas of Morris County. It's
not a County function, it is something that the County at
this point from everything I have talked to with Frank,
really has no major interest in starting their own Board.
President Scapicchio: I for one am not convinced that another
level of Bureaucracy in any level of government is worthwhile.
I have read several articles in several papers that have
indicated that all of the Health Officers throughout the
County are interested in this new agency.
Mr. Perkins: I think only two municipalities outside the
County now with the 18 health officers that were there,
everybody else is on Board I think now except for one who
is going along with this partnership.
Mrs. Spencer: I just wanted to add that the actual Board
that would oversee all of these activities would be made
up of representatives from all of the participating municipalities.
Mr. Perkins: Or at least most of them. They said you will
have a representative. Frank obviously would be there, so
Mount Olive would be well represented.
President Scapicchio: I am not worried about that Ray,
I am worried about creating another level of overhead and
Mr. Perkins: Exactly.
President Scapicchio: Okay, thank you.
Legislative Committee Report
Mr. Guenther: None at this time, but I will be reaching
out to Assemblyman Gregg to follow up on the issues that
we had raised on our Committee Meeting such as what the
status of the impact fees at the State Level and I am told
that when we were down at the League of Municipalities that
this has probably a very little chance of passing but we
want to try to pursue some of the things that are of interest
to us. Then the whole highway issue, one of the things that
bothers me is on route 206 the speed limit down in Flanders
I understand that Chester for example is redoing their whole
intersection, I guess they have grants from the State to
redo that whole intersection of Route 24 and Route 206 because
of the new shopping center going in there. So all there
speed limits will be redone and they have a reduced Speed
limit to 35 mph. When you go through in front of our two
Mr. Guenther (cont'd): shopping centers beyond the railroad,
straight 45 mph, it does not make any sense. I am just afraid
one day a truck that is not familiar with Flanders comes
barreling through there thinking it is 45 mph and does not
realize there is a shopping center there and we will have
a serious accident. These things move along slowly, but
we have to get the ball rolling. Also I think we need to
pursue with Gene Buczynski on what his progress is regarding
the Trade Zone intersection. Do you have any report on that
at all Cindy?
Mrs. Spencer: I don't have a written report from him, he
did reach out to the DOT, and he got a preliminary phone
call back from them saying that they do not believe that
it is dangersous and that they believe that the markings
are what they need to be, so Gene is going to try and continue
to keep that conversation open.
Mr. Guenther: Because we continue to see confused drivers
there and I think there are accidents. It will be interesting
to see how many accident s we have really had there.
Mrs. Spencer: One of the things I did yesterday was request
Gene work with Scott Vanness who has actually been in contact
with DOT directly to make sure that they are providing the
same story line and make sure that they understand that
the same number of incidents have occurred.
Mr. Greenbaum: Perhaps we can get Bob out there to redesign
Mr. Elms: The only problem I saw with that intersection
is that no matter how many signs you have there, somebody
will make an illegal turn.
Mr. Greenbaum: I don't find that response from the DOT
to be acceptable. It is not acceptable; we have to keep
the pressure on them.
Planning Board Report
Mr. Greenbaum: We met on November 14, 2002. I can tell
you that the Hashemi resolution was adopted 3-0 with granted
preliminary not final. Mr. Hashemi through his attorney
was not overly happy with the resolution as adopted but
it went through and where it goes from here is up to Mr.
Hashemi I guess. Secondly we heard a presentation from K.Hovnanian
who wanted to address the Master Plan specifically to rezone
a particular piece of property, the Simoff property to senior
adult active community. That was already included in the
draft Master Plan for that tract. The presentation included
color photographs, Four Seasons at Mt. Olive, it is a 330
unit development I think with 30 buildings and I have the
literature which was given to us which I will share with
everybody. Everyone was pretty excited about the possibility
of this developer. It seemed to work well with this particular
piece of property. The one concern just briefly was making
left turns in and out of the development in light of where
it is on Route 46. Everyone agreed that left turns would
not be able to me made there. I think that ultimately K.Hovnanian
may come back in with an application for this particular
piece of property. I think it is 62 acres. 330 units.
Mr. Guenther: What is the Zoning? C1 or C2?
Mr. Greenbaum: I am not sure. There was no issue with regard
to the density. That was raised. It would include at least
one of the residents would be 55 and older and there would
be no school age children allowed to be living in the community.
Mr. Guenther: Was there a proposal to do it similar to
what they have done in Chester with a clubhouse and all
Mr. Greenbaum: Yes. Here is a copy, you could actually
see on the back of this diagram as to what they propose.
There were two development matters which were heard. The
first was Panetta which was an application to build two
office complexes with adjoining warehouse space which was
a permitted use in that area, it is off of Sandshore Road,
right behind where the new Commerce Bank is going in. It
is a permitted use, they had subdivided the two lots. Gene
had no problem with the one basin and this whole issue which
remained was something from the Mt. Olive Open Space Committee,
apparently there was an issue with regards to Patriots Path,
and the Mt. Olive Open Space Committee wanted a right-of-way
though the property or easement I guess through the property
to continue Patriots Path. That was left unresolved. It
didn't work in the area where the Mt. Olive Open Space Committee
wanted to put it and it was left for the developer to get
in touch with the Open Space Committee and also the County
to see if there was some kind of resolution on a different
piece of the property but he was not adverse to giving an
easement to continue Patriots Path. The other application
which we heard which is going to be a very very well attended
application as Rezamir, that sub-division off Drakestown
Road, they came in with a qualifying map, and I think it
is probably going to take three or four sessions just to
deal with the qualifying map, there were a lot of issues
and a lot of residents who had questions on the qualifying
map. That's what we dealt with. Coming up December 5th,
Saxon Falls Sand and Gravel,Crown Tower Estates concept
plan. Frank M. Maione, minor sub-division with variance
Mr. Greenbaum (con't): Holdings site plan, that is down
adjacent to the mall at 206. December 19th is Saturn of
Denville. Larry Paragano, Senior Stone Road Associates concept
plan and Larry Paragano Senior Heights Road concept plan.
That is what is coming up.
Mr. Guenther: As a general comment, I remember a year and
a half ago, there was a study being undertaken with the
State on the egress and ingress on Route 46, what's the
status of that. Maybe you could ask at the next Planning
Board Meeting because that was a highway access plan and
everything was supposed to spin off that. In other words
we were going to get this highway access plan approved by
the State DOT and then every development off of Route 46
would have to conform to that.
Mr. Greenbaum: I will ask Chuck at the next Planning Board
President Scapicchio: Thank you Rob.
Pride Committee Report:
Ray Perkins: I missed the last Pride Meeting, I did speak
to the Chairwoman, Liz Ouimet. The triangle on Sandshore
across the street from the discount liquors and the Ace
Hardware has been undertaken to be cleaned out. I think
anybody that has driven past there will notice that all
that debris and constuction material that was left over
from when we did the Sewer project has all been removed.
The underbrush has been cleared out. Also she is working
together on the adopt a spot, Marilyn Ryan had sent out
the contracts, trying to get people to respond, the ones
that haven't responded or are no longer doing it the sign
will be removed so we don't have redundancy issues out there.
They have submitted their budgetary requests.
Status of Committee RE: Lake/Environment Issues
President Scapicchio: Anything on the environment issues
with the Lake?
Mr. Perkins: Nothing updated, Cindy did you get any new
maps or anything?
Mrs. Spencer: We did finally receive the maps so within
the next couple of weeks we will be having another meeting.
President Scapicchio: Good.
Richard Bonte, Budd Lake: First of all I have to work everyday
and my job is not getting paid for fighting Mr. Paragano.
I have been inundated with paper over the last few weeks.
I called the Mayor last week and I wanted to just let you
know that I called him to let him know about the superb
job that Mr. Dorsey has been doing in this action and the
tremendous grasp of knowledge that he has. It is incredible
what Mr. Paragano is trying to do to this Town, and the
claims that he is making. I know first hand what he is claiming
regarding Mr. Spino and Mr. Licitra as well as the rest
of the Council is completely untrue because in January of
2000 a number of people that were acting on behalf of this
committee regarding the Crown Towers development sat down
with Mr. Paragano and discussed purchasing the property
and what routes they were going to take to see if they were
going to come up with the money. Mr. Paragano knew what
was going on and was amenable to continuing those discussions.
I do hope to have something in the next week. The Court
indicated that December 12th was the date that we have to
Mr. Dorsey: Actually you have 30 days from November 14th.
Mr. Bonte: Okay, well I have a letter that says December
12, 2002 was the date.
Mr. Dorsey: I understand, but you know it is thirty days
after they file their Appeal. But we will address both issues
as well as the pertinent issues. As far as I am concerned
everything that has taken place in the last three weeks
is basically a distraction. I think the applicant is grasping
at every straw he possibly can to divert the attention from
the real issues because he does not believe he can win on
the real issues. To that Steve, I would like to comment
on what you were discussing before because I don't think
it was appropriate to discuss that here this evening. I
am under the impression that this Township is committed
to upholding the action of the Planning Board. I don't think
that at this time we should be questioning the expense of
President Scapicchio: Rich, I don't think Steve was questioning
the expense, I think what Steve was suggesting was that
the Administration give him a total cost of our effort in
litigating and defending that suit so that when the Public
asks us what we are doing with their money, we can show
Mr. Bonte: It came across to me anyway that it could be
construed as what we are doing here and do we want to continue
defending these kind of suits.
Mr. Rattner: This is a take off of what you said. It is
what is nice to have and what we have to have. To protect
the Town, there are legal expenses we have to spend. Last
year during the budget the legal items were one of the Major
items we put money away for. This was one of the Major items.
I want to have that. Not just the legal but the total costs
so that when the public comes and asks why are putting so
much money? It costs us a lot to defend and taking in what
Mr. Dorsey said, part of their strategy is. That is where
the Towns a lot of times are at a disadvantage because a
big developer with a lot of resources and a lot of money
invested will probably outspend and I want the public to
understand that's why we are spending the money and it is
a smart investment.
Mr. Spino: I think from my point of view what I got out
of it was that first of all if people really want us to
control development, this is one of the things that we have
to do. Not that we like to do it, we have to right the developer.
We have to end up having to fight in Court and it costs
money. Secondly, if you go to court and it cost you money
and you will it is money well spent. I think we believe
that, sometimes we have to convey that to the public. Not
everybody believes we should be spending $40,000 to $50,000
because somebody doesn't want homes next to us. Not everybody
Mr. Greenbaum: Just for the record Rich, I don't believe
that this lawsuit is to control development. This lawsuit
is to uphold the land use ordinances of Mount Olive.
Mr. Bonte: You are absolutely correct Rob and that has
always been my opinion, and most of the people's opinion.
We recognize that the developer has the right to build on
his property. This area was deemed very sensitive, had very
strict regulations and he needs to abide by that if he is
going to build. That is what this suit has been about. You
know I told Judge Stanton that. I will tell the Appeals
Court the same thing.
Mr. Greenbaum: I just wanted the record to show that Rob.
Mr. Bonte: It is important that the record does show that
Rob. We are not opposed to development we want the development
done in coordination with our laws. Apparently I would like
to and I didn't have enough time to run off copies for you
all but I would like to if I could share some photos with
you and if you'd like I could get some more copies made.
About a year and a half ago in my wandering I happen to
come across a small little lake community in Ringwood called
Orskin Lake. Some of you may or may not know of it. They
have a small beach, tennis court and a small building at
this site and the area where this all is, is probably smaller
than what we have over at Budd Lake but is sort of the same
shape. I think it gives you the idea of something that we
might be able to move towards that is very simple and quite
functional. If you would like some more I could get some
more but right now it would be easier to just take a look
President Scapicchio: Thank you Rich.
Motion was made for Adjournment. All in Favor none opposed.
The Meeting Adjourned at 9:07 pm.
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 December 17, 2002
LISA M. LASHWAY
Mount Olive Township Clerk
Planning Board Report - R. Greenbaum
Open Space Committee Report - C. Miller
Legislative Committee Report - B. Guenther
Pride Committee Report -R. Perkins
Status of Committee RE: Lake/Environment Issues - R. Perkins