Mount Olive Township Council Minutes
October 24, 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: Present: Mr. Heymann (8:45), Mr. Guenther, Mr. Scapicchio, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Spino, Mr. Rattner, President Sohl

President Sohl: I believe Mr. Heymann is at another meeting and will be here approximately 8:30. I would also like to acknowledge the attendance of the Mayor, Paul Licitra; the Business Administrator, Sandy Kaplan; the Township Attorney, John Dorsey; Township Clerk, Lisa Lashway; CFO, Sherry Jenkins; and DPW, Bob Casey. First order of business, Mayor, I believe you’re making a presentation.

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS

Eagle Scout Presentation - John Yauch

Mayor Licitra: Yes. Bernie (Guenther) and myself. I think this time, we’ll get it right. I wasn’t going to be at the first Eagle Scout Presentation. I gave Mr. Guenther instructions on how to handle the Eagle Scout Presentation for the Mayor. Say a couple of nice words–what I would want to say–the only thing I didn’t give him was the plaque. So, we had a couple of nice words said, but no plaque. John (Yauch) would you come up here, please. I probably would have said this if I was there that day, if I wasn’t on vacation. It makes a Township proud when we have Eagle Scouts. I’ve been doing this many, many years, and with each one, I get even prouder. This is an achievement where people don’t understand what it takes to become an Eagle Scout. There are very few boys that attain that designation. I know we have one Council President that is close to it.

President Sohl: Father of one.

Mayor Licitra: On behalf of the Township, we are very, very proud of you. John, any time you need anything from your Township, you have an I.O.U. from us because we owe you for making this designation. Thank you, so much, John.

Mr. Guenther: There is very little that I can add to what the Mayor said, and I said what I did the night of the presentation that, the Town is very proud, and on behalf of the Council, I just want to present you another plaque to add to your wall of plaques.

Mr. Yauch: Thank you very much.

President Sohl: You’re still on deck, Mayor.

Mayor Licitra: Thank you, Bill. First I would like to invite the Council, on Saturday, October 28, 2000 to the Dedication of our playground in Flanders Crossing to Reverend Dr. Robert G. Cotter. We’re going to have a presentation at 10:00am. The Committee consisting of Bill and Linda Sohl, and a few people from the Reverend’s Church. We came up with the idea of naming this little playground for Bob because of the impact he had on the children of the community. I think it would just be great for him, for his memory to know that that playground would be used for the very young and the youth of our Township. So I am going to read into the Record a Proclamation for Dr. Robert Cotter Day.

Proclamation - Dr. Robert Cotter Day

WHEREAS, Reverend Dr. Robert G. Cotter served as a Minister of various Presbyterian Churches within Northwest New Jersey for more than 35 years, including his longest single assignment from 1976 to 2000 as Pastor of United Presbyterian Church, Flanders, New Jersey; and

WHEREAS, as Pastor of that Church he now saw to the needs spiritually and otherwise of the congregation, but deeply involved himself in the activities of the Community and devoted an extraordinary amount of time to community service as follows:

1977 - 2000 - Chaplain, Member of Flanders Fire Co., & Rescue Squad.

1984 - 1989 - Mt. Olive Drug & Alcohol Council

1989 - 2000 - Mt. Olive Board of Public Assistance

1995 - 2000 - Mt. Olive Community Crisis Response Team

1996 - 2000 - Mt. Olive Clergy Association

1976 - 2000 - Member of the Rotary, an Organization Designed to Serve the Community

WHEREAS, his achievements are outstanding, but he is best remembered in Mt. Olive for his devoted Service to the Community as a whole and particularly the children and the Youth of the Community; and

WHEREAS, on October 28, 2000, the Township will dedicate what is refereed to as “The Tot Lot” at Flanders park, and will be dedicated in memory of Reverend Dr. Robert G. Cotter.

NOW, THEREFORE, in memory of Reverend Dr. Robert G. Cotter and his devoted services to his Church, his Congregation, and most importantly to the entire Community of the Township of Mt. Olive, as Mayor of Mt. Olive, I do hereby declare October 28, 2000 as Reverend Dr. Robert G. Cotter Day in Mt. Olive Township.

Mayor Licitra: I also have another Proclamation honoring Chief Edward Katona, Jr.

WHEREAS, Knights of Columbus, Father Joseph A. Cassidy Council #6100 is known for its charitable and civic activities including the providing of an annual scholarship to an appropriate student or students from Mt. Olive; and WHEREAS, annually, Council #6100 names an outstanding citizen who has contributed unselfishly to the Community; and

WHEREAS, Chief Edward W. Katona, Jr. has contributed greatly to the Community for the last 20 years as both a Police Officer and a citizen and has been recognized often for his outstanding professional civic accomplishments having risen from Police Officer to Police Chief and was named 1985 Law Enforcement Officer of the Year, received a 1997 Service Award for New Jersey Victims Law Center, was Awarded the Musconetcong Lodge #151 Free and Accepted Mason’s Man of the Year for 1997, is currently serving as Treasurer of the Charles Brown Foundation; and

WHEREAS, in the Year 2000, the Knights of Columbus will conduct an Annual Scholarship and Charity Dinner Dance, which is being Chaired by Francis A. Ruggiero, Deputy Grand Knight; and Bob Hack, Grand Knight, for the purpose of raising money to fund an annual scholarship and in the course of the activity will recognize the distinguished service of Edward W. Katona, Jr., Mt. Olive’s Chief of Police as Person of the Year for the Year 2000.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Paul Licitra, Mayor of Mt. Olive Township, on behalf of the Mount Olive Township Council and Residents of Mt. Olive, do hereby declare November 12, 2000 as Edward W. Katona, Jr. Day in Mt. Olive, and does proclaim his support for the endeavors of the Knights of Columbus in connection with its annual scholarship and charity dinner dance; and specifically designates November 12, 2000 as Edward W. Katona, Jr. Day in recognition of his outstanding contribution to the Community.

President Sohl: Thank you, Mayor. We also have a representative from the Rose House.

The Rose House Presentation

Mr. Mark Kramer: I appreciate the time to tell you a little bit about our Organization. The Rose House is a new Organization created by parents of disabled children for the purpose of providing locational, residential, and recreational services. I’ll give you a little history of myself. About a year and a half ago, I sold my business in order to start this organization. Prior to that, my wife and I flew all over the Country looking at different programs to see what we could do for our daughter who has Down Syndrome. We were given the opportunity to sell our business, we undertook this project. The reason I’m here to speak with you tonight is we recently purchased some property in Budd Lake, and we’re negotiating right now with the Division of Developmental Disabilities to build a group home for four developmentally disabled adults. If all goes well, we’ll have our contract in the early spring, and hope to have the building up shortly after that. We feel that Mr. Kramer (cont’d): we are going to be excellent neighbors. We want to come and tell you what our plans are. We think it’s very exciting being in the community. We offer a lot to a Community that we come to. First and foremost, we want to be good neighbors. To that extent, we pay–in lieu of taxes, since we’re non-exempt, we make payments in lieu of taxes because we don’t want a free ride. We also provide low incoming housing units. For every bedroom–not every home, but every bedroom, the Town gets two Mount Laurel Low-Income Housing Units. So if we build a four bedroom home as we’re anticipating, that would be the equivalent of eight low-income apartments. We also bring in about $250,000 a year in State Funds. Primarily, that money will be spent in the Community. More to the point, we’re going to build a lovely home for lovely people. Our clients don’t commit crimes, they’re not on welfare. We use very little municipal services, and they are an asset. We’re going to build a lovely home, maintain it, and just be a part of the Community. I’ve been involved in the process about 18 years now, going back to when the Morris Arc built it’s first Group Home in Lake Hiawatha. So, I’ve been through the process. This is the first time we’re doing it as the Rose House, but we’re very excited about the prospect. We’re also in the process of opening up a delicatessen that is going to provide employment for disabled people. We will also be doing training under the Division of Labor, Department of Vocational Rehabilitation Grant to train additional people for work in the food services industry. Right now, we’re looking at a location that’s in Rockaway Borough. We don’t want to be too far from the Group Residence because I can’t be everywhere. But, the two programs hopefully will support one another and help create an environment for our clients in a very positive way. I’m not asking the Council for anything We bought a nice piece of land. I’ve spoken to Mr. McGroarty and Mr. Kaplan and we shouldn’t have any problems with the construction. At some point in the future we will be coming back to you. We bought almost an acre and half and we will be ultimately looking to put several homes in that area, so we’re going to be looking for a minor sub-division, but we’ll probably do that some time in the future. Mr. McGroarty advised me we’re just going for a Building Permit, we shouldn’t have any problems whatsoever. Like I said, we are going to be good neighbors. We want you to know what we’re doing, and we feel we’re going to be a real asset to the community, and we’re very anxious to get started. If you have any questions, I’d be very happy to answer them. Otherwise, I just look forward to a great long-term relationship. Thank you.

Mrs. Kelly: Where on Sandshore Road is it?

Mr. Kramer: Between Pine Grove and Dogwood. Across the street from a lovely barn.

Mrs. Kelly: Okay, because I was thinking it might be the barn.

Mr. Kramer: I wanted the barn but my architect said it needed a roof, so don’t do it.

President Sohl: I’d like to thank you for coming here tonight. I think that’s the kind of open, front-end flow of information that helps avoid the–what I’ll call the “fright reaction” down the road.

Mr. Kramer: I understand. We’re very open, and very proud of what we’re doing. We have nothing to hide.

President Sohl: You have every right to be. Thank you.

Mr. Kramer: Thank you.

President Sohl: Mayor, you have an appointment?

Mayor Licitra: Yes. I’m proud to Appoint Ron McKee to the Open Space Committee.

President Sohl: That doesn’t require Advice and Consent. Thank you, Mayor. Any other Administrative Reports? Okay. Legal Reports, Mr. Dorsey?

LEGAL REPORTS

Mr. Dorsey: Two things. Bob Casey has been pressuring me to turn out the Contract with Olympvs. He has provided some very fine memos to you. I want to point out, this is a very serious contract. It involves Professional Fees of $500,000 together with reimbursement for travel, dinners and other out-of-pocket expenses. It is a major contract. The contract which I used is a form of contract which I’ve used in connection with Olympvs’ first form, revised to reflect the serious money that is involved in this phase of their work, which is, as I understand it, is the design of Phase I as set forth in the Master Plan, as well as construction supervision of that which is designed for the first phase. Basic fee is $500,000, then there is another $50,000–a reimbursable expense item that we generally don’t have, which we’ve had to put a cap in so Sherry (Jenkins) can issue a Certificate of Availability of Funds, because I don’t think Sherry issues Certificates of Availability for blank checks. There is an issue that we have not gotten a progress schedule from Olympvs–Bob Casey gave you a memo in which he insightfully pointed out that what Olympvs proposes is not construction management, but is referred to as “construction supervision” where essentially they come once a week and essentially test the quality of the work. They do not oversee the day-to-day operations of the contractors. So, at the very least–not that I’m implying that there is anything wrong with that arrangement, but I am telling you the very least I suspect that you’re going to have to have someone out there as a Construction Manager or Inspector on a daily basis, and, of course, that is simply another expense that is not taken care of by this contract. Now, I really think everybody ought to read this Contract because I don’t want to happen what happened with some of the ITC things, which I thought I had adequately explained only to find out that apparently, it wasn’t totally understood. There is a Resolution here tonight if you wish to move it. It requires everybody to read the Contract. We have a supplement to that Resolution that says the Mayor doesn’t sign it until Olympvs submits their progress schedule. There is also the issue as to the time period in which they say they will do the construction. Supervision is not yet tied to any specific progress schedule or critical path schedule for the Contractor. So, I don’t know, that is another element I don’t think that has been totally worked out. The other item I want to mention very briefly is, at the end of last week’s meeting, you advised you wished to proceed with a rather enormous length In-Rem Tax Foreclosure schedule. There were 50 items on it. The reason there are so many items is the fact that last Administration for four years did not request any In-Rem Tax Foreclosures. It’s not unusual, the Auditor has said now you should take care of these things. I prepared a Resolution on that that will at least satisfy the Auditor that you are proceeding. I also wrote you a memo this week advising that this is not an inexpensive situation because every foreclosure can cost somewhere between $750 to $1,000. and a lot of it has to do with Title Searches and giving Notices. It’s a long meticulous time consuming process, but it does have the beauty that in some instances you can collect–some tax payer will come in and pay. It becomes more of a collection item then it does a foreclosure item. On the other hand, through the foreclosure process, we have picked up some valuable pieces of property. In fact, the Open Space people have noted, I’m going to say, six items that they particularly want for Open Space. I also noted that there is no funding–and Sherry put out a memo today and chastised me for not being here at the end of the meeting or I would have known that there was. But there isn’t because the balance that’s shown in the legal account today is inflated because I have not submitted a bill for my retainer and litigation thus far this year. That is not consequential at the moment because the process will not get seriously underway until 2001 and it’s going to have to be dealt with in the 2001 Budget in some fashion. But, you know it’s a very interesting assignment and can do some really interesting things for the Town. It can essentially be self-funded by the monies collected, or you’re going to get some major pieces of property. That’s all.

Mr. Scapicchio: John, is the Olympvs proposal consistent with the original proposal that we saw and approved where there was a limit on the total cost to design and supervise?

Mr. Dorsey: It says–they very specifically say their price of $500,000–whatever it is–is the lump sum number which is added–as they referred in the first contract, what they refer to as “reimbursable expenses” that is travel time, lunches, dinner, hotels, plus 10% administrative fee for doing it. But the contract–yes, this contract very specifically says, a lump sum. Right, Bob?

Mr. Casey: The Contract is calculated 8% of the cost for Phase I, which–your good will discussions with them, was they would cap the full design and construction management, not construction administration at 8% of value. This contract does that. It does give you a credit of the $96,000 which was the Master Plan. That is all in agreement with the original agreement signed in August. So, this is a continuation of that contract.

Mr. Dorsey: But you have to realize, you really have to look at the contract because there are a whole new series of responsibilities because this a whole different phase, both of their work and what is going to happen here. And then it ends with what they refer to as “Construction Supervision” which is not, as you know, the same as “Construction Management.” I’m not saying that’s wrong. I’m saying, everybody has to understand it upfront. One of the intricacies of the Construction Supervision is there’s no way you’re going to have $7 million of construction going on out there without having somebody assigned there full-time. Of that, I’m certain. So that is the additional expense to what is in this contract. And then there are some intricacies as I see it, as to when they combine those construction services and when the contracts are let and when those people–I mean somehow there has got to be an attempt to coordinate the time period in which they offer to give you the construction supervision services, and the work actually being done. I mean, it’s a big number, and it’s an intricate process.

Mr. Scapicchio: Given that at our last workshop, we ran late and we never discussed this proposal, and the comment in Mr. Dorsey’s letter dated today, that he’s not completely satisfied there is sufficient review of how this has been done, I’d respectfully request, Bill, that we put this on for the next workshop as the first item on the Agenda, early, while we’re all fresh, we discuss this in detail. In the meantime, we have two weeks to thoroughly review this.

Mr. Dorsey: Two weeks is not a problem, because Bob (Casey) has to work out the progress schedule.

Mr. Casey: I think the only issue you have is that your next Regular Meeting is November 21, which is a month. We have a project meeting tomorrow where there are eight of them coming in doing actual design. They’re actually into detail design work on the grating plans, etc.

Mr. Scapicchio: Well, can we schedule it for a workshop where this is the only item discussed? That would be appropriate.

Mr. Casey: If the issue is working out the details of the specifics of the contract, the phasing, the progress schedule, and the question that John and I kicking around is, what happens if the actual construction lasts longer than December 2001? It may kick over to 2002. I think those are issues that we’ll talk to Olympvs tomorrow when they’re in here, that’s one of the issues we’re going to talk over with them. But, I think, they’re going to want to know, subject to working out all the details, that they are the Design Engineers. They are moving forward expending their own capital at this point in time, and obviously, at some point in time as a business, they’re going to sit there and say, “We’ll work out the details, but do we have a contract?” I think that’s what they’re going to want to know tomorrow. “Are we, in fact, going forward as your Design Engineer subject to working out these details?” I think, in all fairness, they’re going to ask that question tomorrow, and I think they deserve an answer on it.

Mr. Scapicchio: The only thing I can tell you is my position, Bob. And my position is, I have all the intentions of keeping them on as the Design Engineers for this project, but I don’t want to move forward with this project until I’ve had an opportunity to read front to back, given the concerns on the cover letter that Mr. Dorsey has. I think that last week, at our last workshop, it was midnight when this came up, and we decided not to discuss it. So, now, it’s the Public Meeting, and we still haven’t discussed it, and we’re being asked to approve it. So, I would just request that we have a workshop discussion.

President Sohl: Well, November 14–that’s the week of the League of Municipalities. I know some of us are going to go down–we can have a meeting that Tuesday if people are going to be around–we can have a special meeting just on this one item.

Mr. Spino: I’m available.

President Sohl: So am I.

Mr. Guenther: We’re not going until Wednesday morning.

President Sohl: Steve?

Mr. Rattner: I’m not sure. I think I’m going down for a separate convention. I’ve got the Water Convention.

President Sohl: Would you have a problem if we have a quorum if we discuss it? Earl?

Mr. Spino: I’m here.

President Sohl: Why don’t we schedule it for the 14th.

Mr. Dorsey: Bob, tomorrow, you can give them the contract. Tell them the Contract has been drawn. They have to review it. They haven’t seen it–

Mr. Casey: I recognize that. I just want to confer with them. I know this question is going to come up, and the Mayor is going to meet with them, and Mr. Lockerbie is a good businessman, as you know, and he’s going to say, “Where is my contract?” And we’re going to say, “We still have these issues over the progress schedule and issues to work out...”

President Sohl: But he has not seen it?

Mr. Dorsey: No.

Mr. Casey: I just faxed it today.

President Sohl: So, he has to review it in any case.

Mr. Dorsey: I started to get stuff on this last week.

President Sohl: Okay. Mayor?

Mayor Licitra: What does this do to our schedule?

Mr. Casey: I’m still hoping that our goal is to put out a grading bid. They’re working on the grading plans. They’re moving forward and I’m still hoping for a Bid on Grading the middle of November so we move heavy dirt in December, and allow it to settle over the winter. That’s our goal. We’re still on that path subject to working out some details on actual waiting plan. I don’t think it’s going to interfere. They have to move forward at their own risk, for lack of a better term, at this point in time. I just want to raise that issue. If you hold a special meeting, fine, we tell them we’re going to hold a special meeting and it will be done. That’s all.

Mayor Licitra: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like you to be able to make a decision by the 14th because I’m adamant about being in the ground before this winter comes. It’s imperative that we do that. We’re dealing with the situation, if we do have a harsh winter, it may bite us in December.

President Sohl: I think we understand that, Paul. We just got the document today.

Mr. Guenther: How about next week? Is that too short a period of time? A week from today?

President Sohl: That’s all right with me, too.

Mrs. Lashway: That’s Halloween.

President Sohl: Oh, it’s Halloween.

Mr. Dorsey: Are you going out in costume?

Mr. Scapicchio: Why don’t we just leave it up to the Clerk and Council President to try and work out a day and give us a call within the next day or two.

Mr. Dorsey: If they do work it out, they should treat it as an Emergency Meeting so you can take formal action.

President Sohl: We’ll check it out tomorrow and work out the details. All right, anything else, Mr. Dorsey?

Mr. Dorsey: No, that’s all.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

July 25, 2000 Present: Mr. Heymann, Mr. Guenther, Mr. Scapicchio, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Spino, Mr. Rattner

Absent: Mr. Sohl

Mrs. Kelly moved for approval of the Minutes and Mr. Spino seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed by the majority, Exception: Mr. Sohl ABSTAINED

CORRESPONDENCE

Letters From Residents

School Correspondence

Resolutions, Ordinances, Correspondence from other Towns

1. Resolution received October 16, 2000, from the Town of Hackettstown RE: Support of the Hackettstown Bypass.

2. Letter received October 17, 2000, from Alderman Pat Donafrio, Town of Dover RE: Coalition to Save Dover General Hospital.

3. Resolution received October 18, 2000, from the Borough of Chatham Expressing Strong Support for Senate President Donald T. DiFrancesco’s “Property Tax Relief Now!” Plan, which would provide New Jersey’s Families and Seniors with the Tax Relief they deserve without raising Taxes or Compromising Services.

4. Resolution received October 20, 2000, from the Borough of Butler RE: Urging Amendment of the Morris County Regional Deployment System.

Resolutions, Ordinances, Correspondence from Freeholders and County Departments

5. Resolution received October 16, 2000, from Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders RE: amended allocations for projects to be funded through the Park Improvement Trust Fund.

Correspondence from Legislative Representatives, and State and Federal Boards & Departments

6. Letter received October 10, 2000, from US Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency RE: Production Flexibility Contract (Form CCC-478), Farm 299. (Ashley Farm)

7. Letter received October 10, 2000, from US Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency RE: Production Flexibility Contract (Form CCC-478). Farm 320. (Ashley Farm)

8. Order to Show Cause received October 10, 2000, from NJ Department of Law and Public Safety Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, issued to Limericks to show cause why current Plenary Retail Consumption License #1427-33-017-010 should not be revoked or suspended.

League of Municipalities

9. Letter received October 12, 2000, from New Jersey State League of Municipalities RE: Cable Access Questionnaire.

10. Letter received October 12, 2000, from New Jersey State League of Municipalities RE: League Seminar, ”Local Governments and Communities of Faith: A Beneficial Partnership.”

11. Letter received October 16, 2000, from New Jersey State League of Municipalities RE: League’s consulting period on general municipal topics at the 85th Annual Conference.

12. Letter received October 16, 2000, from New Jersey Chapter APWA, Annual Awards and Election Breakfast, November 16, 2000, during the League of Municipalities.

13. Legislative Bulletin received October 17, 2000, from New Jersey State League of Municipalities RE: 2000 - 2001 Legislative Session.

DOT/DEP/Permits/LOIs

14. Letter received October 10, 2000, from NJDEP, Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks RE: Budd Lake Fire Department, Remedial Investigation Report Addendum Dated 09/15/00

15. Letter received October 10, 2000, from NJDEP RE: LOI Revision/Correction: Roxbury Lot ”37" not “73.” (Route 206 Roxbury Border)

16. Letter received October 10, 2000, from NJDEP RE: Permit Application, NJ American Water Co, International Trade Zone PWSID No. 1427372, Application for Permit reviewed and determined to be Administratively Complete. (ITC South)

Correspondence from Organizations/Committees/Boards

17. Minutes of September 6, 2000, meeting of the Musconetcong Sewerage Authority received October 10, 2000.

18. Budget Hearing Notice received October 10, 2000, from the Musconetcong Sewerage Authority.

19. Letter received October 10, 2000, from Musconetcong Watershed Management - PAC Meeting Agenda for October 19, 2000, meeting.

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

Land Use/Development Matters

20. Letter received October 11, 2000, from Suburban Consulting Engineers, Inc. RE: Application for Land Use Regulation, House of the Good Shepherd, Township of Hackettstown (Willow Grove Street.)

COAH

21. September 2000 Newsletter received October 12, 2000.

Correspondence from Cable Networks/Utilities

22. Notice received October 19, 2000, from GPU Energy RE: GeoExchange Heating and Cooling Teleconference, Wednesday, November 15, 2000.

President Sohl stated that we had received 22 items of correspondence and asked Council if there were any comments on same.

ORDINANCES FOR PUBLIC HEARING

Ord. #38-2000 Bond Ordinance Providing for the Outfitting of a New Rescue Truck in and by the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey, Appropriating $65,000 Therefor and Authorizing the Issuance of $61,750 Bonds or Notes of the Township to Finance Part of the Cost Thereof.(Budd Lake Rescue Truck)

President Sohl opened the Public Hearing on Ord. #38-2000

President Sohl closed the Public Hearing on Ord. #38-2000

Mr. Scapicchio moved for Adoption and Final Passage on Ord. #38-2000 and Mr. Rattner seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Sohl declared Ord. #38-2000 as Passed on Second Reading.

Ord. #37-2000 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Vacating A Portion of Flanders Netcong Road North of its Intersection With International Drive South

President Sohl opened the Public Hearing on Ord. #37-2000

President Sohl closed the Public Hearing on Ord. #37-2000

Mr. Scapicchio moved for Adoption and Final Passage on Ord. #37-2000 and Mrs. Kelly seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Sohl declared Ord. #37-2000 as Passed on Second Reading.

Ord. #40-2000 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive to Rezone Certain Lands from C-1 to Professional Business (PB), to Amend the Township’s Zone Map and to Amend and Supplement Chapter 400 Entitled “Land Use” to Define Uses and Development Regulations of the Professional Business Zone. (Rezoning of a portion of Rt. 46)

President Sohl: Chuck (McGroarty) are you making any comments first?

Mr. McGroarty: If you’d like.

President Sohl: Well, why don’t we–we have the Public here, I’ll let them speak first.

President Sohl opened the Public Hearing on Ord. #40-2000

Mr. Dennis McConnell, Esq.: I’m here on behalf of property owner, Reza Hashemi. This evening, I have Mr. Peter Steck, who is a Professional Planner, who has testified before your Planning Board and Zoning Board on numerous occasions, who would also like to make comments addressing this. I don’t know whether you’re going to have a presentation from your Planner first, or you want us to start.

Mr. Dorsey: Why don’t you proceed, and Mr. McGroarty can respond if need be.

Mr. McConnell, Esq.: Okay. At this time, I call Mr. Steck forward. I don’t know if you want witnesses sworn?

President Sohl: No.

Mr. McConnell, Esq.: Okay.

Mr. Dorsey: Mr. Steck, just for the Record, please give your full name and address.

Mr. Peter Steck: Peter G. Steck–S-T-E-C-K. 80 Maplewood Avenue, Maplewood, NJ.

Mr. Dorsey: And what is your professional qualifications, briefly?

Mr. Steck: I’m a licensed Planner in New Jersey, License #1776, which I received in 1976. At the current time, I’m self-employed as a Community Planning Consultant. I was the Planning Director for the Township of Montclair for ten years. Member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, and one of the Planners on the League of Municipalities Land Use Law drafting Committee.

Mr. Dorsey: And how long have you been a Licensed Professional Planner?

Mr. Steck: For 20 years.

Mr. Dorsey: All right. So, everybody gets the scene correctly, Mr. Steck whom I’ve known, and have heard testify before, is a Licensed Professional Planner of the State of New Jersey. Thereby, if we were in the Superior Court, he would have the right to testify as an expert, and, Mr. Steck, we’ll let you proceed on that basis.

President Sohl: Mr. Dorsey–perhaps you might inform the Public as to the Petition that was filed?

Mr. Dorsey: Yes–legally, there is a portion of the Land Use Law that permits the filing of what’s known as a Notice or Petition of Protest. There was a protest signed. There are 51 property owners who are affected by this Rezoning according to the Planner and the Clerk. The property owners who sign it number 17 of 51. Because that is 20% it will now take a 2/3 vote of the Council to adopt this Ordinance. In other words, five of seven must vote in the Affirmative.

President Sohl: Thank you, John. Mr. Steck?

Mr. Steck: What I would like to do is approach this in two fashions. First of all, in kind of a detailed fashion just run through the Ordinance in a linear fashion making some comments. Then in the end, I’ll make more summary comments about how the Ordinance relates to the character of the District. First of all, if the Governing Body is considering Adopting this Ordinance, there are a number of “WHEREAS’s” in the beginning that are, I guess, akin to factual determination. The last “WHEREAS” says in part that the Township Council finds that the new zone is to be known as the Professional Business Zone, will properly implement the desired Land Use Policy expressed in general terms in the Master Plan Re-examination Report. That’s the 1995 Re-examination Report. That same language is repeated in the purpose section of the Ordinance–the last paragraph that reads as follows: “The Professional Business Zone implements an objective of the Master Plan Re-examination Report adopted by the Mt. Olive Planning Board on September 28, 1995. Wherein modifications to the existing commercial zoning was recommended. So that there is a proposed factual finding that this Ordinance that’s before the Board will implement that re-examination report. What I would like to do is just read a couple short sections of ‘95 Re-examination Report to demonstrate to you that I don’t think the Ordinance follows the recommendations of this document. Page 27, under the heading “Commercial” it says, “The objectives here are to sharpen the development standards in existing commercial districts along the highway corridors, create new opportunities for regional commercial development in the Budd Lake area...It then goes on. On Page 28, on paragraphs #3 and #4 the following language is contained–and again, these are recommendations of the re-

Mr. Steck (cont’d): examination report. “Modify the C1/Commercial Zone District along the west side of Route 46 between Cove Street and Village Green to a variation of the CR/3 classification with a minimum lot size of one-half acre. One possibility would allow residential to remain a permitted use and certain retail and professional activities as conditional uses. 4) Within the C1/Commercial District examine the possibility of reducing lot size requirements or in the alternative increasing FAR and/or building height to enhance commercial development supported by the introduction of public sanitary sewers.” If you read the terms of the Ordinance it does not do any of those things. It does not decrease the lot size, it keeps it at an acre. It does not allow residential use as a permitted use. That continues to be a non-conforming use. It does not make retail use a conditional use. It prohibits all retail uses. It does not allow professional offices as a conditional use. Those remain permitted uses. It does not increase the FAR, in fact, it dramatically reduces it from .4 to .15. “FAR” being the “Floor Area Ratio” – the ratio of the building floor area to the lot area. And, it did not increase the building height. In fact, it diminished it. So a plain speaking reading of what is to come based on the re-examination report does not come in the body of the proposed Ordinance. Once you get past the purpose statements, now you’re into the body of the Ordinance. There are several comments I offer from a Planning perspective. First of all, this is a very limited use zone. If you look at the uses and you discount ones that are mandated by State Law, “Day Care Centers” are allowed in any non-residential zone, Public uses are permitted. That’s not the test of integrity of the zone. This is basically a zone that allows three uses. Offices, Hair Salons and Nail Salons. So, keep in mind we have now a District along a major highway, a State Highway that essentially allows three uses. Offices, Hair and Nails. So, it could be the “O.H.N.” Zone, potentially, and that would be a good description of it. That limited list of uses clearly in my opinion does not encourage development or re-development as is the alleged intent of this Ordinance. In one of the Sections of the Ordinance, on another point, Section 3D lists as a permitted principal use “Home Occupation in existing single family residential structures as defined in 400-6. That’s like the Engineer who has a small office in his home. I would suggest that this is not a proper permitted use. Residential uses are not permitted in this zone. They are non-conforming uses, and any time you expand a non-conforming use, the Municipal Land Use Law says only the Board of Adjustment can hear it. This new Ordinance says it’s okay to expand a non-conforming use by putting in an office in that home, and you don’t have to go to the Board of Adjustment. In my opinion, that’s contrary to the Municipal Land Use Law. If a use is not a permitted use in the Zone, you can’t expand it by going to the Planning Board, you can only expand it by going to the Board of Adjustment.

President Sohl: Chuck, correct me if I’m wrong. The Home Occupations that’s allowed under our Statute did not require somebody to go before the Planning Board?

Mr. McGroarty: No, it does.

President Sohl: In a Residential Zone?

Mr. McGroarty: Yes.

President Sohl: So you’re telling me my home office is illegal?

Mr. McGroarty: I’d prefer not to know about your home office.

Mayor Licitra: But, since it’s on the Record.

Mr. Steck: If you’re in a Residential Zone, your house is a principal permitted use. That’s a different story. But if your home is put in this Zone that we’re talking about this evening, it is not a permitted use.

President Sohl: But if it’s an existing use, it’s already there.

Mr. Steck: Well, if it’s existing, non-conforming use, it cannot expand unless you go to the Board of Adjustment for a “D” Variance. And, in my opinion, inserting a Home Occupation in a non-conforming one-family house is an expansion of that non-conforming use. There are a number of provisions in this that give what I would call “veto” power to your Planning Board Engineer and Planning Board Attorney. The Municipal Land Use Law doesn’t give that power to Attorneys and Engineers. Only the Planning Board has the power. So I draw your attention to Section 5, B, under “Satellite Parking Lots.” The last paragraph it says, “the appropriate legal mechanisms to satisfy said responsibilities shall be submitted at the time of Site Plan Review for approval by the Planning Board subject to a favorable recommendation by the Planning Board Attorney. So that means if the Planning Board Attorney doesn’t like it and says “I don’t give a favorable recommendation.” The Planning Board can’t even consider it. He has veto power. In my opinion, the Municipal Land Use Law does not allow that. The next point has to do with the bulk standards. The most dramatic change in the bulk standards is in the Mr. Steck (cont’d): floor area ratio. If you have a 10,000 square foot lot, today, in this Zone, you would be permitted to have a building up to 4,000 square feet. They don’t care whether it’s one or two floors. This Ordinance not only cuts that in half. Instead of having 4,000 square feet, today, if this Ordinance takes effect, you’re only permitted 1,500 square feet. That’s a dramatic reduction. If you look at your other commercial zones, and even industrial zones, your F.A.R.’s are generally .3 to .4. And that’s typical around the State for this kind of area. It’s the exception if you’re on Route One, in the Forrestville Campus in West Windsor where you have a couple of hundred acres. But in areas that have a smaller lot pattern, it is very typical of having F.A.R.’s of .3 and .4. This Ordinance brings it down to .15, which is an F.A.R. which is typical for a house on a large lot. Extremely restrictive. It will have three effects. It will certainly limit any potential for redevelopment of this area. It will make a number of buildings non-conforming, and, as noted later, it may have effect when the time comes for appealing Tax Assessments. This is another issue following down the Ordinance in Section E, under “Exceptions to:” and it talks about when the Planning Board can permit parking areas in the rear yard. That same phrase applies where “Subject to a favorable recommendation by the Township Engineer, the alternate design will result in a safer, and more efficient circulation pattern.” Well, again, that gives the engineer veto power. I don’t think under Municipal Land Use Law, the Engineer would have that. In Section 5, under that Paragraph E, under “ingress and egress” it has the same language. That is makes this provision subject to a favorable recommendation by the Township Engineer. Again, that’s tantamount to veto power by a non-Board member, which in my opinion is not authorized by the Municipal Land Use Law. Jumping to Section 11, talks about roof treatment. Keep in ming that this is the Zoning Ordinance. When you have a Site Plan and Subdivision Ordinance, you talk about design standards there, this has design standards, or what appear to be design standards in your Zoning Ordinance. Again, the Zoning Ordinance is supposed to be drawn very clearly to give the Applicant guidance and a determination. Does he comply, or doesn’t he comply? Well, this is the first sentence. “The design of structures having flat roofs is to be discouraged.” Now, if I have a flat roof, does that mean I have to have a variance or not? I don’t know. When you say “discouraged” it’s either permitted or it isn’t. And it doesn’t tell you. That is overly vague, and it not a proper standard in a Zoning Ordinance. It then goes on to say that where a structure is approved having a flat roof, all mechanical equipment situated thereon shall be screened in all directions with appropriate material to contain all sound. I don’t know of any material that’s going to contain all sound. So, by that extreme statement, there is no roof screening that could be allowed on a roof–or rooftop equipment because you can’t screen all sound. You can attenuate it, you can lessen it, but you can’t stop it totally. There is a provision in Section 4 of the Ordinance that is difficult to understand, and it reads as follows: “The design elements and site improvements contained in this ordinance shall not be applied retroactively to existing developed properties within the new zone district unless said property or properties are subject to site plan review in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 400, Land Use.” Well, as you probably know, all commercial properties are subject to Site Plan Review. So, what this section literally says is you can retroactively apply the design standards to commercial and multi-family properties. Now, that seems to be against the Municipal Land Use Law. Once you get your Site Plan Approval, or you have a prior non-conforming use, the Municipality shouldn’t be able to reach back into history and impose these standards on it. Now that we go to the global issue, the reason municipalities can zone is because they follow the rule book–and that’s the Municipal Land Use Law. And there is a provision in the rule book that is N.J.S.A. 4055D-62, that says in part, “Zoning shall be drawn with reasonable consideration to the character of each district.” To tell you what I think that means, if you go into an area which is a two-family zone and you say, “Gee, I wish these were one-families.” You can’t zone it a one-family zone. If the character is already largely determined, you can’t pretend that that character doesn’t exist, and you have to take that into account in drafting your zoning regulations. Well, in my opinion, the character of this district is largely determined. The things that influence land use are the size of properties–and this zone district is drawn tightly so that it is only one property deep so you can’t go back and assemble properties. There is a fair number of commercial uses which are on this exhibit indicated in red. Route 46 isn’t going to change much in character. It’s a major regional highway. What I did is, ask an Engineer, Mr. Reza Hashemi to do a study of the Lot and use characteristics. I’ll pass this out, and I’ll describe what it is as I’m passing it out.

Mayor Licitra: Just a question–“Hashemi” is the same person that you were hired by?

Mr. Steck: Yes. One of the individuals that I was hired by.

President Sohl: Yes, Mr. Hashemi is a property owner in that zone.

Mr. Steck: That’s correct. This is a Table that was constructed from the Tax Maps and the Sewer Maps. On the first two columns, it has the Lot and Block Numbers, and it identifies the Lots in the area to be rezoned. The next column has the Lot size based on the Tax Maps, and the Lot Width and Depth, based on the Tax Maps. And then there’s the existing use. It’s indicating Residential, Commercial, or Vacant. I’ll make a Footnote on that in a moment. Then there’s existing F.A.R. So, that’s the square footage. The existing F.A.R. the square footage of the building that’s on the property today, permitted F.A.R., is the 0.15. If this Ordinance took effect, this

Mr. Steck (cont’d): would be the maximum square footage. Now, I want to note parenthetically, in constructing the second last column, if just on the first floor of the property it exceeded the F.A.R., we didn’t add the additional F.A.R. from the second floor. We already reached our conclusion that it exceeded the F.A.R. Let me tell you in summary what this Table says. There are 46 properties that are analyzed. Let’s pretend that they’re all vacant properties now. Let’s just look at the character of the lot pattern. Of the 46 properties, only three are conforming in Lot area–only three are an acre. That’s 6%. Of the 46 properties, only 11–or 24%, have conforming lot width. Of the 46 properties, only 30–or 65% have conforming lot depth. If you put those categories together, of the 46 properties in the zone district, there are only two conforming lots. So, the question I return to, if Zoning is mandated to take reasonable consideration to the character of the District, because a Zoning Amendment leaves only two of the lots as conforming in dimensions, is that a reasonable consideration? Let’s leave the lot pattern, and let’s go to what’s on the Lots. There are 11 vacant lots here, so there are 35 uses on the property. Of the 35 uses, only three of them are conforming uses. There are two offices and one hair salon. Everything else in this zone is non-conforming. Which means that anybody that’s doing anything, except for the three properties is probably going to the Board of Adjustment. Let’s not even look at the uses, let’s look at the buildings. Forget what’s in them for a minute. Of the 35 buildings, nine–only nine, have conforming F.A.R. Now, when you violate the F.A.R., that’s like a D-Variance that sends you to the Board of Adjustment. You need an enhanced voting ratio. What that means, if I have a building that let’s say exceeds the “Floor Area Ration” even if I wanted to put a permitted use in it–a Hair Salon, or a Nail Salon, I have to go to the Board of Adjustment, because the building already violates the F.A.R. If I look at the building sizes and the uses–I add those together, a total of 34 of the 46 lots will become non-conforming uses, or F.A.R.’s if this Ordinance is passed. That’s 74%. Anything you do to those properties is going to require a Board of Adjustment Application. That’s a heavy burden. Big Fees, the burden is on the Applicant. You have to get five affirmative votes. It’s a very heavy burden under the law. Let’s go to the summary comment. If I add the Lot dimension to the uses, there is not lot in this whole district that is conforming. Now, let me tell you why that’s not good planning. It’s not good planning because it’s against the Municipal Land Use Law that says you should take reasonable consideration to the character of the District. This is a Zoning Ordinance that ignored the district–pretended that there’s nothing there. Number Two, it puts unfair discretion on the Board. If everyone has to come to the Board of Adjustment for a D-Variance, that puts a tremendous burden on the Applicant. It gives, in my opinion, unfair discretion on the municipality. You had something bad for breakfast, you turn the guy down. It’s a tough burden to get a use variance. It’s a very tough thing to do, and there is very little predictability, and, in fact, since I’m someone who does a fair amount of opposition work, it gives a leg up to the opposition to oppose something. Even if you wanted something in this zone, by saying, “Oh they can go to the Board of Adjustment and get it.” Anybody that objects has a leg up, in my opinion, to defeat that application if they require a D-Variance and it’s not an inherently beneficial use. In summary, this Zoning Ordinance, I think is against the principals of the Municipal Land Use Law. It’s not good planning, and it gives unreasonable discretion to the Board of Adjustment, and it produces an unfair burden on the property owners in this area.

President Sohl: Is there anyone else who would like to address this Ordinance?

Ms. Marge Gutlever, Route 46, Budd Lake: I was wondering–why don’t they just–it seems to me, the problem is, it’s too fast for traffic. Why don’t they lower the speed limit, like when you ride through Hackettstown, you do the speed limit, 35mph, nobody blows the horn at you, and you get in and out of the properties easily? If you just left it like it is now, you go to Bloomfield, 35mph all the way to Newark. It’s the speed limit. Even with me–trying to pull into my driveway, people blow the horn behind me, sometimes I even pass my own place because there is somebody right on my bumper and I can’t get in my driveway, so I’ll ride around the block. So, I think the thing is, if they could lower the speed limit to 35mph as you get off Route 80. Just like the bottom of Hackettstown Mountain, they give out tickets like crazy, people would drive through that whole strip very slowly, it will probably prevent accidents, and you wouldn’t have to bother with this changing of the law. It would be a nice way to go through our town and prevent a lot of accidents. I think it should be something to think about.

President Sohl: Mayor, don’t we have a request, even now, at the State level to lower the speed limit on Route 46? It’s governed at the State level? Yes? The Mayor has been pursuing it.

Mr. Steve Masotti: I am one of the property owners involved in the change. My question–I’ve been told by several individuals, the use of this property as it stands right now would be grandfathered in, right? I’d like to know.

Mayor Licitra: Did you get something in writing?

Mr. Masotti: No.

Mr. Dorsey: The answer is, whatever use is there now, even if it doesn’t conform with the terms of the new Ordinance is grandfathered. We went through that at the last aborted Hearing, and nothing has changed in that effect.

(Inaudible discussion.)

Mr. Bob Kenzel: I live on Route 46, and work on Route 46. I run a small business, and right now, I’m in the process of buying the property that I’m renting. It seems to me, the whole zoning is very restrictive, and if any kind of commerce is going on–and like the other gentleman, I never got anything in writing about the grandfathering.

Mr. McGroarty: Mr. Masotti requested it–if anyone requests it, I will provide it. Mr. Masotti specifically requested it.

Mr. Kenzel: I’m just a little nervous because this does effect my business.

President Sohl: I think we just heard from the Planner, he will provide that documentation to you.

Mr. Kenzel: Okay. One last question, I’m in the process. If it falls through, I’m also looking at buying another vacant lot in the area, and I’m wondering how this would affect me as well.

President Sohl: I think you have to look at where that lot is, and what the zoning is.

Mr. Kenzel: Well, it seems like in this zoning, nothing conforms. I’m a little nervous, that’s all I have to say.

Mr. Ted Gullem, 10 Forrest Road: I work for a large mechanical contracting company, and I participate in quite a few of these presentations too, convincing them that the building we’re going to put on their property is a conforming building, and won’t create hazards to the community, and what have you–at least from the point of view of our design capabilities. As such, I’ve had some small experience with Municipal Land Use in New Jersey. And, I fail to find any part of the Municipal Land Use Law that mandates a Township to create a zone based on what’s in that particular zone. In other words, if we’ve been boiling tar up on the corner, and we’ve been doing it for 30 years, let’s just keep on boiling tar. That’s not the case. Land Use Law doesn’t say that, and it doesn’t require any Town to do that. I know that it’s very irritating to me where I live that someone has removed quite a bit of the vegetation behind my lot. I lived for 20+ years and never heard traffic on Route 46, now, sometimes it wakes me up at night because the trees are all gone. I think the objective of this thing is not to continue doing what’s been done on Route 46 for the last 40 - 50 years, and as far as I know and as far as I can determine, there is no law in the State of New Jersey that says that you have to keep doing that, and prevents the Township from trying to improve that property. I understand that people have a vested interest and they are very subjective in their explanation of these Land Use Laws, but, you have an Attorney, and I don’t have to tell him, or try to explain to him the law because I’m not an Attorney, but, I think there may be some problems with the overall Ordinance, which I’m sure can work out. But I still want you to know that I think you’re doing the right thing, and I think there are a lot of people here that think you’re doing the right thing, and we want you to pass it. Thank you.

President Sohl: Thank you. Anyone else?

Mr. Steck, Esq.: Just some comments on the non-conforming use issue. Certainly, you know, if a house is destroyed by fire, you can’t put it up again if it’s a non-conforming use. You have to start from scratch. Let’s presume for the moment that someone has a house on a relatively small lot. And your Ordinance says we don’t like houses there, it basically says we like offices there. Even if someone has a house, if you violate the F.A.R., even if you want to put in a permitted use, you still have to go before the Board of Adjustment. That’s the problem with having such a small F.A.R. Let me go global and talk planning. Although there are many houses there that are used and well maintained as single family houses. I think most people would admit that if you were to start from scratch, Route 46 isn’t a great place to have single family detached housing. It’s a little bit hard to get in and out of the driveway. You’re competing with commercial uses. It’s not a great use. One planning goal ought to be to encourage a conversion to permitted uses. Again, if this ordinance is passed, you want offices. By having your Ordinance so restrictive in terms of F.A.R. and uses, you’re basically taking away incentives for someone to put in a permitted use. You’re making it more difficult, you’re making it a gamble, and from a practical point of view, you’re devaluing those properties. One of the legislative goals of a municipality is to create a mix of ratables–small single family homes tend to be a drain because of school kids. You like to have industrial/commercial properties because they tend to produce more revenue than they take in costs. The answer

Mr. Steck (cont’d): is, by this simple zoning amendment, you are taking away the potential for development of these properties. And in my opinion, you’re likely to garner tax appeals because the day after you pass this, the properties are significantly less potent and consequently, less taxable.

President Sohl: Anyone else?

Mrs. Lynn Alcomo: I’ve lived on Elizabeth Lane for ten years. This gentleman, however, lives in Maplewood. He does not know what Budd Lake is like. It’s a small little town. Elizabeth Lane is a nice little street. If we don’t pass this Ordinance, my street is going to be so congested, I’m going to have so much traffic, there are so many small children playing on my street all the time. I want it to stay that way. I like the way Route 46 is–the little building. I like the nail salons, the hair salons, the office buildings. I have no problem with that. I know that a lot of my neighbors are here, and I know they feel the same way that I do. But they’re just too chicken to get up here and talk. So, I think it’s a good Ordinance to pass, and I agree, please consider it. Thank you.

Mr. Michael Zaney, Elizabeth Lane: This is just really a comment, but according to your expert planner, the only thing that can up after this Ordinance is passed, is Offices, Nail Salons, and Hair Salons. Well, fine. So be it. If that’s not the case, then leave the trees alone, and we have a countryside. It’s bad enough–I have a deaf child, and there’s no way the cars do 25mph on the street now. You change that, nobody is going to put anything up, the traffic stays the same, I’m happy and everybody on Elizabeth Lane is happy. It’s simple. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out here. Thank you.

Mrs. Angela Sartell 3305 Lot 14: Does anyone have any total as far as what the tax base is on Elizabeth Lane versus what you’re going to be losing if all the property owners who have commercial property can’t develop their property and have to apply for tax relief?

Mr. Dorsey: I don’t think anybody has that information.

Mrs. Sartell : You might want to think about it.

Mr. Bonte: Mr. McGroarty, are you planning on doing a presentation?

Mr. McGroarty: I would–if the Township wants me to respond–

Mr. Bonte: I didn’t know if he was going to give a presentation first, my question might be answered, so I guess I should ask it.

Mr. Dorsey: Well, you won’t get to go again. So, go ahead and ask.

Mr. Bonte: In the Ordinance, Section 8, Commercial Zone–the purpose, it talks about traffic. It says site improvements standards within the district will serve to provide better traffic circulation on and off the highway, and will reduce impervious coverage thereby reducing storm water runoff. I was curious, what are the plans within the Ordinance, because I couldn’t find them in here What plans you conceive of to provide better traffic circulation on and off the highway?

(Discussion Inaudible)

Mr. Bonte: But in terms of traffic management, obviously a deceleration, acceleration lane, turning lane, whatever you call it, is really the only answer to solve most of the traffic problems on Route 46. I realize that that’s taking frontage away from property owners. But to do what was done at Budd Lake Plaza, is actually a more hazardous situation. I don’t know whether the DOT cares or knows, it looks neater–I have to agree, it looks neater, but it’s definitely a more hazardous situation. That’s basically what my comment is. Thank you.

Mr. Frank Iacavone, 22 Elizabeth Lane: I have three kids on Elizabeth Lane. There are many kids on the block. I agree with my neighbors, we don’t want no more of that traffic coming through the streets. The cars come fast enough as it is down there. I agree with my neighbors, that’s it.

President Sohl: Chuck, would you like to put your comments on the Record?

Mr. McGroarty: Sure–

Mr. Dorsey: No–before Chuck makes his comments, I want to make a comment, then let Chuck make his comments. Let’s make it all part of the Public Record, and then as soon as Chuck is done, then we’ll close the Public Record. You know, Mr. Steck is a fine, Professional Planner. I think I’ve retained him in the past to testify for me. And, for purposes of summing it up for the Council, his presentation can be divided in two specific points. The first section dealt with technical points in the Ordinance. Technical in the sense that I don’t think effect the substantive purpose of the Ordinance, and Chuck will defend that, or respond to it because this is his Ordinance. He does, however, attack the substance of the Ordinance and essentially makes the argument that this Ordinance is not consistent with the existing Land Use pattern. Namely, as you count up the various pieces of property that are listed under the conformity analysis done by Mr. Hashemi, you’ll find that there are 21 residents, I think 11 pieces of property, and I think 14 commercial tracts. So, the argument, essentially is, that you’re not consistent with the existing Land Use pattern because essentially you’re not promoting residential development. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that Mr. Steck in his second go round points out this probably is not a great place to locate additional residence. I think that deals essentially with traffic, etc. on Route 46. The other practical problem is, if you never do anything different then is dictated by the existing Land Use Pattern, well, then, you can never change what is in a zone to fit the current circumstances. So, Chuck?

Mr. McGroarty: What I would like to do is respond to Mr. Steck’s comments because I think he raises important questions that have to be addressed. In responding, I hope I touch on the points I would have otherwise made. Incidently, I have now passed along to the Council an exhibit which I will put on the Board here for the benefit of the Public. If it’s somewhat tedious, I think it’s important still, that I go through it point by point. For the Record–or just for everyone’s information, the boards that I’ve posted here were prepared by me. One is an assembly of tax maps, and it shows the district in question, which as I indicated in the report that the Council has, it’s approximately one mile long. It is on the westbound side of Route 46. It’s northern point of origin is the Budd Lake Diner area–it goes all the way down to the edge of Budd Lake here at Cove Street. I would say with respect to the reference to the Ordinance itself, to the Master Plan Re-examination Report, that’s part, but not all of what was said in that paragraph. It reads, more completely, “...will properly implement the desired land use policy expressed in general terms in the Master Plan Reexamination Report and more particularly in recent report prepared by (Myself) Chuck McGroarty (etc.) Dated July 25, 2000...” We can spend considerable time discussing whether the F.A.R. that was discussed in a reexamination report in 1995 ought to be the same today. And it is a very important issue, F.A.R. I would agree to that without hesitation. But, I would like to cut to the chase if I may. The 1995 Reexamination Report–which I wrote–and Jay Lynch assisted in the preparation of–in our mind set the stage for the land use element which came in 1997, and we did not make the change that was called for in this area. We didn’t make other changes as well, with the thinking that we needed more study, more analysis. Let me point out, though, that the Mt. Olive Planning Board, in August of this year adopted an Amendment to the Land Use element of the Master Plan to create the basis for this new Zone District. So, I don’t feel that the Planning Board, nor do I feel that the Council needs to be bound by the specifics that were in a 1995 document clearly. The Council does not. The Statute allows, as all of you all know, you can disagree with any recommendation of the Master Plan as long as the appropriate majority vote in favor of it and express your opinion on the Record. You’re not bound by either the reexamination report, or the Master Plan if you find sufficient reasons to reach that conclusion. As to whether or not each and every issue, the F.A.R., the lot size, etc. found its way into this current Ordinance, it did not. In the 1995 report, we made certain suggestions, and in the six years, or five years since, I think we’ve done the study that we thought would be necessary and have come to this recommendation. With respect to the Limited Use Zone, we do allow for a broad range of office type uses in this new zone district. We do get rather specific, I must admit, as to what kinds of office uses they may be. We haven’t done that before to that degree, but we feel–I say “we” the Master Plan Committee, who helped put this Ordinance together, and certainly the Planning Board, who, as I just mentioned, not only supports it, but in order to amend the Land Use element, to create it–not the Ordinance, or course, but the basis for the Ordinance. Hair salons, and other sorts of limited type of service industries would be permitted, yes, but we thought the focus, generally would be on the kinds of office development that are identified in the Ordinance. There are some other permitted uses, as well, as Mr. Steck mentioned. It is worth pointing out that we have two conditional uses. I thought it was said that residential would be a non-conforming use. As we discussed early, it is, today, under the new Ordinance, it would be a conditional use under the specific terms and situations that are described in here. We are trying in a modest way to introduce several types of land use activities along the stretch of the highway that we hope will complement each and will also work. I don’t think there is any harm in having a residential use combined with a non-residential use as long as it’s subject to the appropriate design criteria and subject to Public Hearings. The Home Occupation–my feeling about the Home Occupation–I could make or understand the logic of Mr. Steck’s argument, and it’s certainly nothing that I would dismiss out of hand because his analysis is always, tonight, and as always in the past is sharp and one can learn many things from it. But, I feel that by allowing home occupations in existing residential homes, if those residential homes can satisfy the conditional use standards–and it is a somewhat complicated scenario, than it might actually let those homes have some freedom that they would otherwise not enjoy that is today–some method of expansion. With respect to the veto power of a Planning Board Attorney and an Engineer, and

Mr. McGroarty (cont’d): specifically on the satellite parking, I would disagree. My feeling about that, it’s very, very typical–as members of the Planning Board who sit on the Council, Mr. Spino, Mrs. Kelly, from the past. Others of you have been on other Boards. Mayor, the Zoning Board Chairman many years; and so on. You know that when there is–and I draw your attention to the language on the Satellite Parking where it talks about providing–and by the way we don’t envision this happening more than twice if it ever happens at all, because there’s a limitation on satellite parking. There are responsibilities which are required if one is to qualify as a conditional use for satellite parking. By the way, “satellite parking” is just a fancy way of saying it’s a stand alone parking lot. On it’s on lot. Whereas, today, it’s not permitted. Parking is accessory to a principal use. We’re saying, “under certain circumstances, and no more than twice in this entire one-mile stretch can there be lots designated for the sole purpose of parking.” And that would–and reading it in the proper context of the full Ordinance, accomplish what we’re trying to do–which, Mr. Bonte’s point earlier, we’re trying to reduce the amount of curbcuts per use. We also talked about pedestrian linkage, and so on. But, back to the point, who better than the Planning Board Attorney to review and make recommendation on the legal mechanism? The same is with the Council and Mr. Dorsey to make the legal analysis. It is not for lay people, it is not for Planners or Engineers to offer judgements on legal documents. But, that’s why the recommendation is there. The Zoning Board of Adjustment, the Planning Board always is bound by the requirement that they approve something, or if they deny something it is not arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious. Likewise, the same recommendation for the Engineer. When there are circulation issues that deal with proper turning radius, to deal with proper grade–while I might think I’m qualified to comment on those things–and to Gene’s discomfort, sometimes I do–he’s the expert. He makes those recommendations. It’s the Board who has the vote. I don’t think it gives veto power to a Planning Board Attorney, or an Engineer to exercise their professional responsibilities. With respect to bulk standards. In a way I agree with what has been said here tonight–that it will make it difficult for small lots. But, I think, as Mr. Dorsey said–and I’m not trying to put words in his mouth–but I think the thrust of what he’s saying, that’s exactly the point. We’re not trying to put people out of their property, or make it impossible for them to develop. But, if the Town, if Mt. Olive is satisfied with development on lots–which in some cases, in this district, particularly down in the Budd Lake area, near the lake, are 5,000 and 6,000 square feet–possibly 10,000 square feet. And that’s fine. There’s nothing inherently wrong with it. It’s just going to be very crowded, and it will bear a resemblance to other highway strips, which one can see in New Jersey, particularly Route 22 or perhaps Route 31. It’s not, I think, the character that I understand is trying to be promoted here. If you have a 10,000 square foot lot, under the current zoning, you’re a non-conforming lot. In the C-1 Zone today, and under the new zoning, you still require an acre. If you have only a quarter or an acre, and you’re going to run afoul of our F.A.R. whether it’s the current or proposed, you have to deal with it. You’re developing on a lot which is 1/4 the size required in the district. I think there are good planning reasons to try and encourage the consolidation of lots to develop more conforming lots. And, indeed, that recommendation, the consolidation of lots to achieve the one acre lot size has been in the Mt. Olive Master Plan at least since 1976, prepared by Mr. Lynch, and perhaps even earlier. But it has been a long term objective and goal in that area of Route 46. On the F.A.R., I passed out to the Council–these three properties exist today, all three came through Planning Board review and approval during the course of my time here in the past ten years. And I’m going to just touch on them very briefly. The first I’ll call “Dr. Abrams Building.” Dr. Abrams is a dental office and he shares it with a chiropractic office. The lot area there is .84 acres, so it’s under an acre. Dr. Abrams, when he did this project consolidated two lots into one to achieve that. He has a one-story building, 4,000 square feet. He has an existing F.A.R. of .11, which is under the .15 we proposed. We go down the highway to Mr. Masotti’s building, R&S Sports. Mr. Masotti has .29 acres, which is 12,588 square feet. He has a two story building, it has 1,590 square feet–almost 1,600 square feet, if you will. He has an F.A.R. here of .12–he’s under the .15 we proposed. Lastly, at the edge of the district, Civil Engineering Building–both of these were single-family, residential dwellings that were converted. Dr. Abrams went to convert an existing building and it collapsed during the course of construction due to its age and inferior condition, and he proceeded–with Planning Board Approval–to construct what’s out there today–which is one of the finer buildings on the highway. Civil Engineering’s building they have a lot area of .312 acres, which is almost 1,4000 square feet. They have an F.A.R. of .15–which is exactly the F.A.R. we proposed. Now, all three don’t meet the one-acre lot standard that I mentioned. All three do meet the F.A.R., so they could, if they were to come in under the new Ordinance–not Mr. Masotti, because he’s retail sales–but the other two could come in and get a bulk variance for lot size. Just the same way they did when they first came in, get a bulk variance the first time around, when they were in front of the Planning Board. But, they, more importantly, they would not run afoul of the F.A.R., they would not find themselves in front of the Board of Adjustment. And, I’d suggest–these are three properties that exist out on the highway. By some stroke of faith, one is down here, one is down in this area, and the last is here. So, it’s almost a representation of the entire District. They work, they function, and in the case of Mr. Masotti, who is retail sales, he has a letter from me at his request affirming that he is a pre-existing, non-conforming use as sales of goods and services in a broad sense. And he is allowed to continue that, and anyone else can operate retail sales, goods and services in that broad sense in perpetuity. Let me also point out another thing about the three buildings. None of them meet the current bulk standards. The current C-1 standard requires a 75' building setback. Now, none of these buildings meet that. Civil Engineering is 35’; Mr. Masotti is 32’ and Dr. Abrams is just about 40'. That’s the standard

Mr. McGroarty (cont’d): we’re talking about. Now, I already talked about the F.A.R. Now, my judgement, an F.A.R. on a conforming Lot is perfectly adequate to increase the value of the property because you eliminate some of the requirements variances delay, and the ability o 6,500 square feet. I just told you three buildings out there that function quite well that are well under 6,500 square feet. Yet, however, I’m not going to be glib about this. If someone has a 10,000 or 5,000 square foot lot, which exists out there in some places, the F.A.R. is going to be restrictive, and in my judgement, it should be. The purpose of the Ordinance, I believe, do recognize the character of the area. What we said, what we looked at, this area is different from any other area, in my judgement, in Mt. Olive Township where you have commercial and residential in such proximity. For the most part, these lots have a typical depth of 125', maybe 130'. I believe cannot develop these lots that exist out there today in conformance with the C-1 Zone without multiple variances, and without all sorts of problems to the residential areas behind. And the impact on the residential areas has to do with a number of things. But, let me just focus on one point, if I may. There was a lot of discussion in that Table, which I see for the first time tonight, so I don’t know–I can’t speak to its accuracy. Quite honestly, I’m still trying to understand it. But, I can tell you, 35 of the 46 lots that are out have less than 150' in depth. So, that means to me, 76% of the lots on the zone district cannot conform to the current zone regulations. So I think it is good planning, and I think we did take note of the character of the area to say we wouldn’t require 75' setback, we’re going to require a 20' setback in the rear. But, our Ordinance requires elsewhere that you have a minimum buffer of 25' between residential and non-residential uses. (Discussion inaudible.) I just feel there is ample justification. I cited in the report which I issued specifically under 4055D-2, which is the purposes of the Act of the Municipal Land Use Law, to buy, to promote, a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangements. And, A) to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development for lands in the State in a manner which would promote public health, safety, morals and general welfare. I suggest that by reducing the impervious coverage, you reduce storm water runoff, which is largely in this districts flushed directly out in to the highway system, down in to the waters of Budd Lake. So, you don’t have the opportunity for water quality control. You reduce the impervious coverage, you less of that running off into the lake, and more opportunity, perhaps, for improved water quality downstream.

Mr. Dorsey: Chuck, we can save something for Judge Stanton.

Mr. McGroarty: I will try to sum up quickly. The roof standard–I don’t know–we can debate that is to be encouraged, discouraged, ought to be there. I think we give the precise information that if you do satisfy, or if you are putting a flat roof in, you will know, unlike the present Ordinance, elsewhere, you will be required to screen rooftop equipment. No sound–probably would have been better to say that you will comply with the Noise Ordinance of the Township. I’ll concede the point, and if the Council feels it’s appropriate to amend that language, I wouldn’t disagree. The retroactive clause, by the way, which, perhaps is just a matter of how we read things, that was an addition. It was not in the original version. It reads in its entirety, “The design elements and site improvements contained in this Ordinance shall not be applied retroactively to existing developed properties within the new zone district unless said property or properties are subject to Site Plan Review in accordance with Chapter 400, etc. That wasn’t in the original Ordinance, because I didn’t feel it was necessary. We’re not going to go out and impose the Sign Regulations on Dr. Abrams, nor are we going to say to someone else that your lights have to go off at 11:00pm, except for security lighting which is in the Ordinance. The last time, there was some concern because, “All my lights had to be out, and our property would be unprotected.” That would be untrue. But, in response to the concerns that some of the property owners had, we added that language. I think it’s there when it says, “Unless said properties are subject to site plan review...” how confessed is always a better way to say something. There always is. Language can always be refined to always be more precise and more illuminating. But, what I’m saying here, if you have an existing business–Dr. Abrams, if you don’t mind–if he comes in to do something different with his business–to expand the building, in conformance with the Ordinance, then he’s subject to site plan review. We’re not going to go out–and I think the plain language says, we’re not going to go out and say, “You’re subject to Site Plan Review, ergo, we’re going to apply the design standards retroactively.” Absolutely not. Again, if there’s a more precise way to say it, fine. But, it goes without saying, and I think coupled with a pre-existing non-conforming use language, to anyone else, that’s not a problem. If the language there needs to be revised, I would not disagree. I don’t know what else to say. I have the global issue that Mr. Steck mentioned. We have a disagreement. I think we feel we’re talking into account the character of the area, we’re taking into account many of the lots which are non-conforming today, we don’t feel they can be developed under the current standards in any way, shape, or form. And we think by proposing the changes that we have suggested, we will encourage what the Master Plan has been trying to do since 1986, which is to consolidate and bring the small lots more into conformance, and have something that really can be built and developed. And, I showed you some examples. I’ll stop there.

President Sohl: Thank you, Chuck.

President Sohl closed the Public Hearing on Ord. #40-2000

President Sohl: Council comments?

Mr. Heymann: I’ll try to sum up my comments within five minutes. But, I’m going to make my best effort. I want to begin by indicating that in 1995, we commenced an exhaustive review of the Master Plan. I disagree with Mr. McGroarty’s statements that there is language within that that gives us a reason to now, a couple of years after we enacted and moved forward with those changes, that suggest that this was included when the Master Plan was being thought of in 1995. That language that Mr. McGroarty has quoted us is nothing more than a general release, hold harmless, it’s a catchall. What interests me is the fact that this major piece of thoroughfare is so important today that we somehow missed it back in 1995 when we were doing a Master Plan. I understand the residents who live on Elizabeth Lane, and their concerns. But, what we’re being asked to do here today, I believe is–we’re being asked to legislate something that I don’t think is our duty to do at this point in time, because we all know that this will eliminate what Mr. Hashemi is attempting to do. And I question the timing of this Ordinance that’s being brought to us around the same time that the application was being filed. Now, our job here is to be fair. Fair to the residents–

Mayor Licitra: Can I make a Point of Order, John–

President Sohl: Mayor, please wait.

Mayor Licitra: If I make a Point of Order–

President Sohl: Mayor, please wait.

Mayor Licitra: Does, this one have to do anything with the other?

President Sohl: I don’t want to gavel you down, Paul.

Mayor Licitra: I want to ask John a question.

President Sohl: Let Mr. Heymann finish. He has the floor.

Mayor Licitra: Well–

Mr. Dorsey: Mr. Heymann does have the floor. And I think we should let him complete his comments. The relevancy of it–in the first place is not correct because the application has now been withdrawn by Hashemi from the Planning Board. So, factually, that’s not quite correct at this point in time. But, each Council person has the right to say anything he wants on this legislative matter.

President Sohl: Ron, would you like to continue?

Mr. Heymann: Twenty years ago, when I began doing trial work, if an experienced attorney might have jumped up trying to interrupt me, it might have thrown me off. But, the Mayor won’t be that successful 20 years later. So, as I was indicating, I find it to be a bit curious that we’re being asked to do this at this point in time. Whether it’s Mr. Hashemi, or whether it’s 12 or 15 residents from Elizabeth Lane, I don’t think that my obligation here is to look at a group and consider 12 versus one anything different. And that’s what bothers me. It has bothered me from the beginning. This isn’t something new. You’re not hearing this for the first time from me. I brought this up when this Ordinance was brought to us back in June or July and I raised these same concerns. I was upset by the timing of this. I felt it was just too curious that this would happen at the same time. Just a short time after we had an exhaustive Master Plan Review. So, I went on Record with what I thought did not make sense, and why we were doing this. I indicated that I’m not saying that this isn’t the right zoning change to be made here, but I want it to be done after there’s a fair opportunity for everyone to have their say. I certainly know that the residents had their opportunity either before the Planning Board–or would have–I’m not going to get into what happened at the Planning Board and how long an application went. I find that to be a bit curious and that’s what’s bothered me with regard to this particular zone change. I also think this zone change is just going to create a multiple plethora of additional applications that are going to come before the Board of Adjustment, and therefore that Board is going to have the power to make those decisions to grant whether or not relief is going to be granted to certain people in that area. It’s going to be no different. That Board can sit there, just as any Zoning Board and say “No” to that matter. Now, I want to address the last point which I’ve heard some people talk about, so I’ll clear it up. And why I won’t be able to vote, and I will Abstain on my vote because I have represented Mr. Hashemi’s sister with regard to a zoning application in Roxbury. So, that there is no appearance of impropriety, I will Abstain from my vote. Although, I think I can clearly vote because I find it to be wrong Mr. Heymann (cont’d): in what we’re doing. I don’t think my representation of his sister is any greater appearance of impropriety than anybody who would like on Elizabeth Lane or in that vicinity and be asked to vote on this today. If I have to Abstain, which is my own personal opinion, then people who are in that vicinity probably have to consider that same thought as to whether or not they are clearly looking at this, or whether or not their vote raises any appearance of impropriety. With that, I’ve indicated again, I think my comments are no different than they were back in June or July when we had this the first time.

President Sohl: Anyone else from the Council? Okay. Mayor?

Mayor Licitra: Unless I’m–Boards, Council Township Government 101–I just–when you make an Abstention, you should do it before you say anything publicly as a Council person, nor as a Board Member, then you become part of the Public, and make your comments if you want to as part of the Public. That’s Number One. Number Two, I think–Ron talks about a fair opportunity for residents to have their say–I don’t think there’s been a better opportunity. In fact, it went back to the Planning Board, it went back to the Master Plan Committee, Chuck went back to the Township. I think the people have had their say. Nobody’s been short-changed here. I want to say that this has been recommended by the Economic Development Committee, it’s been recommended by the Chamber of Commerce; it’s been recommended by the Planning Board, the Master Plan Committee; it’s been recommended by your professionals; it’s definitely recommended by me; and it’s been validated by the people of Mt. Olive because they want this. Not just the people here, but the people all over Town. Not good Planning? Chuck (McGroarty) you did an excellent job. I’ll tell you again, this is excellent planning. Let me tell you something, and it’s going to protect the quality of life for people in this Township. Little by little. That’s all I have to say. Thank you.

President Sohl: Thank you, Mayor. Anyone else?

Mrs. Kelly: I would just like to say–I know I’m a resident of Elizabeth Lane. I was never noticed when Mr. Hashemi–I don’t live within 200', and I feel I can make a sound decision on this, and I should not have to Abstain.

Mr. Dorsey: I understand you’re 2,000' away.

Mr. Guenther: I originally–on the September 12, 2000 Council meeting, I made some comments because I had seen the correspondence. Obviously, Mr. Dorsey is right, that application is no longer active, for whatever reason. But I agreed essentially with Ron. I do agree, we can fine-tune the Master Plan. I think we should constantly tinker with it to bring it to what we want this Town to be. It doesn’t necessarily mean that when we go through a process that everything is perfect. I think we have to constantly fine tune it. To me, people that know me, from the time I’ve been involved in this Town, and the reason I first became involve in local affairs was when we were fighting the incinerator, landfill, and so-forth. I always felt at that time that Mt. Olive was being picked up. We had a feeling in the Town that other areas of the County were dumping on us. I saw it as a matter of fairness. I see this as a matter of fairness. What Ron points out, the timing, the way it was handled, the delays in the Planning Board and Mr. Hashemi’s application was just not fair. It’s probably opened the Town up to litigation. Which is additional cost to the taxpayers. Now, subsequent to my remarks that were made on September 12, at the recommendation of Mr. Heymann, I also entered into a business relationship with Mr. Hashemi’s sister. I feel that I can vote on this because my remarks were made before that business relationship. So, I have stated my opinion. I do agree with this rezoning, by the way. I do agree that this serves the greater goal in Mt. Olive and what we’re trying to achieve here. But I just feel this specific case, the timing and the way it was handled has opened up an additional cost to the Town by way of a lawsuit. And, fairness is what bothers me.

President Sohl: Any other comments?

Mr. Scapicchio: Chuck, I think you did a good job. I was part of the Master Plan Committee that reviewed this. It went back after the Public offered their comments. So there were several opportunities for several Public Meetings and comments. Ron, I disagree with the timing issue because if we were to look at every application and try to time the action that we took based on applications, we would never move on anything because there are always applications in front of the Board of Adjustment and Planning Board. I think we have to try and make these kinds of Zone changes without ever paying attention to any application that is before any Board. I think this revised Ordinance is an excellent way to protect the residents that abut that commercial area, and I think that with this proposed change, we’re going to promote good quality businesses that can co-exist back to back with residential properties.

President Sohl: Thank you.

Mr. Scapicchio moved for Adoption and Final Passage on Ord. #40-2000 and Mrs. Kelly seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed by the majority, Exception: Mr. Heymann ABSTAINED

President Sohl declared Ord. #40-2000 as Passed on Second Reading.

Ord. #39-2000 Bond Ordinance Providing for the Purchase of Sanitation Trucks in and by the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey, Appropriating $600,000 Therefor and Authorizing the Issuance of $520,000 Bonds or Notes of the Township to Finance Part of the Cost Thereof.

President Sohl opened the Public Hearing on Ord. #39-2000

Mr. Bonte: Does anybody know–according to the Ordinance, the expected life expectancy that we’re buying is five years. Does the $520,000 of Bonds, plus the $80,000 down payment, are there interest charges in addition to that? Or is that included?

Mr. Dorsey: It comes out of the Sanitation District, period. It’s not general taxation.

Mr. Casey: The issue that you’re raising is whether the $600,000 includes temporary interest, and the answer is, “No.” The $600,00 is anticipated to be hardware purchase cost. Actual cost of material.

Mr. Bonte: So the interest to pay back these Bonds will come from the general operating budget of the Sanitation Tax District.

Mr. Casey: The plan is that the Sanitation District will contribute to the General Fund on an annual basis an amount of money sufficient to pay for the Debt Service on these. If you remember that debt plan that we worked out. There will be an annual contribution from the Sanitation Fund to the General Fund to offset this interest and principal cost.

Mr. Bonte: And what will that annual cost be? Does anyone know that amount?

Mr. Casey: The Budget that we prepared indicated it was $80,000 this year, $90,000 next year, $100,000—and it would stay at $100,000 for the next six years because we’re going to have another Bond issue in three years. So, if you remember, we worked that out over ten years to replace our fleet over a ten year cycle using program debt service.

Mr. Bonte: But each bond you purchase has to be paid back in five years.

Mr. Casey: That’s correct. So we intend to pay this one back, but before we pay this one back, we’re going to have a second bond to replace the remainder of the fleet, but we’ll schedule those so they fall within that repayment schedule. Even though the life of that is five years, you have the capability of using what’s called Bond Anticipation Notes for up to ten years before you go permanent debt.

Mr. Bonte: Do we know what type of vehicles we’re buying? Have we sorted that out yet?

Mr. Casey: In discussion we had with the Council, we are going to Bid for three packer trucks. Hopefully within the nest month, a determination as to the fourth vehicle that we intend to purchase under this has yet to be resolved. We’re going to start with the three packer trucks because that’s the oldest, and those are the primary vehicles that we need. Start with the three and then come back when we have our final fleet configuration resolved.

Mr. Bonte: I was hoping you would say that. Just basically reminding you that you’re adding approximately $25 - $30- per year to the average home for the cost of sanitation, and that none of these costs were anticipated in the presentations that were made to you two years ago. And at the five-year period, I will come back to this Council with a full analysis–

President Sohl: Your presentations or Bob’s?

Mr. Bonte: Not Bob’s. The Administration’s presentations, and our presentations regarding the cost of sanitation for this community for a five-year period. And I will be making a presentation to this Council in about three and a half years to let you know how much money–each of the taxpayer’s money you have squandered. Which is, probably now, over $4 million over that five-year period.

President Sohl: Thank you, Rich. Anyone else from the Public on this Ordinance?

President Sohl closed the Public Hearing on Ord. #39-2000

Mr. Guenther moved for Adoption and Final Passage on Ord. #39-2000 and Mr. Heymann seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed by the majority, Exception: Mr. Spino voted NO

President Sohl declared Ord. #39-2000 as Passed on Second Reading.

ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING (November 21, 2000 Public Hearing Date)

Ord. #31-2000 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Vacating a Portion of Flanders Netcong Road. (Revised ITC South Road Project)

Mrs. Kelly 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 November 21, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Rattner seconded the Motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

Ord. #32-2000 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Making the Provisions of Subtitle One of Title 39 Various Traffic Regulations Applicable to the Sutton Plaza Shopping Center and Regulating the Use of Said Roadways, Streets, Driveways, and Parking Lots by Motor Vehicles.

Mr. Spino moved that Ord. #32-2000 be introduced by title and passed on First Reading and that it be scheduled for Adoption after a Public Hearing on November 21, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Rattner seconded the Motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

Ord #42-2000 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Establishing Speed Limits on Portions of Goldmine Road and Flanders Netcong Road.

Mr. Rattner moved that Ord. #42-2000 be introduced by title and passed on First Reading and that it be scheduled for Adoption after a Public Hearing on November 21, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Guenther seconded the Motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

Ord. #43-2000 An Ordinance of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Sale of Block 5300, Lot 18 C8.2A to Nicholas Lenoard and Santina Minervini for $150,000. (Sale of old Police Substation)

Mr. Heymann moved that Ord. #43-2000 be introduced by title and passed on First Reading and that it be scheduled for Adoption after a Public Hearing on November 21, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. Mrs. Kelly seconded the Motion.

Mr. Scapicchio: John, this is a Vet in Town, and my wife utilizes their services in a significant way. Would that create a problem for me?

Mr. Dorsey: I think it would be just as well if you would Abstain.

Mr. Guenther: John, in the Ordinance where it says, “In accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract.” That obviously is due to the fact that it’s contingent upon them getting the use of water. Right?

Mr. Dorsey: Yes. The Contract provides that, the Contract provides that he will have to get the approval of the Condominium Association, which was the last thing on the Contract provides, subject to your adoption of this Ordinance.

ROLL CALL: Passed by the majority, Exception: Mr. Scapicchio ABSTAINED

Ord. #44-2000 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Prohibiting Vehicles of a Gross Weight of More Than 8,000 Pounds (4 Tons) or Over on Various Streets Within the Township. (amendment to Ord. #31-97)

Mr. Guenther moved that Ord. #44-2000 be introduced by title and passed on First Reading and that it be scheduled for Adoption after a Public Hearing on November 21, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Scapicchio seconded the Motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

Ord. #45-2000 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Prohibiting Parking at all Times on the Cul-de-sac of Janice Drive.

Mr. Scapicchio moved that Ord. #45 -2000 be introduced by title and passed on First Reading and that it be scheduled for Adoption after a Public Hearing on November 21, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Heymann seconded the Motion.

Mr. Scapicchio: Mayor, can you explain the purpose of this Ordinance, please?

Mayor Licitra: Yes–I think we’ve been getting a lot of complaints about trucks parking on the streets–

Mr. Kaplan: Individual residents have complained to the police department that due to the proximity of the State Park, a lot of people that go there to hunt are parking on that cul-de-sac, and it’s causing them to have a serious problem. So they wrote a letter to the Police Department and requested that they look into eliminating the parking on the cul-de-sac, and I got recommendation of that to proceed, and that’s what you have in front of you.

Mr. Scapicchio: Is hunting allowed on that property?

Mr. Spino: It’s a State Park. Yes.

Mr. Kaplan: I believe it is. What they’re complaining about, people are parking their cars, and they’re walking through the Brown’s property to get back in. They want to see that stopped.

President Sohl: Now they all know they could be ticketed themselves, right?

Mr. Kaplan: Yes.

President Sohl: Sometimes these things come back at the person who wants 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 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.

President Sohl: Is there anyone who would like to remove any of the Resolutions from the Consent Agenda? We have taken #7 off. Okay. Is there anyone from the Public who would like to address any of the Consent Resolutions? Okay. Council Comments? None.

1. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Execution of a Developer’s Agreement Between the Township and Lisanti Enterprises.

2. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Real Estate Listing Agreement with ERA Duke Realtors Relative to the So-Called Police Substation/264 Route 206 (C8.2A).

3. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Release of Performance Guarantees in Connection with the Bennington Chase Water Well Project.

4. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Township Attorney to Proceed with In Rem Tax Foreclosures Pursuant to the In Rem Tax Foreclosure List Prepared by Mary P. Robinson, CTC.

5. Resolutions of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Contract for the Sale of Block 5300, Lot 18 C8.2A. (Sale of old Police Substation)

6. A Resolution to Award a Contract for the Dredging of Portions of Budd Lake.(listed on agenda but not received on Friday)

8. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Execution of a Mutual Aid Agreement with the Township of Roxbury for Animal Control Services.

Mr. Heymann moved for approval of the Consent Resolutions and Mrs. Kelly seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed by the majority, Exception: Mr. Scapicchio ABSTAINED on #5

MOTIONS

1. Bill List. - ATTACHED

Mr. Guenther moved for approval of the Bills and Mr. Spino seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously

COUNCIL REPORTS

Library Board Liaison Report

Mr. Sohl: I will just report that I was sworn in as a Trustee of the Library for the remainder of the year, and things are moving along.

Planning Board Report

Mr. Spino: At our last meeting we heard the application to increase the size of Toys R Us.

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. Bonte: At the last meeting, I gave you some thoughts on trying to control people that hunt on property that’s not their own. You had requested I put that in writing, and I have, and I want to give you a copy of it. I request that you put this on for a workshop discussion. I suggest that you invite the area hunting clubs to the workshop discussion. I don’t want this to be intrusive to them.

President Sohl: Thank you, Rich.

COUNCIL COMMENTS

Mr. Guenther: I just want to raise a point about safety. I was on Route 206. The traffic light just beyond the railroad trestle. The speed limit there is 45mph. It’s outrageous. It has no business being 45mph. There was a tractor trailer coming along that apparently did not know the road, Bartley Road bears off to the right, and he had to screech on his brakes to stop for the traffic in front of him. He didn’t realize there was a traffic light, or he saw 45mph speed limit. That road has no business being 45mph, and all the more reason we need to get together with the State. In Chester, they’ve been able to get Route 206 down to 35mph. I think we should be able to get the same thing.

President Sohl: That’s for a very narrow distance in Chester.

Mr. Guenther: Yes, I know that, and it should be for a very narrow distance here, too.

President Sohl: All right, we are going to adjourn this meeting and go directly to our Workshop meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made for adjournment. All in Favor, None Opposed. The Meeting was adjourned at 10:15pm.

______________________

Steven W. Rattner

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 January 9, 2001.

________________________

LISA M. LASHWAY

Mount Olive Township Clerk