| |
Mt. Olive
Township Council Minutes
May 24 , 2005
The Regular Public Meeting of the Mount Olive Township Council was called to Order at 7:30 pm by Council President Greenbaum with the Pledge of Allegiance.
MOMENT OF REFLECTION for all those who are and continue to protect our freedoms.
OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT ANNOUNCEMENT
According to the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of this meeting has been given to the Mount Olive Chronicle. Notice has been posted at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road, Mount Olive Township, New Jersey and notices were sent to those requesting the same.
ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Buell, Mrs. Labow, Mr. Mund, Mr.Guenther (7:31), Mr. Rattner,
Mr. Perkins, Mr. Greenbaum
Absent: None
ALSO PRESENT: Mayor De La Roche (7:36); Bob Casey, Interim Business Administrator; Sherry Jenkins,
CFO; John Dorsey, Township Attorney; Lisa Lashway, Township Clerk.
President Greenbaum: Let the record reflect that it is my understanding Mr. Guenther is at a meeting related to the Highlands. Let the record reflect that Mr. Guenther is here.
Annual Finance Department Scholarship Awarded to Kelly Carlson
President Greenbaum: The first item for presentation is the annual Finance Department Scholarship. Sherry, are you prepared to do that now without Jack? Okay, why don’t you do that.
Sherry Jenkins: This is actually our fourth award, I can’t believe it, they’ve gone by quickly, but Jack unfortunately can’t be here tonight, so I’ll be presenting the award on behalf of both of us. We are very pleased to present this award to you, Kelly. We got in a number of applications and you just excelled in terms of grades and all the things that you do, we were very impressed. It was very nice meeting you, Mom, as well. So, I would like to present this award to you on behalf of both Jack Marchione and myself and we wish you much success in your future endeavors. Clapping….
President Greenbaum: Does anyone from Council want to add anything?
Ms. Labow: Congratulations.
Mr. Perkins: Definitely.
President Greenbaum: It makes us all very proud to be able to witness and participate in the awarding of excellence to the youth of our community, so congratulations and best of luck.
COAH Revisions & Planning Area Designations – C. McGroarty
President Greenbaum: Next item for discussion is COAH Revisions & Planning Area Designations. I saw Chuck, do you need another minute or are you ready to go?
Mr. McGroarty: I’m ready, thank you.
President Greenbaum: I can hold you until the end of the meeting if you would rather. We can’t afford to pay you anyway, so it doesn’t matter.
Mr. McGroarty: Thank you. The first order of business is with regard to COAH and as the Council knows, the Township’s affordable….I’m sorry, its’ Housing Element and Fair Share Plan will expire…its’ six year period will expire in September of this year, but beyond that, because this is now….we are now in what is known as the third round with COAH, all municipalities will have to submit, with some exceptions, which does not include us, will have to submit it’s Fair Share Plan and Housing Element by December of this year. Now, what Mount Olive has the opportunity to do, rather than to submit it’s Housing Element by September 1st, which is the anniversary date, we can ask for an extension of time through December of 2005 and that simply allows us several extra months to put the document in order. I have had conversations with our representative, I’m not sure what title they give these folks, but the person down at COAH who’s been working with Mount Olive for many years and has been very helpful, and he suggested that we do seek the extension of time. It gives Mr. McGroarty (cont’d): us more time and, quite frankly, I think they’re overloaded down there as it is. So, it essentially means we will submit a Housing Element Fair Share Plan in December, if not before, of this year. To do that, there is a form that COAH provides, it is a model resolution and there are certain other material that has to accompany that, a schedule which I will provide to you, and my thought was you could perhaps take this up at your June meeting, which would give them ample time, as long as it’s done before September, and what I’ll provide is a schedule of how the Housing Element is going to be prepared and estimate that there will be public hearings probably in the neighborhood of September/October in order to complete the process. We’re working on it now, there is a tremendous amount of data that has to go into this Housing Element, differently from the past, so that’s being worked on now, it’s not as if we’re just not working on it, it’s underway. So that’s….it’s your choice, I mean, we can scramble and get it done by the September 1st deadline, we can also, as I said, seek the extension.
Mr. Dorsey: Well, don’t we just have to adopt a resolution to ask them to extend it until December or something?
Mr. McGroarty: We do, we do have to adopt that resolution.
Mr. Dorsey: I’m sure that’s what we’ll need to do.
Mr. McGroarty: Yes.
President Greenbaum: I don’t see any opposition, everyone seems to be onboard with extending it to….Jim, did you have something you wanted to add?
Mr. Buell: Yes, I hear today, at the Highlands Council meeting, that although we have to file this by December, we’re not held accountable for meeting the goals until after the Highlands has completed its work. Catherine, you went to the COAH meeting today, is that correct?
Inaudible…..
Mrs. Lashway: We can’t get her from the…..
President Greenbaum: Yes, Catherine, if you’re going to….if you’re going to ask Catherine a question and you’re going to speak, you’re going to have to come up to the microphone, because otherwise you’re not picked up.
Mr. Buell: Because I think this may materially affect…..because they said definitively to me today, when I asked the question, that we are not going to be held accountable for our COAH….third party or third round of COAH requirements until after the Highlands has been enacted…or the regulations have been filed…
President Greenbaum: Well, that doesn’t change the issue with regard to the extension. Chuck, can you get us the answer in terms of….
Mr. McGroarty: Yes, I can give you the answer right now.
President Greenbaum: Go ahead.
Mr. McGroarty: Because, in fact, segueing into the next discussion which we’ll have, I have an excerpt from the COAH rules. What the COAH rules say is that, with regard to the Highlands and the Pinelands and the Meadowlands area, COAH will have to adhere to the policies of those various entities as it sets the prospective need, but again, don’t forget the third round….that was written into COAH’s rules, the third round rules, which I have here. So, with all due respect to whomever said that today, I take that with a large grain of salt because COAH, in order to protect the town from a builder’s remedy lawsuit, you want that Housing Element done and in by….if you get the extension, December, or September before that. You cannot wait until the Highlands Master Plan is adopted, because that will be in June of 2006, there’s that gap of time, there’s no provision in the Highlands nor COAH to protect you unless you follow the procedures that we just described.
President Greenbaum: No one is arguing about getting the COAH Housing Element in place with the extension through December. So, whatever needs to be prepared for us to adopt, with the timeline, I would appreciate that, so we can start working on it in June.
Mr. McGroarty: Right, we’ll take care of that.
President Greenbaum: Thank you, next item.
Mr. McGroarty: The next item, I believe, is the discussion of the Plan Endorsement Process….am I….I don’t have your agenda.
President Greenbaum: Planning Area Designations.
Mr. McGroarty: Planning Area Designations.
President Greenbaum: That’s the only other item that we have.
Mr. McGroarty: Okay. I have an outline, it might help….please pass this down, thank you. What I’m handing out to you is really just some excerpts from three different documents and there are five pages. The first is excerpts from the Highlands Act itself, the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act. The second, which is on page three is excerpts from the Council on Affordable Housing Regulations, I just mentioned that as a matter of fact. Lastly, on pages four and five, excerpts from the State Development Re-development Plan, specifically regarding the PA2, Planning Area 2, and what I did there was just took some of the…what I think, the more salient points being delineation criteria policy objectives and the like. So, I certainly have a sense of what the Council wants to discuss, I don’t know if you want to say anything, or you have questions. How do you want to proceed?
Mr. Casey: If I might, I think…I’ve spent some time talking to Chuck. He’s got basically an overview that I think would be…that we discussed ourselves. I think it would be good to present to you an overview which gives you the big picture and several very significant policy issues that may or may not evolve over the next several years. So, it may be appropriate for Council to give him leeway to expound upon the issues in front of you.
Mr. McGroarty: Alright.
President Greenbaum: Does that give you guidance in terms of…what’s your understanding of what Council wants to do?
Mr. McGroarty: Well, in a general sense to move forward with the plan endorsement process, which is the next step after we had just gone through the cross acceptance, moving on to plan endorsement, and more particularly looking into the possibility of an amendment to the Planning Area Designation in the part of Mount Olive that includes the International Trade Center.
President Greenbaum: Well, we had talked about that during the cross acceptance, where we had indicated on our cross acceptance the desire to look at changing Planning Area number 5 in the Trade Zone, to a Planning Area number 2.
Mr. McGroarty: That’s right.
President Greenbaum: Did that lay the groundwork for what we are now proposing in terms of Planning Area number……changing it from 5 to 2?
Mr. McGroarty: Yes, it did. It laid the groundwork, yes.
President Greenbaum: Now, the way that Bob presented it, there are some policy concerns which have yet to be identified in terms of changing it from 5 to 2. Obviously, you know Council’s reason for looking at the plan change and it relates to the fact that, as BASF currently stands in Planning Area number 5, makes it very difficult for BASF to redevelop or to sell their property because of the Planning Area number 5 designation, which prevents them from receiving State inducements or prevents someone else who’s interested in that property from getting State incentives to develop that property. What are the impediments or what are the concerns in terms of…in the event that we do move forward with changing it from Planning Area number 5 to Planning Area number 2?
Mr. McGroarty: Just to clarify, and I’m sure the Council knows this, it’s not that they wouldn’t get any benefits, but they have focused in…their particular needs on one of the programs under New Jersey’s Economic Development Authority’s menu, if you will, of economic incentive programs and this one in particular is the business employment incentive program, commonly referred to as the BIP grant. They would qualify as would Mr. McGroarty (cont’d): any company has the possibility, as a matter of fact, DPC Cirrus in Mount Olive, several years ago, availed itself of this very program and got a 50%...of the grant program to expand its facilities here in Mount Olive. So, it’s not like they cannot get any…they cannot….they are not restricted from taking advantage of the program, but the problem that has come to light is that in September of 2003, EDA changed its’ rules, or modified them. So, if you’re seeking to qualify for this BIP grant, and others as well perhaps, but I’m more interested at the moment, I’m sure you are too, in just the BIP program because that’s what BASF is looking at. You can get 50%, but you can then qualify for an additional 30%, up to 80%, and this has to do with, as you know, with State taxes and the like, if you are….if you meet a number of criteria, Smart Growth criteria, as they call it, including being in a Planning Area 1 or 2, and there are others as well, if you’re in a distressed municipality and so on. So, the urgency comes about that BASF would like to market the property allowing for that 80% versus 50%, and then the question becomes…well, if we’re in a Planning Area 5, we can’t do that. So, we had identified this area….the area of the foreign trade zone, generally speaking, as one that might…..I shouldn’t say the foreign trade zone, the International Trade Center of which, as you know, the foreign trade zone is a part, but we identified that as a potential area for change. Some of the policy questions that need to be addressed are these: we are going to start the plan endorsement process, that’s when these kinds of map changes take place. They didn’t take place during cross acceptance, and if there was a thought that someone inadvertently missed the deadline or was not able to accomplish this before today, that in fact is not the case, because it’s laid out the way it’s laid out to go through this somewhat cumbersome process to make sure it’s all done in a measured and well thought out way, not by us, this is the policy that is established under the State plan. So, we start the plan endorsement process, the first thing we do is submit to the Office of Smart Growth, which is staff entity for the State Planning Commission, all of our planning documents, our master plan, our zoning, our wastewater management plan, all of it, and we demonstrate to them….our job, our burden is to demonstrate to them how our master plan, zoning and objectives for the future are consistent with the State plan. Now, I have the land use map, unfortunately I don’t have a different map tonight…I have it, I didn’t bring it in – it’s in the car and I can get it, showing the planning areas, but specifically we’re looking at a Planning Area 2 designation which is, generally speaking, the gray area here…..inaudible….the ITC area, I’m sorry, with potential expansion beyond that to....I’m having a little trouble here with the easel, potential boundary expansion to some other areas. That’s something that we have to bring forth when we go through plan endorsement. Now, some of the questions….if you make this Planning Area 2, the reason why I gave you the handout tonight, starting probably best on pages 4 and 5, I’m sensitive, I know you have a lot of things on your agenda, so I’m not going to go through it in detail, I just wanted you to have it. I identified for you the criteria and the policy objectives that the State plan establishes for a PA 2. I took the liberty of highlighting certain things. This is online, so if you want to see the more detailed descriptions of these, by all means….or I’m sure they’re available here in the building, but I want to draw your attention just to two things. Under the policy objectives on land use, on page 4, it says, as you see, among other things, to plan and zone for a wide range of land uses and users in order to achieve more balanced communities. Further, on the last page under housing, for a PA 2, it talks about providing a full range of housing choices primarily in centers at appropriate densities to accommodate the area’s projected growth. So, it raises, at least in theory, the argument that if you’re in a PA 2, you should have a comprehensive mixed use land use plan for the future, and again, a PA 2 is designed for future growth, that’s the nature of it, that’s the point of it….PA 1, PA 2 are growth areas. So, I’m calling attention to the fact that we may face the question, when the time comes from plan endorsement, where is your growth area particularly for housing? Now, on the point of housing, I guess I’m going backwards on my handout here, but I would point your attention to page 3, which really just talks about what Mr. Buell had asked earlier, it references…..these are now, exempt from the COAH regs, this is round…the round three rules, as they’re known, and it specifically sites that within the Highlands…..well, let me point first to where it says here under the section chapter 94 that I cite, Planning Areas 1 or 2, or located within a designated center, those are the places that will have a presumption of validity with regard to consistency with the State plan, and it says, as you see, these sites are the preferred location for a municipality to address its’ growth share obligation. So, Mount Olive presently doesn’t have a PA 2, if it does, in theory again, COAH, which will review our housing element this year, we just talked about, and they will also review it…the State Planning Commission will review our housing element because, as we go through plan endorsement, COAH sits at the table and they may say where is your opportunity for your growth share in affordable housing for the next ten years, if you’re designating a PA 2 area, where is that growth share for housing?
President Greenbaum: So, basically your point is that if we change it to a PA 2, we may have consequences… adverse consequences related to COAH that we haven’t thought about.
Mr. McGroarty: Adverse to some, and wonderful opportunities to others.
President Greenbaum: I understand that.
Mr. McGroarty: Yes, but lastly, I wanted to say…..
Mr. Dorsey: But wait…but how do we know…do you know….surely you know where we stand in terms of meeting our COAH obligation at this point, don’t you?
Mr. McGroarty: Yes, at present, for the….up through the second round, Mount Olive is in excellent condition, it has met its’ obligation, I think we have a surplus of six or ten units.
President Greenbaum: And we have access.
Mr. Dorsey: Well, where do we stand in terms of the third?
Mr. McGroarty: The third round, Mount Olive will have an obligation and it’s going to be….we will know better, quite frankly, when the Highlands finishes its’ regional master plan, but for our purposes, as we go forward, we’re assuming, based on the impact of the Highlands, which covers 82% of Mount Olive Township, putting it in the preservation area, that is, that most of the growth is going to be very limited, but we still have to account for all the growth that’s been approved and not yet built, or has been issued a CO as of January 1, 2004 forward. So…..
President Greenbaum: Morris Chase.
Mr. McGroarty: Excuse me.
President Greenbaum: Morris Chase.
Mr. McGroarty: Morris Chase, you have…
Mr. Guenther: Morris Hunt.
Mr. McGroarty: Depending on what happens elsewhere, and there are some other developments including the ITC, over the next ten years that have a potential for another two to two and a half million square feet build out.
President Greenbaum: The area that’s being discussed is the entire ITC?
Mr. McGroarty: Well, at minimum, yes.
President Greenbaum: At a minimum…
Mr. McGroarty: We would start there.
President Greenbaum: Currently, all that can be built there is commercial office space, is that correct?
Mr. McGroarty: Yes, commercial office, warehouse, it’s the FTZ 4 district is the one that’s large….that still has room remaining. That’s where the Marriott has just recently built, but generally speaking, industrial type buildings or class A commercial office buildings.
President Greenbaum: Right. As I recall, there is currently available approximately three million square feet of buildable office space in the ITC area, as it currently stands. Mr. Rattner and I have been looking at different options in terms of developing that area to increase the ratables. So, to the extent that any of those options would become available, it would require a change from the current State Planning Area, is that correct?
Mr. McGroarty: No, not from the State…..I’m not sure what options you mean, but no not necessarily from the State Planning Area.
Mr. Dorsey: No, what he means is within the ITC you have a site plan approval for the entire tract…
Mr. McGroarty: Yes.
Mr. Dorsey: And so that’s where your three million square feet of possible construction, and they can’t interfere with that because the preliminary approval goes back a number of years.
Mr. McGroarty: Correct.
President Greenbaum: But we’re looking at options that are other than the commercial office, looking at redeveloping that entire area.
Mr. McGroarty: Well now, those would be the questions, you see…that’s what I’m saying, those are going to be the questions that will come up when we submit our planning documents and start the plan endorsement process, we get started on that, they will assume, because we will have provided to them, that our zoning is and what our master plan says from 2003 and what our zoning says as of today, that that area and other areas are zoned whatever they may be, but if there are….if there’s a contemplation to change the zoning and they’re not… they being the Office of Smart Growth and the other agencies, are not aware of that as the process unfolds, once they become aware of it, as we must make it clear to them, should that come about, they will make….you know, the process will have to be modified to adjust to that. They’re going to go from the moment we submit all our documents and forward, and say okay, that’s your plan to the future of Mount Olive, we’re going to evaluate it for consistency. I did want to say….
Mr. Dorsey: Let me ask you this. You called me today and you said you may need a letter to the Office of Smart Growth from the Council….
Mr. McGroarty: Yes.
Mr. Dorsey: If we don’t….if the Council does not proceed at this point, then it will never have an opportunity in the future to proceed with any possible change of Planning Areas, right?
Mr. McGroarty: It will, and I did call you, John, and I found out after you and I spoke, I had the person back on the phone, and they clarified for me, notwithstanding what they said in their e-mail to me yesterday, that all it takes to start the process would be the Mayor to send a letter saying on behalf of the township, he wants to initiate the pre-petition meeting, as they call it. Once that gets underway, it eventually has to come back to the governing body for approvals and the like.
Mr. Dorsey: Alright, but what happens if the Mayor does not send that letter now? I assume the process doesn’t begin.
Mr. McGroarty: That’s correct.
Mr. Dorsey: Suppose it’s decided six months from now that maybe we should proceed with that process, can he then send a letter and start the process then?
Mr. McGroarty: Yes, you’re not under any time constraint to start. It’s not as if you have to do it within X months or days after the cross acceptance is finished, it’s open ended.
Mr. Dorsey: Within six months….I take it that within six months, we will have a rather definitive idea as to where we stand with our COAH obligation, right?
Mr. McGroarty: Yes, absolutely, because…yes.
Mr. Dorsey: Isn’t that the COAH obligation…the dark cloud that hangs over this process?
President Greenbaum: It could be the wonderful cloud.
Mr. McGroarty: Well, there is one other thing and that’s what I wanted to just put it…..
President Greenbaum: Wait, Mr. Rattner had a question, before you get to it.
Mr. Rattner: I remember that we had this same conversation, I guess it was in September, when we were going over the cross acceptance, or whatever it was, in a document and I know….at that time, I wanted to object to the PA 5 for a couple of different reasons, which some of the people in the Smart Growth area and on the County level agree with looking at the Trade Zone, the ITC, that all the infrastructure is in. The roads are in for the way it’s going to be developed, the water, the sewer plant, everything is already there. That makes it a little bit different, because that they can compare it to and say how’s it any different from an urban area that’s already been built out, the investment has been made, the area has been disturbed, yes, you cut down a couple different trees and you have to address the new stormwater rules and a lot of the other issues, but it really is a built-out zone, all the infrastructure is already in the ground. Even under today’s Highlands, once the pipes are in the ground, you’re okay, it’s when it wasn’t….
Mr. Dorsey: Is that a factual statement?
Mr. Rattner: What?
Mr. Dorsey: Is it a factual statement for you to say that all of the infrastructure is in even in the area where BASF wants a change in the Planning Area?
Mr. Rattner: That’s just a combined…that’s the same lot, it’s the same property.
Mr. McGroarty: No, no, no, no…..
President Greenbaum: I’m not sure that all the infrastructure is in.
Mr. McGroarty: I don’t want to quibble about particulars, but no, the infrastructure is not all built out. BASF has another 700,000 square feet approved, but there’s no infrastructure in place, and the one to two million square feet left under the zoning is in locations where the sewer lines haven’t been extended yet.
Mr. Dorsey: Well, where they had a preliminary site plan approval approved for 700,000 square feet, there’s nothing that can stop that build-out, right?
Mr. McGroarty: Probably not, but I….well, Mr. Rattner wanted to finish, then I will respond to that.
Mr. Rattner: But the plant’s been built. Yes, there’s some pipelines and it depends, and it becomes whether you’re connecting it from the existing building and is it going to be bigger, because if you remember when they first built the building, they didn’t build the building the way they expected. They downsized it, because of changes in the economy and the building was going to be larger, and if they build onto it, they could probably go in and hopefully they’ve sized a lot of their infrastructure, but also the last time, I think, where we got a little tied up, we weren’t just talking about the 600 or so acres that are in the ITC, we were talking about trying to extend that up into Budd Lake, because I think we ended up with a total of about 2,200 acres, but one of the things I want to know…what’s going on now, and what the Administration’s been doing. Now, it’s nice to say let’s start talking and decide how we’re going to deal with the people at Smart Growth, because I deal with the people…..see the people at different functions on a regular basis and they’ve been ready and willing to have what they call the best thing to do is have an informal meeting. Maybe that’s the same thing Mr. Dorsey was talking about, finding out what the options are before you put anything down on paper and find out what’s doable, what isn’t, also the special situations that may be there.
Mr. McGroarty: We had the informal meeting. Catherine and I met with….we took Christine Marion, from the County, I know you know, but we went down to the Office of Smart Growth in September of last year, and met with Bill Harrison who is the chief person and a number of staff people. We met with him and laid out our options and said this is what we’re looking at, we weren’t talking about boundaries at that point, we said we were looking at maybe ITC, we’re maybe looking at areas beyond ITC. The advice that we got from Bill at the time….and Bill, by the way, as some of you may know, he’s been around many years, he’s well established, and he is now the liaison person with the Highlands Council, so he carries a lot of information and perhaps, I guess, weight in terms of knowing the rules and the process, and his advice to us at the time actually confirmed what our strategy was, which is identify it as an issue in your cross acceptance report, and then you deal with it in plan endorsement, and if you, at any point, feel that you don’t want to proceed on that, you can withdraw, and that’s exactly what we have done. It’s not as if we sat and waited and not done anything. I don’t know…I’ve seen things in the paper, but unfortunately, at least what I’ve seen in some of the papers, had the people writing the articles troubled themselves to go beneath the surface and understand the process, the story would have been different. I can tell you that yesterday we were in Trenton, I accompanied the Mayor, we met with the Chief Executive Officer, Karen Franzini of EDA, with BASF, and we discussed the various possibilities and we told them this is the procedure that we’re….if there’s a way to modify the BIP program for BASF, please do so, that was BASF’s plea. They turned to us….EDA turned to the Mayor, to myself and said well, what is Mount Olive doing and we said we’re proceeding on the plan endorsement leg of this process and they said to paraphrase, that makes sense, continue on that and we’ll see how things shape out and that’s what we’re doing.
Mr. Dorsey: Hey Chuck, I want to ask you a question. Someone said, I think it was you, that BASF…..no, Mr. Rattner said it, so let me check and see if it’s correct, that BASF actually has preliminary site plan approval for an additional 700,000 square feet of building on their tract. Is that a correct statement?
Mr. McGroarty: Yes, that’s correct, separate building, separate location.
Mr. Dorsey: Okay, but they have preliminary approval, and I think we agree legally, no one can stop them from building that which they have the preliminary approval for.
Mr. McGroarty: I agree.
Mr. Dorsey: So, they could build it, but apparently, from their standpoint, to make it really buildable, they need to be part of this BIP program, and in order to be part of the BIP program, I think you told us that the Planning Area in the State plan would have to be changed to either 1 or 2. Is that basically what you’re saying?
Mr. McGroarty: Yes, correct.
Mr. Dorsey: Now, if the Mayor files the letter, the intent to proceed with the plan process, and it’s subsequently determined that it’s not in the best interest of the township, then I assume it can be terminated at any time, is that correct?
Mr. McGroarty: Absolutely, absolutely.
President Greenbaum: Not only that, Chuck, but with respect to the COAH obligations, on a going forward basis, whatever they are in terms of approved developments, that’s going to be our obligation irrespective of whether we move forward with a change in the planning zone.
Mr. McGroarty: That’s correct, absolutely.
President Greenbaum: And without an answer, in terms of how we’re going to satisfy.
Mr. McGroarty: No, absolutely. I….and I do have one other thing just to put on the record or bring to your attention, and it’s not…none of this is meant to suggest that, you know, I want to drag feet or delay anything, I just want everybody…we all understand what we’re dealing with because it does get a little bit convoluted and it’s not entirely clear yet how it’s all going to evolve. As a matter of fact, tomorrow I’ve asked Catherine, she’s already made the appointment, she and I will go over to the Highlands Council and meet with their planning staff. I can tell you from recent presentations elsewhere in the State, when….or in the Highlands region, when they’ve been asked the question have you identified the receiving areas, the answer is no, they have not, or at least they’re not willing to disclose them, and that brings me to the last point, which is the Highlands Act, and that I’ve just identified some issues on pages 1 and 2 of that handout, and I will go through all the boldface type, but essentially what I’m trying to bring attention to, is that there is this interconnection designed now in the legislation…in the Highlands Legislation, the interconnection between COAH and the State plan. You will see there, in the language that I’ve excerpted and particularly the boldface stuff, that it’s talking about the need in these areas that are designated as centers, they become logical places for a receiving district. Now, as you know, in the Highlands, within the Legislation itself, 4% of the land area that constitutes the total planning area of the Highlands, not the preservation area, but the planning area. Four percent of that land area should be designated…it doesn’t say shall, but you have to make every effort to designate 4% of it as a receiving district for the transfer of development rights. The point here is that, and I’m not suggesting there’s anything good or bad about it, just be aware of it, that if Mount Olive identifies a Planning Area 2, as a growth area, under the State plan, whether it’s almost built out, or close to being built out, or whatever the case may be, the Highlands Council, by virtue of the interconnection that’s designed in the process, will look at that and could possibly see that, I think, logically one could argue they would see that as a potential receiving district, it makes sense, it’s voluntary, they cannot compel the township to designate it a receiving district, but if you couple that with the State planning policy for mixed use and residential growth and the COAH issue, I simply wanted to bring to your attention again tonight, I thought I did it last time, but I wanted to reiterate the point, that it stands a reasonably good chance that the Highlands Council, in it’s regional master plan, will come to Mount Olive and say we’d like this to be a receiving area. Do you have to…..
Mr. Dorsey: What does a receiving area mean? What does that mean?
Mr. McGroarty: That will become an area that will accept growth elsewhere, the transfer development rights will be transferred from other locations throughout the Highlands region.
Mr. Dorsey: To a receiving area?
Mr. McGroarty: Yes, and then the residential densities will be typically in the area of five units an acre…..
Mr. Dorsey: Okay. This thing is obviously tremendously convoluted, and there are a whole lot of policy decisions to be made, and I take it you’re not about to make a substantive recommendation tonight as to whether or not the township should ever….should ultimately seek a Planning Area change, are you?
Mr. McGroarty: No. I…..there’s certainly good arguments to be made for it, but I just….no, I’m not in a position to recommend one way or the other tonight.
Mr. Dorsey: But if the Township Council were to authorize, recommend, request the Mayor to send the letter to start the process, that would start the process leading for further investigation into the situation.
Mr. McGroarty: That’s correct.
Mr. Dorsey: Nothing would happen immediately, there would be more time to access what the effect would be in terms of COAH, and our obligation under COAH, and at that point in time, if it’s unsatisfactory, the request could be withdrawn, I mean, we agree on that, right?
Mr. McGroarty: That’s correct. You are under no obligation when you start that you have to stay with it.
Mr. Dorsey: Now I take it that BASF would never be entitled to participate in the BIP, as we understand the regulations today, unless this was designated as a Planning Area 2, right?
Mr. McGroarty: Well, just to clarify, they can qualify for this BIP program, BIP grant, up to 50%, the additional…..up to 80%, so you get an additional 30% if you meet some other criteria, PA 1, PA 2, distance from a transit station, apparently they’re close, but not close enough apparently, so….
Mr. Dorsey: Wait a minute.
Mr. McGroarty: So, they qualify, but they don’t get the full amount, they don’t get up to 80%.
Mr. Dorsey: Well, isn’t that just quibbling it?
Mr. McGroarty: I would say….you know, when they’re talking….the volume of dollars may be significant, but I just wanted to be clear, it’s not as if a candidate would be disqualified all together. As I mentioned before, DPC Cirrus….
Mr. Dorsey: Well, they apparently think they would be, right?
President Greenbaum: No I think…..
Mr. McGroarty: No, they understand, they understand….
President Greenbaum: I think what…
Mr. Dorsey: They believe that they will never be entitled to the maximum….
Mr. McGroarty: The maximum, and they’re correct.
Mr. Dorsey: Unless this is PA 2.
Mr. McGroarty: That’s correct.
President Greenbaum: Well, it comes down again to the decision of Verizon to go with the Basking Ridge facility over Mount Olive and one of the reasons cited was the amount of incentives that the State is willing to give.
Mr. McGroarty: Yes, I should tell you, though, that was cited by someone at the County level. BASF, they told me, I mean, I hadn’t talked with anyone at Verizon, they have no way of knowing why Verizon chose where they chose. I mean, it’s probably one of many factors.
President Greenbaum: I understand that, but I believe it to be true that Verizon would not have received the same amount of incentives if they had come to the BASF site.
Mr. McGroarty: That’s correct, they wouldn’t qualify.
Mr. Dorsey: Well, aren’t we to the point tonight, there’s one or two courses of action, either the Council recommends or requests the Mayor to send a letter to start the planning process, or we take no action at all. If we take no action at all at this point, it can be revisited at some other point in time, and the request made then.
President Greenbaum: I don’t see the downside to moving forward with the request to start the process.
Mr. Dorsey: I didn’t say there was a downside.
President Greenbaum: I know you didn’t, I’m talking to the rest of Council, to expedite the rest of this conversation, John, my suggestion is that we move forward with requesting the Mayor to send the appropriate letter, since the process can be stopped at any point in time, to no detriment of Mount Olive.
Mr. Dorsey: Do you want me to do a resolution?
President Greenbaum: Yes.
Mr. McGroarty: Now, before you…..
Mr. Dorsey: Excuse me, I’m ready to do a resolution.
Mr. McGroarty: I was just going to say, before I leave the stage, I want to make it clear…
Mr. Dorsey: Well, I didn’t want you to leave the stage.
Mr. McGroarty: Well, the planning area…the plan endorsement process will involve the entire municipality, not just the ITC area. One other wrinkle in this process is that all of the area of the….preservation area, the 82%, which is essentially, very roughly, all of the area in between ITC and the Flanders Cloverhill area, if you will. All the rest of that area will ultimately receive the presumption of validity when the Highlands Council, by June 2006, creates its regional master plan, and Mount Olive, if it chooses to do so, amends its’ master plan and zoning. If you’re consistent, all that wide swath gets plan endorsement automatically. We’re going to go to State plan, Offices of Smart Growth, and say we’ve got an area here and then down here in Mount Olive that’s in the Planning Area of the Highlands, not to be confused with the Planning Areas designation of the State plan, and we’re seeking plan endorsement for these two locations, these two areas. So, I point that out because clearly there’s been discussion of late of what might take place in the Flanders area. There was a resolution at one point, to seek maybe to expand the preservation area of the Highlands, and then more recently, some other ideas came about for very good reasons. We are going to identify these areas based on our zoning, as I said before, and if there are anticipated changes, the sooner we know about them and identify them to the Office of Smart Growth, through the process, the better the process will move forward.
Mr. Dorsey: Does that add anything to the discussion as to the choice to be made tonight?
Mr. McGroarty: Oh absolutely, it just made it so….no just to really understand it’s the whole town, we’re not just looking at the ITC, I just wanted to make that point.
Mr. Dorsey: That doesn’t change the fact that should the township decide it’s going down the wrong road, it can simply withdraw from this….
Mr. McGroarty: Absolutely.
President Greenbaum: But what Mr. McGroarty is saying is that the application with regard to the State planning areas may be broader than that which was discussed this evening.
Mr. Mund: Mr. President, can we ask the Mayor what his feelings are on this subject?
President Greenbaum: You can ask the Mayor.
Mayor De La Roche: What was the question?
Mr. Mund: Richard, what do you think of the options that we’re looking at here?
Mayor De La Roche: Well, that’s why I went down to Trenton yesterday to discuss the option, because it would seem to be appropriate to….certainly this building has been sitting there for a number of years empty, so they’re losing a lot of ratables, so we went down there to see what we could do to help BASF make it more attractive for someone else to rent it, or to buy it, or whatever, and as a result of that, we’ve come up with some of these plans, and by having it changed into a different area, and everybody seems to be receptive towards it providing we have all of our paperwork up and, as Chuck has just indicated, we are up to date with all the paperwork. It’s just a matter finishing up this last small part, with the letter requesting it and basically that’s it.
Mr. Mund: So, you’re in favor of us going forward with the change to PA 2?
Mayor De La Roche: Yes.
Ms. Labow: So, you’re going to send the letter?
Mr. Dorsey: No, we’re going to do a resolution.
Mr. Mund: With the resolution.
Ms. Labow: With the resolution. I had two questions for Chuck. Once the letter is sent, how long does the process take, do you think, is there any….
Mr. McGroarty: Once the letter is sent, the State has thirty days, and we have to submit to them master plan, wastewater management plan, all the stuff I mentioned before, copies…then they circulate it to all the agencies or the departments within the State. So, within thirty days, then we get scheduled for a meeting, this pre-plan endorsement meeting, at that point, we sit down with Office of Smart Growth and representatives from all the other agencies, COAH, DEP, DOT, etc., and they take a look at the plans that the township has in place and they evaluate and analyze them.
Ms. Labow: So, after the first thirty days, then how…what’s the next timeframe period?
Mr. McGroarty: Well, that’s the problem, there’s no definitive way, there’s no timetables built in, this is not a permitting process. They sit down, depending on the quality, and that’s a subjective…..
Ms. Labow: So, we know for sure it’s thirty days, and then….whenever everybody can get together after that.
Mr. McGroarty: Well, I can tell you that I’ve been told to date, only one municipality in New Jersey has gone from start to finish in the plan endorsement process, Asbury Park, only one, and so…you know, they’re all right about now starting to file, so we’re right….sort of where everyone else is at the moment, and Asbury Park took nine months.
Ms. Labow: Nine months, okay.
Mr. McGroarty: I have no….I know….I actually have some particular knowledge about the redevelopment plans that are going on in Asbury Park and the like but, you know, it may be a level of sophistication that took more time, I just have no idea.
Ms. Labow: Yes, and then more people are doing it….I would have to assume, safely, I hope that it will take longer the more people that are…..they weren’t the only ones.
Mr. McGroarty: It depends, I don’t know if that’s the case…I don’t know…it’s just a question of, again, they’ve emphasized to me, the people I’ve spoken with the Office of Smart Growth who have been very, I must say I was pleasantly surprised how prompt they were and cooperative they were in getting stuff to us and talking to us, and they said…they emphasized several times, several people, we want to make sure we want to help you. So, I don’t think it’s just, you know, hopefully it’s not going to be a situation where they pull out a plan and they don’t like paragraph F or G or something like that. In fact, I was told that the emphasis now might be more on the line of….they want an analysis done, which is a good thing as opposed to just generating more paper. They want an analysis from us as to how our plans cumulatively add up to a consistent vision with the State plan and that’s the burden we have to make the argument. If we are in a position where we can make a strong and compelling argument right away, without needing to go back and redo some certain elements of the plan, I must tell you, the wastewater management plan becomes an essential part of this, and I don’t know what’s going to happen there, but to the extent we can get that and put that forward, we don’t necessarily have to wait for everyone else in front of us, that’s my understanding.
Ms. Labow: One last question. The receiving area….you mentioned the receiving area over there by BASF could possibly be a receiving area. Now, you meant just for Mount Olive, or for the whole entire Highlands region?
Mr. McGroarty: The way…just…not just for Mount Olive.
President Greenbaum: Receiving area, by its very definition, means not for the township. Otherwise, it would be a satisfaction of our COAH obligation.
Ms. Labow: Okay.
Mr. McGroarty: And it’s not just COAH. The receiving area, under the Highlands, if it became one, first of all, if it were designated to become one, and secondly, if the township agreed to accept it to become a receiving area, it would, in theory at least, be open to the…to transferring development rights elsewhere within the Highlands region there. Now, that’s why there has to be 4% of the total land area in the Planning Area, because obviously it’s not all going to fit in one spot, and it has to be done, you know, to be consistent with good planning and all those other things, so it’s not as if it’s going to become a city out there, but you should be aware of that potential.
President Greenbaum: Thank you. Colleen, does that answer all your questions?
Ms. Labow: Thank you. Yes.
President Greenbaum: Is there anyone else? Otherwise, I’m going to ask Mr. Rattner and then I’m going to ask Mr. Dorsey.
Mr. Rattner: Yes, you talked about the, you know, one thing, and from what I gather, you know, we can get our hopes up and we have to go after it, but I don’t know if there’s going to be many Planning Area changes. Just like the State came up with the big map and it was a planning tool to help us and then it became a hammer, and I think the cross acceptance, which was the first step, they said do you agree….this is environmentally sensitive, now we’re going back and saying it isn’t, but one of the questions I have is that we’ve seen some of the memos that have come, especially from BASF, saying that different things have happened. In fact, for most of them that I’ve gotten, the Administration hasn’t shared with the Council, I’ve gotten them from either people I know that receive them at the State, or at the County. Specifically, like the letter, I believe was April 14th was never forwarded to the Council, and some of the others, but I did get the….we did get the letter from BASF about two weeks ago, I guess, suggesting that we go down with them to the meeting with the Smart Growth people. Is the reason that meeting was set up, was it really pushed by BASF, or was it an initiative taken by this town?
Mr. McGroarty: Well, first of all, there was no meeting with the Office of Smart Growth, not by us, and I don’t think by BASF.
Mr. Rattner: You’ve seen that letter from BASF asking to help, you know, that they would like us and the County to go down to see about getting the changes and it looks like they’ve been taking the lead, and that’s what I’m asking.
Mr. McGroarty: I have to see the letter in front of me. I can tell you that the meeting yesterday was with the Economic Development Authority.
Mr. Rattner: Okay.
Mr. McGroarty: With regard to Office of Smart Growth, they can send all the letters they want. The Office of Smart Growth is going to meet first and foremost with the municipality.
Mr. Rattner: That’s what these letters from BASF were, they first started in April, and they started asking that we do it because they haven’t gotten the cooperation before, that’s what their letter says.
Mr. McGroarty: I think if you look….well, you know, I have to….
Mr. Rattner: I’m just saying what their letter says, I’m just asking.
Mr. McGroarty: That is not….that is not an accurate representation of what they’ve said in their letters and it’s not an accurate representation of the facts and I resent anyone suggesting that there hasn’t been cooperation. From the day that we became aware BASF was concerned, notwithstanding comments from certain parties at the County level, we have been cooperative with them, and if you ask Bill Pearson, he will tell you that. He’s a representative of BASF, at least he’s told me that, so I trust he will tell you the same.
Mr. Rattner: Do you have the copy of the letter of April 14th?
Mr. McGroarty: I have it in my file, but if you have a copy handy, I’ll take a look….
Mr. Rattner: He said he was disappointed that we didn’t get the support.
President Greenbaum: You know what, I don’t want to get bogged down….I don’t want to get bogged down in this….
Mr. Rattner: But anyway, I’m just saying….I was asking who was driving it, because I got those letters.
Mr. McGroarty: I will tell you that this….also they understand it has been a learning process for them also, that changing a Planning Area is not zoning and, frankly, BASF has said as much yesterday to the Mayor and myself, Catherine was with us down in Trenton, but they said it to me in my conversation with Bill Pearson, they could care less if it’s PA 1, 2, 5 or 100, they just want to qualify for BIP. They don’t want to foul up anything the township is doing, to the extent they can cooperate with the town, they will.
Mr. Dorsey: Yes but, Chuck, isn’t that simply double talk, because you told us they’ll never get BIP until they’re in Planning Area 1 or 2.
President Greenbaum: The full extent.
Two people speaking and it’s inaudible
President Greenbaum: I don’t want to get, I don’t want to get bogged down here, I mean, obviously, the point has been made on both sides and the issue before us is whether or not we’re going to request and authorize the Mayor to send the appropriate letter. I believe that we have the Council’s support to do that. Is there anyone who is opposed? Everyone is in favor, so Mr. Dorsey, can you please do a resolution?
Mr. Dorsey: Yes, I’ll do one right now
WHEREAS, the development within the Township of Mount Olive has been severely restricted by a number of actions taken by State agencies. The first of these was the promulgation of the State Redevelopment Plan in 1992, which placed almost all of Mount Olive Township in the most restrictive planning areas in terms of development. That action was subsequently followed by the various initiatives that have come from the office of Smart Growth and it has been subsequently followed by the adoption of the Highlands Legislation, which places 85% of the Township in the preservation area, thereby further restricting development within the Township. These actions effecting development within the Township are further complicated by the fact that the Township must continue to comply with the rules and regulations of COAH as it has successfully done in the past and in the year 2005 must apply for what is referred to as Third Round Substantive Certification.
The issue of the limitation of growth within the Township becomes particularly exacerbated in connection with a very large tract owned by BASF who has claimed in various tax appeals in recent years, that the value of their property has been diminished because of various actions which have been taken, and BASF has determined that it is not automatically entitled to certain grants that have been made to other commercial entities within New Jersey, unless or until its property, which has received site plan approval to construct as much as 700,000 square feet of additional office space, and for which the basic infrastructure is in place, unless or until its tract is designated PA1 or PA2, PA2 being the most likely designation that could be granted under the existing State Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Township Council believes it must explore all of the possibilities that are available to it and to maximize the value of the property of BASF, if for no other reason than to maximize tax ratables, and should attempt to place BASF’s property within an appropriate Planning Area that would permit it to obtain various grants from the State of New Jersey and the various offices that make grants for economic development, particularly once site plan development has been granted; and
WHEREAS, the Township Council has had presented to it tonight an erudite presentation by the Township Planner as to the complications and the convolutedness of altering the Planning Areas, but what is clear is that if the Township wishes to act at this point in time, it is necessary that the Township have the Mayor send a letter to the Office of Smart Growth requesting that the plan process proceed in which a redesignation of Planning Areas within the Township from PA5 to PA2 could be accomplished; and
WHEREAS, once this request is made, the process will begin but it has also been made clear that the Township would have the right to withdraw from that process if at any point in time it is determined that that process is not going to result in the effectuation of the best interests of the Township. The Township Council believes it needs to proceed to explore all of the possibilities and all of the ramifications that are brought to bear on development within the Township as a result of the State Plan, COAH, Highlands Legislation, etc.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive that it does hereby request and recommend the Mayor to send to the Office of Smart Growth a letter to proceed with the plan process, which letter presumably will be drafted by the Township Planner, Chuck McGroarty.
Ms. Labow: So moved.
Mr. Mund: Second.
President Greenbaum: Open it to the public…anyone who wishes to discuss this particular resolution, you now have the opportunity. Seeing none, I’ll close it to the public. Is there any further….I’m sorry, Mr. Lum, do you want to….you have to come up to the microphone and state your name and address.
Hing Lum, 3 Alpine Drive, Denville, NJ: I’m representing Interverse Enterprises. As you all know, I’ve been involved in this process quite a while, and I just want to tell you some of my feelings and experience here. I know that the State plan was drawn up in the 1990’s and the town had gone through a course of substance process during that time, and when I reviewed the cross acceptance reports submitted by the township to the County and to the State, there was basically no change, because the town didn’t want to make any change. When I went down to Trenton and talked to the people down in the Office of Smart Growth, I said how do you make this PA 5 and PA 4B, and they say, well we just put it in and whatever, you know, just a proposal, and if the town doesn’t come back and change it, that goes in, and that’s what happened, you know. The Smart Growth….department of Smart Growth says we should put the growth where the good land is, where there’s no steep slopes, no wetlands, where there’s water and sewer, and what do we do at the town – we put the whole thing in. If we want to withdraw the area that’s….that has sewer, and we don’t want to get the sewer in that area around Smithtown Road, this is what our planner suggest…this is the sewer….wastewater management proposal. So, it doesn’t jive with how things should be done. When I confronted the directors of Smart Growth, I told them the State plan has no credibility, he agreed with me, it has no credibility, because nobody did any work, they just plop it in PA 4, PA 5, and the town says, ahh, we don’t want anybody here, we’ll put it in PA 4, PA 5, no problem. You should look at the report, it’s empty, when you look at the first cross acceptance plan, and so we go about then we change the zoning based on the State plan, and now you’re not happy, because you can’t do anything, you know, because the whole area is environmentally sensitive, I mean, to an average person, that’s ridiculous. You have twenty something thousand people here, the town is very concentrated place of people, the same areas similar to Parsippany and Rockaway, and they put it in PA 2, PA 1, and we put it in PA 5. It doesn’t make any professional sense. Then you go about zoning it, you do the zoning based on the PA 5, and now we’re saying we should change the plan, based on the zoning. The whole thing doesn’t make any sense, I mean, it should be based on science, that’s….and even the directors of the Highlands said the plan should be based science, not politics, and that’s all I have to say.
President Greenbaum: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public? Seeing none, I’ll close it to the public. Is there any further Council discussion? Seeing none, Roll Call.
ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously
Questions on Bill List?
President Greenbaum: The next item for discussion is Questions on the Bill List. Is there anyone who wishes to present questions? Mr. Buell, then Mr. Rattner.
Mr. Buell: Yes, I don’t know whether Sherry and Bob got my memo. The thing I’d like to question is not so much the expenses, but we bought 0521901 we bought four Intel Processors for $4,100. About 25% of that fee was for various one three year gold whatever warrantee. I’m just wondering what is our policy in terms of the Mr. Buell (cont’d): warrantees on computers and has anybody done a cost analysis or a value analysis of the three year warrantee? When I buy a computer at home, I usually take the one year and if it works for a year, it usually works for the three. Second question is 051208 and that’s….
Ms. Labow: Mr. Greenbaum, could I interrupt him for one second?
President Greenbaum: Sure.
Mr. Labow: I wanted to thank Mr. McGroarty, thank you very much, it was very informative all the information you gave us this evening, I appreciate it.
Mr. Buell: The second question is related to the…is…there was a….and it doesn’t make any difference who it was, but 051208, there was a mileage submitted for one day to Morristown for 142 miles, there was a second one for two days to Somerville for 171 miles. I think those are excessive. The only thing I can figure is that people are charging portal to portal. So, I would like to know what our mileage reimbursement policy is. The third one was 05107501, we installed a radio in the back hoe, I would just like to know what kind of radio it was?
President Greenbaum: Thank you. Mr. Rattner.
Mr. Rattner: Yes, I just have one and it’s a comment….I didn’t have time over the weekend to look at the bill, it’s just that I’m looking at it and I see the Police Chief here. It’s from Mount Olive Auto Body, and it appears that we did repairs on an Expedition, they’ve been repairing it now for…if I read this right, they’ve been repairing it for 16 months. We just paid an additional $8,000 over what the insurance reimbursement was and I’m trying to figure out what happened? I mean, did we get half way through and find out other stuff…..it’s just that it looks like it’s a what…five year….four year old vehicle and we’ve now spent $17,000 in repairs on it, and it’s been laid up for a year and a half. $17,000 on a five year old vehicle? So, just a question on that, obviously we had the work done and I actually can understand that if you start going into it, and then as you do the first part of the repairs, then you have to make a decision should we put a little bit more and at least not throw away all the money. So, it’s just a question. I will vote for it tonight because the work was done.
President Greenbaum: Any other questions?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
April 26, 2005 Present: Mr. Buell, Mrs. Labow, Mr. Guenther, Mr. Rattner, Mr. Greenbaum
Absent: Mr. Mund and Mr. Perkins
May 10, 2005 CS Present: President Greenbaum, Mr. Buell, Mrs. Labow, Mr. Guenther, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Mund, Mr. Rattner
Absent: None
May 10, 2005 Present: President Greenbaum, Mr. Buell, Mrs. Labow, Mr. Guenther, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Mund, Mr. Rattner
Absent: None
May 17, 2005 Present: President Greenbaum, Mr. Buell, Mrs. Labow, Mr. Mund, Mr. Guenther,
Special PM Mr. Perkins
School Budget Absent: Mr. Rattner
President Greenbaum: The next item is Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings. Mr. Buell, can you move the Minutes?
Mr. Buell: I move the approval of the Minutes of April 26th, the Closed Session of May 10th and the May 10th Regular Meeting and the May 17th Special PM School Budget Meeting.
Mr. Guenther: Second.
President Greenbaum: Any discussion, comments, deletions, changes? Seeing none, Roll Call.
ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously, except Mr. Mund abstained on April 26th and
Mr. Rattner abstained on May 17th and Mr. Perkins abstained on April 26th
CORRESPONDENCE
LETTERS FROM RESIDENTS / ORGANIZATIONS
1. Letter received May 9, 2005, from New Jersey Cemetery Board regarding Advertisement of upcoming meeting on May 24th.
2. Letter received May 9, 2005, from various Mount Olive Sports Organizations regarding Ord. 16-2005. (Recreation fees)
3. Letter received May 20, 2005, from St. Elizabeth Ann Seton regarding request for one year extension for improvements on the Church Property.
RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, CORRESPONDENCE FROM OTHER TOWNS
4. Resolution received May 9, 2005, from the Borough of Florham Park regarding the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders to return surplus funds to local municipalities.
5. Resolution received May 9, 2005, from the Borough of Florham Park regarding support for Picatinny’s Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) .
6. Resolution received May 12, 2005, from the Township of Mendham regarding asking the Department of Community Affairs in the State of New Jersey to define their Grant Award Selection.
7. Resolution received May 13, 2005, from the Borough of Madison regarding support of the Community Development Program and Urging Congress to restore its funding.
8. Letter received May 16, 2005, from the Allamuchy Township Planning Board regarding Public Hearing on the Master Plan.
9. Resolution received May 17, 2005, from the Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills regarding returning surplus funds to local municipalities.
10. Resolution received May 17, 2004, from the Borough of Lincoln Park regarding return of surplus funds to lower the tax rate.
11. E-mail received May 17, 2005, from Lydia Magnotti, Jefferson Township Clerk regarding cancellation of May 21st Land Preservation Conference.
12. Letter received May 19, 2005, from the Town of Boonton regarding “Christopher’s Law.”
13. Resolution received May 20, 2005, from the Borough of Riverdale regarding returning surplus funds to local Municipalities.
DOT / DEP / LOI
14. Letter received May 9, 2005, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Blue Atlas Nursery, Block 4500, Lot 8 / Highlands Act – Not Exempt.
15. Letter received May 11, 2005, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Oakwood Village Apartments.
16. Letter received May 12, 2005, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Morris Chase Highlands Applicability Determination and Water Quality Management Plan Consistency Determination. Block 4400, Lot 79 (64 Goldmine Road).
17. Letter received May 16, 2005, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Deficiency Letter for Letter of interpretation – Line Verification. Applicant: West Morris High School District Block 6600; Lots 8&9 Washington Township, Morris County.
18. Letter received May 18, 2005, from Luis Garzon regarding application for Letter of Interpretation for Block 3207 Lots 8.01 & 9 (Rose Lane and Forest Road).
19. Letter received May 20, 2005, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Kevin B. Dorlon Lot 19, Block 8500 (103 Mine Hill Road, Mount Olive) Highlands Act – Not Exempt.
20. Letter received May 20, 2005, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Proposed Amendment to the Mercer County, Northeast, Upper Raritan, and Sussex County Water Quality Management Plan.
21. Letter received May 20, 2005, from Resource Services North, Inc. regarding Letter of Interpretation – Garzon Property Block 3207, Lots 8.01 & 9 (Rose Lane and Forest Road)
22. Letter received May 20, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Proposed Update to the Mount Olive Township Wastewater Management Plan Dated August 2004.
LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES
23. Legislative Bulletin received May 9, 2005, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Bills that were enacted as the Public Laws of 2004-2005.
24. Order Form received May 12, 2005, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Publications that can be ordered.
25. Mayor’s Fax Advisory received May 12, 2005, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Proposed Economics for 2006 for Local Governments Participating in SHBP.
26. Letter received May 16, 2005, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding League Seminar regarding Ethics ABC’s.
27. Letter received May 16, 2005, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Affordable Housing Finance Resources Publication.
28. Letter received May 20, 2005, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding A-5269 Will the Senate Stop Progress on Property Tax Reform?
MUA/MSA
29. Minutes received May 13, 2005, from the Misconnecting Sewerage Authority regarding April 6th meeting.
30. Letter received May 16, 2005, from the Morris County MUA regarding presentation on the New Jersey Solid Waste Management Plan Update.
MISCELLANEOUS
31. Letter received May 9, 2005, from County of Morris, Department of Planning, Development & Technology regarding Publicity for June 14 Public hearing.
32. E-mail received May 9, 2005, from the Morris County Area Chamber of Commerce regarding Not for Profit Seminar.
33. Letter received May 10, 2005, from Mount Olive Villages Water Co., Inc. regarding Old Library Site.
34. Letter received May 12, 2005, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Community Affairs regarding $500.00 Penalty and Order to Correct Regarding the annual life hazard use inspection certification.
35. E-mail received May 17, 2005, from the Morris County Planning Department regarding Midday Morris Invitation.
36. Letter received May 18, 2005, from the County of Sussex, Department of Engineering and Planning regarding Replacement of Joint County Bridge 1401-028.
37. Letter received May 20, 2005, from County of Morris, Department of Finance regarding response that was sent to the Borough of Wharton regarding a Resolution urging the Morris County Freeholders to use more of their 2004 year end fund balance to reduce the tax levy.
38. Letter received May 20, 2005, from BASF regarding Cross Acceptance for Morris County – Designation of BASF Property as Smart Growth Area.
COAH
39. Newsletter received May 13, 2005, from Council on Affordable Housing regarding Adoption of 2005 Regional Income Limits, Extended Substantive Certifications, and Informational Workshops.
TORT
40. Notice of Tort Claim received May 16, 2005, regarding the matter of Michael Foote and the Budd Lake Volunteer Fire Dept.
41. Mechanic’s Lien received May 19, 2005, from Bart Lombardo regarding Mount Olive Public Library – Wolfe Road & Flanders – Drakestown Road.
LETTERS FROM LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES
42. E-mail received May 13, 2005, from Congressman Frelinghuysen regarding Secretary of Defense Issues Vote of Confidence for Picatinny Arsenal and House passes Legislation for Homeland Security Funds to be Risk Based.
43. Letter received May 20, 2005, from Congressman Frelinghuysen regarding Community Development Block Grant Program.
President Greenbaum: The next item for discussion is correspondence. There are 43 pieces of correspondence. Does anyone wish to discuss any particular piece of correspondence? Seeing none.
ORDINANCES FOR PUBLIC HEARING - None
President Greenbaum: There are no Ordinances for public hearing this evening.
ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING - None
President Greenbaum: There are no Ordinances for first reading.
CONSENT RESOLUTIONS AGENDA:
Resolutions on the Consent Agenda List are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the Township Council and will be approved by one motion (one vote). There will be no separate discussion or debate on each of these resolutions except for the possibility of brief clarifying statements that may be offered. If one or more Council member requests, any individual resolution on the Consent Agenda may be removed from the Consent Agenda List and acted on separately.
CONSENT RESOLUTIONS
1. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Appointing Timothy Quinn as Director of Public Works for Mount Olive Township.
2. Resolution of the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey Reconfirming the Resolution Establishing the Form and Other Details of $11,965,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds Adopted March 22, 2005
3. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Amending the Temporary 2005 Budget for all Funds
4. Resolution of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Cancellation of 2004 Taxes on Block 8800, Lot 36 Located at 24 Mine Hill Road.
5. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Applying for and Accepting a “Click It or Ticket” Grant FY 2005.
6. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Applying for and Accepting a Child Passenger Safety Education Grant FY 2006.
7. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Supporting the Click It or Ticket Mobilization of May 23 – June 5, 2005.
8. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Memo of Understanding With the County of Morris for the Interoperable Radio Communications Systems.
9. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Sale of Certain Lands Known and Designated as Lot 17, Block 2800, Which is no Longer Needed for Public Use by the Township.
10. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Rescinding the Number of EDU’S Assigned to Block 3305 Lot 28 and the Sewer Assessment and User Fees (Forgey).
11. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Amending the Resolution Dated 4/26/05 Authorizing the Submission of a Tonnage Grant Application to the State of New Jersey (Calendar Year 2004).
12. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing Design Builders to Connect One Lot to the Goldmine Estates Water System.
13. Resolution RE: 2005 Ordinance to Exceed the Municipal Budget Cost of Living Allowance and to Establish a CAP Bank.
14. Governing Body Resolution – Grant Agreement Between the Township of Mount Olive and the State of New Jersey by and for the Department of Environmental Protection ($393,944 Budd Lake Watershed restoration, Protection and Regional Stormwater Management Plan) *amended*
15. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Township Attorney to Execute a Certain Consent Order in Connection with the Application by Interverse Enterprises for Fees and Expenses in Connection with the Condemnation Action. *added*
President Greenbaum: The next item of discussion is the Consent Resolutions Agenda. Yes, Mr. Buell and then Ms. Labow, or is it just Ms. Labow?
Mr. Labow: Just me.
President Greenbaum: Do you want to remove something?
Ms. Labow: No, I didn’t want to remove anything, I just wanted to go back to the Correspondence, the Tort Claim, number 40. Is this something we should set up for an Executive Session to discuss? I don’t know what our involvement is.
President Greenbaum: No. Notice of Tort Claim is required to be filed to the extent that there is a possibility of a lawsuit down the road, to the extent that no lawsuit has yet been filed against the township, it’s not appropriate for discussion.
Ms. Labow: Okay. Thank you. That’s all I wanted to know.
President Greenbaum: If you wanted to discuss it, we could, but there’s nothing new. It’s just simply to protect the right to be able to sue down the road. It’s required by law to the extent that you have a claim against a public entity to be filed within 90 days of the Tort. If not filed within 90 days, you need court approval to file it within a year, if not filed within a year, it’s waived.
Mr. Dorsey: It has been forwarded on to your insurer.
Ms. Labow: Okay. Thank you, John, that’s what I wanted to know.
President Greenbaum: Thank you. Moving on to the Consent Resolutions Agenda. Consent Resolutions are considered to be routine, we’ll pass them all by one vote. Does anyone wish to have any of the Consent Resolutions moved to the Non-Consent Agenda? Mr. Buell.
Mr. Buell: Number 12.
President Greenbaum: Number 12 will be moved to the Non-Consent. Ms. Labow.
Ms. Labow: Number 1 and number 8.
President Greenbaum: Number 1 and number 8 will be moved to the Non-Consent. Any other?
Mr. Rattner: Yes, but I just have to find it. Oh, number….I can’t find it, I guess not.
Ms. Labow: What was the subject of it?
Mr. Rattner: The building construction official…for the second….
Ms. Labow: That’s not on here.
Mrs. Lashway: No, that is not….does not need advice and consent from the Council.
Mr. Rattner: Oh, okay, no but I thought we were giving…..about the….
Mrs. Lashway: Mr. Casey had it pulled, it’s not an appointment, but the Council has….
Mr. Rattner: Okay, well then we….okay, why I had it on there was just the fact about the guaranteed increase on January 1. I said that I would give my support and make the commitment for it as long as we got the objectives to be met by January 1, so we knew there was a certain level of performance, and Mr. Casey said that yes, it was acceptable and he would provide it to us.
President Greenbaum: It’s not on the Consent Resolutions.
Mr. Rattner: Okay, so it’s not on there anyway.
President Greenbaum: If you want to bring it up, then bring it up under….
Mr. Rattner: No, it’s just that I don’t have my, you know, I’m going to guarantee anything on January 1 if I didn’t get that, that’s all.
President Greenbaum: Old Business. I think all of us feel the same way. Alright, so we’ve identified Consent Resolutions 1, 8 and 12 as being pulled to the Non-Consent Resolution Agenda. At this point, Ms. Labow, can you move 2 through 7, 9 through 11, 13 through 15?
Ms. Labow: I move 2 through 7, 9 through 11, 13, 14 and 15.
Mr. Guenther: Second.
PUBLIC PORTION ON CONSENT RESOLUTIONS
President Greenbaum: At this point, I would open it up to the public, for anyone who wishes to comment on any of the Consent Resolutions which have been moved. Seeing none, I close it to the public.
COUNCIL COMMENTS ON CONSENT RESOLUTIONS
President Greenbaum: Does any Council individual wish to comment on any of the Consent Resolutions? Seeing none, Roll Call.
ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously
NON-CONSENT RESOLUTIONS
President Greenbaum: Moving on to the Non-Consent Resolutions. Ms. Labow, can you move Non-Consent number 1?
1. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Appointing Timothy Quinn as Director of Public Works for Mount Olive Township.
Ms. Labow: I move Non-Consent Resolution number 1 for approval.
Mr. Mund: Second.
PUBLIC PORTION ON INDIVIDUAL RESOLUTIONS
President Greenbaum: It’s been moved and seconded. At this point, I’ll open it up to the public for anyone who wishes to comment on this particular resolution. Seeing none, I close it to the public. Ms. Labow.
COUNCIL COMMENTS ON INDIVIDUAL RESOLUTIONS
Ms. Labow: The reason why I wanted to bring this….to discuss it separately was to congratulate Mr. Tim Quinn. I didn’t want it to just…and be voted on in a clump of others, because it is a special and momentous occasion, and so that’s why I just wanted to bring a little special attention to it.
Mr. Mund: Second.
President Greenbaum: Any further discussion? Roll Call.
ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously
President Greenbaum: Congratulations, Tim, well-earned. Personally, I think it’s the best thing that the Mayor has done, so….. Number 8, who asked that that be pulled? Ms. Labow, can you move number 8, please.
8. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Memo of Understanding With the County of Morris for the Interoperable Radio Communications Systems.
Ms. Labow: I did. I move number 8 for approval.
Mr. Buell: Second.
President Greenbaum: It’s been moved and seconded, is there anyone from the public who wishes to discuss this particular resolution? Seeing none, close it to the public. Ms. Labow.
Mr. Rattner: You didn’t congratulate the County?
Ms. Labow: Yes, actually…I just wanted to…I just wanted some clarification. What is an Interoperable Radio Communication System?
Mr. Casey: If you remember, at the work session, I indicated that’s the County-wide radio emergency network, and it’s a fancy name, but basically means they put together a network that broadcasts over the hills and valleys throughout the County.
Ms. Labow: So there’s no dead spots?
Mr. Casey: Allegedly.
Ms. Labow: Okay.
Mr. Mund: So they can communicate.
Mr. Casey: So it’s a big, you know, the County had to justify some fancy name, so they came up with that big thing, but it basically comes down to the attempt, under homeland security, to tie all the emergency personnel Mr. Casey (cont’d): County-wide into one network, and this is the process of doing it. So, it’s an interoperable two-way County-wide system.
Ms. Labow: Can we try it out on River Road?
Mr. Casey: We’ll ask the Chief whether it works on River Road or not.
Mr. Perkins: Chief, does it work on River Road?
Ms. Labow: Chief, does it work on River Road?
Chief Katona: Yes.
President Greenbaum: He wasn’t at the microphone, but the Chief said yes, for the record. Is there any further discussion?
Ms. Labow: Thank you. That’s all I wanted to just bring…because I’m just a little…I thought that’s what it was, but this great big word kind of threw me, you know, those big words.
President Greenbaum: Seeing none, Roll Call.
ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously
President Greenbaum: Number 12 was pulled by Mr. Buell, could you please move Resolution number 12?
12. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing Design Builders to Connect One Lot to the Goldmine Estates Water System.
Mr. Buell: I move Resolution number 12.
Mr. Mund: Second.
President Greenbaum: It’s been moved and seconded. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to discuss this particular resolution? Seeing none, I close it to the public. Mr. Buell.
Mr. Buell: I thank Mr. Casey for sending us a long memo on this particular issue. I’m also referring to Mr. Perkins’ e-mail to me about his concern about the same issue. At the end of your memo, you say in view of the history of these connections, as well as the existence of the above ground water tank constructed by Toll Brothers, I think the denial of the connection at this time is not in the best interest of the town. So, I’m just trying to figure out what’s being recommended.
Mr. Casey: I’m recommending that you authorize the connection.
Mr. Buell: But this…
Mr. Dorsey: But….wait a minute. I think the bottom line here is that Mr. Casey has gone through the entire history and doesn’t really feel that there is a very persuasive basis upon which the township denies this single connection. Not to deny…..to deny the connection, is only going to cause a well to be drilled because you’re not going to be able to refuse them both a connection and a well; and his analysis, from his scientific and engineering knowledge is that that could have adverse effects on the Township’s well. So, you’re choice is you either let them connect, or he drills a well, and obviously, the supply, as I understand it, is there. So, there’s really no basis to deny it.
Mr. Perkins: Thank you Mr. President. Thank you Mr. Dorsey, I appreciate your analysis on this.
Mr. Dorsey: Okay, now I’ll withdraw.
Mr. Perkins: Thank you. Okay, let’s put this into perspective and A, I don’t agree with Mr. Casey’s analysis. Sorry, Bob, but, you know, sometimes we have to agree not to agree. You’ve added in on your memory refresher, and I thank you for that, because I know mine is getting stagnant, but yes in 1995 I do acknowledge, and I see attached from the DEP a water storage requirement exemption. So, in that exemption, there were four very specific items that needed to be done. One was providing auxiliary power for both of the wells within six Mr. Perkins (cont’d): months, could be portable. Two was provide ready electrical connections adaptable to the auxiliary power. Three was regularly tested generator underload at least every three months and maintain logs of these tests. Four was regularly utilize, either in place or online or exercise wells one and two at least once a week. Now, I notice on the chart that was provided for Goldmine system 2004, for Goldmine well number one, in the months of February and March of 2004, we didn’t pump it at all, and if that were the case, then we obviously didn’t regularly utilize that well. So, we’re kind of in violation, and the reason I point that out, because it says also failure to comply with these specific conditions will void the storage waiver. So, if we’re not living up to that, A – do we have logs for the generators? I would hope we do…I’m sure we have portable power there with auxiliary power, I hope we do. To add to that, you were kind enough to explain under 2001 the township’s denial, I remember Design Builders going down, I think Mr. Mark DiGennaro was with us at that point, and yes they were going to fracture the well and that’s by explosion method, and that may or may not have had an impact upon our well, and I believe that was the straw that asked the Council then to reconsider and to permit the connection. Now, that was after there was an absence of water when he went down to drill. So, he started to drill, he couldn’t get enough water, even though we’re getting a half way decent amount of supply out of there, and to try to increase the water that was there, he was going to use some sort of explosive to fracture the well rock down there so he could get more water. Now, we don’t think that’s really going to happen again this time. The Toll Brothers tank, which is up there, for all intents and purposes right now is empty, it’s not even to be considered an interconnection and Toll Brothers made it very specifically clear to us, although we have argued with them for some time, that the interconnection with the Goldmine system would be the last thing that would be done. So, given that they probably have a three to four year build out if they were to finally get underway with Morris Chase, that’s going to be well past the February timeframe. Now, I do agree that I don’t believe that there would be any adverse effect on the system down there, however, I would ask that in your capacity, as I hope that you are looking for someone to assist Mr. Quinn now that he’s finally been promoted and I’ll congratulate you now on that, to be able to help him, we don’t have any logs, again, which I have already previously pointed out to you. I would like to see those pumping records for the two months. How did we address that, how was that addressed to the DEP, and is our exemption for storage still in effect? With that, I will begrudgingly approve and vote yes to provide that connection.
President Greenbaum: Roll Call please.
ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously, expect Mr. Buell voted No
MOTIONS
President Greenbaum: The next item is Motions. Bill List, Ms. Labow.
1. Bill List.
Ms. Labow: I move the Bill List.
Mr. Rattner: Second.
President Greenbaum: It’s been moved and seconded. There were questions which were raised, do you have a response?
Mr. Casey: Yes, this takes…the warrantees one versus three, I don’t know if the Borough, excuse me, the Township has a formal policy. I talked some with the Chief, these are a lot of the newer computers in there. If they didn’t have a policy, I will tell you that I would take the three years, given the fact that with multiple users on these computers, the tendency to break down is a lot more intensive than it would be at your own home computer. So, if they didn’t have a policy, I would be saying to them anyway use a three year policy, particularly computers which have multiple users, simply because of the fact that it gets abused more than you would at home. So, I do not take…I didn’t realize, to be frank with you, that it was on there, but I would fully support a three year on computers that we have that are used by multiple users, because of the breakdown factor, that’s my philosophy. Number two, you raised a question of mileage, I think it’s a very interesting question. The mileage in question goes from the person’s home to a meeting in Morristown. The issue that is raised, and I was not aware of this, the issue that is raised is one that Ms. Jenkins advised me of, is that when an employee is not required to have a car at work, but then is required to use their car to go to a meeting, at what point do you start the mileage?
Mr. Rattner: Well, if you use IRS records, if it’s on a work day…a normal work day, you would have to give them a 1099 because it would be considered income, because it’s not a reimbursable expense. The expense is from your normal place of work on a normal day. If it was a Saturday, or a call in, if it wasn’t a regularly
Mr. Rattner (cont’d): scheduled day, it wouldn’t be, but if it is a regular work day, it would be from here, because what the theory is is that if you’re going to drive let’s say 90 miles round trip to work anyway, you’re not putting on additional mileage.
Mr. Casey: That’s correct, however, if in fact you do not supply a company car, you require the person to be there, the issue then goes….and this is the policy, the employee has the right to show up at work and say I have to go to a meeting in Morristown, where’s my vehicle?
Mr. Rattner: Or they show up at work and from there, if they left from here, if they came into the office, let’s say it was a 1:00 meeting, you wouldn’t give them the amount from home, if they’re passing here.
Mr. Casey: No we never….yes, but I mean if they go directly to the meeting, then what instance….I mean, this is an issue that’s unresolved. I’m just saying the issue here is…and I would agree with you, to be frank with you, I would agree that it’s questionable where you have an employee who lives this far from home, as to whether it’s appropriate. I would pull this….I have no problem with removing this voucher from the agenda. I think it needs to be looked at, but I think it’s a more complicated issue than it seems on the surface.
President Greenbaum: I would say not, although your explanation seems plausible, I find it absurd and I think that the policy needs to be put in place. It’s not in place now, that it is from Town Hall to wherever the person is going.
Mr. Rattner: I wouldn’t pull it. If the policy has been to pay the person from home, they’re entitled to it, because that’s what they’ve been told.
President Greenbaum: You know what, we’re talking about a diminimous amount of money, but the bottom line is…..it’s already paid.
Mr. Rattner: Over the course of 42 years and 600…..
President Greenbaum: I understand that.
Mr. Buell: And I don’t….I would not pull this…
President Greenbaum: I know why you raised it, and the policy needs to be put in place that the reimbursement is from Town Hall to wherever they’re going, not from….
Mr. Rattner: The additional mileage, yes.
Ms. Labow: Do we need to put it on a workshop?
President Greenbaum: No, I don’t think so.
Mr. Casey: No I think the issue is an issue that we’ll bring up and we’ll probably have to negotiate it in the upcoming contracts….we’ll have to clarify what’s in the contracts. Now, I know there’s a reimbursement policy in there, but I think the past practice has been, as was cited here, from home. So, it should be changed.
President Greenbaum: Thank you.
Mr. Buell: You know the other interesting thing is what happens if it’s closer from their house to wherever they’re going?
Mr. Mund: They come here.
Mr. Perkins: I think they get it from Town Hall, period, would be my feeling.
Mr. Casey: And the third question was the type of….not you, Chief, I want the gentleman beside you, type of radio put in the back hoe, which I have no idea what it is, but since he’s here, we might as well ask him.
Mr. Perkins: Is that that XM satellite radio with the….booster?
Mr. Quinn: Yes. Basically it was a used low band radio we pulled out of an old piece of equipment. The Water and Sewer back hoe had no radio in it, so we took an existing radio and had the radio company install it into the Water and Sewer back hoe….two-way radio low band.
Mr. Rattner: Does that person have a Nextel telephone?
Mr. Quinn: The back hoe could be run by any individual.
Mr. Rattner: But most of the employees have those telephones now.
Mr. Quinn: Most of the employees have the Nextel radios, not all of them do, and the back hoe is used by all departments and different personnel. The radio was a radio we had already, it was out of a piece of equipment that I got rid of, so it was just a radio sitting around.
Mr. Rattner: Yes but we got charged the amount to put it in, that was the issue.
Mr. Quinn: $200 or so, yes, installation charges.
President Greenbaum: Okay, it seems like a plausible explanation. Mr. Buell.
Mr. Buell: Just one comment. Could we request that the Finance or Budget Audit Committee look into a value analysis in terms of the computer purchases and these warrantees on these computers?
President Greenbaum: Well, Mr. Rattner, you’ve heard it, the request has been made.
Mr. Rattner: Well, is the Council President asking the committee to do it?
President Greenbaum: Put your request in writing to me, okay. I’m not sure that that is the best…there are a lot of other needs that I think the committee needs to look at and perhaps your memo, as best you can think of it, as to identify all of the different areas that the Budget and Finance Committee, now that we’re primarily through with the budget, could look into. Thank you, and then I’ll ask Mr. Rattner to have the committee do it. Were there other items on the Bill List?
Mr. Mund: So all three bills are staying in?
Ms. Labow: They’ve all been paid already.
President Greenbaum: Yes. Were there any other items Mr. Casey, which were identified?
Mr. Casey: Those were the three that Mr. Buell had.
President Greenbaum: Is everyone satisfied? Is there any other comment? Roll Call.
ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously
2. Approval of Raffle Application #2084 & #2085 for St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish.
Mr. Mund: Motion to approve the Raffle Application #2084 and 2085 for St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish.
Mr. Guenther: Second.
President Greenbaum: It’s been moved and seconded, is there any discussion? Seeing none, Roll Call.
ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
President Greenbaum: Mr. Casey, are there any additional Administrative Matters?
Mr. Casey: The only other one we had, and you may have addressed it, was the appointment to the Recreation Advisory Committee.
President Greenbaum: That’s under New Business, since it came up, it will be discussed after Old Business.
OLD BUSINESS
President Greenbaum: Seeing no additional Administrative Matters, Old Business – Handicap Parking at the Library – Ms. Labow.
• Handicapped Parking @ Library
Ms. Labow: Yes. As much as I hate to bring this subject up again, there has been a few new developments, but I’m very concerned with what’s going on at the Library, specifically with how a certain situation was handled. Two meetings ago, which would bring us into April, the Library Board of Trustees was given three options to entertain on where proposed handicapped parking would be. The Library Board of Trustees voted for option number one, although the architect had felt that option number three would have been less expensive or less disruptive, the Library Board of Trustees voted on option number one. Now, two months later, we’re still…. they never got any of the plans from the architect. The direction that the Librarian at the Library was given was to forward this to the architect, get the plans drawn up, and let us know how much it was going to cost. At the last meeting, the second week in May, Jerry Sheard, Mrs. Hirky had asked if, you know, a lot of us had asked if the plans were drawn up yet and Jerry Sheard said oh no, we’re not doing that now, we got a letter from the Administration, I forwarded it to the architect, and we’re not going to do that now, we have other plans in the works. Well, nobody….he didn’t seem to know who this letter was from, nobody had any information, so at that point, I requested….Lisa Lashway helped me….to try and find this letter. Bob Casey wrote back on 5/16 there is no such communication, which I believe, you know, that he did not send the letter. So, in further inquiries, I find out that indeed what happened was….I finally decided just to call the architect direct and it was actually a fax that they received from the Librarian. Now, Lisa sent….Lisa Lashway sent a request….I find out that what it was is a fax that Mrs. Hilbert sent after a meeting with Bob Casey. An e-mail was sent to Rita that said Councilwoman Labow has asked you to provide a copy of the fax sent to Mike Hicks of Dennis Koval Architects in which you state that after meeting with the Business Administrator, he felt that four handicapped parking spots was an abomination and he recommended that you put in only two spots, with a copy of the fax also, you know, please provide attached sketch showing two handicapped spots. The first e-mail we got back from Rita stated that….now I can’t find that one e-mail….she said that it was client….how did that go, Lisa? Oh, here it is, she writes, “FYI, I have followed up with Rita today and she received the request and is having the attorney review it. It is not a public document, because it is owner-contractor privilege” --- aren’t we the owner of the building?
President Greenbaum: I never heard of such a privilege, even if they were.
Ms. Labow: No, I know, this is really bizarre, so it is a public document. So, needless to say, apparently her… their attorney must have advised her to give the township a copy of it, because, low and behold, we get a copy of the fax. So, Mrs. Hilbert, contrary to what the Library Board of Trustees voted on the previous month, after meeting with Mr. Casey on 5/11, a whole month…five weeks after the Trustees directed her to find out about option number one, she sends a fax that says Dennis and Mike, the Business Administrator was here for a meeting and said the handicap parking proposed for the side of the oval was an abomination, he said we don’t need it and we shouldn’t do it. He did suggest that we just mark two spots on the oval for handicap and be done with it. What is the possibility of that? Since the fire trucks need the wide swing, they would probably have to be on the oval side (see diagram). So, Mr. Casey told me last week he used the diagram that I had submitted, but there is a different diagram that was faxed to the architects….and its’ totally different than the three options that were given before. So, my concern is is how does the Librarian at the Library override the vote from the Trustees and direct the architects to draw up different plans? I just don’t know what direction to go on this at this point, so I’d like to ask Mr. Dorsey what do we do about all of this?
Mr. Dorsey: I’ll have to make a careful investigation and a thorough investigation and I’ll ask Mr. Casey for his recommendation, because then I know I’ll be in trouble.
Ms. Labow: Do you want all my paperwork? Uh oh, but I just….this is ridiculous, it keeps going back and forth and back and forth, and this….we should have had the designs and the plans and….
Mr. Mund: It should have been done already.
Ms. Labow: It should have been done already.
Mr. Dorsey: Yes, you’ve managed to get me in trouble with the Library Board, so I’m very careful….
Ms. Labow: No, actually, no I bailed you out of that one, John, don’t worry.
Mr. Rattner: Just say you’re friends with me.
Mr. Guenther: Welcome to the club, John.
President Greenbaum: This is even more absurd than the mileage policy, I mean, this remains unresolved.
Ms. Labow: I know.
President Greenbaum: And this has to stop…this has to stop. Can you please invite….Lisa, invite the Library Board to our next public meeting to discuss the handicap parking situation?
Mr. Mund: I have a request, if you’re going to bring them here. Find out what the plans are for maintenance… what’s the program, what’s the schedule, how often they clean, what repairs they’re going to do periodically…I don’t want to see what happened to the old Library.
President Greenbaum: That request has been made as well. Let’s ask the Library Board to join us at our next meeting.
Mrs. Lashway: June 14th public meeting?
President Greenbaum: Yes.
Mr. Casey: If I could just clarify one issue. In talking to the Library, there is a change order that has been approved to put the four parking spaces, as originally proposed by Gene Buczynski and approved by the Construction Department. That change order was issued to the contractor, they’re waiting for him to, you know, to work and it should be done within the next couple of weeks.
President Greenbaum: That’s fine. I still would like them here….I would like to hear it from them and I would like to hear, with respect to this client contractor privilege which has been identified, because it’s something that I may want to use in my private practice to the extent that it exists.
Ms. Labow: One other….one comment to Mr. Casey’s comment, I did speak to Mr. Buczynski myself on that matter and I didn’t bring that letter with me, but there is a thirteen foot section on that sidewalk that is definitely not ADA compliant, and you cannot average it, it is over the 5%, and because it is over the 5%, but under the 10%, it has to have railings, so….I don’t know….did they also put in for the railings?
Mr. Casey: The temporary certificate of occupancy was very specific, says to be built according to plans. When I spoke to the Library Director, I said make sure that the architect talks to their engineer, because the engineer is aware of that, and I have not seen what the….I have not seen the change order that was issued other than the fact that it was issued and I am told will resolve all concerns. So, all I know is that a change order was issued for the construction of the four spaces as on the plans presented in January.
Ms. Labow: Thank you.
• Update of Sunset Dr. berm & work @ Turkey Brook Park
President Greenbaum: Update on the Sunset Drive berm work.
Mr. Casey: You received that communication from Gene Buczynski to me, I gave…..copies went out to everybody on Friday, indicates that….and I have an update today, that the berm was basically completed as updated today, says in reality…it is done and has been hydroseeded. There was also a request from one of the property owners for several additional trees, which has in fact been installed. So, the berm is basically in place and now hopefully it’s a matter of having the hydroseed take place…take effect and grow over. So, the contractor is now working in the rear of the site to do some regrading and the spreading of the topsoil on the rear of the site.
President Greenbaum: Mr. Guenther.
Mr. Guenther: I went up there over the weekend and looked around just at the upper portion. I didn’t
Mr. Guenther (cont’d): specifically look at the berm, I assume that that was, you know, properly installed, but there were several observations that I made. Number one, I am very surprised that that upper….I don’t know what we’re calling it, the rear area…the rear of the site, it sloped down toward Sunset Road. So, that when we get a heavy rainstorm, you’re still going to get erosion and runoff from there. I just don’t see whatever they did there that resolved the issue. I thought it was going to be built up and somehow the water was going to be channeled into a dry well or away from being channeled out toward Sunset Road. Number two, at the end of the parking lot and the upper built….that was originally proposed field, there is like a…you can see where the runoff took place. I don’t know what they’re doing with that, nothing was touched there. In other words, it seems to be that the water is being channeled into that channel when we have a heavy rainstorm, you’re going to get heavy runoff again. Number three, there is a…underneath the…..I saw some equipment there that was, I guess, working in the pathway down to Sunset Road. There’s a drainage….what do you call it, a grate drainage…what do you call it, storm drain, thank you, that goes underneath that road….that pathway, it comes out at the other end and goes into open woods, again channeling down towards Sunset Road. I thought it was going to be a dry well, I thought it was going to be something to take that moisture. Then going further down, there are two parts of the berm, there’s a split between the berm right behind Mr…..or right next to Mr. Rec’s house who is at the end of the property. It seemed to me, I’m an unprofessional, that the water again…all that water coming off the top is going to be channeled down into that area between the berm and these properties. Now, I didn’t go further down to look at it that specifically, it was just my impression standing up there at the top that this was……I don’t think it resolved the drainage issue. I would like to have the engineer in here and really question what has been done up there. I really don’t understand it, I don’t think it resolves the problem.
President Greenbaum: I’ve asked the Town Clerk to provide Gene with a copy of your comments for response.
Mr. Casey: Let me suggest a better thing, give me a time, I’ll have Gene meet you on site, because the only way you’re going to resolve the issue is to walk the site with him.
Mr. Guenther: Okay, I’ll be glad to do it.
Mr. Casey: Give me some time first before and after noon, because you have to get him on site together with each other.
Mr. Guenther: Yes, I think that’s the best suggestion.
Mr. Casey: So, give me some times - early or late, and I’ll have Gene meet you.
Ms. Labow: I’d like to go too.
Mr. Guenther: Are you in tomorrow, Bob?
Mr. Casey: No, I’m not here, but I’ll make arrangements…..I’ll get a hold of Gene tomorrow, so you tell me when you want.
Mr. Guenther: Have Gene call me and we’ll make the arrangements. |