Open public meeting statement.  The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman, Glenn Barbagallo, and a statement was made that the meeting was duly advertised and met all of the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act.  Those present were:  Jason Dunn (as Mayor’s Designee), Ted Brace, Sharon Tufaro, Darren Ponce, George Zitone, Ron Ruberto, Gene Crawford, Katherine Snyder, Charles Teufert, Glenn Barbagallo, Sharon M. Yarosz, the board secretary, William Haggerty, Esq., the board attorney, and Michael O’Krepky, the board engineer.

Those absent were:  Richard Innella (excused)

MINUTES

The Minutes of the January 11, 2007 Reorganization and Regular meetings of the Land Use Board were reviewed.  A Motion was made by Ted Brace and seconded by Gene Crawford, to approve the Minutes of January 11, 2007 Reorganization Meeting and Regular Meeting.  Roll Call:  Ted Brace, yes; Sharon Tufaro, yes; Darren Ponce, yes; George Zitone, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Glenn Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

RESOLUTIONS

Montague Township Board of Education – Athletic Field:

The Resolution was reviewed.  A Motion was made by George Zitone and seconded by Ted Brace to approve the Resolution for an Application by the Montague Township Board of Education for review of a Capital Project.  Roll Call:  Ted Brace, yes; Sharon Tufaro, yes; Darren Ponce, yes; George Zitone, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Glenn Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

ADPP Enterprises – LUB 06-23 – Amended Site Plan – Block 4, Lot 6:

The Resolution was reviewed.  A Motion was made by Gene Crawford and seconded by Sharon Tufaro to approve the Resolution for an Amended Site Plan of ADPP Enterprises.  Roll Call:  Ted Brace, yes; Sharon Tufaro, yes; Darren Ponce, yes; George Zitone, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Glenn Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

NEW APPLICATIONS

Zitone Construction Co., Inc. – LUB 07-03 – Final Major Subdivision – Block 7, Lot 33.30:

George Zitone stepped down from this application.

Appearing before the board was the applicant’s attorney, Ursula Leo of Laddey, Clark & Ryan, and the applicant’s engineer, Allen Campbell.  Mr. Campbell was sworn in by the board attorney.

Ms. Leo indicated that this is an application for 5 new lots with 1 remainder.  The applicant obtained a Minor Subdivision approval in July, 2006 which was memorialized August 10, 2006.  The applicant has submitted a letter to the board for an extension of time to file the deeds for this Minor Subdivision because the applicant’s time period is expiring.

Mr. Campbell indicated that the applicant is submitting an application for Major Subdivision on the lot that they created at Big Z Stables.  This lot being created was Lot 33.30 and it was part of the land that is north of the race track along Colehaven Terrace West.  This Preliminary Major Subdivision has certain requirements that were requested of the applicant to perfect the subdivision.  One of the conditions was to perfect the subdivision by deed.  He indicated that the descriptions are being prepared to be put into deed form.  There were additional requirements for easements that were requested by the board engineer that were addressed on the revised plans and there will also be deeded easements as well as continued right to discharge storm water from municipal road Colehaven Terrace West, a stormwater drainage that will traverse through the remainder of Lot 33.30.

Mr. Campbell indicated that this subdivision is developed under the low density development standards.  The remaining Lot, 33.30, will have a deed restriction for any future subdivision.  The 5 new created lots and the remaining lot will be subject to deed requirements to have stormwater management designs prior to building permit.  All the created lots will conform to the zoning requirements.

Mr. O’Krepky indicated that all the items in his review letter for completeness have been addressed and he recommends this application to be deemed complete.

A Motion was made by Gene Crawford and seconded by Ted Brace to deem this application complete.  All were in favor.  The Motion was carried.

Mr. Campbell referred to a letter from the County Planning Board.  This letter is referring to the Minor Subdivision on Lot 4, Lot 65 and the original Minor Subdivision on Block 7, Lot 33 and 33.01, which is the Minor Subdivision which created the subject lot 33.30.  The County had reviewed and approved the entire process of both minor subdivisions and they requested all the right-of-way dedications.  When the deeds were submitted for approval, the County recognized an additional item they would like which they referred to as a Bridge Maintenance Easement.  There is a bridge structure on New Mashipacong Road.  The County has asked the applicant on each of the Minor Subdivisions for an easement in order to access and maintain the structure.  The applicant will prepare an exhibit which will demonstrate those easements.

This matter was opened to the public.  There was no public participation.  This matter was closed to the public.

A Motion was made by Ron Ruberto and seconded by Ted Brace to approve the application for a Final Major Subdivision.  Roll Call:  Jason Dunn, yes; Ted Brace, yes; Sharon Tufaro, yes; Darren Ponce, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Glenn Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

EXTENSIONS

Zitone Construction and Supply Company, Inc. – Minor Subdivision Extension Request – Block 7, Lots 33 & 33.21:

A request was made by the applicant’s attorney, Ursula Leo, for a six-month extension of time to file the deeds for the approved Minor Subdivision due to the County requirements.

A Motion was made by Gene Crawford and seconded by Ted Brace to approve the 6-month extension of time to file the deeds for the minor subdivision of Zitone Construction.  Roll Call:  Jason Dunn, yes; Ted Brace, yes; Sharon Tufaro, yes; Darren

Zitone Construction and Supply Company, Inc. – Minor Subdivision Extension Request – Block 7, Lots 33 & 33.21:

Ponce, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Glenn Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

Zitone Construction and Supply Company, Inc. – Minor Subdivision Extension Request – Block 4, Lot 65:

A request was made by the applicant’s attorney, Ursula Leo, for a six-month extension of time to file the deeds for the approved Minor Subdivision due to the County requirements.

A Motion was made by Gene Crawford and seconded by Ted Brace to approve the 6-month extension of time to file the deeds for the minor subdivision of Zitone Construction.  Roll Call:  Jason Dunn, yes; Ted Brace, yes; Sharon Tufaro, yes; Darren Ponce, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Glenn Barbagallo, yes;  The Motion was carried.

Mr. Zitone returned to the meeting.

Richard Carlson/Community Corporation of Highpoint, Inc. – LUB 07-01 – Interpretation and/or Variance Application:

Mr. Haggerty indicated that the applicant is before the board for an Interpretation as to whether the proposed use of the first level of this building is permitted in this zone.  The second issue is whether the township has authority at all in terms of zoning in this area.  The third issue is if the board determines if the township has zoning authority and a use variance is needed, the application is then for a use variance.  He further stated that he feels the township does have zoning authority in the Country Club.  He does not feel this should be an issue in this regard.

Appearing on behalf of the applicant was his attorney, David Wallace, Esq., the applicant, Richard Carlson, and Kenneth Cosier, Administrator of the Community Corporation of Highpoint, Inc.  Mr. Carlson and Mr. Cosier were sworn in by the board attorney.

Mr. Wallace addressed the issue of notice.  He was advised by the board secretary that a receipt was missing for one of the parties of notice.  He submitted an Affidavit from that owner to the board attorney acknowledging receipt of the notice.  Mr. Haggerty indicated that this was appropriate.  He also is requesting a waiver for a formal variance map because they have record schematics of the building, a survey for the building and essentially they are not changing the configuration of what is there.  They have provided pictures to the board as to what exists on the lot.  The applicant’s are proposing to continue what essentially is a long standing use by just using a garage, they respectfully submit that a waiver would be in order for the requirement for a formal variance map.

Mr. Haggerty indicated that a formal variance map in this case is less important.  Because, as he understands it, the application strictly involves the use of the existing building, there will be no expansion of the footprint of the building, and it is only the nature of what would occupy the existing space.  The board is not concerned about setbacks, etc.  He feels this is an acceptable waiver.

A Motion was made by Ted Brace and seconded by George Zitone to deem this application complete.  Roll Call:  Jason Dunn, yes; Ted Brace, yes; Sharon Tufaro, yes;
Darren Ponce, yes; George Zitone, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Glenn Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

Mr. Carlson indicated that he is the owner of the property in question which is a basement area with two overhead garage doors in a multi-unit condominium building which he pays maintenance towards the common grounds.  He further stated that the entire basement is a single unit.

Mr. Wallace questioned Mr. Carlson if there are any restrictions in the master deed with respect to this unit.  Mr. Carlson indicated that the restriction is that it was not to be used as a residential unit.

Mr. Wallace questioned Mr. Carlson if he was the President of the Community Corporation of High Point and how the corporation came to be.  Mr. Carlson indicated that he was the President and the corporation was formed by Judge Stanton’s Ruling.  He further indicated that Judge Stanton ruled that the purpose of the corporation was to maintain the common areas and anything that they needed to do to accomplish these areas.

Mr. Wallace questioned Mr. Carlson if there is an agreement between himself and the Community Corporation to purchase the subject property.  He further indicated that at one time the Community Corporation had its offices in the restaurant until it was sold.  Now the offices are located at the Montague Mini Mall.  He stated that at the present time the Community Corporation does not have another facility for use as a garage for storage of their equipment and vehicles available to them.   At the present time the landscaping equipment and vehicles are stored outside by the beach area, which is one of the common areas for the corporation.

Mr. Haggerty questioned Mr. Carlson as to what properties are owned by the Community Corporation.  Mr. Carlson indicated the beach area, the roads, part of the entrance, the baseball field were the sewage treatment plant is located and some wetland areas.  He further stated that they are under a 99 year lease for the pool and tennis court, which they have to maintain.

Mr. Wallace questioned Mr. Carlson if the beach house is heated and suitable for record storage.  Mr. Carlson indicated that it was not heated and not suitable for record storage.  He further indicated that record storage is also one of the uses they intend to use the subject property for.

Mr. Carlson stated that when the golf course was sold, they were asked to leave the basement unit at 203 Old Chimney Ridge Road, where they were for a number of years and which is exactly the same use they are proposing to the board this evening.  The building at 203 Old Chimney Ridge is the same building as the subject unit this evening with apartments above and the garage unit below, which they occupied.  At the present time, they had closed in part of the beach pavilion for storage.  However, the pavilion is not big enough for the equipment and a lot of the equipment is sitting outside on trailers, which is not only an eyesore, but a hazard with the children in that area.

Ms. Crawford questioned Mr. Carlson if the Community Corporation owns any land that they could erect a steel building for the use they are proposing.  Mr. Carlson indicated that they would have to take away some other amenities and the cost would be too great.  The amount of money the community corporation is paying for this unit will be far less than the cost of the construction of a building, site plan, wetland issues, etc.

Mr. Wallace questioned Mr. Carlson as to what the Community Corporation maintains.  Mr. Carlson indicated that they maintain the roads, the drainage area as far as cleaning out the drainage, the sides of the road constantly, black topping, crack filling constantly on the roads, repair signs, just like the road department of the township.  They also maintain the pool, tennis courts, the baseball field, and the front entrance.

Mr. Wallace questioned Mr. Carlson as to what vehicles and equipment the corporation owns and what material they store.  Mr. Carlson indicated that they have one pick up truck, 3 lawn mowers (2 larger ones and one regular home use type) which they use to cut grass in the beach areas, the sides of the roads, and the pool area, snow plows, brush hog, weed whacker, rakes, shovels.  They would store some cold patch, crack fill material, grass seed and pool supplies.

Mr. Barbagallo questioned what kind of work will be done in this building besides storage.  Mr. Carlson indicated that they will be repairing their equipment and general maintenance on the vehicle, i.e. oil changes, etc.  He further questioned Mr. Carlson if there will be gasoline stored in this building.  Mr. Carlson indicated that no more than you would have in your personal garage.

Mr. Cosier indicated that basically this garage would be to store and work on equipment just as someone would do in their own personal garage.  There may be a little work bench.  They will store their files there also.  They are not looking to run a machine shop in this building.  They will not be welding.  The employees will not be there during the day, their work is outside.  Mr. Carlson indicated that the employees will not be their after hours unless there is some kind of emergency situation that needs to be addressed.  Mr. Cosier indicated that they will also store their backhoe in this area.

Ms. Crawford questioned Mr. Cosier if the people who lived in this building had any comments or input on this use.  Mr. Cosier indicated that they sent out a notification for a meeting on January 11th for the owners and occupants of that building to discuss any questions or problems they may have and to inform them what the corporation intends to use the building for.  He further indicated that not one resident showed up at the meeting.

Ms. Crawford indicated that her comment about placement somewhere else in the community where it might not be so visible is really due to the one fact that the building is a bit of an eye sore.  Also, if those garage doors are open for any length of time, she feels a lot of cold air will be filtering up through the building.  Mr. Cosier indicated that when this condominium was originally laid out, 3 of the units were zoned non-residential.  One, according to the Master Deed, was to be an office, another was to be a retail facility or a pro shop and the third one for storage of gas driven golf carts, which has been in #201 for many years.  They do presently store and repair golf carts in building 203.

Mr. Cosier indicated that he has been in contact with the building department and has made it quite clear that he would fully cooperate with any issues and any ordinances that they have regarding building requirements, fire requirements, etc.

Mr. Cosier stated that the access to the subject property is in the rear of the building were no entrance to private residences are.  There is a cart path for golf carts and a pond.

Mr. Cosier stated that as far as the ball field area, there is a restriction in the deed that any point in time when the sewage company maintaining the septic fields below has the right to expand on that area without disturbing the utility of the land on top. Therefore, he feels if they tried to put up a building on that property it would be in violation of the deed restriction regarding the sewage.

Mr. Cosier indicated that they have discussed with the co-owners of the condo unit the aesthetics of the building.  They intend to take the rear of that building and get rid of the shrub trees and do some mulching and planting to encourage the residents in the other buildings to kind of follow suit.

Mr. Wallace questioned Mr. Cosier as to the hours of operation of their employees and how many employees they have.  Mr. Cosier indicated the hours of operation are 8:30 to 4:00 and later for emergency purposes only.  They have one full-time maintenance person.  During the summer season they may hire one or two part-time people.

Mr. Dunn questioned Mr. Cosier if the corporation would be willing to deed restrict the unit to the certain things they testified to as the use and storage.  Mr. Wallace agreed that they can enter into an agreement with the Township as long as it is reasonable.

Mr. O’Krepky indicated that he feels this is a commercial use and the applicant would be subject to the commercial construction codes.  He is concerned with the issue of fuel storage in this building.  He also questioned the applicant if there are bathroom facilities in this building.  He also stated that every other applicant that comes before the board that discusses these issues and landscaping issues have a plan for him to review and he is concerned that no plan has been submitted.

Mr. Carlson indicated that they do not intend to store bulk amounts of fuel for the lawn mowers, weed whackers and backhoe.  They will have a 5 gallon pal of gasoline just like a regular homeowner would have in their own garage.  He further stated that there is a bathroom facility already in this building.

Mr. Haggerty indicated that in the township ordinances there is a provision that there should be a minimum 75’ buffer zone between any non-residential use in the R4 zone and any adjoining residential.  It also states that the buffer zone shall have at least two staggered rows of evergreens on 15-foot centers with trees not less than 4 feet in height.  He feels the intent of that ordinance is to obviously shelter or screen a commercial use from a residential use that would be affected.  The applicant did testified that there is no residential use that is affected because they are not facing any units where they are going in and out and it is not really visible to any surrounding unit.  Therefore, this ordinance is not really applicable.  However, the applicant would need to request a variance.  Mr. Cosier indicated that they will be the owners of the garage area; however, they are not the only owners of the outside area where they plan to landscape.

This matter was opened to the public.

John Resinak, Sr. appeared before the board.  Mr. Resinak was sworn in by the board attorney.  He indicted that one of the board members had concerns with parking hot vehicles in the building and then closing up the building.  He feels that the employees can park the vehicles outside for a half an hour before they turn it into the building, then there won’t be any heat from the vehicles or equipment.  He also stated that the applicant has stated that the building will be fireproofed by code.

Elizabeth Kulp appeared before the board.  Mrs. Kulp was sworn in by the board attorney.  She felt that everyone in the public who was in favor of this application should raise their hands to save the board some time.  Mr. Haggerty indicated that it could not be done this way.

Ellen Carlson appeared before the board and indicated to the board that she was in favor of the application.

George Gilliderian appeared before the board and indicated that he was in favor of the application.

Lou Sefelioni appeared before the board and indicated that he was in favor of the application.

Jodi Case Kennedy appeared before the board and indicated to the board that she was in favor of the application and would appreciate the board approving the request.  She feels this will make a better community.

Sandy German appeared before the board and indicated that she was in favor of the application.  She also indicated that the golf carts are stored in #205 and have gasoline in them which go in and out of the building everyday.

Brian VanWhite appeared before the board and indicated that he was in favor of the application.

There being no further public participation, this matter was closed to the public.

A Motion was made by George Zitone and seconded by Gene Crawford on the Interpretation portion of the application that this is not a permitted use in this zone.  Roll Call:  Darren Ponce, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Glenn Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

A Motion was made by Charles Teufert and seconded by George Zitone to grant the use Variance to allow the use requested by the applicant with the following conditions:  Must meet building code and fire safety; the only items stored in the building are a pickup truck, landscaping equipment; 3 employees (1 full time and 2 part time) with the regular hours of 8:30 to 4:00 unless in case of an emergency; cold patch and grass seed.  Roll Call:  Darren Ponce, yes; George Zitone, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Glenn Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

A Motion was made by George Zitone and seconded by Gene Crawford to approve the variance for the buffer area pursuant to Ordinance 76-57 Buffer Zone of the Montague Township Ordinances.  Roll Call:  Darren Ponce, yes; George Zitone, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Tefuert, yes; and Glenn Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

The board took a 10 minute recess at 9:40 p.m.

The board reconvened the meeting at 9:50 p.m.

Crown Aggregates, LLC – LUB 06-18 – Block 5, Lot 21 – Site Plan:

Mr. Zitone stepped down from this application.

Appearing before the board was the owner of the applicant, Paul Matinho, his attorney, Francis McGovern, and the applicant’s engineer, Allen Campbell.  Mr. Campbell and Mr. Matinho were sworn in by the board attorney.  Mr. Campbell gave his qualifications to the board and the board accepted Mr. Campbell as a qualified expert.

Mr. Haggerty indicated that quarries are different than the Land Use Law than other uses.  Quarries by their very nature expand in new territory as the quarry operation is conducted and materials are taken out.  One of the questions for the board is going to be whether this is a pre-existing non-conforming use.  That is whether the quarry existed prior to the enactment of the ordinance.  If the quarry has established it existed prior to the enactment of the ordinance, then the quarry can expand.  One of the questions is if the expansion of an entirely different nature so that it might actually trigger an expansion of a non conforming use.  Normally this would not be the case.  Normally a quarry can expand into near areas and take out new materials.  We do know that what the applicant would need is a site plan approval for any improvements that are placed on the site such as a building or a permanent structure.  The applicant is going to describe what is there now, and what historically has been there and what the plans are going to be.

Mr. McGovern indicated that the applicant is dealing with a fraction of a 108 acre site in terms of the soil operation.  He stated that it is his client’s position that this is a pre-existing non-conforming use.  The history of the site goes back to the 1920’s with this type of operation. 

Mr. Campbell indicated that the subject property is Block 5, Lot 21 at 6 Clove Road in Montague Township.  This is a tract of land of 108 acres which is located approximately 600’ from the intersection of Clove Road and Route 23.  The property is located in the northeasterly corner of Montague Township.  The unique feature about this peace of land is that it has been historically known as the Meloi Gravel Bank.  Through the 1990’s it was known as the Meloi/Zitone Gravel Bank.  Mr. Campbell referred to the Facilities Impact Report submitted to the board with the application packet.  In the report he supplied the board with information, as recorded by deed, dated 1927 where Mr. Meloi had made an arrangement with a builder of Route 23 and there was a deed filed for the contract of sale of materials out of this property.  This is the earliest record he could trace the gravel bank activity from this property.  He further stated that a majority of the documents submitted to the board came from his 1990’s research when Mr. Zitone was purchasing the property and utilizing the gravel bank.  There is documentation from this research substantiating the pre-existing non-conforming use to the gravel bank back in the 1990’s.  Mr. Campbell referred to the soil survey maps, USGS maps from the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s all recognizing this as a pick and shovel on the plans which represents a quarry.  One of the soil survey maps from the 50’s and 60’s recognizes this property historically going on as a gravel bank.  This leads to the pre-existing non-conforming use comments that Mr. McGovern stated earlier.  Mr. Campbell stated that the wetlands are a significant feature of this piece of land.  He stated that the wetlands location does pick up a body of wetlands which is on the ridge of the hill, more or less to the center of the property and then various different wetlands bodies or stay open water bodies which then migrate down towards Clove Road were there is a larger body of wetlands over adjacent to Lot 22.  He stated that the significance of this is that all those areas are regulated by the State of New Jersey DEP.  Any new disturbance or proposal that the applicant makes, now or the next 10 years will be regulated and have to have approval from DEP before they can disturb any of these areas within the transition area.  This and in addition to some severe slopes, which are to the westerly portion of the property, which does not have frontage on Clove Road, these severe slopes do make it difficult for any potential development, let alone have a soil removal operation find its way to the west.  He further indicated that the area where the wetlands and steep slopes are to the west is also the tract of land which is adjacent to residential zones.  This property is predominately in the commercial zone.  There is Highway Commercial frontage along Route 23 and Clove Road.  Next to the subject property is a residential zone.  He stated that the applicant’s restrictive lands are those lands adjacent to the residential zones.  He stated that his client’s future development plans which may come in the next 5 to 10 years will have very minimal impact adjacent to the residential zones, in that the wetlands regulations basically prohibit his client from having disturbances without special permits. 

Mr. Campbell reviewed the site plan map.  He indicated that they have prepared a plan for 3 phases of grading.  They have addressed the existing gravel removal operation and how the grades and the plan work will work in conjunction with the soil erosion designs in order to go through with the next 3 phases of the soil removal.  Each of the designs are incorporating an area so that the active gravel pit area for the removal of soils is essentially the same as they trace it back to the historic uses.  The plan also labels area for stabilization, areas that are currently disturbed so they get stabilized before the applicant starts into phase 1.  He stated that the second part of the site is the commercial facilities.  He indicated that the commercial facilities are those facilities being permitted within the Highway Commercial Zone.  On this particular site there is an office trailer that has been installed on the site.  They have a scale for weighing the loads of the various trucks.  There are certain soil erosion improvements.  There is a tracking apron, which is typically stone.  He stated that when you have a commercial use as opposed to residential use, certain soil erosion requirements in 1997 were revised.  The changes in soil erosion required that the first 100 feet of a commercial site of slopes over approximately 6% are required to be paved.  The applicant has 117 feet of a driveway which is currently paved which is in compliance with the soil erosion requirements.  Then they have a 100 foot of tracking apron which is existing and has to be maintained after the first 117 feet of pavement.  Mr. Haggerty questioned what is the tracking apron composed of.  Mr. Campbell indicated it consists of crushed rock over silt fabric so that you may remove it when it builds up silt and remove it and put in clean stone as part of the on going maintenance.  The features of this are more in common to a commercial site plan, which has an access drive, the drainage facilities, in this case would be a siltation basin.  A siltation basin had exited in prior years.  He further stated that stone aprons along the shoulder for the run off had been installed.  The site plan aspects, the applicant needs some interpretation from the board as to whether these commercial type improvements that were first installed after consulting with the prior Zoning Officer who obviously advised them that the only permits that were needed was a sign permit, which was obtained in the Spring of 2006; County approval for the entrance drive, which was obtained a County entrance permit; and a soil erosion renewal, of which they obtained a soil erosion permit.  On March 15, 2006, the Zoning Officer was approached for those various items.  Unfortunately the only paper trail the applicant has is for the sign permit.  The sign clearly states Crown Aggregates for a gravel bank.  This sign is part of the facilities report which clearly states it is a sand and gravel operation.  This does not address the site as a pre-existing non-conforming use.  He indicated that the board engineer stated that there are some structures on site that require site plan approval which lead the applicant to the commercial portion of the site plan.  Mr. Campbell indicated if that commercial aspect triggers an expansion of the use, then the applicant needs an interpretation to clarify this.  He further indicted that as far as the gravel bank operation goes, if they were maintaining the same acreage of disturbance for a single area, by phase, by grade and plan, then it is clearly not an expansion.  They are not going from the existing 3.7 acres to a 15 acre excavation.  This is one of the key issues that the applicant needs to proceed with to know whether they can continue.  Because if they don’t have a clear interpretation of that expansion of non-conforming use for the commercial site plan element, then they will have to table this aspect for this evening and move on to the grading portion or move on to different notice.

Mr. Haggerty indicated that he would agree that if the applicant was working the same historic pattern with 3 or 4 acres of working area, then it is not an expansion of the use.  It has been described as a gravel bank and gravel operation and that is what it is now.  If it is being modernized, such as the scale and office trailer, does not mean it’s an expansion.

Mr. O’Krepky reviewed his report with regard to completeness.  He noted that item “2b” of his report requested the survey submitted of the property should have a raised seal.  He stated that he discussed this with the applicant’s engineer and he will submit this to the board.  He further stated that the other items the applicant submitted a request for a waiver is reasonable pending testimony and other issues. 

A Motion was made by Ted Brace and seconded by Gene Crawford to deem this application complete.  All were in favor.  The Motion was carried. 

Mr. Haggerty indicated that with this vote, it is understood that they are deeming that the Use Variance is not needed and this is not an expansion of a non-conforming use.  This application will proceed strictly as a Site Plan application.

Mr. Campbell gave testimony as to the site plan aspect of the application.  He indicated that this application is in two parts, one is the commercial facilities as the site plan application and the grading plan which will be the tool for the municipality’s control of the gravel bank operation.  With this site plan approval, they have certain improvements, whether they are permanent or temporary in nature.  Those improvements are specifically the asphalt drive which is a paved driveway coming off the County road, a tracking apron, they have a staging area and circulation area for the trucks, a parking area for employees in front of the trailer, toilets available for the employees and the customers on site.

Appearing before the board was the applicant, Paul Matinho, who was sworn in by the board attorney.  Mr. Matinho indicated that he was one of the owners of the applicant. 

Mr. Campbell indicated that the office trailer facilitates the operations and the management of the trucks.  He stated that in his facilities report it states that the operators have certain guidelines for their customers with restrictions for parking on the County Road; restrictions from certain hours; speed and braking and types of other activities that are typically are something that is to be discouraged with trucking activity. 

Mr. Campbell referred to another feature of the site plan, the scale.  He indicated that most of the gravel bank operations that he is associated with have a scale.  The scale is essential to weigh the trucks.  The scale is an important safety issue.  It will control the nature of the loads on the trucks so the applicant will not have overloaded trucks going onto to Clove Road.

Mr. Campbell indicated that there will be a dumpster enclosure on the property. 

Mr. Campbell indicated that the soil erosion devices that are either existing, pre-existing, maintained, replaced or repaired over the last six months are documented on the site plan.  Mr. Campbell submitted to the board 4 photographs, which were marked as Exhibit “A- 1” and are in the Facilities Impact Report.  The photographs demonstrate the curb from Clove Road coming into the site where they now have stabilized embankments, a paved entryway, a conventional gate and a stop sign, the location of the trailer with a stairway and some landscaping around it, and the parking lot which consists of millings.  He indicated that the undercarriage of the trailer is decorated with the unit block wall system. 

Mr. Campbell discussed the 3 phases of the gravel bank as proposed.  The phasing is basically designed to manage this quarry for the next 12 to 24 months depending on the rate of removals.  Each of the phases are restricted to 3.7 acres as a maximum.  What the applicant is proposing to do for phase 1 is to continue the operations on the westerly side of the existing gravel bank, taking an area of approximately 3.7 acres, grading it off to a proposed design grade, having interim grades between phases 1 and 2.  These interim phases will have steeper embankments of 3 to 1 slopes, but in order to regulate what areas you disturb, you would have to have duplication in some areas.  Duplication meaning that they are only able to grade down to a certain level before they slope up to the next phase so that they don’t have 10 acres disturbed.  This is the necessity of having a certain phasing plan, having monthly reports that will be supplied to the township engineer, yearly updates by a licensed surveyor on the documents of cross sections and the plan review so that the township has the control regulating the activity in the pit.  He further stated that phase 1 is the lower portion of the pit, the first portion of the pit that drains the siltation basin.  The objective is to get phase 1 down to the design grade, have the area stabilized with seed, hay and mulch, so that the runoff is coming through some grass or vegetated areas prior to hitting the siltation basin.  This in itself will help alleviate any of the siltation that is to be carried from the soil removal operation.  He indicated that phase 2 and phase 1 will overlap at the beginning.  The operation in phase 1 will be grading out to the design grade and working their way to the east, towards Route 23, to phase 2.   He indicated that phase 1 will consist of 3.7 acres; phase 2 is 3.1 acres; and 3 acres for phase 3.  However, since there is an overlap of each phase, overall they are not nearly 9 acres. 

Mr. Campbell indicated that all areas outside the phase limits are required to be stabilized, if not already done so.  He further stated that all areas that they have encroached on the neighbor’s property has been stabilized.  Specifically, Lot 2 has been stabilized and they have received a letter from the owner of this lot which indicated that he has recognized that the applicant encroached on his property and that it was stabilized.  Mr. Campbell further stated that there is a minor portion on Lot 2.01 (a 40’ x 40’ triangle), which is owned by Mr. Biccum, which has been stabilized and they are in the process of receiving a letter from him that it is satisfactory.  He stated that this should clarify issues that Mr. O’Krepky referred to in his report dated February 1, 2007.

Mr. Campbell referred to the Map of Existing Conditions.  He indicated that the township ordinance calls for a buffer planting of some specification between commercial zones and residential zones.  In this particular application, the disturbance is 836 feet from the nearest residential house, which is on Lot 22.  The next nearest house is 1000+ feet, which is on Lot 25.  That area between the applicant’s existing disturbance and those residential dwellings will not increase as part of any of these designs.  The area between the area of disturbance and the neighbor’s lot lines is predominantly wetlands, wetland transition areas that is heavily wooded, has a reasonably good vegetative cover and, in itself, functions as an 800’ planted buffer.  In fact, he is not sure they can get permission to plant trees within a transition area without major undertaking from the DEP. 

Mr. Campbell referred to Exhibit “A-1”, the four photographs.  The first photograph is an aerial photograph taken during the summer time, which shows the heavy green area between the disturbed area and the residential zone.  The second photograph is an aerial photograph taken during the winter time, which shows a substantial body of evergreen trees between the disturbed area and the residential zones. 

Mr. McGovern marked all the Exhibits Mr. Campbell referred to during his testimony as follows:  Exhibit “A-1”  4 photographs, zone limitation on tax map and soil survey imaging; Exhibit “A-2” Photo board showing the office trailer, the access drive, scale, the sedimentation basin, and some of the stabilized channels and run off areas; Exhibit “A-3 Overlay-colored portion of site plan demonstrating phases of site plan; Exhibit “A-4” Site Plan Map; and Exhibit “A-5” the Facilities Impact Report.

Mr. Brace indicated that in Mr. Campbell’s testimony he stated that the phasing is basically designed to manage this quarry for the next 12 to 24 months depending on the rate of removals. He questioned Mr. Campbell if this is 12 to 24 months per phase or for all 3 phases.  Mr. Campbell indicated that this is for the entire 3 phases collectively.  Mr. Barbagallo questioned Mr. Campbell as to what happens when they have completed the 3 phases. Mr. Campbell indicated that they will have to come back before the board for additional phases. 

Mr. O’Krepky reviewed his report dated February 1, 2007:

Item 4:  Drainage and Silt Basins:  Mr. O’Krepky indicated that he reviewed all the drainage calculations and the basins as they are now conform with the soil conservation districts standards.  He further stated that the continuing performance of these basins will depend on the ongoing maintenance of these facilities. 

Item 5:  Site Plan:  Paragraph “c”:  The Facilities Impact Report states there is a 10 MPH speed limit onsite.  From his site visits he did not see any signs.  He further stated that in the applicant’s engineer’s response letter, he indicated that they will add the speed limit signs on the site and site plan.

Paragraph 6:  Compliance Plan & Reporting:  Mr. O’Krepky suggests the following report standards to ensure compliance with the site plan:  1)  Monthly reporting to be prepared by the operator and mailed to the township that will include:  a)  A brief one page description of maintenance of sediment basins; and b)  Pictures of basins and other drainage structures.  2)  Annual Compliance Report including the following:  a) This report will be completed and delivered to the township one month after the completion of a 12 month period; and b) This plan will include topography measurements by a NJLS of all disturbed areas; and c) Disturbance Limit stakes will be placed in the approximate location as shown on the attached sketch to aid in inspections.  These stakes will be 4”x4” treated wooden posts with permanent markings relating to the numbering system shown on the plan.  The posts will be 8’ posts (4’ in the ground 4’ above ground).  The locations and numbering of these posts will be added to the survey and phasing plan; and d) A maintenance report and receipts from the portable toilet company stating the system was maintained to recommended industry standards for the amount of employees on the site.  This item would eliminate if a septic system was installed on this site; and e) Analysis of conditions of the subject site by a NJPE.  The analysis will include a statement by the NJPE stating that the facility still meets the standards as outlined in the original plan.

Paragraph 7:  This application shall be subject to the approval of the Soil Conservation District.

Mr. McGovern indicated that they are trying to obtain a letter from the owner of Lot 2.01 for that a portion of their property which was disturbed and repaired.  However, in Mr. O’Krepky’s report he is requiring that the applicant obtain this letter.  They can not guarantee to the board that they will obtain this letter; however, they can assure the board that the work has been done.  Mr. Haggerty indicated that the board would like the applicant to make an effort to obtain this letter; however, the board can not require the applicant to obtain a letter.  Mr. McGovern then indicated other than the above mentioned letter, the applicant is in agreement will all the items of Mr. O’Krepky’s report dated February 1, 2007. 

Mr. Brace questioned if the job trailer and scale were a permanent structure for the next, at least 2 years.  Mr. Campbell indicated that it will be there for at least 2 years.  Mr. Brace questioned Mr. Haggerty if the applicant’s need a variance for the trailer and the scale.  Mr. Haggerty indicated that he feels they are necessary components for the effective operation of this site.  He does not feel they need a variance.  A board member questioned if trailers are allowed in any zone in the township.  Mr. Haggerty indicated that they are not allowed, however, this is a trailer but essentially it is an office type building.  Mr. McGovern indicated that when the operation ceases, the trailer/office will be removed.  Mr. Campbell suggested that instead of a Use Variance, but a variance for a temporary trailer of this nature as a non-principal structure, but as an accessory structure.  He also suggested that they obtain an approval for the temporary location of the trailer for 2 years.  If the applicant needs to move the trailer or keep it where it exists, then they will have to come back to the board for an extension or amended site plan.  Mr. Haggerty indicated that he will have to review this matter.

Mr. Brace questioned Mr. Campbell if there have been any trouble with trucks parking on the road since the applicant was before the board for the Concept Application.  He further questioned Mr. Campbell if the gate could be moved up farther so that the trucks could park off of Clove Road.  Mr. Campbell indicated that there were 2 problems that relate to moving the gate to where you don’t recognize it.  The first is that the trucks will get on site, it’s gated and they can’t turn around.  You can not back out onto a highway, it is illegal.  Mr. McGovern indicated that the way the site operates is that for about a half an hour before the actual start up of the operation they have to warm up the equipment.  Therefore, there has to be an employee on site.  They are suggesting that they open the gate at that time to let whatever trucks are waiting off the highway to park on site before they can begin the actual operation on the site.  Mr. Campbell indicated that they agreed at the Concept Hearing that if there is a complaint the truck driver will be notified and the township will be copied in on the letter.  After 3 notices to the driver’s they will not be doing business at this location.

Mr. Haggerty questioned Mr. McGovern as to the hours of operation.  Mr. McGovern indicated that the hours that are in the report are from 6:30 to 4:00 Monday through Saturday. 

Mr. Brace questioned Mr. O’Krepky as to how the review of the monthly and annual reports will be funded.  Mr. Haggerty indicated that there should be some kind of licensing ordinance in place with a fee imposed in connection with the licensing. 

Mr. Dunn questioned if there could be some kind of bond for the improvements, because how does the township know if they are going to come back and stabilize the property. 

This matter was opened to the public. 

Richard Fodor appeared before the board and was sworn in by the board attorney.  He did not feel the use of this operation is similar to what the previous owner had used the property for.  He was concerned how a gravel bank affects the township.  He submitted to the board pictures of other gravel banks in other townships and how they have been left in disrepair. 

Ed Marencik appeared before the board and was sworn in by the board attorney.  He indicated that the buffer zone Mr. Campbell referred to is not as thick as he testified.  He could clearly hear the stone crusher at this home.  He was concerned about the emissions from the dust.   He was also concerned about fuel storage tank on the property. 

Elizabeth Colby appeared before the board and was sworn in by the board attorney.  She indicated that she had a complaint with the noise and the dust emissions.  Mr. Barbagallo questioned the applicant how often will the crusher be on the property.  Mr. Campbell states a couple weeks a year. 

Charles Worthington appeared before the board and was sworn in by the board attorney.  He was concerned with the truck traffic on Clove Road.

Patricia Benson appeared before the board and was sworn in by the board attorney.  She is concerned about the water drainage on this property. 

Reginald R. Cole appeared before the board.  He was concerned about the under ground springs at this property. 

Mark Spradling appeared before the board and was sworn in by the board attorney.  He indicated that he is in favor of this application.  He also stated he is the owner of Lot 2 and he is happy with the stabilization they completed on his property.

This matter was closed to the public.

A Motion was made by Gene Crawford and seconded by Ted Brace to carry this matter to the March 8, 2007 Land Use Board meeting without further notice.  All were in favor.  The Motion was carried.

George Zitone returned to the meeting.

EXTENIONS

Emma Masset – LU-10-01-03 – Preliminary Site Plan – Block 40, Lot 3 (Extension Request):

A letter was received from the applicant requesting a 1-year extension on the site plan due to the fact that she has not yet received County Approval.  Mr. Haggerty explained to the board that since another government entity is still pending the board can grant one more 1-year extension on this application.  A Motion was made by George Zitone and seconded by Sharon Tufaro to approve the 12-month extension of this approval.  Roll Call:  Jason Dunn, yes; Ted Brace, yes; Sharon Tufaro, yes; Darren Ponce, yes; George Zitone, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Glenn Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

NEW BUSINESS

Developer’s Fee Ordinance:

Mr. Haggerty indicated that a letter should go to the governing body to start collecting on the developer’s fee ordinance.  Once the State approves the Ordinance, the money can be used.  At the present time it can be kept in an escrow account pending State approval.

A Motion was made by George Zitone and seconded by Gene Crawford to have Mr. Haggerty write a letter to the Township Committee to start collecting money on the Developer’s Fee Ordinance.  All were in favor.  The Motion was carried.

VOUCHERS

A Motion was made by Darren Ponce and seconded by Gene Crawford to pay the following vouchers:

KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Crown Aggregates (escrow) in the amount of $112.50; and

KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Jurkovich (escrow) in the amount of $112.50; and

KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Anthony (escrow) in the amount of $75.00; and

KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Jurkovich (escrow) in the amount of $37.50; and

KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Crown Aggregates (escrow) in the amount of $262.50; and

KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding ADPP (escrow) in the amount of $487.50; and

KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding General Administration (January) in the amount of $300.00; and

KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Anthony (escrow) in the amount of $75.00; and

Dolan & Dolan regarding Anthony (escrow) in the amount of $85.31; and

Dolan & Dolan regarding High Point Country Club (escrow) in the amount of $39.38; and

Dolan & Dolan regarding General Administration (November) in the amount of $817.41.

Roll Call:  Jason Dunn, yes; Ted Brace, yes; Sharon Tufaro, yes; Darren Ponce, yes; George Zitone, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Glenn Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

CORRESPONDENCE

The correspondence was reviewed.  No formal action was taken.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business, a Motion was made by Gene Crawford and seconded by George Zitone to adjourn the meeting.  All were favor.  The Meeting was adjourned.

Minutes prepared by:
SHARON M. YAROSZ
Land Use Board Secretary