Open public meeting statement: The meeting was called to Order by Chairman, George Zitone, 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 Designee, Charles Teufert, Glenn Barbagallo, Gene Crawford, Katherine Snyder, Glen Plotsky, George Zitone, William Haggerty, Esq., the board attorney, Michael O’Krepky, the board engineer, and Sharon M. Yarosz, the board secretary.

Those absent were: Sharon Tufaro (excused), Darren Ponce, Richard Innella (excused), Ron Ruberto (excused).

MINUTES

The minutes of the November 13, 2008 Land Use Board meeting were reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Teufert and seconded by Mr. Barbagallo to approve the Minutes of the November 13, 2008 Land Use Board Meeting. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, abstain; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The motion was carried.

RESOLUTIONS

George Zitone – LUB 08-07 – Block 18.42, Lot 11 – 260 Clove Road – “D” Variance:

Mr. Zitone stepped down as Chairman. Mr. Barbagallo took over as Chairman.

The Resolution was reviewed. A Motion was made by Mrs. Snyder and seconded by Mr. Plotsky to approve the Resolution for a “D” Variance. Roll Call: Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Plotsky, yes. The Motion was carried.

Mr. Zitone took over as Chairman.

The vouchers were reviewed. A Motion was made Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Teufert to approve the following vouchers:

1. KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Youngman (Escrow) in the amount of $125.00; and
2. KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding General Administration (November) in the amount of $250.00; and
3. KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Zitone (LUB 08-07 – Escrow) in the amount of $218.75; and
4. KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Rosenfeld (Escrow) in the amount of $218.75; and
5. Dolan & Dolan regarding Zitone (LUB 08-07 Escrow) in the amount of $313.95; and
6. Dolan & Dolan regarding Wasko (Escrow) in the amount of $61.43; and
7. Dolan & Dolan regarding Tri State Bible Camp (Escrow) in the amount of $81.90; and
8. Dolan & Dolan regarding Hickey (Escrow) in the amount of $95.55; and
9. Dolan & Dolan regarding General Administration (October & November) in the amount of $1,496.63.
10. Dolan & Dolan regarding General Administration (Colfax – Zoning Issue) in the amount of $68.25; and
11. Fred Suljic regarding COAH – Housing Element in the amount of $5,600.00; and
12. Dolan & Dolan regarding Zitone (LUB 07-03 Escrow) in the amount of $68.25; and
13. KSM Engineering regarding Wasko (Escrow) in the amount of $468.75.

Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Housing Element and Fair Share Plan:

Appearing before the board was the board Planner, Fred Suljic. Mr. Suljic reviewed the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan with the board dated December, 2008. He indicated that the rules state that the township has to have one affordable unit for every 4 residential certificate of occupancy’s issued and one affordable unit for every 16 jobs created in the commercial districts. He reviewed the first section of the Plan, which states statistics of the township. The township is 45.3 square miles in size. The population in Montague has grown from 2,832 in 1990 to 3,412 in 2000. The median age is 37 where the median age in Sussex County is 38.4. The median household size is 2.65 where the County is 2.80. Montague Township is in Region 1 of the COAH housing regions which includes the following counties; Bergen, Hudson, Passaic and Sussex.

Mr. Suljic referred to table R-1 in the plan of the Ten-year Historic Trend of Residential Certificates of Occupancy and Demolition permits. From 2004 through 2007, there were 59, 38, 31 and 18 Certificates of Occupancy issued respectively. Adding these numbers up and dividing by 5, there is an obligation of 29.2 affordable units required to be built in Montague Township. With regard to the jobs created in this time period, there is an obligation of 1 affordable unit.

Mr. Suljic referred to Table R-2 of the plan of the Second Round Affordable and Market-Rate Units in Inclusionary Developments to Be Excluded from Growth Projection, which is 2 units. These units were excluded because of the Fountain House, which is explained in another table.

Mr. Suljic referred to table R-3, which is the Residential Growth Share Projection Development Projected by COAH, which is 386 units from 2004 to 2018. Taking this number and dividing it by 5 will create an obligation of 77 affordable units for Montague Township.

Mr. Suljic indicated that there is a Rehabilitation Share of 15 for the Third Round Obligation. The prior round Rehabilitation obligation is 9.

Mr. Suljic referred to table NR-1 which is the Non-Residential projection projected by COAH for 544 jobs. Taking this number and dividing it by 16 will create 34 affordable units for Montague Township.

Mr. Suljic indicated that the projections are numbers issued by the state. The actual obligation will be based on the actual growth of the township. He indicated that the township could have challenged the state’s numbers with the following: 1) Vacant Land

Assessment – which the township would have to detail lot by lot of each piece of vacant land which would be very costly or 2) Housing Survey.

Mr. Suljic reviewed the Section Second Round/Prior Round Obligation with the board. When Montague Township received its second round obligation, the Township’s 1987-1999 cumulative obligation was 15 units, consisting of 7 rehabilitation and 8 new construction. Montague addressed some of its obligation through a rehabilitation program. Montague received new construction credits with Fountain House where 13 units were added and 4 bonus rental credits were allocated. COAH recommended that Montague Township be certified and granted substantive certification on September 22, 2004. Now COAH has recalculated the 1987-1999 prior round obligation to be 9 units where 8 units were previously identified.

Mr. Suljic reviewed the Rehabilitation obligation. He indicated that Montague initiated a small cities rehabilitation grant program to fund 17 units rehabilitated between June 25, 1994 and April 26, 1995. The units were funded with a grant from the NJ DCA and continue with a shared program with Sandyston Township as of today. As a result of continued funding, 24 units were rehabilitated where 15 units are now required for the period of April 1, 2000 through June 1, 2008. Therefore the Township has satisfied the rehabilitation share for the revised third round period. He indicated that the rehabilitation requirement for this time period must be at least $8,000 in order to count for a rehabilitation credit. Anything after June 2, 2008, must be at least a $10,000 investment and must replace a major system (i.e. septic, furnace) in order to count for a rehabilitation credit.

Mr. Suljic summarized the total Third Round obligation for Montague Township is as follows:

A. Rehabilitation Share (April 1, 2000 – December 31, 2017) 15 Units
B. Remaining Prior Round Surplus -2 Units
C. Growth Share Units (Residential & NonResidential) 111 Units

Total Projection Third Round Obligation for Montague Township 124 Units

Mr. Suljic reviewed the Compliance Plan with the board, which would include: 1) Inclusionary Zoning; 2) Growth Share Ordinance; and 3) Market to Affordable Program. The Inclusionary Zoning the township intends to enact an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance which would require that any proposed development in a high density zone be located in the town center area. This requires zoning in existing or proposed sewer service areas outside of planning areas 1 or 2 to permit residential development at a presumptive minimum gross density at 4 dwelling units per acre or more which is consistent with the higher density zone in the town center area. The Growth Share Ordinance will apply to the zones outside the Town Center Boundary area for both residential and nonresidential developments. The obligation for growth share construction or a contribution in lieu of construction should apply regardless as to whether a property owner/developer has obtained preliminary or final approval of any type of development. He further indicated that the township has the Developer’s fee ordinance in place at this time, however, this does not collect a lot of funds for the township. The developer’s fee is 1 ½ percent of the assessed value for residential properties and 2.5 percent for commercial property. Market to Affordable Program is where the township will outright purchase or subsidize through a written agreement with a property owner to sell or rent to low and moderate-income households. No more than 10 for sale and 10 rental units or an amount equal to a combined total of 10 percent of the fair share obligation, which ever is greater, may be used to address the fair share obligation, unless the municipality can demonstrate a successful history of a Market to Affordable Program. The units must be deed restricted for 30 years.

Mr. Suljic reviewed the Spending Plan portion of the plan. Montague projects a total of $36,054 in Growth Share contribution fees in lieu of construction for each residential united created. Non-residential projects will incur a $12,018 for each job created. Montague will set aside a maximum of twenty (20) percent of the fees collected in lieu of construction each year for administrative purposes. The remaining eighty (80) percent of development fees collected each year will be used to fund any remaining housing rehabilitation expenses not covered by the recovered Community Development Block Grant Program administered by Montague Township and to fund site development and/or construction costs involving the two (2) municipally sponsored projects. The Schedule for Rehabilitation of Housing Units from 2004-2018 will be $10,000 for one unit each year for 2009 and 2010; $20,000 for 2 units per year from 2011 through 2015; and $10,000 for one unit each year for 2016 and 2017.

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

A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Ms. Crawford to adopt the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan dated December 18, 2008 and the Resolution Adopting the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan and recommend same to the Township Committee. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, abstain; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

NEW BUSINESS

Appointment of Nominating Committee for 2009:

Mr. Zitone appointed Gene Crawford, Richard Innella and Glenn Plotsky to the 2009 Nominating Committee

CORRESPONDENCE

The correspondence was reviewed. There was no formal action taken.

NEW APPLICATIONS

Community Corporation of Highpoint, Inc. – LUB 08-08 – Block 18.56, Lot 44CO107 – 306 Shore Drive – Variance:

Appearing before the board was the applicant’s attorney, David Wallace, and the President of the Community Corporation of Highpoint, Inc., Jody Case Kennedy. Ms. Kennedy was sworn in by the board attorney.

Mr. Wallace indicated that a significant part of the case is based upon documents that are of record, such as Judgements of the Court, By-Laws of Record, Restrictions of record applying to every property lying within the R-4 Zone. He will also refer to a prior Resolution of this board, which was upheld in Court. He indicated that the Court has required that there be administration of common elements within this zone, yet there is nothing really explicit within the ordinance that contemplates the use that is compelled to place within the R-4 Zone.

Ms. Kennedy indicated that the Community Corporation is presently renting 306 Shore Drive to administer the services for the community. The building has a garage bay, which they utilize for storage of file cabinets. The do not have any equipment storage at this location. They do have their equipment stored in another garage bay at 205 Old Chimney Ridge. Theoretically they may want to bring some of that equipment to this garage bay where they are now. The upstairs of the unit is the offices for the Community Corp. This unit was formally an apartment and there are no other tenants at this location. There is a large open parking lot, which could accommodate approximately 25 cars. There are approximately 10 people who visit the office per day. They have 3 ½ employees. This is where the community corporation residents pay their bills, ask questions about what they can and can’t do in the community and file grievances. There is the maintenance department employees who take care of the roadways, dams and the lake who are also in the office daily to speak to the Administrator about daily work. This is a Non-Profit Organization and they operate solely to enhance the residential properties within the zone.

Mr. Haggerty questioned Ms. Kennedy if they would eliminate the operation at 205 Old Chimney Ridge. Ms. Kennedy indicated at this time they do not intend to eliminate that operation. Mr. Haggerty questioned Ms. Kennedy if this was a stand-alone building and if they rent the entire building. Ms. Kennedy indicated that there are 2 other garage bays that are rented to other people which the Community Corporation has nothing to do with.

Mr. Zitone questioned as to how long they have been renting this unit. Ms. Kennedy indicated that they have been in this location since September, 2008. Mr. Wallace questioned if there are any other offices or commercial land in the R-4 Zone. She indicated that there are none. She indicated that this location is very convenient for the residents. She further stated that there is a pool and a tennis court and if there are any problems that come up the administrator is readily available on the premises.

Mr. Haggerty questioned as to what buildings are surrounding the subject property. Ms. Kennedy indicated that there is an apartment building near this property.

Mr. Haggerty questioned as to the prior use of the building. Mr. Wallace indicated that this building was part of the Golf Club at one time.

Mr. Plotsky questioned if the offices are upstairs. Ms. Kennedy indicated that there are. He was concerned about handicapped accessibility. Ms. Kennedy indicated that they do have a desk set up in the basement for the handicapped.

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

A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Ms. Crawford approve the Use Variance requested by the applicant. Roll Call: Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

Patricia Wasko – LUB 08-05 – Block 19.07, Lot 14 – 18 Highpoint Drive – Private Road Variance:

Mr. Haggerty stepped down from this application due to a conflict. Christopher Quinn took over as the board attorney.

Mr. Dunn stepped down from this application since he is a surrounding property owner.

Appearing before the board was the applicant’s attorney, Morris Greb, and the applicant Patricia Wasko, who was still under oath from the previous meeting.

Mr. Greb indicated that he subpoenaed two neighbors Mr. Dunn and Mr. Araujo to appear at this meeting for examination. Appearing before the board was Mr. Dunn who was sworn in by the board attorney. Mr. Greb questioned Mr. Dunn as to his current address and if he built the house or was it existing. Mr. Dunn indicated that he lives at 8 Highpoint Drive and he did build the house. He has resided at this property approximately 3 years. He questioned Mr. Dunn if he was required to appear before this board to build the home and what was application for. Mr. Dunn indicated that he appeared before this board for a Planning Variance to build a home on an unimproved road. Mr. Greb questioned Mr. Dunn as to what was required of him to appear before the board. Mr. Dunn indicated that he had to do a variance map and plot plan showing the house location, the septic and well location and driveway location. He also had to prove that emergency vehicles had access to the lot through the private roads, which he obtained a c/o and received land use board approval. Mr. Greb questioned Mr. Dunn if he was able to prove to the board that the home was accessible for emergency vehicles. Mr. Dunn indicated that he was not qualified to answer this question. He did receive approval from this board and he did receive a c/o through the building department. Mr. Greb questioned Mr. Dunn as to the nature of his application. Mr. Dunn indicated that he came before the Land Use Board for a Variance from the Municipal Land Use Law which states that all houses must abut a public street. Mr. Greb questioned Mr. Dunn as to proof he was required to give the board in order for him to obtain a building permit. Mr. Dunn indicated that he had to prove to the board that there was adequate access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Greb questioned Mr. Dunn if he did prove this to the board. Mr. Dunn indicated that he presumed that he did provide adequate proof because he did receive a building permit. Mr. Greb objected to the answer that he presumed and questioned Mr. Dunn again if he proved to the board that the access was adequate for access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Dunn indicated that it did. Mr. Greb questioned Mr. Dunn since the time of the approval did he have any need for emergency vehicles to come to his property. Mr. Dunn indicated he did, a police vehicle came to the sight during the construction phase of the project and just recently there was a fire vehicle at the home because of a CO detector going off. Mr. Greb questioned Mr. Dunn if he was required to do improvements to the road by this board. Mr. Dunn indicated that he was. Mr. Greb questioned Mr. Dunn at the time that the police vehicle arrived at the home during the construction was the road completed at that time and was the police vehicle able to access the property. Mr. Dunn indicated that the road construction had not yet been completed at that time and they only came to the intersection of Durol Drive and Highpoint Drive. Mr. Greb stated that an emergency vehicle had access. Mr. Dunn indicated that they did have access on a clear dry day. Mr. Greb questioned Mr. Dunn as to how much of the road was completed when the police officer came. Mr. Dunn indicated that the road had been cleared of brush and graded and there was no gravel put down at that time. Mr. Greb questioned Mr. Dunn as to what kind of emergency vehicles appeared at the home on the second incident for the CO detector. Mr. Dunn indicated 2 pick up trucks, a tanker truck, a pumper truck and a police car. He questioned if these vehicles were able to access his home at this time. Mr. Dunn indicated that they were. Mr. Greb questioned as to when he obtained his C/O. Mr. Dunn indicated in March,2005. Mr. Greb questioned if he has had any difficulty getting to his property or for any other emergency vehicles. Mr. Dunn indicated that he has not had any other problems.

Mr. Plotsky questioned Mr. Dunn if Durol Drive is a public or private road. Mr. Dunn indicated that a portion of Durol is public and a portion is private. He questioned if High Point Drive was public or private. Mr. Dunn indicated that it is a private road. He questioned if High Point Drive is a private road built to specs as required by this board. Mr. Dunn indicated that only a small portion of the road, which he was required to construct which, is approximately 230’ from the intersection of Durol Drive and Highpoint Drive up to and including his property. He questioned if the applicant’s property is further in on Highpoint Drive passed the improvements. Mr. Dunn indicated that it was.

Appearing before the board was Mr. Araujo who was sworn in by the board attorney. Mr. Greb questioned Mr. Araujo if he owned property on Highpoint Drive. Mr. Araujo indicated that he owns 9 Highpoint Drive. He questioned if he knows where the applicant’s property his. Mr. Araujo indicated that he was not sure, but he thinks it is across from his property. He questioned if he built a home on 9 Highpoint Drive and was he required to make an application before this board. Mr. Araujo indicated that he did build a home and was required to appear before the Land Use Board to prove the road was accessible for emergency vehicles. He had to appear because it was a Private Road. Mr. Greb questioned as to who owns the road. Mr. Araujo indicated that nobody owns the road. He indicated it was a Private Road and the township does not plow it or maintain it. When he first purchased the lot, there was no road, it was just a little path. He indicated that he had to hire an engineer and surveyor to design the road, then he built the road. The Land Use Board approved this plan. Mr. Greb asked Mr. Araujo to describe what he did to obtain access to his property. He indicated that he cleared the trees, they had a surveyor stake the road out, they placed the RCA (base of the road), then asphalt on the road. Mr. Greb questioned as to when this work was done. Mr. Araujo indicated that they did the base before they started construction and then did the asphalt after they built the house so they did not damage it. Mr. Greb questioned if any emergency vehicles were at this home. Mr. Araujo indicated that the fire truck was there for training to see if they could gain access and a police officer was at his residence because someone stole a barbecue grill from him.

Ms. Crawford questioned Mr. Araujo as to how much of the road is unpaved between his house and Mr. Dunn’s. Mr. Araujo indicated approximately 350’. He paved in front of his house plus 20’ on either side. She asked as to how much pavement he installed. Mr. Araujo indicated that he paved approximately 220’.

Mr. Teufert asked who finished the roadwork first, him or Mr. Dunn. Mr. Dunn indicated that they worked together and Mr. Dunn finished first and then he completed his final surface.

This matter was opened to the public.

Appearing before the board was Mr. Dunn who questioned Mr. Araujo if he was required to construct a storm water management system. Mr. Araujo indicated that he was required by the board engineer to prepare a plan to control the drainage. He questioned Mr. Araujo if he was required by this board to pave in front of his lot 22’ wide. Mr. Araujo indicated that the board did require him to pave in front of his lot 22’ wide. Mr. Dunn questioned as to where did this specification come from. Mr. Araujo indicated that his engineer used some guide from the state. Mr. Dunn questioned if it was RSIS. Mr. Araujo indicated that he did not know. Mr. Dunn questioned Mr. Araujo if the board told him that anyone else building on this road will have to do the same. Mr. Araujo indicated that this was true. Mr. Greb objected to the question because it had no relevancy.

This matter was closed to the public.

Mr. Greb questioned Mr. Araujo if he submitted an “as-built” site plan to the township when he finished the plan. Mr. Araujo indicated that he did. He questioned him if the as-built shows the road right-of-way 50’ wide and that he paved 20’ feet wide. Mr. Araujo indicated that he paved 22’ wide when he built the storm drainage.

Mr. Greb indicated that he is requesting that the board direct the building inspector to issue a building permit pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Law 40:55D-35/36.

Mr. O’Krepky prepared a map of the road conditions, which show some pavement in front of the property in question. He indicated that the survey that the applicant submitted is much more accurate. He also did a visual inspection. He indicated that according to RSIS for every property that is added to this roadway there is an increase of 10.1 trips per day. Part of the concern of the board in the past is that there is general road improvements to be done that is used by someone that would populate this neighborhood. He further stated that according to the map he submitted, there are two areas where there is a good sub grade right now. From an engineering point of view, increased traffic will create erosion in these areas that only have a sub grade.

Mr. Barbagallo questioned Mr. Greb if he would accept as a condition of approval that the applicant pave these areas that need improvement on the road equal to amount of the frontage of her property due to the increase in usage. He further indicated that the applicant will have to be responsible for snow plowing and maintaining the road since it is a private road. Mr. Greb indicated that Mr. Dunn and Mr. Araujo would also have to maintain the road. Mr. Barbagallo indicated that this board has recommended that the neighbors get together and maintain the road. Mr. Greb indicated that the board may recommend it, but it is not in the statute. He further indicated that they are willing to pave the section at the westerly end of the applicant’s property towards the cul-de-sac, which is not paved. Mr. Quinn indicated that the board is requesting that the applicant pave an area on the road equal to the frontage of the applicant’s property. He further informed Mr. Greb that Judge Stanton has required an applicant to pave to the nearest public street regardless of how many lots the applicant passes. The board is not asking the applicant to do this, they are asking to have the applicant pave an amount equal to the length of her property. Mr. Greb indicated that the applicant will agree to put 110’ feet of paving on the road, but no other improvements. Mr. Barbagallo indicated that the road base will have to support the pavement.

Appearing before the board was Steven Wasko, as an expert witness. Mr. Wasko was sworn in by the board attorney. Mr. Wasko indicated that he is a general contractor and has a public works license to do civil and concrete work. He does not do road work, he does do paving and drainage. The map submitted by Mr. O’Krepky shows that there is a good sub base on the road. He questioned Mr. Wasko if this was adequate sub grade to place pavement on. Mr. Wasko agreed, however, there may be some minor grading. Mr. Zitone questioned as to how thick the sub grade was. Mr. Wasko indicated that he did not measure it, but according to the site plans previously done, he would assume 6”. Mr. Barbagallo indicated that there may be wear on the sub grade over the past few years. He further stated that without the site plan showing the paving work to be done, he is unable
to make a decision, however, he is willing to make it a condition of approval that the site plan be completed as requested and approved by the board engineer.

This matter was opened to the public.

Mr. Dunn questioned Mr. Wasko if he was a licensed professional engineer in the State of New Jersey. Mr. Wasko indicated that he was not. Mr. Dunn indicated that he agrees that the applicant should be allowed to build a house on this lot, however, he wanted to confirm that the conditions should be very clear and he is not satisfied that they are at this time without an engineer’s map proposing what the improvements are going to be. He also feels a cost estimate be submitted as to the subgrade that is already there, and the applicant should do an additional amount of paving which would equal the cost of the subgrade that is already there installed by himself and Mr. Araujo. He also feels that a maintenance agreement should be done between the property owners. He would like to make this a condition of approval. Mr. Greb questioned Mr. Dunn if he would tell his homeowner’s insurance that the road was not safe to travel on. Mr. Dunn indicated that the road is safe to his property.

This matter was closed to the public.

A Motion was made by Mr. Plotsky and seconded by Ms. Crawford to approve the variance request of the applicant with the condition that the applicant pave a portion of the road equal to the length of her property which is 111.81' ’. The portion to be paved is the remainder of the frontage of the applicant’s property and the portion of High Point Drive which connects to Mr. Araujo’s property and going approximately 105’ down the road so that the total amount of paved surface is the length of the applicant’s property and that the paving be done and approved by the board engineer. Roll Call. Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

Having no further business, a Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Ms. Crawford to adjourn the meeting. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned.

Minutes prepared by:

SHARON M. YAROSZ
Land Use Administrator