Open public meeting statement: The meeting was called to Order by Chairman of Land Use Board, 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 for the Land Use Board were: Charles Teufert, as Mayor Designee, Sharon Tufaro, Gene Crawford, Richard Innella, Jason Dunn, Katherine Snyder, Jody Case Kennedy, Glenn Barbagallo, William Haggerty, Esq., the board attorney, Michael O’Krepky, the board engineer, and Sharon M. Yarosz, the board secretary.

Those absent for the Land Use Board were: Darren Ponce, Glenn Plotsky and James Guimes (excused).

Those present for the Township Committee were:  Charles Teufert, Joseph Barbagallo, Ted Brace and George Zitone.

Those absent for the Township Committee were:  Darren Ponce.

MINUTES

The December 18, 2008 Land Use Board meeting minutes were reviewed.  A Motion was made by Mr. Teufert and seconded by Ms. Crawford to approve the December 18, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Land Use Board.  Roll Call:  Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, abstain; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mr. Innella, abstain; Mr. Dunn, abstain; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Ms. Kennedy, abstain; and Mr. Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

The Reorganization and Regular meeting minutes of the January 8, 2009 Land Use Board meeting were reviewed.  A Motion was made by Mr. Teufert and seconded by Mr. Innella to approve the Reorganization and Regular meeting minutes of the Land Use Board for January 8, 2009.  Roll Call:  Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Dunn, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; and Mr. Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

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

It was noted by the board Secretary that this Resolution was not yet completed.

OLD BUSINESS

Appointment of Land Use Board Planner :

Nominations were opened for the position of Board Planner for 2009.  A Nomination was made by Mr. Teufert and seconded by Ms. Crawford to appoint Jessica Caldwell, of Harold Pellow & Associates, as the board planner for 2009.  There were no further nominations.  The nominations were closed.  Roll Call for Jessica Caldwell of Harold Pellow & Associates for the 2009 Land Use Board Planner:  Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Dunn, abstain; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; and Mr. Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

Plan Endorsement Process and COAH :

Appearing before the board was the board Planner, Jessica Caldwell to discuss the Plan Endorsement Process and the COAH Process.

Mrs. Caldwell indicated that the township has an approved Center Designation by the State.  If the township would like to keep the Center Designation, it will have to go through a ten step Plan Endorsement Process. 

Ms. Caldwell indicated that the Center Designation approval was where the state just approved the town center area.  The Plan Endorsement Process looks at the township as a whole and to make sure the plan aligns with the state plan.  The state will evaluate all the township planning documents and make suggestions as to how they can be adjusted if need be to meet the goals of the state plan and be consistent with the state plan.  The first step is to set a Pre-Petition Meeting with the Office of Smart Growth.  The township would have to submit all their planning documents to the Office of Smart Growth prior to the meeting, which Montague Township has already completed.  The Pre-Petition meeting would be attended by the Mayor, possibly the Land Use Board Chairman, herself and other state agencies.  The meeting would be explaining the steps of Plan Endorsement, the Township explaining what they seek to achieve, the other state agencies that are there will give their opinion as to what they expect.  The next step is the township would appoint a Plan Endorsement Advisory Committee, which has already been done in Montague Township.  This committee over sees the process of the remaining steps in Plan Endorsement.  The next step is the Municipal Self Assessment Report.  This report is a mini Master Plan which reviews the conditions in the Township, the community facilities, GIS maps, and a review of the planning documents of the township and its consistency with the state plan.  This is a lengthy document which generally takes her firm approximately 2 months to prepare.  The next step is the state issues an Opportunities and Constraints Analysis.  This is where the state provides the township with its constraints, such as wetlands and traffic issues.  The state will also identify an opportunities that they may see for the township.  The next step is the community visioning where the township will analyze the state’s report and review of the town center designation and possibly make changes to the center, how do you see the community growing and where do you see it going within the next to 10 to 20 years.  These ideas get compiled into a visioning statement and sent to the state for their review and this completes the petition process.  The state will do a consistency review and they will issue the township an Action Plan/Center Designation Extension.  This will outline actions the state thinks the township should take prior to issuing Plan Endorsement.  Once the township agrees with the Action Plan the state and township will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding and the state will give the township approximately 2 years to complete the items on the Action Plan and issue Plan Endorsement.  The benefits of obtaining Plan Endorsement is obtaining grants from the State.  Once the Municipal Self Assessment is submitted, the township is eligible for the grants that are offered. 

Mr. Dunn and Mr. Barbagallo questioned Mrs. Caldwell as to the grants that were available if the township applied for Plan Endorsement.  Mrs. Caldwell handed out a document with a list of all the grants that the township would be eligible for if they filed for Plan Endorsement.  She indicated that the township would not obtain any sewer service areas without Plan Endorsement.  A lengthy discussion was held with regard to the grants available through Plan Endorsement. 

A discussion was held with regard to the cost of the preparation of the Municipal Self Assessment Report.  Mrs. Caldwell indicated that it would be approximately $9500, not to exceed $10,000.

Mrs. Caldwell indicated that in order to enter into Plan Endorsement, the township is required to commit to COAH.  At this point the township has submitted its Housing Element and Fair Share Plan to the state as required.  The township received a letter of incompleteness from the state listing several items.  She indicated that the township is approximately 60% done with the requirements.  She indicated that the township has to March 26th deadline to complete the items that COAH has requested.  The next step the State will issue a letter of completeness.  A notice will be published in the newspaper that will begin the 45 Day review period.  Following this the state will go through the township’s documents to make sure that it meets the requirements and if it does, the township will be certified by COAH for the third round cycle.  The township is already certified for the first and second rounds of COAH. 

Mrs. Caldwell reviewed the incompleteness letter with the board.  COAH is looking for the following information: Two draft Zoning Ordinances, more information on the Market to Affordable programming proving that the program will work (they want to see what is in the MLS), and a Spending Plan.    

A discussion was held with regard to the cost of the preparation of the necessary documents to comply with COAH.  Mrs. Caldwell indicated that it would be approximately $5000 to complete these requirements.

A Motion was made by Mr. Innella and seconded by Ms. Crawford to approve Mrs. Caldwell to prepare the necessary documentation to complete the COAH process at a fee not to exceed $5,000.  Roll Call: Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Dunn, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; and Mr. Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

A Motion was made by Mr. Teufert and seconded by Ms. Crawford to approve Mrs. Caldwell to prepare the Municipal Self Assessment report which is the next step in the Plan Endorsement Process and to attend the Pre Petition Meeting at a fee not to exceed $10,000.  Roll Call: Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mr. Innella, no; Mr. Dunn, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; and Mr. Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

Height Ordinance :

Mr. Brace indicated that he had a problem with the building height of 35’.  Mr. Haggerty indicated that there is a conflict in the Ordinance book with the building height definition in the General Definition Section and the R3 Zone height requirement.  The board agreed to keep the general definition and delete the definition of height in the R3 Zone.  The general definition allows a greater height than the description of height in the R3 Zone.  Mr. Brace indicated that he had a problem with the general definition of the height in the ordinance.  Mr. Haggerty gave the description of height under the general definition which was “The vertical distance measured from the average finished grade at the front of the building to highest point of the roof for flat roofs, to the deck line of mansard roofs and to a point halfway between eaves and ridge for gable, hip and gambrel roofs.”  Mr. Haggerty gave the description of height under the R3 Zone which was “No building shall exceed thirty–five (35) feet in height measured from the lowest point of the finished grade to the highest point of the structure.”  Mr. Dunn indicated that he has a problem with the description under the R3 Zone because if you have a garage under the structure, essentially you have 3 stories and a peak roof, then you are way over 35’.  He would like the average elevation even if you measure from all 4 corners.  Mr. Brace was concerned with the height because of the township fire department.  The fire department does not have a ladder truck that is high enough to go over 35’.  A lengthy discussion was held with regard to this ordinance. 

A Motion was made by Mr. Teufert and seconded by Mr. Innella to approve the revision to the Height Ordinance to read 35’from the average finished grade to the highest peak measured at all corners which should be in the general definitions and delete the definition in the R3 Zone.  Roll Call: Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Dunn, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; and Mr. Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

Accessory Buildings & Structures Ordinance :

Mr. Haggerty indicated that this ordinance was revised to clear up the location of an accessory structure.  It now reads that the accessory structure must meet the front yard setback of the zone.  The accessory structure can be in front of the main home as long as it meets the front yard setback.  Mr. Brace indicated that he did not agree with this change and did not want an accessory structure in front of the main dwelling.  Mr. Dunn agreed with this.  A lengthy discussion was held with regard to this issue.

A Motion was made by Mr. Dunn and seconded by Ms. Crawford to revise the Accessory Buildings and Structures Ordinance to read that the accessory building must be equal to or behind the main dwelling and meet the side and rear yard setbacks of accessory structures.  Roll Call: Mr. Teufert, no; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Dunn, yes; Mrs. Snyder, no; Ms. Kennedy, yes; and Mr. Barbagallo, no.  The Motion was carried.

Corner Lot Ordinance :

Mr. Haggerty indicated the current ordinance reads:  “Lot Line, Front” – The street line of a lot.  For a corner lot, the “front lot line” shall be considered to be the shortest street line.”  Mr. Haggerty indicated that the board needs to determine the functional front of the home.  Mrs. Tufaro questioned if the house is on an angle on a corner lot, what street is the front of the home.  The board suggested that the front would be the street address of the home.  A lengthy discussion was held with regard to this issue. 

A Motion was made by Mr. Dunn and seconded by Mr. Innella to revise the Corner Lot Ordinance Definition.  Delete “The lot which extends through a block from street to street shall be considered to have two (2) “Front Lot Lines” and no rear lot line.”  Also to add a clause with regard to accessory structures which states:  “Accessory Structures that would be built on a side yard adjacent to a road, must meet the minimum side yard setback for a primary structure. Roll Call: Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Dunn, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; and Mr. Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

VOUCHERS

The vouchers were reviewed. A Motion was made Mrs. Snyder and seconded by Mr. Innella to approve the following vouchers:

1. KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding General Administration (January) in the amount of $250.00; and
2. NJPO regarding yearly membership dues in the amount of $305.00; and
3. NJ Zoning & Land Use regarding Renewal of Subscription in the amount of $98.00; and
4. KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding ADPP (Escrow) in the amount of $156.25; and
5. KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding ADPP (Escrow) in the amount of $93.75; and
6. Dolan & Dolan regarding General Administration (January) in the amount of $448.08; and
7. Dolan & Dolan regarding Community Corp. (Escrow) in the amount of $27.30.

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

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

This meeting was opened to the public.

Appearing before the board was Greg Mosco and two other individuals who did not give their names to the board.  They indicated that they had a problem with their neighbor regarding an easement.  Mr. Haggerty indicated to them that the board can not get involved with a private dispute between neighbors.

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

ADJOURN

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