MTC Minutes 06-28-11 Print E-mail

Montville Township Committee Regular Meeting

Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 7:00 p.m.

Montville Township Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road, Montville, New Jersey


7:00 p.m. – Statement of Open Public Meetings Act Compliance read by Chairman James Sandham, Jr.


Roll call Township Committee:


Present:          Committeeman Tim Braden

                        Committeeman Don Kostka (arrival 7:10 p.m.)

                        Committeeman Scott Gallopo

                        Committeewoman Deb Nielson

                        Chairman James Sandham, Jr.


Also present:   Frank Bastone, Township Administrator

Adam Brewer, Management Specialist

Anthony Barile, Township Engineer

Robert Lowenfish, Treasurer/Director of Finance

Thomas Mazzaccaro, DPW/Water & Sewer Director

Robert Oostdyk, Township Attorney

                        Gertrude Atkinson, Township Clerk



1.      Litigation:  Lotta Lettuce; Zimmerman; Coppola Court; Stefanelli


Motion:  Gallopo.  Second:  Nielson.  All in favor except Kostka - absent.  Resolution adopted.


At 7:02 p.m. – Closed Session.  At 8:05 p.m. – Public Session.


Chairman Sandham read the Statement of Open Public Meetings Act Compliance again for the record.


Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance led by Committeeman Gallopo.


BARN THEATRE BENEFIT PERFORMANCE 09/15/11 LOTTERY DRAWING:  Mrs. Samitt drew the names in the following order:


1.  Women's Club

2.  Knights of Columbus

3.  Interregnum/Hearts of Hope Program

4.  Pet Parents

5.  Republican Club

6.  Relay for Life Faithful Friend Team

7.  MTHS Marching Band

8.  Montville Education Foundation

9.  VFW

10.  Historical Society

11.  Democratic Club

12.  Rotary Club






Chairman Sandham opened the public hearing.  Hearing no comments, Chairman Sandham closed the public hearing.  Motion:  Nielson.  Second:  Gallopo.  All in favor.  Motion approved.


Motion to adopt ordinance:  Nielson.  Second:  Kostka.  Roll call vote – Braden, yes; Kostka, yes; Gallopo, yes; Nielson, yes; Sandham, yes.  Ordinance adopted.




ATTORNEY:  Robert Oostdyk, Township Attorney, reported on the tax appeals this year.  They had considerably more than they have had in previous years.  Feels it went well.  The Assessor worked hard to talk to most people and get resolutions.


FINANCE:  Robert Lowenfish, Director of Finance, reported they are working on two of the B category goals:  one is formulating the budget so it can be reformatted to the way people want to look at it.  Looking at that for October.


Second:  3-year strategic plan - taking into account the loss of $1 million in State aid – that is on the Long-Term Financial Planning Committee’s agenda and then will be discussed.


ENGINEER:  No report.




Committeeman Kostka reported the town was given permission recently to turn back to the taxpayers $1,460,000 from the library.  This came as a result of actions that the trustees at the library were taking.  There is an archaic library funding formula – our library is over funded.  The trustees only spent what needed to be spent.  They started turning money back to the town last year - $237,000.  This year it is $1,460,000.  It made a significant impact on the budget this year. 


Chairman Sandham stated a lot of credit goes to our Library Board of Trustees, and Mr. Kostka shepherded the process.


Chairman Sandham reported the County has recommended approval to the community development committee of our grant for $80,000 for the Plausha Park water system project. 


We were awarded a $14,800 grant for our Drug Awareness Municipal Alliance to fund some of their programs. 


ADMINISTRATOR:  Frank Bastone, Township Administrator, stated he asked Mr. Mazzaccaro to report on the DPW outsourcing.


Thomas Mazzaccaro, DPW Director, reported:  when one looks at new opportunities for out sourcing or contract services in lieu of in-house services the following criteria should be considered.


Does the activity require skilled or unskilled contractors

Is the activity seasonal

Is the activity year round

Will the activity displace current staff

If the activity is seasonal will staff displacement affect other non-seasonal services

Will the activity require coordination and overview by in-house staff

Will the activity require contact with the general public

What is required in terms of measuring the activity’s effectiveness


Current Contracted Services:


Custodial Cleaning

Police vehicle maintenance and repair

Grass Cutting – parks and buildings

Lawn fertilize and weed control

Snow Plowing 17% - 20%


Possible Additional Contract Services:


Expand grass cutting to Spring & Fall Clean Ups



Mulching perennials & flower beds

Tree trimming

Athletic Fields


Expand vehicle maintenance for municipal vehicles and large machinery


Street Sweeping


I didn’t look at water & sewer services because that is a completely different set of circumstances because of the skilled labor that is required there and the quantity of machinery and lift stations.


My preference is to look at attrition for the means and the reason for going outside. 


Committeeman Braden asked what percentage of grass cutting is now outsourced?  Will it be expanding to the athletic fields?  Mazzaccaro answered the athletic fields – it is more than just grass cutting – it is fertilizing, weeding, tining, etc.  We would be looking to expand one day.


As we lose people through attrition eventually you don’t have a workforce that can respond to other emergencies.  One needs to maintain a workforce that can respond.


Bastone reported as we move to the paperless meeting process, he is requesting a meeting with the Technology Committee and Mr. Perkins to approve the purchase of the projection system.




NO. 1 – LOWE’S OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS:  Bastone reported we publicized this meeting for public input on two issues:  Option of dead-ending the north or south end of Maple Avenue and the bump-out on Bloomfield Avenue, which would force traffic exiting Lowe’s westbound out onto Route 46 – the NJDOT does not approve of that concept.


Lowe’s is intending to file an amended site plan with the Board of Adjustment with some modifications to the plan.


Kevin Boswell, Lowe’s project engineer, stated we will be including the requirement of the DOT to remove the bump-out in our amended site plan.  We were told by the DOT that they would not object to the dead ending of Maple Avenue at either end, and it is a local matter.  We are not at liberty to discuss the Bloomfield Avenue amendment because it will be on our amended application to the BOA. 


Oostdyk agreed, and stated Lowe’s can present other options to the BOA.  Any change to a public road will come back to the Township Committee.


Bastone stated if the BOA approves the amended site plan with Bloomfield Avenue without the bump-out, then there is no further action on that by the Township Committee. 


Sandham stated he is not sure about that.  We have to take the safety of the residents into consideration.  We should talk about it now so the BOA knows our intentions.  Braden stated the BOA approved this application based on the bump-out – the offsite improvement.  At what point if the offsite improvements are not approved do they go back to the BOA? 


Oostdyk stated it is going back to the BOA.  I think your question is does it reopen other issues.  That is an issue that the board has to address.


Committeeman Gallopo stated it has to be discussed at the board level.  If they approve the project without any consideration for traffic issues, does it come back here, and we can make changes to the traffic patterns on Bloomfield? 


Sandham stated get public input so that the BOA understands what the Township Committee’s thought process is when they review this amended site plan.


Nielson stated the DOT has reversed their opinion from previous correspondence.  Is this the final opinion?  They have ping-ponged on at least two streets.  Oostdyk stated this is their opinion now.  We can always challenge it with a lawsuit. 


Sandham stated they can say they changed it because we lobbied them – regarding Maple Avenue.


Anthony Barile, Township Engineer, stated when we met with the DOT they explained their change of opinion on Maple Avenue.  They had a restructuring of their personnel and have relaxed some of their jurisdiction of local streets, etc.  If a road affects their highway, they take over jurisdiction.  They feel the traffic should remain on Bloomfield Avenue rather than going down Chapin to Route 46 for a short distance and getting off again.  They feel that will have a detrimental affect to the traffic on Route 46.  They feel some of the traffic is going to be locally generated. 


Sandham stated let us make the assumption Bloomfield Avenue is going to remain two-way and the BOA is going to approve the amended application.  We have to discuss the Maple Avenue dead end.


Gallopo asked where does the Lowe’s property begin?  Can it be one way there – just the entrance to Lowe’s?  We would still maintain two-way traffic on Bloomfield Avenue.


Boswell stated DOT said Bloomfield Avenue is a collector roadway, and they have jurisdiction because it directly impacts Route 46.  They control the access on Route 46.  They didn’t object specifically to the island, they objected to the impact on traffic patterns.


Nielson stated in the May traffic report – Saturday is peak day.  70% of the vehicles are going to exit the site on Bloomfield Avenue.  Is this correct?  Boswell stated he cannot discuss the traffic report.  That is part of the amended application to the BOA.  I gave you the traffic report. 


Barile stated I can discuss it.  You are correct.  Nielson stated that seems like a lot of traffic on a secondary road when you have an exit/entrance on Route 46.  I am not sure how the BOA or the Township Committee wrestles with that – perhaps by signage, traffic calming devices.


Sandham stated I think we open it to the public on the issue of dead-ending Maple Avenue.


Nielson stated the memo from May, figure 3B, shows a dead end on Maple Avenue.  How would cars be able to turn around?  Barile stated our intention if the DOT grants permission for this road to be closed off is that we would approach the commercial site owner for a right-of-way to make a cul-de-sac at that location. 


Nielson stated I understand we have asked for a cost estimate of the cul-de-sac.  Do we have that yet?  Barile stated he has not seen that yet.


Sandham opened the meeting up to the public for the purpose of comments regarding the dead-ending of Maple Avenue.




Barbara Burke, 22 Maple Avenue, Pine Brook, stated the cul-de-sac should be at both ends.  There are no sidewalks.  Concerned with the safety of the kids.


Chris Burke, 22 Maple Avenue, stated costs – if you can’t do both ends – put the cul-de-sac at the northern end.  It benefits the residents.  Right now people use it for acceleration lanes.  Need safety for the kids.   


Bastone asked what would be the benefit of dead-ending both ends?  Chris Burke stated there is really no benefit.  There are only four or five houses at the southern end, which are rental properties.  The preference is the northern end, but doing the southern end would be another detriment to the cars.


Nielson stated if that road is closed, all the traffic will have to go to Bloomfield Avenue and funnel down to the intersection.


Chris Burke state our main concern is the safety of the kids.


Michael McCauley, 8 Margaret Drive, Pine Brook, reiterated cul-de-sac the northern end.  Main concern is safety of the kids.  If you can do both ends, that is the best option.


Jason Jones, 20 Maple Avenue, stated the intersection at Route 46 is a failing intersection and people scoot in for shortcuts.  We have to dead-end both ends.  You can’t go out with your kids bike riding.  There is a lot of traffic, delivery trucks, etc.  People go 50 MPH or more.  You have to dead-end both ends.  Emergency vehicle access – you can make a cut-through.


Pat Bucco, 7 Margaret Drive, stated this issue was way before Lowe’s.  The people cut through to get to Route 80.  A lot of children on the block.  People speed.  It is an accident waiting to happen.  With Lowe’s there will be more traffic.  At least give us a chance to be able to live nicely.  It should not be a shortcut to get on Route 80.  Dead-end both if possible – at least the northern end. 


Edward Rosenbergen, Sr., 24 Maple Avenue, stated everything everyone said is true.  But to stop the northern end, you are only going to get more traffic on Bloomfield Avenue.  Why do we have to let Lowe’s come anywhere near our property?  Let them get the approval for Route 46 – extra lanes, etc.  The board has the power to stop it.  Let them go out on Route 46.


Herb Eggers, 30 Maple Avenue, stated the neighbors all have valid points.  When they came in with the original site plan it was not to allow traffic out on Bloomfield Avenue.  Also, now it is 2 or 3 stores.  If we allow them to bring the traffic out on Bloomfield Avenue, it is going to ruin everything.  I don’t want a cul-de-sac in front of my house.  Everyone will go out on Margaret and John.  If you close the access, you only have one way out of town.  Now the DOT wants to control Bloomfield Avenue.  For years, they didn’t even know where it was.  They haven’t touched that bridge in years.  Who makes these decisions at DOT?


Munir Mughal, 30 Margaret Drive, stated the main issue is the traffic.  If access from Route 46 there would be no problem at all.  We still need a cul-de-sac regardless of the Lowe’s.  We should not allow any traffic to come on Bloomfield Avenue because of the Lowe’s.  In should be in and out from Route 46.


Marie Eggers, 30 Maple Avenue, stated she is against a cul-de-sac or a dead end in front of her house.  What about all the floods we have had this year?  That traffic light is stopped dead.  If there is a dead end we would all have to use Margaret Drive.  It is very narrow and was never curbed.  Closing any of the streets would have a major impact on Bloomfield Avenue and Hook Mountain Road.  The people in my area that feel there should be a cul-de-sac are being selfish and insensitive to all our neighbors on Bloomfield Avenue.  I ask you as a Township Committee to stand up to Lowe’s and make them go back to putting the traffic onto Route 46.  Let everyone use the traffic light.  Don’t put the traffic on Bloomfield Avenue.  It will devalue our homes.  Not leaving us with more than one way out of our neighborhood is irresponsible.


Sharon VanTeyens, 34 Bloomfield Avenue, Pine Brook, stated she agrees that everything should go out on Route 46.  I can’t get out of my driveway – trucks, people speed.  Lowe’s entrance and exit should be onto Route 46.  Our road cannot handle any more traffic.


Ron Cain, 41 Bloomfield Avenue, stated there is no continuity in government.  Your predecessors swore they would not let the traffic on Bloomfield Avenue.  The DOT should not have jurisdiction over Bloomfield Avenue.  It is time that the Township stops catering to the new people. 


Bill Groome, 5 Prospect Place, Pine Brook, spoke about the bridge.  I understand it is the responsibility of the freeholders.  I went to a freeholder’s meeting and they talked about not spending $1 million in taxpayer money because the bridge wouldn’t be used and have access any more.  Let the taxpayers win.  Close the access at Bloomfield Avenue.  Close the access at Maple Avenue.


Art Weber, 3 John Street, Pine Brook, stated the bridge should be blown up.  The town should have never let this go in.  We already have a Home Depot.  Cul-de-sacs – if you close the south end all the traffic goes to John Street and Margaret Drive.  Put a cul-de-sac by the park – they could have access to the park and the buildings.   


Herb Eggers stated there are things that can be done in our area.  Signage – no one has looked at the signage in years.  There are things that can be done with the signage.  People in our area think they are shortchanged. 


Rob Eggers, 28 Maple Avenue, stated I don’t think the road should be closed.  There is less traffic there now than when I was growing up.  To close that access is ridiculous.  Roads are for cars.  Children belong in backyards.  The kids shouldn’t be in the street.


Jones stated even if you want to go for a walk or a jog in your neighborhood, I don’t feel that is being selfish.


Max, 6 Adamary Place, Pine Brook; Michael, 22 Maple Avenue, and Sean, 8 Margaret Drive, collectively stated they would like the dead end to be there so they have less chance of being hit by a car.


Ed Jones, 20 Maple Avenue, stated he wants both ends closed.  I am concerned with the quality of life for my family and the neighbors.  We don’t need the Lowe’s.  We need the cul-de-sacs.  We are taxpayers.  The people that go through there are transients.  It should not compromise out quality of life.


Rachel Fein, 11 Margaret Drive, stated something needs to be done.  I am afraid to stand at the end of the road for the school bus. 


Hearing no further comments from the public, Chairman Sandham closed the public portion.  Motion:  Gallopo.  Second:  Kostka.  All in favor.  Motion approved.


Sandham thanked everyone for coming out tonight.  This is a difficult issue.  The Township Committee itself does not decide the site application.  That is the BOA.  I do think the minutes of this meeting should be forwarded to the BOA so they understand what was put on record by the residents.


Mr. Bastone, can we forward the enforcement to the police?  Once we know what is happening with Lowe’s, we should look at the signage issues as well.


Nielson stated there is a business next to the John Street Park.  If we can get input from the Township Engineer as to the traffic that business generates because it seems to me that potentially you could put signage at the end of Maple Avenue that it is a dead end to limit the traffic that goes down there.


Gallopo stated signage – if we are going to do it at the south end of Maple Avenue, signs should say none of the streets are through streets. 


Kostka stated the issue is Route 46 is funneled right now into one lane until you get on the bridge.  You also have to deal with the issue of the Route 46/Hook Mountain Road intersection.  That is a nightmare now.  There is no easy solution, but I just look to Home Depot on other side, and the Route 46 option is the option that worked there.


Braden stated the most disturbing thing is see neighbors pitting against neighbors.  We are charged with doing the best we can.  Police presence – I would like to send a strong message to the police department and have a ticket writing campaign.  The kids are not in school now.  Would like a report back from the police about what is going on down there.


Braden suggested we contact the DOT and send a contingent of our Township Committee down there.  Would look to Mr. Bastone to schedule a meeting with the DOT and solicit who can go.  Only two of us can go.


Township Committee agreed with charging Mr. Bastone with directing Chief Cook to do enforcement.  Perhaps traffic can set up speed traps.


Nielson stated signs – evaluate the signage and make sure it is proper and up to date.  Ask the Chief and/or the DPW.  Don’t have to wait for a Lowe’s application to be constructed.  Delivery trucks – letter to these businesses from the Administrator and one member of the Township Committee asking them to be a good neighbor and alter their delivery truck patterns to avoid the residential districts - that would be helpful.


Traffic report – 70% of the outgoing and incoming traffic is proposed to utilize Bloomfield Avenue.  I think the traffic volumes on the collector streets are going to be substantial.  It needs to be evaluated - why a major highway wouldn’t be the access.


Sandham agreed.  We need to take one more crack with the DOT - Route 46 should be the predominant access to the property.  We will take the comments we heard tonight and send them to the BOA, and try one more time with the DOT.


Nielson stated we need to digest the comments we heard tonight, talk to the DOT, and impress upon them the concerns.


Sandham stated he agreed, and we will schedule the topic for another meeting.


Nielson stated provide public notice again and advise the BOA that we are discussing this here in case any of the members want to come.  Also, it should be up on the website.


NO. 2 – SIDEWALKS – ARTHUR PLACE AND AVALON DRIVE:  Bastone reported they have a complaint about the sidewalks.  Showed pictures.  Formal enforcement of sidewalk maintenance requires a resolution of the Township Committee.  There are legitimate concerns here.  In many cases, there are two or three sections on property that have separation or breakage.  There are repairs that need to be done to certain sections.  Would like to discuss how to proceed.  Suggest notifying the residents and ask them for voluntary compliance.


Kostka stated there is a correlation between sidewalks heaved out of the ground and trees.  There is also a correlation between the curbing, where the trees are, and where the sidewalk is.

On Gathering Road, there are a couple of feet.


Barile stated Gathering Road was a wider road and there was a larger right-of-way.


Bastone stated the other option if enough of the residents are interested is the Township going out to bid and then we can probably get a better price.


Nielson stated we did have residents out in 2006 from Arthur and Avalon.  This goes beyond that.  It is a town-wide issue.


Sandham stated at the League of Municipalities he did see firms that work with the neighbors as a group.  Maybe we can look into that.  We need to come up with a game plan of how we are going to remedy this going forward.  Braden stated we have to start somewhere.  We need to address it.  I would suggest that the Engineer go out and mark with paint the sections that need to be repaired.


Bastone stated he can work with the Engineer and put a form letter together.  Nielson stated I think the form letter should have a solution or option for them.


Sandham stated I think we should find out who those couples of firms are.  Possibly they could make a presentation to the residents.


Mazzaccaro stated sometimes sidewalks deteriorate.  It is more complex for those that are heaving as a result of trees.  The question is what has to be done to the trees.  Do they remove the tree?  At what extent does the town get involved?  Those considerations need to be discussed. 


Barile when a resident calls concerned about their sidewalks, sometimes their insurance won’t issue them a policy until they repair the sidewalk.  Sometimes the DPW will cut the roots so we won’t lose the tree. 


Kostka asked who owns the tree?  Bastone answered the Township.  Kostka stated we have an ordinance that says you have to maintain the sidewalks.  We either enforce the ordinance or we don’t.  If we don’t, and someone gets hurt, who is responsible?  Bastone answered primarily the homeowner.  JIF takes the position it is the responsibility of the homeowner.


Sandham asked what is the game plan?  Bastone stated he will be happy to solicit the firms and send a letter to the homeowners. 


Nielson stated the department heads should get together and come up with a game plan.  Identify sections that need repair.


Bastone stated they will locate firms.  Identify what needs to be done on these two streets.  Letter to residents.  Call a meeting for them to participate in this program collectively.  Will distribute letter to Township Committee to make sure everyone is comfortable with what is going out.


NO. 3 – FIRE HYDRANTS – SNOW REMOVAL:  Bastone reported a request has been made by the Towaco Fire District to have residents dig out fire hydrants from the snow.  It is a legitimate issue.  There are other towns that require this. 


Kostka stated it is a safety issue.  Braden proposed that we mimic Parsippany’s ordinance and amend our ordinance.  Township Committee all agreed.


NO. 4 – TOWNSHIP E-MAIL:  Gallopo stated we need to place a hard close on using personal e-mail addresses for Township e-mail.  The Township Committee was encouraged to contact Bob Perkins to do this.  Deadline for it to be clicked off – August 9.  Township Committee – ok.


NO. 5 – METRO PROPERTY:  Barile presented conceptual site plans due to environmental constraints.  The LOI from the DEP mandated 50’ buffers.  Outline of the properties:  purple – 50’ buffers.  Green – original plans.  Showed different scenarios.  Concern is safety.  Very overgrown.  Possible remoteness of some of the facilities.  Upland area 6.9 acres.  Wetland 7.1 acres.  Access drive would need general permit. 


Discussion regarding the six-year capital plan – roller hockey appropriation $140,000.  Conceptual cost estimate is $2 million – everything included. 

Braden asked how long the permits are good for.  Barile answered five years.  It would probably take a year to a year and a half to get the permits.  Need to come up with conceptual plan for the application package.


Braden asked do we want to involve the Recreation Commission in the conceptual plan?


Kostka asked what are the insurance issues?  Bastone answered JIF has very strict requirements for a skate park. 


Township Committee agreed – Mr. Barile to get input from the Recreation Commission with the understanding there is currently no significant funding.  Barile will contact Mrs. Witty to set up a meeting with the Recreation Commission. 




Dan Pagano, 11 Roome Road, Towaco, stated there is a small group that would like to read the Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July at the Doremus House.  Probably less than 20 people.  Township Committee – ok.


Robert Lefkowitz, 81 Windsor Drive, Pine Brook, stated at the joint meeting with the Board of Education there was discussion about the BOE using the same garbage contractor as the Township.  Any further discussion on that?


Bastone stated he had a discussion with the school business administrator.  They had to renew their contract and he is going to try to coordinate the renewal dates.


Hearing no further comments from the public, Chairman Sandham closed the public portion.  Motion:  Gallopo.  Second:  Kostka.  All in favor.  Motion approved.






Ordinance is offered for adoption on first reading with second reading and public hearing scheduled for July 12, 2011, at 8 p.m.  Motion:  Gallopo.  Second:  Kostka.  Discussion:  Braden stated I applaud Mr. Kostka and Mr. Gallopo in that they waive their Township Committee salary.  I can appreciate that.   What is the premise for this cut?


Sandham stated the premise for the cut was two-fold.  First of all, this doesn’t address the salary going down, that was done in the budget process.  This addresses the benefits piece of it.  There were proposals for significantly more cuts than the $500 that we are doing now.  Distributed 2007 survey.  Montville had salaries significantly higher than other towns.  In the budget discussions there was discussion about taking it down more than the $500 I proposed.  I would actually support that with a future implementation date.  We are being paid more than comparable towns. 


Braden stated as you know each one of us is required to be on 3 or 4 committees as liaison and some involve subcommittees.  What is the level of involvement in other towns? 


Sandham stated I don’t know.  Do you think we are doing more than other towns?


Braden stated I am going to go out on a limb and say yes, but I don’t have any data to back that up.  This is memorializing what was done in the budget process.  This will go on to next year’s budget as well.


Sandham stated there are towns where Township Committee members get paid $1.  Do you believe they do that much less work than we do?


Braden asked what is the right number for you?  Sandham stated I think it should be the average of the bigger towns.  We should be moving it in the right direction.  We took steps when we started charging for health benefits and then when we eliminated health benefits.


Braden stated I guess it comes down to how we perceive our role here.  I look at this as a job.  It takes time away from my other employment.  It affects me financially.  If I was retired, and I had all the time in the world, then I probably wouldn’t look at it that way.  It takes time away from my work and family.  It bothers me that for a reason that you really can’t cite, we are going to drop the salary down by 4%.

Sandham stated three other people agree with the salary cut.  That was a vote.  Braden stated further I would like to suggest - if you think a 4% cut is appropriate now, then why don’t we take that to our bargaining units?


Sandham asked did we do a survey of what other towns make – the police, etc.


Gallopo stated this shows good faith for bargaining.  Kostka stated the cut of $500 was what we agreed on, and some of us would have made it significantly more.  It was a symbolic cut.  We asked the professionals to take a cut.  I look at it as leading by example.  The fact that the Township Committee hasn’t received an increase – looking at this analysis – we are paid significantly more than other towns.  Maybe we do more than other towns, and it does take away from our other work, but we chose this. 


Nielson stated Montville has a unique form of government.  Some towns have up to seven council members.  The duties are different – if you have a strong mayor, etc.  I don’t think the survey compares apples to apples, but it is a decent reference.


Braden stated he has been on the Township Committee for 3½ years and speaking to residents in many venues, not one of person has ever said you make too much money.


Roll call vote – Braden, no; Kostka, yes; Gallopo, yes; Nielson, yes; Sandham, yes.  Motion approved.




Ordinance is offered for adoption on first reading with second reading and public hearing scheduled for July 12, 2011, at 8 p.m.  Motion:  Gallopo.  Second:  Kostka.  Discussion:  Oostdyk stated he included everything by statute that can be in the ordinance – funds utilization.  You can go through them and delete if you want.  Sandham suggest removing item B5 – Historic Preservation of historic properties, structures, facilities, sites, areas, or objects, and the acquisition of such properties, structures, facilities, sites, areas, or objects for historic preservation purposes.  Township Committee all agreed.    


Roll call vote – Braden, yes; Kostka, yes; Gallopo, yes; Nielson, yes; Sandham, yes.  Motion approved.




Ordinance is offered for adoption on first reading with second reading and public hearing scheduled for July 12, 2011, at 8 p.m.  Motion:  Gallopo.  Second:  Kostka.  Roll call vote – Braden, yes; Kostka, yes; Gallopo, yes; Nielson, yes; Sandham, yes.  Motion approved.


RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION NO. 2011-CA12:  Motion:  Nielson.  Second:  Gallopo.  Roll call vote – Braden, yes; Kostka, yes; Gallopo, yes; Nielson, yes; Sandham, yes – except for abstain on Item E.  Resolution adopted.




BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that the following tax sale certificate redemptions be processed by the department of Finance:


Block 76 Lot 8 Qualifier C030I

66 Springbrook Road East

Lien Redemption Certificate #10-00014                                             $569.76

To:       US Bank Cust/Pro Capital I, LLC




WHEREAS, the developer of property known as Bear Rock Phase V (Patrick Court) has, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-53 of the Municipal Land Use Law, notified the Township Committee that certain public improvements have been completed, and has requested to be released from liability under the Performance Guarantee being held by the Township; and

            WHEREAS, the Township Engineer has inspected all improvements of which such notice has been given and has recommended the release of the Performance Guarantee covering such improvements; and

            WHEREAS, the Township Committee has reviewed the recommendations of the Township Engineer.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that the Performance Guarantee posted by the developer in the form of Bond #SB0093004 issued by XL Specialty Insurance Company in the amount of $108,164.40.  The cash portion of the Performance Guarantee in the amount of $17,935.60 shall not be released but shall remain posted for a period of two years as the Maintenance Guarantee.






WHEREAS, Chapter 5.18 of the Revised General Ordinances of the Township of Montville requires that an individual or organization wishing to place a clothing bin within the Township of Montville obtain a clothing bin permit; and

            WHEREAS, Chapter 5.18 provides for the Governing Body to authorize the issuance of a clothing bin permit upon finding that the standards and requirements of the Ordinance have been complied with; and

            WHEREAS, Textile Recovery Services, Inc./Read Foundation, Inc. have filed an application for the placement of the following clothing bins:


Municipal Property, 86 River Road, Montville – 5

Home Depot, 78 Route 46, Pine Brook – 3

Bank of America, 32 Route 46, Pine Brook – 1

Towaco Fire Department, 27 Route 202, Towaco – 2

Towaco Service Center, 686 Main Road, Towaco – 1

Kearney Federal Savings Bank, 339 Main Road, Montville - 2

State of NJ Property, Commuter Parking lot, Chapin Road/Route 46, Pine Brook - 2


; and

            WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed by the appropriate Township departments and has been found to meet the requirements contained in the Ordinance; and

            WHEREAS, Read Foundation, Inc. is a not-for-profit organization and the Township Committee finds that it is appropriate to permit the locations of the bins on municipal property.

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that the application for a clothing bin permit for the year 2011 is hereby granted and the Township Clerk is hereby authorized to issue permits for 16 clothing bins as set forth in the application of Textile Recovery Services, Inc./Read Foundation, Inc.




            WHEREAS, Montville Township Code Chapter 85-16 permits the issuance of special permits for the consumption of alcohol on public property; and

            WHEREAS, the Knights of Columbus will hold a picnic on July 31, 2011, at the Montville Township Community Park and have requested that the Township grant a "special permit" to allow the consumption of beer and wine at their picnic; and

            WHEREAS, the Knights of Columbus have submitted their request in accordance with Chapter 85-16 and have agreed to comply with the conditions of said Chapter; and

            WHEREAS, the Township Committee has reviewed this request and has determined that a special permit be granted to allow the consumption of beer and wine at the picnic.

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that a "special permit" shall be granted to allow the consumption of beer and wine at the Knights of Columbus picnic to be held at the Montville Township Community Park on July 31, 2011.



WHEREAS, the Montville Township Literacy Foundation, Inc. has offered a grant to the Township of Montville in the sum of $16,500.00 for the conduct of a program of instruction and training in English as a Second Language for the sole benefit of individuals residing, working, or worshiping within the Township of Montville; and

            WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of the grant are contained in correspondence dated June 1, 2011 from David C. Dixon, Esq., counsel for the Montville Township Literacy Foundation, Inc.; and

            WHEREAS, the Township of Montville desires to accept the grant.

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that the appropriate municipal officials are hereby authorized to execute the letter agreement between the Township of Montville and the Montville Township Literacy Foundation, Inc. accepting a grant of $16,500.00.










            WHEREAS, applications have been filed by holders of liquor licenses within the Township of Montville seeking renewal for the years 2011 through 2012; and


            WHEREAS, the applications have been reviewed by the office of the Township Clerk, Land Use Administrator/Zoning, Health Officer, Chief of Police; and the Fire Districts; and


            WHEREAS, the licenses have met the requirements for license renewal;


            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that the following liquor licenses are renewed for the years 2011 through 2012:


·         1421-33-001-005  Don Pepe, Inc.  t/a Don Pepe Steakhouse, 58 Route 46 West, Pine Brook

·         1421-32-003-005  OKCF, Inc.  t/a Stuffed Olive, 100 Bloomfield Avenue, Pine Brook

·         1421-33-004-002  Don Pepe, Inc.  t/a Don Pepe, 18 Bloomfield Avenue, Pine Brook

·         1421-44-005-005  H & D Liquor & Wine, Inc.  t/a Montville Wine & Spirits, 263 Changebridge Road, Pine Brook

·         1421-33-006-001  Lake Valhalla Club, 6 Vista Road, Montville

·         1421-33-007-005  Orense Spain, Inc. t/a Sevilla Spain, 29 Route 46, Pine Brook

·         1421-33-008-004  83 Mt. Rail Corp.  t/a Columbia Inn, 29 Route 202, Montville

·         1421-32-010-004  FHN Cuisine, LLC t/a Montville Inn, 167 Route 202, Montville

·         1421-33-011-007  Bonefish-Jersey/Long Island Limited Partnership, 28 Route 46, Pine Brook

·         1421-33-012-006  144 Route Enterprises, Inc. t/a Harrigan’s, 142 Main Road, Montville

·         1421-33-013-003  Poor Hanks, Inc. t/a Poor Henry’s, 8 Main Road, Montville

·         1421-32-014-008  Janlu, LLC, t/a Red Barn Liquors & Pub, 446 Route 202, Towaco

·         1421-33-015-002 Goose’s Restaurant Group, Inc. t/a Tiffany Restaurant, 74 Bloomfield Avenue, Pine Brook

·         1421-32-017-002  Dat Crupa, Inc. t/a D & D Liquors, 5 Old Bloomfield Avenue, Pine Brook

·         1421-32-016-009  Rails Steakhouse, LLC, 8-10 Whitehall Road, Towaco (inactive)

·         1421-33-002-008  Jhett, Inc., 13 Hook Mtn. Road, Pine Brook (inactive)

·         1421-44-018-001  Anthony Pio Costa III, 1275 Bloomfield Avenue, Fairfield (inactive)


Motion:  Gallopo.  Second:  Kostka.  Roll call vote – all yes.  Resolution adopted.




WHEREAS, an application has been filed for a Person-to-Person Transfer of Plenary Retail Consumption License Number 1421-44-005-005, heretofore issued to H & D Liquor and Wine, Inc. for premises located at 263 Changebridge Road, Pine Brook, (Montville Township), New Jersey;


WHEREAS, the submitted application form is complete in all respects, the transfer fees have been paid, and the license has been properly renewed for the current license term;


WHEREAS, the applicant is qualified to be licensed according to all standard established by Title 33 of the New Jersey Statutes, regulations promulgated thereunder, as well as pertinent local ordinances and conditions consistent with Title 33;


WHEREAS, the applicant has disclosed and the issuing authority reviewed the source of all funds used in the purchase of the license and the licensed business and all additional financing obtained in connection with the licensed business;


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, does hereby approve, effective June 28, 2011, the transfer of the aforesaid Plenary Retail Consumption License to Aryanashna, LLC, and does hereby direct the Township Clerk to endorse the license certificate to the new ownership as follows:  “This license, subject to all its terms and conditions, is hereby transferred to Aryanashna, LLC, effective June 28, 2011.”


Motion:  Gallopo.  Second:  Kostka.  Roll call vote – all yes.  Resolution adopted.




            WHEREAS, sealed bids were opened on June 13, 2011, for properties advertised for sale by “Ordinance Authorizing the Sale of Certain Properties Owned by the Township of Montville, Morris County, New Jersey, Not Required for Public Purposes Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:12-13 et. seq.”; and

            WHEREAS, the following bid was received from contiguous property owners:

Li Chen & Nan Wang                          Block 125.07, Lot 6                             $5,000.00


; and

            WHEREAS, the Township Committee of the Township of Montville has determined that it is in the public interest to accept this bid.

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that the following bid is hereby accepted subject to the conditions set forth for the sale of Township property specifically that the purchaser shall pay for cost of the relocation of the water line and sealing of the well and pursuant to the Agreement between the following parties:


Li Chen & Nan Wang                          Block 125.07, Lot 6                             $5,000.00


Motion:  Gallopo.  Second:  Kostka.  Roll call vote – all yes.  Resolution adopted.




WHEREAS, the Township of Montville and Donnelly Energy Solutions entered into a Contract for the 2010 Board of Public Utilities, New Jersey Clean Energy Program – Direct Install; and


            WHEREAS, it has been determined that certain changes to this Contract are necessary; and


            WHEREAS, the details of the proposed Change Order are as follows:

            The initial cost was the contractor’s estimate.  This change order represents costs calculated as a result of an on-site preconstruction meeting with the contractor and subcontractors; and


WHEREAS, Donnelly Energy Solutions has submitted a revised contract for a change to the total contract price of $285.71; and


            WHEREAS, the Township Management Specialist has requested and recommended to the Township Committee that it modify the Contract Donnelly Energy Solutions as a result of this change.


            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that the following Change Order is hereby approved in the Contract between the Township of Montville and Donnelly Energy Solutions:

            Original Contract Price                                                                       $5,924.67

            Amount of this Change Order:                                                            $285.71

            Total New Contract Price after this Change Order                            $6,210.38


Motion:  Gallopo.  Second:  Kostka.  Roll call vote – all yes.  Resolution adopted.




            WHEREAS, the Township of Montville is participating in the 2011 Board of Public Utilities, New Jersey Clean Energy Program – Direct Install; and

            WHEREAS, the Board of Public Utilities, New Jersey Clean Energy Program – Direct Install has a limited number of participating contractors, who have been selected through a competitive bidding process and specially trained and equipped to provide turn-key, start-to-finish program services, which include helping complete the application/agreement, performing the energy assessment to identify eligible equipment replacements, and then replacing the equipment; and

            WHEREAS, the identified participating contractor for Township of Montville is Donnelly Energy Solutions who will provide the services listed above; and

WHEREAS, the Township of Montville desires to have Donnelly Energy Solutions complete work identified in the Scope of Work Attachment for the Municipal Building in the amount of $0.00.

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that the contract for Direct Install Program Participation shall be awarded to Donnelly Energy Solutions for services in the amount of $0.00.


Motion:  Gallopo.  Second:  Nielson.  Roll call vote – all yes.  Resolution adopted.


NO. 6 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COFFEY & ASSOCIATES:  Woodmont Estates/Bonnieview litigation.  Not to exceed $15,000.00 as per proposal dated 06/23/11.


Motion:  Nielson.  Second:  Gallopo.  Roll call vote – all yes.  Resolution adopted.


NO. 7 – RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LISTING OF BILLS AND SIGNING OF CHECKS:  Motion:  Gallopo.  Second:  Nielson.  Discussion:  Bastone indicated he would like to hold the Hess check while he investigates the question Mr. Braden raised.  Motion made by Braden to rescind check to the Hess Corp. for Church Lane $461.77.  Second:  Kostka.  Roll call vote – all yes.  Resolution adopted.




Committeeman Gallopo thanked the 4th of July Committee and Chairman Irwin Paster for a successful parade, fair, and fireworks. 


Committeewoman Nielson also thanked the DPW and the Police.  Also, we would like to have the 4th of July Committee back in August so we know what to expect.


Committeeman Kostka concurred.


Committeeman Braden stated All Brands Tire, Route 46 – we were going to have zoning look at for property maintenance.  Barile stated there have been discussions about that building.  He will check with Ms. Hunscher and get back to the Township Committee. 


Chairman Sandham stated the Economic Development Committee is working on putting a survey together for businesses.  It is modeled after a program that the County does. 


As liaison to the VFW – this November is 11/11/11.  It is going to be extra special to the VFW.  They have asked the Township to honor veterans that have served in the Vietnam War, Korean War, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  I am trying to track down the Medal of Honor recipient.  Hopefully, we will be able to invite him.


Meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.  Motion:  Nielson.  Second:  Gallopo.  All in favor.  Motion approved.



Respectfully submitted,





Gertrude H. Atkinson, Township Clerk




Approved September 13, 2011

Montville Township Committee




James Sandham, Jr., Mayor



Last Updated ( Wednesday, 14 September 2011 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack