Montville Township Committee Regular Meeting
Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 6:00 p.m.
Montville Township Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road, Montville, New Jersey
6:00 p.m. – Statement of Open Public Meetings Act Compliance read by Chairwoman Deborah Nielson: “As required by the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate Notice of this meeting has been provided which Notice specified the time and place of the meeting to the extent known at that time. The Notice was posted on the bulletin board at the Municipal Building, mailed to The Daily Record, The Star Ledger, and The Citizen as well as other newspapers and it was placed on file in the Township Clerk’s office. This meeting has been properly noticed to the public in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act.”
Present: Committeeman Art Daughtry (arrival 6:25 p.m.)
Committeeman James Sandham, Jr.
Committeewoman Jean Bader
Committeeman Tim Braden
Chairwoman Deborah Nielson
Also present: Frank Bastone, Township Administrator
Frances Vanderhoof, Director of Finance
Anthony Barile, Township Engineer
Martin Murphy, Township Attorney
Gertrude Atkinson, Township Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-CES-022409 PROVIDING FOR A MEETING NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE NEW JERSEY OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT, N.J.S.A. 10:4-12: Property acquisition – Dellechiaie. Litigation – Montville Center; Lotta Lettuce. Potential litigation. Contract negotiations – Board of Education lease; White Collar contract; and Professional Services Agreements.
Motion: Sandham. Second: Bader. All in favor except Daughtry - absent. Resolution adopted.
At 6:00 p.m. – Closed Session. At 8:15 p.m. – Public Session.
Chairwoman Nielson read the Statement of Open Public Meetings Act Compliance again for the record.
Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance led by Committeewoman Bader.
NO. 1 – SOIL MOVEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION – BLOCK 13, LOT 22, 21 ROCKLEDGE ROAD:
Martin Murphy, Township Attorney, reviewed the role of the Township Committee regarding a soil movement permit. This body is not the agency that will deal with the appeal of the decision made by the Board of Adjustment. I am aware of the fact that this is in litigation. Even though our ordinance is very broad as to health and safety, that is related to the soil movement itself.
Murphy reviewed section 12.24.040 of the soil movement ordinance – criteria for issuance of the permit – factors you can consider: public health, safety, general welfare, soil erosion, drainage on and off the premises, soil fertility, slope stability, grade relationships, abutting streets and premises, land values and uses, road damage, traffic and weather conditions. Keep in mind that is in regard to soil movement.
The question was also brought up if we have to proceed with this application while the Board of Adjustment application is in litigation. Yes, because there has been no stay issued by the court.
Walter Ptaszek, applicant (sworn): have owned property for 35 years. Worked with the Board of Adjustment for three years. We would like to get the soil movement permit and start building the house. Previously had two building permits approved for the property.
Steven Schepis, Esq., attorney for the applicant, distributed A1 exhibit – prior approvals. Displayed architectural plan, A2. Stated outside agency approvals.
Joseph Mianecki, Engineering and Planner for the applicant (sworn): stated credentials. Reviewed zoning board approved plot plan. Three tiered walls are proposed for the back of the property to provide a level backyard area. Stormwater management was taken into consideration – two dry wells.
Soil – 2,286 cubic yards – to be used for raising the rear yard. The grades adjacent to property within five feet conform.
Reviewed exhibit A3 – retaining wall plan. Mianecki designed the system. Reviewed truck route plan – exhibit A4: Taylortown Road to West Lake to MacLeay to Virginia to Rockledge. Limiting factors are the bridges in the area. The Crooked Brook bridge crossing was constructed in 1995. Exit would be the yellow route. The bridge weight limits are not posted, but they are a 15-ton limit. The empty trucks could use the bridges. Approximately 286 loads over a 3 to 4 month period. 100 loads per week. 2 ½ trucks per hour. The first week of construction the loads would be for foundation and equipment, etc. Recommend no truck traffic during school hours or inclement weather.
Exhibit A5 – Environmental Assessment Report dated 10/22/08: Morris County Soil Survey, Septic designed and approved in 1988 by the Montville Health Department. Reviewed soil logs. Soils show stormwater can be mitigated through the site. This house is approved for Township sewer.
Soil erosion and sediment control: recommendations: staging areas on top of the site, dust control, silt fence, hay bales, truck cleaning blanket. The drainage on and off the premises – same direction it always was. Infiltration trench at the bottom of the slope – long trench filled with crushed stone. Stormwater infrastructure is one of the first things installed.
Land use and values – no negative impact on land values.
Sequence of construction: start from the bottom and work up.
Schepis stated the two potential sources of soil: property located off of River Road or soil from Lincoln Park. We would be coming in from Route 202.
Mianecki stated if the sequence of construction is followed, there will be no detriment to the roads or the adjoining properties.
Chairwoman Nielson asked if the environmental impact assessment was submitted to the Environmental Commission. Mianecki answered no. Nielson stated that is a requirement.
Nielson asked the linear length of the walls. Mianecki replied about 400 feet of walls.
Nielson asked the number of truckloads of other materials and walls. Mianecki answered he cannot give that number right now.
Nielson stated she did not see a section on the drawing that shows how close the wall is to the southern property line – adjacent lot 21. Mianecki stated the bottom of the wall would be five feet. Nielson asked where the property line would be. The top of the wall is showing five feet, but you have a lot of disturbance in front of the wall. Nielson stated you are going to be disturbing to the limits of the property lines on both sides? Miaenecki answered yes. Nielson stated we did not receive that drawing – relating to the details of the retaining walls.
Nielson stated she did not see a first floor, garage, or basement elevation listed and how it relates to the adjacent structures – grade-wise. She would like to know that.
Schepis stated the ordinances stated the Township Engineer is supposed to ask for the referral to the Environmental Commission. The Township Engineer deemed the application complete, and he did not ask for that referral. We did not miss that and not send it to the Environmental Commission.
Committeewoman Bader referred to the map – topsoil stockpile pit. Mianecki stated the site engineer showed that as a temporary staging area. But that will not work there, and will not be put there.
Nielson asked if we are having screening operations. Mianecki answered no.
Committeeman Sandham referred to the diagram of the retaining walls and asked at the height of the tallest point at ground level, what is the distance? Mianecki stated 18 feet. Sandham stated you are going from 18 feet to five feet? Mianecki answered yes. Sandham asked and there are no drainage issues? Mianecki answered no. It is not part of the retaining wall system. That was designed by Mr. Walker, engineer, as part of the Board of Adjustment application.
Sandham asked if the truck route has been reviewed by the Township Engineer.
Anthony Barile, Township Engineer, stated the route is safe as long as the drivers’ adhere to the law. The other route has issues because of the bridges. The County has not posted the weight limits and it is difficult to assess the situation properly.
Sandham asked if we will find out where the soil coming in originated from. Mianecki stated all of the soil will be analyzed and certified.
Committeeman Daughtry stated he is very suspect of that soil. Also, page 4 of the ordinance – topsoil shall be set aside on the premises, etc. If there is no place to store the soil on the site, what do we do?
Barile stated the main intent of the ordinance is to safeguard that if soil is removed, that the land would be restored in stable condition – seeded and graded, etc. In this case, they are proposing to temporarily remove the soil from the site, bring it back, spread it and stabilize it. I don’t see a problem with that.
Daughtry asked how many additional truckloads this would be? Mianecki stated about four tandem loads.
Daughtry stated the grade on Vista Road is very steep. Any safety precautions? Mianecki stated at the corner, we would have a person stationed to make sure no car was coming down, so the truck wouldn’t have to stop.
Barile stated we can alert the Police Department and have them work something out. Sandham asked if the Police Department reviewed the new route. Barile stated he reviewed both routes with Lt. Peterson. I will get a report in writing from him.
Sandham stated retaining walls and adjacent structures – the neighbors on either side that may have had a clear view up and down, north and south – are they now impaired by an 18-foot retaining wall?
Schepis stated the lot immediately to the north is vacant. The one to the south, as far as how it would affect the view, the impact on the adjoining structures was something that was carefully scrutinized by the Board of Adjustment.
Nielson asked about the maneuvering of the trucks on Rockledge Road, are police going to be hired, and what is the width of the road? Mianecki stated the width of the road is 18 feet. I recommended that a flagman be there when there is truck traffic. That is also why I like the circular pattern of the route.
Nielson stated there will be a lot of dust. Are you working within the neighborhood to clean windows or do a dust survey? It is a hardship. I would ask that that be taken into consideration as well. Will there be road cleaning? Mianecki stated there has to be daily street cleaning operations. It has to be very well coordinated.
Chairwoman Nielson opened the public hearing. All speakers sworn.
Nick Gaffney, 29 Lenape Drive, Montville, stated he has never seen such an inappropriate application. Previously sat on the Planning Board. This is a residential community. At the Board of Adjustment, it was 150 tandems. Now, it is twice that. How did that happen? The application had approval twenty years ago that were deemed appropriate, and he did not build. There was no opposition. I ask that you consider the community when you make your decision. Would you want to live in this immediate area and be subjected to this inconvenience?
Larry D’Oench, 20 Stoney Brook Road, Montville, President of Valhalla Civic Association, stated he is against the approval of the application. This building project will require 2,200 c.y. of dirt and a humongous number of truckloads. They also intend to remove a majority of the trees on the property. Fear dirt slides may occur. Also, have had recent, minor earthquakes. Let’s not build something that may hurt the downhill neighbors. This lot is buildable without a soil movement. I request you deny the soil movement application and encourage the owner to submit a new building plan that takes into account drainage, slope stability, and pitch.
Anthony Angelini, 38 Virginia Road, Montville, stated he is on the proposed route. The roads are narrow and there are cracks in them. Gas lines have been extended. Concern with trucks going over them. There are blind curves. I think there will be more accidents. Are the trucks going to be covered? Mianecki answered yes. It is the responsibility of the truck driver to make sure the roads are clean.
Angelini stated he is also concerned about kids being home in the summer and walking on the roads.
Frank McNally, 19 Rockledge Road, Montville, asked if they can have a list of the conditions. What body does this event answer to? Murphy answered the Township Engineer, who answers to the Township Committee.
McNally asked if they can please get an answer as to the number truckloads.
Nielson stated she wants to know the amount of the trucks for the material for the walls.
Murphy stated it is an appropriate question, but I don’t think it is part of the soil movement application itself.
McNally asked if they can please get a schedule. That route is insane. If you are going to do this, run whatever tests are necessary not to use these roads. Please check that out. Concerned with safety for the children. Please reject the application. Please find the technicality.
Richard Nichols, 14 Hemlock Drive, Montville, stated we have to preserve the tree line. They don’t even know the quality of what they are trucking in. Removing the topsoil and bringing in other topsoil – we don’t know what it is. We should want to keep the native topsoil. Trees, native vegetation – what is going to happen with them? They will be knocked down. What is it going to look like from the lake? Have to keep in mind the character of the neighborhood.
Bob Marieness, 22 Lake Shore Drive, Montville, stated he is against the application. Would I be interpreting the ordinance correctly if I were to say that the Township Committee has the purview to determine if this is a reasonable amount of soil?
Murphy stated they take testimony as to the amount of the soil and make a determination as to whether the applicant’s offer is reasonable.
Marieness stated the Board of Adjustment deferred to the Township Committee to decide on the soil movement. They never considered whether the soil or trucks, etc. were reason to deny the application.
Frank Bastone, Township Administrator, stated it was never their jurisdiction. It is the jurisdiction of the Township Committee.
Marieness stated the opposition side brought in experts to show that less than 5% of the house is going to sit on original existing grade. Everything being brought in is going to be new fill. Where is the proof that all this soil is necessary to build a house on this lot? There are other houses on Rockledge that are nestled into the hillside, as opposed to building a new hillside, and prove that this is an unnecessary project. There are prior designs for the house that used less walls and less soil.
The applicant does not want to consider an on-street parking area. They want to have a relatively flat driveway. Way flatter than any other driveway comparable on Rockledge Road.
Land values – this house will be at an unprecedented height. Other houses will be dwarfed by this house. Safety – my house is just below this house. How is the soil going to be stabilized? We should be looking at templates about how the trucks are going to get on that lot. We need to understand the construction process – the sequence and how it is going to be done. Silt fence and hay bales – that is what is going to keep the soil from coming down onto my house? How is the 25-foot trench going to be cut? Where is all the material going to be put? How deep are these footings? Are they sitting on many feet of fill or going down to existing grade?
Bill Trautmann, 14 Rockledge Road, Montville, stated he is concerned about the truckloads and the corner at Vista and Rockledge. First fifty truckloads – what is the plan? Do you stage it? When do the walls go up? After the first 100 truckloads?
Wojciech Mickowski, 23 Rockledge Road, Montville, stated four inches of topsoil that will be removed – request clarification. It seems they would have to remove much more to reach stabilization. I don’t believe any testing has been done about how deep the undisturbed soil is. Usually a contractor oversees the construction process. Why don’t we hear from the contractor about how he plans to do this? We have heard from the engineer but, typically, engineers are not contractors.
When there is a school bus, traffic cannot pass. Also, the children have to walk along the roads. What about the dirt, etc?
Soil compaction – what is going to compact the soil. Will we have vibrations that will impact our homes or wells?
The process will be much longer than has been presented because there cannot be truck traffic during school bus times.
Silt fence and hay bales. During a heavy rainfall, they will fall down the slope. What guarantee will we have that vibrations from the construction will not kill the trees on our property.
Eileen McNally, 19 Rockledge Road, Montville, stated they are going to build to the property line. How can I be assured that will be enforced? Also, I am very concerned about the drainage. If harmonious is in your purview, how harmonious can it be if I am looking into an 18-foot retaining wall?
Jeff Weinflash, 51 Stoney Brook Road, Montville, stated I believe the geotechnical engineer actually has to be on site at all times. I also question the comment about two inches of topsoil. I think testing should be done. That information should be had as well. Environmental testing should be required to any material brought in. Someone should look back at the calculations. I also think it would be appropriate that templates be presented on the trucks on Rockledge. Excavation for the foundation wall for the house – I looked at the plan on record. It appears that the footing would go down 18 feet after the walls are constructed. Where is all that material going to go as they excavate for the footing?
Hearing no further comments, Chairwoman Nielson closed the public hearing. Motion: Sandham. Second: Braden. All in favor. Motion approved.
Nielson stated I have two pages of questions. There were 286 truckloads estimated. Is there a calculation for compaction? Mianecki stated 25% compaction.
Sandham stated the ordinance stated four inches of topsoil should be maintained. It is supposed to be retained on site. That is the equivalent of 86 truckloads.
Daughtry stated the application states there are three inches of topsoil on the property. They stated they can’t keep it on site. They will truck in topsoil at the end. Can either of you refute or confirm what was cited at Board of Adjustment that there will be 150 tandem loads of fill brought in?
Nielson stated we will get the questions answered by the applicants. We will put together a list of the questions.
Sandham stated the questions he wants answered: off-property drainage, route, relationship to abutting premises, and the topsoil.
Nielson stated the applicant can send out a courtesy notice to the residents as to the carried public hearing date. We also can put it on the website.
Schepis stated he will send a notice regular mail.
Nielson stated you can have the information on file ten days before.
Public hearing carried to March 24, 2009, at 8 p.m. Motion: Sandham. Second: Braden. All in favor. Motion approved.
NO. 2 – ORDINANCE NO. 2009-05 AMENDING CHAPTERS 3.02 ENTITLED “FEES” AND 12.39 ENTITLED “DOGS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY” OF THE REVISED GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE AND ESTABLISHING FEES FOR THE RENTAL OF THE YOUTH CENTER AND PASSES FOR THE MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP DOG PARK:
Chairwoman Nielson opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Chairwoman Nielson closed the public hearing. All in favor. Motion approved.
Motion to adopt ordinance: Bader. Second: Sandham. Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes. Ordinance adopted.
NO. 3 – ORDINANCE NO. 2009-06 AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE REVISED GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE AND REGULATING TRAFFIC VISIBILITY ON CORNER LOTS:
Chairwoman Nielson opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Chairwoman Nielson closed the public hearing. All in favor. Motion approved.
Motion to adopt ordinance: Bader. Second: Braden. Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes. Ordinance adopted.
NO. 4 – ORDINANCE NO. 2009-07 TO CREATE THE POSITION OF MUNICIPAL HOUSING LIAISON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADMINISTERING THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE’S AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE FAIR HOUSING ACT:
Chairwoman Nielson opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Chairwoman Nielson closed the public hearing. All in favor. Motion approved.
Motion to adopt ordinance: Bader. Second: Braden. Discussion: Nielson asked if there was additional compensation for this. Bastone answered no. Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes. Ordinance adopted.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2009-CA5: Motion: Sandham. Second: Braden. Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes. Resolution adopted.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM A – RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE – BOILING SPRINGS SAVINGS – BLOCK 39.11, LOT 78.01 & 78.02):
WHEREAS, Boiling Springs Savings, the developer of property known as Block 39.11, Lots 78.01 and 78.02 (446 & 448 Route 202) is required to submit a Performance Guarantee to the Township of Montville; and
WHEREAS, Boiling Springs Savings has submitted a Performance Guarantee in the form of Letter of Credit Number 197 issued by Boiling Springs Savings Bank in the amount of $274,633.20 and cash in the amount of $30,514.80; and
WHEREAS, the Township Engineer, Township Attorney, and Land Use Administrator have reviewed the Performance Guarantee submitted and have recommended its acceptance.
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 submitted by Boiling Springs Savings in the form of Letter of Credit Number 197 issued by Boiling Springs Savings Bank in the amount of $274,633.20 and cash in the amount of $30,514.80 is hereby accepted. The Township Clerk is authorized and directed to forward a copy of this
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM B – RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE – SBA NETWORK SERVICES, INC. (OPTASITE TOWERS) – BLOCK 1, LOT 29):
WHEREAS, SBA Network Services, Inc., the developer of property known as Block 1, Lot 29 (78 Boonton Avenue) is required to submit a Performance Guarantee to the Township of Montville; and
WHEREAS, SBA Network Services, Inc. has submitted a Bond for tree pole, removal and site restoration in the form of Performance Surety Bond No. 105223857 issued by Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America in the amount of $51,840.00 and cash in the amount of $5,760.00 and Bond for tree branch replacement in the form of Performance Surety Bond No. 105223858 issued by Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America in the amount of $18,000.00 and cash in the amount $2,000.00; and
WHEREAS, the Township Engineer, Township Attorney, and Land Use Administrator have reviewed the Performance Guarantee submitted and have recommended its acceptance.
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 submitted by SBA Network Services, Inc. for tree pole, removal and site restoration in the form of Performance Surety Bond No. 105223857 issued by Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America in the amount of $51,840.00 and cash in the amount of $5,760.00 and Bond for tree branch replacement in the form of Performance Surety Bond No. 105223858 issued by Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America in the amount of $18,000.00 and cash in the amount $2,000.00 are hereby accepted. The Township Clerk is authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the developer.
CONSENT AGENDA C – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A REDUCTION IN PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE – LAUREL GREEN – BLOCK 39, LOT 63):
WHEREAS, a Performance Guarantee was issued in the form of a Performance Bond in the amount of $371,021.04 and cash in the amount of $41,224.50 to the Township of Montville on behalf of Laurel Green, the developer of a development known as Block 39, Lot 63 (Rathbun Road); and
WHEREAS, Laurel Green has requested that the Township accept a bond reduction of the cash bond from $41,224.50 to $14,375.30 and the Performance Bond from $371,021.04 to $129,377.70 which is the current amount required for posting.
WHEREAS, by memorandum dated February 17, 2009, the Land Use Administrator has reviewed the request for a reduction and has recommended that the Performance Guarantee be reduced.
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 Township of Montville hereby accepts a reduction in the Performance Guarantee on behalf of Laurel Green from cash in the amount of $41,224.50 to $14,375.30 and Performance Bond from $371,021.04 to $129,377.70.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM D – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RETURN OF CASH BONDS POSTED WITH THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE:
WHEREAS, certain cash bonds have been posted with the Township of Montville to secure the performance of obligations; and
WHEREAS, the Engineering Department has verified that the improvements, the installation of which were secured by the cash bonds, have been installed in a satisfactory manner and has recommended the release of cash bonds.
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 cash performance bonds shall be released:
TYPE OF BOND
AMOUNT TO BE
137 Monroe Street
Garfield, NJ 07026
(Bl. 82.12, L. 33, 49 Pine Brook Road)
M. & R. Yasin
3 Patrick Court
Boonton, NJ 07005
(Bl. 1, L. 11.64)
NOTE: $38.07 expended $961.93 to be returned
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the Chief Financial Officer.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM E – RESOLUTION APPROVING REFUND OF OVERPAYMENT – 100% DISABLED VETERAN’S EXEMPTION:
WHEREAS, property taxes have been cancelled due to a 100% disabled veteran exemption; and
WHEREAS, these property taxes have been paid by the property owner, creating an overpayment of tax.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Treasurer of the Township of Montville draw a check to the following:
Block 113, Lot 19
2005 - $ 7,598.42
2006 - $ 8,059.54
2007 - $ 8,434.20
2008 - $ 8,725.28
and, cancel taxes as follows due to the disabled veteran status-
2009 - $ 4,362.64 Cancellation of 2009 1st & 2nd Quarters
$ 11.30 Cancellation of Interest 1st Quarter
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM F – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A TOURIST ACCOMMODATION LICENSE FOR THE YEAR 2009 TO KNIGHTS INN: Block 183, Lot 4.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM G – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF TOURIST ACCOMMODATION LICENSE FOR THE YEAR 2009 TO PINE BROOK MOTEL: Block 162, Lot 6.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM H – RESOLUTION APPROVING MUNICIPAL TOWING SERVICES 2009:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance, application is made to the Township of Montville for approval to provide towing services when called by the police; and
WHEREAS, applications were made and inspections were conducted by the police, criminal histories were reviewed, and insurance certificates as required were provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, as follows:
Section 1. The following applicants are approved for light duty towing services for 2009:
1. Mt. View Auto, 76 Mt. View Blvd., Wayne, NJ 07470
2. Hiawatha Towing, Inc., 31 N. Beverwyck Road, Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034
3. C & L Towing Services, 73 Eagle Rock Avenue, East Hanover, NJ 07936
4. Boonton Service, 686 Main Road, Towaco, NJ 07082
5. Mike’s Automotive/Pompton Plains Service, 19 Jackson Avenue, Pompton Plains, NJ 07444
Section 2. The following applicants are approved for heavy duty towing services 2009:
1. Mt. View Auto, 76 Mt. View Blvd., Wayne, NJ 07470
2. Corigliano Towing, 27 Intervale Road, Boonton, NJ 07005
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM I – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF GRANT APPLICATION AND EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE NJDOT FOR THE ROUTE 46 SAFETY PROJECT.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM J – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A HIGHLANDS INITIAL ASSESSMENT GRANT AGREEMENT:
WHEREAS, the Township of Montville applied for and was awarded a Highlands Initial Assessment Grant from the New Jersey Highlands Council; and
WHEREAS, this grant program will fund preliminary municipal and county Plan Conformance activities for lands within the Preservation Area where conformance is mandatory, as well as in the Planning Area where conformance is voluntary. These grants will allow local jurisdictions and counties to engage their professionals to assess the requirements and benefits of Plan Conformance; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Governing Body of the Township of Montville hereby authorizes the execution of the aforementioned Highlands Initial Assessment Grant Agreement.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM K – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A HIGHLANDS 2009 PLAN CONFORMANCE GRANT AGREEMENT:
WHEREAS, the Township of Montville applied for and was awarded a Highlands 2009 Plan Conformance Grant from the New Jersey Highlands Council; and
WHEREAS, this grant program is a reimbursement-based grant program with funding from the Highlands Protection Fund, and the monies in this fund are specifically dedicated for Plan Conformance activities; and
WHEREAS, the Highlands Council does not require matching funding for issuance of these grants as they are required to fund the reasonable expenses of Plan Conformance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Governing Body of the Township of Montville hereby authorizes the execution of the aforementioned Highlands 2009 Plan Conformance Grant Agreement.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM L – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT NO. 3 OF NJDEP GREEN ACRES PROJECT AGREEMENT:
WHEREAS, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Green Acres Program (“State”), provides loans and/or grants to municipal and county governments and grants to nonprofit organizations for assistance in the acquisition and development of lands for outdoor recreation and conservation purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Township of Montville desires to further the public interest by obtaining a grant of $300.000 from the State to fund the following project(s): Acquisition of Open Space Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, the governing body/board resolves that Deborah Nielson or the successor to the office of Mayor is hereby authorized to:
(a) make application for such a loan and/or such a grant
(b) provide additional application information and furnish such documents as may be required
(c) act as the authorized correspondent of the above named applicant, and
WHEREAS, the State shall determine if the application is complete and in conformance with the scope and intent of the Green Acres Program, and notify the applicant of the amount of the funding award; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is willing to use the State’s funds in accordance with such rules, regulations and applicable statutes, and is willing to enter into an agreement with the State for the above named project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Township of Montville
1. That the Mayor of the above named body or board is hereby authorized to execute an agreement and any amendment thereto with the State known as Acquisition of Open Space Property, and;
2. That the applicant has its matching share of the project, if a match is required, in the amount of $300.000.
3. That, in the event the State’s funds are less than the total project cost specified above, the applicant has the balance of funding necessary to complete the project, and;
4. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations in its performance of the project.
5. That this resolution shall take effect immediately.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM M – PROCLAMATION READ ACROSS AMERICA MARCH 2, 2009.
NO. 1 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1, ACCEPTANCE OF THE VIEWMONT TERRACE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, AND FINAL PAYMENT TO CIFELLI & SON CONSTRUCTION, INC.:
WHEREAS, Cifelli & Son Construction, Inc. is the contractor for the Viewmont Terrace Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that changes to this Contract are necessary due to a change in the final as-built quantities; and
WHEREAS, Cifelli & Son Construction, Inc. has submitted a Change Order for a reduction to the original contract amount; and
WHEREAS, the Township Engineer has recommended the Change Order, that the Viewmont Terrace Improvement Project be accepted by the Township, and that final payments be made; and
WHEREAS, Cifelli & Son Construction, Inc. has posted the required Maintenance Bond and filed the Affidavit of Release of Claims.
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:
Amount of Original Contract: $149,395.00
Additions: $ 1,512.00
Reductions: $ -7,290.25
Adjusted Amount Based on Change Order No. 1: $143,616.75
% Change in Contract -3.39%
; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Township of Montville accepts as final the Viewmont Terrace Improvement Project and releases to Cifelli & Son Construction, Inc. final payment in full; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Township of Montville accepts Maintenance Bond No. B100008600M issued by Aegis Security Insurance Company in the amount of $14,361.67 for a one-year period.
Motion: Braden. Second: Sandham. Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes. Resolution adopted.
NO. 2 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A UTILITY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE AND THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY FOR THE RELOCATION OF CERTAIN WATER FACILITIES:
WHEREAS, the State of New Jersey is about to undertake the design and construction of road improvements in the Township of Montville; and
WHEREAS, the road improvement project may require the construction of new and/or the protection, relocation, and/or adjustment of facilities of the existing Montville Township water system; and
WHEREAS, the State of New Jersey has agreed to the relocation and/or protection of the water system improvements; and
WHEREAS, the terms and conditions for the State’s responsibilities in connection with the relocation and/or protection of the water system are set forth in an Agreement attached hereto.
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 Director of the Montville Township Department of Public Works, Thomas Mazzaccaro, is hereby authorized to execute an Agreement between the State of New Jersey and the Township of Montville in connection with the construction of Route 159WB over Rt. 46EB in the Township of Montville.
Motion: Sandham. Second: Daughtry. All in favor. Resolution adopted.
NO. 3 – Deleted from final agenda.
NO. 4 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE LIGHTING AT BASEBALL/SOFTBALL FIELDS PROJECT:
WHEREAS, six (6) bids were received for the Lighting at Baseball/Softball Fields Project; and
WHEREAS, the bid submitted by Faigon Electric was defective in that the twenty-five year life cycle operating calculations were not included; and
WHEREAS, the lowest responsible bid of $143,800.00 was received from Quality Electric, West Keansburg, New Jersey; and
WHEREAS, the Township Engineer has recommended the award to Quality Electric.
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 Quality Electric shall be awarded the Contract for the Lighting at Baseball/Softball Fields Project in an amount of $143,800.00.
Motion: Daughtry. Second: Bader. Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes. Resolution adopted.
NO. 5 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REFUND OF SEWER ACCOUNT PAYMENTS – BLOCK 33.1, LOT 2:
WHEREAS, Block 33.1, Lot 2, has been charged for sanitary sewer service since February, 1995, when, in fact, there was no sewer available to her property; and
WHEREAS, this property is serviced by Township water only and was incorrectly labeled as serviced by water and sewer; and
WHEREAS, the amount paid for sanitary sewer service not received was $5,185.09.
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 Block 33.1, Lot 2, water and sewer account no. 205107, shall be refunded a sum of $5,185.09 for sanitary sewer service not received but paid for.
Motion: Daughtry. Second: Bader. Roll call vote - Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes. Resolution adopted.
NO. 6 – RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LISTING OF BILLS AND SIGNING OF CHECKS:
Frances Vanderhoof, Director of Finance, stated there is one deletion from the bill list: payment to Phoenix Advisors. Listing of bills approved; and the Mayor and Township Clerk are authorized to sign the checks. Motion: Sandham. Second: Daughtry. Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes. Resolution adopted.
NO. 7 – RESOLUTION OPPOSING ASSEMBLY BILL A-3772/SENATE BILL S-2577 “CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF NON-AGE-RESTRICTED COMMUNITIES:”
WHEREAS, companion legislation, S-2577 and A-3772, "which would allow for the conversion of age-restricted housing units, pending approval by the local planning or zoning board and/or the Smart Growth Ombudsman" has been introduced; and
WHEREAS, this legislation is being proposed as a short-term response to the downturn in real estate markets; and
WHEREAS, The League of Municipalities has serious technical concerns with many of the provisions of the bill, the strongest objection to the bill is Section 11. This section would allow a developer to seek an appeal of the local land use board's decision to the "Smart Growth Ombudsman" created by PL 2004, c. 89, more commonly referred to as the "fast track law." The role that the local board plays in this appeal is undefined by the bill, and the decision of the Ombudsman would not be appealable. Thus, if a local board denies an amendment to an already-approved age-restricted housing development, the developer can then appeal to a state official to overrule a board's action. If a board is over-ruled, the municipality has no further appeal. The Township of Montville strenuously objects to the intrusion on the local planning process by allowing an appeal to the "Smart Growth Ombudsman;" and
WHEREAS, a municipality must be concerned with cost-generating amenities and infrastructure. If an age-restricted development is converted, will amenities and infrastructure that were already approved be lost, or will this financial obligation now fall to local taxpayers? Further, there are related costs to development, such as the impact on the school system, sewer, water and other infrastructure, none of which is addressed by the proposed legislation; and
WHEREAS, The bills stipulate a 30-day period for the determination of completeness and for the preparation of the resolutions, which is overly ambitious. Considering the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act, the Open Public Records Act and the public need to conduct business in a transparent manner, this 60-day (combined) window is not reasonable; and
WHEREAS, the bills state that the applicants for converted development shall be exempt from paying application fees. The Township opposes such an exemption.
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 Township hereby opposes S-2577 and A-3772 and authorizes the Township Clerk to provide a certified copy of this Resolution to Governor Jon S. Corzine, Assembly Speaker Joseph J. Roberts, Jr., Senate President Richard J. Codey, Members of the Senate and Assembly of the 26th Legislative District, in each case urging their opposition to the above-referenced legislation.
Motion: Sandham. Second: Braden. All in favor. Resolution adopted.
NO. 2 – ORDINANCE NO. 2009-09 ESTABLISHING THE RATES OF COMPENSATION OF OFFICERS WITHIN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE, IN THE COUNTY OF MORRIS, STATE OF NEW JERSEY: 2009 – 2012.
Ordinance is offered for adoption on first reading with second reading and public hearing scheduled for September 13, 2009, at 8 p.m. Motion: Bader. Second: Daughtry. Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes. Motion approved.
NO. 1 – ORDINANCE NO. 2009-08 AMENDING CHAPTER 3.02 OF THE REVISED GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE AND ESTABLISHING NEW SEWER RATES:
Ordinance is offered for adoption on first reading with second reading and public hearing scheduled for March 10, 2009, at 8 p.m. Motion: Bader. Second: Daughtry. Discussion: Bastone stated it is imperative for the financing of the sewer budget that we have a rate in place by April 1.
Nielson stated she is going to vote yes for introduction. She does not agree with all the provisions in this ordinance. I will most likely vote yes on the ordinance for 2009; however, for 2010 I might ask that it be separated. I think it should be re-evaluated in light of water usage patterns, feedback, etc. I want to put that on the record now.
Daughtry stated he nominates Mayor Nielson to chair the new committee to re-evaluate the rates again.
Braden stated if any member of the Township Committee is not happy with the provisions, they should make us aware and what they propose for changes – in the next two weeks.
Bader stated she attended the Chamber of Commerce meeting, and they feel it is probably the best we can do at this time.
Sandham stated if we are going to separate them, can we do that at the public hearing or do we have to make the motion tonight?
Murphy stated you would have to do it tonight. It is a major change.
Nielson made a motion for the ordinance to be separated. No second.
Nielson stated if I do vote no, you will know why. Is it the consensus the committee that if we do get a lot of feedback that we will re-evaluate this situation at the end of 2009?
Daughtry stated you never stop listening to the citizens. This is never going to be perfect. We have to move on. You can’t keep Monday-morning quarterbacking proposals from the Long-Term Financial Planning Committee. We will have to address it to the Water & Sewer Department to see what we can do.
Nielson asked are you opposed to re-evaluating it at the end of 2009? After three quarters. Or is the answer no? Daughtry stated based on what I heard Mr. Mazzaccaro say probably no if it is to look at the whole ordinance – because there is not going to be enough time. It’s not that I don’t want to take care of issues that arise.
Nielson stated I don’t like certain provisions of it. I am a staunch supporter of the LTFPC. I sat in on one meeting and there were certain decisions made at that meeting. I agreed with it that night. Because of all the variables in the ensuing ten days, it changed significantly. Bastone stated they had another meeting and it changed.
Nielson stated the information changed, and I didn’t have time to react. Daughtry stated it is your call, but you can’t criticize after we have been through twice. Nielson stated I said I would vote for the 2009. Daughtry stated you said you would vote for it but you want us to support your effort to re-evaluate it. I think you are hearing that is not going to be in the cards.
Bastone stated we would be better off spending time looking at water rates. Nielson stated perhaps the 1st quarter or 2nd quarter of 2010 we could look at sewer rates. The business community was included in the current proposal. There was not any input from the condominium community. When I left there two weeks ago, the condo community was being treated the same as single-family residences. Now there are differences. I don’t know how that will be received by the condo community.
Daughtry stated you have and will always have the opportunity to intervene and do it the right way. It’s not after the fact. If you had all these concerns, you just stay involved at these meetings. Nielson stated I left the meeting with a clear understanding and these changes went on subsequent to my participation. I don’t agree with them, but they are not enough to make me vote against this.
Daughtry stated you didn’t know about the other meeting? Nielson stated yes, I did, but they were just memorializing what was decided at the meeting I was at.
Braden stated we were waiting for a recommendation from LTFPC. You took the results of the next to last meeting as the recommendation instead of the final presentation.
Bastone stated we did discuss condominiums. In addition to that, Tom Mazzaccaro wrote a memo. Nielson stated I understand that. When I left that meeting, the understanding was that the well users were going to have an average of residential properties. It is my understanding it was going to be single-family properties. That is not the case. The residential homeowners are also exclusively well users. There is no well user in a condominium. Condo’s use on average 8,000 gallons per quarter less than single-family homes. So, the well users are getting a bonus to the detriment, perhaps, to the condo owners. The condominium owners, perhaps, are subsidizing the homeowners.
Sandham stated I am not sure I agree.
Roll call vote on introduction of the ordinance – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes. Motion approved.
NO. 1 – BUDGET: Bastone stated the Township Committee has the exhibits that indicate an increase in the levy of 4.91%. Distributed spreadsheet. We are anticipating additional revenue. We met with our Auditor and the surplus fund balance is about the same from 2007 to 2008. Anticipating substantially more, I am using almost all of the fund balance. I am doing that because we know we are going to realize additional revenues because we are not paying credit card fees, and we have the guaranteed 3% interest. Our Auditor agrees this is the right thing to do.
The increase in the levy of 4.91% is being driven by factors we have no control over: pension, library, and debt service. These account for 65% of the increase in the levy.
We need to talk about where we go from here. We also need to talk about the deferral of pension costs. If we want to make substantial reductions, it is going to have to be in operations/services or staff.
Pension deferral – consensus of the Township Committee - don’t defer. Reduce staff/operating expenses. Target budget increase: Daughtry 3.5%; Sandham 3%; Braden 3.5%; Nielson 0%; Bader 3.5%.
NO. 2 – VEHICLE USAGE POLICY: Bastone reported we have a policy in the personnel policy that needs to be expanded on. We need to determine the need to take home a vehicle based on the frequency of callouts. We need to make sure the language of the policy limits it to commuting. Also, there needs to be clarification of the taxation issues.
Nielson suggested keeping logs and weekly reporting.
NO. 3 – PSE&G: Bastone reported they had a meeting here with the other Mayors. It is slated to go before the BPU. A coalition was formed. We did adopt the resolution last meeting. No money was discussed at this point in time. Highlands will hear comments this week.
NO. 4 – ANIMAL SHELTER: Bastone reported they put a deposit down on the steel building. We have a proposal for architectural services and a cost estimate on the building. Capital contribution form other towns – did a breakdown based on the intake scenario. We need to decide if we want to use the intake scenario. Township Committee agreed – yes. Show them all the numbers. Also, want a long-term service contract.
Architect’s proposal – Braden stated he spoke to the Auditor about this, and he would like to speak to Mr. Bastone about running the job ourselves with volunteers and subcontractors and avoid the prevailing wage.
NO. 5 – DEP INVOICE – GLENVIEW WOODS: DEP invoice for oversight on the Glenview Woods case. Bastone reported he negotiated a reduced amount. New amount - $33,770.76. Township Committee agreed – ok to pay.
NO. 6 – ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT APPLICATIONS: Bastone stated he needs authorization to spend some consulting engineering funds to prepare the applications. One is for water and one is for sewer – interceptor and Pine Brook Road water grid - as described in Tom Mazzaccaro’s memo dated 02/19/09. Bastone recommended applying for the two projects.
Township Committee authorized the expenditure of not to exceed $5,000 for Bill Ryden, Consulting Engineer. Motion: Sandham. Second: Braden. Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes. Motion approved.
NO. 8 – Deleted from final agenda.
NO. 9 – YOUTH CENTER POLICIES & PROCEDURES: Bastone reported this is making the policy reflect reality.
Sandham stated he was on the Drug Awareness Council, and they submitted reports on the number of people there. If they weren’t signing in and out, how were they accurate? Braden stated they do headcounts.
Sandham stated he would like a legal opinion about signing in and out. Can we put the hours of operation in this? Bastone answered yes.
Resolution will be prepared for adoption of the policies & procedures at next meeting.
NO. 10 – Deleted from final agenda.
NO. 7 – TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND GOALS: Nielson stated she heard from most of the Township Committee on this. She went over the new 2009 goals and objectives:
Sustainability master plan – long-term green goals
Perform energy audit
Boards/Commissions – consider consolidating some of the boards
Enhanced communications – via website, e-mail, other
Streamlining permitting and construction process (coordination between land use, construction, and engineering departments)
Water rates – review
Health care – examine alternate to the State Health Benefits Plan
Animal Shelter occupied by October 31
Daughtry suggested that Mr. Bastone prioritize them the way he wants to approach them. Bastone will report back.
NO. 11 – CAMP DAWSON MASTER PLAN REVISION: Barile passed out the plan.
Nielson stated she did speak to Mr. Murphy and Mr. Barile, and they will them know if they have to have another public hearing. Barile stated he will send it down to the State, and if they say they need a public hearing, we will.
Township Committee – ok to send to the State.
NO. 12 – Item taken care of previously as a resolution.
NO. 1 – ADMINISTRATOR: No report.
NO. 2 – ATTORNEY: Murphy reported they need a resolution authorizing the signing of the settlement agreement for the Lotta Lettuce case. Motion: Sandham. Second: Braden. Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, abstain; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes. Resolution adopted.
NO. 3 – FINANCE: None.
NO. 4 – ENGINEER: Barile reported that the signal modifications at Horseneck/Changebridge Road were supposed to begin today.
Hatfield Creek – we are working on a report to the Committee on an alternative to the individual permit that is giving us such problems to obtain possibly by the use of one or more general permits. Nielson stated make sure this is noticed properly.
Nielson asked if the Stefanelli soil movement public hearing has been scheduled yet. Barile answered their application is complete. They did not schedule a public hearing with the Clerk yet.
NO. 5 - COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Committeeman Sandham asked what they are doing about the fireworks request. Bastone stated it is a dangerous precedent to set to allow fireworks on residential property. Nielson stated she has no objection. Item to be discussed at end of meeting.
Committeewoman Bader stated the Chamber of Commerce was glad to be involved in the sewer rates and hope to be involved in future issues.
Committeeman Braden – no report.
Committeeman Daughtry – no report.
Chairwoman Nielson reported that the Toxic Waistlines program of the Mayor’s Wellness Campaign kicks off on March 8.
PUBLIC PORTION FOR ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
Robert Lefkowitz, 81 Windsor Drive, Pine Brook, stated we started using Joomla for the website a few years ago. That is saving money. Have you thought about using other open source software? Such as open office. Open architecture does not have licensing fees. Also, they are easy to use. Bastone will look into.
Animal Shelter – can you open it up and charge people to board their pets when they go on vacation?
Garage sales – we could get additional revenue. There are garage sales all the time. Do we issue fines? Bastone stated we do have a permit process.
Nielson asked the Committee if they want to take a vote on the fireworks for this one time? Motion to approve: Nielson. Second: None.
Motion to deny fireworks permit request for 1 Brook Valley Terrace, Towaco: Sandham. Second: Daughtry. Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, no. Motion approved.
Meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m. Motion: Braden. Second: Bader. All in favor. Motion approved.
Gertrude H. Atkinson, Township Clerk