OLD BRDIGE TOWNSHIP COUNCIL
AGENDA MEETING
February 19, 2002
An Agenda Meeting of the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge was held on February 19, 2002 in the Municipal Complex. The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by President Butler who invited all to participate in a salute to the flag followed by a short prayer.
Deputy Clerk, Stella Ward, announced that pursuant to Section 5 of the Open Public Meetings Act, this meeting has been advertised in the Home News and Tribune. Next meeting of the Council will be February 25, 2002.
Roll call by Deputy Clerk Ward showed the following answering present: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Maher, Redmond, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler. Councilman Hoff was absent. Councilman Testino arrived at 8:30 p.m.
DISCUSSION - Cedar Ridge II
President Butler: Mr. Bill Ruggierio, will you please step forward. I would like for you to give all of us an overview on Cedar Ridge II. Can you give the public an overview right now?
Attorney Ruggierio: The Township Council authorized a short time ago within the last 6 or 7 months the acquisition of the property that we call the Woodland Trails property. In order to comply with the law you have to first engage in good faith negotiations with the property owner and then once you have done that at least for 30 days, you have an opportunity after that to file what's called a condemnation action where you actually acquire the property adversely if the property owner doesn't reach an agreement with you. In the history of condemnation cases in New Jersey, at least up until the last 3 or 4 years, most of the litigation has always been about how much you are going to pay the property owner for taking the property. It's almost never been about whether or not you have a right to take the property but in recent years there has been a case law that has aided property owners in resisting municipalities from taking property in times when it's inappropriate. Some of you may be familiar, if you read the newspapers, Monroe Township had some issues and North Brunswick. The long and short of this is that in this particular case we did get a contest from the developer about our right to take the property. I felt that we were going to be in good shape in connection with that issue because my recreation director was able to supply me with long standing maps where we had expressed interest in the property for very long time. We were able to show that the town had a very long standing interest in acquiring this property so we are all set. The down side of that is it would have slowed us down quite a bit. We would have been in a contested proceeding before we ever got to the question of what do we have to pay for the property. We would have been having almost a full trial based on these new cases on whether or not we could have acquired the property. So anyway I negotiated and took aggression with respect to our adversary in this and finally they conceded. They agreed that the town did have a right to take the property and then we got back to what is always the big question in these cases. What are we going to pay for it. That I'll tell you is not a question that is resolved even as we sit here tonight. One of the things we did agree to do because we had to do it was acquire new appraisals to appraise the property as of the present time period as opposed to the older appraisals that we had that would have been out of date and presumably less money. We would have paid less money under those old appraisals. So we agreed to get new appraisals which we were required to do and at this point we're headed toward the following procedures.
The Township Council has authorized me to file tomorrow in the court 6.2 million dollars which is the amount, at least initially, we estimated would be the amount we would have to pay for this property. Tomorrow, without a contrary direction from the Council tonight, and I really feel that when you deal with these kinds of numbers you want to give your client a last chance to say, hey, we're about to step off the cliff and I don't know what's down there but you know if you want to say no, say no now and that's why I'm here tonight to ask the Council to vote in public about this now, if they want to just continue with the course we're on and that is to put the 6.2 million into the court. They don't really need to do anything if there is a majority which, frankly I don't think there is to reverse courses in this case. Then there'll be a motion and such a vote tonight.
What will happen after this just to round out the description that I'm giving you is that I'll deposit the money into court, eventually I'll file a declaration of taking, they're almost always filed together. After that occurs, there'll be a proceeding, first before three people that are appointed by Judge Longhi to decide what the township should pay for this property, 6.2, 5.2, 4 million, l0 million, whatever the fair market value is as determined by these individuals. If the township is not satisfied with that number, or the property owner is not satisfied then we can have a trial about it and the trial would potentially consist of a party demanded of a jury trial where citizens would make a judgment about valuation and typically these trials involve the presentation of evidence by appraisers and things like that. So that's pretty much the whole story. I'm here tonight speaking to members of the Council to say to you if there's any stomach for the idea of abandoning this approach of acquiring this property someone should tell me now, because tomorrow, assuming Himanshu can come up with another 2 million dollars, I have to put 6.2 million dollars into the court.
President Butler: Bill, I have one question for you then I have to do a procedural matter. The question I have for you is in reference to the appraisal that was done verbally. Isn't the bottom line the appraisal was done and then the court process, wouldn't the court select an appraiser to go out and make the same appraisal and then the jury would decide, which appraisal they would utilize?
Attorney Ruggierio: It's not that common that it be done like that. What actually happens is that it's just like any other trial, you pick a jury and you hope that you pick reasonable people. You make an opening statement about what the issues are and it's not the most exciting trial in the world. The lawyer for the town will be saying we're going to present testimony that shows that these sales are the most relevant sales. These are the most liked property right in the neighborhood, closest in time. The other lawyer will say, oh no, these sales are most relevant. Then you get into issues about how you adjust the prices whether the adjustments were appropriate that the appraiser is making and eventually the jury has to use their common sense in what they heard to come up with an idea of what they think is right and just. As I've said early on in this case I think you all remember it, you can never predict what a jury will do. I certainly don't want to scare anybody by saying that, on the other hand this is not a $300,000.00 road widening acquisition. I think it's widely reported now, I think the property owner is demanding 14 million dollars. The township had initial appraisals at 5.2 million dollars. How it turns out, I really can't speak too much more about that because I have had some private conversations with the Township Council in executive session but I guess the long and short of it is it's a trial and we live in Middlesex County and Middlesex County is widely known to be a plaintiff's jurisdiction where people do very well when they sue in the courts if they're bringing a law suit so that doesn't favor us, so that's the answer.
President Butler: I have a procedural matter before the Council discusses and votes on this matter. I had the clerk's office today pull out the resolutions in reference to Cedar Ridge II. Before we distribute these we have to vote on this first in reference to giving it to the administration. Can I have a motion and a second for this? For the information I had gathered today, we have to vote on this prior to giving it to the administration. Why Stella?
Stella Ward: Because it's an executive session and Council has to vote on it before we can make it available to the administration, legal and the Mayor.
President Butler: What I need is a motion first and a second and we'll vote on this and then we'll discuss Cedar Ridge II.
Motion
to distribute Executive Session minutes in reference to Cedar Ridge II made by Councilman Baker, seconded by Councilman Greene and so moved on the following roll call:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Maher, Redmond, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Councilmen Hoff, Testino
President Butler: Now that we have dispensed with that, Council members would you like to talk about Cedar Ridge II.
Councilman Baker: I was not here six or seven months ago. I am certainly very happy to see everybody turn out this evening. Six or seven months ago we authorized the purchase of the property, without any contingencies, without any cliffs, without any if's, and's or but's the authorization was passed to purchase the property. Let's just purchase it and move forward.
Councilman Redmond: I think you will find that I was one of the sponsors of that motion. I certainly want to move forward with it. I have no desire to change the path that we have decided to take and let's get it done.
Councilman Maher: I think we're wasting a lot of time here. This Council gave a directive to the Mayor and the Administration six months ago to move forward with the condemnation procedures and even if do have to vote, I voted to acquire and conserve that land and my decision has not changed. I'm dead strong about acquiring that land.
Councilman Greene: I supported the purchase of this property. I did on several occasions, I do again want to put out some caution because I believe I have an obligation to all the residents of Old Bridge to let them know what we're getting into. There is a strong possibility, I hope it doesn't come, I hope we pay the six million dollars but there is a strong possibility that we could be paying substantially more for this property. So, I hope we are not ultimately putting all our eggs in one basket. As I said, I support the property. Unfortunately when you're dealing with a businessman who has spent a lot of time planning and trying to develop this it just shows what a disadvantage the township has when they want to preserve open space. We're going to wind up spending a good portion of our taxes and you know it's very unfortunate but it is an example of the position the township is in and it's a difficult position and I just hope that ultimately when all is said and done that this works out for the township financially as well as for the future growth of the town.
Councilman Calogera: Before I was councilman I sat on the planning board and I had the pleasant experience of being able to vote down the Cedar Ridge property and I did that because I really thought it would fit in our open space banks. Mr. Greene has some good points. We do have to be aware that down the road this property may escalate in price being fiscally responsible for taxes and all we have to be aware of that. I'd like the people to be aware of that. I also think that once the property is gone you can't get it back. Once it's built on we'll never have that chance for the open space again. In the long run I feel it probably will be a cheap investment for us and I am in favor of going ahead with it.
Councilwoman Panos: It might turn into a little expensive thing but three generations down the road it may wind up being a very good deal. I vote yes.
President Butler: I'm basically going to say that one of the alternatives here, they talk about 139 homes. I think the government fixes about 2.5 kids, two adults and half a child in a home. That's roughly about 166 kids. We're talking about a tremendous strain on the class size of the Old Bridge Schools. We're talking about tremendous financial drain on the Board of Education and your Board of Education taxes. I had some reservations in the beginning, I talked to a few people, I finally saw the light, so I'm definitely going to support this.
Mayor Cannon: I think it goes without saying that I've supported this acquisition since 1996. We've tried it every which way and I think we are down to the final stroke of the pen. I do support it and I do have the same concerns financially that Mr. Greene and others have expressed but we have gone this far and I think that the property is necessary to our community and I do support it.
PRESENTATION
William S. Ruggierio, Township Attorney and John Vincenti, Township Engineer
Re: Policy decision about easement across right of way near Veteran's Park
Attorney Ruggierio: This concerns the Pinkiewicz application which was before the zoning board and it's in the area that almost abuts Veteran's Park. There are one, two and three boxes that you see on a badly drawn lawyer's diagram up there. The three lots were approved by the zoning board for Mr. Pinkiewicz.. Here's the issue. The bottom line is that the yellow road that kind of curves down at the bottom is the road that runs through Veteran's Park. The green very straight line that abuts the lots where those proposed houses are is an actual right of way that already exists and is a legal right of way that they can connect to. Those little dotted lines that come off the boxes are proposed driveways that run across the existing right of way and they were proposed to the zoning board and they are proposing to you to connect to what is not really in my view a public road but a park road through Veteran's Park. The question is should you allow this developer to do this. Let me just give you a couple of ideas of what we came up with when sat down and kicked this around amongst the staff. Very briefly this is a presentation we put together to try to s how you what our thinking was about the matter. I'm going to turn this over to John in a minute. But, basically it's a very simple analysis. From the township's position and I'll have John expand on this, what he told me was that if we allow this developer to do what he's lawfully able to do and, by the way he says there are four lots and I must have missed one on my little drawing and I'll correct that. If we allow this developer to go ahead and improve the green portion of that road that we just looked at, John has suggested and Tom Badcock, the recreation director, has suggested that would do a fair amount of aesthetic violence to our Veteran's Park because there would be a big road adjacent to the park which is now, you know, an area where there is a meandering kind of a nice, small roadway.
So, that's the township's issue from our prospective. From the developer's prospective it's going to be expensive if we require them to go ahead and put in the road. They have a lawful right to put that road into that green area, that portion of the road that I showed. From their prospective they would like to be relieved of this responsibility and connect their driveways in the way that it was shown on the diagram to the park road. So here's what we have come up with in terms of our proposed solution. It basically involves five things. The first is that we have decided to recommend to you that the development of the right of way, the larger portion, the green portion, that I showed you would have a detrimental effect, it would be too much clear cutting and John Vincenti can expand on this, to the extent that the developer would be required to actually install that road, we think it would be bad so John has come up with an idea about expanding the existing park road by some minimal amount to make it more suitable to be a road but to keep its' winding and attractive character. The second thing is that in order for this to carry out the township's objective, there should be some obligation put as a deed restriction in the deeds of the houses to be developed there, that there be buffering, that they won't ever be able to clear cut their front yards, plant a lawn or do anything like that. If you ask me what the design of this buffering is, we don't really have a design yet. We are coming before you tonight to say this is our thinking as your staff. Do you agree with this. If you agree with it, I'm sure John and the developer's engineer will go back and come up with a proposal in terms of what will be required in terms of retention of buffering on the actual lots developed. The township would then grant the easement to connect in the way that we were talking about and we would have a provision that if anytime in the future we needed to remove those roads for some good cause that the developer would be obligated to then do what he could do all along and that is to remove the driveway and connect to the lawful right of way. I can't tell you it's a legal matter whether or not there is any green acres approval required but the long and short of it is that if there is a green acres component to this or green acres approval, then we're putting the burden on the developer to get that approval. So that's kind of the long and short of my part of the presentation. Engineer Vincenti will add more detail than I have.
Councilman Calogera: Can you enlighten me by answering one question because I was out for a few seconds, why are we entertaining this? What was the initial problem?
Attorney Ruggierio: This developer got a 4 lot subdivision approved before the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board approved it and said go to the legal department and figure out if you need any easements. That's essentially what happened. It took me a fair amount of time to understand it. Every time I got an explanation, Jim was running to the engineer's office to ask another question. I got more confused so we finally got all together, Tom Badcock, Jim Condon, John Vincenti and myself and we got the map out and we came to understand it and I said look, I want to make a recommendation to the Township Council as to whether or not we should, because in my view, you can't without permission of the township connect to a park road like this because it's not a public right of way. On the other hand, the part maybe that you missed when you were out although I did touch on it in the other graphic is that green area is a public right of way. The concern is that the developer could go ahead and just develop that. Could put a road in there because it is a publicly dedicated right of way even though it's a paper street at this point. Could put a road in there, could improve it, but we think that would be violence to winding and relatively rural character that's now displayed by that yellow road. So, we're trying to make a proposal that actually agrees with the developer that they shouldn't be required to build that road. They should be able to connect to this park road but we want to put some extra provisions in there to make sure that the aesthetics and the environmental aspects are adhered to.
Councilman Maher: Can you point out the paper road and the park road? You're describing green and I see green all over.
Mr. Vincenti: That's an entire copy of the plan. We've highlighted an area in green which is the park, an area in yellow which is the right of way. The red is the property in question.
Councilman Maher: Where's Englishtown Road?
Mr. Vincenti: Out to the left.
Councilman Maher: The park road comes in and it winds around, where are the ball fields?
Mr. Vincenti: The ball fields are due east on this map and there are further ones that kind of wind around north.
Councilman Maher: Okay.
Attorney Ruggierio: I put this striped area in there to show where the existing park road kind of intersected the right of way.
Councilman Greene: Why, this paper street? Why is the developer in a position to be able to build a road on that paper street?
Attorney Ruggierio: Because, as a matter of law, anytime you have property abutting a dedicated street, even though it's not built, you are permitted to improve it to municipal standards. You can lawfully do that.
Councilman Greene: I think the Zoning Board was out of line in approving this to be honest with you. They approved the development and then they turn around and say now you try to work it out.
Attorney Ruggierio: I could say, as was my first inclination, you can't connect to a park road. End of story. They would have gone back to the zoning board and we predicted, and they could speak for themselves because actually they are here, but we predicted that they would then look to that area of right of way and say, all right, we'll connect to the right of way and we'll improve that road and it would be, of course, more expensive for them, I'm sure it would not be a good way for them to go from a financial point of view but they could do that. We just thought from the township's point of view when we kicked it around that this was a bad outcome for the town because to improve that road, that area that John just pointed out, would be very detrimental to the aesthetics and the environment of Veteran's Park.
Councilman Greene: That area, that paper street, is tree lined, it's so full of trees. It looks like it's part of the park.
Mr. Vincenti: It does, and I think in fairness to the applicant that was one of the concerns that the Board of Adjustment had and why they waived the physical improvement of the road because they recognized the fact that the park entrance road was there, had some aesthetic quality and they recognized the fact that the applicant could come in and construct the road and they felt that was potentially detrimental as well.
Councilwoman Panos: I am just so opposed to any of this . Right from the beginning with the Zoning Board Did they have 4 lots over there? Those lots were clean and green, four lots back there. The only problem they had was over the road?
Mr. Vincenti: No, they granted a subdivision that created the four lots. The zoning was an E.R., environmental restrictive, they got a use variance.
Councilwoman Panos: The Zoning Board changed an E.R?
Mr. Vincenti: I believe it was an ER It was ER and they granted a subdivision that took off a auto repair facility and subdivided the property to create four residential lots.
Councilwoman Panos: When was that? I'm just a little curious
Mr. Vincenti: 1999 I believe was the approval. The subdivision was l999, the original use variance was l996.
Councilwoman Panos: Do you want to hear my recommendations? I think the Zoning Board should have never, ever changed ER to residential in any shape or form. I think we should send it back to the Zoning Board. If we have the power to reconsider any of that. Forget about putting an access road off a park road or anything like that. That just isn't feasible. I think it should have went back to the Zoning Board as to why that was approved to begin with, four lots in an ER
Mr. Vincenti: You can't do that.
Councilwoman Panos: I know you can't do that, but you know what, I'm not going to go for any of this.
Councilman Redmond: The ER as you said was changed in 1996. The variance was given in 1996, am I correct?
Mr. Vincenti: The Use Variance was granted in 1996.
Vice-president Redmond: So, the Use Variance was pre-existing. The sub-division.
Mr. Vincenti: I think the application may have been bifurcated.
Councilwoman Panos: The application was what?
Mr. Vincenti: Bifurcated. You can separate the Use Variance from a subdivision or site plan. That's very common.
Councilwoman Panos: I don't know. We just went ahead with Cedar Ridge II at what price? And now, we have park land away. I don't understand that.
Councilman Calogera: What would be the town's position, legally, to vacate that road.
Councilwoman Panos: Let's condemn the road.
Attorney Ruggierio: The black letter principle is you have the lawful right to vacate any road which has not been put in use.
Councilwoman Panos: I make a motion, vacate the road.
Attorney Ruggierio: You have to do it by ordinance, if you do it.
President Butler: Any other comments from the Council?
Councilman Testino: I would just like to know, clear and simple, what our alternatives are to doing this.
Mr. Vincenti: If you don't grant it, the applicant technically does not comply with one of his conditions of approval and has to go back before that board with respect to that condition and basically propose the road. Now in fairness to the applicant, there is another issue that I'm sure he wants to bring up and I think I can summarize that for you. At some point there was a consultant hired by the township when they improved the park. I've been told that plans that were prepared by that consultant showed the park driveway within the 50 foot right of way. So, the applicant through his engineer and legal team, I am sure would assert that it was the intent that the park driveway was to be constructed and placed within the 50 foot right of way. However, through their surveying of the property, they have found that the actual driveway was not constructed within the right of way and it more or less meanders it. That's another reason I think, that the Board of Adjustment in weighing this alternative, acted in the manner that they did.
Councilman Testino: What's the cost of putting that road in? Have you estimated it?
Mr. Vincenti: No
Councilman Testino: I mean is it feasible?
Mr. Vincenti: Is it feasible? Certainly, yes.
Councilman Testino: For three lots, is it feasible to put a road in that long?
Mr. Vincenti: It's four lots. Is it feasible, yes. Is it cost economical, that's a matter for the applicant. I don't know what he paid for the land.
Councilman Testino: If we do nothing, it goes back to the Zoning Board is what you're telling me. You're not going to issue building permits if we don't do anything, right?
Mr. Vincenti: The developer has to comply with the condition of the approval. I think it's the opinion of the township attorney that some form of action is needed by the governing body on this matter.
Councilman Testino: I agree with that opinion. I don't know, and Bill, maybe you have the answer, what rights do they have vested in the paper street or the right of way.
Attorney Ruggierio: Well, I would want to look at it a little closer because the question I answered over here, I think is absolutely correct. You have the ability to vacate a road so long as it's a paper street and has not been put to public use. But, I'm concerned that in this case we might be looking at an issue of potentially land locking the properties. I'm not sure about that and I know we can't do that. I can't answer the question tonight. I really haven't looked at it from that prospective.
Councilman Testino: We need that answer, don't we? If we land lock them we're going to be liable for the four lots then, right.
Attorney Ruggierio: I think the vacation would be invalid if that was the case. If the Council says yes, our inclination is to not follow the recommendation that we've made here tonight and go forward with some type of a vacation, then I think you're right. I have to answer that question. I have to take a closer look at the documents to see if it would be land locked.
Councilman Testino: Is somebody proposing widening the driveway for these lots?
Mr. Vincenti: One of the concerns I have is the driveway to the park is only 22 feet wide. Technically it's not wide enough to serve as a street for residential purposes. I'm suggesting that there is some form of minor widening that the applicant can do to address that issue, address the issue from the standpoint of providing municipal services to these homes and still address the aesthetic natures of the park roadway.
Councilman Testino: Do we plow that road when it snows?
Attorney Ruggierio: I would guess we do. Tom?
Tom Badcock: A park road? Now we do.
Councilman Testino: That's what I was thinking. We normally wouldn't plow. I have nothing further.
Councilman Redmond: What's on this property now?
Attorney Ruggierio: Nothing's on the property.
Mr. Vincenti: On the park property or this property?
Councilman Redmond: This property.
Attorney Ruggierio: The Pinkiewicz property.
John Vincenti: The four residential lots are vacant wooded land.
Councilman Redmond: This isn't the area where all those cars are.
John Vincenti: That is right next to it.
Councilman Redmond: So it's adjacent to that.
Mr. Vincenti: Yes.
Councilman Redmond: So those homes in essence will be right up against all those cars.
Mr. Vincenti: They'll back up to the cars. At least one.
Councilman Calogera: John and Bill, I want to just check and ask a question in regards to Madison Avenue and also with Englishtown Road with land locking this property. Isn't it true that we would not be land locking it? You can have access through Madison or through Englishtown with a common driveway with easements.
Attorney Ruggierio: I don't know. As I said, I haven't looked at it. John may be able to give you the answer.
Mr. Vincenti: You would definitely be able to access the property from Old Bridge Englishtown Road .
Councilman Calogera: Or from Madison.
John Vincenti: I'm not sure about Madison. I think that's part of the park.
Councilman Calogera: All four parcels from Englishtown?
John Vincenti: In theory, what would happen is you vacate the road, this developer would get 25 feet. So he would have a significant amount of frontage and he could still, I would think, build a cul de sac to access those four lots.
Councilman Calogera: Not coming in through the park.
Mr. Vincenti: No. The new cul de sac that he would build would be entirely on his land.
Councilman Greene: There are marks here that say proposed lot 75.11, 79.11, and 81.11. Are they there for additional dwellings?
Mr. Vincenti: No, those are the lot designations for the four lots.
President Butler: What is the Council's recommendation here?
Councilman Baker: I would like to hear from the administration and their recommendations.
Mayor Cannon: I felt that initially, because this site was before the board, I think a number of times, wasn't there another way out? There was another access road I thought that they were going to be using that didn't necessitate the use of the park roadway.
Mr. Vincenti: I'm not familiar with that. I don't believe so.
Mayor Cannon: I thought that early on at some point there was because I think that generally speaking that the park roadway was not the preferable way to go.
Ms. Shepler: Are we saying that those driveways are going to directly access into the park roadway where we have children on skate boards and BMX bicycles coming down the road? These driveways, people are going to be backing out of their homes into park street where there are potentially children on skate boards, or joggers or alike.
Attorney Ruggierio: I don't know about the last part of your question but I know that the driveways are proposed under the proposal we're presenting to connect to the existing park road. I should say an expanded version of the park road because John feels that the road should be a little wider and probably addresses some of those kinds of issues. I know this is an agenda session. I will just point out, Mr. President, the developer and the attorney are here if you have any questions you want to direct to them.
Councilman Baker: I still want to get the administration's input.
Ms. Shepler: I have one more question. Obviously Mr. Vincenti has indicated that there is a potential, if this road were to be vacated by ordinance, obviously that the developer would then get 25 feet and could potentially put in a private cul de sac. Are we saying that then that would be privately maintained by the developer and there would not be a dedicated roadway to the township or would we still be required to maintain that new street and the cul de sac?
Mr. Vincenti: It would be dedicated to the town and the town would maintain it.
Ms. Shepler: Would it meet with the current standards for fire trucks, etc.?
Mr. Vincenti: It would have to, yes.
Ms. Shepler: Wouldn't that be a preferable option then to putting it into park land where somebody might be on a skate board?
Mr. Vincenti: It would basically take the majority of the woods down in that area and the whole left side of that meandering park road would basically cease to exist in its' present form.
Ms. Shepler: It would be looking out to somebody's deck or sideyard or something else.
Mr. Vincenti: You'd have two roads, one right next to another. One which is the driveway to the park and the other would be a residential cul de sac.
Attorney Ruggierio: That's really the reason, you know, when we had this staff discussion that we made the recommendation we did because John correctly pointed out that would be a bad alternative for the appearance of the park. The recommendation would be to allow the developer to connect in the manner that has been suggested subject to putting deed restrictions on the lots that they could not clear certain areas on the lots so that we maintain that buffer between the homes and the park.
Councilman Calogera: Would either design affect the amount of buildable lots that could be on there? Cul de sac, we would still have four lots?
John Vincenti: Kevin, I'll just address it in this fashion. All of the lots were granted variances. So, there's no telling what will ultimately be approved there. Certainly you would have less land available for four residential lots because part of that is being taken up by cul de sac. You would have less land available to be developed for the four lots because you're taking away a portion of that with the new roadway. But you do have an approval here that gives four lots and the precedent has been set with one flag lot there. The applicant can come in with any application that he wants before the board for three, four, five, seven, ten lots.
Councilman Calogera: What's the minimum lot size over there?
John Vincenti: The point is this; you were granted a use variance. There is no minimum lot size. The applicant makes his case to the Board of Adjustment, puts his justifications on the record and they weigh his testimony either pro or con. There is no underlying zoning. The property does have a use variance. The use variance runs with the land so he does have some precedence associated with that.
Mr. Badcock: We've been over this. The only thing about this if you know Veteran's park and that entrance road as John is saying is very narrow. The only way to do it the way you're looking on that map to do this would be to expand the width of that park road greatly because it is very dangerous even going in now, it is very treed, there is not a lot of access on either side. That meandering road, the width would have to be almost doubled to make it what would be safer at that point.
Councilwoman Panos: I vote that we send it back to the Zoning Board, do not vote for any of this, and send it back to the Zoning Board in hopes that they vacate that road. I think there are certain times when governing bodies or anybody should say something is wrong. I don't know how they get out of this but this was a definite, definite wrong decision on the Zoning Board. They should say I don't want this road. If they want some direction on this, no this doesn't go. I say send it back to the Zoning Board, hopefully they vacate this road and hopefully find some way the Zoning Board can gracefully say we're wrong, let's get out of this.
Motion
to refer this back to the Zoning Board made by Councilwoman Panos seconded by Councilman Calogera
NO VOTE TAKEN
The following discussion took place following this motion:
Councilman Testino: Can we have a discussion on the motion? I like the motion, I'm just a little hesitant to vote on it at this juncture because I think Bill needs to answer the next question what we're going to do next. I'd like to have those answers before we box ourselves into a corner. I commend the staff for coming up with a recommendation to try to preserve the park and its' natural state of affairs. I think that's what they're trying to do. I'm just not sure. I know Bill has to look up the question that I asked him, what happens if we move to vacate because that's really how we're going to have to deal with it, isn't it?
Attorney Ruggierio: I will look at that, from what Mr. Calogera says, it may be doable. I need to look at it.
Councilman Testino: We don't have to act on this tonight, do we?
Attorney Ruggierio: No, not at all.
Councilman Baker: Someone mentioned cul de sac. I don't see a cul de sac. I don't see one there. I agree with everything Lucille said and I liked that the administration chimed in and what Alayne said. My boy plays down there. I don't want a driveway there. I also agree with Mr. Testino. Let's take some time. Let's not dump it back on the Zoning Board. Let's take some time. Let's get the answers we need and make a decision.
President Butler: So we don't have to act on this tonight?
MOTION
to table the decision about the easement across right of way near Veteran's Park by Councilman Calogera, seconded by Councilman Testino and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Councilman Hoff.
HEARINGS - 2/19/02
H-1 Release/Reduction Performance Guarantee - Pillori Real Estate Management, L.L.C.
Mr. Vincenti: We have inspected the site which was converted from Diver's Cove to Pillori Real Estate Management office and we are suggesting a release of the performance bond subject to the posting a two year maintenance bond.
MOTION
to release the performance bond, subject to posting a two year maintenance bond by Councilman Maher, seconded by Councilman Greene and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Councilman Hoff.
HEARINGS - 2/25/02
H-1 Release/Reduction Performance Guarantee - Deer Run Estates
No discussion.
ORDINANCE FOR SECOND READING
ORD. #05-02 Amending Land Development code with respect to escrow deposits for review of planned application. (Proposed amendments to ordinance submitted.)
Councilman Maher: There were some changes. Is it okay to go forward?
Attorney Ruggierio: We have to reintroduce this ordinance for first reading.
DISCUSSION ORDINANCE
DO-1 Bond Ordinance authorizing the resurfacing of and related improvement to the Inverness Commuter Parking Lot in the sum of $400,000.00 (HS)
Councilman Testino: Shouldn't we talk about all the capital projects at the same time?
Mr. Shah: The reason we did a bond ordinance for this is because this is not part of our general capital, it is part of the parking utility fund. This does affect the total amount of bond capital projects that you will do for other projects.
Councilman Testino: Is this money in an account or are you planning on paying this out of revenues?
Mr. Shah: Out of revenues.
Councilman Testino: So you have a projection that the revenues will carry this bond by itself.
Mr. Shah: Yes.
Councilman Testino: Have you delivered that projection to us?
Mr. Shah: No, you have to adopt an ordinance to charge fees, and Bill can advise you on that. That is one of the conditions. Like the park and ride.
Councilman Testino: So, the cost users will carry this? What will the design here be like? There are a lot of problems at this bus stop. Can we move the bus stop down and put a foot bridge over to Ferry Road?
Mayor Cannon: We have been trying for over three years to get some resolution to this crossing of Route 9 problem. We have brought up a number of suggestions and one of them was a foot bridge and after three years they have finally agreed on a pedestrian light that would be synchronized with the lights at Cindy and Ferry. The light was in design at the time the police gave their evaluation about safety concerns. The council agreed with the DOT and last spring you passed a resolution supporting this light. The DOT has the final say in what we do traffic wise on this road.
Ms. Shepler: There was some confusion as to whether this was a button or a light. It is another light, fully separated from the other two, the only time that it would be operational is when someone pressed the button. It would hold the one light for a time and then the other light allowing commuters to cross Route 9.
Vice-president Redmond: People are going to get off the bus, press a button that will allow them to cross to the median and then press another button that would allow them to cross the rest of the roadway.
Ms. Shepler: The light would be synchronized to do that automatically.
Councilman Redmond: Does this take handicapped persons into consideration?
Councilman Redmond: How wide is the median?
Ms. Shepler: It the standard width all along route 9.
Councilman Redmond: It should allow you to cross the whole road at the same time, not only halfway.
Mr. Vincenti: You're not going to walk halfway, you're going to walk in one motion.
Councilman Redmond: I think I'm clear on what they're trying to do.
Councilman Calogera: It has been a major concern of residents of Deep Run, Inverness and Sayrewood South area who use those bus stops. I think we do need a light there. I think it's definitely necessary. I have a problem with a push button light on demand.
Mr. Vincenti: There's going to be two things; a synchronization and a link of the three traffic lights on the highway. Plus, there's going to be enough time for pedestrians to walk across. It's two separate and distinct things that will all be taken care of.
Millicent McGovern: I live a 9 Glenn Oaks Court in Old Bridge and this is Joe Arena of Ponderosa Lane. We are original members of the Mayor's Commuter Advisory Committee. I get off the bus every night at Inverness. We're not asking for another traffic light. We're asking for the same remote control button that is on 6 intersections on route 9, including Jake Brown Road. When you push the button it does not change the light instantly. When the light does turn red, it holds it instead of 15 seconds, it holds it for 60. Going across the northbound lane is not a problem because there is enough time for the lights. But all it will allow us to do is go across the southbound lanes carefully and then the next time the light turns green it will revert to its original signal. This is not changing anything.
Mr. Arena: The green will stay constant until somebody presses that button. The light is not going to be functional unless someone presses that button.
Millicent McGovern: All we're asking is for the same privilege that they have at Old Mill, Jake Brown, Cindy, Ferry, Throckmorton.
Councilman Calogera: I have no problem with the light. I just want to make sure we do it in the best manner to insure that you guys are going to be safe.
President Butler: You guys have lived there for a long time. You know what you want. You know what you need better than anyone else.
Mayor Cannon: What we need is a resolution from Council reaffirming their support of this light and then DOT will proceed.
Councilman Testino: I'm not finished with the Bond Ordinance, that was just a sidetrack. I'm glad the people told us what they wanted, we've always been working toward that end. The point is that the fees aren't in place and we're going to be supporting this from another revenue stream. When are we going to do that? We have to adopt a fee schedule, don't we.
Mr. Shah: What is the procedure to establish the fee at this Inverness Parking lot because that's the revenue of that bond.
Attorney Ruggierio: Any fees we establish, will be established by Ordinance.
Mayor Cannon: The fee will be exactly the same as the Park and Ride at Ernston Road which would be a dollar a day.
Councilman Testino: You can't count on a revenue stream if it's not in place. That's my point.
Councilman Greene: I believe it's around 300 spaces, is it all going to be earmarked for Old Bridge residents only?
Mayor Cannon: Yes.
Councilman Greene: When do you feel that ground breaking would be on this place and when do you think we'll be able to start parking vehicles there?
Mayor Cannon: I don't know. Maybe John can give you an idea.
Mr. Vincenti: It's a relatively complicated design. There are some environmental permits that need to be obtained with respect to variances. There is also a significant amount of coordination we have to do with DOT to inter-relate the walkways, the traffic signals. We really don't want to break ground until probably next spring.
Councilman Baker: I just want to ask the administration if there is any other spot in town that there is a bus stop with no walkway? I don't expect an answer now but it might be of some value.
DO-2 Tax Abatement Globespan (BC) & ( JV)
Mr. Vincenti: Under the direction of our department we were asked to evaluate the tax abatement for the Globespan office building. It's really the atrium one phase two development. The building has recently been completed from the standpoint of the exterior design. At this point is that now really appropriate to act on the tax abatement application. We have provided a report to the Mayor. The Mayor then forwarded an application to the Council. In summary, we are recommending that the Council affirmatively grant a five year abatement. We only have one major concern. I have discussed it with Mr. Azzarello, the executive director of the economic development commission. We feel that the abatement should be tied in some form or another to the tenant, in this case, Globespan because the application was filed more or less dependent upon this one applicant. The fact of the matter is that the building itself as a general office building qualifies for an abatement. I think that we can craft some language for tax abatement that protects the interest of the township as well as protects the concerns of Mr. Azzarello and then moves this matter forward.
Councilman Calogera: I tried to do something like that with regards to a town centre plan where we could tax abate through the building to the user and I was told we couldn't do it. I don't know if you guys have any information opposite that but basically this is the information that I was told. You can't tax abate the user, you have to tax abate the owner.
Mr. Vincenti: The abatement goes to the property owner. However, in this particular case we reviewed the leased document and the leased document indicates that the taxes are being passed through to Globespan and it's Globespan's obligation to pay the taxes.
Councilman Calogera: Because it's net, net, net.
Mr. Vincenti: Yes.
Russ Azzarello: Triple net lease. None of the clauses in there leases the tax abatement statement. The recommendation of the Mayor is that we tie this tax abatement proviso by ordinance. The language in the ordinance says you will give the landlord, the owner, the tax abatements under the 5 year plan as per that zone. The tax abatement zones. However, a condition of tax abatement is that they secure Globespan has its' prestigious position for them to be the tenant different than if they busted a 200,000 square foot office building into twenty little 10,000 square foots. Nothing against these industries but it's not going to give the same impact as this one major tenant with 600 jobs and the high tech presence that it gives, but we can bolster the community and also attract other industries that might be of like size and like style given that this is in an area that hopefully will be developed with big buildings. You look at what Bell Labs has in Holmdel and you look at other Bell Labs offices similar to it. You can look at A.T.&T in Piscataway and some other locations, these buildings became homogenous to the area. The difference between my proposal, and I discussed this with the Mayor and I believe had concurrence with the Mayor's recommendation, is that albeit we want to tie this to the Globespan tenancy, if for some reason Globespan gets acquired by some major corporation, they're a chip maker, they're in the computer business, if two years from now some big company like a Bell Labs decides to acquire them and says we have two million people down in Holmdel, we just want to move you in there and that building becomes open then the tax abatement based on our recommendations, should stop. We don't have that great tenant anymore, we don't have that same impact. However, we should have the option then to look at using that remaining three years, and Bill's searching the language on this, the remaining three of the five years in that example I just gave, that says let us use that towards leverage with the landlord. An office building filled with multiple uses is certainly good for us, it certainly gives us a tax but it doesn't give us the same drawing card.
Councilman Calogera: I understand exactly what you're saying and I don't disagree with you. I'm a big proponent of Globespan, I really helped push it with EDC.
Russ Azzarello: The difference is, and I think the Mayor, John and I are in concurrence on this, is that we keep an option. The ordinance as it is being proposed with the recommendations is that we tie it to Globespan only. I'm saying tie it to Globespan with us having the option to replace a Globespan with another Fortune One Hundred, Two Hundred, Three Hundred type company. Then it's our call.
Councilman Calogera: Even though this is a preexisting tax abatement from many years ago. Do we have the original language?
Attorney Ruggierio: The sequence is you designate an area that is susceptible to these tax abatements. Then at some point you condition the use being put in place upon it actually being constructed and as it's being occupied then you adopt an agreement. That's the stage we're at now that confers the tax abatement with phase in provisions.
Councilman Calogera: Mr. Ruggierio, is it legal? We can do this, not a problem?
Attorney Ruggierio: Yes, it is.
DO-3 Bond Ordinance for the SFY 2002 Capital Projects. (HS)
Councilman Redmond: I would like to have a workshop on this.
President Butler: Any other Council members think we need a workshop on this?
Councilman Maher: I support that. I would like to see the total departmental submissions also. I was told this was not the all inclusive list, there were some other projects not on it.
Ms. Shepler: What you have before you is what the administration has told their departments. The administration has said that these are the projects that we would like Council to consider for this year. Obviously Council proposed additional down payment funds in their budget to cover projects that the Council would like to see put forward. What you have before you represents what the administration believes is the amount that we would like to spend for ordinances. Obviously Council has the ability, since you do provide for the down payment money, to go beyond that. But those were the Council's recommendations as opposed to the administration's recommendations.
President Butler: Okay, recommendation for a Workshop before next Agenda Session on March 4, 2002 at 7:00 p.m.
RESOLUTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION @ 9:35 p.m.
RESOLUTION #104-02
BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge that the public be excluded from this meeting pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10-4-13 for the discussion of the following:
Update on Union Negotiations
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this meeting shall reconvene in public session in 20 minutes and that the minutes or other record of these discussions shall be available to be disclosed to the public in sixty (60) months unless a sooner date is determined by vote of the governing body at a public session.
Moved by Councilman Testino, seconded by Councilman Baker and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Maher, Redmond, Testino.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT PODIUM: President Butler, Councilwoman Panos.
ABSENT: Councilman Hoff.
Agenda Meeting Reconvened at 10:15 p.m.
DISCUSSION RESOLUTION
DR-1 Accumulated time payout - Retirement Jack Sanchez in the amount of $24,469.12 (AS)
No discussion.
DR-2 Resolution authorizing the cancellation of Erroneously Sold Tax Sale Certificate Block 1003 Lot 40 Certificate #86182 John & Barbara Walko (KS)
No discussion.
DR-3 14th N.J. Volunteer Infantry Company H - Basic Infantry Tactics Drill at Veteran's Park Sunday, March 10, 2002 from 3:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M.
No discussion.
DR-4 Resolution authorizing execution of Qualified Private Community Service Agreement Springhill Village Homeowners Association.
No discussion.
DR-5 Resolution authorizing release of Tax Lien on Block 18092 Lot 27 (Formerly owned by Gustav Sigmund.)
No discussion.
DR-6 Resolution authorizing cancellation of CDBG Mortgage for Thomas Vuocolo. (WSR)
No discussion.
DR-7 Resolution to refund Veteran deduction for James Woods, Block 5000.23 Lot 13 for a total refund of $200.00. (BE)
No discussion.
DR-8 Resolution authorizing Tax Assessor to settle/file appeals. (BE)
No discussion.
DR-9 Waiver of fees - Community Covenant Church for the installation of two furnaces in the amount of $170.00.
No discussion.
DR-10 Resolution authorizing Subordination of Mortgage of CDBG for Robert & Doris Aber (WSR)
No discussion.
*****************************************************************************
ACTION TO BE TAKEN TONIGHT - 2/19/02
*****************************************************************************
DR-11 Award of Contract #02-02 Morganville Road Resurfacing (State aided) to Mark Paving Company, Inc. in the amount of $122,729.66. (JV) (CERT. #1032) (AFFIRM. ACT.)
RESOLUTION # 105-02
BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:
WHEREAS, the Township of Old Bridge advertised and received bids for Contract #02-02 for Morganville Road resurfacing; and
WHEREAS, bids were received and opened on January 31, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Township Council wishes to award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS, the Township Engineer has recommended that a contract be awarded to Mark Paving Company, Inc., located at 109 McCosh Road, Upper Montclair, New Jersey, 07043.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey, as follows:
1. Mark Paving Company, Inc. is hereby awarded a contract in the amount of $122,729.66 for Morganville Road resurfacing.
2. The award of the contract is contingent upon the issuance of a Certification of Availability of Funds #1032 certifying the existence of a sufficient appropriation to fund said contract.
3. The Mayor and Township Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the contract documents necessary to effectuate the award of this contract. The Township Attorney shall review any and all contractual documents prepared in furtherance of this award.
This resolution is conditioned upon the following:
A. Formal execution of a contract approved by the Director of Law which is signed by the Mayor and Township Clerk.
B. Issuance of a Certificate of Availability of Funds as aforesaid.
C. Compliance by the vendor with signing the mandatory affirmative action language required by law.
D. Compliance by the vendor with the filing of Affirmative Action Form (AA302) or otherwise complying with Affirmative Action employee information reporting.
Moved by Councilman Maher, seconded by Councilman Baker and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Maher, Redmond, Testino. President Butler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT PODIUM: Councilwoman Panos.
ABSENT: Councilman Hoff.
Prior to the vote the following comments were made.
Councilman Testino: Where is this money coming from and what is the schedule?
Ms. Shepler: It is state funds.
Councilman Calogera: What part of Morganville Road is this?
Mr. Vincenti: From the Aberdeen line to Deer Brook Court, just below 516.
Councilman Testino: So we are paving this so Crystal Court can chop this up.
Councilman Calogera: I would still like to realign that road whether it is legal or not.
Mayor Cannon: The road has to be repaved, it is a disaster.
Ms. Shepler: We have a drop dead deadline of February 22, 2002 the funds must be encumbered in order to meet the requirements of the transportation trust fund act. The funds cannot be transferred to another project at this late date. This is a use it or lose it.
Councilman Calogera: Can we use this money to pave the realignment?
Ms. Shepler: The plans have already been submitted to TTF and approved. The project has already been bid.
Councilman Testino: I would ask the engineer to be vigilant about our ordinance and not let anyone open the road after we pave it.
Mr. Vincenti: My department does not see road opening permits.
Ms. Shepler: They go through public works.
Councilman Testino: Why don't we change that?
Ms. Shepler: I have no objection to that. You can amend the ordinance.
Councilman Testino: Don't take public works out of the ordinance, just include engineering.
Ms. Shepler: So we can include a sign off by the engineer.
President Butler open the public portion. Seeing no hands, President Butler closed the public portion.
DR -12 Waiver of photocopy fee for a listing of names and addresses of all Veterans exempt property owners
RESOLUTION #106-02
BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:
WHEREAS, the Veterans of Foreign Wars have requested a list of names and addresses of all the Veterans exempt property owners in Old Bridge; and
WHEREAS, the Veterans of Foreign Wars has requested that the photocopying fee for said list be waived.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey that the Veterans of Foreign Wars request for a waiver of the photocopying fees is hereby granted.
Moved by Councilman Maher, seconded by Councilman Baker and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Maher, Redmond, Testino. President Butler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT PODIUM: Councilwoman Panos.
ABSENT: Councilman Hoff.
President Butler opened the public portion. Seeing no hands, President Butler closed the public portion.
DR-13 Waiver of fees for photocopies of an updated listing of residents and businesses in the area of the Madison Park Volunteer First Aid Squad for their annual fund raiser for 2002.
RESOLUTION #107-02
BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:
WHEREAS, the Madison Park Volunteer First Aid has requested an updated list of names and addresses of residents of Old Bridge for their annual fund raiser for 2002;and
WHEREAS, the Madison Park Volunteer First Aid Squad has requested that the photocopying fee for said list be waived.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey that the Madison Park Volunteer First Aid Squad's request for a waiver of the photocopying fees is hereby waived.
Moved by Councilman Maher, seconded by Councilman Baker and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Maher, Redmond, Testino. President Butler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT PODIUM: Councilwoman Panos.
ABSENT: Councilman Hoff.
President Butler opened the public portion. Seeing no hands, President Butler closed the public portion.
DR-14 Resolution authorizing application for a loan from the New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Financing Program (BC) & (TB)
RESOLUTION #108-02
BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:
WHEREAS, the Old Bridge Township intends to file an application with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust for the Acquisition of property known as Cedar Ridge II (Woodland Trails) Block 12261- Lot 19,20,28,35 and 84 (196 acres).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Mayor Barbara Cannon and Tom Badcock, Director of Parks and Recreation to act as the Authorized Representative to represent the Township of Old Bridge in all matters relating to the project undertaken pursuant to the above referenced New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Loan to be executed with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust/ The Authorized representative may be contracted at One Old Bridge Plaza, Old Bridge, NJ 08857.
Moved by Councilman Maher, seconded by Councilman Baker and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Maher, Redmond, Testino. President Butler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT PODIUM: Councilwoman Panos.
ABSENT: Councilman Hoff.
President Butler opened the public portion. Seeing no hands, President Butler closed the public portion.
DISCUSSION
D-1 Ambulance Services - guidelines with respect to emergency response charges. (LR)
Ms. Shepler: We have an agreement with OBTEMS who has an agreement with Rural Metro.
Councilman Redmond: A child on my street had a seizure and three ambulances show up.
Ms. Shepler: I was told that it was 2, one was Rural Metro and the other MIC unit. The resident is not charged for Rural Metro. However, it does not waive the fee for the MIC unit, that has to be paid by the resident's insurance.
Councilman Redmond: What do we do in the instance where the residents insurance paid for the ambulance that actually took the child away and they are not paying for the other.
Ms. Shepler: They have no choice. The insurance company should be obligated to pay for both. It is my understanding that Rural Metro will seek out the insurance if the resident has it. We have no way to control the paramedic fees. The paramedics are dispatched depending on the nature of the call. If you call in a heart attack you will get the paramedics and Rural Metro.
Councilman Redmond: Does Medicare cover those units?
Ms. Shepler: I believe so. Have the resident call Diane Amabile, we have been able to straighten most of these cases.
D-2 Library Problems - Update (ET)
Councilman Testino: There is a committee meeting tomorrow.
D-3 Establish and/or increase line item for printing and mailing of a council newsletter and individual ward mailings. (GKC)
Councilman Calogera: I would like to table this until a later date.
D-4 Wal-Mart/Home Depot Shoulder Improvement (ET)
Councilman Testino: They are working on this now. Has there been a response as to who will pay for this?
Mr. Vincenti: I have sent you a memo on this. My position is that the shoulder is the developers responsibility.
Councilman Redmond: Did you copy the whole council?
Mr. Vincenti: No, just Mr. Testino.
D-5 Satellite Agenda Meetings (ET)
Councilman Testino: I would like to see this set up and I keep seeing the bond hearings on Agenda meetings. Put them on the Regular meetings so that we can do this. I would ask that the Clerk's office not schedule SET DATE's on agenda nights.
President Butler: I think that we will have to change our meeting night for a ward three meeting because Madison Park meets on Thursday's.
Councilman Testino: So we will vote to change our meeting date.
D-6 Inverness Parking Lot (DMM)
Discussed earlier in the meeting.
D-7 Speed Control Devices - Society Hill, Alpha Ave. & Inverness Drive. (GKC)
Councilman Calogera: I would like to also add Valley Vale.
D-8 Fees for mass assembly and events. (GKC)
Councilman Calogera: I understand that there are towns in New Jersey; such as East Rutherford, who derive fees from mass assembly events. I don't know if it require approval from the state. I think that the town should be compensated in cases like the Harley Davidson event.
Mayor Cannon: I think that you do need something from the State, we looked into that a while ago regarding Raceway Park.
Councilman Calogera: I think that we need to do this, if we need to apply, lets do that.
Mayor Cannon: We will research it and see where it stands.
D-9 Dedication Area - (Wall of granite stone) (GKC)
Councilman Calogera: Mr. Baker and I agree that it would be appropriate to have some type of dedication area. Maybe made of some type of stone, implanted somewhere in the ground somewhere between administration building and the Bush Center and on the other side between the recreation building and the administration building where over time when we have people who really deserve recognition once they pass away. Sooner or later we're going to run out of buildings, streets, parks. I would like to see us come up with something, a walk, where people could see the names of people who did something and have these stones dedicated. It could be a wall where we do plaques, I like a stone walk where we could put stones in the grass, something to that extent and I would like to work further on that.
D-10 Seeking direction from Council regarding development questions - Pinkiewicz Subdivision (Previously discussed.)
SET DATE
SD-1 Release/Reduction Performance Guarantee - Kinder Care Learning Center Suggested Date: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 at 8:00 P.M.
No Discussion.
SD-2 Release/Reduction Performance Guarantee - Renaissance Plaza (Application #94-00Z) Suggested Date: Monday, May 20, 2002 at 8:00 P.M.
No Discussion.
SD-3 Release/Reduction Performance Guarantee - Atrium I/Phase II Metro Park South Suggested Date: Monday, April 8, 2002 at 8:00 P.M.
No Discussion.
SD-4 Release/Reduction Performance Guarantee - DCH Investments, Inc. Academy Honda Property Route 9 North - Suggested Date: Monday, June 10, 2002 at 7:30 P.M.
No Discussion
APPOINTMENT
A-1 Appointment to Recreation Committee - 2 Members
No Discussion.
REPORTS
R-1 Update - Damaged sign at the Skateboard Park (Report by: Administration and Recreation Dept.) (ET)
President Butler: This item was repaired.
R-2 Update with where we are with our Alert & Warning System (Report by: Administration) (ET)
Mayor Cannon: We did have a meeting before the holidays with a company that had made some proposals and they were supposed to come in with something in writing and we're trying to track down that fellow to find out happened to those proposals. So we will follow-up on that.
Councilman Testino: So we're no further than we were a year and a half ago when this was brought to our attention.
Mayor Cannon: Which ones are you talking about? The combination sirens and the 911, reverse 911 and all that.
Councilman Testino: We talked about the reverse 911 but that was not in our budget, right?
Mayor Cannon: We have opted to go with the county and we are waiting for the county to go online with that so we are going to participate in the county 911.
Councilman Testino: Don't we need to have a plan in place now?
Mayor Cannon: We're trying to get a handle on when they are going to be operational. We are looking for some kind of a supplemental system involving some kind of something with sirens as a possibility and that's what we had this fellow whom I can't remember but he deals with the fire companies and he talked about different combinations with sirens and also with a radio alert as also using the reverse 911.
Councilman Testino: If the county is still months away we should get something in place for the stop gap measure.
Mayor Cannon: The county we thought of as a base system and try to expand on that.
Councilman Testino: What do we do in an emergency between now and then? We should at least put the best plan in place we can get or come up with.
Alayne Shepler: I think it was argued that the reverse 911 was perhaps not the total panacea that people had touted it to be and we had looked into various ways and the least expensive of those proposals was in excess of $35,000.00. No that was merely the installation. When the county proposed that we join in with their system it made the most sense because it was a very inexpensive remedy for going online as quickly as possible. It's to our detriment and to all the towns in the county, quite frankly, that the county has not proceeded at a faster pace. I really don't know what the hold up is with them but we intend to check.
Councilman Testino: Well, we can't have these reports thrown at us and say we don't have some system in place.
Alayne Shepler: We obviously have the sirens. Part of the problem with the sirens that we had discussed with the fire company, just so that everybody knows, is that the range on any of those sirens which are physically located on top of firehouses, number one, none of them are coordinated and as you know all fire districts are independent. None of them operate on the same frequencies. Other than a manual implementation there was no way to keep those signals in any type of long sustained signal. The other problem was the range that they alert within a very tight, very limited area so they were really not cost effective. It would require the installation of additional sirens placed throughout the community and then obviously a complete educational package went with it. The most common complaint we heard even from the fireman was, we hear them, nobody pays any attention to them so what differentiates it. So it becomes an entire educational package that would go with this. Right now, we were supposed to get a proposal back from the gentleman from I believe Signal Stat is the name of the company, and that was a combination of sirens, and a private radio system similar to the ones you see along the turnpike. We have not gotten those proposals back, they were being handled by emergency management and quite frankly with the fire company so we'll follow up.
Councilman Testino: About a month or less?
Alayne Shepler: I hope less.
R-3 Lambertson Tract - acquisition details. (Report by Attorney)
President Butler: Will you be ready to do the Lambertson Tract on Monday?
Attorney Ruggierio: Yes.
MOTION
To adjourn at 10:35 p.m. by Councilman Testino, seconded by Councilman Baker and so ordered on an all aye vote
______________________________
President Reginald Butler
_______________________________
Rose-Marie Saracino, Township Clerk
Distributed:
ga |