October 14, 2002

A Regular Meeting of the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge was held on October 14, 2002 in the Municipal Complex. The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by President Butler.

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 and that the next public meeting would be held on Monday, October 21, 2002 at 8:00 p.m.

Roll call by Deputy Clerk Ward showed the following answering present: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.

RESOLUTION NO. 495

BILL LIST

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:

WHEREAS, the Business Administrator has the responsibility of approving all bills and vouchers subject to preaudit and control; and

WHEREAS, the Director of Finance is responsible for the preaudit, the disbursement of all monies and the control over all expenditures to ensure that the budget appropriations are not exceeded; and

WHEREAS, the Finance Committee of the Township Council has satisfied themselves in respect to the bill listing of October 14, 2002 that there exists a detailed bill or voucher supporting each payment and there is indication that goods or services have been received or rendered.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge that the bill listing of October 14, 2002 as approved by the Business Administrator after preaudit and control by the Director of Finance and after review by the Finance Committee be spread on the minutes in the amount of $8,590,255.84. (Accounts Payable)

Moved by Councilman Hoff. Seconded by Councilman Greene and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.

NAYS: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 496

BILL LIST

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:

WHEREAS, the Business Administrator has the responsibility of approving all bills and vouchers subject to preaudit and control; and

WHEREAS, the Director of Finance is responsible for the preaudit, the disbursement of all monies and the control over all expenditures to ensure that the budget appropriations are not exceeded; and

WHEREAS, the Finance Committee of the Township Council has satisfied themselves in respect to the bill listing of October 14, 2002 that there exists a detailed bill or voucher supporting each payment and there is indication that goods or services have been received or rendered.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge that the bill listing of October 14, 2002 as approved by the Business Administrator after preaudit and control by the Director of Finance and after review by the Finance Committee be spread on the minutes in the amount of $668,571.42. (Payroll)

Moved by Councilman Calogera, seconded Councilman Baker, and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.

NAYS: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 497 DENIED

BILL LIST

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:

WHEREAS, the Business Administrator has the responsibility of approving all bills and vouchers subject to preaudit and control; and

WHEREAS, the Director of Finance is responsible for the preaudit, the disbursement of all monies and the control over all expenditures to ensure that the budget appropriations are not exceeded; and

WHEREAS, the Finance Committee of the Township Council has satisfied themselves in respect to the bill listing of October 14, 2002 that there exists a detailed bill or voucher supporting each payment and there is indication that goods or services have been received or rendered.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge that the bill listing of October 14, 2002 as approved by the Business Administrator after preaudit and control by the Director of Finance and after review by the Finance Committee be spread on the minutes in the amount of $45,996.97 (Overtime).

Moved by Councilman Calogera, seconded by President Butler and so denied on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Redmond, President Butler.

NAYS: Councilmen Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Testino, Councilwoman Panos.

RESOLUTION NO. 498

BILL LIST

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:

WHEREAS, the Business Administrator has the responsibility of approving all bills and vouchers subject to preaudit and control; and

WHEREAS, the Director of Finance is responsible for the preaudit, the disbursement of all monies and the control over all expenditures to ensure that the budget appropriations are not exceeded; and

WHEREAS, the Finance Committee of the Township Council has satisfied themselves in respect to the bill listing of October 14, 2002 that there exists a detailed bill or voucher supporting each payment and there is indication that goods or services have been received or rendered.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge that the bill listing of October 14, 2002 as approved by the Business Administrator after preaudit and control by the Director of Finance and after review by the Finance Committee be spread on the minutes in the amount of $734,395.45 (Payroll).

Moved by Councilman Hoff, seconded by Councilman Greene and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.

NAYS: None.

BILL LIST NO VOTE TAKEN

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:

WHEREAS, the Business Administrator has the responsibility of approving all bills and vouchers subject to preaudit and control; and

WHEREAS, the Director of Finance is responsible for the preaudit, the disbursement of all monies and the control over all expenditures to ensure that the budget appropriations are not exceeded; and

WHEREAS, the Finance Committee of the Township Council has satisfied themselves in respect to the bill listing of October 14, 2002 that there exists a detailed bill or voucher supporting each payment and there is indication that goods or services have been received or rendered.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge that the bill listing of October 15, 2002 as approved by the Business Administrator after preaudit and control by the Director of Finance and after review by the Finance Committee be spread on the minutes in the amount of $42,666.81 (Overtime).

Moved by Councilman Calogera, seconded by Councilman Baker. NO VOTE TAKEN

The following discussion took place.

Councilman Redmond: Why do we have no payroll in the Parking Utility, but we have overtime?

Mr. Shah: The staff in the Clerk's office salary is part of the regular operating budget, but the work done after hours for the parking permits is overtime.

Motion

to separate the Parking Utility overtime ($523.07) from the entire overtime amount of $42,666.81 made by Councilman Calogera, seconded by President Butler and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Maher, Councilwoman Panos.

NAYS: Councilmen Hoff, Redmond, Testino, President Butler.

Prior to the roll call vote on the separation of amounts in the Overtime Bill List the following discussion took place.

Point of Order.

Councilman Hoff: We have to vote on the amendment prior to voting on the main question.

Attorney Ruggierio: The motion was one to approve the entire bill list. If there is a request that there be a separation, it appears to be a motion. Mr. Hoff is correct and we should vote on the separation.

RESOLUTION NO. 499 DENIED

BILL LIST

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:

WHEREAS, the Business Administrator has the responsibility of approving all bills and vouchers subject to preaudit and control; and

WHEREAS, the Director of Finance is responsible for the preaudit, the disbursement of all monies and the control over all expenditures to ensure that the budget appropriations are not exceeded; and

WHEREAS, the Finance Committee of the Township Council has satisfied themselves in respect to the bill listing of October 14, 2002 that there exists a detailed bill or voucher supporting each payment and there is indication that goods or services have been received or rendered.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge that the bill listing of October 15, 2002 as approved by the Business Administrator after preaudit and control by the Director of Finance and after review by the Finance Committee be spread on the minutes in the amount of $42,143.74 (Overtime).

Moved by Councilman Calogera, seconded by Councilman Baker and so denied on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Redmond, President Butler.

NAYS: Councilmen Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Testino, Councilwoman Panos.

RESOLUTION NO. 500

BILL LIST

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:

WHEREAS, the Business Administrator has the responsibility of approving all bills and vouchers subject to preaudit and control; and

WHEREAS, the Director of Finance is responsible for the preaudit, the disbursement of all monies and the control over all expenditures to ensure that the budget appropriations are not exceeded; and

WHEREAS, the Finance Committee of the Township Council has satisfied themselves in respect to the bill listing of October 14, 2002 that there exists a detailed bill or voucher supporting each payment and there is indication that goods or services have been received or rendered.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge that the bill listing of October 14, 2002 as approved by the Business Administrator after preaudit and control by the Director of Finance and after review by the Finance Committee be spread on the minutes in the amount of $523.07 (Overtime).

Moved by Councilman Calogera, seconded by President Butler and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, President Butler.

NAYS: Councilwoman Panos.

ABSTAIN: Councilman Greene.

Report of the Clerk.

MONTHLY REPORT OF COLLECTIONS OF ROSE-MARIE SARACINO, CLERK

The following represents the collections I have made during the month of August 2002:

DOGS:

3028-3075 380.50

CATS:

343-357 108.00

LICENSE:

Hot Dog

315 Ann Mullen 50.00
320 Otterbine 50.00

Kennel

#5 Parkwood Kennel 25.00

Limousine

DVG Limo (2) ( letter only) 70.00
#321 Laing 35.00

230.00

MAPS

1 Street 5.00

BINGO/RAFFLE

RA52-02 Mid Madison Women's Club 10.00
RA53-02 Mid Madison Women's Club 10.00

20.00

SEARCH

5,6-2002 20.00

MISCELLANEOUS

Photocopies - Copies 82.62
Late Fee - DOG 45.00
Late Fee - CAT 21.00

148.62

Total: $912.12

MONTHLY REPORT OF COLLECTIONS OF ROSE-MARIE SARACINO, CLERK

The following represents the collections I have made during the month of September 2002:

DOGS:

3076-3119 346.00
Replacements 3103 and 3112

CATS:

358-372 111.00

LICENSE:

Limousine

#322 Tabinchek 35.00
#323 Shapetan 35.00

Taxi License

Ed In Town Cab - 3 Cars 75.00
Ed In Town Cab - 2 Drivers 10.00

Solicitors

Aqua Technologies - 3 Canvassers 75.00

230.00

PARKING PERMITS

0001-1127
1120 Permits Issued - 7 Voided #'s 0017, 0152, 0283, 0689, 0890, 1108, 1122 28,000.00

LIQUOR LICENSE

Transfer application - Jilly's 4.00
1209-33-025-004 Jilly's Person to Person Transfer 189.19

193.19

BINGO/RAFFLE

RA54-02 St. Thomas Church 10.00
RA55-02 St. Bernadette's 50.00
RA56-02 St. Ambrose 60.00 120.00

SEARCH

7, 8, 9, 10, 11-2002 50.00

MISCELLANEOUS

Photocopies - Copies 36.62
Late Fee - DOG 13.00
Late Fee - CAT 12.00

61.62

Total: $29,111.81

Motion

to accept the Report of the Clerk made by Councilman Hoff, seconded by Councilman Greene and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.

NAYS: None.

Prior to the roll call vote the following discussion took place.

Councilman Baker: Is that money represented by checks or cash?

Deputy Clerk Ward: It is represented by both.

Councilman Baker: Do you have $15,000 in cash in the office at times?

Deputy Clerk: At least.

Councilman Calogera: Out of the $29,111, was that money taken in the parking permits?

Deputy Clerk: Part of it; the other part was dog licensing.

Councilman Calogera: Does that amount offset the overtime spent?

Deputy Clerk: I am sure it does.

Councilwoman Panos: Someone told me they attempted to obtain a parking permit on Friday, but they were not permitted. The office was open on Saturday for which we are paying overtime.

Deputy Clerk: We don't do parking permits on Mondays and Fridays because we are getting ready for council meetings. However, as a courtesy we are open for two successive Saturdays prior to the expiration of the parking permits. The employees of the Clerk's office work about five hours. The residents are notified by post card.

Preliminary public comments.

Irene Clavering: Addressed the Township Council with respect to the ban on the sale of cigarettes to minors.

Anita Clavering: Addressed the Township Council with respect to the ban on the sale of cigarettes to minors and educating children on the dangers of smoking which are a gateway to alcohol and drug abuse and lead to cancer and heart disease.

Mrs. Valentino: Addressed the Township Council with respect to the ban on the sale of cigarettes to minors and educating children on the dangers of smoking.

Mr. Valentino: Addressed the Township Council in support of Ordinance 43-02 requiring persons convicted of selling cigarettes to minors to display a sign publishing a conviction.

Mr. Capolino (Inverness Drive): I understand that there has been potential opposition to the planning board's decision regarding the traffic situation as a result of the new Hovnanian project. I support what the planning board accepted without any changes; if there are any changes, we will have the opportunity to oppose them in whatever setting is legal. I want to know if there has been a bridge filing yet; if not, when?

Councilman Calogera: The permit for the DOT has been filed; the DEP has yet to be filed.

Mr. Vincenti: The original application for the bridge was filed with the NJDOT. There is another set of permits that need to be obtained from the NJDEP and should be done in the next ten days because of the revisions that the developer's engineers are making to the plans. The provisions are in accordance with what the planning board requested.

Perry Simone (Oakwood): I support the planning board's decision to approve Hovnanian's development. There are 386 homes in this development. Only 86 homes will go out Prests Mills Road to Ticetown. 300 will be coming through Spring Knolls and Oakwood. To send all the traffic through Spring Knolls and Oakwood would be unfair due to the fact that this was legally mandated back to the planning board, and the town was in some type of litigation to come up with an agreement. We don't want additional homes due to traffic and safety reasons. I am here to support the planning board's decision and approval to begin this project. I would like the council to give everyone their due time to speak, and I would like to see this pulled from the agenda. From the legal standpoint, there should not be changes made to the planning board decision.

Donna Magrino: I agree with the plan as it now exists. Many will come before you to request that you change what is now proposed.

Michele Capolino: I support the planning board decision to keep Prests Mill Road open and to evenly distribute the traffic.

Noreen Tornabene: I support the traffic decision to keep Pests Mill Road open.

Ann Marie Magliulo: The traffic situation is very bad on Inverness Drive.

Councilman Baker: Requested the Traffic and Safety speed indicated be placed on Inverness Road.

Councilman Calogera: That area is a part of Ward IV, and I have been asking Capt. Cerra to place the speed indicator at that spot and on Valley Vale Drive. Perhaps you have a better relationship with Capt. Cerra, and he will do it for you if not for my residents. I would like the business administrator to have posted 25 mph signs.

Mr. Micciola: I support the planning board's decision to open Prests Mills Road to allow construction vehicles to travel on Ticetown Road to access the construction of the 86 new homes.

Debra DeBenedeto: Is the Point of Wood Road going to be paved and open to traffic to Spring Valley Road?

Mr. Vincenti: That will be paved.

Ms. DeBenedeto: Has any consideration been given to closing off Oakland at Trans Old Bridge? Opening that access as well as the bridge going over Ferry Road, would ease congestion on Oakland, Inverness, Valley Vale - we have the brunt of that now.

Mr. Vincenti: That was not analyzed because when the bridge is open, the extension of Trans Old Bridge across the wetlands to Ferry Road it is anticipated that a large number of the cars that currently go north and across Inverness are going to travel across to Trans Old Bridge. The reason that the planning board did not evaluate that is because that is an existing roadway that is under municipal maintenance and jurisdiction. That was a proposed roadway. The planning board did not discuss whether this was beneficial or not to turn that one section of Oakland into a one-way direction.

Ms. DeBenedeto: We respect that you take that into consideration before there is no recourse.

Councilman Calogera: As we monitor the traffic over the next five years, I will consider bringing this to council to review.

Mr. Desai: On what criteria is the state aid of $100,000 based?

Mr. Shah: This is discretionary aid, but the municipalities must file an application to the state providing information and reasons for the requested aid.

Vice President Redmond: We will be speaking about this during the consent agenda.

Presentation.

Police Officer Donofrio presented Jettie Minucci (Township With A Heart benefiting poor families) and Barbara Anderson (Special Projects for Special Children benefiting handicap children) each with a check in the amount of $5,000.00 from proceeds of the annual golf tournament.

Ms. Anderson presents a plaque to the police department of the Township of Old Bridge on behalf of those persons who attend the "Robin" programs.

Vice President Redmond: Thanked both organizations for all their good work in the Township of Old Bridge.

Councilman Baker: Announced that the annual Township with a Heart dinner dance would be held on Friday, October 25 at the Friendly Sons.

PROCLAMATION - Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

WHEREAS, home should be a place of warmth, unconditional love, tranquility; and

WHEREAS, the crime of domestic violence violates an individual's privacy and dignity, security and humanity due to systematic use of physical, emotional, sexual, psychological and economic control and/or abuse including abuse to children or the elderly; and

WHEREAS, the problems of domestic violence are not confined to any group of people, but cut across all economic, racial and social barriers and are supported by social indifference; and

WHEREAS, the impact of domestic violence is wide ranging directly affecting individuals and society as a whole here in this community, throughout the United States and the world; and

WHEREAS, battered women have been in the forefront of efforts to bring peace and equality to the home.

NOW, THEREFORE, in recognition of the important work done by domestic violence programs, I do hereby proclaim the month of October to be Old Bridge Domestic Violence Awareness Month and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and programs to work toward improving victim safety and hold domestic abusers accountable for their actions against individual victims and our society as a whole.

Maria: Domestic violence is everyone's problem. Our team consists of eleven members who are called out by the police department to assist victims of domestic violence. We offer options after listening to the victim's stories. We complete restraining orders. We are on call twenty-four hours a week.

The other volunteers who are present are:

Linda, Maureen, Melissa, Janet, Jackie, Robert, Alice, Joe, Capt. Jeff Robbins

Discussion - Overview of Approvals in re Oakwood Development.

Attorney Ruggierio: The Oakwood development was approved a long time ago against the will of the council taken to the Supreme Court of New Jersey in a case called Oakwood at Madison vs. Madison Township. The net result of that litigation was that an affordable housing decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court which was kicked back to the Middlesex County Courts resulted in 1750 units being approved by the courts. This site had great density thrust upon it many years ago. Pursuant to those approvals about 425 units were built on this site - none of which were marketable; they were all market units. The enforcement of the Fresh Water Wetlands Protection Act caused rules to be promulgated which made it impossible for the 1750 units to be completed.

The wetlands disseminated the Oakwood development such that the developer who had the right to built the 1750 units and had not done so within a certain period of time was then disadvantaged by the law changing. 1750 units is way above what our zoning laws would have allowed, but that is the nature of affordable housing cases. Developers are given a right to build at greater density. The extra profit that generates from the extra density may be transferred to provide affordable housing. Madison Township did not have in place provisions within the zoning code to allow for the placement of housing that would be affordable to all members of economic wealth within our region.

There was an application made to modify the approvals to deal with the wetlands situation. When the planning board rejected the application to modify the approvals, we were put in a position of being on a receiving end of a lawsuit. The planning board and the township were sued the idea being that these people who possessed this approval had a right to build at higher densities than the zoning code allowed. The difference is that today Old Bridge has provisions within the zoning code to allow for the placement and building of affordable housing so that we query whether the developer could have succeeded in this. These people had not built any affordable housing. For them to try to enforce their rights was disingenuous.

This would have been complex litigation carrying on for years, and there were bad situations in the Oakwood development in terms of remediation which was the subject of separate litigation that the township was pursuing to get streets repaired and detention ponds cleaned. There was a mediation and a decision was made that there would be an application entertained before the planning board of a greatly reduced number of units (386 maximum). The planning board would have free right to reject the application which could bring them back into court. The planning board acted to approve a modification of the general development plan to approve the 386 units part of their consideration being that the traffic pattern, bridge construction, etc. would be part of the approval.

The planning board acts with jurisdiction apart from the council. There are not many development approvals that come to the township council for secondary review. There is only one class before the zoning board that can be appealed to the township council. This system was designed for a specific purpose so that the planning boards could act with a degree of independence and authority apart from the people who appoint them (the township council). The planning board approved the development with a road system. In general the law would not permit the township council to disrupt an approval given by the planning board. There is within the body of the approval for the planning board a reference to a paper street that needed to be vacated. To the extent that there is going to be advocacy that the township council should vacate a road which is already traveled. That is not permitted by the law. Once a road is put into use, the township council (unless they are relocating the road) has no right to vacate it or stop its use by the public.

My purpose is to set the table so that there is an appreciation so that the township council's role is close to non-existent in connection with planning board approval. Everyone can agree that their role is limited.

Guest - Michael Caffrey - Traffic at Country Place, Lakeridge West, Prests Mills Road

Mr. Caffrey (along with Steve Adelphia 7 Manor Court): I have a petition signed by the residents of Lakeridge West and Country Place stating that on August 6 the Old Bridge planning board approved the Oakwood at Old Bridge development consisting of 386 single family homes and townhouses. The late night proposal was accepted without a traffic study. Traffic from the Country Place, Lakeridge West and Oakwood at Old Bridge would be funneled through the Oakwood development. Construction vehicles have obtained permission to enter Prests Mills and Inverness rather than Spring Valley as originally planned. A better solution would be to cut the existing Prests Mills Road and create a new Prests Mills Road to connect Trans Old Bridge Road and Spring Valley Road to lead out to Rt. 9. This alternate proposal would send traffic through non-residential streets and detour traffic away from the Oakwood development and recreation area.

When this originally came before the planning board what was proposed was to open Prests Mills Road from Ticetown to Trans Old Bridge which was unacceptable to the residents of all developments in the area. At the last meeting, the planning board decided to cut Prests Mills Road in an area where the township owns the property from a dedication from Kaplan for a new school. I don't believe that there were any traffic studies to support this, nor was their review. It seems to me that this was decided late at night.

We have a problem with that because Prests Mills Road has always been closed. For the life of the Lakeridge West development it has been closed and a road which our children use heavily. There are three bus stops on this road accommodating the high, junior high and elementary schools. It is also a road which the children use to get to the pool club, the tennis and basketball courts. There are no stop signs on that road. We are concerned that if you are letting construction and through traffic use that road, there will be an accident involving our children.

Where currently it is being proposed to be an emergency access only road (the new Prests Mills), we recommend you let that road be open. Instead at the end of the existing Prests Mills Road in Lakeridge West which is currently dead-ended to keep it dead-ended and only permit emergency access vehicles. We would like to the township council to address the developer to create a single construction route whereby construction vehicles would have to go from Rt. 9 to Spring Valley to Point of Woods to Trans Old Bridge to the new Prests Mills Road and keep the traffic away from Lakeridge West and the other developments. I have not ascertained if the township has the authority to close one road and open another. The township must deal with Hovnanian with respect to the road closing because the township owns the property. If the township has the legal ability to do that, it can work with Hovnanian. If this is doable, the residents from Oakwood, Lakeridge West and County Place should be invited back to their concerns.

Mr. Adelphia: The Country Place residents are concerned about the initial construction traffic at Higgins Road and Bard Place followed by additional residential traffic after the homes are built. Higgins Road and Bard Place provide an expedient cut through for traffic traveling from the east from Ticetown Road or Rt. 516. There exist three bus stop locations with busses stopping at these locations several times a day. There are not stop signs along Higgins Road. There are two playground areas, a ball field, basketball and tennis courts are along this area.

Residents of Country Place are concerned that opening Prests Mills to Lakeridge West will propose potential risk to us especially our children. We request that you review this.

President Butler: Please put your recommendation in writing.

Councilman Calogera: I share your concerns about the project. I am trying to work through the Mayor's office and with the lawyer for the planning board to work something out with Hovnanian to bring the traffic in through Spring Valley and build out on Trans Old Bridge first and to make sure that they build the extension strong enough to handle construction vehicles. Hopefully, they will not have to bring construction vehicles on residential roads. That is where I hope to go with this. I hope that Hovnanian, the mayor and the planning board can arrive at this.

Recess 9:20 p.m.

Regular Meeting Resumes 9:30 p.m.

Hearing.

• Boyd's Landscaping - release/reduction performance guarantee.

Mr. Vincenti: This is a landscaping facility located on Englishtown Road near Pleasant Valley Road. The developer posted a performance bond for site improvement work in the amount of $50,352,66. A fair portion of the work has been done, but the site has been vacant and incomplete for a number of years. Most recently there was an amended site plan filed before the Board of Adjustment that changed the use from the landscape facility to the Goddard School. In conjunction with the Goddard School development the new developer posted a new bond replacing the performance bond that we have for Boyd Nash. Because of the new developer and the new bond in place, we recommend release of the performance guarantee posted by Mr. Nash. The performance bond is a $45,317.00 letter of credit; 10% cash deposit of $5,035.00.

At the time when the Goddard School is complete, we have an agreement that they will post the appropriate maintenance guarantee for the full amount of the site improvements.

Motion

to release the performance guarantee of the Boyd Nash subject to posting the appropriate maintenance bond for the full amount of the site improvements by the Goddard School made by Councilman Redmond, seconded by Councilwoman Panos and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.

NAYS: None.

ABSENT PODIUM: Councilmen Baker, Calogera.

Prior to the roll call vote the following discussion took place:

Councilman Greene: I anticipated this to be a landscaping issue. This has now to do with a school that is being constructed. Are we reducing the original performance which was associated with the landscaping project?

Mr. Vincenti: We are recommending a release of a performance bond that was posted by Mr. Nash because the Goddard School has taken control of the property and posted their own bond to be sure that the remaining work will be completed. Goddard School has agreed that when the work is done and the performance bond is released, they will post the two year maintenance guarantee in the amount of the original site improvements.

Councilman Testino: Are you satisfied that we are covered? Is that why you are recommending a release?

Mr. Vincenti: One of the things that leads to my comfort is that there are no municipal roads adjacent to this. It is a county road. The other thing is that this is a private facility. All the site improvements will be a private parking lot that will be maintained by the property owner so that the town will have no long term maintenance in the future of any of the facilities for this site.

President Butler opened a public portion. Seeing no hands President Butler closed the public portion.

Public Hearing.

• SFY 2002-2003 Budget.

President Butler opened a public portion. Seeing no hands President Butler closed the public portion.

Mr. Shah: We are not going to amend or adopt the budget tonight, but rather the public hearing on the budget as introduced by the council. The budget carries a twelve cent tax increase. We are trying to lower the impact. We received only $100,000 from the state. We are going to revisit this with the DLGS to find out if we can receive additional relief. I believe that we deserve a lot more. Once that number is finalized that change will take place in the budget. The council will review the budget. We will then propose the budget amendment for council's consideration and adoption.

Motion

to the close the public hearing on the SFY 2002-2003 budget, but to continue the deliberation on the budget.

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.

NAYS: None.

ABSENT PODIUM: Councilmen Baker, Calogera.

Guest - Thomas Sikorski, Chairman of the Trustees Old Bridge Elks No. 2229

Mr. Sikorski: The Old Bridge Elks has supported Camp Robin since its inception. What Camp Robin and Geick Park is to Old Bridge, Camp Moore is to the NJ State Elks Association. It is a camp for children for special needs. It is on a mountain top in Haskell, NJ. I am here as a courtesy and to ask your blessing on an activity we are planning.

Each year Elks lodges throughout the state sponsor children to attend Camp Moore. Old Bridge lodge sponsored eighteen children for the past two summers. We pay $350 per child, totaling $6300. That money does not cover the cost of the camp for one week. The children are dropped off on Sunday and picked up Saturday. This provides an experience for the children and a respite for the parents and care givers of those special children. The actual cost of keeping a child far exceeds the $350; it is more like $720 a week. Many of the children are severely handicapped. The ratio of counselor to camper is one to one.

We have committed ourselves that we do not touch the principal on any monies donated to Camp Moore either by private donations from industry or members of the community. We use the interest to offset the cost of the campers for the week. We, like everyone else, have lost money in the market. Rather than pass the cost along to the lodges, we shortened our camping season by one week. Our state association holds a "Miracle Run" which involves motorcycles. In light of what happened with Raceway Park, I appear here tonight.

On the last Sunday in July there is what is called the "poker run" wherein people who ride for fun follow a laid out course culminating at a host lodge that has been predetermined. Old Bridge Elks has been asked to be the host for 2003 because we sit on six acres of land. We are confident that we have the facilities to handle the people who will be arriving. We are centrally located in the state. Riders will arrive at about 10:30 a.m. which is a part of the fund raiser for Camp Moore. The state association raised $100,000 last year at the same event. The riders will stay for a picnic. The state association will hire two Old Bridge police officers who will be on site all day. The Old Bridge police department may contact the Watchung police department. At last summer's event there was only one traffic citation issued (not to anyone attending the picnic). During the course of the day, there will be games and activities for our special children. There will be two bands playing alternately until 5:30 when the PA system shuts down.

We are anticipating between 2,000 and 3,000 people that day. A god portion of the people will arrive by bus and car. There could be as many as 1,000 motorcycles coming to Old Bridge. The state association will contact every police department in every municipality along the route both from the north and south to alert them to expect many motorcycles traveling through their town that day. We are beginning to plan this now and want to answer your questions.

Councilman Redmond: What is the age range of the children at Camp Moore?

Ms. Heller: I am the region chairperson for the Miracle Run. Our Camp Moore accommodates children from age 5 through age 18.

Councilman Testino: If you complete an application (mass assembly), it will come before the council.

Mr. Sikorski: We were not sure if we needed a permit application.

Councilman Testino: The attorney just confirmed this.

Attorney Ruggierio: I don't have the ordinance in front of me, but I recall that once you hit over 1500, you need a mass assembly permit from the township council requiring the submission of certain information. I will check into this and let you know.

Councilman Greene: There is a limited number of private houses on Old Amboy Road. I recommend that you reach out to them letting them know in advance that this is taking place.

Councilman Redmond: Are you the contact for children who may want to attend Camp Moore?

Mr. Sikorski: We have someone in the lodge you can contact.

Councilwoman Panos: I thank you for coming well in advance to obtain your permits If you need help that day, please let me know.

• Poet Robert Franza - Proposal for the creation of a Poet Laureate.

Mr. Franza: Over the last couple of years the poetry group from Old Bridge attempted to have you listen to the argument for a poet laureate of the town. Due to recent events, I think that this situation has grown even more important and has been brought to the council's attention to appoint a poet laureate whose functions would be to keep and maintain a leather bound hard copy

book in the library of news worthy events of Old Bridge or of the world that affect Old Bridge. We would start an English scholarship for college-bound high school seniors and for the children of the victims of September 11 who are going on to college as English majors.

The other duties of the Poet Laureate would be to appear at the Old Bridge Fair, high school graduations, etc. Some of the things that would be kept in the library and on the website would be the Valedictorian speech every year. The speeches from the memorial services would be logged in this book - local poets, things of that nature. I am here to ask that this be taken into consideration.

Hearing.

• Orchard Hill - release/reduction performance guarantee. TABLED

Mr. Vincenti: This is an application for a partial reduction in a performance bond for Orchard Hill which is a 14 single-family home residential subdivision located on Cottrell Road adjacent to the hockey arena. We have performed an inspection and determined that the value of bonded items completed is 41% of the performance guarantee. A number of months ago there was an issue with respect to the residents who adjoin the subdivision. There was a series of wash outs. Those issues have been rectified to our satisfaction. There is a slope area behind some of the homes which has been stabilized and under control. There has been no erosion especially due to the rains over the weekend. We are recommending a reduction. The original performance bond on hand is in the amount of $444,910.97. There has been no previous reduction. We are recommending a 41% reduction. A similar reduction in the amount of cash - the original cash on hand is in excess of $49,000. We are proposing to reduce that by 41% to slightly in excess of $29,000.

President Butler opened a public portion.

Mr. Portente (87 Greenwood Road): I have a problem with the wash outs. There is still mud near my pool. We are expecting rain this Wednesday. I suggest that someone come by to see if the problem has been repaired after that.

Mrs. Portente: (87 Greenwood Road): I want the release to not take place until my property has been satisfied. We are still getting water into our backyard and into our basement.

Mrs. DeGregory (83 Greenwood Road):. Three years after this complex was built, we felt the repercussion on the water being redirected underground. The soil is non-porous. I have had to sink tubes under the ground, but that did not help. My foundation eroded to sand forcing me to install a new foundation. If we release this bond , it is defeating the purpose for which we worked so hard. The Mayor was then a council person for our ward who helped us tremendously to protect our rights to live in semi-decent place. I have no funds to put into the ground. If there is repercussions, we need that bond to stay to protect us. It is only logical that you keep the bond for the protection of people who have invested money to live here.

Mayor Cannon: This area has always been a problem and prior to the development being constructed when the land went through clearing phases, the flooding became more pronounced, and the township did invest dollars in a right of way that was granted to build a perimeter pipe around the back of the property. When the property was developed, it was thought that some of that run off would go into the pipe and be directed away from the Arbor property. I am told that the drainage system was changed so that there is not run off in the back. I find that hard to believe because it is a higher property than where the Arbors are. I know the density of the homes was cut. I know what these residents have gone through in the past, and the previous owners of those homes had substantial problems with water run off and damage to their basements. We want to be sure that we are not going to have this happen all over again.

Mr. Vincenti: Over time after the drainage system was installed and prior to the commencement on this site, that perimeter drainage was covered with silt. Once the construction commenced, I understand that there was soil erosion damage and run off on to the adjoining properties -- I believe the rear yard of 87 Greenwood Road and even the adjoining rear yard. From my information and observation of that area last week, it appeared to me that the offsite damage had been repaired. Along the rear property line at the bottom of the slope there was a swale that was graded and stabilized. The perimeter drainage system was uncovered and in my opinion is functioning. After the rains over the weekend, I asked our inspectors go out this afternoon to confirm that there were no additional problems with the soil erosion and sediment control measures because the rear yards of two of the lots that abut Greenwood Road homes were recently graded and the areas were not of an established lawn area yet. However, they were properly stabilized with mulching and a silt fence. I did the inspection myself in that area last week because of the letter that we received from the Portente family.

Councilman Hoff: I made a motion to approve the reduction. Hearing the testimony, perhaps we should give this a little more time to follow this situation. I repeal my vote to move the reduction.

Motion TABLED

to table the release/reduction of the performance bond of Orchard Hill made by Councilman Hoff, seconded by Councilman Greene and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.

NAYS: None.

Subsequent to the roll call vote the following discussion took place.

Councilman Redmond: May we have the names of the residents who have been affected?

Councilman Baker: I have all the names. How long do you need?

Mr. Vincenti: 45 days.

Councilman Baker: As a courtesy, please renotice and readvertise.

President Butler: Renotice and republish for December 16, 2002.

• Oxford Estates - release/reduction performance guarantee. TABLED

Mr. Vincenti: We have reported to you on May 20, July 22, and September 9, 2002. On the latter date the council voted to table [this matter] without further discussion for thirty days. In response to the September 9 meeting there was a memo that I received from the developer which I forwarded to the Mayor and council. It was the developer's response to the various residents. The developer met with Mr. Aniello (31 Annie Drive) and was going to repair the gentlemen's home. I am going to rely on the developer and his attorney to comment on what progress has been made on the various homes.

Mr. Heilbrunn: I don't want to disappoint the council; however, my position is that your engineer has on three different occasions advised the council in writing that the applicant had completed all of the bonded items to his satisfaction according to the Municipal Land Use Law. I am not going to comment on any arrangements that Mr. Wurbler on behalf of Woodcliff made with any specific individuals within the development. We continue to assert our position which has been supported by your council that we are entitled to a bond release as a matter of law. We granted extensions to this council to delay this matter to the point that it has. We will grant no further extensions, and we request that the council act on the application for the bond release in accordance with the findings of your engineer as required by law.

Mrs. Bran (27 Annie Drive): I request that this performance bond not be released because of my grading problems. The soil continues to hold water. There has not been one time during these meetings that you have agreed that any of the residents do have problems with the grading or water. It has been three years since I started coming her. I asked for the grading to be done. I need top soil. I have not heard from the developer or the engineer since our last meeting. I have other issues which should be taken care of by the warranty.

Mr. Vincenti: In my opinion there was in the rear of the lot significant changes to the grade that were performed by the homeowner - the installation of a pool, a garden and a patio. In addition to that there were two drainage pipes that were currently being installed from roof leaders where trenches were open. At the time I was there it was evident to me that Mrs. Bran and her subcontractors had made substantial and significant changes to the rear yard on her own where I could not hold the developer responsible with respect to grading in the rear yard area. With respect to the front right side of her property, there was a large bare turf area where there were tire tracks. It was evident that there were construction vehicles that were retained by the homeowner to do the work in the rear yard. The person who did that work caused the problem with the grading at the front right of this house where I cannot prove that the developer is responsible for it. It was my opinion that it was the homeowner who caused the specific problems with respect to the bare patches on the right front lawn. With respect to the front lawn left side, in my opinion that it was a substantial enough lawn when I did an initial inspection. Prior to the September report there were areas of the lawn that had deteriorated due to the drought conditions. I cannot hold the developer responsible for the site grading on this lot.

Councilman Testino: I inspected this property, and it appeared to me that the soil was compacted. I am not an engineer. I did not see any real top soil to speak of. Did you say that this passed the top soil inspection?

Mr. Vincenti: At the time, it did, but there is no "top soil" inspection, per se. There is an inspection done prior to the CO on the house that the grading is done in substantial conformance to the plats.

Councilman Testino: There are no top soil requirements in our ordinance?

Mr. Vincenti: There is a requirement that it be placed, but there is no requirement for the physical testing of the soil.

Councilman Testino: What defines top soil?

Mr. Vincenti: If the homeowner chooses to make major modifications to their property, there has to be a line drawn as to when the homeowner has taken the responsibility away from the developer. In this case, I don't believe I can make the developer fix a problem that I don't know that he caused.

Councilman Testino: The problem is in the front left side because the soil is so hard, the water is rolling up against the house, hitting the wall and running down the wall. There is no absorbency at all. If we don't have any requirements in our ordinances for having some kind of soil absorption from the water, what can we do for any of our residents. We need to revisit this. I don't think you could put a spade in the ground. The soil is compacted.

Mr. Vincenti: The basic test is if you can grow a reasonable lawn. Where do we draw the line as to when the developer obligation ceases? There are various times when I did inspections when I determined that the lawn met that test, and more recently, it did not. What is the cause of that?

Councilman Testino: We have no tools to address their concerns. This went through the planning board, your office, and now it is here.

Councilman Baker: What is the cost of the repairs?

Mr. Vincenti: What are we repairing?

Councilman Baker: I believe that the system failed this individual. I am voting "no" until she (Ms. Bran) is happy.

Councilman Maher: I visited Ms. Bran two years ago; this is not a new problem. I have seen nothing done to rectify the situation.

Councilman Testino: I am trying to fix an endemic problem. The builder says he has done everything he was told to do; we also have dissatisfied citizens. Where do we fix our systems to be sure that we have satisfied residents? All the professionals tell me to do one thing, but my heart says that I have to help this person. I am looking for an answer for the future as well.

Ms. Bran: I have information from the Freehold Soil Conservation District. I have been trying to get in touch with anyone who may have an answer to my question. Who is responsible for protecting me from all these issues. I have learned that the Freehold Soil Conservation District no longer has jurisdiction over Old Bridge.

Mr. Vincenti: Freehold Soil Conservation does have jurisdiction over Old Bridge; however, there is a point in time where Freehold Soil issues a certificate of compliance which is a letter of compliance which states that the lawn has been established to their satisfaction and meets code. One of the items in our original letter of May 20 stated that our file did not have the letter of compliance from Freehold Soil which would normally go to us. If a developer closes a house under winter conditions, he gets a partial compliance. If he closes under summer conditions when the lawn has been established, he receives a letter of compliance and that lot is fully relieved from Freehold Soil.

I suspect that all lots received a final letter of compliance, and that is why Freehold Soil is not asserting their jurisdiction again because the matter was closed, and in essence and the lot was to their satisfaction. What happened after that is anyone's guess.

Councilman Hoff: We owe it to the residents that if she says that there has never been approval by Freehold Soil to hold off until we receive the approval.

Mr. Vincenti: That is one of my recommendations.

Attorney Ruggierio: I hear an indication that the Freehold Soil Conservation District has done an inspection, and they have concluded that all of the stabilization measures were in place at some point in the past. John Vincenti has said that his office inspected the lot in question belonging to Mrs. Bran, and that the lawn was at some point in place. Whatever events occurred after those inspections have modified the lot or made it problematic to continue growing the grass. We have a very weak case to make in terms of . . .

Councilman Hoff: The fact that we have don't have on record the Freehold soil report indicates that something is wrong.

Mr. Vincenti: We would have to check all the individual building permit jacket files on a lot by lot basis. I suspect that at this point because of the length of time that has gone by since all these homes have closed and where we are today, they have certificates of compliance and Freehold Soil has released the property. I need verification of the paper.

Councilman Hoff: This lady contends that Freehold Soil has no jurisdiction over Old Bridge. Let's find out if there is a record of this.

Attorney Ruggierio: The Freehold Soil Conservation District still has jurisdiction over Old Bridge. If you are speaking about this project specifically, that is a different story.

President Butler: Mrs. Bran, do you remember Freehold Soil examining your property, and did you receive a copy of a report from them?

Mrs. Bran: No, but that would have had to be in place prior to getting a Certificate of Occupancy.

Councilman Hoff: They would not go to her (Mrs. Bran).

Councilman Calogera: Is it possible that Freehold Soil can be asked to come to examine this property?

Mr. Vincenti: If a certificate of compliance has been issued, they are done.

Motion

to table the release/reduction of the Oxford Estates performance guarantee for forty-five days made by Councilman Hoff, seconded by Councilman Calogera and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.

NAYS: Councilman Greene.

ABSTAIN: Councilman Testino.

RESOLUTION NO. 501

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:

the following minutes are hereby approved:

August 12, 2002 Combined

August 26, 2002 Special Meeting

September 3, 2002 Agenda/Executive

Moved by Councilman Redmond, seconded by Councilman Hoff and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.

NAYS: None.

ABSTAIN: Councilman Calogera.

Ordinance for Second Reading

ORDINANCE AMENDING OLD BRIDGE LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE SECTION 4-3(M) REGARDING NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

BE IT ORDAINED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey as follows:

SECTION 1: PURPOSE

The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the Section 4-3(M) of the Old Bridge Land Development Ordinance to clarify which applications are subject to the requirements of Section 4-3(M).

SECTION 2: ORDINANCE

Section 4-3(M) of the Old Bridge Land Development Ordinance is amended by substitution as follow:

M. Posting of Notice of Development Application

Upon the filing of an application for development applicant shall post a sign upon the property which is the subject of the application. Such signs shall provide notice to the public that the property is the subject of a proposed subdivision, site plan and/or variance application. The signs shall be obtained by the applicant from the Township of Old Bridge at the expense of the applicant. The fee for such signs shall be $250.00 per sign. Signs shall be posted in such a manner so that one sign is clearly visible from all roadways which abut the subject property.

Signs shall be posted within seven days of the filing of the application and shall not be removed until the application is approved, rejected or withdrawn.

This Ordinance shall be limited in scope and shall only apply to applications for development which are for General Development Plans, major or minor subdivisions, new commercial site plans on vacant land or lands being converted from a non-commercial use or use variances under 40:55D-70(d) applications. Any land development application involving the construction or alteration of a one single family dwelling unit on one lot is exempt from this sign posting ordinance.

SECTION 3: INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES

All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with or in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.

SECTION 4: PARTIAL INVALIDITY

If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this ordinance shall be adjudged invalid, such adjudication shall apply only to the section, paragraph, clause or provision so adjudged and the remainder shall be deemed valid and effective.

SECTION 5: EFFECTIVE DATE

• Except as set forth at subparagraphs B and C hereof, this Ordinance shall take effect on the earlier of the following dates: (1) the date the Mayor affixes his/her signature thereto and returns same to the Municipal Council by delivering it to the Municipal Clerk pursuant to NJSA40A:69A-41 or (2) on the tenth day following presentment to the Mayor of the Ordinance pursuant to NJSA40:69A-41 applicable when the Mayor has failed to return the Ordinance; whichever occurs first.
  
  
• If the Mayor vetoes the Ordinance (in the manner set forth at NJSA40:69A-41), this Ordinance shall become effective upon the Township Council's vote to override the Mayor's veto.
  
  
• Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, this Ordinance shall not take effect less than twenty (20) days after its final passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor, where such approval is required, unless the Council shall have also adopted a resolution declaring an emergency and at least two thirds (2/3) of all the members of the Council vote in favor of such resolution.

Moved by Councilman Hoff, seconded by Councilman Calogera and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.

NAYS: None.

Ordinance for First Reading

BE IT ORDAINED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey, as follows:

Section 1. Purpose

This Ordinance prohibits the stopping and standing of vehicles on certain streets within the Township of Old Bridge.

Section 2. Stopping and Standing Prohibited on Certain Streets

Chapter X of the Code of the Township of Old Bridge is hereby amended by adding and supplementing Schedule IV thereof (incorporated by reference in the Code Section 10-4) with the following:

Name of Street Sides of Street Hours Location

Matawan Road Both All From the intersection (C.R. 698) with Ely Avenue to the intersection with Alexandria Drive

Section 3. Inconsistent Ordinances.

All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with or in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.

Section 4. Partial Invalidity.

If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this ordinance shall be adjudged invalid, such adjudication shall apply only to the section, paragraph, clause or provision so adjudged and the remainder shall be deemed valid and effective.

Section 5. Effective Date.

A. Except as set forth at subparagraphs B and C hereof, this Ordinance shall take effect on the earlier of the following dates: (1) on the date the Mayor affixes his/her signature thereto and returns same to the Municipal Council by delivering it to the Municipal Clerk pursuant to NJSA 40A:69A-41 or (2) on the tenth day following presentment to the Mayor of the Ordinance pursuant to NJSA 40A:69A-41 applicable when the Mayor has failed to return the Ordinance; whichever occurs first.

B. If the Mayor vetoes the Ordinance (in the manner set forth at NJSA 40A:69A-41), this Ordinance shall become effective upon the Township Council's vote to override the Mayor's veto.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, this Ordinance shall not take effect less than twenty (20) days after its final passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor, where such approval is required, unless the Council shall have also adopted a resolution declaring an emergency and at least two-thirds (2/3) of all the members of the Council vote in favor of such resolution.

Moved by Councilman Baker, seconded by Councilman Hoff and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.

NAYS: None.

Ordinance for First Reading

BE IT ORDAINED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey as follows:

Section 1. Purpose

The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the Revised General Ordinances of the Township of Old Bridge to incorporate changes requested by the Fire Districts of the Township of Old Bridge to Section 12-15 pertaining to required fire safety inspections.

Section 2. Amendments to Chapter 12 Section 15

Section 12-15(o)(26) of the Revised General Ordinances of the Township of Old Bridge I amended as follows:

26. Required inspections:

(a) No Change.

(b) No Change.

(c) No Change.

(d) Multiple Dwelling Inspections. The local enforcing agency shall engage in multiple dwelling inspections pursuant to NJAC 5:70-2.1. The fee for each inspection shall be the fee per unit as set forth below.

(e) Smoke Detector Inspections. The local enforcing agency shall engage in smoke detector inspections within R-3 uses pursuant to NJAC 5:70-2.3 and the fee for the inspections shall be as set forth below.

(f) Fees for inspections. The fee schedule for inspections required by (d) and (e) above is as follows:

(1) Inspections on ten business days notice or more: $35.00

(2) Inspections conducted on less than ten but more than four business days notice: $50.00

(3) Inspections conducted on less than four business days notice: $100.00

Section 3. Inconsistent Ordinances.

All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with or in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.

Section 4. Partial Invalidity.

If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this ordinance shall be adjudged invalid, such adjudication shall apply only to the section, paragraph, clause or provision so adjudged and the remainder shall be deemed valid and effective.

Section 5. Effective Date.

A. Except as set forth at subparagraphs B and C hereof, this Ordinance shall take effect on the earlier of the following dates: (1) on the date the Mayor affixes his/her signature thereto and returns same to the Municipal Council by delivering it to the Municipal Clerk pursuant to NJSA 40A:69A-41 or (2) on the tenth day following presentment to the Mayor of the Ordinance pursuant to NJSA 40A:69A-41 applicable when the Mayor has failed to return the Ordinance; whichever occurs first.

B. If the Mayor vetoes the Ordinance (in the manner set forth at NJSA 40A:69A-41), this Ordinance shall become effective upon the Township Council's vote to override the Mayor's veto.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, this Ordinance shall not take effect less than twenty (20) days after its final passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor, where such approval is required, unless the Council shall have also adopted a resolution declaring an emergency and at least two-thirds (2/3) of all the members of the Council vote in favor of such resolution.

Moved by Councilman Hoff, seconded by Councilman Calogera and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.

NAYS: None.

Ordinance for First Reading

TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE
ORDINANCE NO. 51-02

WHEREAS, Steamboat Landing, also known as Dock road, has been realigned, and

WHEREAS, this realignment has resulted in a portion of Steamboat Landing Lane no longer being needed as a public roadway, therefore

BE IT ORDAINED, by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey as follows:

SECTION 1: PURPOSE

The purpose of this Ordinance is to vacate a portion of Steamboat Landing Road (also known as Dock Road) which is no longer needed for public use by the Township of Old Bridge following the realignment of such road.

SECTION 2: ORDINANCE

The Township of Old Bridge hereby vacates a portion of Steamboat Landing Road, also known as Dock Road, and more fully described in the document Description of a Portion Steamboat Landing Road (also known as Dock Road) in the Township of Old Bridge, Middlesex County, New Jersey, to be vacated and dated July 26, 2000 on file with the Township Clerk.

The vacation of this road is contingent upon the filing of an executed deed of easement and right of way granting an easement and right of way to the Old Bridge Municipal Utilities Authority to permit the OBMUA to maintain utilities located in the portion of Steamboat Landing to be vacated. Such easement must be accepted by the OBMUA in order to be valid.

The vacation of this road is further contingent upon the owner(s) of the underlying fee(s) filing a deed(s) with the Middlesex County Clerk which contains the restriction that no improvements may be made on the vacated parcel except accessory buildings and uses to adjourning properties.

A true copy of this Ordinance, together with proof of publication, shall be filed with the Middlesex County Clerk within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Ordinance.

SECTION 3: INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES

All ordinances or part of ordinances inconsistent with or in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extend of such inconsistency.

SECTION 4: PARTIAL INVALIDITY

If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this ordinance shall be adjudged invalid, such adjudication shall apply only to the section, paragraph, clause or provision so adjudged and the remainder shall be deemed valid and effective.

SECTION 5: EFFECTIVE DATE

• Except as set forth at subparagraphs B and C hereof, this Ordinance shall take

effect on the earlier of the following dates (1) on the date the Mayor affixes his/her signature thereto and returns same to the Municipal Council by delivering it to the Municipal Clerk pursuant to NJSA40A:69A-41 or (2) on the tenth day following presentment to the Mayor of the Ordinance pursuant to NJSA40:69A-41 applicable when the Mayor has failed to return the Ordinance; whichever occurs first.

• If the Mayor vetoes the Ordinance (in the manner set forth at NJSA 40:69A-41),

this Ordinance shall become effective upon the Township Council's vote to override the Mayor's veto.

• Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, this Ordinance shall not take effect

less than twenty (20) days after its final passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor where such approval is required, unless the Council shall have also adopted a resolution declaring an emergency and at lest two thirds (2/3) of all members of the Council vote in favor of such resolution.

Moved by Councilman Redmond, seconded by Councilman Calogera and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Calogera, Greene, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.

NAYS: Councilman Maher.

NO PARTICIPATION: Councilman Baker.

ABSENT PODIUM: Councilman Hoff.

Prior to the roll call vote the following discussion took place.

Attorney Ruggierio: I believe it is the intention of the council that only the property that abuts Rt. 34 would give these restrictions. You probably don't want these deed restrictions from the homeowners whose driveways are adjacent and impacted by this. I would like you to make that clear in terms of the ordinance.

Councilman Redmond: Why would we want the homeowners to subdivide?

Attorney Ruggierio: Is your point that all three property owners would be asked to give these deed restrictions?

Councilman Maher: It would remain open space.

Attorney Ruggierio: The only development permitted would be as an accessory to the existing lot.

President Butler: This applies to the three residents, correct?

Councilman Testino: I asked for the deed restrictions to prevent subdivisions. I don't want to see another ice cream store on that corner creating substantial traffic. If it is part of the same lot with the existing restaurant, he can provide additional parking or expand his building. We don't want to prevent that. We don't want a separate building with separate ingress or egress from Landing Lane or from Rt. 34. I have no intention of prohibiting the current owners from expanding their current uses.

Motion

to table made by Councilman Hoff, seconded by Councilman Maher and so denied on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Hoff, Maher.

NAYS: Councilmen Calogera, Greene, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.

NO PARTICIPATION: Councilman Baker.

Councilman Greene: I would like to be given a diagram of what is currently proposed.

Attorney Ruggierio: It sounds to me like these deed restrictions apply to the commercial as well as the other two properties.

Councilman Testino: If you put a restriction, the road frontage cannot be used because they are within their front yard setback. We can do this across the board so that there is no questions.

Councilman Calogera: If we vacate that road and deed it to the restaurant, is that not already non-conforming, and if he wants to build on it, he has the basis to build on it anyway because the structure may not be conforming to the setback already.

Attorney Ruggierio: This is not a zoning restriction, but a restriction on the title of the property so that it would not be subject to pre-existing non-conforming use principle.

Councilman Calogera: We would not be able to utilize the preexisting, non-conforming.

Attorney Ruggierio: That is a zoning principle.

Councilman Calogera: For expansion and for economic development purposes, it is the right thing to do.

Councilman Greene: I want to know what the proposal is to put a restriction on the residential property.

Attorney Ruggierio: The way the ordinance is written now, all three properties would be required to give over deed restrictions. My concern was with respect to the residential properties that we might have more resistance in getting the deed restrictions signed by them than we would by the commercial property who would benefit and understand the transaction. The point made here tonight was that it is really no skin off the nose of the residential property owners, and perhaps we should make it applicable to all.

Councilman Testino: Looking at the drawing, I say that there is "skin off one nose" because one of the owners could divide and erect another house. They can only use it for accessory uses.

Councilman Calogera: We are moving having this property transferred with deed restrictions to all four property owners. The deed restrictions would be to allow accessory use in the case of those property owners.

Ordinance for First Reading.

BE IT ORDAINED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey, as follows:

Section 1. Purpose

This Ordinance establishes the fees for the Before & After School Daycare program and the Summer Recess program pursuant to the recommendation of the Coordinator of said daycare programs. This Ordinance replaces Township Ordinances No. 31-00 and No. 11-02.

Section 2. Fees

A. The tuition fees for the Before & After School Daycare program shall be as follows:

B. The tuition fees for the Summer Recess Program shall be as follows: