A Combined meeting of the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge was held on December 20, 2004 in the Municipal Complex. The meeting was called to order by President Baker who asked all present to participate in a salute to the flag which was followed by a short prayer.

Deputy Township Clerk Stella Ward announced that this meeting is being held in conformance with the open public meetings act, notice has been given to the newspaper and notice of the meeting has been posted in public places. The next meeting will be January 3, 2005 at 7:30 p.m.

Roll call at 7:35 p.m. by Deputy Township Clerk Stella Ward, showed the following members present: Councilmen Calogera, Gillespie, Greene, Volkert, Councilwoman Panos, President Baker. Councilmen Butler and Testino arrived late. Councilman Maher was absent.

President Baker asked for a moment of silence to remember an employee of the Township of Old Bridge for over twenty five years, Lois Passe, who passed away suddenly.

President Baker asked for a moment of silence to honor the men and women in the armed forces serving in the War on Terror.

Bill List

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

RESOLUTION #645-04

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 December 20, 2004 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 December 20, 2004 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 $6,398,104.03 (General Fund).

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

AYES: Councilmen Calogera, Gillespie, Greene, Volkert, Councilwoman Panos, President Baker.

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: Councilmen Butler, Maher, Testino.

Preliminary Public Comments

Sinclair Anderson: I live in Whispering Pines and the congestion on Route 516 is terrible. There are drainage problems in the development and we still have not been able to get resolution on the geese problem that we have.

President Baker: We will have the administration get back to you within thirty days.

Barbara York: On Englishtown Road, between Pleasant Valley Road and Pension Road the roadway was ripped up for water and repairs and when they repaved it, they left huge speed bumps. This was done over a year and I would like council and administration to contact the County to have this road fixed properly.

Certificates of Recognition

Old Bridge High School Cross County Team State Championship

President Baker: Unfortunately the team could not be here tonight because they are at a winter meet. We will reschedule this for later next year.

Certificate of Excellence

Mayor Phillip presented the following Certificate to Dana Rogers, Rhiannon Karpiak, Brianna Maikrand and Melissa Giaquinta for raising money for the Old Bridge Food Bank.

In recognition and appreciation of your support of the Old Bridge Food Bank and your willingness to help those less fortunate during this Holiday Season of 2004.

Thank you for all your thoughtfulness and generosity from the Old Bridge Township Council and Mayor.

Ordinance for Second Reading

ORDINANCE NO. 38-04

ORDINANCE AMENDING AND ADOPTING A NEW OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE

BE IT ORDAINED, by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey that the Ordinance of this Township, the title of which is “The Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey” be amended as follows:

SECTION 1:

The following ordinance section shall be amended and added to Article 7—2 ZONING of the Old Bridge Township Land Development Ordinance as follows:

Article 7-2A.1 Zoning Map

The official Zoning Map of the Township of Old Bridge, dated March 18, 2004 is hereby amended by revision 1, dated October 8, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference. Copies of the new Zoning Map are on file in the office of the Township Clerk.

SECTION 2: INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES

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

SECTION 3: 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 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 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.

B. If the Mayor vetoes the Ordinance (in the same manner set forth at NJSA40-69A-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 Testino to table, seconded by Councilman Butler and so tabled on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Butler, Calogera, Gillespie, Greene, Testino, Volkert, Councilwoman Panos, President Baker.

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: Councilman Maher.

Prior to the vote the following comments were made.

Councilman Calogera: I think that it would be helpful to the public if there were explanations of the set backs, the description of a COI and how it will affect the property around it.

President Baker: That was my intention. Mr. Vincenti is here to give the public an overview.

Mr. Vincenti, Township Engineer: There are two ordinances before you. Ordinance #38-04 amends the official zoning map and Ordinance 39-04 actually implements the land development changes, most notably the implementation of a (Commercial, Office & Industrial) COI zone. This allows a whole host of commercial, office and light industrial type uses. What we are doing tonight is proposing to rezone approximately 1520 acres of land, about half of that is currently zoned residential, the remaining is a mix of OG, CC or SD (Special Development). On October 25th introduce these ordinances for first reading which passed and then referred them to the Planning Board. The Planning Board heard these ordinances at their October and November meetings and they unanimously approved both ordinances and referred them back to the council with out comment.

The areas to be re-zoned to COI are the Route 18 corridor from Marlboro Township to Ferry Road; the Route 9 corridor from Route 18 to Ferry Road; an area north of Route 516, behind White Oak Lane and Angela Drive; the Route 9 corridor from Jake Brown Road to Ernston Road.

What Ordinance 38-04 also does is adjusts two PRC (Planned Retirement Communities) zones. This was implanted in April of 2004. The first area being adjusted is in the area of Ferry Road in Block 17000, and Block 12001 in the Birch Hill Estates. There are minor areas where the zone lines are being adjusted to address land use patterns.
Concerning rezoning the township, before second reading the Township is required to send to out certified and regular mail notices to property owners who are either being rezoned or are within 200 feet of being rezoned, this is a statutory requirement. All we are doing tonight is rezoning the land, there are no developments that are being anticipated. A number of years ago there were master plan studies were done, the first was done in 1998 and there were two done for the Route 9 and Route 18 corridors and one of the recommendations was to implement the COI zoning. In 2000, the normal six year re-evaluation of the land use element of the master plan, the COI was recommended. What the governing body is considering tonight is implementing those master plan recommendations in a rezoning. The master plan recommended the COI to attract a host of rateables, there are a lot of areas in the town that are zoned strictly for office, which is significantly underutilized. The change would allow the market dictate the use as opposed to the town pigeon holing office or commercial use. The ordinance seeks to control some of the developments with design standards.

In response to Councilman Calogera’s request: The bulk standards are a minimum lot area of 3 acres and a maximum floor area ratio of 20% and a minimum landscape area ratio of 40%.

Councilman Calogera: I would like Mr. Vincenti to give a full disclosure of the setbacks and height requirements. If we are going to explain this, let explain it correctly to the residents.

President Baker: We will ask the public to speak first.

Councilman Calogera: I would like the public to be informed so that they are able to ask questions.

President Baker: I am running this meeting and when you are sitting in this chair, you can run the meeting. The format is that all public questions will be answered.

Councilman Calogera: I would run the meeting differently.

President Baker: I would like to hear from the public.

Councilman Greene: This is a council meeting and I think that Mr. Calogera should have been given the opportunity to ask questions.

President Baker: The councilman can ask one hundred questions, but we work for the public and I would like to hear from them.

Councilman Calogera: The residents are the ones who are asking me to ask these questions, that is why I came here representing them.

President Baker: Let's hear from the public.

Councilman Calogera: They have to know what is going on, so that they can ask the right questions. Why are you keeping them in the dark. Let them have the set back and height requirements. Maybe you don't want them to know, but I would like them to know.

Attorney Convery: Our procedure is that there is an ordinance for second reading, we will deal first with 38-04 and then 39-04. We have to deal with these separately and the record needs to be clear. If you want to comment on the official zoning map, you would do that first. This is the public's opportunity to ask any questions. The map has been posted in the Clerk's office and the residents were noticed, the public has had every right and opportunity to review those. I would ask that the public first comment on 38-04 and then 39-04

Councilman Calogera: I would like to have a clarification from Mr. Convery. If the zoning map and land development ordinance cover the same issues, how can you pass one with out affecting the other.

Attorney Convery: I think that we should take comments on the zoning map first, questions on height and the set backs would be on the actual land development ordinance. If anyone wants to discuss the zoning map, this is the time.

Councilman Calogera: What is the affect of passing 38-04 and then 39-04?

Attorney Convery: This sets up areas of the town that are zoned a certain way. It would not make sense to create the zone and then not pass the ordinance, but you still have to vote on these separately and we have to maintain the records separately. If someone wishes to challenge this in court, we need a transcript in regard to the individual ordinance, that is why I say you need to discuss it in that fashion.

President Baker: We will hear from the public first.

Councilwoman Panos: I have a procedural question.

President Baker: Go ahead.

Councilwoman Panos: If the public has questions, when will they be answered? This is up for a vote tonight. Will we be able to respond to them?

President Baker: We will respond to every question asked. If we open this to the council first, half of the public will not be heard. I work for the public, not you.

Councilwoman Panos: I am not asking you to hear from the council first; I am asking if these people will get their answers.

President Baker: We will have the first speaker now.

President Baker opened the public portion.

Mr. Jack O'Brien - Madison Park: I was interested in Mr. Calogera's comments on what the set backs would be.

Mr. Vincenti: The front yard set back is 50 feet, the minimum side yard setback is 25 feet, the total of the two side yards is 50 feet, the minimum rear yard is 50 feet, the minimum accessory side yard is 25 feet and the minimum accessory rear yard is 25 feet. The minimum lot width is 150 feet. The maximum building height is four stories, or 45 feet. The maximum accessory building height is four stories or 45 feet.

Mr. O'Brien: Could you build a wall, like the parkway, so we don't have to see the buildings?

Mr. Vincenti: There are performance standards in our ordinance that deal with required buffers, which are minimum of 50 feet, which will be landscaped or retained vegetation. These are unchanged. Walls are not part of the design standards. However, in the process of an actual project being reviewed by the planning board, if residents who are affected feel the need for additional buffering would be at the public hearing before the planning board on the individual application.

Mr. Steve Backman: I would like to speak about the area on Route 18, between Foxborough Drive and Spring Valley Road. This area has been the subject of many discussions, and many recommendation have been turned down. There is a serious issue with the water table, the homes along Stone Ridge Road have had an issue with the water since the beginning and it was never corrected by the builder. I would like see some engineering done to redirect the underground water that is there. All the homes are running two sump pumps and half of them empty into that undeveloped property.

Mr. Vincenti: All these issues would be dealt with at the Planning Board level when a specific developer comes in with a design and site plan. The properties that along Route 18, that back up to Foxborough already have a prior approval for an office development, which has not been constructed.

Mr. Backman – 17 Stone Ridge Road: There have been many discussions on this issues and not much action to correct this problem. The homeowners have endured tremendous expense in regard to running pipes underground and nothing has worked to redirect the water. I invite you to come to my home and see what it is like to live with two sump pumps cycling every seven to eight minutes.

Dr. Calvin Chatlos, 30 Ponderosa Lane: One of the reasons that we purchased our home over twelve years ago was because of all the natural trees that surrounded it. I think that it would be a shame to turn much of this land into commercial property, I think that the setbacks should be at least tripled from residential areas. This would provide not only property value but also some incentive for resident to want to continue to live here.

Mr. Robert Arkay: I am one of two owners of the Glen Plaza office building on Route 516. Our concern is block 9000, lot 11, this is currently zoned R120 and the land use ordinance states that it is low density and subject to severe environmental constraints. You are proposing to make this a COI zone and I understand fully that property owners have the right to make use of land that they own. My concern is that we are changing a low density residential zone to a COI zone that would permit 150 different uses. I believe that this particular area on Route 516 should not be included in this change.

Mr. Vincenti: Some of the uses listed are conditional uses. I would not want to leave the impression that these are permitted, primary uses. The thought to that area, is that it is adjacent to the White Oak Industrial Park area and also adjacent to the commercial area along Route 516 and this is a logical expansion to attract ratables in that area.

Mr. Steve Lay: I manage three properties in Old Bridge and I am here tonight on behalf of Oakwood's Park. Oakwood Parkway divides Oakwood's Park in half between Red Pine Loop and Carmel Court. Oakwood's Park has a lot of children and a lot of recreation and I am concerned about opening Oakwood Parkway which would create a major hazard for the children. Oakwood Parkway was originally planned to be a public road and has never been maintained or claimed by the Township. My concern is that the original plans submitted by Monroe Bowne called for a development of 32 single family homes with no other exit, other than Oakwood Parkway, that seemed to be doable and now we are talking about rezoning for seniors and commercial development and I would like to know if there are any plans for another road in and out of the development.

Mr. Vincenti: The preliminary plan that we saw had two access roads and I do not believe that Oakwood Parkway was the main access road. I think that there is a restriction on one of the roads. Any proposed development on the Bowne property which is zoned PRC, will have a full hearing before the planning board and would require a traffic impact studies done.

Mr. Lay: If people can get to Ferry Road without getting onto Route 18, they will do it and if you are planning to build 90 homes instead of thirty, there will be an impact on the children with the traffic through there.

Mr. Robert Lewicki: The map that is the basis for the proposed zoning changes is based on map dated 3/18/04 which I did not have access to. On the map dated 3/18/04 – revision 1 dated 10/8/04 there is an absence of a ER zone and on the map that is now before us there is a presence of an ER zone. The fact that I did not have access to the map that was officially adopted in April 2004 bothers me because if the ER zone had been dropped in the past, this constitutes another change in the zoning map which would of required notice to those affected people. I never received a notice. I have brought his to Mr. Vincenti's attention and I would like a clarification.

Attorney Convery: I have looked into this and the clarification that I have received from the Engineering office is that when they went from a 1995 zoning map which was hand drawn to a computer generated map in 2004, there were drafting errors that were unrelated to any changes that were being made. When the revision to the map, that is presently before the board, they realized there were drafting errors and they have been corrected. Any person who had property that was zoned ER prior to 3/18/04 – there is not difference between that and what is being proposed today. If the council adopts this map, it is consistent with the use of the property that those homeowners had. The only thing that is changing is that the Engineering Department is correcting a drafting error that occurred during the hand drawn map and the computer generated map. I do not think that we have to give notice to someone that there was a mistake made and we are now going to put you where you were before the mistake was made.
Mr. Lewicki: I think that when the Council approved the zoning map in April 2004 made it an official document – setting the zoning, whether there was an error or not. The fact that it is now incorporated, I think runs the risk of having this zoning map challenged.

Attorney Convery: If a mistake was made and we are correcting it tonight, who are we affecting?

Mr. Lewicki: People who are in the ER zone and the people within 200 feet of the ER zone.

Attorney Convery: I disagree because we are in no way changing those zones, other than correcting a drafting error. I understand your point and respect your opinion but I disagree with the analysis.

Mr. Lewicki: I have no problem with the incorporation of the ER zone in the area in which was omitted. I was just bringing it up to preclude the possibility of a challenge on a technicality. There have been revisions to this since the planning board has last reviewed it, I don't know if the revisions were substantial enough to have to have it resubmitted to the planning board which is another issue that may come up in a challenge.

Mr. Leonard Klyman – 135 Red Pine Loop: I heard the engineer state that there is a 40% maximum land use for office. Is that correct?

Mr. Vincenti: No, there is a maximum floor area ratio of 20% and a minimum landscape area ratio requirement of 40%. Any development has to retain at least 40% of the property as landscaped and green and the maximum total floor area on any development is 20% of the total lot area.

Mr. Klyman: If the barrier is 50 feet around, it seems that 40% landscape area leaves a lot of extra open space. 50 feet does not seem to equate to 40% of a three acre lot. I would agree with the other speakers who believe that the bulk of the barriers should be between the developed property and the residential. The area that we live in, we have the Reformed Church Nursing Home in back of us and that area has well over 200 feet between us which is still not sufficient to keep out the noise and light pollution. I would strongly urge that you consider changing the zoning parameters, so that if it backs up to a residential area, the bulk of the land is the barrier between the residential and COI with a minimum of 200 feet. You said that every project will have a hearing before they can proceed, will the affected persons be notified?

Mr. Vincenti: Yes, anyone who owns property within 200 feet of any proposed development will be notified of the planning board meeting date where a public hearing will be held.

Ms. Paula Rabicar – Whispering Pines: I am very disappointed that you are proposing changing the zones to have industry back up to residential. I would like to see an increase in the distance between the residential properties and business. If there are any standing trees, I would suggest that it be stipulated that some of them have to remain. Is the 50 foot setback from the parking area or the actual building?

Mr. Vincenti: It is the setback to the building. There are separate setback requirements to parking. If the parking would abut a residential zone the minimum set back is fifty feet.

Ms. Rabicar: So it would be 50 feet from a building and another 50 feet from the parking lot?

Mr. Vincenti: The two requirements are separate and they may overlap one another. If you have a property line that abuts a residential zone or a residential use, that first fifty feet would remain in its natural state or be supplemented with additional landscape buffering in accordance with the design standards of the ordinance.

Ms. Rabicar: I would rather see it remain in its native state.

Mr. John Colasani – 4 Magnolia Court: I have a home in Whispering Pines and so does my daughter and she was notified that she was within 200 feet of this development. I do not want anything to impede the quiet enjoyment of my home, I don't want any development to lower my property values and I believe that Route 516 is congested enough without further development. I say that with emotion because I lost a brother in 1986 as he was trying to walk back to his home in Whispering Pines. If you don't believe that there could be a problem with property values, ask the people who are trying to sell their homes, that back up to the post office.

Ms. Diane Cavallo – 174 Hidden Court: I received a letter on December 3rd from the DEP for a wetlands letter of interpretation. Has this matter been resolved?

Mr. Vincenti: That is a standard notification letter when property owners seeks a wetland delineation on their property. This is in block 9000 and is separate from what we are doing here.

Ms. Cavallo: This is the same area that you are trying put a COI on.

Councilman Calogera: I guess someone is getting a jump on this.

Mr. Vincenti: That is only one of the lots.

Ms. Cavallo: It is for three lots.

Mr. Vincenti: It is only for block 9000 in lot 10. This is a property owner doing what he is entitled to do.

Councilman Calogera: Is this in the COI?

Mr. Vincenti: I don't believe that the town has to take any action on this. This is unrelated to the rezoning of the property.

Ms. Cavallo: Can you tell me who owns lot 10?

Ms. Gina Wilson – 167 Community Circle: I am pretty sure that I am the owner of lot 10. I was under the understanding that what we lived on was wetlands and that they were never supposed to be developed. I can't even put a shed up in my back yard because of the water table. I had a water main break in my house and someone came in to redo the pipes and I was told that we weren't even 18 inches above the water table. How can you develop back there? If you get rid of the woods, we will be in big trouble. We are already in a bad situation because all the land around us has been developed and there is so much concrete. The traffic will become worse on Route 516, we can't get out of our development at 3:00 now because of the traffic coming from the factory. We found endangered species (the box turtles) in the woods. I do not think that you can develop if there are endangered species there – they are dormant now. If you develop the land, you will destroy my property values – I am not ready to lose 25% of my property value. The buffer distance that you are proposing should be at least five times greater. When can we expect the development to take place?

Mr. Vincenti: I think that a lot of the items that Mrs. Wilson said are probably true, there are wetlands there and it appears that the person that sent the notice out knows there are wetlands and they are trying to get an approved line delineated from the state. No development will be allowed in the wetlands. We are not at the point where we are considering any specific development. All we are doing is rezoning the land to allow a different type of development. I know of nothing before the planning board on any of these properties.

Ms. Wilson: If the 9000 lot has endangered species and it is proven that we are on wetlands, we should be taken out of the loop.

Mr. Bob Imparto – President of Whispering Pines – 133 Community Circle: We are presently fighting the Township because we own our sewer system and the town wants to now break into our system and bring in the water that is now flooding Route 516. You now want to develop Angela Drive and you are telling me that we are not going to get more water from all your overdevelopment. We don't want the township bringing in the water from Route 516 into our sewer system, the township does not maintain our sewers, the residents of Whispering Pines does and it costs them a lot of money.

President Baker: Are you fighting the Township or the Old Bridge Municipal Utilities Authority?

Mr. Imparto: It is the County.

Mr. John Sharp – 38 Arden Road: The letter was sent out pertaining to Block 9000, lot 10 and the address is East Brunswick. The map that was sent out shows the racetrack off Route 516, which hasn't been there for thirty years. No one could identify this property. If there is a 50 foot set back and you put up a four story building the property values will be cut in half. No one wants to look out their back window and see a four story building.

Mr. Vincenti: The notice that the gentleman was referring to is the notice for the wetlands interpretation and not the notice sent by the clerk's office for the rezoning.

Mr. Joel Marcus – 82 Diamond Lane: The map is very difficult to read because there are no streets listed on the map. I would like to see a better map with streets listed on them so that we know exactly where the rezoning is taking place.

Mr. Vincenti: I could show Mr. Marcus. The map is the standard way of preparing the zoning map – all the roads are shown and most of them are not labeled but it is sufficient and appropriate way of designating the zoning map.

President Baker: Can we superimpose streets on top of this map.

Mr. Vincenti: I can give Mr. Marcus any thing that he is looking for.

Mr. Marcus: There are other people here who are interested in this information.

President Baker: Can we take a list of names and addresses of all the residents that are interested in the map?

Mr. Vincenti: Yes.

Mr. Frank Zates – 200 Princeton Road: Do you plan on connect Colgate street to the overpass?

Mr. Vincenti: We do not plan on doing any road improvements. We are not proposing any new developments.

Mr. Zates: Madison Park does not even have sidewalks and the traffic is now coming through Princeton Road. If you are going to build on the other side of the woods the truck traffic will change the whole community.

President Baker: There is no plan to do that.

Mr. Carolyn Smoljan – 56 Spring Hill Road: I would ask that you not vote on this, this evening. There is a map that we cannot read because it is not clear. I think that time is needed.

Attorney Convery: What lot and block are you?

Ms. Smoljan: I am not sure. It is the property right next to the Sunoco station on Route 9 and Schulmeister Road.

Attorney Convery: If I knew your lot and block I could tell you what the current zone is. I understand your concern about the size of the map, I am involved with other towns and that is the same type of map that every town that I know of uses.

Ms. Smoljan: I don't care because I can't read it.

Attorney Convery: This is the standard practice. If you knew your lot and block I would be able to help you.

Ms. Smoljan: There should have at least been reference streets marked on the map. At least Route 9 and Route 18 should have been highlighted. Please do not vote on this until you give us the information that we deserve.

Mr. Ed Estwanick – 3060 Cheesequake Road: I would like to know what is the area that impacts Brandeis Road.

Mr. Vincenti: The area adjacent to Madison Park that is being rezoned has frontage on Route 9 and is anticipated that any development of those areas along the Route 9 corridor will be accessed from Route 9. I do not anticipate any connection to any streets in Madison Park other than perhaps Cheesequake Road because there is one lot that has frontage at the back. The primary objective of rezoning property is to encourage development fronting on the highway from the highway.

Mr. Estwanick: I am happy to hear that. I am not happy when I hear anything to do with Cheesequake Road because that road is getting to be like a highway and this has happened in the last year.

Ms. Carol Tessier – 11 Beacon Place: I moved here five years ago and we were told about an office building that would be on Woodwood Road, which was fine because we knew ahead of time. I would like to know the plans for Woodwood Road.

Mr. Vincenti: At this time there are no plans for Woodwood Road, any future development has to go before the planning board.

Ms. Tessier: How much advance notice would we get?

Mr. Vincenti: You are required to get certified mail notice at least ten days before the hearing date.

Ms. Linda Skidmore – 99 Schulmeister Road: I am concerned that Schulmeister and Old Mill Roads are very small roads and it is a very lovely residential community. There are children that are there because of the ball field. I think that you need to be very clear when you are changing our township from a lovely residential family based community into something that resembles Route 22. I think that you think long and hard and I think that Route 516 should be taken out of the mix because you are going to destroy the texture of our township and the desire for people wanting to come here. There has to be a better way to do this than to just throw office parks willy-nilly throughout the town, without thinking about the traffic in areas that are used by children and township residents and also the destruction of property values. Much of the township has a very high water table and a lot of the town is clay based.

Mr. Vincenti: The zoning of the area along Route 9 and Schulmeister Road is currently zoned for OG3 (General Office Park – 3 acre minimum). The intensity of development that is allowed in the OG3 zone is very similar to what is being proposed in the COI zone all we are doing is expanding the types of uses again letting the market dictate what would be developed in that area.

Mr. David Trott – 19 Rolling Meadows Court: The change in the zoning will increase the value of the property that is being changed. By opening up the market place the land will be more valuable. The likelihood that industry properties would be improved would reduce our residential property values. I came into Old Bridge and I really do not want my property affected by the changing of the zoning around me now. We are all in an environment where we are trying to improve the open space and what you people are now proposing is to make these properties easier to development and to contribute to urban sprawl.

Ms. Christine Walowitz – 25 Brandeis Road: You have said that there has not yet been anything proposed on the land behind us, yet when you drive on Cheesequake Road it looks like they are starting a foundation. The traffic on Cheesequake Road for the past year has been horrendous. Will we be notified if something is going to be built there?

Mr. Vincenti: Yes, if you are within 200 feet of the proposed development.

Ms. Caroline Zimmerman – 297 Spring Valley Road: I have lived here for 30 years and I have just found out tonight that they are draining sump pumps onto the undeveloped land behind me so, how could that land not be declared wetlands? I have never had problems with water in my basement until now. I would like to know what type of trees they plan on planting in the buffer zone between the residential and the four story buildings? How tall will the trees be?

Mr. Vincenti: They are probably 8 to 10 feet and they are usually pines.

Mr. John Eshy – Spruce Hill area: These two zoning changes are very different and I am wondering why they are lumped together. Why can' we split the two different zones and have two different hearings?

Attorney Convery: Townships don't often change their official zoning map and we had to send out notices to people within 200 feet of the affected areas, so it would make sense to notice as many people as possible and to have one meeting, so there is a economical reason. Yes, they can be separated.

Mr. Eshy: It doesn't have to be two separate meetings, it could just be two separate votes, the financial aspect would stay the same.

Attorney Convery: What is your block and lot?

Mr. Eshy: Block 17000, lots 1 and 2.

Attorney Convery: They are presently a residential zone and it would stay a residential but it would be PRC.

Mr. Eshy: I understand what position I am in. But, I just want to have the COI and PRC vote separated. My interest in passing the PRC portion should also be associated with what's going on in the COI portion. One may be a good idea and one may not be such a good idea.

Mr. Hilton Boone – 43 Brewster Circle: One of the reasons that I purchased my home was because the back was secluded with a lot of woods. I would like to know when they are planning to develop behind my house.

Mr. Vincenti: Right now there is no development proposed. The land is currently R20 and it is being changed to COI.

Mr. Boone: The back of my yard is sloped and if some development is done there and those trees are taken down, my property will become flooded.

Mr. Vincenti: Other portions of our ordinance have development restriction and there are prohibition of development on critical and sensitive areas, which included steep slopes. If someone were to want to do development on that property that is something that would be looked at and made sure it was not disturbed if it is a wooded slope adjoining a residential area.

Mr. Boone: I hear a lot of grievances here tonight and I would like to know how much weight does that hold with the council.

Attorney Convery: No one can build on any of this land without complying with the zoning or going to the planning board and getting permission to build. There would be notice to all property owners within 200 feet and the board will give as much weight as they can to what the residents say as they look at the specific site. I cannot just give you a blanket answer.

Ms. Francis Sherman – 119 Red Pine Loop: I am very concerned about being notified because I am three houses away from someone who was noticed and that is how I found out and this does affect me. This is a major change and it seems to me that this has been very secretive. I would like to see you postpone this until more people are informed.

Mr. Jeff Welch – 40 Ledge Terrace: I would like to go on record requesting a map with street names on it. As a former Mayor of another town in New Jersey, I would be embarrassed to bring this to council. This involves stream encroachments and four story buildings in people's back yards. Mr. Gillespie came to my door during the election and said he was concerned about all the building going on and if you vote for me this won't happen. I have an article from the Suburban quoting Mayor Phillips concern for the over building in Old Bridge. Is this going to reduce my taxes? If so, don't bother, I would be willing to pay more. I think that the attorney is wrong about other towns, I have never seen maps like that before. I am embarrassed to say I live in the town with the way the engineer is answering the residents questions. Route 9 is not even listed on the map.

President Baker: Where were you Mayor?

Mr. Welch: In Califon, NJ. I cannot believe that you are considering this. I have heard talk tonight about urban sprawl and I am amazed.

Attorney Convery: I would like to invite you to come to my office so that I can show you the master plan from 1998 which first adopted the COI zone, that was readopted in 2000. The zone that is being considered tonight (COI) goes back to 1998. As a mayor, you would know that your zoning ordinance should follow your master plan. This did not originate last week or last month or a year ago. We can look at the maps together because I want you to be informed but I don't want criticism of anyone on the council for trying to look at the master plan from 1998.

Councilman Calogera: You are incorrect. Route 516 never had a COI on it.

Attorney Convery: I would welcome the opportunity to go over this with you.

Councilwoman Panos: Will that be before or after the vote?

Mr. Welch: Do you live in Old Bridge?

Attorney Convery: Yes.

Mr. Welch: Is this building up in your back yard? Is your area being affected?

Attorney Convery: No. However, there are plans for development where I live and I will discuss that with you when you come to my office.

Ms. Janet Cohen – 8 Brandeis Road: You have stated before that whatever will be done in my area will be on Route 9 – I am more than 200 feet from Route 9 and yet I received a notice, why?

Mr. Vincenti: That entire area is being rezoned. There is no proposed development before any boards.

Mr. John Sharp: The papers that you sent out said the hearing was in East Brunswick.

Mr. Vincenti: This is not our notice – it is the wetlands notice and it is unrelated to this hearing.

Councilwoman Panos: Who sent out the notice?

Mr. Vincenti: It is a LOI notice and not the one that the Clerk sent out.

Mr. Sharp: I would ask that you vote as if they are going to put a four story building in your back yard.

Male Resident # 1: The engineer has stated that the market should dictate what is built on the land – I disagree, I think the taxpayers should dictate what is built. Why don't we have a plan on what is being built before we rezone them. The setbacks are the same (in some instances) as the residential requirements. I would like to see commercial setbacks be more than 200 feet because if they live within 200 feet, they would not have to be notified.

Mr. Vincenti: The notices that get sent out are not from where the development stops, it is from the property line, so it doesn't matter where the buffer is.

Male Resident # 1: The parking lot could be 200 feet.

Male Resident # 2: If you make a decision to pass this, do I have the right to challenge it legally?

Mr. Vincenti: Of course.

Male Resident # 3: Why wasn't the public notified on this at the start of this instead of at the last minute?

Mr. Vincenti: When the master plan was debated in 1998 and 2000 there were notices sent and public hearings were held. When an ordinance is before the council the process is that the public hearing is at second reading in front of the council. The planning board discussed this ordinance at the October and November meeting.

Male Resident # 3: So the public has not input on the master plan.

Mr. Vincenti: The public hearing is now.

Male Resident # 3: Well the hearing is tonight and you are going to vote on it, so how will we be heard.

President Baker: We are not going to vote on this tonight. We work for you and I run this meeting, not so it is acrimonious, not so it is confrontational and not so it is politicized. If eight council members spoke when ever they wanted to, nothing would get done. It is not that I don't want them to speak, they can speak as long as they want after the public. If I just did nothing and the councilmen rant and rave like they were in third grade, nothing would get done.

Male Resident # 4: I have some experience with the notices that some members of the audience received from DEP and I would say if someone is applying for a wetlands delineation they are getting ready to do something.

Ms. Diane Cavallo: If someone has applied to the DEP, why doesn't the town know what is going on there? I received a letter for Block 9000, lots 10, 35 & 38.

Mr. Vincenti: Right now there are no development plans that have been presented to the township. All the notice means is that the property owner submitted plans of the property in its current state to the DEP and is seeking to get a delineation of the wetlands. If the property owner wants to do something on the property, it is a different step.

Ms. Cavallo: This notice came seven days before the township notice. I don't know Thomas Galante, do you?

Mr. Vincenti: Yes, I know him.

Ms. Cavallo: Who is he?

Councilman Calogera: He is one of the commissioners of the MUA.

Ms. Cavallo: He is the one who signed this letter. I wish you would vote tonight and vote no.

Ms. Wilson: I would like to invite the council to my backyard any time it rains so that you can be witness to eight inches of water. If you put concrete and a four story building, where do you think the water will go. All of us will wind up in a flood zone. A four story building will affect everyone in Whispering Pines and I think that the whole development should have been noticed. I do not think ten days was enough notice. About the map, you could have used a tax map.

President Baker: We are here to listen and no one has made up their minds and what you have accomplished so far is that you have gotten an additional map who gives us your name and address.

Ms. Wilson: I would pay additional taxes to not have a four story building in my yard. If the building does go up, I will definitely leave because if I am going to lose that much of my property value – it will be more than my mortgage and that is not fair to me as a property owner.

Seeing no hands President Baker closed the public portion.

President Baker: I would like to hear from the council now.

Councilwoman Panos: I am glad that you will not be voting on this tonight. I would ask that you have a workshop before this is brought up for second reading. These people tonight brought up great suggestions. I get disappointed with this administration because it does seem like things are rushed through. People are allowed to make comments and sometimes they are responded to. This has been on the books since 1998, so what is the rush? I am asking for a workshop on this. This will be tabled tonight, make sure that when this is on for second reading that there is a workshop before. Demand a better map. If this comes up for a vote without a workshop, shame on us and shame on you for not demanding it. Demand that you be informed. It is your right.

Councilman Butler: I would like to the thank the residents for coming out tonight. I received a lot of phone calls and I told the people to come to the meeting tonight. The public has to be informed on what is going on.

Councilman Calogera: The only way you have a shot to get anything done is to get out here together, in numbers. The reason that I asked the engineer to explain the zone is because I do not think that most people here realize that you can put a four story building there. I think that we have an obligation to let the public know what the zones are. Mr. Vincenti is right when he says “there is nothing planned” on the other hand this change sets those properties up to be built on. Once this zone is passed, the projects go to the planning board (which some call the “board of approval) and there will be nothing we can do. This is the point where you have to fight projects, it is the zoning of the property that is important. What this council does will affect the land for the future. You really do not have much effect in front of the planning board; when it is an approved use in the zone there really is not much that you can do. This is where you can be effective, here, tonight. I would like to ask Mr. Vincenti when the COI area was added to the Whispering Pines area? To the best of my knowledge it was not in the master plan of 1998 or 2000.

Mr. Vincenti: It was added when this proposed zoning was being crafted.

Councilman Calogera: When was that?

Councilman Gillespie: The ordinance was introduced by this council unanimously in October and was referred to the planning board.

Councilman Calogera: It was for first reading only.

Councilman Gillespie: The planning board had two hearings on this.

Councilwoman Panos: The public was not notified.

Councilman Gillespie: That is not true, the public testified at the hearing.

Councilwoman Panos: Were they notified?

Councilman Gillespie: It's worth mentioning that some of the members of this council were falling all over themselves to take credit for this ordinance last week. Mr. Convery when was the ordinance introduced and when was it sent over.

Attorney Convery: First reading was October 25, 2004.

Councilman Gillespie: It was considered at both November and December planning board.

Councilman Calogera: So the area around Whispering Pines was not in the original master plan changes. These people did not have the opportunity to speak when the COI was introduced with the master plan in 1998 and 2000. I hope that you were speaking about me when you said members were touting this. I had no problem with the COI zone, I helped create it, it was strictly for Route 18 and Route 9, not for areas where we have residential so close. I don't have a problem with the COI, I have a problem where you are putting it. This was never proposed for Route 516 by Whispering Pines, this is something that you guys dumped there for whatever reasons. I understand that Economic Development is supporting this on Route 516, right next to Whispering Pines. Is that correct, Patrick?

Councilman Gillespie: Yes and so did you.

Councilman Calogera: No I didn't.

Councilman Gillespie: Yes you did. Mr. Convery, who voted in favor of the ordinance for first reading?

Councilman Calogera: I voted for it on first reading because we are not allowed to talk at first reading. We can only speak at second reading. Block 9000, lots 10 and 11 are presently zones residential (R120), which means you can have one house per three acres. That is a big difference in the density – behind Whispering Pines. You say the density in an OG on Route 9 will be the same as the COI, but the uses are different. Originally I did support the COI on Routes 9 & 18 but the only problem is that we blew the land on O&Y which this council just decided to build 800 homes on. We are losing commercial space where we should be putting it. The Rotary Building on Ticetown Road comes up as AF instead of AR – has that been corrected?

Mr. Vincenti: I will have to check that – that is not an area that is being rezoned.

Councilman Calogera: No, but it is changed on the map and we could have a possible challenge in court. I still do not believe that a COI belongs next to Whispering Pines and that is why I am not going to be supporting this. I think we need to sit down with the people in that area and go over this.

Mr. Vincenti: On the 1995 map 100 Ticetown Road is showed as an AR and the current map that is before the council shows an AR – they are consistent.

Councilman Calogera: What about the zoning ordinance?

Mr. Vincenti: The zoning ordinance does not change any zone designation, only the map does.

Councilman Greene: I would like to thank the public for participating in this discussion tonight. The public is absolutely right about the map, it took me five minutes to find Route 9. There were some comments made about a prior vote on this ordinance and I would like to point out that we have a protocol (which I am dead set against) where the council members are not permitted to discuss it when it comes up for first reading. The protocol is that you vote for it so the public is allowed to receive the information on it and then we will discuss it at length at the second reading. I think that this is unfair because it certainly doesn't reflect the fact that I am supporting this at all, just because I vote on first reading. Don't let anyone deceive you when they say it was voted for unanimously because that is a deception. What this ordinance will do is get a giant step closer to commercial sprawl – that it was this is all about. This will let the developer build anything. What I think will happen is that on the already congested Route 516, in the Browntown area, there is a funeral parlor in the process of being built, new fast food places being built and before you know it there will be a free standing fast food place in Drug Fair parking lot, that is not the type of growth that I am looking for in Old Bridge. A couple of months ago there was an important issue that was voted on that enabled building residential houses on township property. When we complained about that and brought up that the prior administration suggested putting an office park there, we were told by some of my colleagues as well as members of the EDC that commercial does not work, that pointed out the building in Laurence Harbor. This is a flip-flop, now all of a sudden commercial is good, so lets take 1500 acres, 750 which is residential and build anything there. I think this is a disgrace. The development here in this neighborhood, we were told that this would be a place that people would be able to come and walk around and enjoy it. That never happened, in fact there are establishments in the development that are vacant. Part of this is trust and I do not believe what we are being told. I think this is just a plan to throw it out and attract whatever, we'll be gone in a few years and to hell with the residents. I have every right to say what I want to – I have waited long enough and I encourage everyone to hang in there and come back and fight this proposal.

Councilman Gillespie: I voted for this ordinance on first reading, I read it and paid attention to it, I understood what I was doing, I considered it for two months at the planning board and considered it with the help of our professionals and with the help of other planning board members, some of whom have been here for many years. I understand why you are all here and understand why you are a little upset, the information that you were given was not good and I understand that. I understand that what this represent at some future point is change and change is not good. I am certainly not here advocating continued development. We have to have underlying zoning ordinance and underlying zoning regulations and we have to make a judgment as to what is appropriate where. Someone mentioned Crossroads, which we had an extended debate about in the past, the EDC said; after studying this for a long period of time is that the property that we had, did not have highway access, therefore it was not good for commercial development. That is a simple fact, we had a letter of interpretation from DEP, which is what some members of the audience got, we knew that we couldn't locate any commercial or office or anything there because it didn't have direct highway frontage. If you look at the map and see Routes 9&18 and also 516, where we have existing office areas, so of which are already zoned for office, commercial and residential. We are saying that because it has direct highway frontage it is suitable for the COI designation. There were some things that were said tonight that I have to disagree with, it was said that this would lead to suburban sprawl, it's not. Route 9 & 18 are major highways and the reason that we are located the commercial office there is because the highway is there already, sprawl happens when you take a development and put it in a rural area, then you have to go through the entire public expense of building roads and sewers to get to it. We decided because these properties had highway frontage, they were suitable for a COI designation and to provide for a more flexible zone so that at some point if the property is developed, we need to have an affirmative zoning designation to go before the planning board. With all due respect to the zoning board, it is primarily geared to hearing variances. I believe that having these applications go to the planning board instead it will help us better plan for the buffer zones and the other things in the future on how the land will be developed. We all want to see or tax based diversified so that we don't have to go back to the residents time and time ago. Residential homeowners in this town bear a horrible tax burden and I believe that by taking this property and zoning it COI instead of residential will help at some point to alleviate the tax burden.

Male Resident: This gentleman has totally missed what every resident has said and it needs to be clarified.

President Baker: The public portion is closed, after the council speaks you will have another opportunity to speak.

Councilman Testino: I appreciate the public's comments and I am for waiting and working on this more so I will be voting to table this. This is not to say that planning isn't an important component of the township. We have to listen to public input as well as the professionals and try to work towards the best growth of the town cause it will come one way or the other. The builders are out there and moving on their properties, this cannot be a town that grows by variances and all the plans are brought to the zoning board. What we are trying to do is restrict some of the building in some ways. The whole community's plan of growth has to be put into action and into writing so that the lawyers can defend it in court. The planners tell us that growing by variances is a very bad way of seeing things developed.

Councilman Volkert: Mr. Gillespie told us why this proposal was brought forward. I always knew that when you listened you learned, I have listened to your concerns. Do I agree with all your concerns? Possibly not. You probably don't agree with mine or Patrick's concerns but we have to find a common ground. You cannot stop progress, I have lived in Old Bridge since 1941 and I have watched Old Bridge grow, when I moved here it was like a summer resort. I could have said “lets not build any developments”. Where Madison Park is was all woods. There was only one four room school, there was no high schools, we were sent to Matawan or South Amboy. The town grew and now we have a great education system. Time goes on and we have to move forward, you can't always say that I moved to Old Bridge because there were trees in my backyard and now they may be torn down, it doesn't go that way. People own that property and they want to develop it. You can't say because you moved here that the guy in back of you can't develop his property. There has to limits on it and that is what the planning board is for. I think that we have sit back and think about it an try and find a middle ground to address your concerns and address the advancement of the township. It is the administrations job to keep taxes stable. You can't always say “Gee, if its gonna be more taxes, I&'ll pay more”. Because there are 40,000 other people in Old Bridge that will say they don't want to pay more. Let's all try and work together.

Councilwoman Panos: There are two things that I want to remind you of and that is that Whispering Pines (Route 516) was not in the original plans. Route 516 is a big problem, years ago they wanted to widen 516. Mr. Gillespie were you on the council when that vote came up?

President Baker: No he wasn't.

Councilwoman Panos: He wasn't? I would like to ask the councilman if he was on the council when the vote to widen Route 516 came before the council.

Councilman Gillespie: I was.

Councilwoman Panos: How did you vote? Did you vote to widen it?

Councilman Gillespie: No. I voted no.

Councilwoman Panos: You voted no to widen the road and now you want to throw commercial buildings on that road. Where was your foresight then, and how has it that it has improved so greatly now?

Councilman Gillespie: I would like a point of personal privilege.

Councilwoman Panos: Why is there no hospital zone or medical zones on this?

Mr. Vincenti: There is a conditional use section that deals with two existing uses, one being the hospital. It recognizes the fact that the hospital exists and takes into account design standards for the hospital.

Councilwoman Panos: Old Bridge Regional is the only hospital between Freehold and New Brunswick along this corridor. I am concerned about the COI being zoned there by the hospital because there is such a variance on what can be built there. I would like to see us make this a hospital/medical zone. I would rather see a larger hospital or doctors offices there instead of a Wendy's or dry cleaners. I hope that we will have a workshop on these ordinances.

Councilman Calogera: I would like to point out that we are not allowed to speak on the first reading of ordinances. I think that putting the COI zone on Route 516 is extremely intrusive to that area and I feel very strongly that this area not be included. What is the floor area ratio?

Mr. Vincenti: It is the total floor area, including basements as a percentage of the lot area. If you had a one story building, the footprint could be 20% of the lot area. If you had a two story building, the footprint would be 10%.

Councilman Calogera: On a 120,000 square foot parcel, you could have a 25,000 square foot building.

Mr. Vincenti: Roughly 24,000 sq ft and that could be in one, two, three or four story building. You can only have a maximum of 24,000 sq feet.

Councilman Calogera: Are there parking lot regulations in this ordinance?

Mr. Vincenti: Refer to our design standards, which are unchanged. The parking size is required to be 10x20.

Councilman Calogera: I think this is very intrusive to the Whispering Pines development and I would like to see this separated out of this ordinance. I would request that the Council President set a date for a workshop, including the public, prior to second reading.

Councilman Greene: I would like to clarify what sprawl means to me and this is an unorganized way of growth. I have a problem with taking 1500 acres of land and giving it three different pages of uses – I am concerned about what we will wind up with.

President Baker: I do not want a four story building in my back yard, or yours. I do not want any water added to the table in Whispering Pines. I will make a motion to table this, not till tomorrow, not for a week, not for thirty days, not for sixty days – we will hear from the mayor first – and I will hold my motion to table until the mayor is finished. Those are my comments. I will make a motion to table until our March 14th meeting.

Councilwoman Panos: Can we have a work shop before that?

Mayor Phillips: I am thrilled that so many people came out tonight. I give a lot of credit to those who are trying to do something. We may not have hit the nail on the head tonight. This town is developing in such a way that every school is going under expansion because of the type of development that we are attracting is bringing in more school children. You look at all the things that you are not happy with and all of that is going on under the current zoning. The ability of the town to have a master plan is essential. The master plan that we have now has allowed for the 2500 homes (Woodhaven) being built on Texas Road. It allowed for 1400 apartments to be built on Route 9 – it allowed for the 367 homes for Oakwoode at Madison. It allows for over 400 apartments to be built at the corner of Cottrell and 516. This process has been around since the last master plan and this process has never had a public hearing. Councilman Calogera has been quoted as saying this is an idea that has been around for five or six years, but it never had an opportunity for the public to come out and comment. You have tonight and I thank you. You have spoken and we have heard you, have we hit the nail, I don't think so, but please give us credit for trying to try. People have quoted me or us as being against over development and we are, we are trying to find a way where there is less residential and more commercial, please don't fault us for that.

Motion

by Councilman Testino to table Ordinance 38-04, seconded by Councilman Butler and so tabled on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Butler, Calogera, Gillespie, Greene, Testino, Volkert, Councilwoman Panos, President Baker.

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: Councilman Maher.

Subsequent to the vote the following comments were made.

President Baker: This will be heard on March 14th . The will be workshop on February 7th there or about – you will be notified. It will be advertised and on the website.

Attorney Convery: I want to clarify that this is tabled until second reading until March 14th. The council having heard the comments can vote yes or no. There will be no additional certified mail notice to the public. The law requires that there be a certified notice to get people to the meeting and that has been done. You are here now and you are being told that this is on for the March 14th meeting. There will be an advertisement in the paper.

Councilwoman Panos: You have to certify the mail – people left.

Councilman Calogera: I will make a motion that we re-notice the public.

Councilwoman Panos: I will second that.

Attorney Convery: It has now been indicated that there will be a workshop at February 7th at 6:00 and the public has a right to attend. No formal action is to be taken at a workshop.

Councilwoman Panos: Will the public be notified?

Attorney Convery: The clerk's office sent out about 1,000 notices at a cost of $5.50 each for certified, return receipt.

Councilman Calogera: Then let's send a letter non-certified.

Attorney Convery: We have complied with the state law and the people who were interested came out and they were heard. I am suggesting to the council that it would be sufficient to simple notify that the matter is being carried until March 14th and that no additional notices need be sent. That is the normal practice where you have a hearing and carry it to a later date.

Councilwoman Panos: When the Crossroads project came up, many more than 1,000 people got a personal letter from the Mayor and Councilman Gillespie and I am asking that we do the same thing for the workshop and the hearing on March 14th .

Councilman Volkert: A little while ago Councilwoman Panos mentioned about Councilman Gillespie voting no on the Route 516 widening. He voted no because the residents didn't want it widened.

Councilwoman Panos: Can't he speak for himself?

Councilman Volkert: Now Councilwoman Panos wants a letter sent out at 37 cents a piece because Mayor Phillips sent a letter out at his expense, Councilman Gillespie send a letter out at his expense. If Lucille wants to send a letter out maybe she should do it at her expense.

Councilwoman Panos: I will. Did the letters that went out from the Mayor and Councilman Gillespie come out of their own personal account or a political PAC account.

Councilman Calogera: There is a motion and a second to notify the residents by regular mail.

President Baker: You have to recognized to make a motion and I don't recognize you.

Councilman Testino: Can we get an idea at the amount of the mailing?

Attorney Convery: It is around 1,000 letters.

Councilman Testino: I will make a motion that we notify the residents by publication and regular mail for the next meeting and also the workshop. Do it in the same letter.

Councilman Calogera: That is the motion I made.

President Baker: Fine. This was moved by Mr. Testino and seconded by Mr. Butler. Roll call.

Motion

to notify the residents of the workshop regarding Ordinance 38-04 and second reading hearing on Ordinance 38-04 by regular mail by Councilman Testino, seconded by Councilman Butler and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Butler, Calogera, Gillespie, Greene, Testino, Volkert, Councilwoman Panos, President Baker.

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: Councilman Maher.

Ordinance for Second Reading

Ordinance No. 39-04

An Ordinance to Amend an Ordinance titled “The Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Old Bridge”

BE IT ORDAINED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge in the County of Middlesex in the State of New Jersey that an Ordinance of this Township, the title of which is “The Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey” be amended, revised and supplemented as follows:

SECTION 1: The following ordinance sections shall be amended and added to Article 7-2 – ZONING of the Old Bridge Township Land Development Ordinance as follows:

Article 7-2 A. 3 Establishment and Purposes of Zones.

The following zoning district is hereby established.

COI - Commercial Office Industrial

The purpose of this zone is to allow a wide variety of uses, including retail, office and light industrial, in order to meet the employment and shopping needs of the Township and regional population. Development is encouraged to occur with a mix of uses, and have access to secondary or frontage roads and consolidate and link driveways to minimize highway curb cuts and provide for more efficient traffic circulation.

Article 7-2 B. 2. f Assisted Living Facilities and Hospitals

Sanitariums, assisted living facilities, convalescent and rest homes are permitted in any residential zone and the OG, or COI zone; hospitals are permitted in the R120, OG, COI,
and SD zone, provided that:

(a) The property proposed to be occupied by the use shall have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres, except hospital uses must have a minimum lot area of twenty-five (25)
acres.

(b) Minimum front, rear, and side yard areas shall be one hundred (100) feet;

(c) The lot coverage by building shall not exceed twenty five(25%) percent;

(d) The height of the structure may not exceed the maximum height requirements of this ordinance; provided, however, that the front, rear and side yard requirements shall be
increased by one (1) foot for each foot by which the height of the structure exceed the maximum height which would otherwise be permitted by this ordinance, and further
provided that in no case shall any proposed structure exceed fifty(50) feet in height;

(e) Hospitals located in the R120 zone shall provide a landscaped buffer of not less that seventy-five (75) feet from all property lines;

(f) The traffic impact for the immediate area as well the increased traffic volume being created by the proposed use shall be analyzed in written form by a qualified Traffic
Engineer and shall document the conclusion that the proposed use satisfies the following standards:

(a) the additional traffic resulting from the proposed use will not exceed a volume/capacity ratio of 0.8 on the adjacent street;
(b) the additional traffic resulting from the proposed use will not increase the peak volume by ten (10) percent or more; and
(c) the additional traffic resulting from the proposed use will not reduce the level of service at significantly impacted intersections to “F”.

Article 7-3 G. 4 Permitted Signs in Commercial and Commercial/Office/Industrial (COI) Zoning Districts

The following signs are authorized in conjunction with permitted and prior non conforming commercial, office, and industrial uses in the CN, CC, or COI zones;

(1) One (1) facia sign, which may be internally illuminated, placed or inscribed upon the front wall of a building or on each store front in the case of a shopping center,
containing only the name of the store and or the type of use therein and no other advertising material. Such sign shall not exceed an area equal to ten (10) percent of the building front. All such signs must be of the same area and dimension for similar stores, but the content or color may vary. Such sign may incorporate a time and temperature display.

(2) Three or more stores or occupants: one (1) freestanding sign, which may be internally illuminated and which may state the name of the shopping center or commercial or
other activity, the street address, occupants and no other advertising material. Such sign shall not exceed a total area of ten (10) square feet for each store or occupant in the complex, or seventy five (75) square feet, whichever is less. However, if the building or complex is located on a corner lot, a second freestanding sign, which may be illuminated, may be erected, provided that the area of the second sign does not exceed one half (1/2) of the area and the height does not exceed one half (1/2) of the height of the primary sign erected on the major street. Such sign may incorporate a time and temperature display.

(3) Two stores or occupants or less: one (1) freestanding sign, which may be internally illuminated, and which may state the name of the shopping center and or commercial
or other activity, the street address, the name and primary business of each of the occupants and no other advertising material . Such sign shall not exceed forty (40) square feet, and shall not exceed the height principal building on the complex or eighteen (18) feet which ever is less. However, if the building or complex is located on a corner lot a second freestanding sign, which may be illuminated, may be erected provided that the area of the second sign does not exceed one half (1/2) of the area and the height does not exceed one half (1/2) of the height of the primary sign erected on the major street. Such sign may incorporate a time and temperature display.

(4) One (1) canopy sign; in the case of a shopping center, wherein walkways are roofed over with a permanently installed rigid canopy or other structural device, a sign may be hung vertically for the underside of said canopy for each store front in the center. Such sign shall not be less than eight (8) feet above the walkway and may not exceed eight (8) square feet.

(5) One (1) sign in the valance of an awning containing only the name of the store and no other advertising material. The area of such sign shall not exceed eight (8) square feet.

(6) One (1) freestanding directory sign for every ten thousand (10,000) square feet of gross floor area, which may state the name of the occupants of the building or complex and other advertising material at the discretion of the Approving Board. Such signs shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area and six (6) feet in height.

(7) Freestanding signs within the parking areas to identify particular areas or sections of said parking lot provided that not more than one (1) such sign shall be permitted for each
parking area and further provided that such signs shall not exceed three (3) square feet in area on only one side nor exceed a height of twenty (20) feet. In addition, freestanding signs may be erected at each end of the parking aisle for identification purposes provided that such signs shall not exceed one (1) square foot in area nor exceed a height of four (4) feet.

(8) There shall be a maximum of two (2) menu signs for any drive-thru restaurant.

Article 10-13 COI ZONE DESIGN STANDARDS

In addition to the design standards otherwise set forth in this Article X, the following design standards shall be applicable to all development in the COI zone. Where the standards contained herein conflict with the standards otherwise set forth in this article, the standards herein shall govern.

The COI Zone contains a broad range of uses intended to encourage economic development in appropriate areas. Because such a large array of uses can have equally large variations in site design, it is necessary for the Approving Board to evaluate development proposals for: layout, aesthetics and architectural design with specific reference to the following factors:

1. Buildings fronting on or visible from Route 9 or Route 18 shall have an architectural design which gives the appearance of retail or offices. Uses which are non retail/office and cannot conform to a retail/office look should be located away from the highway.

2. Manufacturing uses along Route 9 and Route 18 shall be limited such that manufacturing is ancillary to a retail use. Examples would be: a candy shop, leather goods, jewelry, and apparel with products made on premises. To test for compliance with this section, the Approving Board should find that the use has the look and feel of a retail store with products made on premises rather than a large manufacturer which primarily ships products nation-wide or regionally.

3. Outdoor storage of equipment or materials should not be visible from Route 9 or Route 18. The Approving Board should recognize that certain product displays may be necessary for retail businesses such as a garden shop in conjunction with a department store or home improvement center. The intent is to maintain a retail/office look along the highway. No warehousing or permanent stockpiling is permitted along Routes 9 or 18.

4. Landscape buffers should be planted along all highways and streets to provide a well landscaped look, without thoroughly screening the business from view.

5. Access to properties will be controlled, by providing acceleration/deceleration lanes; by providing frontage roads and reducing the number of direct access points to Route 9, Route 18 and collector and arterial roads; and by providing lateral access between adjoining sites, so as not to force vehicles onto the highway unnecessarily.

Appendix C - Schedule of Permitted Uses

The schedule of permitted uses is hereby amended to set forth permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the COI Zone;
Permitted Primary Uses in COI Zone
The following uses are the permitted primary uses for the Commercial/Office/Industrial Zone:
1511 Hotels
1512 Motels
212 Dairy Products
213 Canning & Preserving: Fruits, Vegetables, Seafood
214 Grain Mill Products
215 Bakery Products
217 Confectionery & Related Products
218 Beverages
22 Textile Mill Products
23 Apparel & Other Finished Goods made from Fabric, Leather & similar Products
243 Millworks, etc. & Prefab Structure Wood Products
244 Wooden Containers
2499 Other Wood Products, NEC
25 Furniture & Fixtures
264 Converted Paper & Paper Board Products (except 265)
265 Paper Board Containers & Boxes
27 Printing, Publishing & Allied Industries
283 Drugs
284 Soap, Detergents & other Cleaning Preparations, Perfumes, Cosmetics & other Toilet Preparations
319 Other Fabric/Rubber Products, NEC
32 Stone, Clay & Glass Products (except 323, 3264, 3265 & 328)
341 Ordnance & Accessories (except 3412, 3416, 3417, & 3419)
342/343 Machinery
344 Transportation Equipment
349 Fabricated Metal Products, NEC
35 Professional, Scientific & Controlling Instruments, Photographic & Optical Goods, Watches & Clocks
3417 & 3419
39 Miscellaneous Manufacturing (except 396)
421 Bus Transportation
422 Motor Freight Transportation
429 Motor Vehicle Transportation, NEC
4318 Airline Co. Office (not at terminal)
4602 Commercial Parking Lots & Garages
471 Telephone Communications (except 4712)
472 Telegraph Communications
473 Radio Communications (except 4732)
474 Television Communications (except 4742)
475 Radio & TV Communications (combined)
476 Recording & Sound Studios
479 Other Communications, NEC
4811 Electric Transmission Right-of-Way
4815 Electric Utility Company Office
4819 Other Electric Utility, NEC
4825 Gas Company Office
4831 Water Pipeline Right-of-Way
4832 Water Treatment Plants
4836 Water Pressure Control Stations
4837 Water Utilities Company Office
4841 Sewerage Pipeline Right-of-Way
4844 Sewerage Pressure Control Stations
4846 Sewerage Company Office
4861 Combination Utilities Storage
4862 Gas & Electric Utilities Office
4863 Water & Electric Utility Company Office
492 Transportation Services & Arrangements
511 Motor Vehicle & Auto Equipment
513 Dry Goods & Apparel
514 Groceries & Related Products
515 Farm Products (except 5156, 5157)
516 Electrical Goods
517 Hardware, Plumbing, Heating Equipment & Supplies
518 Machinery, Equipment & Supply
519 Miscellaneous Wholesale Trade (except 5191, 5192 & 5193)
52 Building Materials
541 Grocery Stores
542 Meats & Fishes
543 Fruits & Vegetables
544 Candies, Nuts & Confectionery
545 Dairy Products
546 Bakeries
549 Other Retail Food, NEC
551 Motor Vehicles (excluding 5512 & 5515; also excluding used only)
552 Tires, Batteries & Accessories (sales only)
559 Retail Trade
56 Apparel & Accessories
57 Furniture (home), Furniture & Equipment
5733 Toys , Amusements, sporting and athletic goods
581 Eating Places
5813 Drive-in Restaurants; Fast Food Restaurants
591 Drugs & Proprietary
592 Liquor Package
5931 Antiques Sale
5937 Stamp & Coin Collectors, Supplies, etc.
5943 Books, Stationary, Art & Hobby Supplies
595 Sporting Goods, Bicycles & Toys
596 Farm & Garden Supplies
597 Jewelry Sales
599 Miscellaneous Retail & Trade (except Adult Bookstores)
61 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Functions
621 Laundries, Dry Cleaning & Dyeing
622 Photographic Services
623 Beauty & Barber Services
6241 Funeral Parlor/Mortuary
625 Apparel Repair, Alterations & Cleaning Pick-up
Services; Shoe Repair Services
6291 Clothing Rental
6292 Costume Rental
6293 Porter Services
63 Business Services (except 6372)
6398 Motion picture production (including TV)
641 Auto Repair & Related Services
642 Electric Appliance Repair & Service
649 Repair Shops & Related Services, NEC
651 Medical & Other Health Services
6512 Dental Offices & Services
652 Legal Services
653 Engineering, Architectural & Planning Services
654 Research Services
655 Data Processing Services
659 Professional Services, NEC
661 General Contract Construction
662 General Construction Trade
663 Specialized Construction, Trade Services, NEC
67 Governmental Services--All Levels
68 Educational Services
693 Business Professional & Labor Organizations & Services
6991 Ticket Sales Office
721 Entertainment Assembly
7221/7222 Stadium & Arenas
7223 Racetracks, Animal
723 Miscellaneous Public Assembly
7392 Miniature Golf
7393 Golf Driving Ranges
7411/7412 Golf Courses
7413 Tennis Courts/Private
7415 Roller Skating
7416 Riding Academy Schools & Stables
7417 Bowling Alleys
7425 Gyms, Athletic Clubs, Etc.
8221 Veterinarian Services
8222 Animal Hospitals
8224 Animal Kennels
84 Fishing Activities & Related Services

Permitted Conditional Uses in the COI Zone

The following uses are the Conditional Uses for the Commercial/Office/Industrial Zone:

Home Businesses
Home Occupations
Home Professional Offices
312 Rubber Footwear
3417 Guided Missiles & Space Vehicles
4603 Long-Term Storage; Auto, Boats, Trailers, Etc.
4712 Telephone Relay Towers
4732 Radio Transmitting Stations & Towers
4742 Television Transmitting Stations & Towers
4791 Satellite Antennas (Dish Type for receiving only)
4812 Electric Generation Plants
4814 Electricity Regulating Substations
4821 Gas Pipeline Right-of-Way
4824 Gas Pressure Control Stations
4833 Water Storage as part of Utility System (open reservoirs)
4834 Water Storage as part of Utility System (covered, including stand pipes)
4835 Irrigation Channels
4864 Combination Utilities Right-of-Way
491 Pipeline Right-of-Way & Pressure Control Station, NEC
512 Drugs, Chemical & Allied Products
553 Gasoline Service Stations (including Marine Stations)
582 Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)
6296 Massage Parlors, Steam & Sauna Baths
71 Cultural Activities & Nature Exhibitions
7451 Archery
7452 Pistol & Rifle Range

Permitted Accessory Uses in the COI Zone

The following uses are the Accessory uses for the Commercial/Office/Industrial Zone:

211 Meat Products
4391/4392 Heliport (with & without Maintenance Facilities)
Essential Utilities for all Permitted Uses
499 Other Transportation Communication & Utilities, NEC Temporary Construction Trailers
7421 Plan Lots & Tot Lots (separate)
7422 Playgrounds
7423 Playfields & Athletic Fields
7429 Other Playgrounds & Athletic Areas Swimming Pools/private Roadside Farm Markets, Barn and other Farm Out Buildings
814 Livestock
816 Animal Specialties
817 Residential Agriculture

Appendix D – Schedule of Development Intensity Limitations

Appendix D is hereby amended to set forth intensity limitations in the COI Zone District as follows:

Maximum dwellings per gross acre: 0
Minimum lot area: 3 acres
Maximum floor area ratio: 0.20
Minimum landscape area ratio: 0.40

Appendix E – Schedule of area, height and yard requirements

Appendix E is hereby amended to set forth area, height, and yard requirements in the COI zone district as follows:

Minimum lot width: 150 feet
Minimum front yard: 50 feet
Minimum side yard: 25 feet
Total two side yards: 50 feet
Minimum rear yard: 50 feet
Minimum accessory side yard: 25 feet
Minimum accessory rear yard: 25 feet
Maximum building height: 4 stories, 45 feet
Maximum accessory building height: 4 stories, 45 feet

SECTION 2: The following definitions shall be amended and added to Article 2-2 – Definitions & Abbreviations of the Old Bridge Township Land Development Ordinance as follows:

Dance Hall, Dance Club, or Disco – An establishment wherein the primary attraction is dancing to either live or recorded music.

Nightclub – An establishment wherein live entertainment is the primary attraction, and which operates primarily at night, caters to adult patrons, offers food and/or drink, and wherein an area for dancing may also be provided. For purposes of this ordinance, comedy clubs shall be considered night clubs.

Restaurant - Any establishment, however designated, at which food is sold primarily for consumption on the premises. However, a snack bar or refreshment stand at a public or community swimming pool, playground, golf course, play field or park, operated solely by the agency or group operating the recreational facility and for the convenience of patrons of the facility, shall not be deemed to be a restaurant. Similarly, a small eating area within or associated with a larger use such as a department store, bowling alley, commercial recreation facility, nightclub, dance hall, bus, train or other mass-transit station, shall not be deemed to be a restaurant. (bold – shows proposed addition)

Tavern or Bar - An establishment where the serving of liquor by the drink to the general public is the principal use and the serving of food or the sale of packaged liquors, if any, are accessory to the principal use. All such establishments shall conform to all Alcoholic Beverage Control regulations of the State of New Jersey and the Township of Old Bridge.

SECTION 3: The following ordinance sections shall be amended and added to Article X – DESIGN STANDARDS of the Old Bridge Township Land Development Ordinance as follows:

Appendix F – Schedule of Required Parking Spaces is hereby amended as follows:

USE OR OCCUPANCY CATEGORY PARKING SPACES REQUIRED

RECREATIONAL
Restaurant (without bar) 1 per 3 seats, or 1 per 50 sf GFA whichever is greater

Restaurant (with bar) 1 per 3 seats in restaurant area plus
1 per 2 seats in bar area, or
1 per 50 sf GFA, whichever is greater

Dancehall,Dance Club, or Disco 1 per 50 sf GFA, or 1 per 2 patrons @ maximum occupancy plus 2 per 3 employees on maximum shift, whichever is greater

Nightclub 1 per 50 sf GFA, or 1 per 2 patrons @ maximum occupancy plus 2 per 3 employees on maximum shift, whichever is greater

Tavern or Bar 1 per 2 seats, or 1 per 50 sf GFA, whichever is greater

SECTION 4: The following section shall be amended and added to Article VII – Zoning of the Old Bridge Township Land Development Ordinance as follows:

Article 7-3 D Application of Yard Regulations

The following provision is hereby established:

Article 7-3 D.6 Above ground and below ground pools on single family residential lots are specifically permitted to encroach into the minimum required rear yard or side yard accessory structure setback area, provided that a minimum distance of six (6) feet is provided between the pool wall and the affected property line.

SECTION 5: 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 6: 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 of the ordinance shall be deemed valid and effective.

SECTION 7: Effective Date

This ordinance shall take effect twenty (20) days after publication thereof after final adoption, unless the Council shall adopt a resolution at final adoption declaring an emergency and at least two-thirds of all the members of the Council shall vote in favor of such resolution pursuant to NJSA 40:69A-181; and upon this ordinance taking effect shall not be retroactive.

Moved by Council Testino to table until March 14, 2005, seconded by Councilwoman Panos and so tabled on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Butler, Calogera, Gillespie, Greene, Testino, Volkert, Councilwoman Panos, President Baker.

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: Councilman Maher.

Prior to the vote the following discussion took place.

A motion was made to table and a second was made, after a partial roll call vote it was decided that the public should be heard.

President Baker opened the public portion.

Mr. Lewicki: I think that this ordinance is moot, since you haven’t adopted the COI ordinance.

Seeing no hands President Baker closed the public portion.

Consent Agenda

President Baker opened the public portion on the Consent Agenda Seeing no hands President Baker closed the public portion.

AUTHORIZING WAIVER OF FEES FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ISSUED TO OLD BRIDGE FIRST AID AND RESCUE

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

RESOLUTION #646-04

WHEREAS, the Old Bridge First Aid & Rescue Squad has requested that the Code Enforcement Department waive their fees for construction permits due to water damage in their First Aid building; and

WHEREAS, the Squad has completed all the repairs and construction on their building; and

WHEREAS, the fees previously paid to the Code Enforcement Department total $393.00.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey, that the Code Enforcement fees in the amount of $393.00 to the Old Bridge First Aid & Rescue Squad are hereby waived and $393.00 shall be returned to the Old Bridge First Aid & Rescue Squad.

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

AYES: Councilmen Butler, Gillespie, Greene, Volkert, Councilwoman Panos, President Baker.

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: Councilman Maher.

ABSENT PODIUM: Councilmen Calogera, Testino.

AUTHORIZING THE AGREEMENT WITH MIDDLESEX COUNTY IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT A PAINT RECYCLING PROGRAM

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

RESOLUTION #647-04

WHEREAS, the County Board of Freeholders adopted Amendments 1994-1, 1994-2 and 1994-3 to the County's Solid Waste Management Plan which reassigns the implementation responsibilities to the Middlesex County Improvement Authority (hereinafter the “MCIA”); and

WHEREAS, the County, in conjunction with the MCIA, has undertaken a paint recycling program for the residents of the County;