Old Bridge Township, New Jersey - April 12, 2004 Minutes

A Combined meeting of the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge was held on April 12, 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 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.

Roll call at 7:30 p.m. by Deputy Clerk Stella Ward, showed the following members present: Councilmen Butler, Calogera, Gillespie, Greene, Volkert, Councilwoman Panos, President Baker. Councilmen Butler and Maher arrived late.

President Baker asked for a moment of silence for the troops serving in the Persian Gulf.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

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

RESOLUTION #208-04

WHEREAS, the following minutes are hereby approved:

March 8, 2004 – Regular
March 15, 2004 – Workshop

Moved by Councilman Butler, seconded by Councilman Volkert 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.

Bill List

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

RESOLUTION #209-04

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 April 12, 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 April 12, 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 $11,619,424.87 (General Fund)

Moved by Councilman Butler, seconded by President Baker 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.

Bill List

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

RESOLUTION #210-04

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

Moved by Councilman Butler, seconded by President Baker 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.

Bill List

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

RESOLUTION #211-04

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

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

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

NAYS: Councilman Calogera.

ABSENT: Councilman Maher.

Prior to the vote the following discussion took place.

Councilman Testino: Where do we stand on the overtime expenses?

Mr. Shah: In the police department we are in good shape. There are other departments that are over because of some disabilities, illnesses and snow related overtime. Overall we are in good shape.

Councilman Testino: Do you anticipate transfers to the overtime account?

Mr. Shah: Not as of yet. We will have transfers for the salary account.

Report of the Clerk

MONTHLY REPORT OF COLLECTIONS OF ROSE-MARIE SARACINO, TOWNSHIP CLERK

The following represents the collections made during the month of March 2004:

DOGS
2068 -2387 2,497.00
2233, 2310, 2311, 2340 n/c tags lost in mail 2,497.00
CATS
1-7 52.00 52.00

LICENSES
Vending

Amusement - $25.00
#’s
110-113 Friendly Sons 100.00

Used Car
358 Krystal Clean Spa 350.00
359 Sterimark Motors (License not issued) 500.00*money will be refunded
360 D&D Auto Sales 350.00

Sale of Gold
361 Golden Creation 25.00

Limousine
325 Tabinchek 50.00
381 Haqqi 50.00
383 Kahn 50.00
384 Rogalsky – MIRJ Enterprises 50.00
385 Kravstov 50.00
386-391 DVG Limo 300.00
393 Kahulla 50.00
400 Silver Peak – Sheba Datt 50.00

Sale of Flowers
357 Junice 75.00

Ice Cream
Alana Perez 25.00
2,125.00

BINGO/RAFFLE
RA 46-04 Institute for Brain Injured Children 3.75 add'l
RA 51-04 St Bernadette's Church 10.00
RA 52-04 St Bernadette's Church 100.00
RA 53-04 Dare NJ 10.00
RA 54-04 Dare NJ 150.00
RA 55-04 K of C Night at the Races 50.00
RA 56-04 Joseph A Cantena PTO 80.00
RA 57-04 Joseph A Cantena PTO 10.00
RA 58-04 Raritan Bay Health Center 10.00
RA 59-04 Senior Citizens Rotary Club n/c
RA 60-04 McDivitt School 10.00
RA 61-04 Raritan Bay Health Center 30.00
463.75

LIQUOR LICENSE
1209-33-007-004 Janela Place to Place transfer 227.03
1209-33-007-004 Bowne – Person & Place transfer 454.06
681.09

PARKING PERMITS
#1691-1758 ( Permits) 1,350.00
#1696, 1702, 1703, 1709, 1710, 1733, 1738, 1747, 1749, 1750, 1753
replacements 55.00
1712 voided

1,455.00

SEARCH
1 thru 4-2004 40.00
40.00

MISCELLANEOUS
Photocopies 154.81
Late fee – DOG 1,210.00
1,364.81

TOTAL $8,678.65

MOTION

to approve the report of the Clerk by Councilman Butler, seconded by President Baker 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.

Report of the Attorney

Attorney Convery: As of today, the Appellate Division of the State of New Jersey in the case William Cerra vs. Barbara Cannon and Thomas Collow affirmed the decision of the Superior Court. It agreed with the decision that the case filed by Mr. Cerra be dismissed on summary judgment.

At our last meeting I indicated that we are filing a lawsuit against the Breakfast Club 80 and are seeking a temporary restraining order. Judge Longhi issued a temporary restraining order against the Breakfast Club for occupancy over 200 persons and a restraining order against any sort of valet parking at the location. I will be going back to court on this and I will report back to the council any new developments.

Councilman Testino: What is the status of the property acquisitions for the Waterfront Phase II project?

Attorney Carol Berlen: I met with three of the four property owners, the one homeowner is out of state for the winter. The three that I met with have agreed to accept the offers that we've made. We are about to prepare the deeds.

MOTION

to accept the report of the attorney by Councilman Butler, seconded by President Baker and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

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

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: Councilman Maher.

Preliminary Public Comments

Ms. Linda Seiler: Suggests that Agendas and Minutes of the public meetings be posted in the lobby of the municipal complex.

Mr. Rao: Would like the council to do something about the rising school taxes.

Proclamation

Proclaiming the week of April 18 – April 24 National Volunteer Week in Old Bridge.

WHEREAS, Old Bridge is a township with a rich tradition of volunteerism; and

WHEREAS, the commitment to excellence in community service and the diversity of volunteer programs unite us all through a common goal, enhancing the quality of life; and

WHEREAS, the spirit of volunteerism brings new hope to those in need and to the future of the Old Bridge community; and

WHEREAS, there are new challenges to meet and new opportunities to make a lasting difference trough the dedication of volunteers; and

WHEREAS, through the efforts of our volunteer force all Old Bridge citizens are enriched; and

WHEREAS, Old Bridge recognizes the enormous contribution volunteers make and honors each individual for their personal devotion to volunteerism.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, James. T. Phillips, Mayor of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey do hereby proclaim the week of April 18 through 24, 2004 as National Volunteer Week in Old Bridge and acknowledge the contributions volunteers make through their dedication and commitment to improving the quality of life in the Township of Old Bridge.

Presentation

Patrick Gillespie for the Economic Development Corporation on the Old Bridge Crossroads Redevelopment Plan

Councilman Gillespie introduces the following members of the Economic Development Corporation that are in attendance: Larry Mehta, Peter Davis, Mike Spina, Joe Arena, Mark Proudman, Robin Rosen, Rose LaFergola (Secretary), Mike D'Agnes, Ann Babineau (Attorney) Russell Azzarello(Executive Director), Larry Redmond, Edward Testino, Mayor Phillips.

Councilman Gillespie: Tonight with us is David G. Roberts of Schoor DePalma LLC, after my opening remarks Mr. Roberts will have a slide show presentation (Presentation attached hereto entitled “Old Bridge Crossroads Redevelopment Plan – prepared by David G. Roberts – dated April 6, 2004”). After the presentation we will entertain questions, and I will ask for a resolution to refer this project to the Planning Board.

This plan is put forward tonight to help secure and achieve a great economic future for the Township of Old Bridge. The two most important goals that I want to highlight are that this plan will help create jobs and provide long-term positive tax revenues for the township. The Old Bridge EDC was charged with the responsibility to prepare and present this plan within the first 100 days of Mayor Phillip's term, we have met that request and hope that the council will move this forward to the Planning Board and hopefully adoption. The EDC has been working on this for time and we have been an early advocate to move the redevelopment process to move this project forward. Although Old Bridge has owned this property since 1997 a fair assessment is that interest has been scant since that time. Some may ask why should this land be developed at all? Why not just preserve it? This land had been set aside and had always been viewed as a piece of property for economic development to generate a positive tax ratable. O&Y proposed a massive development project of over 10,000 residential units on over 1200 acres. Most of the property has been sold to Middlesex County for what is to be the Phillips Parkland. This 500 acre tract was purchased by the township for $1,800,000.00 in 1997. I believe that given the set aside of the 1200 acres by the County for Phillips Park and the preservation of Runyon Watershed, the acquisition of the Rose Farm and the Lambertson tract and the pending purchase of land at Cedar Ridge and Woodland Trails, Old Bridge still needs land set aside for development to help generate long term revenue for our township. Our expenses will continue to grow and our revenue and tax base must continue to grow also. It has been said that chasing ratables in Old Bridge has meant chasing our tail. We are laying on residential construction that generate additional school age children which means that you will always spend more on services than you will realize in tax revenue. The plan that we are putting forward today is designed to not only realize cash from the Township owned property but also as long term tax revenue from this property. The plan permits a mixed use of office/hotel conference center/commercial retail/planned residential retirement community and light industrial uses. The plan designates which uses are appropriate be selecting different pods of development along clustered areas. I expect that we will hear tonight “Why don't we propose a plan with all commercial or all retail uses, the simply answer is that we have two significant constraints to this property that would prevent us from doing so; one is the constraint of the free market and they way that the real estate market has been operating here in Middlesex County. The other is that there are too many constraints on the land itself. This administration and this EDC have adopted a more proactive approach by using the redevelopment process to generate interest from the private sector and adopting a market based plan. We made two key policy choices along the way that we think will add value to this proposed development, the first is that we adopted a mixed use strategy, the second is that we added the land of the Legends Golf Center to part of the proposed redevelopment area. Adding this land simply unlocks all the other land that we have there and is key to this development project. Our plan is in step with what the private sector had been telling us throughout this process and has been telling us from the beginning when we first solicited their input. The site is really constrained by wetlands and that makes using the outer rim of the development as unworkable. The plan was drafted by Mr. Roberts to use progressive planning models by clustering development to maximize infrastructure investment and to minimize the cost of services to the township and taxpayer.

At this point in the meeting Mr. David Roberts presents to the council a slide show of the redevelopment project contained colored maps and designs.

After the presentation the following discussion took place.

President Baker: It is my impression that you are giving us a high level overview of what might be done at that property and you are looking for our concurrence to bring this to the Planning Board.

Councilwoman Panos: What are flex uses?

Mr. Roberts: This term is used for buildings that can be office or warehouses, they are designed so they have an internal shell that can modulate either way. We are using the term a little differently because it actually refers to area where the land uses can use any of the permitted uses.

Councilwoman Panos: Are any of the senior housing components affordable senior housing?

Councilman Gillespie: No, that was not contemplated. The town has met it's COAH obligation, with the addition of the 100 units at Maher Manor on Ferry Road, we hope to get extra credit. What we are contemplating is an active adult community (55 and over). If we were to do affordable senior housing any tax revenue that we would hope to realize from developing the property would be diminished.

Councilwoman Panos: Will they remain retirement communities, or is that flex also?

Mr. Roberts: This would set up per ordinance and in this case it is in the redevelopment plan. The committee was very sensitive to the pending COAH regulations that could potentially base future affordable housing on any kind of development. We made sure that we specified in the redevelopment plan that, should that occur, and should any redevelopment of this property result in an additional affordable housing obligation on the part of the township, that obligation would have to be met by the redeveloper on the property.

Councilman Calogera: Is there any other property added into this other than, the O&Y property that we own, Legends of Golf and the MUA property?

Mr. Roberts: No.

Councilman Calogera: How many acres did we wind up with the new delineations?

Mr. Roberts: A little more than half.

Councilman Calogera: How much of that is proposed for housing versus commercial and how much is left for flex space?

Mr. Roberts: At least 2/3 to 3/4 would be residential and ¼ would be office and convention space.

Councilman Calogera: 75% of this property would be used for housing. Does that include the flex area?

Mr. Roberts: Yes.

Councilman Calogera: This seems to be an extensive amount of housing.

Mr. Roberts: We capped it. If you assume there are 500 acres total, 2 units per acre, would be a cap of 1,000 units

Councilman Calogera: Would the tax abatements be available to the housing or just the industrial?

Councilman Gillespie: That decision has yet to be made. Any of these policy decisions would be acted on by the governing body.

Councilman Calogera: I always felt that tax abatements as incentives to bring in business were a good thing, I do not think that any abatement to bring in more residents is in our best interest. I hope that it would not be a recommendation to give abatements for residential construction. We don't need to do this, we get residents coming here on their own. I think that there is a lot of merit to develop the O&Y property into the Crossroads, I commend the EDC for their work on this. My concern is the extensive amount of homes that are in this, I would like to see this more slanted on the commercial side. I understand that there will be commercial property with a square footage of less than 10,000.

Mr. Roberts: There are what we believe to be small neighborhood retail areas to support the retirement community. The idea would be to pull into a gated entrance and there would be just enough stores to provide convenience for the seniors, so they will not have to go to Route 9 or Route 18.

Councilman Calogera: Would that floor area ratio also apply to the commercial area that you showed us in blue (the other flex area); are we going to be attracting small businesses. I don't think that is enough footage to consider tax abatements on. I think that we should strive for 100,000. square feet and larger to bring in economic development and rateables.

Mr. Roberts: That was just for a limited area; a support type of area. My estimate was that you would come up with somewhere around 200,000. square feet in the office conference area, about 100,000 by Texas Road. It is deceiving when you look at the map, because the property is more extensive than it might appear on the map.

Councilman Calogera: And there is approximately an additional 100,000 square feet in the flex area?

Mr. Roberts: Yes.

Councilman Calogera: So, if we push we could do about 300,000 square feet of commercial.

Mr. Roberts: Yes, based on my estimates. At .22 FAR at 26 acres, we had about 250,000 square feet for the conference area, the flex area was about 185,000 square feet. The reason for that is the parking demand.

Councilman Calogera: The building that was put up on exit 120 is 200,000 square feet. Here we are talking about maxing out at 300,000 – I always had hopes that we would be able to do more than that in the commercial area at O&Y. I don't feel that the ratables that we are going to get with 200 or 300 thousand square feet is as extensive as we can get.

Mr. Roberts: We are trying to get a balance. The plan does not contemplate one large building necessarily. It would be broken up into a campus, we are looking for possibly a hotel, conference center, a retreat center, a restaurant – you do not have something like this in town.

Councilman Calogera: Would that give us more or less in the square footage?

Mr. Roberts: It may give you less but the value would be more.

Councilman Gillespie: When we talk about the hotel/conference center, I view it like the Doral in Princeton. This is not an area with high rise building that will yield a lot of office space.

Councilman Calogera: Originally, when we did the rezoning, we created the COI and there was no housing included. Realistically, the argument has been made and I can accept some of it that a mixed used project might be necessary. I honestly think that we are going too heavy on the residential side. I would like the commercial side of this to be increased.

President Baker: How many school children will this generate?

Mr. Roberts: We haven't done a fiscal impact analysis, but generally speaking the age restricted type developments are desirable because they A.) supply a needed housing type and B.) the fiscal impact is minimal on school and other support systems because as a gated community they are not governed by the same kinds of condo types of laws.

President Baker: In a number from zero to 1,000. How many children?

Mr. Roberts: I don't have a number, but I would say minimal. The only time you would have school children is when possibly one person was 55, and they have grandchildren or siblings living with them. The number that would be generated by an attached or a multi-family type housing development, even it was not age-restricted, would be minimal and this is even less.

Councilman Calogera: What is the number of children in our school with commercial development?

Mr. Roberts: One of the reasons that balancing this with commercial and residential is because one of the issues with all commercial development, you would have maximum impact on your streets because the general characteristics at an office building is that they all come in at the same time and all leave at the same time. There is also a less impact on public services.

Councilman Calogera: The impact on the commercial traffic was briefly gone over and we found that it did not impact us because the majority of that traffic would be traveling at different times and directions then the traffic at rush hour.

Councilman Greene: Later on in the meeting we are going to be asked to approve permitting four parcels of land for construction of adult housing; which I support. I think that we should focus on housing where residents of Old Bridge who have raised their children and can no longer afford the five to six thousand dollars in taxes, can find a adult community in Old Bridge. I don't see it yet, when you paying $300,000.00 for a house in an adult community and seven to nine thousand in taxes. I am skeptical because only a short time ago there was support to give the golf facility the ability to build 450 apartments and if it wasn't for Councilwoman Panos, and Councilman Calogera and myself they may be digging the foundation for the 450 apartments. Now they are a partner in the project. You say you want a mixed used strategy, I say, it should be economic development – light industry. I think that you are selling out to the developer when you have ¾ of the property designated as housing. You say that there will only be two houses per acre, that is a 1,000 houses – which is in a limited amount of space, it won't be stretched out over 500 acres. We have all talk about this type of housing being a good ratable, we need to also talk about traffic and congestion. I think that we should be firm and develop this for commercial industrial development for a good, clean tax base. I don't think that we should take a ¼ of this and just build housing on the rest. I have a problem with this plan. I spoke to the EDC a while ago and I knew that this was going to be an uphill battle and I am disappointed at the number of houses that you are proposing. I think that long term revenue is in commercial industrial development and not in housing.

Councilman Gillespie: One point that needs to made regarding the Legends Golf Center is that by adopting this plan, that application (for 450 apartments) goes away. This redevelopment plan will supercede that application and whatever the zoning was on that property. This moves that into an entirely different realm, as you may know he still has some sort of active litigation involving the township and his application for that property. Also, we don't have any partners in this. There hasn't been any financial arrangement with that property owner, that property has been included in the redevelopment area because it made good planning sense. It gave us buildable land with access to Route 18 to create value for the rest of the township owned property. I can not tell you when the market will turn around and make that property entirely desirable for a commercial or industrial site. I think that I have already discussed the reasons for warehouses and they are not going to change soon and frankly the wetlands that constrains the property and in particular rims some of the Route 18 frontage on township owned property is not going to get any drier. The policy that we have had over the last seven years has been to wait for the large retail, commercial or industrial user that would come and solve all our problems and that hasn't happened. I think that, long term, this is the best plan that we could put forward. I think that Councilman Calogera's comments are well placed about tax abatements and about recognizing that we need some sort of a mix. I think that to hold out for a non-active adult component is not realistic.

Councilman Butler: I want to thank the EDC for what they have done. Have you projected the tax revenue from this development?

Councilman Gillespie: We haven't. We have built a lot of flexibility into this plan we expect redevelopers come in, they may make changes between the mix of what would be a detached or multi-family. We have not set specific goals with respect to tax revenues.

Mr. Roberts: One of the advantages to using the redevelopment process is that you are not obligated to approve anything. You have total control of what is in the plan and what you can negotiate in individual redevelopment agreements. You own 90% of the property. If you don't between this process and a conventional site plan and development application process. We actually put in language to make sure that there is the maximum due diligence on the part of any redeveloper that the township might enter into an agreement with. It would require fiscal, traffic and drainage impact studies, before anything is before the planning board. At the very end of the plan we set forth the process for selecting a developer.

Councilman Butler: Can you explain more about the Hotel/Conference Center?

Mr. Roberts: We tried to provide a mix of conference facilities and meeting facilities and amenities in a campus setting – the plan has some examples of this.

Councilman Butler: I am member of the Chamber of Commerce and we receive a lot of calls tying to find a hotel in Old Bridge.

Councilman Testino: I want to thank the EDC for assembling such a professional team. The mission statement of the EDC was to work with the business professionals and coming up with a realistic and doable plan. One mission was that it had to be marketable, one of the things that the bankers on the committee taught me was that this had to have a chance of succeeding. People like Pete Davis and Mark Proudman make these business decisions everyday and they know what sells. The atmosphere in Old Bridge was that we didn't want any tax impact, we wanted the best impact to our tax bases that we could achieve. I thought the best way was to bring in all the commercial that we could, but there are negatives to bringing in some kinds of commercial, there would be complaints if we brought in all the heavy trucking. I want to commend the sub-committee and the board itself for all the fine work that they have done, this isn't just the last 100 days that this has been worked on. I think that Anne Babineau has been on this for over a year. When we started to develop this plan we knew full well that this had to meet public scrutiny and eventually sell. I try to keep an open mind through this process and I am asking that the rest of council do the same and let this go through the public process so that we get the full comments back. I think that we owe it to the subcommittee to let this go forward because they have spent many hours putting this together. I think that they did a remarkable job meeting the goals that we set for them and also remaining flexible, knowing that the market conditions could change by the time that we bring this to fruition. When you are measuring this plan you need to know that there was a lot of thought and understanding on what the charge was in order to bring it forward.

Councilman Maher: What is the per acre unit in Monroe?

Mr. Roberts: I think it is 3.5. I think that anywhere between 4 and 6 is common in retirement communities.

Councilman Maher: We are at 2 per acre and that is lower than Monroe and they are using the same method with total acreage?

Councilman Gillespie: We believe so.

Councilman Maher: Does the recreation usage go away in this plan?

Councilman Gillespie: We do not contemplate a driving range or miniature golf, we do anticipate passive recreation use, using the forested wetlands in the buffer areas.

Councilman Maher: Will the driving range that is there remain?

Mr. Roberts: No, there is higher and better use of that property with its visibility from Route 18 would maximize your commercial ratable.

Mr. Azzarello: The owner of Legends Golf intended to do away with this anyway.

Councilman Maher: We are losing a key recreation facility in town in this.

Mr. Roberts: The actual 200+ wetland acres of the site is required to be available for public access.

Councilman Maher: Could you see a New York Sports Club in there area?

Mr. Roberts: It could be possible on the Texas Road side and would be a permitted use in the office campus.

Councilman Gillespie: We have recreational amenities planned for in the active adult community.

Councilman Maher: How do you see this developing in terms of phases or staging?

Ms. Babineau: In my experience staging or phases is most often driven by sitting with the private sector in context of a redeveloper agreement negotiation and talking about things like evidence of absorption rates with regard to how you stage a build out of commercial development so that you don't over saturate the market. We will have the opportunity to address this with regard to a redeveloper agreement.

Councilman Maher: What is the next step after this goes to the planning board?

Ms. Babineau: This body will make the decision as to what entity will be responsible, a governmental entity, for the implementation for the redevelopment plan. You have alternatives available, you could do it yourself, you could set up a redevelopment agency, you could use an existing housing authority. Tonight you do not have before you an ordinance for adoption of a redevelopment plan, you have plenty of time to consider this plan. Tonight, if you approve the recommendation of the EDC, you will be passing the responsibility to further review and develop the redevelopment plan over to the planning board and then is will come back to you after the planning board's thorough review for consideration of an adoption of an ordinance.

Councilman Maher: Is that when we would designate an agency?

Ms. Babineau: Yes.

Councilman Calogera: How many units of housing are we talking about?

Mr. Roberts: 1,000 would be the maximum amount that could ever be built on the property.

Councilman Calogera: Does that include the Legends parcel?

Mr. Roberts: It would be…It is possible that one developer would do the office campus.

Councilman Calogera: Does the Legends parcel add housing units to the…?

Mr. Roberts: One developer may not do the whole project – one may do the office campus and then that property would not be counted in the density for the planned residential development. The planned residential development would only be the part of the parcel that is devoted to that and that is where the acreage would come from so if that is less than the 500 acres than the two per acre would apply to that lesser land area.

Councilman Calogera: How big is the Legends parcel?

Mr. Roberts: I believe that it is about 30 acres.

Councilman Calogera: Would density transfer?

Mr. Roberts: No.

Councilman Calogera: If we subtracted the commercial which might be 125 acres of uplands, roughly 150 for non-commercial – if we are going 2 per acre, what would it be based on?

Mr. Roberts: It would be based on whatever the total tract area is for the planned retirement community. It would be something less than 500 if 500 is the entire area. It is very similar to a site plan from a planning board. They show you the boundaries of a tract, it would apply to that tract, we don't know if this planned retirement community will develop all at once or if one side of Marlboro Road gets developed first and then the other side. The density would apply to whatever total acreage is in those individual tracts, just like a site plan.

Councilman Calogera: Sometimes you have an overall site plan which would be 530 acres. I want to make sure that whatever amount of acreage that is being set aside for residential that we are still going with no more that two units per acre. If we wind up with 100 acres of residential, we only have 200 units. Do we have a value per acre on the land, both residential and commercial and also a legend with an abatement?

Mayor Phillips: I am very appreciative of the time and effort that Councilman Gillespie and the EDC put into this project. About 100 days I threw down a gauntlet and asked the EDC to do the right thing and take the right steps, to put aside any preconceived notions and do what is best for the residents of Old Bridge. I addressed you at your first meeting and asked you to think of this as an inheritance and come up with a plan and use it wisely. Everything that you have put into this plan is an economic positive. When I look at your plan and look at what you are going to be voting on late tonight with the property on Ferry Road – when I look at the numbers and the possibilities – this project is about six times bigger than the one on Ferry Road. If the numbers hold up, it means somewhere between five and eight million dollars a year going into the Board of Education budget without one dollar of expense. It means between one and two millions dollars going into the municipal coffers. I think that is a tremendous tax benefit to the people of Old Bridge. I ask you to join me in fighting for property tax relief for the people of Old Bridge. I look forward to the discussion at the planning board level, I am sure that there will be changes to this plan. I am struck by some of the comments, certainly we would all like to see commercial ratables, - I heard reference to exit 120, the buildings that were built there are vacant. I would ask the members of this council take the next step and send this to the planning board.

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REFERRAL OF PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE OLD BRIDGE PLANNING BOARD FOR ITS REVIEW AND COMMENT

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

RESOLUTION #212-04

WHEREAS, The Economic Development Corporation has recommended that its Redevelopment Plan prepared by David G. Roberts of Schoor DePalma, Inc. dated April 6, 2004, be referred to the Old Bridge Planning Board for its review and comment pursuant to New Jersey Statues; and

WHEREAS, the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge believes that said plan should be referred to the Old Bridge Planning Board for its review.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey that the Redevelopment Plan prepared by David G. Roberts of Schoor DePalma, Inc. dated April 6, 2004 be referred to the Old Bridge Planning Board for its review.

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

AYES: Councilmen Butler, Calogera, Gillespie, Maher, Testino, Volkert, President Baker.

NAYS: Councilman Greene, Councilwoman Panos.

Subsequent to the vote the following comments were made

Mr. Azzarello: I am available during the day to answer questions from the council or their constituents.

Hearing

Release/Reduction Performance Guarantee Primavera Estates.

Mr. Vincenti: This is a 25 single family home residential development constructed off of Morganville Road. Construction began in 1995 and was substantially completed in 1999. There was one reduction of the performance bond in November of 1999. We are currently holding a letter of credit in the amount $162,774.00, also, total cash is in excess of $31,000.00. We have tried to get this off bond on numerous occasions. There have been some extensive punch list items, the developer has tried on at least three occasions to remediate the site, each time he has corrected some deficiencies and exacerbated others. There was a meeting which Mr. Convery was involved in and it was decided that we would have the developer give the town the money that it would take to properly replace the deficient items, it is mostly curbs and aprons. The construction costs of the punch list items are estimated to cost about $22,750.00 – we have added a 20% contingency onto that, bringing the total to $27,300.00 – there was also a pavement deficiency in 1998, at that time it was calculated that the contribution should be $5,842.00 – we are looking for a replenishment of the inspection fees to carry us through the two year maintenance bond period. We are recommending that the developer post the standard and customary maintenance guarantee for two years. We are also looking for final sign off from Freehold Soil and I believe that we have the as-built drawings.

Mr. Salvatore Alfieri; on behalf of the applicant: My client has agreed to the requirements at the meeting with counsel and the engineer.

President Baker opened the public portion. Seeing no hands President Baker closed the public portion.

MOTION

to release the performance bond of Primavera Estates based on the recommendation of the Township Engineer by Councilman Greene, seconded by Councilman Butler and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

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

NAYS: None.

ABSENT PODIUM: Councilmen Calogera, Gillespie, Maher, Testino.

ORDINANCE FOR SECOND READING

An Ordinance to Amend an Ordinance titled “The Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Old Bridge – Planned Retirement Community District “PRC”

Ordinance #07-04

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 VII - ZONING of the Township of Old Bridge Land Development Ordinance as follows:

Article 7-2 A.1 Zoning Map.

The Official Zoning Map of the Township of Old Bridge is hereby amended and incorporated by reference. Copies of the new Zoning Map are on file in the office of the Township Clerk.

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

The following zoning district shall be established:

PRC PLANNED RETIREMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT ZONE

The following section is added:

7-5 Planned Retirement Community (PRC) District

A. Establishment. There is hereby permitted and created a Planned Retirement Community (PRC) District as shown on the Official Zoning Map of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey. The Official Zoning Map of the Township of Old Bridge is hereby amended to include the PRC District, and is incorporated herein by reference.

B. Definitions. As used in this section, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated.

PLANNED RETIREMENT COMMUNITY - A residential community provided for permanent residents aged fifty-five (55) years or over in which the residential property and the residential-related open space, recreational facilities and property are all owned by a mutual nonprofit corporation, or corporations, established pursuant to the laws of the State of New Jersey and governed, as associates or other entitles, all of which shall have rules and regulations controlling the development.

C. Purpose. The purpose and intent of the PRC District is to promote the planned development of an active adult community which shall offer certain recreational facilities for its residents in accordance with the general development plan approved by the Planning Board.

D. Permitted and required uses in a planned retirement community.

1. No building, structure or land shall be used for and no building structure shall hereafter be erected, structurally altered, enlarged or maintained except for the following planned retirement community uses by the residents of the community, their guests and other authorized users.

(a) Detached dwellings, townhouse dwellings, or multi-level dwellings for owner-occupancy.

(b) The following required recreational uses, at least one (1) of each:

(1) Clubhouse. Each clubhouse shall provide at least twenty-five (25) square feet of multipurpose space, not including indoor swimming pools, for each dwelling unit. In addition to the multipurpose space, such fully equipped facilities as game rooms, arts and crafts rooms, fully equipped kitchen and nurses station, office space and service facilities shall also be provided in the clubhouse. In no case shall the Clubhouse building contain less than four thousand (4,000) square feet total area in the aggregate. One (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for every eight (8) dwelling units.

(2) Swimming pool. At least one (1) swimming pool shall be provided at a ratio of twenty (20) square feet of water surface area for each dwelling unit the pool will service. There shall also be provided an improved sitting area, contiguous to all sides of the pool, having an area two (2) times the water surface area of the pool.

(3) Shuffleboard, or bocce court.

(4) Tennis Court.

E. Development standards. No building permit shall be issued for construction or other improvement in an active adult community except in accordance with a general development plan for the overall site and final site plan for each section that has been approved by the Planning Board. The following development standards shall apply to a PRC:

(1) Minimum area. The minimum site area for a PRC shall be at least fifty-five (55) acres contained in one (1) parcel that is not bisected by existing streets, roads, rights-of-way or railroads.

(2) Residential density. The total tract density of a PRC shall not be more than one and three-quarter (1.75) dwelling units for each gross acre of the tract.

(3) Lot coverage by buildings. Not more than twenty percent (20%) of the gross area of the total tract shall be covered by all buildings.

(4) Landscaped open space. At least sixty percent (60%) of the total tract of a PRC shall be landscaped open space, undeveloped conservation easements, or green area, which shall not include paved streets and parking areas.

(5) Building height. No detached dwelling or townhouse dwelling buildings shall exceed a height of two and one-half (2.5) stories, nor exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. No multi-level building shall exceed three (3) stories, nor exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. Multi-level building heights in excess of the herein stated limits shall be further modified in accordance with the provisions of Section 7-3.F of the Land Development Ordinance.

(6) Buffers. For areas of the tract developed as townhouse dwellings or multi level dwellings, there shall be a landscaped buffer fifty (50) feet in width from any road or tract boundary property line of the overall tract of a PRC development. No buildings or structure other than entrance gatehouses, fences, or freestanding walls shall be located within said buffer area. The design and composition of any buffer shall comply with Section 7-3 I. of the Land Development Ordinance. Buffer requirements for detached dwellings shall comply with Section 7-3 I. 4.a, "single-family detached dwelling".

(7) Accessory Structures. Sheds, pools, or other accessory structures shall not be permitted on detached residential dwelling lots.

(8) Building Separation Requirements. Section 7-3 B. of the Land Development Ordinance shall be applicable to all townhouse dwelling and multi-level buildings.

(9) Residential Building Facades. Section 7-3 C. of the Land Development Ordinance shall be applicable to all townhouse and multi-level buildings.

(10) Minimum building setback to Tract Boundary. The minimum setback to any perimeter tract boundary line shall be sixty (60) feet for townhouse dwelling and multi-level buildings.

(11) Off-street parking:

(a) Off-street parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the following schedule for the type of land use contained in a site development plan:

(1) Two (2) spaces for each dwelling unit, one (1) of which may be enclosed in a garage.

(2) One (1) space for every eight (8) persons for whom seating is provided in an auditorium except that this number may be reduced by the Planning Board insofar that combined use of parking lots is available.

(3) One-half (1 / 2) space per unit shall be provided for designated visitor parking.

(4) All parking spaces shall be ten (10) feet wide and twenty (20) feet long.

(5) No parking shall be permitted in the residential buffer area.

(6) Lighting in the outdoor parking area shall be of such height as to reflect light away from windows of the dwelling units or adjacent properties in order to minimize the impact of such lighting on the residents in the dwelling units.

12) Dimensional Requirements:

(a) Detached Residential Dwellings:

(1) Minimum Lot Area = 5,000 so
(2) Maximum Floor Area Ratio = 0.50
(3) Minimum Landscape Area Ratio = 0.35
(4) Minimum Lot Width = 50 Feet
(5) Minimum Corner Lot Width = 60 Feet
(6) Minimum Front Yard = 20 Feet
(7) Minimum Side Yard = 5 Feet
(8) Minimum Total 2 Side Yards = 12 Feet
(9) Minimum Rear Yard = 25 Feet
(10) Minimum Non-Critical Area = 80%

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 inconsistency.

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 the remainder shall be deemed valid and effective.

SECTION 4. 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 Township 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 Butler, seconded by Councilman Volkert and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

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

NAYS: None.

Prior to the vote the following discussion took place.

Attorney Convery: I would like to remove a sentence in the ordinance. I have discussed this with Mr. Vincenti and he is in agreement. In section D, subsection 2 there is a sentence that reads “at least one swimming pool shall be provided at a ratio of 20 square feet of water surface for each dwelling unit the pool will serve. The dimensions shall conform to the following guideline; a 25 meter pool shall have a minimum width of 45 feet and a 50 meter pool shall have a minimum width of 60 feet” I am going to recommend that the sentence regarding the guidelines be stricken from the ordinance because the standard is provided by the ratio of 20 square foot of water surface for each dwelling unit the pool will serve. The guideline may add confusion, furthermore, it may be limiting as to the shape of the pool. I do not think that this language is necessary in the ordinance because there is a standard of 20 square feet of water surface for each dwelling unit. I recommend striking that sentence.

Mr. Vincenti: I would concur that it is conflicting language.

President Baker opened the public portion.

Mr. Michael Gross of the Law firm Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla: I represent Old Bridge Estates, LLC which owns the property that has been referred to as “off Ferry Road”. I would like to express our appreciation to Mr. Vincenti who has worked long and hard on this ordinance. Generally, we are very much in favor of the provisions of this ordinance. There are two minor points I would like to make. One relates to the size of the clubhouse – section D,1 subsection b(1) – it provides that each clubhouse shall have at least 25 square feet of multi purpose space for each dwelling unit and that there is a minimum square footage of 4,000 sq. ft of multi purpose space. We were initially told that this ordinance was modeled after the Monroe Township ordinance, that ordinance requires 600 sq ft for every 50 units. If we assume that 150 units can be accommodated on this site, that would mean a 1800 sq ft multi-purpose area within the clubhouse. Less than half of what is proposed in your ordinance because the 4,000 sq feet is only multi purpose space, in addition to that, we must provide other space within the clubhouse. As the developers of this site, we want a nice club house, conversely however, the residents who are going to live in this development must have the means to support the clubhouse. You have to have a balance, we do want the residents coming here after it is built saying that they cannot support this. These become budget issues. We are fearful that the size of the clubhouse is going to be out of scale for comparable clubhouses in other retirement communities. We agreed on the 4,000 sq ft number, but we assumed that would be the total clubhouse size and we would agree to a certain minimum size for a multi purpose space, maybe 2,000 sq ft. That would be comparable to the Monroe Township Ordinance. The second concern is the size of the swimming pool, Mr. Convery did allude to the subsection and it eliminates the specific dimensions. However, the 20 sq ft of water surface area for every unit, if you assume 150 units, that would mean a 3,000 sq ft swimming pool. That is a huge pool which has to be maintained by the residents that live there. The Monroe ordinance only requires 1.7 sq ft per dwelling unit. The Monroe ordinance is over ten times less that this. We would like some consideration of these two items.

Attorney Convery: Perhaps you have an earlier version of the ordinance so I am going to read the section on the clubhouses “In no case should the club house building contain less than 4,000 sq ft total area in the aggregate”. I thought that you said the multi-purpose space had to be a minimum of 4,000 sq ft. For any development you have to a club house building that is not less than 4,000 sq feet in the aggregate.

Mr. Gross: You are correct, except if you assume that 150 units, multiply that by 25, you get 3750 for the multi purpose space, which leaves only 250 sq ft for the other uses. In reality you are going to have a much bigger club house building. The other provision is that the sitting area has to be two times the area of the swimming pool, so if the swimming pool is 3,000 sq ft, you need a 6,000 sq feet sitting area, which is excessive.

Mr. Anthony Spirito of the Brunetti Organization: On April 7, 2004, I forwarded a letter to Mayor Phillips and to Council. I am asking council to consider the following: The density of 1.7 dwelling units per acre seems to be a little low as compared to other retirement communities in this state, including the one mentioned in Monroe. In planned retirement communities each resident is charged a maintenance fee and in order to pay for snow removal, grass cutting and recreation, you are going to need “x” number of units to support that community and I think that 1.7 units per acre is too low to support any community. My second concern is that I think that it should be made a conditional use in all the residential communities in Old Bridge. My third concern is that we felt that we should have been asked our opinion with respect this ordinance because we are a major property owner in the community.

Attorney Convery: I am in receipt of your letter dated April 7, 2004. I would like to indicate to you that there has been a study and a consultant did look at various areas throughout the town and provided that information to the Engineering Department. As to whether or not there should be some sort of over-lay zone, that is always a possibility, the town is looking at various options in this regard – but it is not before the board this evening. As far as you wanting to have additional input, I would tell you that Mr. Vincenti and I would be glad to meet with you, if you think that you have some plan that would be a benefit to the town.

Mr. Peter Calafati Chief Operating Officer for the Brunetti Organization: We have approximately 2,000 acres of undeveloped land in town and no consideration was given to our office. We are not objecting to the PRC zoning, our objection is to the way it went about coming to second reading. We think that it should have been discussed with other land owners and we think that the density along with the sizing of the pool, the clubhouse and what ever other amenities that are outlined in your proposed ordinance financially don't work. Even though it was stated that there was a report done, we would like to see a copy of it to see how cost effective it is. We are not opposed to the PRC zoning, but if you are going to have it, lets have an ordinance that works and is not so constrictive that you've zoned something that is not useable. I would also reiterate that statement, that picking out three spots, is a spot zoning issue. It would have made more sense to have an ordinance that it was an allowable conditional use throughout the town. That would have given other land owners that opportunity to use the PRC zoning. If that is in fact the intention of council. We would object to any property that was purchased with Green Acres funds to be used for the PRC zoning.

Mr. Joe Pagnotta: All other towns, that are not as big as us have buildings with pools and YMCA's. East Brunswick has Crystal Springs Water Park for the kids and we should have that here.

President Baker: The discussion at this time is only on Ordinance 07-04 - are you speaking about that ordinance?

Mr. Pagnotta: Yes. We need a big pool and other things that other towns have. We don't mind paying the taxes but at least give us something. We should start building the YMCA already.

President Baker: I think that I have captured your thoughts on the pool but this public portion is for the PRC zoning only.

Mr. Pagnotta: We need a hotel here also.

President Baker: You are too far off the subject, we need to move on to other members of the public that wish to speak on this ordinance. I want you to sit down and collect your thoughts and I will call you back.

Councilman Calogera: Are any of these properties involved in Green Acre funding?

Mr. Vincenti: No, none of the tracts that are slated for this zone are township owned and certainly none are green acres property.

Councilman Calogera: Mr. Calafati do you know of any properties that we are not aware of?

Mayor Phillips: I want to clarify that what he is referring to was a companion ordinance. It was designating Mannino Park as a redevelopment area, that was part of the discussion at the planning board. It just got mixed into this conversation.

Councilman Calogera: Two or three of these properties are already developed or have approvals or are in the process being developed. Kara has a variance for 5 dwelling units an acre. Where is Old Bridge Estates?

Mr. Vincenti: That is the Ferry Road property.

Councilman Calogera: What is on the other side of Route 9, behind Trabelli's?

Mr. Vincenti: That is Dr. Horton property, Pheasant Park.

Councilman Calogera: Is that also five dwelling units per acre?

Mr. Vincenti: Yes.

Councilman Calogera: Will any of that change if we adopt this ordinance?

Mr. Vincenti: No, those three developments (not Old Bridge Estates – the other property is on Jake Brown Road) were approvals of use variances by the zoning board. If you read the planner report by Sam Rizzo on this – this ordinance recognizes the use component that was approved and seeks to establish certain guidelines. However, what the zoning board approved is not going to be affected by this ordinance.

Councilman Calogera: So three of these developments are restricted by whatever the approvals were? So this ordinance will not affect three out of the four properties listed.

Mr. Vincenti: Correct.

Councilman Calogera: So then why are we doing this?

Attorney Convery: There were no planned retirement community zone in the town, they came into the zoning board seeking to develop this as a planned retirement community. The planning board heard them and thought it was a good idea and granted approval. By putting them into the zoning map to show that they are planned retirement communities, in the future if they sought to change anything they would be governed by the planned retirement community standards, otherwise they would always be a non-conforming use. What was approved by the zoning board, controls.

Councilman Greene: I want to make the point that, conceptually, I support this. There is a big difference from supporting this and the previous action, here we are talking about land that is owned by developers as opposed to township owned land. I think that some members of the public raised good questions on the pool, clubhouse and the density issue. As a developer comes in with the application and moves on with approval process there is flexibility on the part of the town, through negotiations. Is this true?

Mr. Vincenti: What we tried to do with the two areas that were addressed by Mr. Gross, primarily the recreational amenities. Monroe's ordinances deal with much larger tracts, what we tried to do is guesstimate the number of homes that were going to be going on the Ferry Road tract as well as compare that to what the zoning board approved in some of the other instances, particularly the Birch Hill and Pheasant Park project. When we weighed all that we tried to back into an appropriate pool size and an appropriate clubhouse size. What I also tried to do was if I was going to err, I wanted to err on the conservative side, and give the residents of that community a better recreational facility. In the back of my mind was Cedar Ridge II – where they were suppose to get a rec package, we also had issues at Woodhaven. These are minor details and I feel that it would be prudent for the council to adopt the ordinance as written and as times goes by we can reevaluate it, this can be addressed in one of two forms: 1) when the applicant finally goes before the planning board, the applicant can make his case for relief of these two design standards and have the planning board weigh what is an appropriate size facility; or 2) modify these two recreational features in the ordinance with an ordinance change. There is nothing wrong with adopting this and seeing how it works and tweaking it at a later date. I think that the important thing is that the ordinance body is good and strong and I think that it achieves the goals that we've set out.

Councilwoman Panos: There are five lots here, three have approvals already – two of these three properties were economic ratables that we gave up for development. How did the other two get invited, because I am concerned about spot zoning.

Mr. Vincenti: I don' believe that this is spot zoning. My definition of viable economic development is a form of development that is not necessarily solely commercial, office or industrial, it is a combination of uses that result in taking a look at what is readily accommodated by the constraints of the land as well as what the impacts of the surrounding community are. A planned retirement community has zero impact on the schools, it has less than 30% of the impact from a traffic impact of new trips and the equivalent number of single-family homes. It is also a viable economic ratable, it generates good tax income when compared to commercial, office and industrial type uses. In my opinion a planned retirement community is just as strong a ratable as a commercial ratable.

Councilwoman Panos: Can the study that was done be forwarded to the council?

Attorney Convery: There was a consultant that was hired last year. They looked at the whole town and they designated seven potential areas to look at for planned retirement communities. It was reviewed by engineering and planning and from that looked like the most viable parcel, based upon all the consideration in conjunction with the ones that has already been approved by the zoning board. We will get you a copy of the study.

Councilwoman Panos: How much is the average age-restricted home in Monroe?

Attorney Convery: It varies greatly and it would be foolish to give you a number because you have all different types of communities there.

Councilwoman Panos: Which way are we going? We seemed to be going to the higher end of retirement communities.

Mr. Vincenti: I think that Old Bridge is behind the curve.

Councilwoman Panos: How many people will want to pay $350,000.00 per house and their taxes will still be $7,000.00 – what is the average price of the houses already approved? Will they sell? Will seniors be able to afford this? How many school budgets get passed in Monroe?

President Baker: I think it would hard for us to answer questions about Monroe.

Councilwoman Panos: We are constantly being compared to Monroe, I would like to how they fare and how much their houses are.

President Baker: I will ask administration to get these answers and give them to the councilwoman.

Councilman Testino: I have been talking about this ordinance for over four years – I used to refer to it as PARC – Planned Adult Retirement Community. I think that we should have the ordinance in place so that it does go before the appropriate boards and if they come back in for an amendment, we have some control in what happens in the amendment. I would note that there is significant open space requirement, which is one of the things that I have been pushing for. I agree with Mr. Vincenti on the recreational components. I don't think this is an ending point but it is a good starting point.

Councilman Gillespie: I support this ordinance. We cannot believe in economic development in the abstract, we have to look at what the market potential for property is and what is marketable right here and now. You can't criticize active adult housing as not being a good ratable and then in the other hand criticize how much the people who are going to live there are going to be paying in taxes. They are going to be paying a lot in taxes and that makes it a good ratable so I am going to support this ordinance.

Mayor Phillips: This was something that took a lot of time, Jerome Convery and John Vincenti have been leaders in this. I think that the study was valid and I think that Old Bridge is behind the curve in terms of what it needs and I think by allowing this type of zoning, it takes the burden of the zoning board. I think that this is another tool in the box to try and bring property tax relief to the residents of Old Bridge. Under the old zoning the contribution these developments would of made were about $100,000.00 – under the new zoning it is $200,000.00. Under the old zoning it would have been a net benefit of $74,000.00 – because of the old zoning 56 children were expected to be in our school system – under the new zoning no school children will be going into our system and thus $890,000.00 a year will be going to the Board of Education. This smart growth. I urge the council to support this ordinance.

Councilman Calogera: Is it our intention not to have PILOT projects or tax abatements?

Mayor Phillips: There is not provision in this ordinance for this to be a PILOT. I would never rule out the possibility that somewhere, someday in this town that there would be a PILOT. This particular application, this particular zoning, this particular use, there is no language that would even infer that there was a PILOT.

Councilman Calogera: I think that this only works if we are getting all the ratable and not giving a PILOT.

Councilwoman Panos: What is the developer's recourse if this zoning does not work out?

Mr. Vincenti: There is always the outside possibility that someone will come back, but I look at Leisure Village in Ocean County which just celebrated its 40th year.

Councilwoman Panos: I know how much taxes those people pay. I am very concerned about the costs of the houses and the high taxes.

Mr. Vincenti: I think that you would be surprised at the taxes in Ocean County.

Councilwoman Panos: I know very well about the taxes in Ocean County.

Councilman Testino: Can we call the question?

Councilwoman Panos: What about the public?

President Baker: We called the public and closed the public portion.

Unidentified man: You didn't close the public portion; you said Mr. Pagnotta could speak.

President Baker: I would ask Mr. Pagnotta to hold his comments until the end of the meeting.

Attorney Convery: I want the record to be clear. Mr. Pagnotta was given an opportunity to come back and speak on this issue. Your comments must only be on this ordinance.

Attorney Convery: That is out of order. Please limit your comments to the planned retirement community. You can come back later in the evening to discuss other issues.

Mr. Pagnotta: I am against the houses, we don't need any more homes with five bedrooms because that brings in more children and school taxes.

Mr. Edward Clayton: On Ferry Road there are four private homes and Kinder Care, where is the roadway going to come in?

Mr. Vincenti: That is to be determined.

Mr. Clayton: Is there any paper work that I can look at?

Mr. Vincenti: The proposed zoning map shows that property in question, there is also additional paper work on file with the planning office.

Seeing no hands President Baker closed the public portion.

ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING

TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY
ORDINANCE 08-04

BOND ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING VARIOUS RECREATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE, COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, NEW JERSEY; APPROPRIATING THE SUM OF $132,300 THEREFOR; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OR BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE, COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, NEW JERSEY, IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF UP TO $126,000; MAKING CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS AND COVENANTS; AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN RELATED ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE FOREGOING

BE IT ORDAINED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey (not less than two-thirds of all the members thereof affirmatively concurring), pursuant to the provisions of the Local Bond Law, Chapter 169 of the Laws of 1960 of the State of New Jersey, as amended and supplemented ("Local Bond Law"), as follows:

Section 1. The purposes described in Section 7 hereof are hereby authorized as general improvements to be made or acquired by the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey ("Township").

Section 2. It is hereby found, determined and declared as follows:

(a) the estimated amount to be raised by the Township from all sources for the purposes stated in Section 7 hereof is $132,300;

(b) the estimated amount of bonds or bond anticipation notes to be issued for the purposes stated in Section 7 hereof is $126,000;

(c) a down payment in the amount of $6,300 for the purposes stated in Section 7 hereof is currently available in accordance with the requirements of Section 11 of the Local Bond Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:2-11; and

Section 3. The sum of $126,000, to be raised by the issuance of bonds or bond anticipation notes, together with the sum of $6,300, which amount represents the required down payment, are hereby appropriated for the purposes stated in this bond ordinance ("Bond Ordinance").

Section 4. The issuance of negotiable bonds of the Township in an amount not to exceed $126,000 to finance the costs of the purposes described in Section 7 hereof is hereby authorized. Said bonds shall be sold in accordance with the requirements of the Local Bond Law.

Section 5. In order to temporarily finance the purposes described in Section 7 hereof, the issuance of bond anticipation notes of the Township in an amount not to exceed $126,000 is hereby authorized. Pursuant to the Local Bond Law, the Chief Financial Officer is hereby authorized to sell part or all of the bond anticipation notes from time to time at public or private sale and to deliver the same to the purchasers thereof upon receipt of payment of the purchase price plus accrued interest from their date to delivery thereof. The Chief Financial Officer is hereby directed to report in writing to the governing body at the meeting next succeeding the date when any sale or delivery of the bond anticipation notes pursuant to this Bond Ordinance is made. Such report must include the amount, the description, the interest rate and the maturity schedule of the bond anticipation notes sold, the price obtained and the name of the purchaser.

Section 6. The amount of the proceeds of the obligations authorized by this Bond Ordinance which may be used for the payment of interest on such obligations, accounting, engineering, legal fees and other items as provided in Section 20 of the Local Bond Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:2-20, shall not exceed the sum of $10,000.

Section 7. The improvements hereby authorized and the purposes for which said obligations are to be issued; the estimated costs of each said purpose; the amount of down payment for each said purpose; the maximum amount obligations to be issued for each said purpose and the period of usefulness of each said purpose within the limitations of the Local Bond Law are as follows:

Purpose/Improvement Estimated
Total Cost Down Payment Amount of Obligations Period of Usefulness

A. Fiber Safety Surfacing at Various Playgrounds in the Township, together with the acquisition of all materials and equipment and completion of all work necessary therefor or related thereto $26,250 $1,250 $25,000 15 years

B. Resurfacing of Parking Lot at Higgins Road Soccer Complex, together with the acquisition of all materials and equipment and completion of all work necessary therefor or related thereto 27,300 1,300 26,000 10 years

C. Installation of Field Sprinkler System at Ticetown Road Soccer Complex, together with the acquisition of all materials and equipment and completion of all work necessary therefor or related thereto 78,750 3,750 75,000 15 years

Section 8. Grants or any other funds received from any governmental or private entity will be applied to the payment of, or repayment of obligations issued to finance, the costs of improvements described in Section 7 above.

Section 9. The average period of useful life of the several purposes for the financing of which this Bond Ordinance authorizes the issuance of bonds or bond anticipation notes, taking into consideration the respective amounts of bonds or bond anticipation notes authorized for said several purposes, is not less than 13.97 years.

Section 10. The supplemental debt statement provided for in Section 10 of the Local Bond Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:2-10, was duly filed in the office of the Clerk prior to the passage of this Bond Ordinance on first reading and a complete executed duplicate original thereof has been filed in the Office of the Director of the Division of Local Government Services in the Department of Community Affairs of the State of New Jersey. The supplemental debt statement shows that the gross debt of the Township, as defined in Section 43 of the Local Bond Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:2-43, is increased by this Bond Ordinance by $126,000 and that the obligations authorized by this Bond Ordinance will be within all debt limitations prescribed by said Local Bond Law.

Section 11. The full faith and credit of the Township are irrevocably pledged to the punctual payment of the principal of and interest on the bonds or bond anticipation notes authorized by this Bond Ordinance, and to the extent payment is not otherwise provided, the Township shall levy ad valorem taxes on all taxable real property without limitation as to rate or amount for the payment thereof.

Section 12. The applicable Capital Budget of the Township is hereby amended to conform with the provisions of this Bond Ordinance to the extent of any inconsistency therewith, and the resolution promulgated by the Local Finance Board showing full detail of the amended applicable Capital Budget and Capital Program as approved by the Director of the Division of Local Government Services, is on file with the Clerk and available for inspection.

Section 13. The Township hereby declares its intent to reimburse itself from the proceeds of the bonds or bond anticipation notes authorized by this Bond Ordinance pursuant to Income Tax Regulation Section 1.150-2(e), promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), for "original expenditures", as defined in Income Tax Regulation Section 1.150-2(c)(2), made by the Township prior to the issuance of such bonds or bond anticipation notes.

Section 14. The Township hereby covenants as follows:

(a) it shall take all actions necessary to ensure that the interest paid on the bonds or bond anticipation notes authorized by the Bond Ordinance is exempt from the gross income of the owners thereof for federal income taxation purposes, and will not become a specific item of tax preference pursuant to Section 57(a)(5) of the Code;

(b) it will not make any use of the proceeds of the bonds or bond anticipation notes or do or suffer any other action that would cause the bonds or bond anticipation notes to be "arbitrage bonds" as such term is defined in Section 148(a) of the Code and the Regulations promulgated thereunder;

(c) it shall calculate or cause to be calculated and pay, when due, the rebatable arbitrage with respect to the "gross proceeds" (as such term is used in Section 148(f) of the Code) of the bonds or bond anticipation notes;

(d) it shall timely file with the Ogden, Utah Service Center of the Internal Revenue Service, such information report or reports as may be required by Sections 148(f) and 149(e) of the Code; and

(e) it shall take no action that would cause the bonds or bond anticipation notes to be "federally guaranteed" within the meaning of Section 149(b) of the Code.

Section 15. The improvements authorized hereby are not current expenses and are improvements that the Township may lawfully make. No part of the cost of the improvements authorized hereby has been or shall be specially assessed on any property specially benefited thereby.

Section 16. All ordinances, or parts of ordinances, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.

Section 17. In accordance with the Local Bond Law, this Bond Ordinance shall take effect twenty (20) days after the first publication thereof after final passage.

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

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

NAYS: None.

Prior to the vote the following discussion took place.

Councilman Calogera: I would like some discussion on this.

President Baker: There is no discussion on first reading.

Councilman Greene: This is a combined meeting and I think that we should be able to discuss these items.

Attorney Convery: If someone believes that the ordinance is wrong they can vote no on first reading. If the ordinance hasn't been prepared it would be a discussion item. It is my understanding that these ordinances are in your packet.

ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING

TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE, NEW JERSEY
ORDINANCE 09-04

BOND ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO AND THE ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FOR THE TOWNSHIP ARENA IN THE TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE, COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, NEW JERSEY; APPROPRIATING THE SUM OF $105,000 THEREFOR; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OR BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE, COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, NEW JERSEY, IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF UP TO $100,000; MAKING CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS AND COVENANTS; AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN RELATED ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE FOREGOING

Section 2. It is hereby found, determined and declared as follows:

(a) the estimated amount to be raised by the Township from all sources for the purposes stated in Section 7 hereof is $105,000;

(b) the estimated amount of bonds or bond anticipation notes to be issued for the purposes stated in Section 7 hereof is $100,000;

(c) a down payment in the amount of $5,000 for the purposes stated in Section 7 hereof is currently available in accordance with the requirements of Section 11 of the Local Bond Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:2-11; and

Section 3. The sum of $100,000, to be raised by the issuance of bonds or bond anticipation notes, together with the sum of $5,000, which amount represents the required down payment, are hereby appropriated for the purposes stated in this bond ordinance ("Bond Ordinance").

Section 4. The issuance of negotiable bonds of the Township in an amount not to exceed $100,000 to finance the costs of the purposes described in Section 7 hereof is hereby authorized. Said bonds shall be sold in accordance with the requirements of the Local Bond Law.

Section 5. In order to temporarily finance the purposes described in Section 7 hereof, the issuance of bond anticipation notes of the Township in an amount not to exceed $100,000 is hereby authorized. Pursuant to the Local Bond Law, the Chief Financial Officer is hereby authorized to sell part or all of the bond anticipation notes from time to time at public or private sale and to deliver the same to the purchasers thereof upon receipt of payment of the purchase price plus accrued interest from their date to delivery thereof. The Chief Financial Officer is hereby directed to report in writing to the governing body at the meeting next succeeding the date when any sale or delivery of the bond anticipation notes pursuant to this Bond Ordinance is made. Such report must include the amount, the description, the interest rate and the maturity schedule of the bond anticipation notes sold, the price obtained and the name of the purchaser.

Purpose/Improvement Estimated
Total Cost Down Payment Amount of Obligation Period of Usefulness

A. Acquisition of Zamboni for Township Ice Arena, together with the acquisition of all materials and equipment and completion of all work necessary therefor or related thereto $73,500 $3,500 $70,000 15 years

B. Replacement of Township Ice Arena Roof, together with the acquisition of all materials and equipment and completion of all work necessary therefor or related thereto 31,500 1,500 30,000 15 years

Section 10. The supplemental debt statement provided for in Section 10 of the Local Bond Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:2-10, was duly filed in the office of the Clerk prior to the passage of this Bond Ordinance on first reading and a complete executed duplicate original thereof has been filed in the Office of the Director of the Division of Local Government Services in the Department of Community Affairs of the State of New Jersey. The supplemental debt statement shows that the gross debt of the Township, as defined in Section 43 of the Local Bond Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:2-43, is increased by this Bond Ordinance by $100,000 and that the obligations authorized by this Bond Ordinance will be within all debt limitations prescribed by said Local Bond Law.

Section 14. The Township hereby covenants as follows: