1

TOWNSHIP OF LOPATCONG PLANNING BOARD MEETING

November 29, 2017 The meeting of the Planning Board of the Township of Lopatcong was called to order by Chairman Johnson at 7:00 pm. A Prayer was offered followed by the Oath of Allegiance. Chairman Johnson stated “adequate notice of this meeting has been provided indicating the time and place of the meeting in accordance with Chapter 231 of the Public Laws of 1975 by advertising a Notice in The Star Gazette and The Express Times and by posting a copy on the bulletin board in the Municipal Building.” Present: Members Correa, Fitzsimmons, Schneider, Woolf, Mayor McKay, Chairman Johnson. Also present was Attorney Sposaro, Planner Ritter. Old Business: Minutes – Approve minutes for August 30, 2017. Motion by Member Schneider, seconded by Chairman Johnson. Roll call vote: AYES: Members Correa, Fitzsimmons, Woolf, Mayor McKay, Chairman Johnson. NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Member Schneider Minutes – Approve minutes for September 27, 2017. Motion by Member Schneider, seconded by Member Fitzsimmons. Roll call vote: AYES: Members Correa, Fitzsimmons, Woolf, Mayor McKay, Chairman Johnson. NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Member Schneider Ordinance No. 2017-09 – Amend Chapter 243 entitled “Zoning and Land Use” to Create the MFI II, MultiFamily Age-Restricted Zone. See Consistency Report prepared by Planner George Ritter dated November 20, 2017 and Memorandum from Katrina Campbell dated November 14, 2017. Planner Ritter reported Ordinance No. 2017-09 is an outgrowth of the Mt. Laurel/ COAH settlement that was entered into by the Council between the Fair Share Housing people and also Mr. Gardner an intervenor in the case. The Ordinance proposes to rezone about 16.6 acres of ground known as the Piazza Tract from Highway Business to permit multi-family housing of which there would be a mix of market rate housing and senior citizen housing and in exchange for that rezoning Larken would provide a minimum of 20% set aside of affordable housing. The Ordinance is essentially the same ordinance that is being used for the development of Sycamore Landing. It is the same general setback for standards, the densities are the same. The primary difference between it, is that this basically allows for senior citizen housing, allows them to be segregated, the senior citizens into a single building. It allows that building to be four stories tall

2

rather than the maximum height of three stories. That’s the principal difference between what you see going up at Sycamore Landing and here and this does require 20% set aside. Those units have to meet all the requirements of COAH and they have to be provided in accordance with the COAH standards for providing housing. This site was reviewed not so much as a reexamination of the Master Plan but was reviewed back in 2015 and I wrote a report as part of the ongoing discussion of the Piazza Tract as to whether it was appropriate to consider the rezoning from Highway Business to Residential and that it was substantially consistent with the goals and objectives set forth in the most recently adopted Housing Element of the Master Plan of May 27, 2015. The tract of ground that is being considered although most would like to leave it as Highway/Commercial, the actual change to a multi-family use is not inconsistent with the character of the area or would cause any real undue harm to the neighboring properties. That it would, essentially fit, and the highways could handle the capacity and that there was existing capacity to serve both in terms of public water and sewer the project. If rezoned, there would be no significant impact on the town or its zone plan. What you see is the fallout of the settlement agreement or the litigation involved in terms of COAH, this will clearly benefit the town. The required number of affordable housing units going into Round 3 can actually be met without the Piazza Tract. The town has, through its previous programs to provide affordable housing, have enough units that in theory the Piazza Tract is not required to meet our Third Round obligation, but since they were intervenors in the lawsuit between the Township, the Fair Share Council, one of the conditions that Fair Share placed on the town is that we had to negotiate a settlement with Larken as an intervenor. So that’s how they come into the case. Larken will be providing a bonus of 40 units that can be applied to the Third Round but can be carried over into the Fourth Round which has not been determined yet. This is a good deal and it settles litigation that could truthfully drag on for a considerable amount of time and have a great deal of cost and it settles it in a way that is suitable, acceptable for the town in the sense of the location for it and it is a lot simpler and cleaner than to continue to litigate over. Fair Share reduced our overall numbers in the settlement by 30 percent which is one of the reasons we have a surplus going forward. In the report to help Council in their deliberation of the ordinance because one of the requirements in the Municipal Land Use Law is that if an ordinance is inconsistent with the Land Use Element of the Master Plan, Council may adopt it. They don’t have to have consistency but they’re supposed to set forth points that they think support the rezoning. In this report elements were identified that furthered the public welfare and is consistent with our Master Plan. Where it is inconsistent is that the tract was never looked at for the purposes of accommodating multi-family housing or for that matter affordable housing and this memo puts forth some of the positive aspects going forward with this type of development if approved by Council would help to support in terms of the Master Plan. It recognizes that as part of our Center Study which is ongoing, this tract is being incorporated into those recommendations so that it is really a question of timing as to whether it will be consistent with the plan. Once the Center Plan is approved by the Planning Board and by the Highlands assuming these recommendations stand, it will be in those plans and would be consistent. Outlined in our report is the positive benefits what it might do to be carried forward and in this report to help Council in their deliberation of the ordinance because one of the requirements of the Municipal Land Use Law, is if an ordinance is inconsistent with the Land Use Element of the Master Plan, Council may adopt it; they don’t have to have consistency but they’re supposed to set forth points that they think support the rezoning and what I tried to do in my report was actually outline some of the elements that I had thought were positive, that furthered the public welfare and that they might consider in their deliberation of the ordinance.

3

The type of project you are going to get is very similar to Sycamore Landing. Chairman Johnson – And we will be consistent once the Highlands goes through; that’s a year or two years down the road. Consistency is around the corner. Planner Ritter – Yes, it is part of the Highlands Center Ordinances that are being considered and assuming that the Highlands approves our request and that the Planning Board agrees to forward this up there, it will come back and eventually be consistent with the Township Land Use Element. Chairman Johnson – Right. So we had an ordinance from Town Council and what they need from us is for us to agree to it and pass this Resolution. Attorney Sposaro – Let me jump in here. Anytime the Township Council considers an amendment to the existing zoning ordinances under the Land Use Act, the Council is required to send the proposed ordinance to the Planning Board for consideration. There is no need to conduct a public hearing or hear any testimony. The Planning Board simply makes a recommendation. The adoption of the ordinance is at the Council level. Planner Ritter’s report outlines all the reasons why he believes and I believe it is in the Township’s best interest to adopt this ordinance and I think it is in the Board’s best interest and the municipalities best interest to recommend it be adopted. That’s the limited function of what we are doing here tonight. If the ordinance is amended and it is adopted, ultimately what will happen is Larken will come to the Planning Board with their site plan application and there will be an opportunity to have the professionals review that proposed site plan, pick it apart, you’ll have comments so it doesn’t mean they get to put a shovel in the ground once the ordinance is adopted. This is just a small part of the much bigger picture. I also concur with George’s comments that the settlement reached with Fair Share Housing and Larken saves the Township a lot of money and it’s really a win, win for everyone. There will be more housing for seniors because some of it is age restricted. There will be more housing for low and moderate income families. We get Larken off our back in terms of that site and then we’re way ahead of the curve in meeting not only our present but future affordable housing obligations. To me this is sort of a no brainer. I would recommend that you simply, again all you are doing is recommending that the ordinance be adopted by the Board. That and I felt so strongly about it and because timing is an issue, I took it upon myself and I hope no one is offended to prepare a proposed resolution that recommends that the ordinance be adopted. I will not hide that in large measure this resolution incorporates directly much of George’s report also borrows to some limited degree from Katrina Campbell’s report. It outlines the history and gives all the reasons why it is in the town’s best interest to adopt this. So if you have any questions, I think George and I are more than happy to answer them but I recommend you just move on, adopt this and get onto the business at hand. Chairman Johnson – It looks thorough, I don’t have any questions. Member Woolf – I have one question. You mentioned the four stories. Are we going to get into that again? We have a three story ordinance. If it’s opened up to four stories, we’re opening ourselves up. We made the self-storage go underground to get four stories or do they stay below the height restrictions?

4

Planner Ritter - Well this allows senior citizen housing because they will have elevators to go to four stories. That’s what this ordinance permits. It won’t be a variance if you will; it will be permitted under this ordinance. Chairman Johnson – For the senior portion. Planner Ritter – For the senior potion. The remainder of the project will remain three stories and 45 feet. Chairman Johnson – The senior portion was 50 units if I remember? Planner Ritter – They’re going to provide, yes, they’re going to provide a minimum of 50. They could provide more but my guess is it will be 50. Attorney Sposaro – And part of the reason for that is for elevators to be cost effective, they need to service more than three stories and even with more than one story, with senior housing you can encounter real difficulties with people if they have to walk getting even to the second story, they’re going on third story so this is a compromise that factors in all of those considerations and again it is only limited that height is limited to only the senior component. Chairman Johnson – I think to elaborate on your comment was if the senior component of this development is a little bit in every single building, then every single building can be four stories. Planner Ritter – Well the intent here, I guess, the answer is you can argue that but the senior housing has specific rules. They wanted them all in one building. They wanted the ability to provide elevators. They don’t want to provide elevators in the rest of the buildings that they are building and that’s really what they, I really doubt that they will be scattered. The other reason they won’t’ be scattered just to keep it in mind, is that when you do an age-restricted building, it’s hard to integrate them into market rate units because you are going to have specific restrictions on age and the type of facility you have so it was their desire to keep these all in one building so that they could better manage it and provide for the services that these type of people need and also clearly to provide elevators. They wanted to be able to concentrate them and quite frankly, one of the things we saw by adding the extra floor is it just keeps more open space and doesn’t have them sprawl out to do this because as pointed out, senior citizen housing whether it’s four stories, three stories, they’re going to have to provide elevators. These people aren’t going to walk up three stories let alone four to get to their units. So that’s really why we did it. The height limit of 45 feet and 55 feet is to accommodate the fact that they’re going to do peak roof architecture and they’re not going to be flat roofs and so we’ll see what comes in but I think we’re okay on that; that’s my general feeling on that. Member Woolf – I’m thinking the safety aspect too. Four stories, once fire alarm goes off, elevators are inactive; state law. So everybody is going to have to walk four floors if they’re on the top floor. Elevators automatically de-energize. I’m meaning it’s something to be concerned about.

5

Chairman Johnson – Right, is that something, this, do the four stories for the seniors is that part of the agreement and negotiations correct Tony? Attorney Sposaro – Yes and remember, during the site plan you will have every opportunity and the right to consider those public health and safety considerations. I suspect strongly that the seniors that the senior building if nothing else, is going to be sprinkled because of the type Member Woolf – They’re all sprinkled. Chairman Johnson – Any other comments or actually questions? All right then, I’ll take a motion to approve the resolution recommending the adoption of Ordinance No. 2017-09. Member Correa – Motion Member Fitzsimmons – Second Roll call vote: AYES: Members Correa, Fitzsimmons, Schneider, Woolf, Mayor McKay, Chairman Johnson and Alternate Fischbach. NAYS: None Highlands Center Study Report – Planner Ritter reported this is the result of work done over the last eight months. This incorporates not only the findings that support some of the recommended rezoning in here but it also includes mapping that shows your recommendations to the Highlands. This incorporates the Piazza Tract recommending it be changed from HB to the FMI II Zone. It includes the recommendation that the area behind the mall next to Sycamore Landing be incorporated into the Center Designation and that the zoning on that be changed from Senior to HB; Highway Business. It includes a recommendation to repeal the Industrial Overlay District which nobody’s ever used and since doing the Redevelopment Plan we’ve lost most of the impetuous to actually do that. This also includes the recommendation to modify the zoning around, in the older section of town and between Rt. 22 and Baltimore Avenue. This includes the background studies, the recommendations to rezone and the mapping that goes with it. If the Board is comfortable, this would be forwarded up to the Highlands Council for their review and comment. Hopefully, they will not have a lot of comments. They would send it back for the Board’s final review and also set a date for the public hearing. If we get through that process and it’s approved by the Planning Board as a Reexamination or essentially a Master Plan Element, then it would move to the next stage which would be how and when the implementing ordinances to carry it forward. This is a Master Plan in process followed by the implementing process. Chairman Johnson – As we’re moving forward, how do we would address our issues that are going to be happening. Do we do an amended plan to Highlands? Planner Ritter – Well, yes if something changes between now and when the answer is, yes it would either be incorporated into this if it has not been adopted yet by the Planning Board or it would be by the amendment process. It would basically have to amend our plan which would be

6

subject to the Highlands review and then it would be reincorporated back into the plan. Chairman Johnson – Right, but obviously the Highlands still has to be part of the process for whatever changes would come around. Planner Ritter –Yes. They have become our partners in this whether we like it or not. Chairman Johnson – Well, it’s for the right reasons right? We’re protecting Planner Ritter- Well no, no. that’s exactly right. I’m just saying we have to; we basically have to run it by them. The one thing that I also, which was part of this and we had discussed it which is really a zoning issue, this does involve the recommendation that sites that have been designated as potential polluters, going forward, they would have to do Best Management Practices if they are in karst topography or are in substantial groundwater recharge area. Chairman Johnson – Which they would have to do anyway because they were in the Highlands. Planner Ritter- No this incorporates it. This basically says they must do Best Management Practices. It doesn’t prevent them necessarily from doing what they have to do; they have to do the Best Practices for their industry. Chairman Johnson – Looking through it I don’t think anyone else has any comments, but looking through it there were a couple of things that I noticed the way it was worded it looks like basically everything we’ve talked to is more or less in here with how the Planning Board voted as far as I could tell. On the first sentence, and I guess one of the things that is going to be part of the process, is when the Planning Board does decide to talk about the ROM Zone. That has to be brought up to the Highlands for approval as well. So Highlands is going to be involved with that as well. So we haven’t addressed that zone yet. On your second paragraph, you mentioned that a study of the ROM Zone was completed and submitted to Town Council for review and comment. Planner Ritter – That’s the old study when we went back and looked at how the district was currently being used. It didn’t deal so much with the issues we’ve been talking about. It really didn’t deal with that. It went, that report dealt with who was in the district, how it was being used, how much acreage was still available, whether they had sewer and water. It was basically an analysis of what was there, who was there and what type of uses were there. Chairman Johnson – I think I saw that, that was the chart. Planner Ritter – Yes, that’s part of the chart that’s in here. So that’s in here, but that has nothing really specifically, to do with the ongoing issues of how we handle the asphalt plant or the concrete plant. Chairman Johnson – The whole zone, altogether. Planner Ritter – Well, that’s true. Essentially, I guess the good way to look at this is, that as it

7

relates to the ROM District, what this amendment would do, if approved, it would repeal our Overlay District which would take out all the mixed use options in the district and leave it stand pretty much as zoned today and it would implement Best Management Practices on the industrial users that are there and as you all are aware, both the asphalt plant and the concrete plant are considered polluters so they would have to follow Best Management Practices but that’s essentially what we do here and the only other issue that comes up is that it says major polluters cannot locate in Well Head 1; Tier 1 and obviously, there is a potential on the far side of town, not part of the Center because it’s out of the Center that could mean that people coming for development in certain areas there that are under the public well Tier 1 would have to follow Best Management Practices and would be considered Non-Conforming under the Tier 1 overlay. Chairman Johnson – This is a kind of a side question. I have a couple of them but what is the area of that where they have to follow Best Management Practices; how much of our Planner Ritter- It would affect everything in any of the Non-Residential Districts. The way we’ve proposed it, it’s Township wide. Chairman Johnson – its Township wide. Planner Ritter- Township wide. It’s not just Center. It would apply Township wide if you are a Non-Residential user. Chairman Johnson – Under the Center description, you said there is approximately 104 acres designated HERA which is the Highlands Environment Resource Area not Highlands Council unless I missed it. I didn’t see what area that was. Did you have a map for Planner Ritter – Yeah, there’s maps. What I did for you tonight and it’s a little late to bring it up but I know that copying, you got everything in black and white so what I did is I copied all the maps that are in there and gave them to you so you could get a better sense of what’s actually on the map and there is an area that shows the Highlands Environmental Resource. If you drop back to the Highlands, Lopat Highlands Center Environmental Analysis, it begins to pull out where we have underground tanks, where we have Tier 1 wells and also I’m, essentially your stream corridor is what is considered the environmentally sensitive area that follows the stream coming out through the industrial area and passing through town is the primary area and then you can see on there at least as identified, as best we can determine, the various types of wells and what tier we colored them basic on this map but clearly how much of the town they cover under Tier 1, in this area and so that, it’s actually a pretty small area of the area has any serious environmental and quite frankly, most of that is going to be protected as part of your redevelopment area. That’s the stream corridor, essentially that’s being set aside as open space in the redevelopment area. Right now it’s probably 90% of the restricted ground in the Center area. Now, the other ground in there, as you know there’s tributaries that will have some wetlands on it and that kind of thing, but the main stream corridor is what they’re interested in protecting. Chairman Johnson – And the whole entire Center is the (inaudible) area where Best Management Practices applies to the whole entire Center.

8

Planner Ritter – Yes, yes. Chairman Johnson – You can’t avoid that. Planner Ritter – You can’t avoid it. Everything that is industrially zoned in town has carbonate rock under it so it’s Chairman Johnson – So (inaudible) along the river. Planner Ritter – That’s right. That’s the area that everybody prefer you don’t develop at all. You basically preserve and stay out of. Chairman Johnson – Right and that is on either side of the river I’m assuming right? Planner Ritter- Yes. Chairman Johnson – Yeah, it’s hard to tell on this Planner Ritter –Yeah, on this map. Like I say most of it’s going to be protected. A big chunk of it is protected as part of the Redevelopment Area. Chairman Johnson – So more or less it follows the center of the stream and Planner Ritter – And the wetlands and the flood plains on either side of it, is essentially, what it is. Chairman Johnson – Okay. If anybody has any questions, jump in. I have a few here and there I’ll go through one at a time. Member Schneider – I think I can go after you. I would like to question and I can put it out now if you don’t mind, the ROM and the discussions and the letters we sent in and it’s going on five months now Attorney Sposaro – At the Chairman’s request, I called the Local Finance Board Executive Director and also the DAG that’s the Legal Counsel, Deputy Attorney General that provides legal counsel and I was told rather abruptly that they were not allowed to share any information with me. That there’s been a changeover, turnover in staff and that the matter could take six months, it could take a year. When they’re done they will notify not me but the individuals that have been named with their findings and recommendations. So, there you have it. We, they wouldn’t even acknowledge for me that it had been received. That’s how standoffish they were. Member Schneider – So, we could be waiting six months and nothing was ever even given to them. Attorney Sposaro – Well, I know they got it because I sent it to them but God only knows how long they will take. If you remember Joe’s submission was some 58 pages and you each offered

9

or all of you that were involved, each offered individual responses. Some staff person is going to have to go through all of that, pick it all apart, conduct an investigation, generate a report and a recommendation to the Local Finance Board that will then review it and either accept it in part, reject it in part, adopt it and then be in communication with the people that are affected by this. It could take years, it could take years. It’s government at its best. Chairman Johnson – We can’t finalize our Highlands Center until that’s resolved. Attorney Sposaro – I don’t know about that. Planner Ritter – I was going to say that you can proceed with what we are and the recommendations that we all agree on can be moved forward and the process can continue. If we get to a point where we can discuss the matter of the concrete plant and asphalt plant that can always be an amendment because to do nothing, means that the whole system just sits there. We can’t, we can’t process any of the Highlands Center stuff nor can we proceed with our conformance in any form. We can always amend just like we can always amend the zoning ordinance. Chairman Johnson – Is there a process associated with Planner Ritter – Well, right now the work we have done to put this together and to send it up and any comments that come back from them, up until you adopt is being covered by a grant. Okay that they are covering those costs. The down side on that though is that if we take no action, then I’ll be honest with you, I can’t get compensated for any of it because until we move something forward that they’ve review and approve, none of that grant money moves so let’s put it this way, I’m doing this with the idea that someday we will finish but Chairman Johnson – An the amendment would be included in the Planner Ritter – Well, that gets into a whole different issue. I don’t know. I can’t tell you that an amendment would be covered. I have a, we have a fixed set of grants to get certain, I guess the best way to put it, is the Highlands wants us to do our best shot at what we want done now to get this thing moving forward. If in the future we want to amend it, I’m sure they have no problem with that, but whether that’s covered under this grant, I don’t know. They just, they just want us to do the Highlands Center review, come up with our recommendations and move that process so that eventually we have a set of ordinances on the books that are consistent with the Highlands goals and objectives. That’s what they’re looking for and like I say, I’m sure that amending it is something that can be done. I can’t tell you though, quite frankly, that you know, there’s grant money, how much grant money there is to continue to play? The way we’ve handled it so far, if we run over in one area, we ask them to shift some money around which we can play that to a certain extent but I mean eventually that catches up to you. Chairman Johnson – I don’t want to think negatives of doing changes like we’re doing is that it cost a lot of money. Planner Ritter – Well, it takes time and effort.

10

Member Johnson – I mean changing the Master Plan is costly and we’re doing most of this under the Highlands Grant right now. Planner Ritter – Yes. Well this is, all of this is begin done under, the town is not picking up any of my time preparing where we are to date. That’s all going under the grant. Attorney Sposaro – I would recommend that we move the process forward and for, even if you don’t think you have the conflict and I think everyone where the issue is raised, was of the opinion that he or she does not have conflict. I think you should err on the side of caution. I think those individuals with the limited purpose of acting on the one issue there is a claimed conflict that you step aside, let the balance of the Board act upon that matter and then once the decision comes down, if you are allowed to participate, and you want to seek out a change, you do so, otherwise I think we just need to move off of this especially after the news that I got. If I thought that the court and word was imminent, I’d say let’s wait another month but we could wait another month to the cows come home and I just think it’s time for the Board to get on with its business and this is one of the most important things this Board does. Member Schneider – (Inaudible) part of that report hence the reason why you know, I sit in a seat here because there are things I want to see changed in this town. There are things that I would like to see for the future of this town and to wait for the Local Finance Board, you know, I’ll be skin and bones here before I get an answer from them because I’ve got some silly DCA complaints against me prior that took over a year and a half to be reconciled so if that’s the case, then we’re never going to get an answer on this and you know, it’s very disappointing that this is the route we had to take because of some stall tactics that needed to be done and it’s really a shame that this it’s come down to this; that we can’t sit on a Board that you were appointed to, to make decisions. Attorney Sposaro – I hear you. By the same token, my job is to protect the Board and to protect the actions that it takes so that they, I can insulate the Board as best I can from a challenge that certain Board members participated in certain actions that they should not have participated in. Whatever this Board does, someone may end up challenging what’s going to happen here so again, my best advice is to err on the side of caution whether or not you believe you have a conflict, whether or not I believe you have a conflict, it really doesn’t matter. It’s not what we think that matters. Mayor McKay – Well Tony, who would you envision would be able to vote on this? Attorney Sposaro – It’s a fair question. Mayor McKay – I mean certainly Pryor, he’s you know he might be considered an advocate for the asphalt industry; he might but I don’t know if he is but it gives that appearance and so if we’re considered advocates against the asphalt plant industry which we’re not, then he would be considered (inaudible) I don’t think he could vote so who would be left? Attorney Sposaro – As of the first of the year, I don’t know who will sit on this Board

11

Mayor McKay – No one knows exactly but I’m talking about right now. Attorney Sposaro – Right now, there were Mayor McKay – There would be Attorney Sposaro – there were claims that Mayor you have a conflict, Eric you had a conflict. Attorney Sposaro - so this side, this side. Member Correa – No, he didn’t have a conflict, Ken didn’t. Attorney Sposaro – Alright, so Member Woolf – No Board members to vote. Mayor McKay – (Inaudible). You don’t have a quorum. Attorney Sposaro – You have a quorum. Quorums are based upon the number of people who are present at a meeting. There can be less people than 5 or 7 that can vote on a particular matter. Chairman Johnson – It’s whoever’s present. Attorney Sposaro – And eligible to vote. So, theoretically you could have three people who vote on that matter. Come the first of the year, there probably will be more and whether they’re conflicted out, who knows. Whoever they may be. Member Schneider – Well, you know, that poses the question too, I mean I could just say anybody’s conflicted and write a letter and they’re going to have to follow the same thing that then they can’t vote because I’m saying they have a conflict. Attorney Sposaro – I guess you could. I guess you could. Chairman Johnson – And, that would be a year or two, a year and a half delay. It’s, I can’t believe how long it takes to get a response from them. Mayor McKay – And, that becomes the norm and nothing will ever to get done. Member Fitzsimmons – Can we process this along? I’m not going to be here next year. As you mentioned the funding thing, that moves it along, make some progress. Attorney Sposaro – It’s not going to be funded until it’s done. Planner Ritter – As far as the grant money, the grant money is set aside. It isn’t released until the product is approved by the Highlands so the (inaudible) that the Board takes here and the thought

12

they put it in is fine. All I’m saying is the Highlands doesn’t release any of the money on the grant until they have a product in their hands that we support; that the Board supports and they can support. Chairman Johnson – Basically 100% done is when you get your money. Planner Ritter- Yeah, yeah, they don’t pay interim; they’re not paying for interim work, let’s put it that way. Member Schneider – That be disaster paperwork wise. Chairman Johnson – That would be a mess. Member Fitzsimmons – So, this is like a deadlock situation. Is there anything we can move along? Member Schneider – Everything but Planner Ritter – Well, I guess from my selfish perspective to a certain extent there is nothing in this proposal. The zoning changes that changes the status quo as it relates to the asphalt plant and the concrete plant. There are good things in here. The Best Management Practices, the other zoning changes that you thought were appropriate are in here. We can proceed on that. Obviously, that doesn’t mean that you, as I say it doesn’t mean that you can’t come back and amend it at any time. Member Schneider – Right. We just don’t know the cost involved in that and you know, we don’t have a budget for that on the Planning Board certainly so Chairman Johnson – Well, it’s also Highlands approval right? Planner Ritter – Well, yes Chairman Johnson – Everything, if you come up with a suggestion for your Highlands Center and the Highlands Committee says, Highlands Council says no then you have to abide by what they say correct? Planner Ritter – Well, I don’t think you have to just accept it. Clearly I’ve never run into a case where they’ve just come back and said flat no. They may make suggestions and I think they give the town broad latitude as to what they would like to see in their districts and what they want to see work. The only thing they’re looking at is are you embracing some of the concepts protecting environmentally sensitive areas? Are you doing things that are consistent with the Regional Plan to protect the water resources of the larger community? How you treat, truthfully, the asphalt plant, the concrete plant or any industry in this district, I don’t think they really care all that much as long as you’re thinking about the potential, how it’s going to be managed, how it’s going to fit on the land. Like I say, the one thing we have in here is that everybody has to meet Best Management Practices which is their way of dealing with; it’s the Highlands way of dealing

13

with potential pollution sources. They would like the towns to embrace the Best Management Practices on all of them and that’s in here, I don’t think they’d have any problems with what’s being proposed and quite frankly, if later the Board has specific recommendations as to how other types of industries can be managed. I don’t think they’ll object as long as it’s consistent with their goals and objectives of trying to protect the water resources. That’s really why they’re in business; to protect those resources. Chairman Johnson – We’ve got to go back to Highlands regardless. I mean would it be worth it to throw out the Highlands the idea we just don’t want anything categorized as a major potential contaminant to be in our zone, in our Center. Just cut it cold turkey; you’re not signaling anybody out. If you’re a major potential contaminate source, you cannot be in our Highlands Center and just go to the extreme and see what their comment is. Planner Ritter – Those are conversations that the Board can have. You can make all potential major polluters Non-Conforming uses. That could be a recommendation in here because I’m not saying that that’s necessarily the best thing to do, but I’m saying you could because obviously they’re on karst topography, they’re on recharge areas, that will affect more than just the asphalt plant and the concrete plant. Your major chemical plant Chairman Johnson – It protects the area. Planter Ritter – I’m just, I’m just saying it has more impact than just on them. There are other users that fall in that category. Chairman Johnson – Yes, there are and any employer exiting would be grandfathered in. Planner Ritter – Yes, they would be grandfathered; they just wouldn’t expand without Chairman Johnson- Well, that would be up to the Board to decide. Planner Ritter –At that time. Chairman Johnson – Obviously, obviously even if you hypothetically, even if we did that and Highlands comes back, and the Council comes back and says okay, you’re protecting our water even more than what we wanted to do. You are above and beyond. We still can make the amendment later on because it sounds like this would just basically be feeling them out, you know, is, you know, to get their response; to get their comments on it. I don’t know. Planner Ritter – Yeah, it could be a, I, that type of recommendation could be included. I’m not saying it couldn’t be; it could be. Member Schneider – Any comments Tony? Attorney Sposaro – I’d move very carefully on the whole sale, excluding all of those proposed users and saying they are no longer permitted. In one way you may shoot yourself in the foot because any expansion would then go before the Zoning Board, not here and if you’re looking to

14

keep some of the businesses that you like in town, they certainly would like the opportunity if business presents itself to expand by changing the zoning. You may discourage some of these businesses from staying. You might feel hey that’s a great idea but you paint with too broad a brush, you can cause yourself, you can self-inflict some injuries here. Chairman Johnson – It would be, that would potentially need to be amended, also, as we’re finalizing this and I would not expect that. Planner Ritter – Well, remember this is a Master Plan. It’s not an ordinance and you, the Master Plan can make all sorts of recommendations. That doesn’t mean that necessarily everything in the Master Plan ever gets implemented. Besides the issue of the potential impact, it may not be implemented. Just putting it in the Master Plan doesn’t implement it. Attorney Sposaro – As George has said, by moving forward at a minimum, you require that all of these potential polluters follow Best Management Practices. That’s a step in the right direction. Why not get that under your belt and move forward with what you’ve got. Once the conflict issue has been resolved, once there is a change in the membership, you can always amend the Master Plan. There’s really, I don’t see it being a terribly significant cost in amending one particular portion of it. So for example, as part of the ordinance amendment that you’ve recommended to the Council’s associated with the settlement, there’s going to be an amendment to the Master Plan. It’s not a big deal. It is amending a specific portion that deals with zoning of that particular tract. I wouldn’t get caught up in the cost down the road. I think you just need to take some, move this forward, take some action. I think you should take George’s recommendation that really, to a degree, maintain the status quo. Get the protection of requiring all of these now permitted uses and those who have site plan approval and/or are in existence require them going forward to follow Best Management Practices. It may be difficult for you to do. It may not fulfill what you see your goal as being, but I think you need to take some action. Half the pie is still better than – I ate half a pie on Thanksgiving and it took several days to find a pair of pants that fit so. Chairman Johnson – I have two other comments for you. Just a follow up on that, you’re comment right there and you know, moving forward. Let’s just say if that was too broad of a brush; it was just something to throw out there is something in your opinion could you say well we want to eliminate all manufacturing from the ROM Zone. Planner Ritter- You can construct these zones almost any way you like. As an example this could be an all office zone. You could decide that you don’t want any more manufacturing up there at all and you can say going forward the only thing we allow in the ROM District is offices. Okay that just makes everybody up there, that exists, they can stay, and they’re just all Non-Conforming. I’ll give you an example in Chester Township we had a business district that allowed all sorts of retail and the township council decided they didn’t like the idea of having little retail places pop up; they changed the entire district to only allow offices. So the bottom line is we have retail uses along the roads that are all Non-Conforming and none of them can expand without coming into the board and the open ground that’s out there, you know, if we find an office user fine. I’m just saying you can do that stuff if that is what you as a board feel is in the best interest of the town and that’s what you want to do, sure you can do it and you can put

15

forth all sorts of mixes of uses in the district. There’s nothing written that says that you can’t or that it’s inappropriate. I mean it’s really your call as to what you envision your town. What your town wants to be and how it wants to get there and what you think the use is. I mean you could, we could be, the other side of that is if we pick wrong, nothing happens, it just sits there. Now it may be okay too but I mean the answer is it just sits there. You can develop what you want but it is an outfall of the consensus of what the town thinks its goals and objectives are and their long-term interest in what’s out there. So, I can’t tell you, you can’t Chairman Johnson – The report that came in, talking about the Highlands Center and they actually the MFI II the Multi-Family Zone we were talking about the sewer capacity I believe and I think I saw something in there that once the Piazza Tract is developed and the other apartments are finished up, the water source is basically dried up, right? Planner Ritter- You’re virtually to the point where the town, not quite, because the data center didn’t get built but you’re basically to the point where the town is going to run out of sewage gallonage relatively quickly and unless the plant is expanded which is obviously a regional plant and unless four towns, what is it, I forget now, come together on an agreement on how to change any allocation, that’s going to be a major stop on development and quite frankly that really was, you know, and I don’t want to rehash old history but that was one of the thoughts that went into some of the uses that were occurring in the ROM was could you get them in there with very low gallonage uses because if you get a plant that requires any kind of gallonage you can’t support him anyhow so the idea was can you get people in there that don’t demand high usage. I’m just saying that those are the issues you’re playing with on that area. It has Chairman Johnson – Piazza Tract – there is enough sewer for the Piazza Tract. Planner Ritter- Yes, there is. Chairman Johnson – That was determined. Okay. Planner Ritter –Yes, there’s enough. You know, but eventually you’re going to tap that out because you don’t have a lot. As far as I know, no one is looking at the long term expansion of the regional plant so it is going to cap out very soon probably. Member Schneider – All right then, you would say you know what I would love to have this office space there, we’d love to have you here, but we can’t because we can’t support your Planner Ritter- Well, you’ll just have very low intensity user’s cause they’ll all be capped out at 2,000 gallons. I mean so, you know, it just means that you’re not going to get anything of any scale or size. That’s not that they can’t develop but they’re going to be limited by what they can put in the ground or get permitted for a package plant but that’s a whole different game to actually go and do their own sewer system. Chairman Johnson – They probably couldn’t there if I guess right? Planner Ritter – Well, it would be hard on limestone and everything. I’m just saying that would

16

be the only other way they could get it. I’m sure that truly going for the plant would be the most reasonable way to do it. I mean as an example your plastic plant was going to hook into the sewer and it didn’t. They ended up doing their own expanded wastewater disposal system because they couldn’t get permission to go under the railroad tracks. Secretary Dilts – It did. Planner Ritter – They did get under now. Oh, when I talked to Paul I thought he said that they couldn’t get under. Secretary Dilts – No, they changed their mind. Planner Ritter – They changed their mind again. Okay, I’m sorry cause last time I talked to Paul, he thought they were going to do their own system. Member Woolf – No, they hooked up. They lost the bid under 57. They had to drill another hole. What would be the problem with just moving along with the Master Plan? Having the best environmental restrictions cause come the end of next month who knows who is going to be here. There’s going to be a new board hashing everything out again anyhow. Member Schneider – There is always going to be a new board but Member Woolf – I said who knows if it’s going to be a new board. Member Schneider – Right, right. Yeah, most likely will be. Attorney Sposaro – And then, there could be back tracking Member Woolf – Right, how long Attorney Sposaro – and changes as to things that you’ve already hashed over and fine-tuned. We’re really very close to the finish line. It is another consideration. You may, all the good work you’ve done, it’s not finalized yet. It is not adopted yet. That could, some of it could fall by the wayside. I don’t know if you want to see that either. You need to look at the big picture. Chairman Johnson – Right and honestly that could happen with anything I guess inside this report and this report isn’t going to be adopted by the Planning Board this year Planner Ritter – No, no and clearly it won’t be implemented. The other way to look at it is you can send any recommendations up to the Highlands you want it doesn’t mean that next year this board or the Council will necessarily implement it. Chairman Johnson – Agreed, and honestly, that really wasn’t the point, was my ideas as extreme as they were, were more or less to get the feel from Highlands so that maybe next year when we do have the conversation, at least we don’t have to say well what did Highlands think? It would make the stepping it would make the next step easier knowing whether or not Highlands is

17

already seeing something similar or even more dramatic and we’re okay with it. Planner Ritter – Well, I think Highlands will support anything that they think protects the resource. In other words being Chairman Johnson – The less is better Planner Ritter – Less is better in their mind, I’m sure. So, in that sense, I don’t think they’d have trouble excepting other recommendations as long as they see that the resource is beginning protected. Attorney Sposaro – They’re not going to micromanage this. They’re not going to do that. Member Schneider – They’re not, I agree they’re not going to micromanage it. The problem is here. It’s not with them, it’s here. I think with whatever you send them they’ll be okay with as long as it’s you know, you know, you’re protected no matter what it is they’re gonna Chairman Johnson – The more restricted we get, probably the more on board they’ll be. Member Schneider – Exactly, right, exactly so it’s not them that’s the problem. Chairman Johnson – Right. Planner Ritter – Well, I guess the other way to look at this is do you think what we have here is progress. I mean it might not be the end all to be all progress but I think it clearly improves the ordinance. It makes your Non-Residential people more responsible to maintain the environment and I think it’s gotten rid of a few zoning glitches that deserve to be gotten rid of. I mean the ones we’re talking about in here. So, I don’t see that, I don’t see this as setting any of those issues backwards. It doesn’t’ further some of the ones obviously that some of the Board members feel very strongly about but I don’t think this hurts the potential to do anything in the future either way. That’s all I’m saying Member Schneider – No it doesn’t. It would just be nice to have it all done in one report, here you go, here’s the proposal and you know, it just makes it frustrating, just frustrating. Attorney Sposaro – Democratic process. Chairman Johnson – It’s a legal delay tactic. Member Schneider – It is. Chairman Johnson – It’s not illegal, I just think it’s wrong. Member Schneider – It is morally wrong because you’re doing it for political reasons instead of to better the town.

18

Chairman Johnson – George on Page 12, this is under the Non-Residential Districts, under, I think it’s Page 12, this is the Master Plan reevaluation. We’re still talking about the Highlands draft. The first paragraph says the Township should consider rezoning Lot 9 and Lot 102 to HB Highway Business. I think we want to reword that and take out should consider and say the Township plans on rezoning so we are a little bit more in the affirmative. Planner Ritter- Sure I have no problem with that. By the way any, any edits or anything you pick up just let me know. I can incorporate them before we send anything up there cause I have a couple myself I found. Chairman Johnson – And the second paragraph as well George, take out it is recommended and just go to the affirmative. Planner Ritter – Okay. Chairman Johnson – And I think there was a third one Attorney Sposaro – The last sentence of that paragraph isn’t a sentence. Planner Ritter - That I corrected. I have that highlighted in my own, it should say the site. Chairman Johnson – And on Page 15, the last bullet, I’m sorry, it’s actually the only bullet where you had a recommendation that the Township repeal the PD Planned Development Overlay. I think we should just make sure there is no objections and put it as part of the report to repeal it. Planner Ritter – Okay. Chairman Johnson – Does anybody have any comments on or objections to repealing the PD Planned Development George talked about a little bit earlier? That’s been historically unsuccessful. Planer Ritter- No, there’s nobody that’s ever applied in truth for any of them. Chairman Johnson – So without any objection, we just say that that change is good Attorney Sposaro – My recommendation is to give George the next month to clean this up to pick up any grammatical or spelling mistakes that appear, to incorporate the changes that have been recommended this evening and to consider taking action on this at your December meeting. Chairman Johnson – I’d be comfortable taking action tonight. If your only talking about grammatical typos but Attorney Sposaro – That’s up to you.

19

Chairman Johnson – George, on Page 21, the list of major potential contaminated sources, that’s a list of what we currently have in our district right? Planner Ritter – This is what the Highlands gives as a list of major, this is their list. Chairman Johnson – Oh, this is their list. Planner Ritter – This is their list. Chairman Johnson – Yeah, Page 21. I thought it was bigger. Planner Ritter – This is major ones, they have minor. Those don’t have the same standards. These are major. Chairman Johnson – Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Planner Ritter – And just so you know, I’m going to be adding, I noticed one of our maps has already been outdated. Sycamore Landing is obviously provided with sewer now so that will go on as a sewered site on the graphics. Back when we did this, they hadn’t been put in there originally. Chairman Johnson – Actually, that did bring something else to mind. A lot of locations throughout the report were referring to vary local (inaudible) for the developmental areas. Could we put together a map that just shows where these areas are in our district? I think Highlands won’t really be able to catch up on when you call Planner Ritter – Oh sure, okay, I gotcha. Chairman Johnson – District naming map or something like that. I live here and I actually there was a couple I had to think about. Planner Ritter- You mean one that shows where these projects are out? Chairman Johnson – Right. So, Sycamore Landing well where is that? Planner Ritter – No, no that’s good that’s not a problem. Chairman Johnson – I think that would be it. That’s all the comments I have. If there are no other comments, I guess I’ll take a motion from Board members waiting till next month, doing it now, whatever motion you want to make. Any thoughts? Do you want to see the final in December or do we want to give George the go ahead? Member Fischbach – If you are going to make changes to a map and everything like that, maybe we should wait just to see what it all looks like and go to December.

20

Chairman Johnson – I mean, obviously it’s a pretty big report. We could all read it a second time and see if we come up with anything. Planner Ritter – And believe me, and if that’s what you’re going to do, anything you pick up just give me a call or shoot me an email if you find something that doesn’t read right. I’m going to go through it again a couple times but it never hurts to have an extra set of eyes. Chairman Johnson – If you want to, George if somebody wanted to email you a comment on the report, do they copy everybody or does it have to go only to you? Is there any Planner Ritter – Well, if it’s an edit I assume it go just to me. If it’s a policy question, you’d better send it out to the rest of the Board. Chairman Johnson – Understood. That’s fair. Attorney Sposaro – Do I really think that anyone else is going to have any substantive comments on this? Chairman Johnson – I don’t expect to have any. Attorney Sposaro – I think everybody’s had this. This has been talked about at nauseam. It’s not unusual for these things to be “cleaned up” after there’s been a motion to adopt something. Chairman Johnson – And the map that we’re adding is just to, it’s like a development naming map. Planner Ritter – It’s one of the maps that’s already in here. I’ll just add names to Chairman Johnson – And nothing else on any of the maps is going to change so I’d be okay letting George submit this once he makes his changes. I could do that. Attorney Sposaro – Then the question would be who is going to be eligible to vote on this. Member Schneider – Are you kidding? Attorney Sposaro – No, I’m not kidding. Member Schneider – We don’t have anything that’s changed regarding (inaudible). Attorney Sposaro – That’s very true. Chairman Johnson – Given that we’re holding off on the ROM discussion at this point, I think we’re all eligible to vote. That’s my opinion. Secretary Dilts – That’s why you moved forward with this whole exercise because you could all vote on this.

21

Member Schneider – Exactly. Chairman Johnson – Right exactly and I think it’s good if we’re all comfortable with it. What we could do is take a motion to approve George send this out and if the motion gets denied, we’ll wait till next month and that will be our answer on what the Board wants to do. Attorney Sposaro – Well, I think you make a motion to adopt this and authorize George to make whatever technical changes are necessary and then forward it on to the Highlands Council. Chairman Johnson – Is it actually adopting it or is it just approving the draft report. Planner Ritter – It just recommend. I will be sending it up to the Highlands for their comments. Chairman Johnson – Recommendation is to send the report up to the Highlands I think is the motion. Attorney Sposaro – Okay, is there a second? Secretary Dilts – Well, who made the motion? Chairman Johnson – I’ll make it. I didn’t have to but that’s good. Member Schneider noted Member Fitzsimmons seconded it. Chairman Johnson – The motion is George will make the minor changes he needs to and send it along to Highlands and we’ll wait for the response. The other option would be to wait to see George’s minor changes but probably not worth it in my opinion. So the motion is to let George send it out. Roll call vote: AYES: Members Correa, Fitzsimmons, Schneider, Woolf, Mayor McKay, Chairman Johnson, Alternate Fischbach. NAYS: None Chairman Johnson – Any other topics of discussion before we move to public comment? Member Schneider – Sorry to beat a dead horse but is there any other way to get a decision other than going to through the Local Finance Board? Is there an expert somewhere or an expert in any of this that we can go to for this? Attorney Sposaro – You can solicit an opinion from whoever you like but it's not going to be binding; it's not the state agency that's involved is the only agency that's doing the power to make these decisions unless Chairman Johnson – They are the top authority on this.

22

Attorney Sposaro – Unless someone initiated litigation but a judge may say this matter is before a state administrative agency, I'm not going to exercise my jurisdiction. Member Schneider – Yeah (inaudible) other than take legal action it's not the road I was suggesting. I'm just asking if there's any other entity that we could go to. Attorney Sposaro – No. In a word, no. Alternate Fischbach – Tony with a change in administration down in Trenton is that a potential of prolonging this also? Like could there be changes to the Finance Board or anything like that? Chairman Johnson – I think there definitely would be. Attorney Sposaro – Sure there could be and that could be cause for yet additional delay and staff could change. Lots of things are going to happen come January. Member Schneider – Right. Chairman Johnson - I think it’s a guaranteed staff change. Could actually make it go quicker who knows. Alternate Fischbach – My assumption is yes, there will be changes. Attorney Sposaro – I think the Board made the right decision in moving forward. Chairman Johnson – I have one follow up question Tony, kind of like Donna said. When you said you called the Local Finance Board they wouldn't share any information. What if somebody's, like me for example, what if I called them? Would they be different and would they have different reaction for Attorney Sposaro – At most I'd think they'd tell you is the matter is under consideration. Chairman Johnson – Okay, so it wasn’t a confidentiality issue. They just don't share that. Attorney Sposaro – They just don't period. And they told me even though I was the one that submitted everything, they will not communicate with me once they've received, once they’ve rendered a decision. They will communicate with the individuals who are affected by this directly. Chairman Johnson – Well, they have their way. Members talking over each other. Member Woolf – How does the other Board members know that the Board members have been notified?

23

Member Schneider – Right. Attorney Sposaro – You don't. Member Woolf – So, they could sit here and just (inaudible) we never received, well, it's going to come certified or registered mail I would image. Attorney Sposaro – Yes. Member Fitzsimmons – (Inaudible) file. Attorney Sposaro – July. Chairman Johnson – The middle of July I believe. Member Schneider – Well, it was right after the 4th of July weekend. Attorney Sposaro – Yes. Member Schneider – Yeah I, yeah, but that’s true you could say oh I did get it and they said I didn't have a conflict so now I can vote. How do you know, anybody could say that? Attorney Sposaro – I guess you don’t know. Member Schneider – You don't because then nobody else will know here if I'm the only one that knows and he's the only one that knows and if he's the only one that knows, then and it's confidential what, you know, and Mr. Pryor, you know, how do you know what his is going to say. Chairman Johnson – I'll be honest with you as a Chair and one of the person's named in this potential conflict of interest, I have the utmost regard for everybody who was named on there they had very high moral character, if we didn't have a high moral character we'd be voting on it now and wouldn't care about it. Member Schneider – Right. Chairman Johnson – The fact that we're actually delaying to hear the response shows that we do have a high moral character and we're going to do it the right way. I don’t' think anybody that was named is going to lie. Member Schneider – Hope not. Chairman Johnson – All right we can go to public comment. I think I need a motion. Do I need a motion to go to public comment? Secretary Dilts – No, you don't.

24

Chairman Johnson - Let's just go to public comment then. Public Comment - John Betz – Brakeley Gardens Apts. - When you are looking at all the developmental things in the town, I think that you all know that on future comes, the cost of school goes up, the cost of road repair goes up, there is a lay on business development that creates raises and tax rates when the value of the properties don't go up and if property value doesn't go up you face a higher tax rates, raises your nominal taxes and me being in an apartment complex and building the Piazza Tract and the townhouses and I don't exactly pay the taxes but it is in the rent and the cost of living in an apartment for 37 years in Warren County of some sort of rental property has cost me 2 ½ times the price of a house including the taxes all right and I don't think that anybody that is a renter or a dweller would appreciate an increases to our landlord due to lack of development. So that's my portion, that's what I'll put into it and then anybody that lives in a home what you'll be looking for in the future is the taxes, the price of running the town will go up, however, the, your employment may change, your housing situation may change and it's never a stable thing and it's always moving forward so you face a lot of situations so I'd say with this, go forward with the development, you know, go forward with that. That's how I'm looking at this, so that's all I'd say. Go forward with development, you got good points to some extent but to keep the (inaudible) running up a bill for later situations and the school bill goes up every year. Chairman Johnson – Are you referring to the Piazza Tract? John Betz – I'm referring to the Piazza Tract. I'm referring to our rent tenants too. You know, I'm referring to the rents that have to be charged to raise the taxes in comparison to the homes. The rate of homes being paid. On our 34 acres it be about 60 homes; 60 homes times the median tax rate in this community with your figure out what you know, what we're generating, what 60 homes would generate and then you look at what we generate so Chairman Johnson – And you take half of it and you send it to the school. So you know that the Piazza Tract will be developed so it is going to happen. I don't know when. John Betz – Yes. I'm not against the Piazza Tract. I think the Piazza Tract is something that should happen but I also think that the forcing over of the taxation situation onto renters that's good clean industry. Thank good clean industry I’ve been involved in my entire existence here in Warren County and I've paid for 2 ½ houses you know; 2 houses plus all the taxes so I would appreciate after 37 years this to keep going forward in that direction so I just wanted to make my opinion known Eric. Chairman Johnson – Thank you very much. Thank you, appreciate your comments. All right that's all motion to adjourn. Mayor McKay – Motion. Member Schneider - Second

25

Chairman Johnson – All in favor. Respectfully submitted, Margaret B. Dilts Secretary