AUGUST 22, 2006

A regularly scheduled meeting of the Wantage Township Land Use Board was held on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at the Wantage Township Municipal Building. The meeting was held in compliance with the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act, Public Laws 1975, Chapter 231. It was properly noticed and posted to the public.

ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Mssrs. Smith, Slate, DeBoer, Bono, Hough, Cecchini, Grau. Mmes. Kanapinski, Mylecraine, Township Planner, David Troast, Engineer Harold Pellow, Attorney Bryant Gonzalez.
EXCUSED: Mr. Corrigan, Mme. Gill.
ABSENT: Mssrs. Space, Cillaroto.

APPROVAL MINUTES
Mr. Cecchini made a motion seconded by Mr. Hough, to approve the minutes of June 27, 2006.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
THOSE IN FAVOR: Smith, Slate, DeBoer, Bono, Hough, Cecchini, Grau, Kanapinski, Mylecraine.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. Motion carried.

RESOLUTIONS

L-18-2005 PLAGAR REALTY, LLC
The applicant’s professionals made a request to change condition #11 of the resolution to insert the words “for proper drainage” into said condition so that it reads better.
Mr. Cecchini made a motion seconded by Mr. Slate to adopt the resolution memorializing the Board’s decision of July 25, 2006 to approve the application of Plagar Realty, LLC for Block 156, Lot 21.01 as shown on the Tax Map of the Township of Wantage, located at Libertyville Road (County Route 650) in the Residential Environs Zone, requesting preliminary major subdivision approval pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-48, subject to the following terms and conditions:

1. The development of this parcel shall be implemented in accordance with the plan submitted and approved.
2. This approval is granted strictly in accordance with the plat prepared by
   Dykstra Associates, Inc., dated May 9, 2005, revised through March 29 2006 and consisting of 11 sheet and/or as same may be modified in furtherance of this Resolution and in consultation with the Board Engineer.
3. This approval is granted subject to the Applicant complying with the terms and conditions of the Board Engineer's Report dated August 11, 2005 with a revision date of April 7, 2006 as well as the Board Engineer's Review Report dated April 21, 2006 and/or as same have been modified during the course of the proceedings in this matter and as reflected in this Resolution.
4. This approval is subject to the Applicant complying with Checklist Item 6.13 (Copies of Protective Covenants, Deed Restrictions or Homeowners Association Documents) at the time of filing for final approval.
5. This approval is subject to the Applicant complying with Checklist Item 6.14 (Proposed Developer's Agreement) at the time of filing for final approval. A Developer's Agreement shall be entered into with the Township of Wantage.
6. This approval is subject to the Applicant conveying to the Township Conservation Easements with respect to all wetlands and transition areas on the Subject Property.
7. This approval is subject to the Applicant making a contribution to the Township Road Trust Fund as calculated by the Board Engineer in accordance with the Township Ordinance.
8. This approval is subject to the Applicant conducting any additional well testing as may be required by the Board Engineer to demonstrate acceptable wells to service the project.
9. This approval is subject to the Applicant constructing one (1) affordable housing unit on-site or within the Township as well as making a contribution for the second affordable housing unit.
10. This approval is subject to the Applicant providing notice to prospective purchasers of the lots to be created by the subdivision of the existence of the adjacent dairy farm and its right to conduct farming activities pursuant to the Right to Farm Act.
11. This approval is subject to the Applicant pitching the basements in the proposed dwellings to be created on the Subject Property for proper drainage such that there are no issues with respect to flooding of basements.
12. Prior to the issuance of any construction permit, the Applicant shall file with the Board and Construction Official an affidavit verifying that the Applicant is in receipt of all necessary agency approvals other than the municipal agency having land use jurisdiction over the application and supply a copy of any approvals received.
13. Payment of all fees, costs, escrows due or to become due. Any monies are to be paid within twenty (20) days of said request by the Board’s Secretary.
14. Certificate that taxes are paid to date of approval.
15. Sussex County Planning Board approval.
16. Subject to all other applicable rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes of the Township of Wantage, County of Sussex, State of New Jersey, or any other jurisdiction.

ROLL CALL VOTE:
THOSE IN FAVOR: Slate, DeBoer, Bono, Hough, Cecchini, Kanapinski, Mylecraine.
ABSTAIN: Smith.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. Motion carried.

L-1-2003A LGR ENTERPRISES, LLC
Mr. Cecchini made a motion seconded by Mr. Hough to adopt the resolution memorializing the Board’s decision of June 20, 2006 to approve the application of LGR Enterprises, LLC for Block 135, Lot 6.01 as shown on the Tax Map of the Township of Wantage, located on Sherman Ridge Road in the R-1 Zone, requesting amended preliminary major subdivision approval with de minimus exception from RSIS at N.J.A.C. 5:21-4.5 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-48 and N.J.A.C. 5:21-3.1, subject to the following terms and conditions:

1. The development of this parcel shall be implemented in accordance with the plans submitted and approved.
2. This approval is granted strictly in accordance with the plans prepared by Jeffrey B. Doolittle, dated December 13, 2002, with last revision date of February 1, 2006 and/or as same may be modified in consultation with the Board Engineer.
3. This approval is granted subject to the Applicant complying with the terms and conditions of the Board Engineer’s report dated April 10, 2006 except as same may have been modified at the time of the hearing.
4. This approval is granted subject to the Applicant staking out the wetlands transition area boundaries in the field prior to grading of the site.
5. This approval is granted subject to the Applicant staking the intersection of Amy Drive with Sherman Ridge Road as well as the centerline of Amy Drive and the centerline of the Stubb Street to provide access to Lot 8.10.
6. This approval is granted subject to the Applicant providing additional plantings or screenings or modifying the alignment of the intersection so as to avoid the interference of headlights with the dwelling on Lot 6.41.
7. This approval is granted subject to the Applicant cleaning the Subject Property as discussed at the time of the hearing by December 1, 2006.
8. This approval is granted subject to the Applicant complying with the Township’s affordable housing requirements.
9. This approval is granted subject to the Applicant submitting a soil erosion and sediment control plan.
10. This approval is subject to the Applicant conveying Conservation Easements with respect to the lots containing wetlands as well as their buffers.
11. This approval is subject to the Applicant making a contribution of $2,500.00 per lot to be deposited into the Wantage Township Road Trust Fund or $42,000.00 in total prior to the final map being signed.
12. Prior to the issuance of any construction permit, the Applicant shall file with the Board and Construction Official an affidavit verifying that the Applicant is in receipt of all necessary agency approvals other than the municipal agency having land use jurisdiction over the application and supply a copy of any approvals received.
13. Payment of all fees, costs, escrows due or to become due. Any monies are to be paid within twenty (20) days of said request by the Board’s Secretary.
14. Certificate that taxes are paid to date of approval.
15. Sussex County Planning Board approval.
16. Subject to all other applicable rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes of the Township of Wantage, County of Sussex, State of New Jersey, or any other jurisdiction.

ROLL CALL VOTE:
THOSE IN FAVOR: Smith, Slate, DeBoer, Bono, Hough, Cecchini, Grau, Kanapinski.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. Motion carried.

APPLICATIONS

L-33-2005 CJS INVESTMENTS, INC.
Application for preliminary major site plan approval of 52 acres located on Lower Unionville Road. The property is known as Blk. 2, Lot 20.01 and is located in the ML zone.

Attorney Dennis Collins, Engineer Andrew S. Holt from Suburban Engineering, Stuart Challoner, Engineer, appeared before the Board.

Mr. Holt gave a brief presentation of the water project. The goal is to get the approval for the potable water system and waste water system. He explained that two sites were tested. These sites were 56 lower Unionville and 20 Judge Beach. He discussed the test results and he stated that the study provided sufficient data required to submit the application to the DEP.

Mr. Collins stated that the applicant is not seeking recommendation to the governing body. The applicant agrees to provide the Board copies of all documentation with all outside agencies.

Mr. Smith asked if a five-year retest could address any issues that could be present and that could be corrected. Mr. Holt replied that the state requires quarterly water readings in order for them to monitor the aquifers. The applicant agrees to provide static water level readings to the Board.

Mr. Pellow asked if details on the water tank were going to be provided to the Board. The professionals indicated they have to provide everything but the color to the state. Mr. Collins reminded the Board that the applicant is only looking for preliminary approval and that they do not have the details on the tank yet. They also have no objections on the Board having jurisdiction over that issue.

Ms. Mylecraine asked a few questions regarding the testing and the impact on the community. Mr. DeBoer asked how the test sites are determined and if the actual test was witnessed by anyone. Mr. Grau asked what was the dept of the test wells.

A color rendering of the site, marked as exhibit A3, dated 8/22/06 was entered as evidence.
The meeting was opened to the public. Chairman Smith asked the public to direct the questions to the testimony offered by the applicant only.

Jim Cowling owns property to the east of the site. His concern is not lack of water but excess water. He gets water coming from the hill. He asked if during the testing, was the hardness of the water tested.

Christine Fiorenzo wondered if the well testing would provide adequate water supply and for how long. She made reference to a Fair Share Plan document dated 12/1/05, prepared by David Troast.

John Baratta, 79 L. Unionville Road, asked what controls will determine how the water system will be controlled. How will the people who do not have water be compensated. What guarantees that neighboring wells will not run out of water.

George Stebal of Judge Beach Road asked how many hydrological studies, implementation studies, monitorship studies had the professional been involved in during the last 5 yrs.

Jim Kozlowski, 56 L. Unionville Road, asked about potable water usage and made reference to David Hansen’s report. He felt that more wells could have been tested if residents had received their notices with more notice than how it actually happened.

Rob Decker, 54 L. Unionville Road, referred to Mr. Holt’s report as far as the amount of water being used per day per capita.

Bob Holler, 79 L. Unionville Road, stated that many residents on that road have animals that use a lot of water, why was that not used on the report.

Robert Kohle of Judge Beach Road, stated that Suburban Engineering never responded to this letter regarding testing his well. Asked if a 24 hr. period is sufficient to test an aquifer of that size. How can a 24 hr test determine that there will be impact on the neighboring wells.

Nicki Mcmanus, 132 L. Unionville Road, felt that the test wells seemed relatively shallow, wondered if the actual wells were going to be the same depth if 82 gallons would be enough and if drought periods were considered.

Andrew Vogel, 100 L. Unionville Road, wondering where the water supply is coming from. He was concerned about well testing in a vacant lot. He was concerned about his water, his well is 300 ft, if the builder is going to tap into the water at a higher level than his, how will that affect his water? Professionals from both the applicant and the Board explained that the state has jurisdiction over the design of the water system and not the Board or the municipality.

Marie Springer, from Vernon, asked how far is the aquifer? Mr. Holt referred to his report, figure #5. She asked what is isotraphic behavior in terms of his report and questioned if the report accounted for seasonal changes.

Wallace Drew, 10 Judge Beach Road, questioned if sprinklers would have an effect on the water demand.

Craig Van Wycke asked if the retreated water being pumped back in will affect the quality of his water and he had questions on the effect on the wetlands.

Susan Murrell asked if there is a site plan for a sewer treatment. Asked if the public had a say regarding the sewer treatment.

Mr. Pellow stated that the public has a right to know about odors and where the sewage would go.

Mr. Collins stated that the Board has no jurisdiction over the water issue and as a courtesy to the Board he brought the expert witness to testify. It was discussed that the public would have an opportunity and a time to express their concerns to the state at some point during the application process. However, it is the responsibility of the public to contact the state on that issue.

Mr. Grau asked what would be time frame for all these permits to go to the state. Mr. DeBoer asked how is the size of an aquifer determined. Mr. Pellow asked Mr. Collins if he was aware that since the project is not in a town center would they be able to get their permit for the discharge ground water.

The Board took a five-minute recess.

Mr. Smith stated that affidavits from Board members who were not present at the last meeting stating that they read the transcripts are on file.

Mr. Challoner, Engineer, reviewed the stormwater management plan. He explained that the numbers of the disposal beds have been reduced because the units were reduced and some are 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units.

Mr. Collins stated that the applicant consents to an adjournment to the September 26, 2006 meeting, no further notice required. Mr. Smith informed the public that Mr. Challoner will be available for questions at the next meeting. Mr. Collins apologized to the public for becoming upset following the questioning by the last member of the public who had questions on the sewer system.

Ms. Mylecraine asked for clarifications on the number of beds. Mr. Cecchini asked if this property could possibly support 6 units per acre.

ADJOURNMENT
On a motion duly made seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 pm.

Respectfully submitted,
Stella Salazar
Assistant Secretary