November 25, 2008

A regularly scheduled meeting of the Wantage Township Land Use Board was held on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at the Wantage Township Municipal Building. The meeting was held in compliance with the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act, P.L. 1975, Chapter 231.

ROLL CALL VOTE
PRESENT: Mssrs. Bono, Cecchini, DeBoer, Gaechter, Grau, Hough, Smith, Slate, Cillaroto, Vander Berg, Mme Mylecraine, Attorney Bryant Gonzalez, Engineer Harold Pellow, Planner David Troast.
ABSENT: Mmes. Gill and Kanapinski.

Board member Vander Berg arrived at 9:30 p.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Cecchini made a motion seconded by Mr. Grau to adopt the minutes of September 23, 2008.

ROLL CALL VOTE:
THOSE IN FAVOR: Cecchini, DeBoer, Gaechter, Grau, Hough, Slate, Mylecraine, Cillaroto, Smith.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. MOTION CARRIED.

RESOLUTIONS

L-22-2004 MOUNTAINVIEW MANOR AT WANTAGE

Mr. Grau made a motion seconded by Mr. Bono to adopt the resolution memorializing the Board’s decision of September 23, 2008 granting extension of time for use variance approval and overall preliminary concept major subdivision and site plan approval to Mountainview Manor at Wantage for Blk 4, Lot 1.01 as shown on the Tax Map of the Township of Wantage, located on Route 23 South in the Industrial Zone and Highway Commercial Zone, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-49, 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. The extension of time for the use variance approval and overall preliminary concept major subdivision and site plan approval shall run until September 21, 2010.
3. All conditions of the Board's previous Resolution shall remain in full force and effect.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Certificate that taxes are paid to date of approval.
7. Sussex County Planning Board approval.
8. 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: Cecchini, DeBoer, Gaechter, Grau, Hough, Slate, Mylecraine, Smith.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. MOTION CARRIED.

L-23-2004 VALLEY VIEW MANOR AT WANTAGE

Mr. Grau made a motion seconded by Mr. Cecchini to adopt the resolution memorializing the Board’s decision of September 23, 2008 granting extension of time for use variance approval and overall preliminary concept major subdivision and site plan approval to Valley View Manor at Wantage for Blk 4, Lot 1.06 as shown on the Tax Map of the Township of Wantage, located on Route 23 South in the Industrial Zone and Highway Commercial Zone, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-49, 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. The extension of time for the use variance approval and overall preliminary concept major subdivision and site plan approval shall run until September 21, 2010.
3. All conditions of the Board's previous Resolution shall remain in full force and effect.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Certificate that taxes are paid to date of approval.
7. Sussex County Planning Board approval.
8. 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: Cecchini, DeBoer, Gaechter, Grau, Hough, Slate, Mylecraine, Smith.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. MOTION CARRIED.

L-24-2007 MARUTI SWAMI II, LLC. (QUICK STOP DELI)

1. Development is to be implemented in accordance with the plans submitted and approved.
2. This approval is granted subject to the Applicant's compliance with the reports issued by the Board Engineer, Harold E. Pellow, P.E. and the Board Planner, David R. Troast.
3. The proposed signage, facade designs and colors are subject to the review and approval of the Board Planner, David Troast.
4. The types of businesses to be utilized on the premises must first be reviewed and approved by the Board Engineer and/or the Subcommittee to ensure the site can properly accommodate the use.
5. The Applicant shall provide a lighting plan and drainage plan for approval by the Board Engineer.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Certificate that taxes are paid to date of approval.
9. Sussex County Planning Board approval, if necessary.
10. 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: Cecchini, DeBoer, Gaechter, Grau, Hough, Slate, Mylecraine, Smith.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. MOTION CARRIED.

L-6-2008 P.S. LLC (MAGARINO)

1. The development of this parcel shall be implemented in accordance with the plans submitted and approved.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Certificate that taxes are paid to date of approval.
5. Sussex County Planning Board approval, if necessary.
6. 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: Cecchini, Gaechter, Hough, Slate, Smith.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. MOTION CARRIED.

L-10-2008 CHAMPAGNE RIDGE

Mr. Smith announced that this resolution was being revised and it would be adopted at the Board’s next meeting of December 16, 2008.

APPLICATIONS

L-19-2008 BRINK ROAD BUILDERS, INC.

At the applicant’s request, this application was withdrawn. The applicant requested the refund of the application fees.

Mr. Cecchini made a motion seconded by Mr. Bono to refund the application fees.

ROLL CALL VOTE:
THOSE IN FAVOR: Bono, Cecchini, DeBoer, Gaechter, Grau, Hough, Slate, Mylecraine, Smith.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. MOTION CARRIED.

L-13-2007 CHRISTIAN LEONE PROPERTIES I, LLC

The applicant requested an extension of minor subdivision approval to February 27, 2009 in order to allow time to file the deeds. The property is known as Blk. 1.02, Lot 8 and is located on Route 284.

Mr. Bono made a motion seconded by Mr. DeBoer to grant the extension request.

ROLL CALL VOTE:
THOSE IN FAVOR: Bono, Cecchini, DeBoer, Gaechter, Grau, Hough, Slate, Mylecraine, Smith.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. MOTION CARRIED.

Engineer Ken Wentink addressed the Board and stated that he had been speaking with Mr. Bruce Borella and that they expected to file a request for extension of minor subdivision for Blk. 42, Lot 2 that was due to expire on November 26, 2008.

L-37-2004 BRUCE MORSE

The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 50.910-acre tract of land to create 10 new lots and a remainder. The property is known as Blk. 43, Lot 13.01 and is located on Layton Road in the RE zone.

Board member Ms. Mylecraine stepped down as she is an adjacent land owner.

Glenn Gavan Esq. and Gregory Rapp, P.E., and Mr. Bruce Morse appeared before the Board.

Mr. Gavan stated that the applicant was looking to create 10 buildable lots and 1 open space lot on approximately 51 acres. He added the application was fully conforming under the open space agricultural preservation option of the cluster option of the ordinance. Mr. Rapp stated that the proposed road will be 24 ft wide.

Mr. Rapp referred to Sheet 5 of 17 of the plans submitted and indicated the driveway, septic locations, there will be two detention basins, one between Lot 13.07 and Lot 13.08, and the second one on the proposed farm lot.

The meeting was opened to the public. Diane Mylecraine, 74 Wantage School Road, stated that she thought that some of the adjacent property owners probably did not have any idea of what a water test was and that she thought the open space lot did not appear to be a very farmable piece of land.

The meeting was closed to public and opened to the Board. Mr. Bill DeBoer asked if any COAH units will be built. Mr. Bruce Morse stated that he would like to do a duplex.

Mr. Pellow’s report was reviewed. On Page 3, Item (c)iii it was noted that the applicant indicated that requests were made to monitor off-site domestic wells on all properties with 500 feet of the site, but permission was not received from any of the property owners. A letter of interpretation has been received. Approval is needed from other agencies. A sight triangle easement is to be obtained from the owner of Lot 13.05. Drainage. Water quality tests show that treatment is needed to conform to allowable State standards.

Mr. Grau made a motion seconded by Mr. Slate to grant approval subject to well testing, Mr. Pellow’s report.

ROLL CALL VOTE:
THOSE IN FAVOR: Bono, Cecchini, DeBoer, Gaechter, Grau, Hough, Slate, Cillaroto, Smith.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. MOTION CARRIED.

L-9-2009 WHEN PIGS FLY

The applicant has applied for minor site plan approval and a “D” variance to allow the construction of a taxiway between the airport hangars and the runway at Sussex Airport and for change of use of approved hangar space. The property is known as Blk. 18, Lots 12.08 & 5 and is located on Lewisburg Road (County Road 565) in the Industrial zone.

Board members Cecchini, DeBoer, Gaechter, and Cillaroto stepped down.

Lawrence Cohen Esq., Robert Tessier, P.P, and Bill Gennaro appeared before the Board.

The use variance portion of the application was discussed. Mr. Cohen stated that the Board had determined at a prior hearing in 2006 that storage of other vehicles was not an accessory use and they were directed to file a use variance. He stated that in the Industrial zone district storage is a permitted use in the zone and he did not understand why a use variance was required. Mr. Gonzalez stated that at the 2006 hearing, an interpretation was made that a use variance would be needed because this is not a warehouse use and it is not a storage use. Pictures were presented as to what the customary practice was in other airports. It was clear to the Board and it was made clear to the Applicant then that what was being proposed was not an accessory use but rather an entirely separate use that was not permitted and a “D” variance was needed.

Mr. Pellow’s report referenced the missing certification of taxes paid for the airport. Mr. Cohen stated that the applicant would like to request a waiver of taxes since the applicant does not own the airport and the owner has not provided such document. Mr. Gonzalez stated that a waiver was in order since the applicant has not control of what the owner does.

Mr. Tessier displayed Exhibit A1, a color, aereal photo of the entire airport property. The plan showed the five (5) additional buildings that are proposed and the proposed taxiway a prior condition of approval, applicant must build a taxiway (20 ft wide x 440 ft long) to connect with the existing taxiway. No lighting is involved. Sheet 3 of 4 of the preliminary site plan, drainage was reviewed with Mr. Pellow’s office. Signage reading “Taxiway only for planes” was discussed, to keep mopeds and motorcycles out.

Mr. Pellow’s report was reviewed. The Letter of Interpretation from the DEP was discussed. The applicant will supply a copy of the filed deed that shows the wetlands delineations. The proposed stormwater management has been satisfactorily addressed. Site plan approval or waiver from the County Planning Department is required. Soil erosion control permit must be obtained from Sussex County Soil Conservation. The existing detention basin to be brought to standards. The approval on the next phase of the hangars was amended in 2006. As-built elevations are needed for the first phase of the hangars as the paved areas were all redone. No COAH requirements are triggered by the taxiway. A pre-construction meeting must be held and construction inspection escrow funds will be needed.

Orange County Airport – hangar with fuselage etc, cars, motorcycle
Pittstown – 50 hangars, no restriction,
Middletown Airport – no restriction, snowmobile, tractor to pull airplanes out
Lincoln Park Airport – now has a lot of hangars being built
Greenwood Lake Airport – hangars full of vehicles
Blairstown Airport – Mr. Tessier stated that he used to work for a company that had a                                hangar there and they stored sports vehicles in there.
Sussex Airport – mixed uses and some storage in the existing buildings.

Mr. Tessier stated that looking at other airports, speaking with other pilots and from his own personal experience it is customary for them to have other types of vehicles in the hangars. He added that the storage can be done all inside the building, with no exterior storage and the result will be high quality hangars that will meet the needs of private pilots and support the airport. He added that there are special reasons to grant variance that will support purposes of the Land Use law, provide appropriate space, not many places you can put hangars but next to airports. He stated that the design of transportation routes will promote the flow of traffic to encourage public and private investment. In addition, the airport is in the airport hazard zone and the industrial zone that is there to encourage development and the continuation of the airport, the master plan recognizes the airport and will support the use and make it more viable. He believes this use will have no negative impact on the zone plan and will clearly support zoning ordinance, promoting the health of the operation. He believes the storage use being sought is complementary to other uses in the area.

The applicant suggested registering the name of the lessee and the automobiles stored with the Township in order to keep track of the activities being conducted.

Chairman Smith said that the testimony was exactly the same as the last time and there was no new information to go by. He expressed concerns about the square footage footprint of the plane and footprint of other vehicles being stored. Mr. Tessier stated that the true test would be getting the plane in and out of the hangar without any problems would be the answer. Mr. Smith added that the approved use for the hangars as approved years ago was for airplanes only and when the Township Zoning Department went there found other items other than airplanes being stored.

Mr. Gonzalez asked what would guarantee that repairs are not going on in there. Mr. Cohen stated that could be accomplished by inspecting the site. Mr. Gonzalez stated that he does not believe this application will support the special reasons cited, appropriate use of land to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the community. He believes that will pretty much benefit the applicant not the public. In terms of limiting resources in the community and utilizing those fully, he does not believe it is even needed for this. You have a hangar that is designed for an airplane and it is appropriate for that use and the proposed uses have previously been suggested and rejected by this Board. Mr. Gonzalez stated that he did not understand the design of transportation route and he did not see the connection between the design of the transportation route and the allowance of additional items to be stored. He said he does not know that it furthers the design of the route, in terms of encouraging coordination of public and private investment? He asked, where are there public funds being spent in a way that would promote this particular use.

Mr. Bill Gennaro, applicant, stated that all fifty-two (52) hangars were full until a couple years ago and that he also rented to people other than airplane owners, he stated that airplane owners have requested to be able to store boats, motorcycles, antique cars, snowmobiles. He stated that the present occupancy is 50% and that the granting of this variance would assist him in renting the hangars as he keeps getting calls from people who have left. He indicated he would have no problems supplying the information as to the hangar tenant and what is being stored.

Open to public: Michael Steinhardt, pilot, resident of Frankford Township, stated that Sussex is the only airport that does not have a waiting list and that allowing more storage would bring more strength to the community. He stated that being able to store his motorcycles would really allow him get more use out of the hangar since they pay a lot of money for the rental of the hangar and the only reason why he is in Sussex Airport is because it is so close to his house.

Mr. DeBoer asked to postpone to a further meeting since the Board had a very heavy agenda that evening and to give the other applicants a chance to be heard. Mr. Gonzalez suggested hearing the public testimony and carrying the application to the next Board meeting.

Mike Cecchini, adjoining property owner stated that the variance application was exactly the same as before. He stated that Bill Gennaro did not live up to the original resolution. There was furniture refinishing in there and other uses going on. He stated that the use that was approved was for vehicles being used in conjunction with the pilot that was flying the plane, only. He added that there were a number of applicants that were granted approvals and were doing other things which caused the Board to enforce the approval. A storage facility within a mile of airport went through the process and spent the money to conform to the Board’s requests to make it look nice not like a bins and bays operation. Mr. Cecchini stated that the last time Mr. Gennaro came in with the same application he sat on the Board and heard all the testimony and took the time to know what was going on, this time, because the application was tied to the Site Plan application, he was not able to remain on the Board. However, as a member of the public he can voice his opinion and he feels that he should not get approval, because he violated the original approval. He added that other airports might not have storage facilities in the area that went through a complete application process like the one we have in town.

Mr. Robert Campbell, tenant at the airport for 10 years stated that he stored a snowmobile in the back of the hangar. His plane is a low wing plane and does not allow any other storage under the wings. He has seen other items in the hangars. He has noticed that a lot of tenants have left within the last two (2) years. He stated that he has seen what people store in other hangars and they store different kinds of vehicles and it would be nice to be able to store other vehicles in there.

Mr. Rodney Lockwood, tenant for 10 yrs stated that he had a 1931 model A stored there and moved it after the town required that it be moved. He stated that he occupied about 10% of square footage, 25% of cubic footage. He added that Orange County operates on a lease and if the lease is broken then there is something to go on.

Kevin Kervatt, Zoning & Fire Inspector for Wantage stated that he had done fire inspections of the hangars, and that he found many violations in 2006. He stated that this year he had no violations and Mr. Gennaro was very cooperative. He feels that vehicles in other than the name of the owner of the airplane, could be called subletting. If the pilot wanted to put his motorcycle, he does not see an issue. Mr. Smith confirmed with Mr. Kervatt that the violations decreased after the Board imposed regulations in 2006 and the situation improved.

On a motion duly made seconded and carried, this application was carried to the December 16th meeting, no further notice required. The applicant agreed to grant an extension of time to act.

L-18-2008 NORMAN & MARY ANDERSON

The applicant is proposing to subdivide 0.322 acres from Lot 11 to be annexed to Lot 12 to eliminate shed, pool, and deck encroachments. The property is known as Blk. 15.10, Lots 10, 11, & 12 and is located on Crest & Shore Roads in the RE-5 zone.

Mark Huntz, Esq., Joseph Greenway, P.E. appeared before the Board.

Mr. Huntz indicated that Lots 10 and 12 currently have houses on them. Back in 2002 the Township had empty Lot 11 between these two properties. The owners of Lot 10 acquired the property and the owners would like to now exercise their right to subdivide the property to convey part of the property to an adjoining property owner, the owners of Lot 12. There are three (3) variances required for this application: Lot depth, front yard, and lot area.

Mr. Pellow’s report was reviewed.

There was no one from the public present on this application. The application was opened to the Board. Mr. Vander Berg stated that the shed on Lot 10 that encroaches on the right-of-way is not an issue at this time. Crest Road appears more like a driveway that only services that house and the shed only affects the property on Lot 10, up to the point where other improvements are done or if they decide to replace to shed it will have to be corrected.

Mr. Grau made a motion seconded by Mr. Bono to approve this application.

ROLL CALL VOTE:
THOSE IN FAVOR: Bono, DeBoer, Gaechter, Grau, Hough, Slate, Vander Berg, Mylecraine, Smith.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. MOTION CARRIED.

L-21-2008 CHARLES & JANE HUNTER

The applicant is proposing to construct a single family dwelling on Blk. 163, Lot 15.05. Front yard setback variance, non-contiguous, non-constrained land variance, and planning variance are required. The property is located on Wilson Lane & Neilson Road in the RE-5 zone.

David Wallace, Esq., Ken Wentink, P.E. appeared before the Board.

Mr. Wallace stated that the applicant is looking for various variances in order to be able to build a house on this lot that has wetland constraints. There is a pond on the lot. Mr. Wentink stated that most of the lot is wetlands. The area where the house is proposed is the only place on the lot where it can be built. He stated that the area is not where you would want to build the house not only for setbacks but for privacy.

Mr. Pellow’s report was reviewed. From an on-site inspection, the house will be built on a very steep slope, is constrained by wetland transition areas, and will only be 12.6 ft. off the right-of-way line. There will be little or no yard areas. A 10 ft. high wall behind the driveway back-out area will be required. A 4 ft. wall along the septic field will be required. The height at the rear of the house will be 35 ft. Item 3 of the report referenced the wetlands. Mr. Wentink stated that a map could not be found and copy of the recorded deed of the DEP requirements has been submitted. A silt fence is to be constructed along the wetland transition lines prior to starting construction as per the NJDEP permit. Copy of the septic approval has been submitted. COAH fees to be addressed by the applicant. Road Trust Fund fees are not required as the lot exists.

The meeting was opened to the public. Mr. Fred Frei owner of adjoining lots 15.02 and 15.07 stated that he is not against anybody building a house in this town, so long as they build it within the limits. He said that the proposed septic will be built where a stream comes off the mountain and it passes that septic field. Also there is a drainpipe that comes down the mountain that the original developer put in which he believes will run through that septic field. This pipe takes the water right from his property. There have been several water problems, he has pictures of the road washing out and he is the one who fixes the road with his backhoe. He believes that if there were ever a problem with water contamination from that septic, the farmer down the road who has cows that drink the water, would be the first one hit. Mr. Frei further indicated that he moved to Wantage thirty (30) years ago for the beauty and the privacy of the area. He stated the other six properties that were developed conform to the guidelines of the Township, they are all set back and they look gorgeous. He stated that when he comes down his driveway he will see that house there and that they do not need to have a house sitting right on the cul-de-sac where there is no room for shrubbing and walkways to make it presentable. Elsie Castner, owner of the property directly below the subject property, presented pictures taken in September of 2007, labeled as Exhibit P1, of water flowing below on
Wilson Lane and looking like a river. She stated that she is very concerned with the drainage with any water draining from Lot 15.05 on to her property.

Mr. Wentink stated that the lot would have been buildable anywhere on the lot prior to the wetlands regulations. He stated that a cross drain flows towards the bed but there is no evidence that it carries water, to the northeast there is a cross drain that has water going through. Sheet 2 of the plans shows an existing drain to about 56 ft toward the end of the bed that does carry water. The professionals reiterated that the applicant has obtained septic approval. He stated the DEP had given them areas where activity would be allowed. Mr. Wallace indicated that Mr. Frei’s driveway is over 100 ft. from the proposed development across a grassy cul-de-sac and the majority of the houses are well under 5 acres and no other home is within eyeshot of Mr Hunter’s home, one would have to drive essentially up to it and really turn into the cul-de-sac. Mr. Frei’s other lot is nowhere near where Mr. Hunter’s development is going to be.

The application was carried to the December 16th, 2008 meeting. No further notice is necessary. A site walk was scheduled for Wednesday, December 3rd at 4:00 p.m, the Board members will meet at the property.

Mr. Gonzalez informed the public that no other testimony would be heard until December 16th. Mr. Smith informed the public that they could attend the site walk and observe what the Board is doing and watch the Board walk the site. However, they are not allowed to ask any questions and the Board is not to be influenced by any one at the site.

The Board took a five-minute recess.

L-22-2008 WANTAGE 2002

The applicant is seeking amended site plan approval to locate a Friendly’s Restaurant in the existing vacant space within the A & P Shopping Center. The property is known as Blk. 20, Lot 13 and is located on Route 23 in the NC zone.

Michael Gaus, Esq., Ken Dykstra, P.E., and Paul Gowan, P.E., Traffic Engineer appeared before the Board.

Mr. Dykstra introduced Exhibit A1, a colored plan of the site which consists of 7.5 acres. The larger building consisting of 51,638 sf houses the A & P & Lakeland Bank. The second building has 22,400 sf. and includes the Post Office, a couple of restaurants and the vacant location where Benjamin Franklin used to be. That location is where Friendly’s will be. The restaurant will have 4100 sf with 134 proposed seats. The site is presently developed with 406 parking spaces. A letter from Sussex Borough was provided confirming water and sewer availability for the project. County Planning Department approval is required. COAH requirements to be addressed.

Mr. Pellow’s report was reviewed. Mr. Pellow indicated that items 3.01 to 6.11 required waivers which were acceptable. For item 6.12, the applicant has submitted architectural plans showing changes to the façade and exterior walls of the building. The parking study findings submitted by the applicant were reviewed.

There was no one from the public present on this application. The application was opened to the Board. Mr. Smith stated that he would not favor any kind of special events due to the parking situation on the site being somewhat limited. Mr. Vander Berg suggested the parking spaces facing Route 23 to be better defined as well as the traffic pattern, as sometimes people tend to go straight as opposed to following the gentle curb of the flow of traffic. Mr. Gaus stated that the parking spaces were re-striped two weeks prior.

Mr. Grau made a motion seconded by Mr. Bono to approve this application, subject to the conditions on Mr. Pellow’s report. The applicant requested to have the resolution waived prior to building permit.

ROLL CALL VOTE:
THOSE IN FAVOR: Bono, Cecchini, DeBoer, Gaechter, Grau, Hough, Slate, Vander Berg, Smith.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. MOTION CARRIED.

L-16-2008 565 LAND DEVELOPMENT

The applicant is requesting soil removal permit to allow soil removal operations to be conducted on an 80-acre tract. The property is known as Blk. 117, Lot 38.01 and is located on Route 565 in the HC and R-5 zones.

Attorney Michael Gaus, Engineer Ken Wentink, and applicant Tom Zummo appeared before the Board.

Board member Cecchini stepped down.

Mr. Gaus explained that the applicant is seeking soil removal approval for the second phase of the property and to discussed future use of the property and a potential zone change. Mr. Gaus indicated that after further consideration it was decided that now is not the appropriate time to deal with zone change questions. Therefore, the applicant is withdrawing that portion of the request. He stated that future grading of the property was proposed, consistent with Mr. Pellow’s request and with the Board’s request. With respect to drainage, the applicant continues to work with the County Planning Board on a drainage plan and they will submit the same to Mr. Pellow for his review as soon as it is complete.

Mr. Pellow’s report was reviewed. It was discussed that the drainage issue can be a condition of approval, the grading is satisfactory, the LOI was submitted. Item 14, Transition Area Reduction Permits and General Permit No. 6 are needed from the NJDEP, an aereal photograph was submitted to Mr. Pellow’s office a couple of weeks prior, wetland will be staked when the Phases are staked out so pit operator will not infringe on these buffers and for ease of inspection. A bond to be filed with the Township for Phase II.

There was no one from the public wishing to come forward on this application.

Mr. Grau made a motion seconded by Mr. Slate to approve this application, subject to Mr. Pellow’s report.

ROLL CALL VOTE:
THOSE IN FAVOR: Bono, DeBoer, Gaechter, Grau, Hough, Slate, Vander Berg, Mylecraine, Smith.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. MOTION CARRIED.

COAH DISCUSSION by David Troast, P.P.

Mr. Troast prepared a report on Fair Share and Compliance Plan. Mr. Gonzalez explained that most of the towns are trying to submit the COAH plans submitted before December 31, 2008. Wantage, because of the CJS litigation is not a COAH town, we are a Court town. The courts have jurisdiction over our affordable housing compliance and in that regard the consent that was executed with CJS a few months back we have to adopt the Fair Share Plan and present that to Judge Bozonelis. He is going to review with a specific portion dealing with CJS. Once he review that and CJS has no objection with the way the Fair Share Plan is crafted he will then pursuant to the court order send the rest of the Fair Share Plan to COAH so that they can determine the remainder of Wantage.

Mr. Troast explained that the document presented tonight is just a draft and that the application form is 20 pages long with supplements. The numbers to consider are the projected housing obligation, minus the actual growth share. The current obligation is 112 units. A new Developer Fee Ordinance and Inclusionary Ordinance were explained. Mr. Troast stated that the owner of Jaret Builders is currently discussing with the governing body in order to put up multi family structures for support of affordable housing.

In summary, the numbers do not seem to be way off, so Mr. Troast believes that Wantage’s projected totals are good provided that these developments do materialize. A discussion followed regarding methods of calculating COAH requirements for commercial properties.

On a motion duly made seconded and carried, the Board adopted the Recreational Vehicle Ordinance and recommended forwarding it to the Governing Body for its approval.

ADJOURNMENT

On a motion duly made seconded and carried the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Stella Salazar
Secretary