Mt. Olive Township Council Minutes
November 26, 2002


MOMENT OF REFLECTION in recognition of the men and women fighting terrorism and defending the freedom we all enjoy


According to the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of this meeting has been given to the Mt. Olive Chronicle and the Daily Record. Notice has been posted at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road Mount Olive Township, New Jersey and notices were sent to those requesting the same

ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Guenther, Mr. Greenbaum, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rattner,
Mr. Scapicchio, Mr. Spino

Absent: Mrs. Miller

Also in attendance: Cynthia Spencer, Business Administrator; John Dorsey, Township Attorney; Sherry Jenkins, CFO; Nicole Whittle, Deputy Township Clerk


President Scapicchio: That brings us to the first public comment period of this meeting, anyone from the public wish to address the Council?

Ned McDonald: Just one quick point on Ord. # 52-2002. I think there may be an error in the wording in the sentence where it says a stop sign is hereby authorized to be installed on the near right side of each street intersecting the stop street. Wouldn't the stop sign go on the near right side on the stop street?

Mr. Dorsey: I took that out of the NJDOT manual. When I drew it and sent it up to the Administrator, I thought she turned it over to the Chief of Police. That may be so, but I think we should as quickly as possible have this reviewed by the Chief to see. You may be right, may have picked up the incorrect wording but we will check that okay? Thank you.

President Scapicchio: Thank you. Anyone else from the Public?

Bob Elms, 72 Smithtown Road: I realize you are going to ago into a discussion of the Linwood Ave. Ordinance on December 10, 2002, but I have a suggestion in the way of a couple of maps that I would like to present to the Council tonight for their consideration before you get to that. It will only take a minute. If you look at the existing drawing which is the top drawing we actually went out and measured that whole street end where the parking lots are. The real problem is exiting three different locations on to Linwood Ave. If you turn to proposal No. 1. What we are proposing here is to not have an exit on Linwood Ave, instead put a Jersey barrier down Linwood Ave. that obviously the kids can't climb over. If you want to repave parking on that one street, that is one thing. On the existing one they have put a cut into the curb to put diagonal parking on Linwood Ave. which causes those cars to stick out and make the street Linwood Ave. less then 30 feet wide which inhibits two way traffic on that street. So what we were proposing was to cut off any of those exits and to put that other section of 30 - 40 feet wide so that the exit would all go out onto Cloverhill Drive.

President Scapicchio: Bob, what are these arrows at the bottom of the parking?

Mr. Elms: There is something in that parking lot that has yellow arrows right about where those are shown. I don't know whether they use them for buses or what they put in there but we were trying to replicate what was actually there.

President Scapicchio: So that is not the flow of the parking lot that you are proposing?

Mr. Elms: Well instead of white parking lines they are yellow parking lines and they are not big enough for buses, so they may be parking something like the small vans there.

President Scapicchio: Are these the existing number of parking spaces?

Mr. Elms: Yes. There are 45 parking spaces in there. The other side of the school has another whole parking lot. Since this is an elementary school I don't think we are dealing with student parking here. However we are dealing with student safety. What has been happening is the students are running out into the street on Linwood Mr. Elms (cont'd): Ave. where mommy/daddy comes down the street with the car to pick up the students and they have these three exits coming out of these parking areas from the school and it is a dangerous situation I think everybody realizes. So we thought the best answer would be to prevent the students from getting onto Linwood Ave. and having the parents come into the parking lot to pick up their students after the day is over. The gentleman who helped me with this was concerned about the number of parking spaces whether or not there was enough there, if you block off parking on Linwood on that side of the street and he thought maybe we should add parking spaces in that other area and all the way down against the Jersey barrier.

President Scapicchio: Is that your proposal No. 2.

Mr. Elms: That is.

Mr. Rattner: I know the second proposal has a greatly expanded number of spots. It probably almost triples it. But I don't know if the problem really is actual parking. It is the stacking of people waiting for the kids. It's the line waiting. I don't know if that is enough traffic flow to go in and out. I mean it is an interesting concept and obviously if the School Board could do something it would make a lot more sense. I also think that you talk about a jersey barrier, which I don't know if that is really needed. I am sure if you put a picket fence that would serve the same purpose. Just a fence, I think it would look better in a residential zone and we don't need a concrete barrier like that there, but I understand what you are doing to just keep people trying to…

Mr. Elms: If it is not a substantial fence Steve, they will drive over it, you know that.

Mr. Rattner: A four foot picket fence, I just think it will look better.

Mr. Greenbaum: You are not blocking access to Linwood Drive through your proposal?

Mr. Elms: No.

Mr. Greenbaum: So there is nothing to stop the parents from still utilizing Linwood Drive although your proposals have this wall high enough so that the kids can't get over it. That is your Proposal?

Mr. Elms: That is correct.

Greenbaum: Would Linwood Drive still be wide enough with the Jersey barrier to access to both way lanes of travel?

Mr. Elms: Yes. Well, Linwood Ave. right now is only 30 feet wide.

Greenbaum: Right, so your Jersey barrier would not diminish the width of the roadway/?
Mr. Elms: No. It wouldn't change the width of the roadway.

Greenbaum: All it would do is block off the access for vehicles to Linwood Ave. all access would have to be off of Clover Hill Drive?

Mr. Elms: Where the crossing guard is I might add. That is the only place as far as I understand that they have a crossing guard.

Mr. Spino: Am I wrong or are the biggest complaints because of the people going through this diagonal parking area and out on to Linwood Ave?

Mr. Spino: That's what I am saying. The biggest complaint from my understanding is that people go through there, pick up their kids and come out on Linwood. So I agree, if you close that off, you eliminate that problem. I said that a while ago, I agree and I am not taking any credit. I said when that lady was here complaining about it and gave us some suggestions, I thought that's what we could do, close it off and just make it a continuous road from one parking area to the other. So the people can't go out onto Linwood. They have to turn around and go back out onto Cloverhill.

Mr. Elms: That parking area extends into Linwood Ave.

Mr. Spino: In your option two, you eliminate that.

Mr. Elms: We eliminated it in option one too.

Mr. Spino: I think the problem is going to be, trying to get the School Board to do it. Maybe somebody else will have better results; I don't think we have had much results with it.

Mr. Bonte: You might want to turn this over to the Police Department and see what their comments are.

President Scapicchio: That was going to be my suggestion.

Mr. Guenther: In the middle section Bob, on the existing down below the side walk area, there is an area. You marked the line down here, 187 and a half. This area in here, what is it?

Mr. Elms: It's grass.

Mr. Guenther: It's just grass.

Mr. Elms: The sidewalk is ten feet wide. The parking area juts out into Linwood Ave. to make it 15 feet or 19 feet long for vehicles to park there.

Mrs. Spencer: We did a little bit more research because the complaints that we received were from the residents on Linwood that were having their vehicles hit from the people parking on Linwood on those angled spaces. The School Board put those angled spaces in without any permits or without any approvals to put them in which is part of the problem. It definitely makes that roadway narrower than what DOT would certainly approve a two way street today.

Mr. Elms: So we could take them out the same way without permits.

President Scapicchio: What you are saying is the School Board has created illegal parking on a street.

Mr. Guenther: Oh yes. Scott Van Ness said that. There's nothing to permit them to do the diagonal parking.

President Scapicchio: Cindy, why don't we turn the two proposals over to the Police Department and see if they have any concerns or comments. Then maybe the next step is to turn it over to our DPW Dept. let them review it and whatever comments or concerns they have maybe at that point we could pass it onto the School Administration? You'll make sure that works through the process?

Mrs. Spencer: Yes.

President Scapicchio: Thank you. Cindy, Lisa tells me that on December 10, 2002 we are going to have this Ordinance for a Public Hearing. Can you see if it is possible if we can get some answers back prior to that meeting?

Mrs. Spencer: Absolutely, I'll make sure people are working on it as early as tomorrow.

Mr. Rattner: Mr. President, on that, I think we should still have the Public Meeting on the 10th. We don't have to take a vote on it that night, we can just continue it. We can say we want to consider what the people have said, this has come up and really do it right. We said we wanted to hear their comments. I think by just extending the Public Hearing for a couple weeks we don't really lose anything and we may get more accomplished and a better agreement.

President Scapicchio: Okay Steve.

Mr. Dorsey: Mr. President, I see Mr. Chung out here and I want to bring everybody up to date where we are. For a year and a half, we had a running battle with his liquor license under which he did business. We denied it in 2001, we denied it in 2002. Each time he filed with ABC and they issued a Stay as to the suspension of his license. The Township Council's position was that this was essentially an issue to satisfy Chief Katona who of course has the obligation through his department of enforcing the liquor law rules and regulations as well as specific conditions that were placed on the renewal of his license after the 2001 appeal. In July of this year the Township entered into a Stipulation of Settlement with Mr. Chung, Rocklim Inc. Trading as Limericks and it provided as follows: at that point in time he was applying for all necessary building permits to transfer Limericks, and I am not personally familiar with Limericks, into a Japanese Restaurant. At the time the matter arose that he had made the necessary building applications etc. and it was a proposition that Chief Katona very much liked because, the stipulation provides that he is in the process and will obtain a conversion. Secondly it provides that upon the reopening as a Japanese restaurant, the two activities in Limericks that had caused the problem, namely dancing or adult entertainment of any nature would no longer be authorized. On that basis the stipulation was approved and it was signed by me with the understanding that once the conversion was complete, i.e. the renovations of Limericks to the Japanese Restaurant, his license would then be automatically reinstated. He advises us, but of course this would have to be confirmed by the Construction Department issuing a CO, he advised us that he is a day away or hours away from obtaining the CO. When he obtains the Mr. Dorsey (cont'd): CO in accordance with the stipulation of settlement there is nothing more to be said. The license then is reinstated. It is of course reinstated in accordance with the specific condition that there will no longer be dancing and there will not longer be adult entertainment of any nature and of course all of the rules and regulations dealing with liquor licenses will be in full force and affect. So it is nothing that you have to act upon. I will give Lisa a letter because she loves me to write to her, a letter tomorrow instructing her that the license simply becomes reactivated once the CO is issued. Now that's it. I don't think there is anything more to be said because it was resolved by the way of the Stipulation of Settlement sometime ago.

Mr. Rattner: John, when we voted for all the renewals of the liquor licenses last July we didn't renew this one did we.

Mr. Dorsey: You are absolutely right. Then there was an Order to Show Cause issued by ABC that was going to stay our action and that is when the Chief and I then reached the Stipulation Settlement.

Mr. Rattner: But don't we have to vote? Even on a normal renewal we would have to vote.

Mr. Dorsey: If you wish to vote you can. The Stipulation of Settlement carries the day, and his re-issuance of the license is automatic based upon that. Okay, you can go home, just get the CO.

President Scapicchio: Anyone else from the public wish to address the Council?



Mrs. Spencer: We had our last meeting before Conte will be pulling off the site, closing up for the winter. The irrigation system testing and any incidental repairs will be done this week. The preliminary testing was very positive and they believe that they will finish it tomorrow and we'll blow out the system and winterize it. The fencing contractor is on site and should also be finished by Thanksgiving. He is completing all the fences and installing locks on the gate and he will be replacing the fences around the barn and the Seward Mansion before he leaves. There are two final electrical power needs for the wells and that is being coordinated with GPU to make sure that we have the three face power that we need. The pond before it is actually drained, they are studying it to make sure that there is no leakage in the clay lining and that sort of thing but over the winter it will be drained so that they can remove the silt and ensure that it is ready for operation in the spring. Conte was going to ask Pryslack, the sod farmers to come up and just roll the existing sod that has been put down so that the edges will knit properly over the winter.

Mr. Rattner: So that's different from a report a month ago you said they would be rolling it in the Spring.

Mrs. Spencer: Right, and we brought that up at our meeting and it was agreed that it needed to be done at this time.

President Scapicchio: Cindy, how much work, percentage wise, still needs to be completed and where are we in terms of our payments to Conte? How much do we have left?

Mrs. Spencer: I believe that the project is 89% completed and they had put in request for payments up to that point and we retained the two percent that we need to retain.

President Scapicchio: How much is that in dollars?

Mrs. Spencer: I don't know off hand. I know that we still have a little bit over $500,000 to go.

President Scapicchio: In a conversation that you and I had, you raised the issue of phone calls that you received from several of Kyle Conte's vendors and contractors with regards to them not receiving payment. Has anything further transpired in relation to that?

Mrs. Spencer: Not to my knowledge.

President Scapicchio: John, do we have the ability to hold additional payments above and beyond the two percent retain age or should we require general contractors to supply us with certificates of payment to all vendors and suppliers that have worked on major projects?

Mr. Dorsey: Let me say this, if any of these suppliers who have called and I have not heard from any of them nor do I know exactly what they said. If any of them should file a Municipal Mechanics Lien Claim then life becomes very simple because at that point you have to withdraw from Conte's monies that are due him,
Mr. Dorsey (cont'd): whatever the amount of the Municipal Lien Claim is and you simply put it aside, what is standard practice at the conclusion of the job which would be at this point in time is to demand of Conte that he provide you with a specific affidavit of names of at least all of the primary subcontractors and the affidavit must certify that all of these subcontractors and suppliers have been paid in full. Until you get that kind of affidavit, you simply don't release any further monies to them, because it is his obligation to leave the job clean. As far as I know, Lisa would be the one who would know definitively Municipal Mechanics Liens have been filed.

President Scapicchio: What happens if a lien has been filed after we've paid and we don't have sufficient funds?

Mr. Dorsey: Municipal Mechanics Lien Claim can only be effective as an instrument of collection of monies if it is filed before Conte is paid in full. If he is paid in full then the contractor has simply waived his rights to what he would be protected under if he were to file a Municipal Mechanics Lien Claim. There is a lot of give and take in this business. When we had it more recently in connection with a contractor that did work on one of our roads up here, Valley Contracting or something. The sub and the general really locked horns and then the sub filed a Municipal Mechanics Lien Claim. Many times the general will threaten the sub, if he files the Mechanics Lien Claim he will not get paid because it's theory anyway, it's a black mark against the contractor. Now the contractor can get away with it without paying the Municipal Mechanics Lien Claim, but he is required to post a payment bond in double the amount that is claimed and that is what was done by AIG Baker in connection with lien claims that were filed by Voller's and now they are into a $2 -$3 million law suit in Federal District Court. Generally the Township doesn't reach out to become a collection agent for these subcontractors. They know what thier rights are, we don't know unless we are told specifically why they haven't filed. They know they have the right to file. Lots of times they work it out and then they don't want to go back on their word and sit there I suppose rather nervous and on the edge of their seats as to whether or not they will get paid. The Township is clearly within the terms of it's contract has the right to demand from Conte an affidavit saying that all subs and significant suppliers of materials had been paid in full before he is paid in full. He would be required to name the principal subs and the suppliers.

President Scapicchio: Cindy, can we get that kind of a document?

Mrs. Spencer: Yes.

President Scapicchio: Jim, I know you have taken a lead roll in watching what is going on up there. Do you believe about 89% of that work is complete? I have taken a ride through there several times. The last time was with Rob and Bernie and although what is done looks real good, it sort of looks like to us that there was a lot left to do. I don't think any one of us can put it in terms of a percentage or quantified. But it did look like there were a lot of little miscellaneous items that needed to be done.

Mr. Lynch: It's just my professional opinion, I expressed to the Council very early on in my position; great volume of the work in this park is underground. It is irrigation, it is drainage, it is a lot of other infrastructure. Unfortunately at Turkey Brook, right now what is missing is the most tangible and visually pleasing part of it, the sod. I agree with Cindy's estimation 89% of the project is probably complete. Yes there are things that you look at that seem disjointed probably in terms of the sequential operation. I can't say, in my professional opinion, that it is less anything less than 89%.

Mr. Dorsey: Let me make this simple, I understand everybody going forward has talked in terms in the percentage of completion and then said if 89% is completed and his contract was for $10 million he would be entitled to $8.9 million at this point, right? That's the way you do it going forward. Now we're at the end of the job, and the end of the job I would suggest that it is more conservative and more appropriate to say there's a million dollars worth of work that has not been done and that comes off the top with some calculation as to what it would cost you to do the incomplete work assuming he was not to finish. That's the way I would do it.

President Scapicchio: That's a good idea. Cindy, can we calculate that?

Mr. Dorsey: Buczynski can calculate it.

Mrs. Spencer: I actually asked Gene a question very similar to that and he believes that at this point we are not at risk and that the funds that we are still holding are sufficient to guarantee that we can complete this project.

Mr. Dorsey: Let him certify that.

President Scapicchio: Good idea John. Steve?

Mr. Rattner: One comment, I don't have any problem with the 89% understanding what went under there. The one thing I do have and this is just to make an easier winter for all of us, is that we still have certain areas Mr. Rattner (cont'd): that really aren't stabilized because there isn't sod, a little bit of grass, and every time we get a little bit of heavy rain, I am talking 2 -3 inches like we did a week ago. There is a certain amount of run off, there is a certain amount of dirty looking water that goes into the lake. Is there anything they can do because we are probably going to have a couple storms. We could have a northeaster or something like that. I know the last storm I went down there because I get the call to go down, I look at the dirty water, and try to evaluate what happened. I did go back up last weekend, it's actually a week and a half now to the retention basin, it was full so it was doing what it was supposed to. All the water was running in. Some of the silt was settling but then through the over flow it was going down the brook into the lake. Now to say what was there, I did talk to Gene and he said it was basically just dirty water, there was not a lot of silt in it. I have no reason not to believe that it is just that it looked bad because the brown water went up north past Mt. Olive Road because the wind was blowing so it wasn't dissipating. Since we know this is an unstablized area, even if they clean out the retention basin if they don't it is going to fill up with mud by the time we come back into Spring anyway.

Mr. Dorsey: You see you don't want the Township to get double jeopardy here. Double jeopardy in this instance I think would be Number one, the contractor either didn't proceed quickly enough or he was delayed for whatever reason so that he didn't finish as much as it was originally anticipated that he could have finished and then because he didn't do that it leaves items open that obviously are vulnerable to disagreeable things happening as a result of severe weather conditions. So you know that fact that you didn't finish the whole thing two months ago is not the Township's fault, but the Township must protect itself against the fact that now there are intervening things that will occur that can make the situation worse.

President Scapicchio: How do we protect ourselves?

Mr. Dorsey: You protect yourself by having Gene estimate as to what it will cost the Township if it must go back it and complete the work. Not Conte, the Township to complete the work and make some allowance for the fact that severe weather conditions, I assume, can have an adverse effect on what has yet to be done and that is up to Buczynski. He is the only one that I know because you and I could go out and do it but I think will leave it to Buczynski.

President Scapicchio: Cindy, is Kyle Conte requesting or will they be requesting any additional funds prior to getting back on site?

Mrs. Spencer: I don't really know the answer to that, there may be one additional small request for funds because we are still in the process of hammering out the remaining change orders a couple of weeks ago that are all part and parcel of the $50,000 allowance within the contract

President Scapicchio: So I guess we to get some of these questions answered prior to giving them any more money.

Mr. Rattner: What I was asking was about stabilizing the soil. We spent $2.5 million taking about 11,000 yards of silt, if we are getting a lot of it back in and it does accumulate quickly how are we going to remediate that? We know things can happen. On the AIG Baker site if you remember they got nailed by the DEP and had to restore about 10 or 11 miles of the Musconectong River from the silt that flowed off because of an unexpected storm. Since we have seen the mud going into the Lake, we had I believe in June and another one in September and then the one two weeks ago. We had about 2.5 inches of rain. There are things that are going to happen and I just want to look at it proactively, what can they do. If they are leaving it a certain way they should leave it in a way that is not going to harm the Lake, because if it does go into the Lake, it is a violation in itself under DEP rules. You know all that is going to happen is we will get a heavy rain this weekend and we are all going to get calls about mud going into the Lake again, and then it is too late. We know what is going to happen if it is not properly stabilized.

President Scapicchio: What is you recommendation Steve?

Mr. Rattner: I just want to put Conte in our notes that they have to be there and also get a phone number if we start seeing that if there is a heavy rain that it's not Mark and Jim that have to be there all night trying to put their finger in the dike to hold the water back like they did last June. You know that it is Conte that comes up and does whatever they have to do to stop the mud from going into the Lake.

Mrs. Spencer: We have required just recently that they give us emergency phone numbers for just that propose. The dirty water is one thing, but you don't know and it does look bad. It probably looks worse than it is. I just wanted to make sure that they know that they are going to be up there next Spring.

President Scapicchio: Anything else on Turkey Brook?


Mr. Dorsey: Number one, we owe Councilman Perkins a vote of thanks in connection with the Morris Hunt Developers Agreement. As you know at the last meeting, he picked out item three on page three and questioned why it provided for the developer to retain the water system once constructed. So you know, when I draw these things I send them to McGroarty and the form that you got was approved by both of them. I have now decided and Buczynski agrees the developer's agreement should not say that. The developer's agreement I believe should say what we have typically said is the Municipality retains any new water system in terms of any individual package septic systems, we allow the developer to keep that and grant them a franchise towards its subsequent operation of the public utility. The Planning Board didn't really resolve the matter. The Planning Board adopted a resolution, Mr. Spino I will let you defend the Planning Board if you think it is appropriate. But they essentially left the matter open and simply mentioned that Mr. Fuller was discussing the issue with New Jersey American Water Company but the resolution does not say for what purpose. Apparently this water system developed in Morris Hunt is physically connected to the water system developed in Durham Woods which I think is Morris Chase. That system is to be turned over to the Township. I think there may be a battle with the developer over this point. I advised this Council as to the position of the Township, today he wants a meeting, I said fine we will have a meeting and Mr. Perkins will be there to represent the interests of the Township. In connection with our other ongoing litigation with Fire Tower. I am convinced Mr. Paragano and Fire Tower think that they could simply litigate the Township into submission. We have the appeal going on as a result of our win in terms of the original case before Judge Stanton and we then have the second piece of litigation involving whether or not the requirement of the qualifying map in connection with our request for development is a reasonable requirement of the ordinance. Fire Tower was to file their appellate brief by November 14, 2002 and they did something quite unusual. They filed a motion entitled to Settle and Supplement the Trial Record which means they now want to get things into the record that were never part of the trail. What they seek to get into the record is evidence of a secret clandestine devious plot by Councilman Spino who was then a member of the Planning Board and whose name always pops up in these litigations as inappropriately seeking to deny developers their right to proceed on this basis. Interesting of coarse that Fire Tower claims they never knew any of this was every going on, but I was fortunate enough to get Phil Garber to get me a copy of the article in which the Township reporting the situation going back to the year 2000 when the Township Council adopted a resolution asking the State to pursue the acquisition of the site and the arguing goes that they did not know this in time, they tried the case and what it shows is that Spino was manipulating the Council and in turn telling the members of the Planning Board that under no circumstances should they vote for this development and if they deny they could reduce the value of the property for acquisition costs. Of course I have attempted to defend Councilman Spino's integrity; we'll have to see where that goes. In any event they filed a Motion to Settle and Supplement. We then filed a Brief in opposition to that. They then filed their Appellate Brief. Then we thought we would do the one better, we would file the Motion to strike their Appellate Brief because it included material they weren't supposed to include mainly the material they sought to get the court approval to include in the record when it clearly should not have been part of the record. You can never be sure what is going to happen, I don't really think it makes much difference even if their record is supplemented because as we understand the law, if there is a legitimate purpose for a municipal action as well as perhaps not a proper motivation, it is enough if you can show that there was a legitimate purpose. In this
Instance the legitimate purpose was not to decrease the value of their property for acquisition case, acquisition costs as we know, where it is alleged Councilman Spino is doing, it was to uphold the integrity of the Township's Land Use Ordinances at all points. I want to tell you something, they aren't litigating interesting points anymore. They are just trying to swamp the Township with paper and with costs. So we simply have to reduce our fees and continue the battle to the end of the earth. I'll tell you, it is amazing how they always pick it up at the end of the case. With Mount Olive Complex, the last day of a 14 day trial, they leap forward with a copy of the Netcong Newsleader and there's Spino on the front page urging 10 acre lots. Okay, that's where we are.

Mr. Greenbaum: John, I have a question for you in light of the fact that Mr. Paragano comes back before the Planning Board on December 5th and December the 19th with three concept plans which I assume relate to that piece of property which is now in litigation with the Township is a concept plan, he is looking for direction from the Planning Board. First, does the Planning Board have to entertain concept plans? Second, does the Planning Board have to entertain concept plans where we are in litigation over that particular piece of property? Number three, if we were to entertain the concept plans could anything which is said at the Planning Board level then be used either on remand or to supplement the record, and what pitfalls are we now going to encounter by going forward with these concept plans on the Crown Tower Property?

Mr. Dorsey: I do believe they have the right to come back and submit whatever they want to submit providing what they submit has some relationship to the way the Planning Board operates. They are not barred from doing that because there is ongoing litigation. Of course we do point out in our Briefs that now the Planning Board is under a much stricter and discipline rule by Councilman Greenbaum and we know he is not trying to manipulate to acquire the property cheap as Spino was. But we also point out what's the point in this litigation because he is back before the Planning Board anyway. Number two, there is one thing that I should greatly appreciate, your leadership with the Planning Board is that this time they take the application shall we say very seriously from the very outset and don't say anything or do anything that appears that they are clearly in favor of whatever it is that Paragano puts on the table and they should adopt or you should tell. The Planning Board should adopt that the line of march here, whatever you want us to submit, and if there is a process for it under your Planning Board Rules, that is fine. This should be the line of march; if he is going to apply for preliminary approval which we assume he will, number one they should require him to obtain his LOI which I assume is still valid because he got one from the last one. Number two, if any of the lots are going to be affected, or must have their transition area buffers averaged or adjusted, he should be required to have that buffer averaging plan approved by the DEP before you can consider the preliminary plat. Not until that is done can the applicant and the Planning Board then define the building envelopes on each lot, and not until after that is done can it then be decided as to where satisfactory perculation tests must be taken. The perculation tests cannot be taken in the wetlands they cannot be taken in the buffer areas and they have to be at least 100 feet from a house with a basin. He should be required to have a satisfactory building envelope and a satisfactory perculation test on each and every one.

Mr. Greenbaum: I would appreciate if you could have a very brief conversation with Ed Buzak concerning what we just discussed.

Mr. Dorsey: I will write the two of you a letter saying this is my suggestion based upon what's occurred thus far in this litigation.

Mr. Greenbaum: Thank you.

Mr. Rattner: On the subject from the Administration, if by the end of the year we could get a total cost of how much this suit has cost us. I think it is very valuable so the public understands when they see parts of our budget. You just heard our Attorney say that one of the strategies of the developer is to try to spend us into submission. There are certain times and certain projects and certain things to protect the Town that we just can't do. But it also is very expensive. I think that is important, especially as we go into the Budget process, that we could give examples of different...

Mr. Dorsey: I could give you the answer to this right now because I committed myself to the CFO. The answer is the litigation from day one, and it started about December 15, 2001.

Mr. Rattner: This includes all the other professional fees too.

Mr. Dorsey: Oh, that I don't know.

Mr. Rattner: The total cost because we had to hire a lot of experts.

Mr. Dorsey: Yes, okay. Well I could tell you that our number for the Trial, the Briefs there and the Appellate Briefs and all of these things now is going to be about $42,000. That's just legal.

Mr. Rattner: But that is only one piece of it. We have to look at the total amount. I think it is important when the public says why are we going to fight something that it is not going to be cheap if you are going to do it right and you are going to go to win. We have been successful, what you see with our court system there are still ways you can keep going and we know that is the strategy.

Mr. Dorsey: Of course I also think we should make a assessment against intervener Bonte because we arrange for him to intervene in this case and he has had the pleasure of arguing before the assignment Judge at Superior Court and he has not filed any Briefs in the Appellate Division yet.

Mr. Bonte: It's not until December 12th.

Mr. Dorsey: You didn't file a brief to stop them from supplementing and accusing poor Councilman Spino of this nefarious plot. Com on you are not smiling.

President Scapicchio: Okay, thanks John.


September 24, 2002 Present: Mr. Guenther, Mr. Greenbaum, Mrs. Miller,
Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rattner, Mr. Scapicchio, Mr. Spino
Absent: None

October 29, 2002 Present: Mr. Rattner, Mr. Greenbaum (6:35), Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Miller, Mr. Guenther (6:35), President Scapicchio
Absent Mr. Spino

November 12, 2002 C Present: Mr. Guenther, President Scapicchio, Mr. Rattner, Mr. Greenbaum, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Spino, Mrs. Miller
Absent: None

Mr. Rattner moved the approval of the minutes; Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously with the Exception of Mr. Spino; abstained on October 29, 2002.


Resolutions, Ordinances, Correspondence from Other Municipalities

1. Resolution received November 19, 2002, from the Town of Morristown regarding Resolution Amending the Budget Cap Law.

2. Resolution received November 20, 2002 from the Borough of Netcong to Annex Land in the Town of Roxbury.

3. Resolution received November 20, 2002 from the Township of Chester to Amend Chapter 113, "land Use", Article 53, "Regulation of Signs"

4. Resolution received November 20, 2002 from the Township of Chester Amend Chapter 113, "land Use", Article 35 "Supplementary Regulations".

5. Resolution received November 20, 2002 from the Township of Hanover Endorsing the Passage of Senate, No.1586, Hotel Occupancy Tax.

6. Resolution received November 21, 2002 from Washington Township to Amend Chapter 111 Land Use Procedures, of the Code of the Township with Respect to Fees.

7. Resolution received November 21, 2002 from the Township if Washington to Amend Chapter 217, Zoning of the Code of the Township to Amend C-1 Zone District Standards.

8. Resolution Received November 21, 2002 from Allamuchy Township Amending the Land Development Ordinance to prohibit Certain Uses throughout the Township of Allamuchy.


9. Letter received November 19, 2002, from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection regarding the Mount Olive Township Library (18,313 of library) Block 7900, Lot 3.

10. Letter received November 19, 2002, from NJ Transit regarding 2003 FTA Section 5310 Grant Notification.

11. Letter received November 19, 2002, from James P. Fox regarding the Trust Fund Awarding $86,000.00 to the Municipal Aid Program for Ironia Road.

League of Municipalities

12. Legislative Viewpoint received November 12, 2002, from New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Hotel Levy Bills Approved by Assembly, Health Benefits, and Opposing A-2699/S-1734, Regarding Nonconforming Uses.

13. E-mail received November 13, 2002, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Oppose A-2699, Regarding Nonconforming Uses.


14. Minutes received November 19, 2002, from the Musconetcong Sewerage Authority regarding the October 9th meeting.

Legislative Representatives

15. E-mail received November 14, 2002, from Congressman Frelinghuysen regarding a Newsletter on Homeland Security, Cyber Security, and Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

President Scapicchio stated we have 15 pieces of correspondence on the agenda and asked if Council had any comments on same.

Mr. Rattner: Just a comment on number two, the letter we got from Netcong, that it appears they are still on their quest to become what I call respectable and become a square mile that you see they are annexing some land in Roxbury. We annexed some land twice from Mt. Olive which got them up to I guess about 480 acres which for comparison is our Greenway Park which is Turkey Brook and the B & H property is larger than the entire municipality of Netcong. It has been a running joke that I have had with the Public
Officials that someday they are going to be respectful and that is when they hit one square mile.

Mr. Spino: I think we can annex some of their property because it is closer to Mount Olive because of Route 80 than it is to Netcong.

President Scapicchio Thank you.


Ord. #42-2002 Bond Ordinance Amending Bond Ordinance Numbered 36-2000 of the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey Finally Adopted October 10, 2000 Providing for Various Park Improvements to Turkey Brook Park in Order to Amend Such Bond Ordinance in its Entirety. (maintenance equipment)

President Scapicchio opened the Public Hearing on Ord. #42-2002.

President Scapicchio closed the Public Hearing on Ord. #42-2002.

Mr. Greenbaum moved for adoption and final passage of Ord. #42-2002; Mr. Guenther seconded the motion.

President Scapicchio: Council Discussion? Seeing none.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously.

President Scapicchio declared Ord. #42-2002 passed on second reading and hereby directed the Clerk to forward a copy of same to the Mayor and to publish the notice of adoption as required by law.

ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING - (Public Hearing December 17, 2002)

Ord. #52-2002 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing Certain Stop Intersections.

Mr. Perkins moved that Ord. #52-2002 be introduced by title and passed on first reading and that a meeting be held on December 17, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. at the Municipal Building 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road Mt. Olive, NJ for consideration of second reading and passage of set ordinance and that the Clerk be directed to Publish, post and make available set ordinance in according to the requirements of the law. Mr. Guenther seconded that motion.

President Scapicchio: Council Discussion?

Mr. Perkins: I would just recommend that it was brought up that the last sentence where it talks about the near right side street of each street intersection stop street; that this be verified with the Chief first.

Mrs. Lashway: I will.

Mr. Guenther: Lisa did you say there was an amended Ordinance with the addition of the Carson & Sunset? I didn't see it.

Mrs. Lashway: Right in front of you, on the top I had revised with today's date, then I hand wrote in Carson and Sunset.

Mr. Guenther: Okay, I just did not see it.

Mrs. Lashway: The copy that is out for the public and that's posted has the amendment in it.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously


Resolutions on the Consent Agenda List are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the Township Council and will be approved by one motion (one vote). There will be no separate discussion or debate on each of these resolutions except for the possibility of brief clarifying statements that may be offered. If one or more Council member requests, any individual resolution on the Consent Agenda may be removed from the Consent Agenda List and acted on separately.


1. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Change Order from Absolute Fire Protection for the Brush Truck/Mini Attack Pumper for Flanders Fire Department.

2. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Issuance of $88,760.00 Bonds by the Governing Body of the Township of Mount Olive in the County of Morris, State of New Jersey in Order to Receive a Loan from the New Jersey Economic Development Authority Through the Petroleum UST Remediation, Upgrade and Closure Fund, Public Loan Program and Determining the Form of Such Bonds and Other Details in Connection Therewith. (UST Remediation - BLFD).

3. Resolution to Amend the Capital Budget. (UST Remediation - BLFD).

4. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Execution of a Developer's Agreement Between the Township and Rare Hospitality International, Inc.


Mr. Rattner moved Resolutions 1 through 4; Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.


President Scapicchio: Public discussion? Seeing none.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously





1. Bill List.

Mr. Guenther moved for approval of the bill list; Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously


Library Board Liaison Report - None.

Recreation Report

Mr. Guenther: There was a meeting I guess a couple weeks ago, nothing of a particular note to report. They have a lot of report obviously on Turkey Brook which we have already heard so there is nothing earth shaking on the Recreation Committee.

Board of Health Report

Mr. Perkins: A couple things that came up, one is that we had a presentation by Strategic Innovative Management, LLC. They are looking at a suggested format for a Morris Regional Public Health Partnership which Frank Wilpert has also helped to develop, it's kind of thinking outside the box. The State was very gung-ho on this to begin with. Mr. King was given a copy of the proposal and they should be reviewing that in their offices before we bring it before the Council for any endorsement on that. Also, one of the members have brought up our standard policy for grading restaurants right now where it is satisfactory, it runs satisfactory and the possibility of us going along with other places like Los Angeles that have and A, B, or C rating, and kind of breaks it down and makes it a little bit easier for people, so we are going to possibly entertain doing something in the future on that. That was it Dave. Other than that it was uneventful.

President Scapicchio: Ray, has the Board discussed this new agency that the County wants to create which I believe would be called a County Board of Health Department?

Mr. Perkins: At present, the County as you know Dave does not have a Board of Health. Right now they are looking more at this outside the box as Morris Regional. They want to more or less "regionalize" things within Morris County itself. Pequannock has already signed off on the Resolution approving that. They are trying to kind of Build on that where the emphasis comes on shared services. We are not really quite sure how that all plays out with competitive bidding. The bylaws have really never been reviewed. There's nothing directly from the County. This is kind of outside but it involves the County, so it involves everybody from the County.

President Scapicchio: Who is looking to create the Board though?

Mr. Perkins: The Board would be this Strategic Innovative Management LLC, would be the actual Board that would oversee all of the facilities within the County. Each Municipality would be required to give out a small amount of funding as well as the possibility of providing a small office space for the worker that would be there. They would then coordinate between lets say us, Netcong, if something else was going on in Pequannock or any other areas of Morris County. It's not a County function, it is something that the County at this point from everything I have talked to with Frank, really has no major interest in starting their own Board.

President Scapicchio: I for one am not convinced that another level of Bureaucracy in any level of government is worthwhile. I have read several articles in several papers that have indicated that all of the Health Officers throughout the County are interested in this new agency.

Mr. Perkins: I think only two municipalities outside the County now with the 18 health officers that were there, everybody else is on Board I think now except for one who is going along with this partnership.

Mrs. Spencer: I just wanted to add that the actual Board that would oversee all of these activities would be made up of representatives from all of the participating municipalities.

Mr. Perkins: Or at least most of them. They said you will have a representative. Frank obviously would be there, so Mount Olive would be well represented.

President Scapicchio: I am not worried about that Ray, I am worried about creating another level of overhead and expense.

Mr. Perkins: Exactly.

President Scapicchio: Okay, thank you.

Legislative Committee Report

Mr. Guenther: None at this time, but I will be reaching out to Assemblyman Gregg to follow up on the issues that we had raised on our Committee Meeting such as what the status of the impact fees at the State Level and I am told that when we were down at the League of Municipalities that this has probably a very little chance of passing but we want to try to pursue some of the things that are of interest to us. Then the whole highway issue, one of the things that bothers me is on route 206 the speed limit down in Flanders I understand that Chester for example is redoing their whole intersection, I guess they have grants from the State to redo that whole intersection of Route 24 and Route 206 because of the new shopping center going in there. So all there speed limits will be redone and they have a reduced Speed limit to 35 mph. When you go through in front of our two Mr. Guenther (cont'd): shopping centers beyond the railroad, straight 45 mph, it does not make any sense. I am just afraid one day a truck that is not familiar with Flanders comes barreling through there thinking it is 45 mph and does not realize there is a shopping center there and we will have a serious accident. These things move along slowly, but we have to get the ball rolling. Also I think we need to pursue with Gene Buczynski on what his progress is regarding the Trade Zone intersection. Do you have any report on that at all Cindy?

Mrs. Spencer: I don't have a written report from him, he did reach out to the DOT, and he got a preliminary phone call back from them saying that they do not believe that it is dangersous and that they believe that the markings are what they need to be, so Gene is going to try and continue to keep that conversation open.

Mr. Guenther: Because we continue to see confused drivers there and I think there are accidents. It will be interesting to see how many accident s we have really had there.

Mrs. Spencer: One of the things I did yesterday was request Gene work with Scott Vanness who has actually been in contact with DOT directly to make sure that they are providing the same story line and make sure that they understand that the same number of incidents have occurred.

Mr. Greenbaum: Perhaps we can get Bob out there to redesign that intersection.

Mr. Elms: The only problem I saw with that intersection is that no matter how many signs you have there, somebody will make an illegal turn.

Mr. Greenbaum: I don't find that response from the DOT to be acceptable. It is not acceptable; we have to keep the pressure on them.

Planning Board Report

Mr. Greenbaum: We met on November 14, 2002. I can tell you that the Hashemi resolution was adopted 3-0 with granted preliminary not final. Mr. Hashemi through his attorney was not overly happy with the resolution as adopted but it went through and where it goes from here is up to Mr. Hashemi I guess. Secondly we heard a presentation from K.Hovnanian who wanted to address the Master Plan specifically to rezone a particular piece of property, the Simoff property to senior adult active community. That was already included in the draft Master Plan for that tract. The presentation included color photographs, Four Seasons at Mt. Olive, it is a 330 unit development I think with 30 buildings and I have the literature which was given to us which I will share with everybody. Everyone was pretty excited about the possibility of this developer. It seemed to work well with this particular piece of property. The one concern just briefly was making left turns in and out of the development in light of where it is on Route 46. Everyone agreed that left turns would not be able to me made there. I think that ultimately K.Hovnanian may come back in with an application for this particular piece of property. I think it is 62 acres. 330 units.

Mr. Guenther: What is the Zoning? C1 or C2?

Mr. Greenbaum: I am not sure. There was no issue with regard to the density. That was raised. It would include at least one of the residents would be 55 and older and there would be no school age children allowed to be living in the community.

Mr. Guenther: Was there a proposal to do it similar to what they have done in Chester with a clubhouse and all of that?

Mr. Greenbaum: Yes. Here is a copy, you could actually see on the back of this diagram as to what they propose. There were two development matters which were heard. The first was Panetta which was an application to build two office complexes with adjoining warehouse space which was a permitted use in that area, it is off of Sandshore Road, right behind where the new Commerce Bank is going in. It is a permitted use, they had subdivided the two lots. Gene had no problem with the one basin and this whole issue which remained was something from the Mt. Olive Open Space Committee, apparently there was an issue with regards to Patriots Path, and the Mt. Olive Open Space Committee wanted a right-of-way though the property or easement I guess through the property to continue Patriots Path. That was left unresolved. It didn't work in the area where the Mt. Olive Open Space Committee wanted to put it and it was left for the developer to get in touch with the Open Space Committee and also the County to see if there was some kind of resolution on a different piece of the property but he was not adverse to giving an easement to continue Patriots Path. The other application which we heard which is going to be a very very well attended application as Rezamir, that sub-division off Drakestown Road, they came in with a qualifying map, and I think it is probably going to take three or four sessions just to deal with the qualifying map, there were a lot of issues and a lot of residents who had questions on the qualifying map. That's what we dealt with. Coming up December 5th, Saxon Falls Sand and Gravel,Crown Tower Estates concept plan. Frank M. Maione, minor sub-division with variance and AOR
Mr. Greenbaum (con't): Holdings site plan, that is down adjacent to the mall at 206. December 19th is Saturn of Denville. Larry Paragano, Senior Stone Road Associates concept plan and Larry Paragano Senior Heights Road concept plan. That is what is coming up.

Mr. Guenther: As a general comment, I remember a year and a half ago, there was a study being undertaken with the State on the egress and ingress on Route 46, what's the status of that. Maybe you could ask at the next Planning Board Meeting because that was a highway access plan and everything was supposed to spin off that. In other words we were going to get this highway access plan approved by the State DOT and then every development off of Route 46 would have to conform to that.

Mr. Greenbaum: I will ask Chuck at the next Planning Board Meeting.

President Scapicchio: Thank you Rob.

Pride Committee Report:

Ray Perkins: I missed the last Pride Meeting, I did speak to the Chairwoman, Liz Ouimet. The triangle on Sandshore across the street from the discount liquors and the Ace Hardware has been undertaken to be cleaned out. I think anybody that has driven past there will notice that all that debris and constuction material that was left over from when we did the Sewer project has all been removed. The underbrush has been cleared out. Also she is working together on the adopt a spot, Marilyn Ryan had sent out the contracts, trying to get people to respond, the ones that haven't responded or are no longer doing it the sign will be removed so we don't have redundancy issues out there. They have submitted their budgetary requests.

Status of Committee RE: Lake/Environment Issues

President Scapicchio: Anything on the environment issues with the Lake?

Mr. Perkins: Nothing updated, Cindy did you get any new maps or anything?

Mrs. Spencer: We did finally receive the maps so within the next couple of weeks we will be having another meeting.

President Scapicchio: Good.


Richard Bonte, Budd Lake: First of all I have to work everyday and my job is not getting paid for fighting Mr. Paragano. I have been inundated with paper over the last few weeks. I called the Mayor last week and I wanted to just let you know that I called him to let him know about the superb job that Mr. Dorsey has been doing in this action and the tremendous grasp of knowledge that he has. It is incredible what Mr. Paragano is trying to do to this Town, and the claims that he is making. I know first hand what he is claiming regarding Mr. Spino and Mr. Licitra as well as the rest of the Council is completely untrue because in January of 2000 a number of people that were acting on behalf of this committee regarding the Crown Towers development sat down with Mr. Paragano and discussed purchasing the property and what routes they were going to take to see if they were going to come up with the money. Mr. Paragano knew what was going on and was amenable to continuing those discussions. I do hope to have something in the next week. The Court indicated that December 12th was the date that we have to have our…

Mr. Dorsey: Actually you have 30 days from November 14th.

Mr. Bonte: Okay, well I have a letter that says December 12, 2002 was the date.

Mr. Dorsey: I understand, but you know it is thirty days after they file their Appeal. But we will address both issues as well as the pertinent issues. As far as I am concerned everything that has taken place in the last three weeks is basically a distraction. I think the applicant is grasping at every straw he possibly can to divert the attention from the real issues because he does not believe he can win on the real issues. To that Steve, I would like to comment on what you were discussing before because I don't think it was appropriate to discuss that here this evening. I am under the impression that this Township is committed to upholding the action of the Planning Board. I don't think that at this time we should be questioning the expense of this litigation.

President Scapicchio: Rich, I don't think Steve was questioning the expense, I think what Steve was suggesting was that the Administration give him a total cost of our effort in litigating and defending that suit so that when the Public asks us what we are doing with their money, we can show them.

Mr. Bonte: It came across to me anyway that it could be construed as what we are doing here and do we want to continue defending these kind of suits.

Mr. Rattner: This is a take off of what you said. It is what is nice to have and what we have to have. To protect the Town, there are legal expenses we have to spend. Last year during the budget the legal items were one of the Major items we put money away for. This was one of the Major items. I want to have that. Not just the legal but the total costs so that when the public comes and asks why are putting so much money? It costs us a lot to defend and taking in what Mr. Dorsey said, part of their strategy is. That is where the Towns a lot of times are at a disadvantage because a big developer with a lot of resources and a lot of money invested will probably outspend and I want the public to understand that's why we are spending the money and it is a smart investment.

Mr. Spino: I think from my point of view what I got out of it was that first of all if people really want us to control development, this is one of the things that we have to do. Not that we like to do it, we have to right the developer. We have to end up having to fight in Court and it costs money. Secondly, if you go to court and it cost you money and you will it is money well spent. I think we believe that, sometimes we have to convey that to the public. Not everybody believes we should be spending $40,000 to $50,000 because somebody doesn't want homes next to us. Not everybody believes that.

Mr. Greenbaum: Just for the record Rich, I don't believe that this lawsuit is to control development. This lawsuit is to uphold the land use ordinances of Mount Olive.

Mr. Bonte: You are absolutely correct Rob and that has always been my opinion, and most of the people's opinion. We recognize that the developer has the right to build on his property. This area was deemed very sensitive, had very strict regulations and he needs to abide by that if he is going to build. That is what this suit has been about. You know I told Judge Stanton that. I will tell the Appeals Court the same thing.

Mr. Greenbaum: I just wanted the record to show that Rob.

Mr. Bonte: It is important that the record does show that Rob. We are not opposed to development we want the development done in coordination with our laws. Apparently I would like to and I didn't have enough time to run off copies for you all but I would like to if I could share some photos with you and if you'd like I could get some more copies made. About a year and a half ago in my wandering I happen to come across a small little lake community in Ringwood called Orskin Lake. Some of you may or may not know of it. They have a small beach, tennis court and a small building at this site and the area where this all is, is probably smaller than what we have over at Budd Lake but is sort of the same shape. I think it gives you the idea of something that we might be able to move towards that is very simple and quite functional. If you would like some more I could get some more but right now it would be easier to just take a look at them.

President Scapicchio: Thank you Rich.

Motion was made for Adjournment. All in Favor none opposed. The Meeting Adjourned at 9:07 pm.

Council President

I, LISA M LASHWAY, Township Clerk of the Township of Mount Olive do hereby certify that the foregoing Minutes is a true and correct copy of the Minutes approved at a legally convened meeting of the Mount Olive Township Council duly held on December 17, 2002

Mount Olive Township Clerk




Planning Board Report - R. Greenbaum
Open Space Committee Report - C. Miller
Legislative Committee Report - B. Guenther
Pride Committee Report -R. Perkins
Status of Committee RE: Lake/Environment Issues - R. Perkins






2012 Mount Olive Township. All rights reserved.